Research Indicates A Spherical Universe

[Dubbelosix]

When considering boundaries of a universe, is not better not to focus on boundaries of a minute piece of space first and understand exactly what space is, before charging off to model it.

 

Since time and space appear to emerge and expand, both likely dependent on fluctuations on a interconnecting none spacial membrane. A membrane which would be wormhole like. ER = EPR conjecture must be taken into account when modelling space.

 

Taking into account closed and open universes infinite and finite. It seems likely that both might exist at the same time, depending on your viewpoint or model, and both are equally correct.

 

Is the Wheeler de Witt equation more fundamental than the Schrodinger equation, https://arxiv.org/pdf/1801.01351.pdf does it not depend on what you are focusing on. To construct a field equation of space, it would seem better to focus on exactly what space and time is, and then derive field equations based around this. Emergent gravity strings http:///forums/images/smilies/schildhalter.gif springs to mind.

 

The concept of finite flat or curved universes or finite or infinite are all possible, why could they not all exist at the same time, with a few extra dimensions.

 

A side issue is PI even a constant under different levels of gravity/spacetime curvature?

 

The wheeler De witt equation is the quantization of gravity and suffers divergence problems. For this reason, most scientists do not even take the equation seriously... And because I strongly disagree with any quantization gravity I do not agree with it either. As far as I know, pi remains a constant, but the curvature denoted simply as K can vary. With the right system, also temperature. I would not say it is both finite and infinite, but it certainly means we need to look at the Friedmann Equation more carefully, as I rightfully noted a while ago and seems related to this discussion, it seems like the Friedmann Equation has some assumptions wrong, including setting universal density to critical density, somethin l have mentioned and criticised a few times. Edited November 21, 2019 by Dubbelosix

[OverUnityDeviceUAP]

They (spherical universes) correspond to the maximum size that a black hole will get to in a larger, slower universe where the future effects the past and vice versa the best determinant of universal spin is when the hyperbolic black hole will be at its largest from mergers that's when the internal spin will superceded all other spins in the past or future.

 

The universe we are in is spherical because there is entanglement, but others may be partially flat in that the cylinder expands onward almost forever but there is no entanglement because all particle pairs are in the opposite pole emanating from the hyperbolic black hole. However, this is the pre-cmb state of our universe, from our perspective juxtaposed to that of a larger slower spacetime's, the strings composing the cylinders evolve into a spherical entangled universe as the particle pairs come together and accelerate into redshift.

 

Based on the matrices for these spherical string geometries

 

https://i.imgur.com/FCoyhK7.jpg

 

https://i.imgur.com/3TU76EU.jpg

 

https://i.imgur.com/JzYGxcz.jpg

 

https://i.imgur.com/gZdQEA0.jpg

 

https://i.imgur.com/1t40Vgh.jpg

 

(Those last two images describe the distribution of matter/antimatter dependent upon how many spheres are in your black hole along its poles - i.e.:

 

The condensation of space (a spherical coordinate system with a sub Planck geodesic) has a 1 dimensional vector gradient equal to 22.5 degrees counterclockwise from y. The more coordinates in the system (if the volumetric geodesic is the Planck length there's 10 point particle coordinates per spherical coordinate.

 

f(y,-x)=[0101101101]

 

So,

 

t=1

 

Vector gradient or f(y,-x): [-9/10lp,+9/10lp,-9/10lp,+9/10lp,+9/10lp,-9/10lp,+9/10lp,+9/10lp,-9/10lp,+9/10lp]

 

That is a ratio of 9/10 Planck lengths for the first Planck time. All of the following Planck times are the same but for t=2 we have 8/10 Planck lengths. This length contraction leads to black holes when the ratio of the coordinate system is equivalent 1/9^28 lp per tp.

 

The matter/antimatter distribution can be found by subtracting 5 or 3 combinations of charge, for instance, if you have i (89) vectors you will convert it to positive or negative charges where 1=+ and 0=-. Breaking i down by factors of either b, c, or a higher letter where a=01, b=101, c=01 + 101 (a+ b=c but not pythagorean) to maintain our pattern of each new letter being the sum of the previous two letters in the alphabet it must be greater than a. We know i has to start with zero because every other letter starts with 1 or 0 and since a is 0 i must be 0.

 

So it is e, 89-5 is 84, neither 3 nor 5 go into 84 but f does, 4 times. So it's c,f,f,f,f. C=01101, f=101011010110110101101. So we have i=01101101011010110110101101101011010110110101101101011010110110101101101011010110110101101.

 

Now checking our work with the last image to confirm, we have the distribution of charge for 89 vectors.)

 

Except instead of one or 9 string volumes it's as many Planck volumes that will fit into a hyperbolic black hole with a diameter of 28 bill ly as per my calculations:

 

The universe vacuum is actually only dispersing at the speed of light, cosmological redshift off the vacuum artifact of the cmb is actually an optical illusion as we are in a 27.6 giga light year hubble diameter from one particle horizon to the other but are actually situated at only 13.8 bill ly from one of those horizons.

 

Overall the universe has expanded from the CMB to the current universe at 3.27 c

 

3.27/2=1.635

 

13.8billion/1.635=8440366972.48

 

3.27 × 8440366972.48 = 27.6 giga light years.

 

Evidence:

 

6.4 billion / 3600 = 1777777.77778

 

1777777777.78/2=888,888,888.89 m / s

 

Again the Hubble constant since the cmb artifact is approx 3.27 c = 980,321,338 m / s

 

These values are approximate.

 

http://www.scienceforums.com/topic/36155-there-is-actual-proof-that-the-universe-is-older-than-138-billion-years/

 

That will at least get you within the closest possible fraction of speed limit lp/lt before a state phonon waves.

 

That can be done more easily if the total distribution of charge is divisible by i...

 

Vectors # 3 & 7 are inert.

 

After 1 sphere, with 5 vectors, & we have a 5 charge evolution for one Planck sphere turning into a couple entangled strings

 

Then 9 spheres gives 10 vectors and 8 charges. Spherical coordinates along vectors 3&7 do not experience dislocation.

 

And then 64 spheres, 20 vectors, & 13 charges. The inert vectors go evenly or oddly every other vector if you can..the 7 inert charges are at vectors 4,6,9,11,13,15,&17.

 

These are unified field equations in a matrix and they connect the interiors of stellar mass black holes to those of their smbh via the path they take to the center of a galaxy being along the rotating poles of its smbh. The interiors of stellar mass black holes are equivalent to cold big bang states with durations in the googols of relative years.

 

The changing metrics can be described here:

 

https://www.docdroid...QDp/the-toe.rtf

 

These last few posts are a compilation of all my work. Those strings can be galactic filaments with like temporal linearities on a hypercontracted medium two recurring fractal patterns below a baseline reality (black hole within black hole Planck metrics)

 

I think this spacetime is also everted. This is based on the fact that black holes both exceed the Planck mass and have negative lambdamax entropy availability. The implications of reverse space are reverse time, id est the William Sidis black hole:

 

https://en.wikipedia...d_the_Inanimate

 

This combined with a wavelength higher than radio of a spacetime with less density, means the interior of a black hole has exotic tachyon particles that can only exceed the speed of light. If these elements held true it would mean that a black hole is a collection of holeum, not a wormhole, that it has more in common with an inside out alcubierre warp bubble than an Enstein-Rosenbridge.

 

Perhaps holeum is why mass even exists, if holeum is smallest and most numerous within a vacuum, the difference between a photon and an electron or a quark is simply that the latter has fewer, larger bits of holeum in it. Which goes back to my deleterious bi-brane theory, in which reality is two everted ether planes that delete each other upon contact at infinite points in space with infinite variations in volume.

 

The particle horizon is a length contracting asymptote, not a loop. Space is continuous, not discrete. Time is lateral, not linear. The future controls the past, the past controls the future as well. The present is an inevitable outcome of Murphy's law. This outcome is an infinitely recurring fractal pattern, it also repeats at at the same scale at infinite distances within a Level 1 Multiverse in Tegmark's Classifications of parallel universes.

Edited December 25, 2019 by OverUnityDeviceUAP

[Dubbelosix]

By energy density I assumed you were referring to the cosmological constant PROBLEM, which is no small thing.  There may be no useful requirement of quantizing gravity except to under stand the nuts and bolts of how it works, (and maybe ways in which it could be manipulated) which might give insight into IF dark matter exists or not. If a quantum theory can accurately predict the movement of the stars with out requiring random amounts of dark matter, would that then mean the field equations have failed.

 

Yes it is directly related in this case. We don't actually measure the energy density or the Friedmann Equation to sufficiently describe this universe. As for my new approach, there is no other way than just explain it quickly by taking an excerpt from the paper I am writing,

 

"The Ricci flow does what it says on the tin, it is a geometric evolution equation which describes how curvature can flow I the universe. For the universe to expand, the Ricci flow would have had to feed off positive curvature to then lead to negatively expanding space. The Ricci flow, less commonly understood, is the heat equation for a Riemannian manifold and also follows its own with diffusion laws. There is something behind this that requires no exotic need of dark energy or inflatons with cosmic application.

 

If the manifold is a sphere with positive curvature, then Ricci flow collapses the manifold to a point in some given finite time - for cosmic analogy, this would be the collapsing hypothesis. While This shows that the Ricci flow sometimes cannot be continued for all time, it is often indicated to run into mathematical singularities. In my own training, it is custom to think singularities are indication the physics has broken down so where, so I remain skeptical of the physical existence of these singular solutions. Under more technical babble, if the manifold is an Einstein manifold with negative curvature, then Ricci flow will expand it and it is here I will seek out the mechanism behind the cosmological thrust/impetus.

 

But there is a big crisis right now in cosmology and while both results from many different investigation s at first glance appear contradictory, a splendid and elegant set of explanations can be given to drive them away. On one hand, one group say the universe is flat, but when scientists say flat, they are usually meaning the curvature presently measurable in a directions, and since, expectedly there is very little curvature, it doesn't address the distribution of matter in which you could impose a shape in the universe. Instead of trying to compile arguments why one is favored over the other, it seems that maybe the universe is spherical and appears flat at the same time.  The flatness of the universe could be part of a much larger system and is an illusion. A good analogy is how we the Earth possesses curvature, but someone sitting on the surface may think the land appears flat - Lest I unwillingly start debates on the flat-earthers, let's quickly move on.

 

How can a sphere be hyperdimensional but have no curvature?

 

No scientists says there is no curvature, only that there is so little it is expected to be negligible. Some prominent scientists even suspect we may even detect such a small curve. It is true, that a very small sphere has a very large curvature compared to a very large sphere - the closest thing we have in nature to a perfect sphere, is a black hole and such a system will suffice in the next statements.

 

A small black hole also had a very large curvature but they are also very hot. However,if we let the black hole to grow, its radius R tends to infinity (like all mathematical limits, tending towards something does it always meant should reach the absolute limit), and as a consequence, the Gaussian curvature tends to zero. Additionally, the lack hole becomes very cold with temperature approaching zero. Does this sound like anything familiar? It should... As cosmologist Arun noticed, this weak equivalence principle extends to a universe like ours - afterall, when it was yound, it too was very hot and had a large curvature (gravity). The universe today, has expanded long enough for most of that curvature to has vanished on large scales producing also a much cooler universe in the process. I further showed by extending his theoretically sound model, the mathematical consequences of the relative density measured by observers inside of black holes - while a well known discovery, its known that while a black hole may appear to contain a lot of mass, observers from the inside will measure if to be less dense, see the end for various mathematical details. The bizarre realization is that someone outside a black hole could easily measure some kind of density which determines the strength of the curvature present, while those inside disagree and measure less density."

[Dubbelosix]

By the way, I am using a tablet which is awful to use and grammar will be corrected.

[OverUnityDeviceUAP]

Yes it is directly related in this case. We don't actually measure the energy density or the Friedmann Equation to sufficiently describe this universe. As for my new approach, there is no other way than just explain it quickly by taking an excerpt from the paper I am writing,

"The Ricci flow does what it says on the tin, it is a geometric evolution equation which describes how curvature can flow I the universe. For the universe to expand, the Ricci flow would have had to feed off positive curvature to then lead to negatively expanding space. The Ricci flow, less commonly understood, is the heat equation for a Riemannian manifold and also follows its own with diffusion laws. There is something behind this that requires no exotic need of dark energy or inflatons with cosmic application.

If the manifold is a sphere with positive curvature, then Ricci flow collapses the manifold to a point in some given finite time - for cosmic analogy, this would be the collapsing hypothesis. While This shows that the Ricci flow sometimes cannot be continued for all time, it is often indicated to run into mathematical singularities. In my own training, it is custom to think singularities are indication the physics has broken down so where, so I remain skeptical of the physical existence of these singular solutions. Under more technical babble, if the manifold is an Einstein manifold with negative curvature, then Ricci flow will expand it and it is here I will seek out the mechanism behind the cosmological thrust/impetus.

But there is a big crisis right now in cosmology and while both results from many different investigation s at first glance appear contradictory, a splendid and elegant set of explanations can be given to drive them away. On one hand, one group say the universe is flat, but when scientists say flat, they are usually meaning the curvature presently measurable in a directions, and since, expectedly there is very little curvature, it doesn't address the distribution of matter in which you could impose a shape in the universe. Instead of trying to compile arguments why one is favored over the other, it seems that maybe the universe is spherical and appears flat at the same time. The flatness of the universe could be part of a much larger system and is an illusion. A good analogy is how we the Earth possesses curvature, but someone sitting on the surface may think the land appears flat - Lest I unwillingly start debates on the flat-earthers, let's quickly move on.

How can a sphere be hyperdimensional but have no curvature?

No scientists says there is no curvature, only that there is so little it is expected to be negligible. Some prominent scientists even suspect we may even detect such a small curve. It is true, that a very small sphere has a very large curvature compared to a very large sphere - the closest thing we have in nature to a perfect sphere, is a black hole and such a system will suffice in the next statements.

A small black hole also had a very large curvature but they are also very hot. However,if we let the black hole to grow, its radius R tends to infinity (like all mathematical limits, tending towards something does it always meant should reach the absolute limit), and as a consequence, the Gaussian curvature tends to zero. Additionally, the lack hole becomes very cold with temperature approaching zero. Does this sound like anything familiar? It should... As cosmologist Arun noticed, this weak equivalence principle extends to a universe like ours - afterall, when it was yound, it too was very hot and had a large curvature (gravity). The universe today, has expanded long enough for most of that curvature to has vanished on large scales producing also a much cooler universe in the process. I further showed by extending his theoretically sound model, the mathematical consequences of the relative density measured by observers inside of black holes - while a well known discovery, its known that while a black hole may appear to contain a lot of mass, observers from the inside will measure if to be less dense, see the end for various mathematical details. The bizarre realization is that someone outside a black hole could easily measure some kind of density which determines the strength of the curvature present, while those inside disagree and measure less density."

I think this spacetime is also everted. This is based on the fact that black holes both exceed the Planck mass and have negative lambdamax entropy availability. The implications of reverse space are reverse time, id est the William Sidis black hole:

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Animate_and_the_Inanimate

 

This combined with a wavelength higher than radio of a spacetime with less density, means the interior of a black hole has exotic tachyon particles that can only exceed the speed of light. If these elements held true it would mean that a black hole is a collection of holeum, not a wormhole, that it has more in common with an inside out alcubierre warp bubble than an Enstein-Rosenbridge.

 

Perhaps holeum is why mass even exists, if holeum is smallest and most numerous within a vacuum, the difference between a photon and an electron or a quark is simply that the latter has fewer, larger bits of holeum in it. Which goes back to my deleterious bi-brane theory, in which reality is two everted ether planes that delete each other upon contact at infinite points in space with infinite variations in volume.

 

The particle horizon is a length contracting asymptote, not a loop. Space is continuous, not discrete. Time is lateral, not linear. The future controls the past, the past controls the future as well. The present is an inevitable outcome of Murphy's law. This outcome is an infinitely recurring fractal pattern, it also repeats at at the same scale at infinite distances within a Level 1 Multiverse in Tegmark's Classifications of parallel universes.

Edited November 21, 2019 by OverUnityDeviceUAP

[OverUnityDeviceUAP]

They (spherical universes) correspond to the maximum size that a black hole will get to in a larger, slower universe where the future effects the past and vice versa the best determinant of universal spin is when the hyperbolic black hole will be at its largest from mergers that's when the internal spin will superceded all other spins in the past or future.

 

The universe we are in is spherical because there is entanglement, but others may be partially flat in that the cylinder expands onward almost forever but there is no entanglement because all particle pairs are in the opposite pole emanating from the hyperbolic black hole. However, this is the pre-cmb state of our universe, from our perspective juxtaposed to that of a larger slower spacetime's, the strings composing the cylinders evolve into a spherical entangled universe as the particle pairs come together and accelerate into redshift.

 

Based on the matrices for these spherical string geometries

 

https://i.imgur.com/FCoyhK7.jpg

 

https://i.imgur.com/3TU76EU.jpg

 

https://i.imgur.com/JzYGxcz.jpg

 

https://i.imgur.com/gZdQEA0.jpg

 

https://i.imgur.com/1t40Vgh.jpg

 

(Those last two images describe the distribution of matter/antimatter dependent upon how many spheres are in your black hole along its poles - i.e.:

 

The condensation of space (a spherical coordinate system with a sub Planck geodesic) has a 1 dimensional vector gradient equal to 22.5 degrees counterclockwise from y. The more coordinates in the system (if the volumetric geodesic is the Planck length there's 10 point particle coordinates per spherical coordinate.

 

f(y,-x)=[0101101101]

 

So,

 

t=1

 

Vector gradient or f(y,-x): [-9/10lp,+9/10lp,-9/10lp,+9/10lp,+9/10lp,-9/10lp,+9/10lp,+9/10lp,-9/10lp,+9/10lp]

 

That is a ratio of 9/10 Planck lengths for the first Planck time. All of the following Planck times are the same but for t=2 we have 8/10 Planck lengths. This length contraction leads to black holes when the ratio of the coordinate system is equivalent 1/9^28 lp per tp.

 

The matter/antimatter distribution can be found by subtracting 5 or 3 combinations of charge, for instance, if you have i (89) vectors you will convert it to positive or negative charges where 1=+ and 0=-. Breaking i down by factors of either b, c, or a higher letter where a=01, b=101, c=01 + 101 (a+ b=c but not pythagorean) to maintain our pattern of each new letter being the sum of the previous two letters in the alphabet it must be greater than a. We know i has to start with zero because every other letter starts with 1 or 0 and since a is 0 i must be 0.

 

So it is e, 89-5 is 84, neither 3 nor 5 go into 84 but f does, 4 times. So it's c,f,f,f,f. C=01101, f=101011010110110101101. So we have i=01101101011010110110101101101011010110110101101101011010110110101101101011010110110101101.

 

Now checking our work with the last image to confirm, we have the distribution of charge for 89 vectors.)

 

Except instead of one or 9 string volumes it's as many Planck volumes that will fit into a hyperbolic black hole with a diameter of 22 bill ly.

 

That will at least get you within the closest possible fraction of speed limit lp/lt before a state phonon waves.

 

That can be done more easily if the total distribution of charge is divisible by i...

 

 

These are unified field equations in a matrix and they connect the interiors of stellar mass black holes to those of their smbh via the path they take to the center of a galaxy being along the rotating poles of its smbh. The interiors of stellar mass black holes are equivalent to cold big bang states with durations in the googols of relative years.

 

The changing metrics can be described here:

 

https://www.docdroid.net/3MX8QDp/the-toe.rtf

 

These last few posts are a compilation of all my work. Those strings can be galactic filaments with like temporal linearities on a hypercontracted medium two recurring fractal patterns below a baseline reality (black hole within black hole Planck metrics)

 

https://www.quantamagazine.org/hologram-within-a-hologram-hints-at-solution-to-black-hole-information-paradox-20191119/

 

https://bigthink.com/large-scale-structures.amp.html

 

https://www.vice.com/amp/en_us/article/j5yngp/the-universe-is-made-of-tiny-bubbles-containing-mini-universes-scientists-say

Edited November 22, 2019 by OverUnityDeviceUAP

[LaurieAG]

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"?

 

It would actually make total matter equal to visible matter.

[Vmedvil2]

It would actually make total matter equal to visible matter.

 

How did you come to that conclusion?

[Dubbelosix]

How did you come to that conclusion?

Under my approach, they would be right.

[Vmedvil2]

Under my approach, they would be right.

If Dark Matter is indeed the gravitational effects of Galaxies, Black Holes, and Super Massive Black holes then you would be correct in saying that only visible is matter is all there is, but I still think that Dark Matter is Sterile Neutrinos or WIMPS. The spherical shape of the universe would change the nature of Dark Energy but not remove its effects. In the Dubbel universe model I guess LaurieAG would be correct but not the standard model but I guess this post is all about other models of physics.

Edited November 22, 2019 by VictorMedvil

[Dubbelosix]

Look at what cosmologists are now saying about superclusters following a distribution on large scales.... They attribute it to some unseen mechanism behind the gravitational binding between them. If this can happen at those scales, making a galaxy flow in the direction of a black holes on the scale of 2 trillion solar masses is not so difficult to believe, along with all the other evidence I have wrote about in the past.

[OverUnityDeviceUAP]

 

 

If Dark Matter is indeed the gravitational effects of Galaxies, Black Holes, and Super Massive Black holes then you would be correct in saying that only visible is matter is all there is, but I still think that Dark Matter is Sterile Neutrinos or WIMPS. The spherical shape of the universe would change the nature of Dark Energy but not remove its effects. In the Dubbel universe model I guess LaurieAG would be correct but not the standard model but I guess this post is all about other models of physics.

No in my matrix the neutrinos are where theres a remainder for instance if you have 9 planck spheres you should have d=8 charges because 5+3=8 and each letter of the alphabet is the sum of the previous two letters. The rest is the part of the sphere that doesn't get dislocated. Neutrinos, that extra vector where it's stationary and has no charge, neither negative nor positive.

There's actually a remainder of 2 when you have 9 Planck spheres, because you have 10 vectors. 2 of 10 are inert, the rest=d=8.

Or gluons Edited November 23, 2019 by GAHD
postmerge

[Vmedvil2]

Look at what cosmologists are now saying about superclusters following a distribution on large scales.... They attribute it to some unseen mechanism behind the gravitational binding between them. If this can happen at those scales, making a galaxy flow in the direction of a black holes on the scale of 2 trillion solar masses is not so difficult to believe, along with all the other evidence I have wrote about in the past.

While I agree with you that it is not hard to believe I still think there is more evidence needed before that overturns what the Standard model says about Dark Matter despite that a WIMP nor Sterile Neutrino has never been found, give it a little time dubbel for physics to catch up to make sure that Dark Matter is not a particle. Plus I am bias I have always used in my theories Dark Matter as a particle. If it turns out to be a gravitational effect of a black hole I will have to change the Tensor currently as my theory sits Flavour of matter governs Dark Matter particles being a negative flavour value or the ∇F Values of (-1,-2,-3), so it is not a change I am excited about unlike you, that being said I have been wrong before. If next you ask me to change the nature of Dark Energy I will not be happy as the (∇G - ∇D_Λ) Section would be wrong. All that to say I have a bias that I think the Standard Model Solutions are correct as my theory aligns with them.

Edited November 23, 2019 by VictorMedvil

[LaurieAG]

How did you come to that conclusion?

 

How many radians is there in a full circle?

[Vmedvil2]

How many radians is there in a full circle?

2π

[OverUnityDeviceUAP]

Okay so I have a completed system to tackle these developments along with some more.

 

There's actually a remainder of 2 when you have 9 Planck spheres, because you have 10 vectors. 2 of 10 are inert, the rest=d=8.

Vectors # 3 & 7 are inert.

After 1 sphere, with 5 vectors, & we have a 5 charge evolution for one Planck sphere turning into a couple entangled strings

Then 9 spheres gives 10 vectors and 8 charges. Spherical coordinates along vectors 3&7 do not experience dislocation.

And then 73 spheres, 20 vectors, & 13 charges. The inert vectors go evenly or oddly every other vector if you can
..get it? THINK FOR ONE SECOND PEOPLE Edited November 23, 2019 by GAHD
postmerge

[Dubbelosix]

Very interesting...