/sci/ - Science & Math

more like a big rectangle

the universe is flat. as in euclidean-R3 flat. Though time and space is curved, they believe OVERALL the universe ITSELF has no average curvature. Though I think recent findings suggest it does. dunno,

more like a big horseshoe

Donut Shaped

I've heard the universe is supposedly toroidal.

Cosmologists need to learn how much mass there is in the universe to say.

Demanding an answer right now, when we specifically cannot answer that major question, is foolish.

3D trampoline might be a way to think of it...
Heavy objects distort the surface, but the space overall is a set shape.

>Is the universe flat or spherical
Wait, what?

Nothing suggests it's spherical.

Do you mean concave, neutral, or convex?

A 4 dimesional flat plane.

>>5385358
Outside the space in the universe there are multiple dimensional planes not only 4.

mobius strip

<span class="math"> H^2 \equiv \big(\frac{\dot{a}}{a})^2\big = \frac{8 \pi \rho + G \Lambda }{3} - K\frac{c^2}{a^2} [/spoiler]

we are trying to figure out K from this so called Friedmann equation which we believe can give an answer to this question. K may have a value of -1 0 1, which mean negative, no or positive space curvature respectively. We can figure out what the value of K is by finding all the other stuff in the equation like H which is the hubble constant, this we can get by measuring space expansion and background radiation. I'm not sure what value of K current measurements suggest.

>>5385824
H^2 \equiv \big(\frac{\dot{a}}{a})^2 = \frac{8 \pi \rho + G \Lambda }{3} - K\frac{c^2}{a^2}

lolz

Toroidal.

neither

The universe, when observed from a distance, spells out 'ur a faget'.

>>5385826
<span class="math"> H^2 \equiv \big(\frac{\dot{a}}{a})^2 = \frac{8 \pi \rho + G \Lambda }{3} - K\frac{c^2}{a^2} [/spoiler]

please work nig

unknown.

The observable universe is a sphere that we are in the center of.

Beyond that?

┐(゜д ゜)┌

a huge cock being rammed into your moms ass

Poincare dodecahedral space 4 the win!!!!1!!!

To quote my cosmology lecturer from last semester (fucking awesome guy),

"The universe is unbelievably flat."

So far, current observations of the universe over intergalactic distances point towards the curvature being ridiculously low, however apparently the error bars in the measurements are larger than the difference between an open, flat and closed universe, so regardless of how low the curvature of the universe is we're still not sure if it's exactly 0 (over intergalactic distances), or positive or negative.

OH my god everyone in this thread is stupid

OP, all measurements made in the universe point to it being flat.

>Is the universe flat

Learn to 4th dimension

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uDaKzQNlMFw

>>5386085
you are exceptionally retarded.

>>5385287
>Is the universe flat or spherical?

objects have shape
space has no shape

space allows for the possibility of shapes within it.

you have a cartoonish understanding of the universe, you probably think space can "expand" or "bend" also? terrible.

Think the universe as a hollow ball and you are on the inside of it. I believe the universe is Reverted round.

space and time are infinite, do you guys even read Aristotle?

>>5386097
Where is proof?

>>5386099
>wants proof for an a priori true statement by definition

learn logic

>>5386086
No, you are. I was not implying that a 4th spatial dimension existed but general relativity says that planets are rolling on 4th dimensional space time. OP's pic imply's that he genuinely believes that the space time fabric is flat when its really at all angles.

>>5386088
You're an idiot. The universe is finite, but expanding. What is the observable universe, temporarily defined as the vacuum in which light can travel (with stars and rocks and shit, but not much compared to the vacuum), is finite, so it is bounded, and thus has a shape.

>>5386111
>the observable universe

Stfu, I"m talking about the actual universe, not the piece of shit rocks you can observe.

You sound like a 12th century primitive telling me "the observable world is flat and there is nothing beyond our continent"

So primitive.

>>5386112
What is outside the /theoretically/ observable universe is outside of science.

Pseudoscience. So edgy.

I HAVE THE ONLY CORRECT ANSWER IN THIS THREAD:
THE UNIVERSE IS AN INFINITELY LARGE SPHERE, AND IT'S CURVED TO CONNECT TO ITSELF IN EVERY DIMENSION. THE IT APPEARS TO BE FLAT TO THE OBSERVABLE UNIVERSE BECAUSE WE'RE SO TINY COMPARED TO THE ENTIRE THING THAT ALL WE CAN SEE IS A NEARLY FLAT LINE.

IMAGINE A MARBLE WITH AN ANT WALKING ON IT. THE ANT CAN PROBABLY TELL IT'S A SPHERE(IF IT WERE THAT SMART.)

NOW IMAGINE AN ANT WALKING ON A FUCKING SPHERICAL BLIMP OR SOME SHIT. IT PROBABLY APPEARS NEARLY FLAT OR FLAT TO THE ANT BECAUSE IT'S SO HUGE.

NOW IMAGINE THE ANT IS WALKING ON THE EARTH. IT APPERARS TOTALLY FLAT BECAUSE OF HOW HUGE IT IS.

NOW MAKE THE EARTH INFINITELY HUGE, AND THE ANT THE SIZE OF THE PERSON.
BAM, THERE'S US.

>>5386119
>Pseudoscience. So edgy.

It's called logic you moron, and it supersedes and forms the basis of all science.

You don't confirm that a triangle has 180 degrees by measuring it in real life...

you know it analytically. Lol

>>5386142
I like your theory. evidence?

Dear /sci/,

the answer is in these two posts.
>>5385831
>>5385824

If you dont get it please click here:
>>>/b/

>>5386088
Not this troll again.

Assume "space" is diffeomorphism invariant. - http://relativity.livingreviews.org/Articles/lrr-2006-3/articlesu4.html#x10-160003.1

Assume freely falling particles move on timelike geodesics of "space". - http://relativity.livingreviews.org/Articles/lrr-2006-3/articlese5.html#x24-460005 http://relativity.livingreviews.org/Articles/lrr-2006-3/articlese6.html#x29-510006

What do you get? General relativity. Please go learn about who "Einstein" is before further embarrassing yourself.

>>5386345
>>5386345
>Assume "space" is diffeomorphism invariant

>hhueheh I'm gonna use geometry metaphors to talk about nature and space

you miss the point.
geometry describes objects.

space isn't an object. space is an abstract co-ordinate system in which we find objects.

>>5386345
>Assume "space" is diffeomorphism invariant.

Well that's wrong right there. No wonder you are having trouble with this.

As far as we can tell its flat. Wmap drew some triangles and proved it :3

>>5386085
>Learn to 4th dimension

The question wasn't about dimension,
it was about the growth and fate of expansion in the universe.
It might be concave, convex, or flat -- and each tells us what the eventual fate would be.

The biggest factor remaining to assert this, however, is the total mass of the universe, which is being argued but is not certain by any means.
Thus, the question must be left unanswered.

>>5386097
Early philosophers are looked to for concepts, methods, formulations -- not specific answers.
Obviously, we know far more than they did about everything.

>>5386385

we've never seen or detected space, not even indirectly

we can only detect matter and particles and objects in space

talking about the "shape" of space or if it can "extend" is like talking about the color or smell of space... Absurd.

Applying properties of objects to space itself hahahah is science this fucken dumb still?
>2012
>Yes

>>5386375
einstein and riemann both thought that space was abstract.

there's other competitive theories on what space is

>>5386375
>>hhueheh I'm gonna use geometry metaphors to talk about nature and space
How old are you? What you are doing is claiming all of physics is wrong. You have yet to present to us why you think such a thing. Instead you flood threads with emotional arguments.

You missed the point. There isn't just one coordinate system. How can you even claim such things when you did not even read the article?

>>5386377
And how would this be wrong? Do you know what the principle of equivalence means? Did you read the experimental article I presented? Do you even know what the fuck a diffeomorphism is?

>>5386142
>THE UNIVERSE IS AN INFINITELY LARGE SPHERE, AND IT'S CURVED TO CONNECT TO ITSELF IN EVERY DIMENSION. THE IT APPEARS TO BE FLAT TO THE OBSERVABLE UNIVERSE BECAUSE WE'RE SO TINY COMPARED TO THE ENTIRE THING THAT ALL WE CAN SEE IS A NEARLY FLAT LINE.

This must be the most idiotic person in his county.

To the poster: we are not talking about scale, as you are.
The scale is completely irrelevant.
And you cannot 'look' someplace to see the curvature we mean, so your idea that it just 'looks' flat is complete nonsense.
We are talking about mathematically flat (or concave or convex) space-time. It is entirely mathematical, and therefore the 'angle' or 'perspective' we have cannot be wrong.

But we don't have an answer yet, either.

Amazing you thought, with no knowledge at all, that you had the final answer for all of us, and had to write it in caps.

>>5386392

>There isn't just one coordinate system

Space is our dimensional co-ordinate system. It has no shape or smell. It doesn't stretch or melt. Objects have those properties. Grow up.

>And how would this be wrong?

doesn't apply to space.
it applies to objects in space.

learn the difference.

>>5386088
I get it; you have a huge problem with abstractions and non-material descriptive space.

That's fine; just read along, maybe you'll catch onto abstractions.

But don't tell us we don't understand our topic because we aren't allowed to discuss abstract or fundamental space.

>>5386399
>doesn't apply to space.
>it applies to objects in space.
>learn the difference.


Once more, you are simply ignoring all abstract and fundamental qualities of the universe.
Those are what we are talking about.

Think of time -- time is an ABSTRACTION -- not an object, but it is real.
That is like the abstraction of SPACE we are discussing. Space is a real, but immaterial, part of nature.

and the 'flat' or 'curved' we are discussing is a term for the mathematical structure (a description of that nature) rather than an object. Those terms are metaphorical.

>>5386388
>we've never seen or detected space, not even indirectly
Read this: http://relativity.livingreviews.org/Articles/lrr-2006-3/

Tell me what you do not understand.

>we can only detect matter and particles and objects in space
Do you know what "space" even means? "Space" is equipped with a nondegenerate quadratic form - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manifold.. That gives it distance - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metric_(mathematics).. Do you know what any of this means or are you just going to keep showing how uneducated you are?

>talking about the "shape" of space or if it can "extend" is like talking about the color or smell of space...
Position, displacement, and time are observables. Do you agree with this statement?

>Absurd.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argumentum_ad_lapidem

>>5386402

math is good for math
it doesn't say anything about how nature functions

just because you see the word "space" in your math book doesn't mean it applies to real space.

they're talking about their own definition for their own purposes...learn 2 think clearly, it'll help you

words have different meanings in different contexts.

>>5386391
>there's other competitive theories on what space is
No, there is not. Please give me one that is compatible with all experimental facts. If you don't have one you can talk about how absurd general relativity is on /x/.

>>5386399
>Space is our dimensional co-ordinate system. It has no shape or smell. It doesn't stretch or melt. Objects have those properties.
>I have no argument so I'm just going to restate my baseless opinions!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_nauseam

>Grow up.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_emotion

>it applies to objects in space.
How old are you? Please tell me you are under fourteen. Just answer my question. Do you or do you not know what diffeomorphism invariance means? You are using it incorrectly.

>>5386409
>Space is a real, but immaterial, part of nature.
>immaterial

Yes it's immaterial obviously, and because of that it doesn't have a shape or expansion.

learn logic, it'll help you more than your useless math jargon

>>5386410

can't detect immaterial things, doesn't matter what your psuedoscience says go to /x/ please

>arguing that space is immaterial and also has a shape

lol

psuedoscience goes on /x/

space and time aren't material objects you goofballs, they are immaterial abstractions

>implying space can expand
>implying space exists
>implying space has a shape

am i a master troll now too?
>300 posts starting

>>5386419
>can't detect immaterial things
You again repeat things you do not understand and are clearly uninformed on. How can you make such an uneducated, uninformed, mentally disturbed opinion when you did not even read the paper? Please read it for me and tell me what you do not understand.

>doesn't matter what your psuedoscience says go to /x/ please
General relativity isn't pseudoscience. You claim is again unsubstantiated.

>>5386429
>How can you make such an uneducated

What is space made out of? Space itself, not the matter it contains.

What is time made out of? Time itself, not the objects it contains.

>>5386424
>space and time aren't material objects you goofballs, they are immaterial abstractions
That's not a definition we are using. Can you please try and understand what the scientific, objective definition of "space" is before spouting more emotional nonsense?

>>5386429
>General relativity isn't pseudoscience. You claim is again unsubstantiated.

actually GR never speaks about real Space or Time.

It only speaks about its spacetime jargon, which is its own invention used to fit its model...it says nothing about Space that exists in nature and as we experience it.

>>5386431
Read http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_relativity#Definition_and_basic_applications, then tell me what you do not understand.

>>5386432
>Can you please try and understand what the scientific, objective definition of "space"

Science hasn't defined "Space" or "Time"

these are philosophical abstractions about fundamental aspects of the Universe.

Science has nothing to say about such things. It uses jargon like 'spacetime' to make cartoonish metaphors for its models.

>>5386433
>never speaks about real Space or Time
Please define these terms. What is "real Space" and "real Time"?

>>5386435

So you don't know and can't explain what you mean. Great discussion. I win by default.

>>5386440
>What is "real Space" and "real Time"?

Space is an abstract co-ordinate system we find ourselves in, the universe per se.

not the objects we experience, but the background that contains them.

etc.

the container has no shape or object-like properties, it isn't matter.

>>5386437
>Science hasn't defined "Space" or "Time"
Well, you're wrong. This is the point of "relativity". Do you know what this is?

You keep making a bunch of emotional arguments. Are you going to present your opinion rationally or not?

>>5386441
>So you don't know and can't explain what you mean. Great discussion. I win by default.
I can. But it would be counterproductive for me to waste time on things which are already written nicely. Read the article I've linked, then explain to me on what you disagree with or do not understand.

>>5386442
>abstract co-ordinate system we find ourselves in, the universe per se.
What is an "abstract co-ordinate system"? How are "we" in it? What is the "universe"?

>>5386448
>What is an "abstract co-ordinate system"? How are "we" in it? What is the "universe"?

These are philosophical questions, not science.

science just does engineering, it can't tell you what the universe is

hell it's been studying matter for 200 years and it still doesn't know what matter is or how to define energy or gravity or space or time

worthless

>>5386452
Okay, can you answer them? I would like to know what you think.

>>5386456
>it still doesn't know what matter is
A representation of a symmetry group.

>how to define energy
A scalar quantity conserved under time translations.

>or gravity
A gauge theory of the spacetime symmetry group.

>or space or time
A pseudo-Riemannian manifold.

>>5386457
>Okay, can you answer them? I would like to know what you think.

No this isn't a philosophy board. Stick to stupid engineering and science please.

>hue hue spacetime is a manifold that bends because our model parameters require it to bend otherwise our models are wrong


>spacetime expands because objects move far apart, hurr if distance is created between objects that means space itself is moving

Please speak like this ^
This is science at its purest.

>>5386461
>A representation of a symmetry group.

Could be anything.

>A scalar quantity conserved under time translations.

sufficiently vague to be almost anything.

>A gauge theory of the spacetime symmetry group.

sufficiently vague to be almost anything.

>A pseudo-Riemannian manifold.

Wikipedia.

>>5386464
>No this isn't a philosophy board.
You told me that space and time are different things from what physics postulates. I would like to know what you think they are, so I can see if they are compatible with our definitions. Please answer my question.

>because our model parameters require it to bend otherwise our models are wrong
I suggest you read this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Distance_measures_(cosmology)#Overview

>>5386466
Those were the cliff-notes, if you actually look them up you will see precise definitions.

>>5386466
>Could be anything.
SU(3) x SU(2) x U(1)

>sufficiently vague to be almost anything.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noether's_theorem#Example_1:_Conservation_of_energy

>sufficiently vague to be almost anything.
It's called the Poincare group.

>Wikipedia.
What?

>>5386473
what we you doing? that guy is pretending to be oblivious just to make others mad. he did the dsame thing in another thread about this.

>>5386473

You dont know what anything is, and science hasn't even explained matter yet, and never will.

What do you think string theory is for? It's because we can't explain matter/gravity/space using our regular models....
Do you even read real science?

It's completely stuck and has no answers. String theory is unempirical quackery, but it's what happens when your current models are all full of holes and shit.

Grow up.

From what I've heard and have read, it is more like a donut shape.

>>5386469
>You told me that space and time are different things from what physics postulates.

Physics doesn't postulate anything what Space is or what Time is.

What does physics say about Time itself?

Nothing.

>>5386489
please kindly leave /sci. You're making stuff up to get everyone mad and its getting boring anyway. I think your presence has made everyone here dumber

>>5386484
I know. I try to argue with him to see if he ever gives up. He's mentally ill enough to continue for quite some time.

>>5386489
>emotional arguments
>you're wrong
>emotional arguments
>you're wrong
>doesn't know what "answer" means

>>5386499
That's fine. That's what your opinion is. It's absolutely meaningless until you define to me what "Space" and "Time" are.

>>5386504
we got to over 300 posts last time. and he eventual admitted that GR is useful only as a model, but doesn't explain reality becasue it has no use. then everyone kind of just left.

>>5386510
I know. I lurked the thread. He's had much better trolls before this. Are you AL?

>>>/vg/21824601

>>5386513
seriously? is there some word i always misspell in the same way or what?

Hi, newfag here.

Can any of you smart guys explain general relativity to me in one post? Mathematical descriptions only, not pop sci.

>>5386521
I'm just reading up on GR now. My only question is what exactly the metric represents. Is it the change of coordinates from flat space to coordinates on some manifold?

>>5386521
according to special relativity we know that time and distance is relative. and we assume acceleration is relative also (to the gravitational field) since acceleration is the same as the effect of a gravitational field. this leads to the assumption that space is invariant under diffeomorphisms.

since mass and energy is interchangeable you need to use the energy in the equation, but since energy is part of a 4 vector you need the whole one, and since you cant construct a 4 vector with geometrical object you need the energy-momentum tensor.

the simplest geometrical object that can be used in the equation is the Ricci tensor, R and the metric tensor. using only the Ricci tensor means energy isnt conserved, by assuming that you can see that the corect equation is
<div class="math"> R_{ab} - {\textstyle 1 \over 2}R\,g_{ab} = {8 \pi G \over c^4} T_{ab}. </div>
the constant are set by taking the weak field approximation far away from a point mas and comparing newtons gravitational law to it.

>>5386519
I'll let you figure that out. ;)

Neither. Its a noneuclidean shaped.

bum shaped

>>5386548

/thread

>>5385287
>Is the universe flat or spherical?
Garbage in, garbage out.
Your question makes no sense.
Your actual question should be do I live in a space that has 2 or 3 dimensions?
To have you understand:
a point has 1 dimension,
a square has 2 dimensions,
a cube has 3 dimensions.
Do you think you live on a sheet or in a cube?
>Since Einstein, (correct me if I'm wrong), it was thought as a sheet with 2 dimensions, time and space.
now some have been added...

>Actually you live in an hypercube with a still undetermined number of dimensions...

>>5386684
wat. you are retarded. he is asking about the large scale structure of space time. it has nothing to do with number of dimensions. and current observations show that its flat.

"...have led NASA to state, 'We now know that the universe is flat with only a 0.5% margin of error.'"

That's honestly all you need.

http://map.gsfc.nasa.gov/universe/uni_shape.html

/thread

>>5385287
Purely based on topology the best way for someone to learn about is is through wikipedia:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shape_of_the_Universe

don't mind me just poastin truth

>>5386722
This is completely wrong. We live in a 3 dimensional world SO in turn it can be in the shape of any object with an x,y and z axis hence 3 dimensions.

>>5386920
beautiful

>>5386926
what does dimension have to do with it? its flat. flat is not linked to any number of dimensions. you can have 3 dimensional flat spaces. and not all 3d spaces are flat. a 3-sphere is not flat.

>>5386945
Dimension has everything to do with it. If by flat you mean elongated then yes it could be flat (on a surface). It has volume though, which you take in account in the 3d sense. It may be elongated but it not by simple definition "flat".

>>5386684
It makes perfect sense. The number of dimensions is one topological invariant of a manifold, but it is hardly enough to classify them completely!
Compare a sphere and the plane. Both are two dimensional, but the sphere is curved. Locally, however, they both look flat.
And nobody has ever thought we lived on a two dimensional surface. Since Einstein (well, it was really Minkowski's idea), we believe we are living on a four dimensional manifold, 3 spatial dimensions, one of time.

>>5386945

no way to know if its flat or non-flat

no one has gone outside the universe to observe it as it is.

>but frum muh limited frame of reference my telescop...

stfu.

>>5386960
>Dimension has everything to do with it. If by flat you mean elongated then yes it could be flat (on a surface). It has volume though, which you take in account in the 3d sense. It may be elongated but it not by simple definition "flat"you have no idea what flat means in mathematics and physics, do you? it means it has no intrinsic curvature. for 2d take a piece of paper , its flat, take a balls surface. its not flat because it bends. same in 3 or 4 dimensions. 3d space is flat if its not curved.

>>5386966
intrinsic curvature can be detected from within the space. just draw a triangle and check the angles.

>>5386960
"Flat" mean Euclidean. A shape of any dimension can be Euclidean. Even infinitely many.

>>5386976
But taking in different theories for instance string theory, where would the effect of the gravitational manipulation come in? Do you not think that other universes effect our own? What about the effect or planet has on space causing it bend? (ie. gravity) Come on you nincompoop, you have more variables here.
If you REALLY want to get into it, everything operates in a range of vibrations so in turn nothing is flat if it is in constant motion. By quantum mechanics we know that the same thing can be in two different spots at the same time SO! There is always a curvature, SIR.

>>5386998

>for instance string theory, where would the effect of the gravitational manipulation come in
its caused by the graviton particle. you work on a flat space-time and the particle creates a field that looks like curved space-time (this is one of the problems with ST still)

>Do you not think that other universes effect our own?
dont know what it has to do with this.

>What about the effect or planet has on space causing it bend?
the shape of the universe is based on the large scale structure. not the curvature on a planetary scale.

>By quantum mechanics we know that the same thing can be in two different spots at the same time SO! There is always a curvature, SIR.
that doesnt work. you cant add superpositions into GR, thats why we are looking for a theory of quantum gravity. so we cant really say anything about this.

>>5386998
They're clearly talking about the topology of space, not its geometry.

>>5386981
>intrinsic curvature can be detected from within the space. just draw a triangle and check the angles.

possibilities do not equal actualities

if gravity curves space, wouldnt the combined gravity of all things render space an sphere?

just an idea

>>holographic principle

You're basically living inside a black hole.

>>5387033
random words do not equal coherent sentences.

>>5387051

What part of that didn't you understand?

We can't measure the entire shape of the universe from a small area within it.

Shape doesnt' apply to space itself.
Shape applies to objects.

>>5387051
>just draw a triangle and check the angles.

god you're stupid.

you realize the difference between mathematical principles and what exists in reality?

stop doing science. stop reading it on wikipedia. stop watching youtube. pick a new hobby.

>>5387079
>thinks we can't measure position, displacement distance, angular distance

>>5387076
who said anything about small?

>>5387082
>>thinks we can't measure position, displacement distance, angular distance

>thinks the distance between two cars tells him the shape and distance of the universe itself

>>5387102
>who said anything about small?

Every distance within the universe is too small.

You have to go outside the universe to get an idea of what the "shape" of it is -- even then this is absurd and totally retarded

Universe has no shape since it includes everything that exists by definition, there is no "outside" to go into

>>5387104
>Babby's first relativity
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geodesics_in_general_relativity

>>5387109
We can do that though it's called the cosmic microwave background

>>5387112

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

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

>>5387128
>We can do that though it's called the cosmic microwave background

Nope, in fact it doesn't say anything about the actual shape of the Universe.

>>5387133
Yes it does you nigger http://youtu.be/EjaGktVQdNg?t=36m40s

>>5387131
>babby doesn't know what geometry is
>calls it a non sequitur
LMFAO

>>5387144
>http://youtu.be/EjaGktVQdNg?t=36m40s

This is that idiot who equivocates the word "NOTHING" to helpless idiots and makes them think that a universe can come from literally "nothing"

instead of qualify what he means and using a more precise physics word like "vacuum"

he has terrible acne scars and is dumb as shit

>>5387151

>thinks triangles in real life are perfectly 180degrees because they exist mathematically

>doesn't understand mathematical abstractions don't necessarily exist

>>5387154
>doesn't know what F=ma means
>thinks F=ma is wrong
Watch out guys, we got a 12 year old over here!

>>5387157

F=ma is an empirical observation

a triangle having 180degrees is analytic construct that doesn't rely on empirical observation in the real world

>>5387157

he's right though, generally

>>5387148
not him but,
1. the time he pointed to has nothing to do with what you are talking about. he's talking only about the shape of the universe in that segment. philosofags just see lawrence krauss and scream bullshit. he is an actual physicist you know.
2.the nothing he describes is about as close to nothing as you can get in reality. please tell me what else his definition would need to include for you to consider it nothing.
3.this a thread on the shape of the universe, why even bring that up?

>"supernova data...the only way to explain this data is...well there's two ways "first is that the data is wrong, which it usually is"

>or that the universe is expanding!

>therefore the universe is expanding! and that's our current model!

Lol He literally said this in the video.

www.youtube.com/watch?v=EjaGktVQdNg&feature=youtu.be&t=40m31

Are scientists this fucken stupid and annoying? Or just Lawrence Krauss...he literally said "the data is usually wrong in these cases" and then fucken ignored it

>>5387163
This is possibly the stupidest, most fucking retarded shit, I have ever heard on /sci/. This comment is literally too fucking moronic and nonsensical to be a troll

Only people with mental illness can't understand basic experimental fact

/x/->

>"supernova data...the only way to explain this data is...well there's two ways "first is that the data is wrong, which it usually is"

>or that the universe is expanding!

>therefore the universe is expanding! and that's our current model!

Lol He literally said this in the video.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EjaGktVQdNg&feature=youtu.be&t=40m31

Are scientists this fucken stupid and annoying? Or just Lawrence Krauss...he literally said "the data is usually wrong in these cases" and then fucken ignored it

the universe is not contained, therefore it has no shape

>>5387160
>F=ma is an empirical observation
Do you agree with it? Do you agree that particles follow straight lines unless acted on by a force?

>>5385287
>could someone give me straight answer. Is the universe flat or spherical?
Please tell me you aren't this daft

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EjaGktVQdNg&feature=youtu.be&t=40m31s

>only two ways to interpret this data
>first is, that it's wrong, which it usually is.
>which it usually is...our data is wrong


>second, that the universe is EXPANDING
>therefore, our modern model shows that its EXPANDING

Completely ignores the first and most probably explanation according to him--that the data is wrong.

LOL

>>5387184
>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EjaGktVQdNg&feature=youtu.be&t=40m31s

>only two ways to explain this data
>either its wrong, which it usually is.
>which it usually is.

>or...expanindg universe

LMFAO

Krauss is an involuntary troll. Yes he is this much of a hack.

>>5387174
haha. next time take a minute or two to allow your retard brain to understand what it's hearing before throwing out insults and you might not even have to delete your retarded comments.

What if like, now listen to me here, what if when you got to the edge of the universe and kept going to ended up at the other end. You know like in pacman.

What shape would that be?

He says the data is usually wrong.

So the whole expanding universe assumption relies on "data that is usually wrong" according to Krauss.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EjaGktVQdNg&feature=youtu.be&t=40m31s

>>5387184
>>5387186
>www.youtube.com/watch?v=EjaGktVQdNg&feature=youtu.be&t=40m41s
he states two possibilities and explains how other data supports the second possibility. it's how science works. your comprehension is just horrible.

I've heard the universe is klein bottle shaped. And when you enter the interior of the klein bottle you shit your pants.

This was from my preacher though so take it with a grain of salt.

>impying the universe is anything but god shaped
ishydishy..

>>5387198

he says "our data sets are usually wrong"

then goes off and uses other data sets (also usually wrong) to justify an assumption that is usually wrong...by his own account

And I'm supposed to care why? 3 data sets suggest something that is logically absurd OR they are usually wrong.

I'm not inclined to believe in contradictions specially when you tell me your data sets, are typically wrong.

>>5387207
>I'm not inclined to believe in contradictions specially when you tell me your data sets, are typically wrong.

Even if his data sets were usually right, there's no reason to start believing in absurdities like "space expanding" or "universe from nothing" or "1 = 2"

Absurdities are absurd, the data is simply wrong. Probably still useful. Physics has many uses for absurd explanations and parameters.

Never bought the whole expanding universe shit.
We are privy to more observable regions of space over time, ya, nature of light and objects traveling of course...

Doesn't mean the space itself is changing. This is ad hoc explanation due to lazy thinking.

Fact: Light does not travel in a straight line in the absence of gravity

Conclusion: The universe is non-euclidean

>>5387194
>So the whole expanding universe assumption relies on "data that is usually wrong" according to Krauss.

wow
>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EjaGktVQdNg&feature=youtu.be&t=40m31s

what an idiot

lol it's not flat, it's rather like a large sphere but we are not inside it but rather on it's surface

10/10 troll
>mfw when you all have been arguing with this guy all day.
All of you are retarded for even responding to his obvious troll comments. The only genius on /sci is this troll for fooling all of you.

>>5387226
>>5387219
>Claims Everywhere

>>5387207
did you intentionally only pay attention to the parts that you thought said what you wanted or is it just that horrible comprehension again? the assumption in the first place was that the universe was open (a flat universe was actually quite a surprise). WMAP data, however, suggested it flat. the problem was that we only have 30% of the matter/energy needed for a flat universe. different data, from the Hubble diagram, suggested that the universe was also speeding up instead of we though, slowing down. how much energy would be needed for the universe to be speeding up instead of slowing down as we originally thought? the same amount we are missing in order to have the flat earth the WMAP data suggested. so two completely different data sets just happen to be both wrong and match up exactly right? fucking miracles man.>>5387209
>Even if his data sets were usually right, there's no reason to start believing in absurdities
>Absurdities are absurd, the data is simply wrong
"he's got data that is incompatible with my world view. i have no evidence for my case, but he is simply wrong because my worldview can't possibly be wrong."
>>>/x/
you sound exactly like religious zealots. get the fuck out of here, you don't belong on a science board.

>>5387249

my data suggests your brain is haunted by a ghost, immaterial ghosts are the only way my model works

go to /x/

>>5387249

Krauss said his data is probably wrong, it usually is.

So ya, I'm going with that option. Since its reasonable.

Just because the distance between two objects increases doesn't mean space is being added.

Simple logic. Occamz razor also. This is the most convoluted and silly explanation as to why some objects are moving apart.

lazy thinking at it's worst

so either we accept the probable option that the data is wrong, as krauss says, or we accept some absurd idea like space is expanding

ya, im gonna wait until physics gives a real explanation

>>5387274
really? this is the best argument you have now? just stop, it's getting embarrassing.
>>5387278
>Krauss said his data is probably wrong
it was more of a statement for comic relief. in science, data usually has an error range. he wasn't talking about his data specifically. regardless, he explained why the other possibility is much more likely, and he was simply talking about the history of it. these tests have been repeated and the tools have improved.
>Since its reasonable
it's not. it's suggesting that 1. WMAP data is significantly wrong. 2. hubble diagram data is significantly wrong. and 3. that despite both being significantly wrong and the measurements unrelated, their implications just happened to match up exactly.
you're not far from appealing to a miracle here. not only that, but what evidence is there for your side? all you've said so far amounts to "I don't believe it". again i have to compare you to religious zealots. when it comes to statements science makes your standard of proof is only rivaled by solipsist. yet when it comes to your own statements simple belief is enough.

>>5387286
that's not it at all. read >>5387249

>>5387312
>you're not far from appealing to a miracle here. not only that, but what evidence is there for your side?

None of the measurements say anything about space.

What they're doing is saying "we don't know what's causing the distance between objects to increase, therefore the universe is expanding"

It's just a terrible non-sequitur.

I don't have to give an alternative, it's enough to show that the interpretation of the data is lazy thinking. They might as well invoke "God did it"

An equally unfalsifiable claim. Sure it could be true. It can always be true. It can be inserted in any data set.

We went over this already and everyone agreed "space expansion" is unfalsifiable and can fit any data.

Until you understand the science better don't bother arguing it since all you know is wikipedia shit and youtube videos.

>>5385287

That's a hilarious picture OP
funny how some scientists think of space like a "blanket" or piece of paper

instead of what it actually is.

>adding space to space
>adding space to the universe

lol this is not a hypothesis, this is pure /x/

>>5387326
>None of the measurements say anything about space
yes they do...do you even understand what we are measuring? i have explained this so many times this thread i feel like a broken record.
> "we don't know what's causing the distance between objects to increase, therefore the universe is expanding"
no, they're not. if we're gonna start throwing out fallacies this is a straw man. the core of most of your arguments is http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argumentum_ad_lapidem
>It's just a terrible non-sequitur.
your strawman statement is, what he is actually saying is not. i explained how we came to the conclusion here >>5387249
tell me how my reasoning is wrong.
>They might as well invoke "God did it"
except there's plenty of evidence for our conclusions, none for God...
>An equally unfalsifiable claim
the statements are not unfalsifiable. in fact, we believed the exact opposite until presented with the data and proven wrong.
>It can be inserted in any data set
no it can't, without some horrendous amount of ad hoc explanations. go ahead, try to prove the universe is round or open using available data and without sounding stupid.
>We went over this already and everyone agreed "space expansion" is unfalsifiable and can fit any data
i don't know who "we" is but do not take the statements of others as my own or imply that because they made them they are true.
>Until you understand the science better don't bother arguing it
how have i shown that I don't understand it? i explained the evidence and how it fits. i guess i missed it, but show me where you did any of the same. where did you present a reasonable argument for your side other than "i don't believe it". please show me. i guess i missed it all.

>>5387346
>sage in subject field
Why do you do this? Do you think it makes you look like a different person?

>>5387334
What? It's a two dimensional slice of the 3 dimensional curved space

>>5387368
>What? It's a two dimensional slice of the 3 dimensional curved space

Ya which misses the whole point and allows for the silly idea of "curving space"

real space doesn't curve, only the cartoon idea of a flat paper space can "curve"

>>5387372
>real space doesn't curve
How do you know?

>>5387368
>>5387368
>What? It's a two dimensional slice of the 3 dimensional curved space

real space doesn't curve, only the cartoon idea of a flat paper space can "curve" if you imagine it to actually be an object in SPACE

sage goes in all fields.

>>5387379
See
>>5387377

>>5387377
>>real space doesn't curve
>How do you know?

Category error.
A common mistake for people not versed in logic.

You may as well ask why Time doesn't smell, and ask me to prove it.

Curvature is a property of objects in space. It assumes the idea of space is functioning in the background.

>>5387383
Oh, ok.
What is space?

>>5385824
never post a kike "scientist" or kike 4channers

>>5385362

Why has no one called you on this?

>>5387385
>What is space?

That's a deep philosophal question, like what is Time.

this is /sci/. Stick to basic engineering questions.

>>5387395
>That's a deep philosophal question
Why?

>>5387405
>Why?

Because it's very fundamental to how our perception of reality is structured, it's very hard to define, it requires a clear a priori foundation to begin to discuss -- and fundamental things tend to escape simple measurement and third person observation.

>>5387421
Thank you. But what is perception, measurement, and third person observation?

>>5387430
>third person observation?

A car can be seen by any normal observer.
So it's easy to analyze.

Your sensation of pain is hard to analyze by a normal observer. It's not open to 'third parties' like a car is.

They have to infer its existence based on indirect methods and your testimony, not really science at its best.

>>5387395
>believes in untestable, invisible, pseudo-philosophical nonsense and metaphysics bullshit without evidence
>>>/x/

The results of physics do not allow arbitrary interpretations of what "space" means and they are not to be mixed up with invisible non-interacting demons / metaphysics nonsense.


>>5387477
>sensation of pain
>unobservable and untestable qualia nonsense
Thanks for confirming that you're just another pseudo-philosophy troll.

>>5387908

you forgot to sage your repetitive gibberish

>>5387915
>gibberish
You have no idea what that word means. Look it up in a dictionary.

FOR FUCK SAKES. THIS IS THE SECOND TIME IN 3 DAYS THIS HAS HAPPENED YOU FUCTARDS.

bumping to let people see the retarded shit that sci now does.

>>5385287
Asymptotically flat.