I've told you before, a hypersphere required for inflation. There are a great many closed 4 dimensional shapes. Infact, there's infinitely many! A 4-rsphere is just one of, if not the, simplest 4 dimensional shapes. So despite being told this by myself and Rpenner, both of us knowing way more about differential geometry than you, you ignore us and post what you know is a strawman. Why? Are you that desperate to attack inflation and the BB that you post what you know to be a lie?
Ignorance is one thing but boasting of it is another. How many shapes can be uniform and expand evenly over their whole area? Well, there's a sphere and there's .......? You really don't have a clue, do you? You just jump at a subject and cut and paste in any idea that your poor, poor brain thinks might work. Pigpenner? Haven't that locked that idiot up yet? He was even dumber than you, which is saying a lot. Evidence for inflation is.....a lie of yours. The BB is an explanation for which there is no proof.
How much geometry to do you know? You don't know any. Calabi Yaus have constant curvature and are compact. Tori are compact and can inflate, you just carry the radii of the circles which define it. AdS space has constant curvature and can inflate, that's what the universe is thought to be, because it has negative curvature. A sphere has positive constant curvature. So I do have a clue. Infact, I do reseach into toric spaces and AdS spaces.Do you know any geometry relating to these spaces? I'm willing to discuss the details if you are. But we both know you aren't.
You are just C&P-ing ideas here. A hypersphere is 100% uniform. No other shape is. If you did have a clue, you would know that. Telescopes show no anomalies which would be produced by any other shape. We are not talking the curvature of space in that sense. The universe would be a 3D skin on a 4D expanding hypersphere.
All of the cosmologies with more than 3-spheres are hyperspace models. The surfaces of hyper-spheres can themselves mathematically contain 5-spheres or 6-spheres or any n-sphere. The resulting universe, though quite unimaginable beyond strictly mathematical models, is possible if nature somehow can comply (har har). Theory has it that you can travel in one direction for great distances and arrive at the starting point. Hyperspace theory also supports patches of space that could expand at different rates in an eternal inflation where entropy would never become complete (zero). Of course these are purely math and there is no evidence aside from the excellent way that the EFEs can describe gravity as if 4-space (3+1) were a reality. In the "Cause of the Big Bang" thread I suggested how the same effect could be reality in a 3-sphere.
quantum wave. A fourth (physical) dimensional sphere would not appear spherical to us if we could see it since it would extend in a fourth dimensional direction beyond a 3D sphere. However, it would be the 4D equivalent of a sphere so uniform. Our 3D universe would be it's (expanding) shell.
Well, they are only mathematical, so they can be made to take any imaginary shape. One hypersphere would be uniform but there are hyperspheres within other hyperspaces and vice-versa mathematically. And they can be made to form patches of uniformity that expand separately and at differing rates which is a big help to some of the eternal inflationary models. They seem to come in handy to explain things we can't yet explain in 3-D but the question is do they really exist. I don't think they do but reality doesn't care what anyone thinks about it.
No, I do research in orbifolds, which are the quotient spaces of tori, as well as beginning work on generalisations of Calabi Yaus and I'm also doing a side project on the AdS/CFT correspondence in the space-time topology of \(AdS_{5} \times S^{5}\). I've given talks on orbifolds and Calabi Yaus, see my website. And professors don't think I'm copying and pasting and they actually know about my work. You just say "It's not original" when you don't even know what I actually do. Minkowski and AdS space-times are 100% uniform too. They have constant curvature everywhere. Telescopes give no evidence the universe is closed, in that if you travel far enough in one direction you return to where you started, which is what would be the case if the universe is a hypersphere. Since we don't see the same exact structures on opposite sides of the sky, we have no evidence for it being closed. Infact, if dark energy exists then it cannot be closed, instead it would be open and so ever so slightly AdS. That's what telescopes tell us at the moment. The boundary of a solid 4D ball is a 3d sphere. For instance, suppose you have a solid ball in your hands. The surface of the ball is a 2-sphere, so the boundary of \(B^{n}\) (B being 'ball' and n being the number of dimensions it has) is \(S^{n-1}\). There's a topological distinction between a ball and a sphere. As I've said, if the universe is \(S^{3}\) and we had evidence for it then we'd see identical structures on opposite sides of the sky, just as if you travel far enough around a globe in opposite directions you end up at the same place. But we don't. This means that either the universe is a HUGE closed object (of which a hypersphere is just one kind) and light hasn't managed to travel around the entire 'surface' yet to show us the same objects on opposite sides of the sky or that it's another kind of topology, which isn't closed like flat, ie Minkowski, or it's open (as supernova observations tell us) and so is AdS. Can you provide evidence the universe is closed, in that light can travel all the way around the sphere and get back to us, or are you just going to fail to understand all I've explained and just deny it all? Can you prove I've copied and pasted anything in this post? It's called 'learning'. It's what educational institutions facilitate. As do books. Try using them some time.
The work you have had printed in various journals because it is original is.....? There is a billion light year area of emptiness. It is craziness to say that curvature is the same here since there are no gravitational sources to cause it. Since the limits of our telescopes are not much over 13,000,000,000 light years, we could not see something fifteen billion light years away let alone the backs of our necks. If DE exists? We have no proof it does. It is a convenient idea used to fill a gap. As I have already explained, the universe has not existed long enough to travel all around the sphere. An expanding hypersphere is not a closed universe (but a finite universe) because it is expanding. perhaps you would like to explain how expansion works, where the space between galaxies expands without using a hypersphere? As to supernovae, Type 1A supernovas are not standard candles. Also photons can lose energy over cosmic distances, so the ones further away are naturally dimmer. Learning is when you can extrapolate on what you have learned. Parroting is just repeating what you have been told, like in your case.
Where did I claim to that? Firstly, the overall curvature of the universe is an averaging factor. Local variations obviously occur due to local variations of matter. The metric which describes the space-time around the Earth is the Schwarzchild metric, but over large distances where th effects of space-time expansion and dark energy dominate, you get AdS. Actually, if space was entirely empty of galaxies it would be perfectly AdS, because you have a negative cosmological constant with no perturbations due to material. Where there is material, you get changes which we see in the CMB. So the hole in the CMB which is a billion light years across is a better example of AdS than anything else! So infact we have no evidence the universe is a hypersphere at all, because we don't see such phenomena in observations. So it could be, overall, flat or even open, thus not a hypersphere. Hence why the BB model isn't "It's a hypersphere". That was a claim Nick on PhysOrg kept pushing but was corrected many times. Just like quantum field theory was a convent idea to fill the gap of electromagnetism, allowing us to make new, better, predictions and working models and then standing up to test. A flat plane can still undergo a space-time expansion. Infact, if you look at the FRW metric, which describes an expanding universe, there's a parameter in it called K. Depending on the value of K (<1, =1 or >1 if memory serves) you end up with spherical, flat or AdS topologies for your expanding system. So there exist ways of putting all these kinds of general space-time into expansion models. Again, this is easy to find and if you had done any research into this, you'd know it. So why don't you? Their properties due to their distance match the predictions of expansion not 'tired light'. 'Tired light' doesn't explain the time dilation effects we also observe, which occurs in relativistic models for two reasons, the speed the IAs are moving away from us and the expansion of the space-time as their photons moved towards us. The combined contribution of these two effects are seen experimentally. Can you find me a tired light model which explained both? Firstly, you deny my offer of talking to you about my work. And then complain you've not seen my work? Despite my comment I want to talk about it with you. Secondly, as demonstrated many times in threads like this, you get simple things wrong, things you can find online. So when you make a claim like "The expanding universe must be a hypersphere!" and yet one of the first things any student learns about the details of expanding universe models involves it being able to be done in hyperspheres, flat space-time and open space-time if shows you haven't even learnt said material. How can our discussions go from what is known to what is unknown when you're the one who doesn't even know what is known. Yet you comment all the information I post can be found by a 10 year old. So why haven't you found it? What was meant as an insult for me simply reflects badly on you. Have you ever made an attempt to understand the FRW metric? It's a pretty fundamental concept in inflation, mentioned many times in any cosmology lecture course or online. But you don't seem to know about some of it's basic properties. Why?
Just pointing out that you are hot air as that you parrot the work of others. What curvature? As the universe gets ever larger (ie: Nought to 158,000,000,000 light years across), there would be ever less curvature. But once you can explain how a black hole can drift apart, you can explain expansion. Since the universe is not a solid object (like a planet), how do you get such a vast emptiness in curved space? Unless you have a four dimensional object, then expansion is away from a 3D point. Unless you have a sphere, there would be anomalies which we could see, places we could not see beyond, distortions we could not explain, etc. How does QFT mean that DM exists? I have already explained why you are wrong here. Any research and you might have a clue. Light always travels at a set speed. It does not matter if space expands by a proton's diameter in the second it takes to cover 186,282 miles, it still travels at the same speed. Every post you have made has been a parroting of the work of others. Are you telling me you have suddenly developed a brain so I should take notice of you? Again you are just parroting the work of others without understanding what you are saying. The information can be found by a 10 year old, or a know nothing pretending to be a physics genius by copying the work of others. Inflation? It's a joke made to fool gullible people. I have asked you many times to explain how it can happen and am still waiting.
No. Why should I bother? Coming up with a new theory in science is like walking into a lions cage covered in steak sauce.
Kaneda, I have minimal skills in physics, maths or cosmology. One thing I am good at is assessing people, whether through the formal process of an interview, casual conversation, or examination of my writing. Not only do I depend upon this skill, but my company has placed considerable confidence in my ability to do this. While I cannot claim to have had a 100% success record, it is as close to it as makes no difference, especially when it comes to spotting bullshit artists. You give every appearance of falling into this category. Why don't you quit while you are behind?
Because he's the embodiment of the pathological anti-science nut. He really believes that all the current accumulated results of scientific achievements printed in any textbook (or "text book" as he so ignorantly calls them) are efforts to prevent the advancement of "real" science. Furthermore, he thinks that by taking his huge leaps into absurd 'scientific' regions that he is displaying some sort of high-powered thinking. While actually, all it does is reveal just how terribly bad his own ignorance is.
How spiteful can someone be because he lost some arguments against me several months back? You really need to see a psychiatrist and get over it.
An amateur psychologist. Even the professionals don't have a clue so where does that leave you? As a critic I can see you are a professional busybody with an exaggerated sense of your own worth so why don't you stop digging before I start shovelling it in on top of you?
To see how a 4D hypersphere would work, we are talking just the 3D skin of it. Take a spherical object, like an apple (a solid ball would be better) and stick knitting needles in it. Where they are in the surface of the apple is where galaxies are. Now imagine the apple expanding but the knitting needles stay in the same place. The space between them will continue to expand though they have not moved.
Well it seems like you have a lot to say to the scientific community. If you were confident in your findings, then the best thing to do would be to approach a reputable journal and have your arguments published. If not for yourself, you should do it for the advancement of science. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
