Originally posted by josephw
How do you know it exists?

I don't. The page you gave as a reference suggests that the universe might be flat in the fourth dimension, meaning that it doesn't exist.

Originally posted by josephw
We're supposed to be discussing the shape of the universe. Surely you can come up with some real knowledge about it!

I already told you, the answer it totally unknown, and anyone who tells you otherwise is lying or mistaken. Discussing it more, isn't going to change that. Nor is inventing fairy tales.

Originally posted by Great King Rat
It’s your thread, friend. How about you make an effort to blow us away with some awesome insights??

Why don't we just let the universe speak for itself?

Originally posted by twhitehead
I already told you, the answer it totally unknown, and anyone who tells you otherwise is lying or mistaken. Discussing it more, isn't going to change that. Nor is inventing fairy tales.

Prove it that nobody knows. Surely you don't think we're all dumb enough to just take your word for it. Back it up with some references. Maybe you know the names of a couple of well know astronomers that believe the same thing.

Obviously no one knows the size of the universe, but surely there must be some actual science that has some notion of its shape.

Originally posted by twhitehead
I don't. The page you gave as a reference suggests that the universe might be flat in the fourth dimension, meaning that it doesn't exist.

What is a fourth dimension?

Originally posted by josephw
Why don't we just let the universe speak for itself?

The universe is an inanimate object which can’t speak. Your question makes no sense.

Originally posted by twhitehead
Nothing on that page mentions a disc shape.

Further, you seem to be confused about what it being talked about there. They are not talking about the 3 dimensional shape, but rather the 4 dimensional shape, which cannot genuinely be put into 3 dimensions.

And no, astronomers do not think the universe is shaped like a disc.

Sorry to have ruined your punchline.

I agree. I do not envision any way that the shape of the universe could be any other than a sphere. In 3 dimensions, anyway. I have seen drawings suggesting a bell shape, but the long axis of the bell is Time, whereas the other 3 dimensions are represented as a 2 dimensional shape (therefore a disc rather than a sphere), simply because a 4 dimensional shape cannot easily be accurately described in 3 dimensions without suppressing one dimension.

Originally posted by twhitehead
Height, width and depth. What's the fourth dimension?
I am not sure if it has a name, or even needs a name.

The fourth dimension of Einstein's space-time, is generally regarded as being Time. Hence the moniker 'space-time'.

Originally posted by Suzianne
The fourth dimension of Einstein's space-time, is generally regarded as being Time. Hence the moniker 'space-time'.

But in general relativity, spacetime itself is bent in a fifth dimension.

Originally posted by josephw
Maybe you know the names of a couple of well know astronomers that believe the same thing.

http://www.esa.int/Our_Activities/Space_Science/People/Is_the_Universe_finite_or_infinite_An_interview_with_Joseph_Silk

Joseph Silk:
No. We do not know whether the Universe is finite or not.

Good enough for you?

Originally posted by josephw
Why can't you guys stay on topic?

We're supposed to be discussing the shape of the universe. Surely you can come up with some real knowledge about it!

One thing that prevents us from seeing the true shape of the universe is the fact that during the BB era the universe was expanding around 10^22 times faster than the speed of light which is ok, it wasn't matter moving that fast but space itself, carrying matter along with it like bread on a conveyor belt at a bakery, the bread isn't moving only the conveyor belt, which is space and the bread, matter.

So it starts immediately slowing down that extreme expansion but even today that expansion is estimated to still be going on at about 3 times the speed of light. For that reason there are parts of the universe that we will never be able to see and that is why they say the universe is several times bigger than the 13 odd billion light years we CAN see. So it is figuring out how much faster the universe is expanding past the speed of light that gives us an idea of how big the universe is.

I don't know why they would think it a pancake, that would imply a non uniform expansion, some directions getting more expansion than others, I don't think that is born out in the CMB data with the COBE and subsequent probes that measure the temperature of the whole universe on pretty small scales and now measuring the differences in temperatures of 100,000th of a degree, showing what parts are hotter and what parts are colder which is the imprint left over when the universe cooled enough for light to be free, they say when the universe was about 300,000 years old.

Originally posted by twhitehead
Actually even distances on planet Earth should boggle the mind. We may 'come to grips' with the distances, but we never really comprehend them fully.
How long would you estimate it would take you to walk around the equator? (don't look it up first).
How long would it take to drive to the moon?

I'll admit I have no idea on either question. I will guess about a year for each.

I agree. Just trying to think about looking at the sun as it was 8 minutes ago because it takes light that long to reach us even at 186,000 miles per second is mind boggling. Thinking about what the sun would look like in the sky if it was as close as Venus etc.

Originally posted by josephw
That's right. The disc idea was my own, but a pancake is shaped much like a disc.

The mathematical equations are given in several sites that indicates that the universe is essentially flat, 15 billion light years thick and 200 across. I am only trying to say what I think they said they have discovered.

Height, width and depth. What's the fourth dimension?

What's the fourth dimension?

Time... I thought everyone knew that. The fourth dimension is the time it takes to poach an egg shaped universe.

Originally posted by CalJust
Did you at least take a peek at this site?

This was very much my comment as to "shape of the universe".

Do you have any responses to this, or are you just forging ahead with what you want to say?


http://www.vox.com/2014/9/4/6105631/map-galaxy-supercluster-laniakea-milky-way[/b]

Good stuff. In one of those views the universe looks like a network of neural pathways. And in another view a supercluster bordering another one looks like a couple of downy feathers. The patterns are fascinating.

YouTube

Originally posted by lemon lime
Time... I thought everyone knew that.

But that is not the dimension being discussed in the article in question.