Thread: So The Universe Is Flat?

Hmm, I heard that it may be either saddle shaped, or curved like the skin on a balloon. Maybe this is something that can be asked in the dream world.

i believe that the universe was origionally a circle shape, but phenomina such as black holes have changed it from being circular and have altered it and have created dimensional rifts with other dimensions which can only be accessed by tearing a hole in time which is done by black holes...t there is a centre of the universe and time which could be anything....

This(click on 'Imagining the Tenth Dimension&#39 is my contribution to this debate, though it does not reflect my own position. But it is food for thought.

The "flat universe" refers to the geometry of the universe. The latest findings of NASA's WMAP project have been analyzed to reveal that the density of the universe is very close to the critical density, indicating that the geometry of the universe is very nearly flat. This means that two parallel beams of light will remain parallel as they speed through empty space (ignoring local gravitational and material effects and obstructions). Click on the WMAP link for more info and an easy visualization of cosmological geometry.

Originally Posted by Peregrinus

The "flat universe" refers to the geometry of the universe. The latest findings of NASA's WMAP project have been analyzed to reveal that the density of the universe is very close to the critical density, indicating that the geometry of the universe is very nearly flat. This means that two parallel beams of light will remain parallel as they speed through empty space (ignoring local gravitational and material effects and obstructions). Click on the WMAP link for more info and an easy visualization of cosmological geometry.
[/b]

The universe is YOUR MIND.

Originally Posted by dreamdatum

The universe is YOUR MIND.
[/b]

Care to elaborate on that rather vague and seemingly tangential statement?

Originally Posted by Peregrinus

Care to elaborate on that rather vague and seemingly tangential statement?
[/b]

Hi Peregrinus,

It is a long story and entailed years on a spiritual path.

If you like, you can go to the link below. It documents the series of realisations that I had over the years.

http://www.dreamdatum.com/articles-path.html

A short answer will be...

The world exist because you exist. It requires one to realise the dynamics of 'becoming a self' and what causes the impression of self and doership.

regards

Originally Posted by dreamdatum

The world exist because you exist. It requires one to realise the dynamics of 'becoming a self' and what causes the impression of self and doership.
[/b]

Do you mean me, personally, or are you refering to the traditional concept of an integral, universal consciousness?

Originally Posted by Peregrinus

Do you mean me, personally, or are you refering to the traditional concept of an integral, universal consciousness?
[/b]

I was referring to the latter...

Originally Posted by dreamdatum

I was referring to the latter...
[/b]

Thought so. In that case, think of it as, "The integral universal consciousness manifests as a spacetime with a geometry such that two parallel beams of light will remain parallel as they traverse the interstellar distances." It really doesn't matter what you believe the source of the universe to be - the geometry of spacetime refers to the physically observable universe which, to the best of our measurements, is flat.

Originally Posted by Peregrinus

It really doesn't matter what you believe the source of the universe to be - the geometry of spacetime refers to the physically observable universe which, to the best of our measurements, is flat.
[/b]

Ah, but this is the precise problem. The observable or visible universe is certainly not the entire universe. And we have no way of knowing how much of the universe our visible horizon makes up. It could just as well be that the visible universe is just but a tiny spec of the entire universe as that it's a good sample size of the universe. Nor do we have any way of knowing if the rest of the universe appears the same as our spot on it. If there's one thing we can be sure of about nature and the universe, it is that she's far more creative and diverse than we can possibly imagine.

Consider for example the Earth as a metaphor. Suppose a society living in the Sahara who only has knowledge of their visible horizon. They very well may suppose that the entire world must be covered in sand, and understandably so. Of course since we have a good knowledge of the Earth, we know this to not be true. The truth is that the landscape of the Earth is rich with diversity. In fact there are numerous natural features that can only be found in very specific and sometimes singular locations.

Then consider the Earth as a whole. It would not be unreasonable to come to the conclusion that other planets must be similar to the Earth. There was in fact a time not long ago when even scientists thought Venus must be similar to the Earth. Or consider the moons of Jupiter. Prior to sending probes to take photos of them, even the most creative science fiction writers couldn't image them being much more exciting than our own moon. The truth as it turned out was far stranger than anyone anticipated.

And the story is the same as you keep expanding out into the visible universe. If there is a common thread in cosmic discoveries, it is that the universe knows no bounds to creativity and diversity and continually defies our own imaginations.

It very well could be, I would even say it is extremely likely, that the actual shape and composition of the universe is far stranger than we could ever possibly imagine or conceive.

Originally Posted by dream

Ah, but this is the precise problem. The observable or visible universe is certainly not the entire universe. And we have no way of knowing how much of the universe our visible horizon makes up. It could just as well be that the visible universe is just but a tiny spec of the entire universe as that it's a good sample size of the universe. [/b]

Actually, it probably is. The dimensions of the observable universe are governed by the distance light can travel over the age of universe. Since the universe is approximately 13.7b yrs old, the horizon distance of the universe (marking the boundaries of the observable universe) is ~13.7b light-years. Beyond that, space is expanding faster than c and neither energy nor matter from those distant locations can reach us. It cannot interact with us. This isn't a property of lagging technology - it's a property of natural law. Since we cannot physically interact with anything outside of our horizon distance, such things are causally irrelevant. Speculate as you will about whether a vast multiverse or string theory landscape of variable physical constants lies beyond that which we can observe - it's fascinating, actually, and I certainly indulge in it myself - but in terms of the direct effect of those areas on our own - there aren't any. If a star goes nova 14 billion light years away, we'll never know. Its light will never reach us. Its effect on the gravitational field will never propagate as far as planet Earth. We can't directly observe any of it. However, based on our understanding of cosmic behavior and evolution, we can make indirect measurements that inform us about properties of those areas and which have lead to our current understanding of the accelerating expansion of spacetime and geometry of the universe. Check out this explanation from NOVA. It's a fairly accurate summary and overview of the current state of scientific knowledge about cosmic geometry and evolution. Easy to read and informative.

Nor do we have any way of knowing if the rest of the universe appears the same as our spot on it.[/b]

Obviously we cannot know about areas outside of our horizon, but the Cosmological Postulate which states that the Universe must be homogenous and isotropic throughout is in agreement with all observed portions of the universe when sufficiently large regions are considered.

Consider for example the Earth as a metaphor. Suppose a society living in the Sahara who only has knowledge of their visible horizon. They very well may suppose that the entire world must be covered in sand, and understandably so. Of course since we have a good knowledge of the Earth, we know this to not be true. The truth is that the landscape of the Earth is rich with diversity. In fact there are numerous natural features that can only be found in very specific and sometimes singular locations...[sic] It very well could be, I would even say it is extremely likely, that the actual shape and composition of the universe is far stranger than we could ever possibly imagine or conceive.[/b]

I encourage you to look into String Theory and its concept of variable landscapes. A good place to start would be this Scientific American article.

I confined myself to a description of the observable universe is this discussion because it is to the geometry of that same region to which the "flatness" of spacetime refers. Speculation beyond that is just that - speculation. It's certainly interesting, but since those regions cannot be directly observed or causally affect the Earth or its inhabitants, I have left it out of this cosmological discussion.

I almost said something about "open, closed" and "flat" universes but then I realised that that's probably something different. As far as I remember, it's to do with the strength of gravity - if it turns out to be too little, the universe will just grow bigger and further apart, which is an open universe. If it's too strong, it'll eventually reverse and everything will sort of collapse on itself (closed), and if it's just strong/weak enough then apparently the universe will just stop growing at some point and be open for as long as we like. And that's a flat universe (or apparently referred to lightly as the 'Alice in Wonderland effect', where everything is just right). If I'm wrong, someone correct me. I would like that.

Anyway, as far as I remember reading, the universe is supposed to curve somehow. So you can't reach the "end of the universe". I quote Bill Bryson's A Short History of Nearly Everything:

[...] You can never get to the edge of the universe. That's not because it would take too long to get there - though of course it would - but because even if you traveled outward and outward in a straight line, indefinitely and pugnaciously, you would never arrive at an outer boundary. Instead, you would come back to where you began (at which point, presumably, you would rather lose heart in the exercise and give up). The reason for this is that the universe bends, in a way we can't adequately imagine, in conformance with Einstein's theory of relativity. For the moment it is enough to know that we are not adrift in some large, ever-expanding bubble. Rather, space curves, in a way that allows it to be boundless but finite.

Space cannot even properly be said to be expanding because, as the physicist and Nobel laureate Steven Weinberg notes, "solar systems and galaxies are not expanding, and space itself is not expanding". Rather, galaxies are rushing apart.[/b]

I've read this over and over, but I got lost around the part where he says "in conformance with Einstein's theory of relativity". Someone who is a scientific genius (or just a plain scientist) can enlighten me. Yes, you really can!

Originally Posted by Peregrinus

Obviously we cannot know about areas outside of our horizon, but the Cosmological Postulate which states that the Universe must be homogenous and isotropic throughout is in agreement with all observed portions of the universe when sufficiently large regions are considered.
[/b]

You don't have to be that bright to realize that the Cosmological Postulate could be just as likely true or false from all the knowledge we can ever hope to gain.

"Sufficiently large" is only in relation to our observable portion. Just because it appears homogenous, does not mean the entire universe is. And even if we could know that our observable portion was a good sample size of the entire universe, we still could not know that, because for sampled statistics to be accurate, they must be random, and we have no way of knowing if our observable portion is a sufficient random sample of the entire universe. To pretend that we do know is foolish.

Even if you suppose that the entire universe is homogenous, you cannot have any way of knowing that the homogenous nature of the entire universe is the same as the homogenous nature of our observable portion. It could very well be that if you could consider areas of the universe we cannot observe, that a different homogenous nature would emerge, just as if we consider our observable portion in smaller and smaller samples, different homogenous natures emerge at different sample sizes. Should we suppose that this trend does not continue outward? Do we have any reason to think it would stop? Should we suppose that it does? And how could we ever possibly test either way?

We can only ever scientifically know about our observable portion of the universe, and just as I was "speculating" earlier, any scientific theories which attempt to explain something about the entire universe will never be more than "speculation" dressed up in scientific garb.

If you wish to stick with discussing that which can only be scientifically known, then that is your choice, but do so realizing that you are in a thread in the Philosophy forum; not in a scientific thread in the Extended Discussion forum. There is a place and time for everything. This doesn't mean we should avoid scientific discussion in Philosophy, but we most certainly should not restrict ourselves to it. To do so would not be a philosophical discussion, but rather a scientific debate. This is not the place or time for a scientific debate

dream-scape:
Funny that you should chastise me for giving a scientific answer to a scientific question about cosmological geometry when your posts have contributed only a criticism of the scientific process for being necessarily limited by something as fundamental as the speed of light in a vacuum. I answered the question posed. Please don’t take issue with me over where it was posted.

And specifically regarding the limitation of direct observation to the ~14b ly radius of the observable universe: WMAP and its predecessors have measured the mass density of the universe and found it to be within the margin of error of the critical density - the relativistic constant governing the geometric behavior of spacetime (more info on the Big Bang and cosmic geometry - including explicit statements of the limitations of the model - essentially what I already said, but if you don't believe me, believe NASA). The spacetime of our observable universe is expanding at an accelerating rate, which, coupled with the WMAP findings of the mass density of the universe, strongly suggests that the universe’s geometry is open – and more specifically flat - at least within our horizon (which, as I stated earlier, is the only part of the universe to which we are causally connected).

Science is a process, a constant progression and redefinition of knowledge and understanding. You don’t get to just open a textbook and know the secrets of the universe. Blade5x asked a question about a recent scientific finding and I answered it as such. I reported what we currently know and what the limitations of that knowledge are. You want to get philosophical, then do so - in fact, I invited you to earlier - but don’t criticize me for factually answering the question posed and not immediately jumping into speculation about something we can never know.

And if you’ve got beef with the limitations of direct observation in the cosmos, take it up with that universal consciousness. Tell him/her/it that it’s damn annoying to the human pursuit of infinite knowledge that spacetime is expanding faster than c. However, if you’re going to complain, just remember that it is because of the horizon that the night sky is dark. If the expansion rate of spacetime were less than c, eventually you’d need much darker curtains in your bedroom.

Kaniaz:
Check out the WMAP links above. You'd only return to your starting place in a closed universe, btw. Otherwise, you'd keep going and going and going until your Energizer battery pack gave out.

Kaniaz:
Check out the WMAP links above. You'd only return to your starting place in a closed universe, btw. Otherwise, you'd keep going and going and going until your Energizer battery pack gave out.[/b]

Alright. You mean I'd only come back to the start if the universe was going to have a 'big crunch' sort of thing at the end? I don't understand the logic in that, unless I'm wrong about what a closed universe actually is.

Yeah so I'm like a little baby among all these universal consciousnesses and string theories. Humor me, and maybe one day I will grow into a beautiful flower.

Originally Posted by Kaniaz

Alright. You mean I'd only come back to the start if the universe was going to have a 'big crunch' sort of thing at the end?[/b]

Yes.

Yeah so I'm like a little baby among all these universal consciousnesses and string theories. Humor me, and maybe one day I will grow into a beautiful flower.
[/b]

*Offers a bite of Gerber on a little padded plastic spoon followed by a quick dowsing with Miracle Grow*

To understand the Scientific View of the Universe, first one must have some insight into just how profoundly stupid ordinary scientists are.

They are bean counters. No imagination. 20 beans in this pile. 30 in that pile.

The most they do at the end of the day is draw up a chart or table that shows where the beans are.

And that is how they Picture the Universe. They work up a Chart. If the Chart is Flat, well, that's the Universe for you.

Look at Einstein. He did a Chart that included a Time Axis, and suddenly almost the entire Scientific Community was CONVINCED that Time was an actual physical Dimension. Why? Because somebody drew a chart. Somebody was able to play with PURELY IMAGINARY MATHEMATICAL CONSTRUCTS and so as far as they were concerned, it was all real.

There is no accounting for the vagaries of stupidity, even when Stupidity wears nice white Lab Coats.

Yes, the world is indeed flat.

At least, so says Mr. Thomas L. Friedman.

Originally Posted by Leo

To understand the Scientific View of the Universe, first one must have some insight into just how profoundly stupid ordinary scientists are.

They are bean counters. No imagination[/b]

Someone who has absolutely no experience with legitimate scientific research really shouldn't be making such vast and degrading generalizations about a process and group of people which he does not understand.

Originally Posted by Leo

To understand the Scientific View of the Universe, first one must have some insight into just how profoundly stupid ordinary scientists are.
They are bean counters. No imagination. 20 beans in this pile. 30 in that pile.
The most they do at the end of the day is draw up a chart or table that shows where the beans are.
And that is how they Picture the Universe. They work up a Chart. If the Chart is Flat, well, that's the Universe for you.
Look at Einstein. He did a Chart that included a Time Axis, and suddenly almost the entire Scientific Community was CONVINCED that Time was an actual physical Dimension. Why? Because somebody drew a chart. Somebody was able to play with PURELY IMAGINARY MATHEMATICAL CONSTRUCTS and so as far as they were concerned, it was all real.
There is no accounting for the vagaries of stupidity, even when Stupidity wears nice white Lab Coats.
[/b]

Something you can't understand you must regard as stupid?
You should really get a grasp on trying to make you ego feel better.
I am sure scientist must have counted a lot of beans for the advent of the computer you type on and the Internet that you spew your rhetoric.