/sci/ - Science & Math

There is almost complet consensus that there are 3 spatial dimensions plus time. The universe appears to be a sphere but due to time dilation it always appears that you are in the center of the universe.

>>2712248
I'm pretty sure you don't know what you are talking about.

The earth is flat, so why would the rest of the universe be any different?

I watched a lecture on youtube of Lawrence Kauss, he claimed the universe is flat and his arguments seemed pretty legit.

>>2712322
Sounds cool. Link?

>>2712324

Sorry, it's Lawrence Krauss. Here you go.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7ImvlS8PLIo&feature=feedlik

>>2712331
Thanks, man.

>>2712266
flat = only 2 dimensions
flat universe = 2 dimensional universe

What is there not to understand? If it means something else then whoever created this term is retarded and whoever just went along with using this term are tools.

I'm the only one pointing out the emperor isn't wearing any clothes, I expect to be hated for telling the truth but I am willing to make this sacrifice.

Yep, WMAP data confirms to a high precision that the universe is flat. I believe largest allowed deviation from flatness is ~1%, so yeah, the scientists know that the universe is pretty flat.

You guys are misinterpreting. It's flat in 4 dimensions, not 3.

Well, pretty close to flat.

Then why do some orbits have different planes?

Why did the big bang not launch matter in all directions (Up, down, left, right and any place in between) and just make it nearly flat?

Did it do this over time?

If the universe is flat, that means it does not curve in on itself. So is it possible that the universe might continue on forever. That beyond the cosmic background there could be an infinite expanse of stuff in every direction?

>>2712214
"What we know":

The universe is "near flat".

If the universe had been flat, it would have always been flat.

If the universe would have been curved, postive or negative, then it would be fucking twisted as fuck now.

If the universe was almost flat (stable equlibrum with a slight pertibation), then we would observe the kinda shit we do today.

Hence, the universe only has a very very small postive or negative curvature, and is approximatly flat (for most cases).

>>2712405

because of other gravitational forces

>>2712214
Define "flat".

You're going to have to give me a really, really, REALLY retarded definition of the word "flat" in order for me to agree that it's flat.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shape_of_the_Universe

We're not talking about 3 dimensions, smartass. We're talking about the fourth dimensional superstructure of the universe. In the fourth dimension, a three dimensional object would look flat.

>>2712484
Flat in four dimensions, silly.

>>2712513
was addressed to
>>2712484

Alright, so I admit I am clearly not as well educated as the rest of you, but... what? Flat in four dimensions, what is the fourth dimension? Is it like the block universe model where the fourth dimension is time, or am I even more confused than I think I am?

>>2712554
Oh, you are.

We, being mere 3-dimensional humans, cannot actually visualize the 4th dimension, but when talking about the structure of a 3D space such as the universe, you need to talk about it in the context of a higher dimension.

For our petty human purposes, we metaphorically reduce our 3D universe to 2D, so we can call it "flat" or "curved" and have it make sense somewhat.

>>2712554
If you had a 2d universe on a piece of paper populated by 2d beings, if you picked up the piece of paper and curved it the 2d beings would be unaware of the curvature of their world. To them, the universe would still be the same as it always was. Same applies to the third dimension, if the universe was curved in the fourth dimension, the curvature would not manifest in the third.

Or something like that.

>>2712554
Look up "Carl Sagan Flatland" this instant you plebeian.

>>2712604
>implying Flatland has to be explained by Carl Sagan
It's not a long novella. Just read it.

>>2712610
>implying A > A + Carl Sagan