Thread: So The Universe Is Flat?

What exactly does this mean? I've looked up various sites, but they've failed to provide me with an explanation of how science has proved this, or what exactly it means... other than the fact that it is limited and does not expand. [I also read somewhere that it was flat and shaped like a triangle?]

Also why use the term flat? I'd prefer "constrained" because flat makes me think of something 2-dimensional, when that is not the case of the universe. Is it because, if you go in one direction, you'll never return to your starting point like on a globe? Can someone fill me in please.

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?

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!

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.

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.

Yes, the world is indeed flat.

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