02 Nov 14
Originally posted by black beetleRemaining two?
Space was observable by Copernicus, Newton and Einstein, but space for each one of them was not the same as space for the remaining two;
Anyway, thank you for this thread
😵
The universe occupies space. I supposed one can say that space is included in the definition of the universe. For the sake of this discussion we could say that the matter, galaxies, stars and planets are in space. But space doesn't appear to have a shape.
All the matter occupying space seems to have shape. Like the shape of a galaxy.
Flat. Relatively speaking.
02 Nov 14
Originally posted by twhiteheadIn other words it is not known whether or not the matter occupying space exist in a 3d geometric shape?
As I said earlier, they are not talking about 'flat' in 3D terms. They are talking about whether or not space-time as a whole is flat in geometric terms.
Seems odd that the shape of the universe isn't consistent with the 3 dimensions we existence in and observe everyday.
Isn't it only theoretical that the universe is anything other than 3 dimensional?
02 Nov 14
3 edits
Originally posted by josephwIt may be flat like a pancake, which still has a 3 dimensional shape.
Remaining two?
The universe occupies space. I supposed one can say that space is included in the definition of the universe. For the sake of this discussion we could say that the matter, galaxies, stars and planets are in space. But space doesn't appear to have a shape.
All the matter occupying space seems to have shape. Like the shape of a galaxy.
Flat. Relatively speaking.
How Do We Know the Universe is Flat?
Why is the Universe Expanding?
02 Nov 14
Originally posted by josephwPeople have already given you links to maps of the known universe which quite clearly do not show a galaxy shaped cluster of mass.
All the matter occupying space seems to have shape. Like the shape of a galaxy.
Flat. Relatively speaking.
The matter in the universe that we can observe using telescopes is roughly uniformly distributed around us in every direction. It is not flat relatively speaking.
I am sorry but you need to just give up on your punchline, because the premise simply isn't true.
02 Nov 14
1 edit
Originally posted by josephwIts hard to explain to someone who clearly doesn't understand geometry. First read a bit about Euclidean geometry:.
In other words it is not known whether or not the matter occupying space exist in a 3d geometric shape?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Euclidean_geometry
If you draw a triangle in Euclidean geometry, then all the angles add up to 180 degrees. Adding a third dimension doesn't really change this.
However, in real life, if you draw a triangle and measure them super accurately, they do not add up to 180 degrees. This is because gravity warps space-time. But this is on small scales. The question is whether on not, on larger scales, triangles have internal angles adding up to 180 degrees. If they do, then we say space is 'flat'. If they add up to a number greater than 180 degrees, we say space has convex curvature (such as in a sphere), and may be finite, if they add up to a number less than 180 degrees then space has hyperbolic curvature and may be infinite.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hyperbolic_space
Seems odd that the shape of the universe isn't consistent with the 3 dimensions we existence in and observe everyday.
Isn't it only theoretical that the universe is anything other than 3 dimensional?
No, on the small scale, as I said, it is a measurable fact that space is not quite flat.
This is rather like quantum mechanics. Although you don't easily see the effects of quantum mechanics (you can,t see the waves in light waves for example), the effects are very much part of reality.
02 Nov 14
Originally posted by josephwOur perceptions, intuition and common-sense only pertain to the scale
In other words it is not known whether or not the matter occupying space exist in a 3d geometric shape?
Seems odd that the shape of the universe isn't consistent with the 3 dimensions we existence in and observe everyday.
Isn't it only theoretical that the universe is anything other than 3 dimensional?
at which we live. The micro and macro parts of reality are w e i r d !!!
For instance: have you considered what a sub-atomic particle looks like?
02 Nov 14
Originally posted by josephwI think for one that the gravitational field and thus the structure of spacetime depends on the presence of matter, and for two that space has physical existence if it is conceived as a Bohmian Wave-Medium
Remaining two?
The universe occupies space. I supposed one can say that space is included in the definition of the universe. For the sake of this discussion we could say that the matter, galaxies, stars and planets are in space. But space doesn't appear to have a shape.
All the matter occupying space seems to have shape. Like the shape of a galaxy.
Flat. Relatively speaking.
😵
02 Nov 14
Originally posted by black beetleAccording to the big bang theory, spacetime preceded the existence of matter. Perhaps you meant energy? Even so, I don't think you have a case.
I think for one that the gravitational field and thus the structure of spacetime depends on the presence of matter,