Are you're blowing smoke up my a**! 😀
I assure you that I am very much alive!
https://gizmodo.com/blowing-smoke-up-your-***-used-to-be-literal-1578620709
Attachments
Sabine Hossenfelder points out that there are hundreds of competing theories about the universe yet we seem no closer to the truth about a unified theory, dark energy or dark matter. There seem to be no end of papers that ‘re-churn’ existing observations or papers with thousands of citations (eg Juan Maldacena).
It was a serious point I was making. We appear to live on the surface of a 4D Spacetime manifold.
I think this is right, otherwise the factor of 8 Pi would not appear in Einstein's Metrical Tensor.
The most interesting Space to inhabit is doubtless 4D. In which exist 6 Platonic Solids. In higher dimensions than that things just plain fall apart. It reduces to three.
The 24-Cell must be left to your imagination.
I have always been considered a competent Geometer. I tend to think in intrinsic co-ordinates. As did my good friend Carl Friedrich Gauss:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carl_Friedrich_Gauss
Surely it is staring us in the face that Toroidal Geometry is the correct one:
I consider matters of the Conics trivial:
Hope that clears it up.
But TBH, I have no idea what is going on either. Beyond the notion that our Universe is Finite but Unbounded. 🙂
Attachments
Last edited:
Okay, this shouldn't be as hard to understand as the videos I recently posted, but we'll see:
https://xkcd.com/2640/
https://xkcd.com/2640/
I'm back got left out kinda like Galu my internet is a hotspot off phone and after all the rain in a very isolated area trees are wet and have no internet,so in my tiny mind and lack of previous people to share their knowledge (called education) I think the universe holds the answer , so picture an a molecule with 9 orbiting electrons is it any different then Jupiter with its 9 moons just my own personal opinion but I think the model is already shown through the workings,so maybe its in our face but we dont see it because we are thinking too hard
Yes, that could be it - the cosmos is built like Babushkas - one can study a conviniently sized version and safely know that all other works the same. A wonderful architecture.
//
//
Perhaps I should withold my Mathematical knowledge, TNT (Tri Nitro Toluene).
But I find your proposition singularly ill-defined.
What is the ratio of the babushkas? A familiar problem, after all.
With more information I can doubtless solve the limit.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Particular_values_of_the_Riemann_zeta_function
But I find your proposition singularly ill-defined.
What is the ratio of the babushkas? A familiar problem, after all.
With more information I can doubtless solve the limit.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Particular_values_of_the_Riemann_zeta_function
Last edited:
If so, the universe is finite and closed in on itself like a doughnut, or torus.
Steve, we need to distinguish between the geometry and the topology of the universe.
A doughnut is geometrically flat (as explained in the link), but there's more to shape than geometry.
There's also topology, which permits one or more of the dimensions of the universe to connect back with each other.
Could we point a spaceship in one direction and eventually return to where we started, or would the rate of expansion of the universe make this impossible?
https://www.livescience.com/universe-three-dimensional-donut.html
Attachments
Last edited:
A four-dimensional torus is the topology of the video game Asteroids, where going off the screen on one side makes you appear on the other.
While Asteroids seems to be a simple two-dimensional game, it is actually taking place on a four-dimensional surface.
https://www.mscroggs.co.uk/blog/38
While Asteroids seems to be a simple two-dimensional game, it is actually taking place on a four-dimensional surface.
https://www.mscroggs.co.uk/blog/38
Attachments
Last edited:
That picture of an atom is an oversimplification, although useful for understanding the concept of electron energy levels.
Electrons certainly do not occupy neat, circular orbits around the nucleus of an atom - the full story is far more complex.
Why would our universe be a torus? Doesn’t seem to gel with a single point beginning. I think someone has been spending too much time in Tim Horton’s.
There are many possible topologies of the universe.
The simplest and most studied topology of the universe is the 3-torus which is the analogue of the torus, one dimension up.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/3-torus
The actual shape of a 3-torus universe is impossible to represent or imagine, but we can use the analogy of a torus instead.
I believe the model does gel with "a single point beginning" because the shape of the universe can be determined by studying the Cosmic Microwave Background - which is the remnant of the Big Bang.
P.S. I am not a topologist, I'm just trying to understand it all myself. However topology is so highly mathematical that I expect I never will!
so with all these wonderful shapes how does that correlate to the space junk from the big bang theory? is there no junk further out because the junk didn't bounce off the edge meets nothing? or is it simply a sphere?
The Big Bang was not like an explosion where debris flies outward from a central point. The universe is stretching in all directions - every point in the distant universe is moving away from every other point.
Neither an infinite nor a finite universe has an "edge". The universe is 'all there is' - there is nothing beyond it.
Neither an infinite nor a finite universe has an "edge". The universe is 'all there is' - there is nothing beyond it.
it was obviously an explosion, d’uh, otherwise scientists wouldn’t have called it the Big Bang. 💣💥💥💥
I like the origin theory that God was playing with a chemistry set, say she/he got for Christmas, and something went terribly wrong and caused an explosion. This would explain both the creation theory and the absentee god issue. So now we can all get along.
(I’m expecting this post to be removed shortly 😁)
(I’m expecting this post to be removed shortly 😁)
Last edited:
Really! 🤣
The term "Big Bang" was an expression coined by Fred Hoyle to belittle a theory he very much disliked.
He totally rejected the "Big Bang" theory and believed instead in the "Steady-State" theory of the universe.
https://www.thoughtco.com/steady-state-theory-2699310
Big Bang is a misnomer because it conjures up the image of an explosion. In spite of that, the term has become a staple part of our vocabularly.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.