## View Poll Results: What is the shape of the cosmos?

Voters
7. You may not vote on this poll
• 1. Open and Infinite (Saddle - Negative curvature)

3 42.86%
• 2. Finite and Closed (Sphere - Positive curvature)

0 0%
• 3. Digital and Flat (Torus - No curvature)

2 28.57%
• 4. Multi-directional and Eternal (Toroid - Revolving Curvature)

2 28.57%

# Thread: Shape of the Cosmos ~ Understanding the Architectures of our Universe

1. ## Shape of the Cosmos ~ Understanding the Architectures of our Universe

The universe might be finite in spatial extend but unbounded, an overall topology of a closed surface, spherical or a donut (torus) in shape. Which topology is correct depends on the average curvature of space. Positive curvature is a sphere, flat curvature is a torus, and negative curvature is a saddle with infinite possible topologies. A spatially infinite universe cannot be a self-contained system, but rather is part of a larger system taking in information from boundaries infinitely far away, the space outside being explicable by what comes in from the world beyond the boundary.

The different possibilities as to the shape of the cosmos:
1. Open and Infinite (Saddle - Negative curvature)
2. Finite and Closed (Sphere - Positive curvature)
3. Digital and Flat (Torus - No curvature)
4. Multi-directional and Eternal (Toroid - Revolving Curvature)

Ventrilo conversation on this subject that I got permission to post:
RaptorWizard: case closed, anyway, i was reading about different geometries for our cosmos yesterday
RaptorWizard: do we have a finite or infinite, closed or open, negatively curved saddle, positively curved sphere, or flat torus
RaptorWizard: shapes for the universe
RaptorWizard: the negative saddle to me looked the most interesting
RaptorWizard: it opens up many more variables and is open to other spaces outside this one
RaptorWizard: thoughts?
superunknown: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clifford_torus
superunknown: i just remembered i never finished the video on turning spheres inside out
superunknown: do you think the universe is closed or open?
RaptorWizard: that whirling graphic is interesting
superunknown: yeah
RaptorWizard: i want it to be open, and i have faith it may be, but the evidence amy later say its closed
RaptorWizard: i should make a thread on that actually; how is our universe shaped
superunknown: yes, you should
RaptorWizard: i guess one piece of evidence in favor of istj over istp for you is your focus on well, evidence - mingularity, istp goes by logic even if there could be counter-logical discoveries made
RaptorWizard: he doesnt want the universe to have a metaphorical shape for instance, because its too inconsistent
RaptorWizard: from a rational standpoint
RaptorWizard: anyway, just my opinion, ill get to that thread
superunknown: yeah, i really like the concept of irrational functions
superunknown: rational functions are tethered
superunknown: unaccommodating
superunknown: though i may be that irl, my unconscious self
RaptorWizard: Shape of the Cosmos - is that a good title, or is there an improvement
RaptorWizard: and poll options: negative, positive, flat
RaptorWizard: negative is infinite, positive is closed, and flat - is that the torus?
superunknown: i'm not sure about the flat/torus one
RaptorWizard: how would a flat universe be shaped
superunknown: i wasn't doubting you, i was saying i personally don't know, fyi
RaptorWizard: http://www.nbcnews.com/science/weird...rse-8C11133381
RaptorWizard: ^ supposed evidence for the saddle
superunknown: a flat universe means theroretical parallel can be drawn through any point in space, space doesn't "curve" like einstein predicts
superunknown: I don't know if I buy literal curvature of space
superunknown: i think the universe is flat and digital
RaptorWizard: perhaps so, could negative curvature be a metaphor (and if it is, what kind of metaphor)
superunknown: i think the saddle shaped universe is manifest in the torus
superunknown: http://stanwagon.com/wagon/Misc/HTML...andshake_8.gif
superunknown: the middle piece is like a chunk taken out of the inner wall of a torus
RaptorWizard: hmm, good point, the torus kind of mixes the flat/digital with the saddle
RaptorWizard: thx, saved the image
superunknown: i know for a while i liked the concept of an eternal, closed universe
superunknown: in constant flux
superunknown: rehashing itself over and over
RaptorWizard: i think thats how nietzsche saw it
superunknown: makes sense, given his conclusions
RaptorWizard: eternal recurrence in never ending cycles
superunknown: i think that's how eastern religions see it also
superunknown: perpetual rebirth
RaptorWizard: is there a way to mix the rebirth, the saddle, and the flat with the torus (or something else)?
superunknown: one sec, i saw a cool pic
RaptorWizard: ^ that may be the answer
superunknown: that's what i thought, for a while
superunknown: condensing to maximum density, exploding, condensing, etc
RaptorWizard: it whirls around in cycles, it can move forever, it has a closed system that can be calculated, it has the saddle source for the bang
superunknown: or that idea of a new universe being born every time a black hole is created
superunknown: yeah
superunknown: it makes a bit of intuitive sense, for a system to work that way
RaptorWizard: whats this design called
superunknown: doughnut theory of the universe
RaptorWizard: i think ill argue for that one, but changes can be made along the way if new things emerge
superunknown: i will argue for a similar concept, only flat
RaptorWizard: how would flat donut work
superunknown: i really dislike the concept of geometry being the purest form of reality
RaptorWizard: literal donut?
superunknown: yeah, something like that
superunknown: it'd be like a radial burst from a centralized location
RaptorWizard: what makes geometry incomplete (it could be, why so)
RaptorWizard: the nexus of size
superunknown: yeah. but what exists between sizes?
superunknown: i remember thinking....
RaptorWizard: bathroom
superunknown: ya, brb
RaptorWizard: im posting this conversation into the thread if thats okay
superunknown: yeah, that's cool
superunknown: i was thinking about the wave/particle problem in quantum mechanics
superunknown: i can't remember the thought i had about it, but it was cool...
'TheStarchDefenders' has joined the chat.
RaptorWizard: how does contingency (like in QM) connect with the shape of the cosmos?
superunknown: i have a feeling we simple aren't equipped to probe that level of existence accurately yet
superunknown: hello starch
RaptorWizard: true, QM may be seemingly contingent just because we cant see the causes behind it
superunknown: that, or there is a duality to nature that is irreconcilable
superunknown: but that's been said a dozen times over in science
superunknown: i have faith we will figure it out
Mane: gloves
Mane: sort of
superunknown: metaphorical gloves?
Mane: it's like the thing they have in labs where the gloves are within the walls of a glass box
Mane: to handle materials you can't touch
superunknown: ah, yeah, i remember this
Mane: we need to use the space of our universe like gloves
superunknown: i know the theory of quantum uncertainty has been disproven with a thought experiment
Mane: what thought experiment?
superunknown: something involving two people with boxes that will randomly generate a red or blue cube inside?
superunknown: it's been a while since i read it...
Mane: if we had that - we could "feel" what is outside of our universe, we could possibly even grab something which isn't part of our membrane and manipulate it, possibly even build a probe of sort
RaptorWizard: mane, i want permission to post this entire discussion in a thread, is that okay?
superunknown: maybe the upcoming quantum age will give it to us
RaptorWizard: when do you foresee the QM age coming
Mane: sure
Mane: didn't the QM age start when the universe emerged?
Mane: or you mean in terms of our capacity to manipulate?
Mane: i suppose the stone age started when we manipulated stone..
superunknown: yes, like the atomic age, iron age, etc
superunknown: i think around 2025 is when it's gonna be "mainstream" technology
superunknown: quantum watches, cell phones
Mane: maybe i am wrong on that one...
superunknown: it'd be interesting if we did, but i haven't heard of it
Mane: what is the watch that they placed on setalites to test the theory of relatively?
superunknown: i know of only one commercially available quantum computer, made by D-Wave
superunknown: atomic clock
Mane: oh right
superunknown: my watch syncs with an atomic clock in georgia daily
Mane: well you have variations of quantum computing that are disputable
RaptorWizard: Shape of the Cosmos ~ Understanding the Architectures of our Universe - hows that for a full title
superunknown: i like it
Mane: my watch syncs with the mind of a hippy thinking what time it feels like
superunknown: i didn't hear about that, mane
superunknown: lol
Mane: their where articles over it all over awhile ago
Mane: wired, popsci... those sort of sites
superunknown: yeah
Mane: i do remember D-wave claiming it is not a real quantum computer
superunknown: darn
Mane: but i wasn't sure if its nitpicking about not fitting for a specific theory of how quantum computation should work, or if it's actually in a sense of not having the properties of a quantum computer
Mane: i think the google thing used a more basic binary state system or something like that?
Mane: not sure
Mane: its being awhile ago
RaptorWizard: http://howardbloom.net/the-god-probl...-bagel-theory/ - Big Bagel Theory
superunknown: i'm not sure, but this year, NASA and Google both partnered with D-Wave to study what they're doing right with their computers
superunknown: Prior to announcing this partnership, NASA, Google, and Universities Space Research Association put a D-Wave computer through a series of benchmark and acceptance tests which it passed.[6] Independent researchers found that D-Wave's computers can solve s
superunknown: solve some problems as much as 3,600 times faster than particular software packages running on digital computers.
superunknown: there's more though, still reading
Mane: i think initially it's going to be like an added hardware piece you shove in server clusters
superunknown: yeah, for weird problems
Mane: not really weird problems
superunknown: i guess i meant nuanced
Mane: i heard that search sorting algorithms can work better in quantum algorithms.
Mane: that's not that weird is it? its one of the most common problems we have to solve
RaptorWizard: The different possibilities as to the shape of the cosmos:
RaptorWizard: 1. Open and Infinite (Saddle - Negative curvature)
superunknown: no, not weird
RaptorWizard: 2. Finite and Closed (Sphere - Positive curvature)
RaptorWizard: 3. Digital and Flat (Torus - No curvature)
RaptorWizard: Multi-directional and Eternal (Toroid - Revolving Curvature)
RaptorWizard: ^ 4
RaptorWizard: are those good poll options
superunknown: yes, i think so
RaptorWizard: cool, ill post the thread now
Mane: wait wasn't it the other way around
Mane: problems with small data sets but large processing run times
Mane: so not search algorithms...
Mane: ok i am clearly not remembering this right
RaptorWizard: http://www.typologycentral.com/forum...-universe.html

2. I do believe the universe is self-dependent and its contents discrete. I do not like the concept of spatial curvature because I am a sensor and loathe the concept of existence without substance. Einstein can kick rocks.

But what fills the gaps?

3. Bloom Toroidal Model (Donut Theory) of the Universe

By largely eliminating the radiation from stars and our own galaxy, the CMB of the universe appears more concentrated (intense) across one plane of the universe than all others. This concentration of CMB forms a straight line in the universe and may indicate a compact, finite universe.[n 1]

Tegmark proposes his explanation, to his co-written study, that the universe is finite - the amount of radiation in one area is limited to and thus indicative of the size of the area in that direction. Where radiation exceeds its quota for the size of the plane seen, the universe has overflowed in that direction creating a plane in other directions. The perpendicular to the direction of the plane may thereby have created an invisible loop of a doughnut, or torus. Therefore, Tegmark suggests a torus geometry is the most probable shape consistent to his analysis of WMAP CMB maps.[1][5]

Note, however, such a self-consistent entity does not negate the possibility of an infinite universe or alternatively finite super-universe which is capable of containing such an entity. A parallel can be made to the shape of the bulk of the Milky Way in the night sky.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doughnu...f_the_universe
@Infinite Bubble I think this thread fits with your username and interests quite nicely - and I'm looking forward to your feedback from my comment in the universe and other nonsense thread.

4. I understood that the latest fine measurement of the background radiation has shown that the universe is flat.

5. Originally Posted by Mole
I understood that the latest fine measurement of the background radiation has shown that the universe is flat.
That's what people used to say about Planet Earth, but we now know it's a hollow sphere. Those who cannot remember the past, are condemned to repeat it.
Remember.

6. Originally Posted by superunknown
I do believe the universe is self-dependent and its contents discrete. I do not like the concept of spatial curvature because I am a sensor and loathe the concept of existence without substance. Einstein can kick rocks.

But what fills the gaps?
Nikola Tesla seems to hold similar views to yourself, as quoted below:

“It might be inferred that I am alluding to the curvature of space supposed to exist according to the teachings of relativity, but nothing could be further from my mind. I hold that space cannot be curved, for the simple reason that it can have no properties. It might as well be said that God has properties. He has not, but only attributes and these are of our own making. Of properties we can only speak when dealing with matter filling the space. To say that in the presence of large bodies space becomes curved, is equivalent to stating that something can act upon nothing. I, for one, refuse to subscribe to such a view.“
and
The theory wraps all these errors and fallacies and clothes them in magnificent mathematical garb which fascinates, dazzles and makes people blind to the underlying errors. The theory is like a beggar clothed in purple whom ignorant people take for a king. Its exponents are very brilliant men, but they are metaphysicists rather than scientists. Not a single one of the relativity propositions has been proved.”
http://aetherforce.com/electrical-en...rs-relativity/

Now for my own thoughts, I think that space can be curved, at least from a large-scale perspective as to its shape, but on smaller levels (like gravity) you and Tesla may be right.

Originally Posted by Mole
I understood that the latest fine measurement of the background radiation has shown that the universe is flat.
Yes, but different people doing different measurements in different ways each seem to report different results. You can always question the competence of the people making these so called observations and giving us "evidence".

Originally Posted by SmileyMan
That's what people used to say about Planet Earth, but we now know it's a hollow sphere. Those who cannot remember the past, are condemned to repeat it.
Remember.
I actually agree very much with your quote here. One thing to note in expansion is that not only is our Earth a sphere, but there is a whole spectrum of space surrounding it; perhaps the same could be said of our universe and the realms beyond.

7. I am glad to have understanding as such an esteemed individual as Nikolai Tesla. He is terrifyingly true, the chief concern of man throughout history is his reluctance to cast aside the notion that something can act on nothing and vice versa. To state that space has curvature is exactly this, a sublimation away from reason and towards our primitive origins.

8. Originally Posted by superunknown
I am glad to have understanding as such an esteemed individual as Nikolai Tesla. He is terrifyingly true, the chief concern of man throughout history is his reluctance to cast aside the notion that something can act on nothing and vice versa. To state that space has curvature is exactly this, a sublimation away from reason and towards our primitive origins.
It's true that gravity is a curve in space/time, while the fine measurement of the background radiation from the big bang shows the entire universe is flat.

This is an extraordinary thing to discover because we can now predict the future of the universe.

9. Originally Posted by Mole
It's true that gravity is a curve in space/time, while the fine measurement of the background radiation from the big bang shows the entire universe is flat.

This is an extraordinary thing to discover because we can now predict the future of the universe.
I think it is true that geometric calculations can be made to predict the force of gravity, but I don't believe space is literally bending, as Einstein thought. This is why he refused to accept quantum effects, his god lied in the perfection of geometry.

10. Originally Posted by superunknown
I think it is true that geometric calculations can be made to predict the force of gravity, but I don't believe space is literally bending, as Einstein thought. This is why he refused to accept quantum effects, his god lied in the perfection of geometry.
We have just completed measurements of light from the most distant galaxies.

We measured this light to see if space consisted of discrete quanta.

And it turns out that space is not made of discrete quanta. This may have made Albert happy.

#### Posting Permissions

• You may not post new threads
• You may not post replies
• You may not post attachments
• You may not edit your posts
•