The Big Bang and the Center of the Universe The velocity-distance relationship interprets the redshift-distance relationship as caused
by the Doppler shift of starlight. This relationship is the same in
every direction from Earth. This requires we are at the center of
the universe.
An infinite universe would have no place to expand to so such a
universe can not expand.
On Monday, December 4, 2023 at 3:22:39 PM UTC-8, Tom Roberts wrote:
On 12/4/23 3:10 PM, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
The Big Bang and the Center of the Universe The velocity-distanceNope! In a homogeneous and isotropic universe this would hold at
relationship interprets the redshift-distance relationship as
caused by the Doppler shift of starlight. This relationship is
the same in every direction from Earth. This requires we are at
the center of the universe.
any location, and THERE IS NO "CENTER".
There is a center in a finite, homogeneous, and isotropic universe.
An infinite universe would have no place to expand to so such aMore nonsense. You simply do not understand differential geometry
universe can not expand.
or GR.
No matter what differential geometry or GR says an infinite universe
cannot expand.
You are the one making the extraordinary claim,
You REALLY need to learn basic physics before attempting to write
about it.
Then, your usual ad hominems instead of reasoning or knowledge.
On 12/4/23 6:30 PM, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
On Monday, December 4, 2023 at 3:22:39 PM UTC-8, Tom Roberts wrote:
On 12/4/23 3:10 PM, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
The Big Bang and the Center of the Universe The velocity-distanceNope! In a homogeneous and isotropic universe this would hold at any
relationship interprets the redshift-distance relationship as
caused by the Doppler shift of starlight. This relationship is
the same in every direction from Earth. This requires we are at
the center of the universe.
location, and THERE IS NO "CENTER".
There is a center in a finite, homogeneous, and isotropic universe.
You have insufficient imagination. This is simply not true.
For example, the surface of the sphere S^2 is finite, homogeneous, and isotropic, yet it has no "center".
As you probably don't understand this, I mean no center
IN THE MANIFOLD ITSELF. You must consider its intrinsic
properties only, and cannot embed it in E^3, because this
is an analogy for the universe, and as you point out,
there is no "enclosing space" in which the universe could
be embedded.
On Tuesday, December 5, 2023 at 12:23:41 PM UTC-8, Volney wrote:
On 12/5/2023 1:17 AM, Tom Roberts wrote:
On 12/4/23 6:30 PM, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:To expand on this, where is the center of the SURFACE of a globe, or the
On Monday, December 4, 2023 at 3:22:39 PM UTC-8, Tom Roberts wrote: >>>>> On 12/4/23 3:10 PM, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
The Big Bang and the Center of the Universe The velocity-distanceNope! In a homogeneous and isotropic universe this would hold at any >>>>> location, and THERE IS NO "CENTER".
relationship interprets the redshift-distance relationship as
caused by the Doppler shift of starlight. This relationship is
the same in every direction from Earth. This requires we are at
the center of the universe.
There is a center in a finite, homogeneous, and isotropic universe.
You have insufficient imagination. This is simply not true.
For example, the surface of the sphere S^2 is finite, homogeneous, and
isotropic, yet it has no "center".
As you probably don't understand this, I mean no center
IN THE MANIFOLD ITSELF. You must consider its intrinsic
properties only, and cannot embed it in E^3, because this
is an analogy for the universe, and as you point out,
there is no "enclosing space" in which the universe could
be embedded.
earth? In which country or ocean is it? I am explicitly not talking
about the center of the 3D earth itself, thousands of km below the
surface, but the point ON THE SURFACE which is the center OF THE
SURFACE. I repeat: Center of the 2D SURFACE, not the 3D center below it.
Is it the (0, 0) latitude/longitude in the Atlantic off the coast of
Africa? Why? The longitude line is arbitrary, but while the 0 latitude
line (the equator) has physical meaning, it is defined by a property of
the earth (its rotation), not some sort of "center" of the surface.
North or South Pole? Again, defined by the rotation but nothing special
about the surface itself. Maybe Mecca?
Think of a 4D hypersphere with a 3D "surface", which is our universe. In
the Big Bang theory the hypersurface of the hypersphere is expanding,
but like the regular sphere, there is no "center" of the hypersurface.
(even babbling Mitch seems to somewhat get this)
If you encase a space with a dodecahedron, you have twelve dimensions with the same amount of space and still have a center.
On Tuesday, December 5, 2023 at 12:23:41 PM UTC-8, Volney wrote:
On 12/5/2023 1:17 AM, Tom Roberts wrote:
On 12/4/23 6:30 PM, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:To expand on this, where is the center of the SURFACE of a globe, or the
On Monday, December 4, 2023 at 3:22:39 PM UTC-8, Tom Roberts wrote: >>>>> On 12/4/23 3:10 PM, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
The Big Bang and the Center of the Universe The velocity-distanceNope! In a homogeneous and isotropic universe this would hold at any >>>>> location, and THERE IS NO "CENTER".
relationship interprets the redshift-distance relationship as
caused by the Doppler shift of starlight. This relationship is
the same in every direction from Earth. This requires we are at
the center of the universe.
There is a center in a finite, homogeneous, and isotropic universe.
You have insufficient imagination. This is simply not true.
For example, the surface of the sphere S^2 is finite, homogeneous, and
isotropic, yet it has no "center".
As you probably don't understand this, I mean no center
IN THE MANIFOLD ITSELF. You must consider its intrinsic
properties only, and cannot embed it in E^3, because this
is an analogy for the universe, and as you point out,
there is no "enclosing space" in which the universe could
be embedded.
earth? In which country or ocean is it? I am explicitly not talking
about the center of the 3D earth itself, thousands of km below the
surface, but the point ON THE SURFACE which is the center OF THE
SURFACE. I repeat: Center of the 2D SURFACE, not the 3D center below it.
Is it the (0, 0) latitude/longitude in the Atlantic off the coast of
Africa? Why? The longitude line is arbitrary, but while the 0 latitude
line (the equator) has physical meaning, it is defined by a property of
the earth (its rotation), not some sort of "center" of the surface.
North or South Pole? Again, defined by the rotation but nothing special
about the surface itself. Maybe Mecca?
Think of a 4D hypersphere with a 3D "surface", which is our universe. In
the Big Bang theory the hypersurface of the hypersphere is expanding,
but like the regular sphere, there is no "center" of the hypersurface.
(even babbling Mitch seems to somewhat get this)
You have a very 2-dimensional comprehension as does relativity and Tom Roberts the ridiculously proud fellow.
On 12/4/2023 11:37 PM, Maciej Wozniak wrote:
On Tuesday, 5 December 2023 at 07:17:25 UTC+1, Tom Roberts wrote:
On 12/4/23 6:30 PM, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
On Monday, December 4, 2023 at 3:22:39 PM UTC-8, Tom Roberts wrote: >>>>> On 12/4/23 3:10 PM, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
The Big Bang and the Center of the Universe The velocity-distanceNope! In a homogeneous and isotropic universe this would hold at
relationship interprets the redshift-distance relationship as
caused by the Doppler shift of starlight. This relationship is
the same in every direction from Earth. This requires we are at
the center of the universe.
any location, and THERE IS NO "CENTER".
There is a center in a finite, homogeneous, and isotropic universe.
You have insufficient imagination. This is simply not true.
For example, the surface of the sphere S^2 is finite, homogeneous, and
isotropic, yet it has no "center".
Oh, yes, poor halfbrain, a sphere absolutely has
a center.
Indeed. Draw a sphere at 3-ary point (x, y, z) with radii of (1, 1, 1).
If x = y = z = 0, then this sphere will be the unit sphere centered at
origin with a radius of 1.
On Tuesday, December 5, 2023 at 9:39:40 PM UTC-3, Volney wrote:
On 12/5/2023 7:30 PM, Chris M. Thomasson wrote:<snip>
If x = y = z = 0, then this sphere will be the unit sphere centered at origin with a radius of 1.But the SURFACE of the sphere has no center! (the surface is the set of
points such that x²+y²+z²=1)
Notice the janitor deliberately omits the word "surface" when responding to Tom.
IMBECILE!
The volume (and the surface) of any sphere HAS A CENTER!
The sphere is centered at 0,0,0. The collection of x,y,z points that verify (x-0)²+(y-0)²+(z-0)²=1 define a surface equidistant to 0,0,0.
Had it been centered at x₁,y₁,z₁, the collection of x,y,z points that verify (x-x₁)²+(y-y₁)²+(z-z₁)²=1 define a surface equidistant to x₁,y₁,z₁,
anywhere in a 3D space, providing that its radius is 1. Also, its volume is centered in x₁,y₁,z₁.
[about the "center" of the SURFACE of a sphere] Why, it is both
everywhere and nowhere at the same time!
It would depend on where you started peeling
On Friday, December 8, 2023 at 3:35:45 AM UTC-3, Volney wrote:
<snip>
Again, I'm not talking about the center of the volume, but the center of the surface.
Where is the center OF THE SURFACE of the unit sphere?
IMBECILE!
In a Euclidean 3D space, draw two normal lines to two arbitrary contact points of the corresponding tangential planes in the sphere surface.
Where the two 3D normal lines intersect, is THE CENTER OF THE SPHERE!
Fucking retarded!
Relativity is ignorance.
On Friday, December 8, 2023 at 10:12:35 AM UTC-8, Volney wrote:
On 12/8/2023 10:27 AM, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
Relativity is ignorance.
War is peace.
Freedom is slavery.
Ignorance is strength
Speaking for yourself?
On Thursday, December 7, 2023 at 11:31:22 PM UTC-8, Paul Alsing wrote:globe it all depends on the boundaries of the "peel"...
In a subset of your question, you might ask where is the geographical center of the continental USA, which does not include Alaska or Hawaiii or any of the territories, and the straightforward answer is "in Kansas" (look it up)... but for the entire
I already replied to this above:
A steel man of this defense of the Big Bang without using a fourth dimension: A spherical-shaped universe with a void in the center would still have a difference in red-shift in different directions at different points on the surface.
Everyone knows there is no center to the surface of a sphere.
On Thursday, December 7, 2023 at 10:35:45 PM UTC-8, Volney wrote:surface.
On Tuesday, December 5, 2023 at 9:28:36 PM UTC-8, Richard Hertz wrote:
On Tuesday, December 5, 2023 at 9:39:40 PM UTC-3, Volney wrote:Yes, that's what you are, Dick.
On 12/5/2023 7:30 PM, Chris M. Thomasson wrote:<snip>
If x = y = z = 0, then this sphere will be the unit sphere centered at origin with a radius of 1.But the SURFACE of the sphere has no center! (the surface is the set of >>>> points such that x²+y²+z²=1)
Notice the janitor deliberately omits the word "surface" when responding to Tom.
IMBECILE!
The volume (and the surface) of any sphere HAS A CENTER!The volume does, where is the center of the surface? Justify your answer. >>>
The sphere is centered at 0,0,0. The collection of x,y,z points that verify (x-0)²+(y-0)²+(z-0)²=1 define a surface equidistant to 0,0,0.Again, I'm not talking about the center of the volume, but the center of
Had it been centered at x₁,y₁,z₁, the collection of x,y,z points that verify (x-x₁)²+(y-y₁)²+(z-z₁)²=1 define a surface equidistant to x₁,y₁,z₁,
anywhere in a 3D space, providing that its radius is 1. Also, its volume is centered in x₁,y₁,z₁.
the surface.
Where is the center OF THE SURFACE of the unit sphere?
Why, it is both everywhere and nowhere at the same time! It would depend on where you started peeling the surface away from the globe in order to lay it flat on a plane. Since the are infinite ways to peel a globe there are infinite centers of the
This is undoubtedly beyond the comprehension of Dick and Larry, neither of whom has ever read a relativity textbook...
On Friday, December 8, 2023 at 12:31:28 PM UTC-8, Chris M. Thomasson wrote:
On 12/7/2023 10:32 PM, Volney wrote:Poor Chris thinks anyone in the world doesn't know the surface of a sphere has no center. Dumb relativist!
On Tuesday, December 5, 2023 at 9:28:36 PM UTC-8, Richard Hertz wrote: >>>> On Tuesday, December 5, 2023 at 9:39:40 PM UTC-3, Volney wrote:
On 12/5/2023 7:30 PM, Chris M. Thomasson wrote:<snip>
If x = y = z = 0, then this sphere will be the unit sphere centered >>>>>> at origin with a radius of 1.But the SURFACE of the sphere has no center! (the surface is the set of >>>>> points such that x²+y²+z²=1)
Notice the janitor deliberately omits the word "surface" when
responding to Tom.
IMBECILE!
Yes, that's what you are, Dick.
The volume (and the surface) of any sphere HAS A CENTER!
The volume does, where is the center of the surface? Justify your answer. >>>> [...]
Everywhere and nowhere? ;^) Let me throw out a point wrt unit sphere
centered at (0, 0, 0):
(1, 0, 0) this is on the surface, however is it the center? What about
point (-1, 0, 0)? lol.
:^)
On Friday, December 8, 2023 at 3:35:45 AM UTC-3, Volney wrote:
<snip>
Again, I'm not talking about the center of the volume, but the center of the surface.
Where is the center OF THE SURFACE of the unit sphere?
IMBECILE!
In a Euclidean 3D space, draw two normal lines to two arbitrary contact points of the corresponding tangential planes in the sphere surface.
Where the two 3D normal lines intersect, is THE CENTER OF THE SPHERE!
Fucking retarded!
On Friday, December 8, 2023 at 1:07:00 PM UTC-8, Volney wrote:
On 12/8/2023 1:55 PM, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
On Friday, December 8, 2023 at 10:12:35 AM UTC-8, Volney wrote:
On 12/8/2023 10:27 AM, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
Relativity is ignorance.
War is peace.
Freedom is slavery.
Ignorance is strength
Speaking for yourself?
Just completing your thought.
Speak for yourself ass!
On Friday, December 8, 2023 at 7:29:30 PM UTC-8, Chris M. Thomasson wrote:
On 12/8/2023 1:53 PM, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
Unfortunately for you, any spherical universe would necessarily have a center, and you haven't been able to explain why it wouldn't. You are the dumbest fool.
A sphere would have a single origin point, and a radius. This point is
contained in all the points in a 3d volume, and is unique for said
sphere. Surface points in this volume wrt said sphere are different than
the single origin point. There is no center on the surface.
Even if we are on the surface of a spherical universe,
On 12/8/2023 7:43 PM, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
On Friday, December 8, 2023 at 7:29:30 PM UTC-8, Chris M. Thomasson
wrote:
On 12/8/2023 1:53 PM, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:Even if we are on the surface of a spherical universe, there should be
On Friday, December 8, 2023 at 8:40:27 AM UTC-8, Tom Roberts wrote: >>>>> On 12/8/23 1:31 AM, Paul Alsing wrote:A sphere would have a single origin point, and a radius. This point is
Unfortunately for you, any spherical universe would necessarily have[about the "center" of the SURFACE of a sphere] Why, it is bothNo. It is simply that the SURFACE of a sphere has no center WITHIN THE >>>>> MANIFOLD (i.e. any putative "center" must lie on the surface).
everywhere and nowhere at the same time!
It would depend on where you started peelingNobody said anything about "peeling". Don't do that, because it cannot >>>>> be done -- the topology of S^2 is incompatible with the topology of
R^2
(the plane). Likewise, any metric on S^2 is incompatible with any
metric
on R^2.
The surface of a sphere simply has no center INTRINSICALLY. I
explicitly
said one must NOT embed the surface into a higher-dimension space.
Similarly, the manifold used to mode the universe we inhabit cannot be >>>>> embedded in any higher-dimension space.
Most posters in this thread insist on embedding the surface of the
sphere S^2 in a 3-D euclidean space, and point to its center in the
space. They seem to have insufficient powers of abstraction to avoid >>>>> doing that and to just consider the surface ON ITS OWN.
Tom Roberts
a center, and you haven't been able to explain why it wouldn't. You
are the dumbest fool.
contained in all the points in a 3d volume, and is unique for said
sphere. Surface points in this volume wrt said sphere are different than >>> the single origin point. There is no center on the surface.
a difference in a redshift in different directions, and there is not,
so we must be at the center, not the surface. Of course, there is no
center to the surface of a sphere, and there is no fourth spatial
dimension.
The fun part is that any observer on the surface of a sphere might think
its at the center. Or, well, think about the great attractor, in space...
On 12/8/2023 3:33 PM, Volney wrote:
On 12/8/2023 4:49 PM, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
On Thursday, December 7, 2023 at 11:31:22 PM UTC-8, Paul Alsing wrote:
In a subset of your question, you might ask where is the
geographical center of the continental USA, which does not include
Alaska or Hawaiii or any of the territories, and the straightforward
answer is "in Kansas" (look it up)... but for the entire globe it
all depends on the boundaries of the "peel"...
I already replied to this above:
A steel man of this defense of the Big Bang without using a fourth
dimension:
A spherical-shaped universe with a void in the center would still
have a difference in red-shift in different directions at different
points on the surface.
And the point is, the universe isn't spherical in the big bang model.
A 4d hypersphere's 3d "surface" isn't a sphere just like the 2d
surface of a 3d sphere isn't a circle.
Everyone knows there is no center to the surface of a sphere.
Finally! An answer from you! It's even correct!
Now take that concept to 3 dimensions.
In 2d I wonder if the "center" of the surface of a unit circle can be
the point at {cos(0), sin(0)}? ;^)
On Friday, December 8, 2023 at 8:05:59 PM UTC-8, Chris M. Thomasson wrote:there is no fourth spatial dimension.
On 12/8/2023 7:43 PM, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
On Friday, December 8, 2023 at 7:29:30 PM UTC-8, Chris M. Thomasson wrote:
On 12/8/2023 1:53 PM, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:Even if we are on the surface of a spherical universe, there should be a difference in a redshift in different directions, and there is not, so we must be at the center, not the surface. Of course, there is no center to the surface of a sphere, and
On Friday, December 8, 2023 at 8:40:27 AM UTC-8, Tom Roberts wrote: >>>>>> On 12/8/23 1:31 AM, Paul Alsing wrote:A sphere would have a single origin point, and a radius. This point is >>>> contained in all the points in a 3d volume, and is unique for said
Unfortunately for you, any spherical universe would necessarily have a center, and you haven't been able to explain why it wouldn't. You are the dumbest fool.[about the "center" of the SURFACE of a sphere] Why, it is bothNo. It is simply that the SURFACE of a sphere has no center WITHIN THE >>>>>> MANIFOLD (i.e. any putative "center" must lie on the surface).
everywhere and nowhere at the same time!
It would depend on where you started peelingNobody said anything about "peeling". Don't do that, because it cannot >>>>>> be done -- the topology of S^2 is incompatible with the topology of R^2 >>>>>> (the plane). Likewise, any metric on S^2 is incompatible with any metric >>>>>> on R^2.
The surface of a sphere simply has no center INTRINSICALLY. I explicitly >>>>>> said one must NOT embed the surface into a higher-dimension space. >>>>>> Similarly, the manifold used to mode the universe we inhabit cannot be >>>>>> embedded in any higher-dimension space.
Most posters in this thread insist on embedding the surface of the >>>>>> sphere S^2 in a 3-D euclidean space, and point to its center in the >>>>>> space. They seem to have insufficient powers of abstraction to avoid >>>>>> doing that and to just consider the surface ON ITS OWN.
Tom Roberts
sphere. Surface points in this volume wrt said sphere are different than >>>> the single origin point. There is no center on the surface.
The fun part is that any observer on the surface of a sphere might think
its at the center. Or, well, think about the great attractor, in space...
That observer would not think they were at the center if there were a velocity-distance relationship because the redshift would differ in various directions. It doesn't, so we must be at the center, not the sphere's surface.
On Friday, December 8, 2023 at 5:31:28 PM UTC-3, Chris M. Thomasson wrote:
<snip>
Everywhere and nowhere? ;^) Let me throw out a point wrt unit sphere centered at (0, 0, 0):
(1, 0, 0) this is on the surface, however is it the center? What about point (-1, 0, 0)? lol.
:^)
Be an arbitrary sphere, having a radius "1" be centered at (x₁,y₁,z₁) in a Euclidean 3D space.
It's mathematically TRUE that the infinite collection of (x,y,z) points that verify (x-x₁)² + (y-y₁)² + (z-z₁)² = 1
form part of a surface equidistant to the center (x₁,y₁,z₁).
The volume of the sphere is centered in (x₁,y₁,z₁), as well as THE SHELL OF THE SPHERE (outer layer of infinitesimal thickness) is centered in (x₁,y₁,z₁).
Think of the Earth, or the Sun.
Can't believe how deranged people have become. So ignorant, so clueless, without any visualization power at all.
I blame relativism, which has converted their adherents into drooling mutant cretins!
For instance, the points
x₁ ± 1, y₁, z₁
x₁, y₁ ± 1, z₁
x₁, y₁, z₁ ± 1
are three points contained in such surface, out of an infinite number of 3D points.
I have to ask myself: 1) Did you take your medications? ; 2) Did you really go to HS?; 3) Have you procreated?
On Saturday, December 9, 2023 at 4:05:36 PM UTC-8, Volney wrote:there is no fourth spatial dimension.
On 12/9/2023 2:17 PM, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
On Friday, December 8, 2023 at 8:05:59 PM UTC-8, Chris M. Thomasson wrote:
On 12/8/2023 7:43 PM, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
On Friday, December 8, 2023 at 7:29:30 PM UTC-8, Chris M. Thomasson wrote:
On 12/8/2023 1:53 PM, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:Even if we are on the surface of a spherical universe, there should be a difference in a redshift in different directions, and there is not, so we must be at the center, not the surface. Of course, there is no center to the surface of a sphere, and
On Friday, December 8, 2023 at 8:40:27 AM UTC-8, Tom Roberts wrote: >>>>>>>> On 12/8/23 1:31 AM, Paul Alsing wrote:A sphere would have a single origin point, and a radius. This point is >>>>>> contained in all the points in a 3d volume, and is unique for said >>>>>> sphere. Surface points in this volume wrt said sphere are different than >>>>>> the single origin point. There is no center on the surface.
Unfortunately for you, any spherical universe would necessarily have a center, and you haven't been able to explain why it wouldn't. You are the dumbest fool.[about the "center" of the SURFACE of a sphere] Why, it is both >>>>>>>>> everywhere and nowhere at the same time!No. It is simply that the SURFACE of a sphere has no center WITHIN THE >>>>>>>> MANIFOLD (i.e. any putative "center" must lie on the surface). >>>>>>>>> It would depend on where you started peeling
Nobody said anything about "peeling". Don't do that, because it cannot >>>>>>>> be done -- the topology of S^2 is incompatible with the topology of R^2
(the plane). Likewise, any metric on S^2 is incompatible with any metric
on R^2.
The surface of a sphere simply has no center INTRINSICALLY. I explicitly
said one must NOT embed the surface into a higher-dimension space. >>>>>>>> Similarly, the manifold used to mode the universe we inhabit cannot be >>>>>>>> embedded in any higher-dimension space.
Most posters in this thread insist on embedding the surface of the >>>>>>>> sphere S^2 in a 3-D euclidean space, and point to its center in the >>>>>>>> space. They seem to have insufficient powers of abstraction to avoid >>>>>>>> doing that and to just consider the surface ON ITS OWN.
Tom Roberts
Nope. Consider a spherical balloon with stars drawn on it. Consider anThe fun part is that any observer on the surface of a sphere might think >>>> its at the center. Or, well, think about the great attractor, in space... >>That observer would not think they were at the center if there were a velocity-distance relationship because the redshift would differ in various directions. It doesn't, so we must be at the center, not the sphere's surface.
observer anywhere on the balloon's surface. The balloon inflates at a
constant rate. The stars get farther and farther from each other, and
from the observer. The observer measures the redshift of the stars. He
notices the direction doesn't matter but concludes the star's redshifts
are proportional* to their initial distance from him. He concludes he's
at the center.
Consider a second observer on the balloon, anywhere except for the
location of the first observer. Following the same reasoning, this
observer *also* concludes he is at the center.
Consider a third, fourth... observer. They conclude the same thing. They
all observe they are at the center. Because the surface of the balloon
HAS NO CENTER.
(*) maybe not proportional since the light can travel along the 2D arc
path along the surface or the chord length "through" the balloon,
invoking the third dimension. I don't know which method more accurately
describes the 3D "balloon surface" of the Big Bang universe. Two
slightly different models but both result in the observers' conclusion
of being at the center.
Volney, you always flabbergast me leaving me speechless! To the contrary, there would be depth to the spherical universe. Our universe is not paper thin and not two dimensional.
On Saturday, December 9, 2023 at 9:05:36 PM UTC-3, Volney wrote:there is no fourth spatial dimension.
On 12/9/2023 2:17 PM, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
On Friday, December 8, 2023 at 8:05:59 PM UTC-8, Chris M. Thomasson wrote:
On 12/8/2023 7:43 PM, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
On Friday, December 8, 2023 at 7:29:30 PM UTC-8, Chris M. Thomasson wrote:
On 12/8/2023 1:53 PM, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:Even if we are on the surface of a spherical universe, there should be a difference in a redshift in different directions, and there is not, so we must be at the center, not the surface. Of course, there is no center to the surface of a sphere, and
On Friday, December 8, 2023 at 8:40:27 AM UTC-8, Tom Roberts wrote: >>>>>>>> On 12/8/23 1:31 AM, Paul Alsing wrote:A sphere would have a single origin point, and a radius. This point is >>>>>> contained in all the points in a 3d volume, and is unique for said >>>>>> sphere. Surface points in this volume wrt said sphere are different than >>>>>> the single origin point. There is no center on the surface.
Unfortunately for you, any spherical universe would necessarily have a center, and you haven't been able to explain why it wouldn't. You are the dumbest fool.[about the "center" of the SURFACE of a sphere] Why, it is both >>>>>>>>> everywhere and nowhere at the same time!No. It is simply that the SURFACE of a sphere has no center WITHIN THE >>>>>>>> MANIFOLD (i.e. any putative "center" must lie on the surface). >>>>>>>>> It would depend on where you started peeling
Nobody said anything about "peeling". Don't do that, because it cannot >>>>>>>> be done -- the topology of S^2 is incompatible with the topology of R^2
(the plane). Likewise, any metric on S^2 is incompatible with any metric
on R^2.
The surface of a sphere simply has no center INTRINSICALLY. I explicitly
said one must NOT embed the surface into a higher-dimension space. >>>>>>>> Similarly, the manifold used to mode the universe we inhabit cannot be >>>>>>>> embedded in any higher-dimension space.
Most posters in this thread insist on embedding the surface of the >>>>>>>> sphere S^2 in a 3-D euclidean space, and point to its center in the >>>>>>>> space. They seem to have insufficient powers of abstraction to avoid >>>>>>>> doing that and to just consider the surface ON ITS OWN.
Tom Roberts
Nope. Consider a spherical balloon with stars drawn on it. Consider anThe fun part is that any observer on the surface of a sphere might think >>>> its at the center. Or, well, think about the great attractor, in space... >>That observer would not think they were at the center if there were a velocity-distance relationship because the redshift would differ in various directions. It doesn't, so we must be at the center, not the sphere's surface.
observer anywhere on the balloon's surface. The balloon inflates at a
constant rate. The stars get farther and farther from each other, and
from the observer. The observer measures the redshift of the stars. He
notices the direction doesn't matter but concludes the star's redshifts
are proportional* to their initial distance from him. He concludes he's
at the center.
Consider a second observer on the balloon, anywhere except for the
location of the first observer. Following the same reasoning, this
observer *also* concludes he is at the center.
Consider a third, fourth... observer. They conclude the same thing. They
all observe they are at the center. Because the surface of the balloon
HAS NO CENTER.
(*) maybe not proportional since the light can travel along the 2D arc
path along the surface or the chord length "through" the balloon,
invoking the third dimension. I don't know which method more accurately
describes the 3D "balloon surface" of the Big Bang universe. Two
slightly different models but both result in the observers' conclusion
of being at the center.
Fucking useless eater: You don't have a correct perception of the relativistic Big Bang universe! You, as many others retarded, fail even on this
visualization by using the balloon stupid example. Probably due to your ant size brain.
The correct visualization of an expanding universe since the BB should be THIS ONE, asshole:
1) You CAN'T VISUALIZE THE UNIVERSE FROM AFAR! There is NOTHINGNESS beyond the MBR spherical shell. You CAN'T EXIST IN NOTHINGNESS, idiot!!!!!
2) You can only TRY TO VISUALIZE THE UNIVERSE FROM WITHIN ITS SPHERICAL VOLUME.
3) The VOLUME of the spherical expanding universe IS COMPOSED BY INFINITE SHELLS, being that THE RADIUS (if exists in a 3D perception)
On 12/9/2023 7:31 PM, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
You're ineducable.
On 12/8/2023 6:21 PM, Richard Hertz wrote:
On Friday, December 8, 2023 at 5:31:28 PM UTC-3, Chris M. Thomasson1) It certainly appears you didn't take your medicine, at least not the antipsychotics.
wrote:
<snip>
Everywhere and nowhere? ;^) Let me throw out a point wrt unit sphere
centered at (0, 0, 0):
(1, 0, 0) this is on the surface, however is it the center? What
about point (-1, 0, 0)? lol.
:^)
Be an arbitrary sphere, having a radius "1" be centered at (x₁,y₁,z₁) >> in a Euclidean 3D space.
It's mathematically TRUE that the infinite collection of (x,y,z)
points that verify (x-x₁)² + (y-y₁)² + (z-z₁)² = 1
form part of a surface equidistant to the center (x₁,y₁,z₁).
The volume of the sphere is centered in (x₁,y₁,z₁), as well as THE
SHELL OF THE SPHERE (outer layer of infinitesimal thickness) is
centered in (x₁,y₁,z₁).
Think of the Earth, or the Sun.
Can't believe how deranged people have become. So ignorant, so
clueless, without any visualization power at all.
I blame relativism, which has converted their adherents into drooling
mutant cretins!
For instance, the points
x₁ ± 1, y₁, z₁
x₁, y₁ ± 1, z₁
x₁, y₁, z₁ ± 1
are three points contained in such surface, out of an infinite number
of 3D points.
I have to ask myself: 1) Did you take your medications? ; 2) Did you
really go to HS?; 3) Have you procreated?
2) I can't be sure but you didn't manage to get a high school education
in sciences.
3) I hope you didn't!
On 12/9/2023 10:45 PM, Chris M. Thomasson wrote:
On 12/9/2023 9:33 AM, Volney wrote:
On 12/8/2023 11:05 PM, Chris M. Thomasson wrote:[...]
The fun part is that any observer on the surface of a sphere might
think its at the center. Or, well, think about the great attractor,
in space...
Exactly. No matter where you are on the surface of a sphere, it LOOKS
like you are at the center.
Same with the 3D universe. No matter where you are, it LOOKS like
you're at the center.
Another point... Think of a 3d point in a 4d system where any "true"
3d point has a w component of zero, ala:
(x, y, z, w), fine... vec4, okay:
vec4 point_4d = { 1, 1, 1, 0 };
Is a "pure" 3d point. However:
vec4 point_4d_oddball = { 1, 1, 1, 0.000000001 };
is not a "pure" 3d point at all, not in any way shape or form! A 4d
observer at that point with a non-zero w component, would be able to
look at the 3d world as a sort of alpha blend, in a sense. It could
see right through things, and walk right through walls... Eve ones
made of lead. ;^)
Too much pondering here? lol. :^)
In a land far far away... The 4d observer, with a non-zero w point in
its 4-ary vector, would be able to stand on the surface of a planet,
look down and see right through said planet into space on the other
side... Everything looks like an alpha channel/blend of sorts, it would
be able to see things akin to a 3d person drawing 2d plans. It would be
able to walk right through walls that exist in points that have zero for
a 4d component, w = 0... It would be able to see in every room, see
inside of people, look down and see space look up and see more space... Sorry, I wrote that for fun. Try not to call me a 100% kook? ;^) lol.
On 12/10/2023 11:50 AM, Volney wrote:
On 12/9/2023 7:31 PM, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
You're ineducable.
Kudos to Uncle Al.
On 12/10/2023 11:39 AM, Volney wrote:
On 12/8/2023 6:21 PM, Richard Hertz wrote:
On Friday, December 8, 2023 at 5:31:28 PM UTC-3, Chris M. Thomasson1) It certainly appears you didn't take your medicine, at least not
wrote:
<snip>
Everywhere and nowhere? ;^) Let me throw out a point wrt unit sphere
centered at (0, 0, 0):
(1, 0, 0) this is on the surface, however is it the center? What
about point (-1, 0, 0)? lol.
:^)
Be an arbitrary sphere, having a radius "1" be centered at (x₁,y₁,z₁) >>> in a Euclidean 3D space.
It's mathematically TRUE that the infinite collection of (x,y,z)
points that verify (x-x₁)² + (y-y₁)² + (z-z₁)² = 1
form part of a surface equidistant to the center (x₁,y₁,z₁).
The volume of the sphere is centered in (x₁,y₁,z₁), as well as THE >>> SHELL OF THE SPHERE (outer layer of infinitesimal thickness) is
centered in (x₁,y₁,z₁).
Think of the Earth, or the Sun.
Can't believe how deranged people have become. So ignorant, so
clueless, without any visualization power at all.
I blame relativism, which has converted their adherents into drooling
mutant cretins!
For instance, the points
x₁ ± 1, y₁, z₁
x₁, y₁ ± 1, z₁
x₁, y₁, z₁ ± 1
are three points contained in such surface, out of an infinite number
of 3D points.
I have to ask myself: 1) Did you take your medications? ; 2) Did you
really go to HS?; 3) Have you procreated?
the antipsychotics.
2) I can't be sure but you didn't manage to get a high school
education in sciences.
3) I hope you didn't!
The problem concerning a high school science education has to do with
those who think the only aspects worthy of learning are the ones that directly impact the narrow subdiscipline that interests them. They take
up space in the room and more or less pay attention where the topic of
the day sounds as though it may have something to do with their
interest (these days usually some subdiscipline of electronics.)
This sounds like a variant of what Odd Bodkin and others noted: Why areI have to ask myself: 1) Did you take your medications? ; 2) Did you1) It certainly appears you didn't take your medicine, at least not
really go to HS?; 3) Have you procreated?
the antipsychotics.
2) I can't be sure but you didn't manage to get a high school
education in sciences.
3) I hope you didn't!
The problem concerning a high school science education has to do with
those who think the only aspects worthy of learning are the ones that
directly impact the narrow subdiscipline that interests them. They
take up space in the room and more or less pay attention where the
topic of
the day sounds as though it may have something to do with their
interest (these days usually some subdiscipline of electronics.)
so many cranks electrical engineers?
On 12/10/2023 2:12 PM, whodat wrote:
On 12/10/2023 11:50 AM, Volney wrote:Maybe his famous rant about Archie Plutonium needs to be modified to be
On 12/9/2023 7:31 PM, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
You're ineducable.
Kudos to Uncle Al.
about Laurence. He would post a rant about him if he was here to do so.
On 12/10/2023 2:09 PM, whodat wrote:
On 12/10/2023 11:39 AM, Volney wrote:This sounds like a variant of what Odd Bodkin and others noted: Why are
On 12/8/2023 6:21 PM, Richard Hertz wrote:
On Friday, December 8, 2023 at 5:31:28 PM UTC-3, Chris M. Thomasson1) It certainly appears you didn't take your medicine, at least not
wrote:
<snip>
Everywhere and nowhere? ;^) Let me throw out a point wrt unit
sphere centered at (0, 0, 0):
(1, 0, 0) this is on the surface, however is it the center? What
about point (-1, 0, 0)? lol.
:^)
Be an arbitrary sphere, having a radius "1" be centered at
(x₁,y₁,z₁) in a Euclidean 3D space.
It's mathematically TRUE that the infinite collection of (x,y,z)
points that verify (x-x₁)² + (y-y₁)² + (z-z₁)² = 1
form part of a surface equidistant to the center (x₁,y₁,z₁).
The volume of the sphere is centered in (x₁,y₁,z₁), as well as THE >>>> SHELL OF THE SPHERE (outer layer of infinitesimal thickness) is
centered in (x₁,y₁,z₁).
Think of the Earth, or the Sun.
Can't believe how deranged people have become. So ignorant, so
clueless, without any visualization power at all.
I blame relativism, which has converted their adherents into
drooling mutant cretins!
For instance, the points
x₁ ± 1, y₁, z₁
x₁, y₁ ± 1, z₁
x₁, y₁, z₁ ± 1
are three points contained in such surface, out of an infinite
number of 3D points.
I have to ask myself: 1) Did you take your medications? ; 2) Did you
really go to HS?; 3) Have you procreated?
the antipsychotics.
2) I can't be sure but you didn't manage to get a high school
education in sciences.
3) I hope you didn't!
The problem concerning a high school science education has to do with
those who think the only aspects worthy of learning are the ones that
directly impact the narrow subdiscipline that interests them. They
take up space in the room and more or less pay attention where the
topic of
the day sounds as though it may have something to do with their
interest (these days usually some subdiscipline of electronics.)
so many cranks electrical engineers?
This sounds like a variant of what Odd Bodkin and others noted: Why
are so many cranks electrical engineers?
In my father's day (early 20th century) The most popular discipline was mechanical engineering. I predict that rocket science will be next, of
course I won't be around to see it.
On 12/4/23 3:10 PM, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
The Big Bang and the Center of the Universe The velocity-distance
relationship interprets the redshift-distance relationship as caused
by the Doppler shift of starlight. This relationship is the same in
every direction from Earth. This requires we are at the center of
the universe.
Nope! In a homogeneous and isotropic universe this would hold at any location, and THERE IS NO "CENTER".
On 12/10/2023 7:40 PM, Volney wrote:
On 12/10/2023 2:28 AM, Chris M. Thomasson wrote:
On 12/9/2023 10:45 PM, Chris M. Thomasson wrote:
On 12/9/2023 9:33 AM, Volney wrote:
On 12/8/2023 11:05 PM, Chris M. Thomasson wrote:[...]
The fun part is that any observer on the surface of a sphere might >>>>>> think its at the center. Or, well, think about the great
attractor, in space...
Exactly. No matter where you are on the surface of a sphere, it
LOOKS like you are at the center.
Same with the 3D universe. No matter where you are, it LOOKS like
you're at the center.
Another point... Think of a 3d point in a 4d system where any "true"
3d point has a w component of zero, ala:
(x, y, z, w), fine... vec4, okay:
vec4 point_4d = { 1, 1, 1, 0 };
Is a "pure" 3d point. However:
vec4 point_4d_oddball = { 1, 1, 1, 0.000000001 };
is not a "pure" 3d point at all, not in any way shape or form! A 4d
observer at that point with a non-zero w component, would be able to
look at the 3d world as a sort of alpha blend, in a sense. It could
see right through things, and walk right through walls... Eve ones
made of lead. ;^)
Too much pondering here? lol. :^)
In a land far far away... The 4d observer, with a non-zero w point in
its 4-ary vector, would be able to stand on the surface of a planet,
look down and see right through said planet into space on the other
side... Everything looks like an alpha channel/blend of sorts, it
would be able to see things akin to a 3d person drawing 2d plans. It
would be able to walk right through walls that exist in points that
have zero for a 4d component, w = 0... It would be able to see in
every room, see inside of people, look down and see space look up and
see more space... Sorry, I wrote that for fun. Try not to call me a
100% kook? ;^) lol.
I like the description of what it would look like if a 1 meter
diameter 4D hypersphere with its x,y,z coordinates of its center were
in the room you are and its w coordinate going from negative to zero
to positive. First you'd see a point which rapidly would grow into a
sphere, continue growing but slower until it was 1 meter diameter,
then it would shrink to a point and wink out of existence.
Well, so far, that is how some of my 4-ary vector field experiments
actually look/act like! The problem is that I am having trouble
visualizing points that have a w component that is non-zero. My n-ary
vector field helps! But its still strange. I can see how a "ghost" point
with a non-zero w component effect points in the 3d world, but its still
odd to me. I actually have no idea where to plot a 4d point that has
zero x, y, z components, and a non-zero w! Say,
(0, 0, 0, 1) ? Where do I plot that sucker!
On 12/12/2023 1:20 AM, Chris M. Thomasson wrote:
On 12/10/2023 7:40 PM, Volney wrote:
On 12/10/2023 2:28 AM, Chris M. Thomasson wrote:
On 12/9/2023 10:45 PM, Chris M. Thomasson wrote:
On 12/9/2023 9:33 AM, Volney wrote:
On 12/8/2023 11:05 PM, Chris M. Thomasson wrote:[...]
The fun part is that any observer on the surface of a sphere
might think its at the center. Or, well, think about the great
attractor, in space...
Exactly. No matter where you are on the surface of a sphere, it
LOOKS like you are at the center.
Same with the 3D universe. No matter where you are, it LOOKS like
you're at the center.
Another point... Think of a 3d point in a 4d system where any
"true" 3d point has a w component of zero, ala:
(x, y, z, w), fine... vec4, okay:
vec4 point_4d = { 1, 1, 1, 0 };
Is a "pure" 3d point. However:
vec4 point_4d_oddball = { 1, 1, 1, 0.000000001 };
is not a "pure" 3d point at all, not in any way shape or form! A 4d
observer at that point with a non-zero w component, would be able
to look at the 3d world as a sort of alpha blend, in a sense. It
could see right through things, and walk right through walls... Eve
ones made of lead. ;^)
Too much pondering here? lol. :^)
In a land far far away... The 4d observer, with a non-zero w point
in its 4-ary vector, would be able to stand on the surface of a
planet, look down and see right through said planet into space on
the other side... Everything looks like an alpha channel/blend of
sorts, it would be able to see things akin to a 3d person drawing 2d
plans. It would be able to walk right through walls that exist in
points that have zero for a 4d component, w = 0... It would be able
to see in every room, see inside of people, look down and see space
look up and see more space... Sorry, I wrote that for fun. Try not
to call me a 100% kook? ;^) lol.
I like the description of what it would look like if a 1 meter
diameter 4D hypersphere with its x,y,z coordinates of its center were
in the room you are and its w coordinate going from negative to zero
to positive. First you'd see a point which rapidly would grow into a
sphere, continue growing but slower until it was 1 meter diameter,
then it would shrink to a point and wink out of existence.
Well, so far, that is how some of my 4-ary vector field experiments
actually look/act like! The problem is that I am having trouble
visualizing points that have a w component that is non-zero. My n-ary
vector field helps! But its still strange. I can see how a "ghost"
point with a non-zero w component effect points in the 3d world, but
its still odd to me. I actually have no idea where to plot a 4d point
that has zero x, y, z components, and a non-zero w! Say,
(0, 0, 0, 1) ? Where do I plot that sucker!
Only points with w=0 can be observed by 3D beings. In my example, the hypersphere with a diameter of 1 will be nonexistent until its center coordinate becomes w = -1. At that time a single point (with w=0) hypersurface appears. As w of the center increases, the number of points
with w=0 and thus "real" increases. When the center is at w=0, the hypersurface is at a maximum and appears as a sphere with diameter 1. As
w increases the sphere shrinks and when w=1 it is a point and then
vanishes.
On 12/12/2023 10:03 PM, Volney wrote:
On 12/12/2023 1:20 AM, Chris M. Thomasson wrote:
On 12/10/2023 7:40 PM, Volney wrote:
On 12/10/2023 2:28 AM, Chris M. Thomasson wrote:
On 12/9/2023 10:45 PM, Chris M. Thomasson wrote:
On 12/9/2023 9:33 AM, Volney wrote:
On 12/8/2023 11:05 PM, Chris M. Thomasson wrote:[...]
The fun part is that any observer on the surface of a sphere
might think its at the center. Or, well, think about the great >>>>>>>> attractor, in space...
Exactly. No matter where you are on the surface of a sphere, it
LOOKS like you are at the center.
Same with the 3D universe. No matter where you are, it LOOKS like >>>>>>> you're at the center.
Another point... Think of a 3d point in a 4d system where any
"true" 3d point has a w component of zero, ala:
(x, y, z, w), fine... vec4, okay:
vec4 point_4d = { 1, 1, 1, 0 };
Is a "pure" 3d point. However:
vec4 point_4d_oddball = { 1, 1, 1, 0.000000001 };
is not a "pure" 3d point at all, not in any way shape or form! A
4d observer at that point with a non-zero w component, would be
able to look at the 3d world as a sort of alpha blend, in a sense. >>>>>> It could see right through things, and walk right through walls... >>>>>> Eve ones made of lead. ;^)
Too much pondering here? lol. :^)
In a land far far away... The 4d observer, with a non-zero w point
in its 4-ary vector, would be able to stand on the surface of a
planet, look down and see right through said planet into space on
the other side... Everything looks like an alpha channel/blend of
sorts, it would be able to see things akin to a 3d person drawing
2d plans. It would be able to walk right through walls that exist
in points that have zero for a 4d component, w = 0... It would be
able to see in every room, see inside of people, look down and see
space look up and see more space... Sorry, I wrote that for fun.
Try not to call me a 100% kook? ;^) lol.
I like the description of what it would look like if a 1 meter
diameter 4D hypersphere with its x,y,z coordinates of its center
were in the room you are and its w coordinate going from negative to
zero to positive. First you'd see a point which rapidly would grow
into a sphere, continue growing but slower until it was 1 meter
diameter, then it would shrink to a point and wink out of existence.
Well, so far, that is how some of my 4-ary vector field experiments
actually look/act like! The problem is that I am having trouble
visualizing points that have a w component that is non-zero. My n-ary
vector field helps! But its still strange. I can see how a "ghost"
point with a non-zero w component effect points in the 3d world, but
its still odd to me. I actually have no idea where to plot a 4d point
that has zero x, y, z components, and a non-zero w! Say,
(0, 0, 0, 1) ? Where do I plot that sucker!
Only points with w=0 can be observed by 3D beings. In my example, the
hypersphere with a diameter of 1 will be nonexistent until its center
coordinate becomes w = -1. At that time a single point (with w=0)
hypersurface appears. As w of the center increases, the number of
points with w=0 and thus "real" increases. When the center is at w=0,
the hypersurface is at a maximum and appears as a sphere with diameter
1. As w increases the sphere shrinks and when w=1 it is a point and
then vanishes.
Still not sure if an 3d observer could see a 4d object with a non-zero
w. Afaict, it seems like you are taking w on a range of -1...1. Say:
x = 0
y = 0
z = 0
w = -1...0...1
When w is at the center and is actually equal to zero, 3d observers can finally see it. A fun part is that a 4d observer would be able to see
the 4d object moving, and it would be able to see completely inside the
3d realm (aka alpha blend) its moving through wrt its (x, y, z) components.
I sometimes wonder if the w component can be very small yet non-zero to
a point where a 3d object might be able to notice something, akin to paranormal activity wrt the 3d object. That is a fun one to ponder on...
:^)
Sysop: | Keyop |
---|---|
Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
Users: | 310 |
Nodes: | 16 (2 / 14) |
Uptime: | 48:00:57 |
Calls: | 6,953 |
Calls today: | 6 |
Files: | 12,399 |
Messages: | 5,443,456 |
Posted today: | 1 |