Edge of the Universe (Page 2)
You have only partially quoted my post. I never denied the importance of gravity but merely pointed out that it is not responsible for the lack of homogeneity in the universe. Indeed, had there been only gravity and no quantum effects the universe would be entirely homogeneous.
The picture you linked to has to do with something called the Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation. Indeed the picture shows an inhomogeneous universe. If you read about CMBR (the wiki page might suffice) you will find it originated in 'quantum fluctuations'. These are instances in which the energy of points in space slightly varies (temporarily violating conservation of energy). Despite energy being conserved on large scales, these tiny changes were enough to change the universe due to its small size. I do not understand the relevance of this picture to your post.
I fail to recognize a correlation between types of geometry and anything I was saying.
Lastly, sentences like "...order to calculate this there must be an average, which means some areas of the universe have more density than others..." elude my grasp entirely. Averages are definable for all distributions, independently of their nature.
ghostgeek: If one uses an expanding balloon as an analogy of our universe then it is not expanding into nothing. It is expanding into our universe. By analogy therefore, this would suggest that our universe is expanding into an even greater universe and that into a yet larger one. An infinite series of universes, each larger than the last. Logically, also, an infinite series of ever smaller universes. There would then be no need to contemplate "nothing".
Corwin: That analogy is incorrect. The universe isn't energy and matter expanding into existing empty space... the universe IS space... it's the very fabric of space-time itself that is expanding.
But the idea of true "nothingness", not even empty space, is counter-intuitive to a species like ours that has evolved and exists in "something",
ghostgeek: Isn't there talk of the Multiverse? What about the Mega-Universe, full of numerous smaller universes? And hasn't somebody come up with the Bubble Universe? Just theories I know but some scientists are supposed to be looking for them. There seems to be some doubt as to what's really out there.
Bourbaki: Seeing as none of these theories are empirically verifiable nor refutable, there is nothing but doubt.
Bourbaki: All this is, is a collection of theories which for the time being elude empirical testing.
Bourbaki: Then they will always remain at the edge of science - mathematically consistent yet unfalsifiable.
Bourbaki: Oh it doesn't work that way in science. Generally speaking, when one holds a position lacking in evidence, then by default I will not accept it - without necessarily trying to refute it. Of course one of the issues with what you're saying is that it simply cannot be refuted (at least for the time being). Another is what you say does not really have any meaning because the notion of rotation depends heavily on the existence of spatial dimensions which are themselves undefined "outside" of our universe.
Corwin: Calling the Universe a sphere simply doesn't make any sense. A sphere is a 3 dimensional object that exists "within" space... the Universe doesn't exist "within" space, the Universe "is" space.
Bourbaki: You are embarrassing yourself.. Your logic does not apply to anything "outside of this universe". Your nonsense about circles and squares would have been comical had you not been so certain you are actually on to something. You refuse to understand that spatial notions are undefined "outside" of this universe as well..
I guess I'll conclude by agreeing that my level of thinking is not even close to yours.
LiptonCambell: >>>Yeah and only a few 100 years ago it was accepted the world was flat too. IF you cannot process simple logic there is no point in trying to tell you any thing..
Speaking of logic, what you just presented was a well-known logical fallacy(aka not logic at all)- appeal to ignorance. You're suggesting you're right solely because we have been wrong before. But you aren't presenting any evidence beyond 'we have been wrong before'- so literally everything we know could and should be thrown out if we accept your 'logic' as true. That cars can be powered by thoughts of leaked celebrity photos, and should we want to, we could walk through walls.
These concepts haven't been proven false, and, after all, we've been wrong before.