Originally posted by lemon lime [b]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.[/b]
A fourth dimension is imagined to be time, but it is just theorized and not proven. Even more dimensions than that have been imagined, but only three are clearly known. They are usually designated width, length, and height.
Originally posted by RJHinds A fourth dimension is imagined to be time, but it is just theorized and not proven. Even more dimensions than that have been imagined, but only three are clearly known. They are usually designated width, length, and height.
Time has not been proven to exist? Did you manage to write that post instantaneously?
Originally posted by lemon lime [b]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.[/b]
What does time have to do with the shape of the universe?
I'm not asking how long it took for the universe to acquire its shape. I'm only asking what is its shape. Is it a sphere? A cube? Or is it round and flat?
I seem to be getting arguments more than anything else.
Originally posted by twhitehead 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?
Good enough about what?
I didn't start this thread asking about whether the universe is finite or not. I'm only trying to ascertain its shape.
Is that too complicated for you? So far all you've managed to do is generate an argument. You've picked and poked at me since the start. Get off my case.
Originally posted by josephw Originally posted by josephw
Why don't we just let the universe speak for itself?
Originally posted by Great King Rat [b]"The universe is an inanimate object which can’t speak. Your question makes no sense."
It makes no sense that you don't know a rhetorical question when you hear one.[/b]
This is written text on a message board. Sarcasm and rhetorical questions are often indistuinguishable from normal text. There was no reason for me to view your question as a rhetorical one, especially because it makes no sense considering it was an answer to my question.
"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 josephw Good enough about what?
I didn't start this thread asking about whether the universe is finite or not. I'm only trying to ascertain its shape.
You asked me for a reference. I gave a reference from Professor Joseph Silk, Head of Astrophysics, Department of Physics, University of Oxford, United Kingdom. I was asking whether that was a good enough reference for you, or whether you required more references.
If the universe is not finite, then it does not have a shape.
If the universe is not known to be finite, then its shape is not known either.
Originally posted by twhitehead Nobody knows how big it is. Your information is most definitely wrong - where did you get it from?
The visible universe is as Suzianne says, a sphere about 46 billion light years in radius centered on the observer. But that is merely a limitation of light travel and only in indication of the minimum size the universe could be.
It may not even be of finite size.
"It may not even be of finite size." "...about 46 billion light years in radius centered on the observer."
It seems to me that this follows: There is no place where the universe is not.
Originally posted by JS357 "...about 46 billion light years in radius centered on the observer."
That is referring to the observable universe ie as much as we can see. It has little or no bearing on the actual size of the universe. There is even a possibility that the universe is actually smaller than the observable universe, and we are seeing double.
It seems to me that this follows: There is no place where the universe is not. I don't see how that follows from the two statements.
If it is possible for dimensions to be discontinuous, then it is possible that there are other universes. Whether we could ever know is another question.
It is also possible that we are a thin slice (in some new dimension) of a much larger 'universe' if that is what one would call it, and that there are other slices that we might call universes like ours.
Originally posted by twhitehead That is referring to the observable universe ie as much as we can see. It has little or no bearing on the actual size of the universe. There is even a possibility that the universe is actually smaller than the observable universe, and we are seeing double.
[b]It seems to me that this follows: There is no place where the universe is not. I don't se ...[text shortened]... what one would call it, and that there are other slices that we might call universes like ours.[/b]
There is the actual, the possible, and the conceivable. IMO there is a difference between possibility and conceivability. IMO there is also a difference between conceivability and "utterability" which I define as the ability to state grammatically in some language.
Being able to grammatically state that something is a possibility, does not even make it conceivable, not to mention, possible. Is it conceivable that "a set contains fewer members than a subset of itself"or "dimensions are discontinuous" is possibly true simply because one can say it?
So I'd say, asserting that something is possible or conceivable carries some burden to state the conditions under which it would be actual.
Originally posted by JS357 So I'd say, asserting that something is possible or conceivable carries some burden to state the conditions under which it would be actual.
You will note however that I did not assert it was possible (that dimensions be discontinuous).
Originally posted by Great King Rat This is written text on a message board. Sarcasm and rhetorical questions are often indistuinguishable from normal text. There was no reason for me to view your question as a rhetorical one, especially because it makes no sense considering it was an answer to my question.
"It’s your thread, friend. How about you make an effort to blow us away with ...[text shortened]... y don't we just let the universe speak for itself?"
This makes no sense... rhetorical or not.
You don't need my "insights". Why bother asking?
Do you know anything about the shape of the universe? Is there any information you can impart to make it worth my while responding to you? Or do you just want to argue?
31 Oct '14 09:09
The Universe
Back to Top