Research Indicates A Spherical Universe

[Dubbelosix]

https://newscienti.st/2PPQTmX?fbclid=IwAR0aOKfKUGF3YDiU1coIeW4MU3lFRqREB-HadqdE28hl6wq0N6hltekceDs

 

 

 

This new evidence is in contrast to a flat universe, it seems we could be looking at a new revolution which models a universe more like a ball with an almost even distribution of matter. This could simplify cosmology in several ways.

Edited November 5, 2019 by Dubbelosix

[OverUnityDeviceUAP]

I would have told you that simply by the fact that there is a particle horizon, there must be a sort of discrepancy in Planck metrics. Or you could say the universe has a particular age which is not supported by observation as of late.

 

However, there's a difference between a curved universe and a closed universe. I do have a model ya know, you don't loop back to the other side of the universe in it.

Edited November 5, 2019 by OverUnityDeviceUAP

[Dubbelosix]

Told me what exactly? I don't need to come to you for anything. Besides, I have always stated that homogeneity could be an illusion. Or just simply wrong.

[OverUnityDeviceUAP]

Told me what exactly? I don't need to come to you for anything. Besides, I have always stated that homogeneity could be an illusion. Or just simply wrong.

That evidence suggests the universe is not flat...rather simply than what is used in your article, by the fact that light that reaches us has a cutoff point and we dont see an infinite universe without a "particle horizon", I would say it was a matter of common sense.

[GAHD]

That evidence suggests the universe is not flat...rather simply than what is used in your article, by the fact that light that reaches us has a cutoff point and we dont see an infinite universe without a "particle horizon", I would say it was a matter of common sense.

You obviously have no idea what flat vs (+/-)curved means in this context... You're talking a temporal thing, which has no bearing on overall curvature. The CMBR horizon's existence doesn't tend towards any of the edges of the gauge.

[OverUnityDeviceUAP]

You obviously have no idea what flat vs (+/-)curved means in this context... You're talking a temporal thing,

You misunderstand, and even if you understood what I meant you should know that space and time are apart of the same object so it again applies to the horizon, a word which I even used.

 

How can "discrepancy in a Planck metric" even apply to anything other than length or volume planck units??? Lol. The issue is that space beyond an horizon is not sending light at us.

 

Anyway, I think of our vacuum and our c as more of a body of land in an ocean of different altogether higher than radio vacuum density so I don't like a curved universe although there being different vacuum densities or wavelengths out of the spectrum like quantum tunneling.

Edited November 5, 2019 by OverUnityDeviceUAP

[Dubbelosix]

It seems to me after consideration into the physics of general relativity, that the universe can still appear spherical from inside the universe even if there is not a lot of curvature. As a sphere expands, it is said it loses its curvature, and in the right limit, it could be the same for the universe, as suggested by Arun, he extended the weak equivalence to cosmic proportions, drawing similarities between the observed flatness problem and expanding gravitational systems, like black holes and universes.

 

It may be, that the distribution inside the universe indicates a spherical structure, but on large scales has lost its internal curvature.

Edited November 18, 2019 by Dubbelosix

[Dubbelosix]

In fact to add to this, observers inside black holes measure the density to be much less than observers outside the black holes which may also be linked to this crisis.

Edited November 19, 2019 by Dubbelosix

[Vmedvil2]

I said in a previous post assuming the universe was probably flat meaning if you were a observer on the edge of the universe you would see nothingness in a direction as matter had not reached  the location yet with the slim possibility that the universe as spherical but if it is the case that all observers would see stars in every direction such as that in a spherical universe that would make for a very interesting change to the way we view the universe as proposed here. I guess the question is barring wormholes to another universe are we stuck inside a "Bubble" created by the universe's "Walls on the edge" which would jump you into another location on the other side when hitting the "Walls on the edge" I never would have thought there was a literal curvature issue that would keep us inside. If this is the case then we may truly be inside a Black Hole just spinning around the inside of it. do we need to start calculating distances around the universe as 2πR like the edge of a sphere, so your actual movement would be (distance)/2π (Radius Universe).

Edited November 18, 2019 by VictorMedvil

[Dubbelosix]

OK so what does flatness mean? Most importantly, it seems to ignore distribution of matter and concentrates on whether internal curvature explains the shape. If matter is distributed homogeneously in all directions, then sure, you can build some sort of shape from it. But when cosmologists say the universe is flat, they are measuring the amount of curvature present in the universe, which today is quite small. Nevertheless, if you were to observe the universe from the outside, it would appear like a very large supermassive black hole on scales we haven't calculated, and or those inside, the density does not seem very dense at all.

[Dubbelosix]

I certainly agree Victor that if the universe is both flat and spherical, these conditions are mathematically sound for a cosmic black hole model.

[GAHD]

OK so what does flatness mean? Most importantly, it seems to ignore distribution of matter and concentrates on whether internal curvature explains the shape. If matter is distributed homogeneously in all directions, then sure, you can build some sort of shape from it. But when cosmologists say the universe is flat, they are measuring the amount of curvature present in the universe, which today is quite small. Nevertheless, if you were to observe the universe from the outside, it would appear like a very large supermassive black hole on scales we haven't calculated, and or those inside, the density does not seem very dense at all.

Far as I understand it; "flat" mainly means continuously accelerating expansion, convex/spheroid would be a "big bounce/crunch", and concave/hyperbolic would be an exponential acceleration. They might like many people be appropriating the "shape" idea for something subtly (but importantly) different. I haven't really looked deeply into this to tell if it's bad-wording/data or an actual revolutionary discovery.

 

Since cosmologists have measured quite consistently that HC is accelerating rather than slowing down that SHOULD invalidate convex/spheroid outright(unless it's some complex long term sinusoidal variance? Like if our bubble/brane has a ripple left over from initial inflation). "Should" could like all things be wrong though, Hyper-spheres and hyper-torus would look kinda weird "flattened" down to mere 3d, bringing up the flatlander problems of understanding a sphere or a pyramid.

 

If it's true though, we'd be in one hell of a "basement universe"

 

 

I said in a previous post assuming the universe was probably flat meaning if you were a observer on the edge of the universe you would see nothingness in a direction as matter had not reached  the location yet with the slim possibility that the universe as spherical but if it is the case that all observers would see stars in every direction such as that in a spherical universe that would make for a very interesting change to the way we view the universe as proposed here. I guess the question is barring wormholes to another universe are we stuck inside a "Bubble" created by the universe's "Walls on the edge" which would jump you into another location on the other side when hitting the "Walls on the edge" I never would have thought there was a literal curvature issue that would keep us inside. If this is the case then we may truly be inside a Black Hole just spinning around the inside of it. do we need to start calculating distances around the universe as 2πR like the edge of a sphere, so your actual movement would be (distance)/2π (Radius Universe).

As buzz-word as it is (and I HATE buzz words) geometry gets weird when you add "hyper" to it. A hyper-torus or a hyper-sphere (or a hyper Klein bottle, or a hyper mobius) would be finite but unbounded as far as our little non-hyper selves are concerned. A true plane or an inverse universe would be **transfinite/infinite unbounded. It's certainly amusing to consider all that we can see as just one of the onion-layers of a higher dimensional singularity. I'm not sure how that would let the jiggsaw of reality fit together any better than the transfinite unbounded ones.

Edited November 20, 2019 by GAHD
**

[Dubbelosix]

If we were in a super massive N dimensional black hole and viewed it from the outside. No light would escape, you would not be able to see it from the outside. That is if you are viewing space as a tangible measurable thing. Supermassive blackholes exist in our space time in our universe and probably not good places to be :)

 

Furthermore, mixing a few theories for amusement :(.

 

If space is entangled ie connected via a membrane outside of normal space time coordinates, which directly connect all points in the universe. There would be no outside to view the membrane from, as the membrane occupies no space, just forming connections between N dimensional bubbles of space time emerging from the membrane from our point of view.

 

 

Lots of discussion exists on what space time is, and what is observed, but little discussion happens on what causes space and time to happen, except maybe in String theory which produced theories based on entanglement like emergent gravity and time. These are based as I understand it on a connecting membrane between points in our space time.

 

If we could observe it, we would induce a zeno effect on the universe as it too is expected to be governed by a wave function. In such a case, we would effectively see no changes happen in the universe - the ideal equation that would describe this is the wheeler dewitt equation in which the evolution of the universe would not happen since it is missing a time derivative. The wheeler dewitt equation, has no application to cosmology as it is observed since it has undergo many phase transitions.

 

And yeah, massive black holes do exist and are dangerous to be around but the physics of time like trajectory over the boundary does change into a space like boundary in which universes like our own could happily exist.

Edited November 20, 2019 by Dubbelosix

[Dubbelosix]

Also, if the universe is a black hole, there still holds that it would possess a boundary, obviously a self-contained universe has no such a boundary, so this would be a situation where if we lived in one, then we are just a grain of a much larger structure of space in which we live behind the boundary.

Edited November 20, 2019 by Dubbelosix

[LaurieAG]

This new evidence is in contrast to a flat universe, it seems we could be looking at a new revolution which models a universe more like a ball with an almost even distribution of matter. This could simplify cosmology in several ways.

 

If our universe is spherical and modeling it as flat gives us a ratio of 2*pi between our total calculated universal matter (LambdaCDM) and observed universal matter, then where does this leave dark matter and dark energy?

[Vmedvil2]

If our universe is spherical and modeling it as flat gives us a ratio of 2*pi between our total calculated universal matter (LambdaCDM) and observed universal matter, then where does this leave dark matter and dark energy?

Well, that would make Dark Energy the expansion of the "Bubble" in the negative direction versus gravity and Dark Matter just positive direction non electromagnetically interacting matter that interacts with gravity. It would also make black holes unclear to if they breach the "Bubble" via gravity as always, the question is if you compress space enough would it allow you access outside the spherical "Bubble"?

Edited November 21, 2019 by VictorMedvil

[Dubbelosix]

Not sure, but one thing I can recognizer is an energy density issue, but I a paper I am a writing in response to the basic premis given by Schmelzer in the other post, I intend to to investigate the shape crisis because I feel I am onto something concerning some new ideas.