The Shape of the Universe.

Author: Paul

Posts

Total: 195
#151
ebuc
ebuc's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,920
3
2
4
ebuc's avatar
ebuc
3
2
4
-->
@zedvictor4
The words infinite, finite and potential are pretty self explanatory.
Ok I'll bite. Tell me what your infinite potential means where used in this thread.

Same goes for your finite potential as used in this thread.  You yourself have no idea nor does anyone else, unless their drinking the same kool-aid your drinking.  Super looper!

#152
zedvictor4
zedvictor4's avatar
Debates: 22
Posts: 12,067
3
3
6
zedvictor4's avatar
zedvictor4
3
3
6
The universe is either uninhibited or constrained. (Let's disregard stagnant as an option.) So nonetheless dynamic.

Therefore in either instance the universes potential or ability to develop is what will dictate it's "shape".


A size limited universe (finite) implies a limited ability to develop (potential).

An unlimited universe (infinite) implies an unlimited ability to develop (unlimited potential).


Hopefully you can now grasp this simple interpretation of universal development.

So let me ask you for your thoughts on something.

If constrained, what is the constraining influence?

Is it only universal potential, or is it perhaps to a greater degree the confining influence (elasticity) of space?





#153
ebuc
ebuc's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,920
3
2
4
ebuc's avatar
ebuc
3
2
4
-->
@zedvictor4
So nonetheless dynamic.
Old news and obvious.

Therefore in either instance the universes potential or ability to develop is what will dictate it's "shape".
Polyhedral ergo spherical, or toroidal or some combination of the two or three. Ive already clearly laid out my shape in this thread and others and at DDO for two or more years now and other forums for longer.  YOu, not so much and certainly with no clarity.

A size limited universe (finite) implies a limited ability to develop (potential).
If finite then inherently equals size limited ergo redundant looping of words by you. Finite only means no potential to be infinite.

Infinite means no potential to be finite.  You stated neither one of these ergo meaningless looping of words.

An unlimited universe (infinite) implies an unlimited ability to develop (unlimited potential).
1} finite Universe can never  be infinite and to state otherwise is meanginless l ergo dribbling mind leakage of looping words,

2} we can speculate, fantasize about the potentials of a finite Universe but none of those have anything to do with infinite ---as Paul suggested---, and we the known set of cosmic physical laws/principles that complement the actions we observe,

3} there may exist potential abilities were dont yet know of, but that is irrelevant to Universe being finite.

If constrained, what is the constraining influence?
All of the properties humans have observed and any we have not yet observed. Ex charge, spin, gravity, dark energy, wave - particle, etc.

Is it only universal potential, or is it perhaps to a greater degree the confining influence (elasticity) of space?

Huh? There exists no potential beyond those of a finite, occupied space Universe that exists eternally in various phases of dynamic shapes. We observe those potentials as cosmc phyiscal laws/principles. Ive made this clear for many years.

You and others ignore the truth and facts of my comments and go off on irrelevant word looping mind games because your ego's will not allow you to concede that you have nothing that adds too or invalidates my given comments in the Cosmic Trinity all comments related to that most comprehensively wholistic set.

Mind games and ignorance --avoidance of truth, facts and rational, logical common senses---  is all the rest of you have had to offer. Sad :--(

#154
ebuc
ebuc's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,920
3
2
4
ebuc's avatar
ebuc
3
2
4
Another thouhgt, before you or others go off on my word looping.  Photonic charge { electric and magnetic } and Gravity have no distance limits and distance infers a finite set.

So yes, we may say that charge and gravity operate at any distance{ finite } or infinitely, however, we do not say that as it is meaningless to correlate infinite this or that to finite{ distance } integrity{ closure }.

Again, I suggest you and others actually access a dictionary and grasp what the word integrity means. So now I will repeat what Ive been repeating for at least 20 years.

Finite = integrity both systemically and structurally

Infinite= lack of integrity ergo no system and no structure

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Z4....So nonetheless dynamic.
Old news and obvious.

Therefore in either instance the universes potential or ability to develop is what will dictate it's "shape".
Polyhedral ergo spherical, or toroidal or some combination of the two or three. Ive already clearly laid out my shape in this thread and others and at DDO for two or more years now and other forums for longer.  YOu, not so much and certainly with no clarity.

A size limited universe (finite) implies a limited ability to develop (potential).
If finite then inherently equals size limited ergo redundant looping of words by you. Finite only means no potential to be infinite.

Infinite means no potential to be finite.  You stated neither one of these ergo meaningless looping of words.

An unlimited universe (infinite) implies an unlimited ability to develop (unlimited potential).
1} finite Universe can never  be infinite and to state otherwise is meanginless l ergo dribbling mind leakage of looping words,

2} we can speculate, fantasize about the potentials of a finite Universe but none of those have anything to do with infinite ---as Paul suggested---, and we the known set of cosmic physical laws/principles that complement the actions we observe,

3} there may exist potential abilities were dont yet know of, but that is irrelevant to Universe being finite.

If constrained, what is the constraining influence?
All of the properties humans have observed and any we have not yet observed. Ex charge, spin, gravity, dark energy, wave - particle, etc.

Is it only universal potential, or is it perhaps to a greater degree the confining influence (elasticity) of space?

Huh? There exists no potential beyond those of a finite, occupied space Universe that exists eternally in various phases of dynamic shapes. We observe those potentials as cosmc phyiscal laws/principles. Ive made this clear for many years.

You and others ignore the truth and facts of my comments and go off on irrelevant word looping mind games because your ego's will not allow you to concede that you have nothing that adds too or invalidates my given comments in the Cosmic Trinity all comments related to that most comprehensively wholistic set.

Mind games and ignorance --avoidance of truth, facts and rational, logical common senses---  is all the rest of you have had to offer. Sad :--(

#155
ebuc
ebuc's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,920
3
2
4
ebuc's avatar
ebuc
3
2
4
Another 3rd thought;

Charge lessens with distance or more specifically as the frequency is lengthened i.e. the entropic ---arrow-of-Time---> implies finite Universe will become on very large and very flat{ lowest frequency } photon.

Once the photon reaches a lowest enough charge{ frequency } Gravity will synergetically cohere photons back into a matter set.

My geometric scenarios, based on ideas of 4-cubo-octahedron and the 5-fold icosahedron simplify as a bilateral set, that correlates to the hemispheres of an animal brain with the corpus callosum inbetween:

OIO or as O|O or as the following were we find more over lap of the spherical, left and right skew 5-fold icosahedron great circles{ tori } with the 4-fold cubo-octahedron as the flat photon See LINK for flat photon and in the following the vertical line | of a flattened 4-fold cubo-octahedron inside of two overlapping 5-fold icosahedral sets;

.......................(  ( | )  ).................
#156
zedvictor4
zedvictor4's avatar
Debates: 22
Posts: 12,067
3
3
6
zedvictor4's avatar
zedvictor4
3
3
6
-->
@ebuc
Ergo loopy.

Though I think we agreed that constraint was only limited to potential.

And I also think that in a round about way we also might have agreed that a universe is more likely to be finite as dictated by it's potential or limiting factors.

But perhaps potential only limits extent. (Finite extent)

Ergo we must also consider expansion and decline as two sides of universal potential. 

Ergo we must also consider initiation and re-initiation. Ergo sequence.

Ergo. An infinitely oscillating universe. <l><l><l>

Ergo no ego.

Just looping.
#157
ebuc
ebuc's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,920
3
2
4
ebuc's avatar
ebuc
3
2
4
-->
@zedvictor4
Just looping.
I agree. You rgood at that and have nothing of any significance to say in regards to all Ive presented in this thread and most others

#158
zedvictor4
zedvictor4's avatar
Debates: 22
Posts: 12,067
3
3
6
zedvictor4's avatar
zedvictor4
3
3
6
-->
@ebuc
Similarly, you seem to have little regard for what anyone else suggests.

It's all well and good being continually engrossed in your own ideas.

Ideas which may or may not be "truth, facts and rational logical common senses".

Ergo ego.


#159
ebuc
ebuc's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,920
3
2
4
ebuc's avatar
ebuc
3
2
4
-->
@zedvictor4
Similarly, you seem to have little regard for what anyone else suggests.
PLease share when you do. Not seen much yet.


#160
DynamicSquid
DynamicSquid's avatar
Debates: 29
Posts: 182
1
3
11
DynamicSquid's avatar
DynamicSquid
1
3
11
-->
@Paul
Humans can't comprehend the concept of infinity. Our society was built from physical data, and some imaginary data, but infinity lies somewhere in between.

That's my theory at least...
#161
zedvictor4
zedvictor4's avatar
Debates: 22
Posts: 12,067
3
3
6
zedvictor4's avatar
zedvictor4
3
3
6
-->
@DynamicSquid
The concept of infinity.
Is purely data. 

As all data is purely data.

Both resultant physicality and imagination are derived from data processing.

So what or where is the "in between" state?

Nonetheless,the notion of infinity is widely understood. As far as I am aware that is all that is required.

#162
DynamicSquid
DynamicSquid's avatar
Debates: 29
Posts: 182
1
3
11
DynamicSquid's avatar
DynamicSquid
1
3
11
-->
@zedvictor4
The notion of infinity is arguable not widely understood, if any at all.

What happened before time? When will time stop? Is time even relatable?

So many concepts are related to infinity, none have answers.
#163
zedvictor4
zedvictor4's avatar
Debates: 22
Posts: 12,067
3
3
6
zedvictor4's avatar
zedvictor4
3
3
6
-->
@DynamicSquid
So what or where or how is time and/or space.?

Events have duration which an observer regards as time within a space.

(Event: The movement of matter, between A and B)

Do you think that these possibilities would not be available,  if there were no observable events?

Surely there must have been infinite possibility, or nothing would ever have occurred?


#164
DynamicSquid
DynamicSquid's avatar
Debates: 29
Posts: 182
1
3
11
DynamicSquid's avatar
DynamicSquid
1
3
11
-->
@zedvictor4
True, there must be an infinite possibility as you have stated, but my point is that we can't understand the infinite possibility. We grew up with a start and an end, so that's how we think, but the Universe and all the rest are different.

Yes, it could be infinite, but we don't know what that is or looks like. It could even be something else that we can't comprehend.
#165
zedvictor4
zedvictor4's avatar
Debates: 22
Posts: 12,067
3
3
6
zedvictor4's avatar
zedvictor4
3
3
6
-->
@DynamicSquid
I would suggest that the infinite possibility of time and space is understandable, simply as what it is.

It's certainly not something that can be looked at.

And something else would be something else. 

And a Universe ( An event relative to matter within an occupied space) is unlikely to be infinite as events have duration.

"And all the rest"?



Topic's author
#166
Paul
Paul's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 470
1
2
2
Paul's avatar
Paul
1
2
2
-->
@DynamicSquid
People can comprehend infinity we just have no way to observe or measure it so we will never know if it physically exists.

#167
ebuc
ebuc's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,920
3
2
4
ebuc's avatar
ebuc
3
2
4
-->
@DynamicSquid
So many concepts are related to infinity, none have answers.
I.e. no answers your ego will allow into consideration.  A narrow mind cannot grasp infinity much less a finite, occupied space Universe.

#168
ebuc
ebuc's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,920
3
2
4
ebuc's avatar
ebuc
3
2
4
-->
@zedvictor4
Surely there must have been infinite possibility, or nothing would ever have occurred?
Nonsense from another narrow mind.    Please learn what a cosmic or physical law/principle is before you let it all fly in this thread again.

It will be benifiical for you and others.

Also access a dictionary and actually attempt comprehension of the differrence between the words infinite and finite.
#169
ebuc
ebuc's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,920
3
2
4
ebuc's avatar
ebuc
3
2
4
-->
@Paul
People can comprehend infinity we just have no way to observe or measure it so we will never know if it physically exists.
Never ceases to amaze such amateurs jump off into infinite, occupied space Universe, when so many cannot even grasp the current finite size of our occupied space Universe.

I think so many of these amateurs think they make themselves look more intelligent when they through the word infinity in as m an times as possible.




#170
Stronn
Stronn's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 511
2
2
4
Stronn's avatar
Stronn
2
2
4
-->
@ebuc
Are you a professional cosmologist?
#171
ebuc
ebuc's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,920
3
2
4
ebuc's avatar
ebuc
3
2
4
-->
@Stronn
Are you a professional cosmologist?
No. I'm a professional laborer. Do you have any rational, logical common sense that addresses any of my many comments as stated ---n this thread or others-- that adds to them or detracts/invalidates them?  No?

I didnt think so because I dont recall your having done so in the past, at least to any significant degree.

Please share when you have something rational, logical and common sense to  say, that adds to or detracts from even 2% of the many comments Ive put forward.  Please, do it if you can.  The same ole 'your nuts'  type comments from some are so childish and immature and irrelevant to whether they are "professional" cosmologist, physicists and all cosmic type thinkers of the largest most macro-comprehensive set and,

the ultra-micro least comprehensive ex a graviton { gravity } or darkion { dark energy }.

What ive experienced in most forums is a lot of deaf { non-hearing inconsiderate } brains, that, have access to mind, ye their ego blocks their ability to respond in kind to what I present.

...........................................................Space( Time *) i (* Time )..........................................

Please spare us the same old...cant understand this above.....even after Ive explain each and every 2ndary symbolism many times over, to deaf brains.  Sad lack of integrity is what I find a lot of .




#172
Stronn
Stronn's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 511
2
2
4
Stronn's avatar
Stronn
2
2
4
-->
@ebuc
My point was that you should not call people out for being amateurs when you yourself are an amateur. 

As far as your "points", I don' bother to respond because they are mostly incoherent gibberish. The only appropriate response would be WTF?


the ultra-micro least comprehensive ex a graviton { gravity } or darkion { dark energy }.

This is a perfect example. WTF does this mean? It's not even a sentence. 

...........................................................Space( Time *) i (* Time )..........................................
Another example. WTF do the asterisks signify? WTF do the  long string of dots mean? WTF idea s it trying to convey?

The fact that you constantly encounter  people who find your pseudo-math incoherent should make you stop and consider that maybe not all the fault lies with them.. 
#173
zedvictor4
zedvictor4's avatar
Debates: 22
Posts: 12,067
3
3
6
zedvictor4's avatar
zedvictor4
3
3
6
-->
@ebuc
Infinite, finite, easy...... Just internal data processing, no external cosmic law required.

And see if you can give me a simple answer to a simple question.

How can it be possible for something to occur, unless the possibility of something occurring wasn't infinitely possible?

No tori or great circles required.

Regards 

Z

#174
ebuc
ebuc's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,920
3
2
4
ebuc's avatar
ebuc
3
2
4
-->
@Stronn
My point was that you should not call people out for being amateurs when you yourself are an amateur. 
Some amateurs, Ive encountered here at DArt,  have shown little to no evidence that thatas well versed { knowlegdable } of comoslogy and physics that Ive repeated reference in many of my posts.  There exist degrees of amateur just as their exist degrees of experts.

As far as your "points", I don' bother to respond because they are mostly incoherent gibberish. The only appropriate response would be WTF?
Ego talking mouthing off invalid statments

the ultra-micro least comprehensive ex a graviton { gravity } or darkion { dark energy }.

This is a perfect example. WTF does this mean? It's not even a sentence. 

...........................................................Space( Time *) i (* Time )..........................................
Another example. WTF do the asterisks signify? WTF do the  long string of dots mean? WTF idea s it trying to convey?
And I have to repeat to you that I have explained the above and all of my comments many times over to others.  So I been posting this left and right fro a year or more with explanations and you just know became of those two bilateral asterisks.

So lets do this again for those asleep at the wheel or out to lunch for a year or more, like Stronn

* * = bilateral set of eyes/eyeballs ergo awareness, or consciousness of most complex creature of Universe, human woman, and 2nd place man

Other related/associated bilateral sets:

* * = bilateral set of ears, ovaries, testes, hemi-spheres of brain, two nipples, twp arms, two legs, two lungs, RNA-DNA,

Cosmic Scale twoness;
* * = twoness, otherness ergo awareness via gravity >< dark energy lines-of-relationship between each or between any two fermionic { mass } or bosonic { mass of some sort } particles of Universe

I think having the eyes closer to negative shaped  )(  dark energy geodesic space, is relevant since that is we humans observed currently as the dominant phenomena or force, between gravity dark energy.  If that were to change to a more contractive space then I would have the observeing eyes on the other sides of time.......(* Time ) i ( Time *)........

The fact that you constantly encounter  people who find your pseudo-math incoherent should make you stop and consider that maybe not all the fault lies with them.. 
As Ive stated countless many times and few takers, when you actual have any rational, logical common sense that addreses my comments as presented, adn add to them or invalidate/detract, the please share.

You Do Not because you Have Not any of this latter above.

Pi^3 = 31.00 62 7 66....is factual truth so you go suck on your ego elsewhere until you learn to play fair, like an mature adult.
....it also makes sense as cosmic value for volumetric{ 3D enclosed } space

P^4 - 31 = 66.4... and makes rational sense as the the cosmic value for Time { Observed Time } i.e. occupied space reality aka physical/energy.

So go play with your ego based mental blockages elsewhere and when your actually want act like a mature adult and take jourrney on some rational logical common sense pathways. Please share. Other wise  suck on your ego elsewhere.


#175
Stronn
Stronn's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 511
2
2
4
Stronn's avatar
Stronn
2
2
4
-->
@ebuc
WTF?

Using odd symbols and technical sounding words does not mean you have a coherent mathematical idea. From what I can tell you don't. If you did, you should be able to communicate it using standard grammar and mathematical notation. You don't need some wacky notation that no one can decipher, where asterisks represent bilateral eyes (or maybe arms, or legs, or testicles...). 

Sorry, but I've read many of your "explanations." They are invariably just more gibberish. 





#176
ebuc
ebuc's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,920
3
2
4
ebuc's avatar
ebuc
3
2
4
-->
@Stronn
WTF?
English symbols, word sentences are niether "odd" nor even except for odd numerals.

Texticonic symbols found on all keyboards are niether odd nor even. 

Your ego based mental blockage is all that you have to offer and its of no relevant signficance to facts, truths, and speculations Ive presented many times, in many formats and with clarity.

As Ive stated countless many times and few takers, when you actual have any rational, logical common sense that addreses my comments as presented, and add to them or invalidate/detract, the please share.

You Do Not because you Have Not any of this latter above.

Pi^3 = 31.00 62 7 66....is factual truth so you go suck on your ego elsewhere until you learn to play fair, like an mature adult.
....it also makes sense as cosmic value for volumetric{ 3D enclosed } space

P^4 - 31 = 66.4... and makes rational sense as the the cosmic value for Time { Observed Time } i.e. occupied space reality aka physical/energy.

So go play with your ego based mental blockages elsewhere and when your actually want act like a mature adult and take jourrney on some rational logical common sense pathways. Please share. Other wise  suck on your ego elsewhere.

Using odd symbols and technical sounding words does not mean you have a coherent mathematical idea.
Ego based mental blockage make you like like child on floor repeating NO, NO, NO NO.

From what I can tell you don't. If you did, you should be able to communicate it using standard grammar and mathematical notation. You don't need some wacky notation that no one can decipher, where asterisks represent bilateral eyes (or maybe arms, or legs, or testicles...). 
You dont need anything that signifcantly exposes you ego based mental blockage issues to truth, facts, and rational, logical common sense speculattions.  Narrow mindedness immarture adult is likened to  most children.

Sorry, but I've read many of your "explanations." They are invariably just more gibberish. 
Repeating your false narrative is just immature childisd-ness.  No No No No.

Please share when you actually have any rational logical common sense that actuallly adds to or detracts/invalidates any of the many truths, facts and speculations Ive presented. You Do Not becuase you Have Not any rational, logical common sense to offer.

No No No, ego based mental blockages is all you have to offer. Sad :--(

..................................................Space( Time *) i (* Time )Space.......................................................

----------->---------entropic arrow-of-Time---------->/\/\/\/\/\/\/-----> as reality ergo physical/energy of occupied space

------syntropic----<-------geodesics-of-Space---<---(  )(  )(  )------ as metphysical-3-Gravity and 4-Dark Energy  of occupied space

Metaphysical-1 ego { i }  does  not occupy space nor is it required to operate as a mature adult.

The truth exists for those who seek it. Few have the courage to seek it, much less acknowledge it when presented to them.






#177
Stronn
Stronn's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 511
2
2
4
Stronn's avatar
Stronn
2
2
4
-->
@ebuc
Are you being intentionally obtuse? Obviously I meant your symbols are odd as in strange, not odd as in not divisible by two.

Assuming the reason people don't understand you is because of heir ego is itself ego on your part.  

#178
zedvictor4
zedvictor4's avatar
Debates: 22
Posts: 12,067
3
3
6
zedvictor4's avatar
zedvictor4
3
3
6
-->
@ebuc
<l><l><l><l>

Sequential universe.

Ergo finite, yet infinite possibility.

Rational common sense pathway, no blockages.

No ego required


Only your ego prevents rational common sense understanding.

Repeating your incoherent narrative is just immature childishness. 

YES YES YES YES

#179
ebuc
ebuc's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,920
3
2
4
ebuc's avatar
ebuc
3
2
4
Ergo finite, yet infinite possibility.
Meaningless dribble.

Repeating your incoherent narrative is just immature childishness. 

Please share when you have any shred of rational, logical common sense that addresses my comments as presented and adds to or detract from.

You do not because you have not because none of you have any significant relevance comments.

Hot air that has no consideration of truth and facts base don human observations is ego based mental blockages to truth, facts.  Sad :--(
#180
ebuc
ebuc's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,920
3
2
4
ebuc's avatar
ebuc
3
2
4
-->
@Paul
O}  Finite Occupied Space Universe = integrity and has a shape albeit a dynamically changing shape
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

LINK to a one of many possible, dynamically changing shaped Universe's that specifically is undulating

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
00} Infinite Occupied Space Universe =  lack of integrity ergo  mythological nonsense and no associated shape is possible