Wild New Study Suggests The Universe Is a Closed Sphere, Not Flat

[Frannie]

When you're inside something, it's hard to see its shape. We're still finding out new things about the shape of our galaxy.

The shape of the Universe? That's a lot harder to gauge, but years of observational data, cosmological models and physics suggest it's flat. Send a beam of photons out across the void, and it will just keep going in a straight line.


A new study argues otherwise. Based on data released last year collected by the European Space Agency's Planck satellite, astronomers have argued the case that the Universe is actually curved and closed, like an inflating sphere.
Wild New Study Suggests The Universe Is a Closed Sphere, Not Flat

That's interesting.

Actually the universe has never been described as flat, so in order for this story to be real and make sense history must be rewritten

The nonsense coming from these supposedly smart people is stunning.

Why? because they can now see that DNA is a code that in no way could be formed by nature thus requiring a code writer (God)

Then they babble that the universe is not real and that we are all code, that is everything in the universe is code like the matrix. Again requiring a code writer (God)

LOL pick a good stock and buy it

 

[DOTR]

Then does the universe have a border?

The spatial part has no border. Think of people who must stick to the surface of a sphere. There may be a large area for them to roam, but they will find no border. (Except for walls, cliffs and other impediments.)

I don't know if this is how astrophysics thinks of it, but it seems like time has one boundary at the onset of the big bang and another boundary of right now.
.

Far too deep for me. But its obvious that the explanation of God is no weirder than any science is offering.

 

[DOTR]

You seem to know what you are talking about. Here is a serious question.

I think the answer to you question is to cut along the dotted line and throw away your "what's here" labeled areas.

A better diagram would be to have all the spheres concentric like layers of an onion (Way to messy to draw.) Space is on the surface of the spheres and time is along the radius. The largest sphere (the outer sphere) would be the "right now" space of the universe. Anywhere you look has to be in the past, toward the center. As time goes on, the location of a galaxy is on what are called "world lines".

In this concentric model if we could look outside the "right now" sphere at your "what's here" areas, we would be looking into the future.


.

OK. That actually makes a little sense to me. So what if you were an entity at point X below. Looking one direction would give a view of a vast infinite seeming universe while looking the other direction would be just a fuzz of microwave noise or nothingness?

 

[Wuwei]

OK. That actually makes a little sense to me. So what if you were an entity at point X below. Looking one direction would give a view of a vast infinite seeming universe while looking the other direction would be just a fuzz of microwave noise or nothingness?

When we look at another galaxy what we see is, of course, that galaxy as it was millions of years ago due to the speed of light. So the only place that galaxy (or any galaxy) would exist in the diagram is in a different sphere to the left of "point x" because that sphere is earlier in time. For example, if you want to look at the fuzzy galaxy in the middle of the rightmost sphere your line of sight does not go to that galaxy in the rightmost sphere because you can't see it yet. It may even have disintegrated. Your line of sight would go to the past and toward the same fuzzy galaxy in the middle sphere, for example.

If you aim your microwave receiver at a blank area between galaxies, your line of sight goes all the way to the fuzz of microwave noise from the earliest smallest red sphere at the far left.

The physics constraints embedded in the diagram do not allow you to look from point x to anywhere except to the left and within the cone. If you look at a galaxy 5 billion light years away you are looking at a sphere that is offset by 5 billion years to the left because time is plotted horizontally.

There is nothing forbidding another cone shaped system outside the one pictured. You won't be able to see it though. This is what people mean by multiverses.
.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

What do you think it might be if not spherical?
.

"Spherical" is not appropriate. "Closed geometry" does not mean, "spherical". You are imposing a 3D regime of thought on a 2D analogy to call it, "spherical". Again, I feel we are returning to "what is space expanding into". A 2D surface can only "bend" into a 3rd spatial dimension in an illustration (the dimension into which the 2D space, misleadingly so, appears to be expanding in the image posted earlier). This is not representative of the closed geometry of spacetime. Spacetime is not a "spherical surface", or even spheroidic. Sphericality is a special case in 3 dimensional space, a space/dimesnsion forbidden in the illustration. And our spacetime cannot be spheroidic, as you can hold a sphere in your hand. Spheroids exist within 3 dimensions. Not more, not less.

 

[Frannie]

What do you think it might be if not spherical?
.

"Spherical" is not appropriate. "Closed geometry" does not mean, "spherical". You are imposing a 3D regime of thought on a 2D analogy to call it, "spherical". Again, I feel we are returning to "what is space expanding into". A 2D surface can only "bend" into a 3rd spatial dimension in an illustration (the dimension into which the 2D space, misleadingly so, appears to be expanding in the image posted earlier). This is not representative of the closed geometry of spacetime. Spacetime is not a "spherical surface", or even spheroidic. Sphericality is a special case in 3 dimensional space, a space/dimesnsion forbidden in the illustration. And our spacetime cannot be spheroidic, as you can hold a sphere in your hand. Spheroids exist within 3 dimensions. Not more, not less.

Space was also never flat so all of this is frickin nonsense

You are too dumb to pick up on that

Undefeated

 

[Frannie]

OK. That actually makes a little sense to me. So what if you were an entity at point X below. Looking one direction would give a view of a vast infinite seeming universe while looking the other direction would be just a fuzz of microwave noise or nothingness?

When we look at another galaxy what we see is, of course, that galaxy as it was millions of years ago due to the speed of light. So the only place that galaxy (or any galaxy) would exist in the diagram is in a different sphere to the left of "point x" because that sphere is earlier in time. For example, if you want to look at the fuzzy galaxy in the middle of the rightmost sphere your line of sight does not go to that galaxy in the rightmost sphere because you can't see it yet. It may even have disintegrated. Your line of sight would go to the past and toward the same fuzzy galaxy in the middle sphere, for example.

If you aim your microwave receiver at a blank area between galaxies, your line of sight goes all the way to the fuzz of microwave noise from the earliest smallest red sphere at the far left.

The physics constraints embedded in the diagram do not allow you to look from point x to anywhere except to the left and within the cone. If you look at a galaxy 5 billion light years away you are looking at a sphere that is offset by 5 billion years to the left because time is plotted horizontally.

There is nothing forbidding another cone shaped system outside the one pictured. You won't be able to see it though. This is what people mean by multiverses.
.

Wrong again. When we look at a galaxy we see billions of years into the past not millions, and this is because of the vastness of space not because of the speed of light.

Another pimple popped

 

[BasicHumanUnit]

It's humorous how some in this thread speak with such definitive "authority" as if they are the ones who "know", when the fact is...they know nothing.
They speak with a presumption of absoluteness, never inferring that they "could" be wrong.
The arrogance.

(Notice even the thread title contains the word "Suggests")

example.....

"Spherical" is not appropriate. "Closed geometry" does not mean, "spherical". You are imposing a 3D regime of thought on a 2D analogy to call it, "spherical". Again, I feel we are returning to "what is space expanding into". A 2D surface can only "bend" into a 3rd spatial dimension in an illustration (the dimension into which the 2D space, misleadingly so, appears to be expanding in the image posted earlier). This is not representative of the closed geometry of spacetime. Spacetime is not a "spherical surface", or even spheroidic. Sphericality is a special case in 3 dimensional space, a space/dimesnsion forbidden in the illustration. And our spacetime cannot be spheroidic, as you can hold a sphere in your hand. Spheroids exist within 3 dimensions. Not more, not less.

 

[Wuwei]

What do you think it might be if not spherical?
.

"Spherical" is not appropriate. "Closed geometry" does not mean, "spherical". You are imposing a 3D regime of thought on a 2D analogy to call it, "spherical". Again, I feel we are returning to "what is space expanding into". A 2D surface can only "bend" into a 3rd spatial dimension in an illustration (the dimension into which the 2D space, misleadingly so, appears to be expanding in the image posted earlier). This is not representative of the closed geometry of spacetime. Spacetime is not a "spherical surface", or even spheroidic. Sphericality is a special case in 3 dimensional space, a space/dimesnsion forbidden in the illustration. And our spacetime cannot be spheroidic, as you can hold a sphere in your hand. Spheroids exist within 3 dimensions. Not more, not less.

To make it clear I will use the term "spherically symmetric".
Remember if it's closed without spherical symmetry it isn't isotropic.
If you think the universe might not have spherical symmetry, what do you think it might be?
.

 

[Frannie]

What do you think it might be if not spherical?
.

"Spherical" is not appropriate. "Closed geometry" does not mean, "spherical". You are imposing a 3D regime of thought on a 2D analogy to call it, "spherical". Again, I feel we are returning to "what is space expanding into". A 2D surface can only "bend" into a 3rd spatial dimension in an illustration (the dimension into which the 2D space, misleadingly so, appears to be expanding in the image posted earlier). This is not representative of the closed geometry of spacetime. Spacetime is not a "spherical surface", or even spheroidic. Sphericality is a special case in 3 dimensional space, a space/dimesnsion forbidden in the illustration. And our spacetime cannot be spheroidic, as you can hold a sphere in your hand. Spheroids exist within 3 dimensions. Not more, not less.

To make it clear I will use the term "spherically symmetric".
Remember if it's closed without spherical symmetry it isn't isotropic.
If you think the universe might not have spherical symmetry, what do you think it might be?
.

And when was it flat as the fake science article says

 

[luchitociencia]

The big bang theory claims that the whole universe comes from "a microscopic particle in the middle of nothing" which expanded forming galaxies and more.

The image from above surely is not showing such a "microscopic particle" which, according to the imagination part of the theory, started to expand to incredible sizes.

Thanks to images like the one from above, this good for nothing Big Bang theory has reached fame and even acceptance by many.

In reality the statements of that theory are simply ridiculous.

On the other hand, we are so limited with our instruments, in order to see further enough to check any end or border of our universe. The whole hypothesis about what is the shape of the universe are just mere conjectures.

From my part, I think the Universe has the shape of Pikachu.

 

[evenflow1969]

If you

When you're inside something, it's hard to see its shape. We're still finding out new things about the shape of our galaxy.

The shape of the Universe? That's a lot harder to gauge, but years of observational data, cosmological models and physics suggest it's flat. Send a beam of photons out across the void, and it will just keep going in a straight line.


A new study argues otherwise. Based on data released last year collected by the European Space Agency's Planck satellite, astronomers have argued the case that the Universe is actually curved and closed, like an inflating sphere.
Wild New Study Suggests The Universe Is a Closed Sphere, Not Flat

That's interesting.

If you believe in the big bang a flat universe is a bit hard to swallow!

 

[evenflow1969]

If you

When you're inside something, it's hard to see its shape. We're still finding out new things about the shape of our galaxy.

The shape of the Universe? That's a lot harder to gauge, but years of observational data, cosmological models and physics suggest it's flat. Send a beam of photons out across the void, and it will just keep going in a straight line.


A new study argues otherwise. Based on data released last year collected by the European Space Agency's Planck satellite, astronomers have argued the case that the Universe is actually curved and closed, like an inflating sphere.
Wild New Study Suggests The Universe Is a Closed Sphere, Not Flat

That's interesting.

If you believe in the big bang a flat universe is a bit hard to swallow!

 

[Frannie]

If you

When you're inside something, it's hard to see its shape. We're still finding out new things about the shape of our galaxy.

The shape of the Universe? That's a lot harder to gauge, but years of observational data, cosmological models and physics suggest it's flat. Send a beam of photons out across the void, and it will just keep going in a straight line.


A new study argues otherwise. Based on data released last year collected by the European Space Agency's Planck satellite, astronomers have argued the case that the Universe is actually curved and closed, like an inflating sphere.
Wild New Study Suggests The Universe Is a Closed Sphere, Not Flat

That's interesting.

If you believe in the big bang a flat universe is a bit hard to swallow!

Anyone who does believe in the big bang should demand the empty space where all matter came from