Okay you bastards, is it true that the universe is flat?

How would gravity work in hyperbolic space?

>>8845773
a^2+b^2<c^2

File: pls respond.png (235KB, 597x400px) Image search: [Google]

235KB, 597x400px

the universe is a rhombus pls respond

the univerise is a torus

File: 1492639309621.jpg (125KB, 1024x681px) Image search: [Google]

125KB, 1024x681px

>>8845764
da univerz ith inphinitee....?

wait how do use 4 chan

>>8845764
The universe doesn't have a shape because it is infinite. It is more like an infinite sponge made up of galaxy filaments and "voids".

Also i believe the current laws of physics wouldn't apply to a universe of a different shape. There is an equation that describes the geometry of the universe with basically 3 separate parts. I remember it being the amount of the dark matter in the universe along with the rate at which the universe is expanding and the forces bringing it in. The equation is like if its greater than 1 or something then its expand forever, less than one then itd collapse, and if its 0 then itd expand to a certain point then stop. This formula is directly related to the shape of the universe, if one of the parts in the formula changes then that could affect the current laws of physics such as an increases in the dark matter in the universe or a decrease in the expansion rate

The proper way to think as the universe as an ever expanding, infinatly tiny, grain of salt

if it was infinite then itd always be bright outside its more like we are on the surface of a balloon sorta

>>8845823
Step up your spatial dimension game noob

>>8845837
Wrong

>>8845837
I always thought of ourselves being inside an expanding balloon, not on the surface

>>8845864
Wrong

>>8845842
Sorry if that was over your head, kid.

>>8845864
all things are a surface

>>8845823
We don't actually know if the universe is infinite, bud. It WOULD be infinite if we could prove it is indeed spatially flat, something the recent Planck constraints indicated. But we cannot know for sure we cannot resolve the difference between spatially flat and curved but with a large radii.

>>8845773
[math]\operatorname{d} {s^2} = - \operatorname{d} {t^2} + a{\left( t \right)^2}\left( {\operatorname{d} {r^2} + {{\sinh }^2}\left( r \right)\operatorname{d} \Omega _2^2} \right)[/math]

>>8845764
its flat like your tits chestlet.

No human that is alive knows. An answer you will get will be from an educated guess regurgitated as fact.

>>8845867
>>8845911
Prove it

>>8846029
Pretty sure Klein solved it with his bottle discovery

>>8845764
Yfw our observable universe is an infinitesimally small point on a 4d hypersphere and there are an infinite amount of universes. Really makes you think.

>>8845784
What's a rhombus ?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shape_of_the_universe#Bounded_or_unbounded
>Assuming a finite universe, the universe can either have an edge or no edge. Many finite mathematical spaces, e.g., a disc, have an edge or boundary. Spaces that have an edge are difficult to treat, both conceptually and mathematically. Namely, it is very difficult to state what would happen at the edge of such a universe.
>For this reason, spaces that have an edge are typically excluded from consideration.


>The universe doesn't have a boundary!

>Why not?

>...because the math is too hard...

>>8846590
A vagina.

It's a torus like everything else

>>8846613
That's why most models predict either an infinite or boundless universe.

>>8845764
The universe is a pinched torus. the big bang is is a constant recycling process that revolves around the torus at the pinch/bang constant. the torus is infinite and quantum.
prove me wrong faggots.

>>8848438
What is entropy, tough guy?

>>8848438
This is nothing new. It would only work if it were a 4d torus (bouncing universe), but that's not what you had in mind.

File: main-qimg-d5a360d0d01fa3868f8e1020f3161d54-c[1].jpg (27KB, 550x344px) Image search: [Google]

27KB, 550x344px

the infinite size of the universe causes exponentially massive amounts of gravitational force to be applied, creating an event horizon effect that warps space-time to give the perceivable universe a finite size

it's both infinite and finite at the same time lads

>>8849044
entropy is the lack of matter in areas in the universe
Nothing to do with the shape.

The universe has been fine-tuned.
There is not too much matter so that it is "closed" or curving back unto itself.
There is not too little matter/energy so that it would be "open" or curved away from itself.
There is just the right amount of matter so that it can be represented with euclidean geometry.

If we consider the universe fine-tuned for life and the cosmological process as the most efficient means for producing life, we should expect the most amount of mass possible before gravity overtakes it, which is exactly what we find.

>>8850359
>exponentially massive
exponential means rate of growth not size you faggot idiot

>>8852265

so?

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthropic_principle

>>8850359
>mass warps spacetime
>is finite and infinite at the same time

sounds just like your mom

>>8848438

the universe is a tooth fairies bag and we're her unicorn's dream. prove me wrong faggot.

Cosmology/physics brainlet here.

How would a flat universe be possible when there is such a thing as depth? Is it flat on a larger scale, such as a piece of paper is flat, but still has a thickness, then?

Why does the universe need to have a boundary? I've always thought of everything as just matter filling up an infinite space. Is it because it just makes our current math work?

File: into-the-trash-1.png (347KB, 454x600px) Image search: [Google]

347KB, 454x600px

>>8845947

>>8850359
No. The universe is not a point mass, on large scales it is a uniform distribution so the forces cancel. The cosmological horizon is not the same as a black hole horizon.

>>8854100
Flat means there is zero instinct curvature to spacetime on large scales. Triangles add up to 180 degrees as we are familiar with. It doesn't mean the matter in the universe is distributed in a plane.

The universe probably doesn't have a boundary. The observable universe certainly does however. This is simply due to the finite age of the universe and the finite speed of light.

>>8849044
>implying quantum tunnelling can't decrease entropy
>implying the universe's acceleration won't decrease
>implying entropy even exists

>>8854184
>finite age of the universe
What's your evidence for this

>>8854286

not the poster you asked, but a finite distance of farthest visible objects divided by a finite speed of light results in a finite amount of time.

>>8854101
It is a metric for a universe with uniform negative curvature, i.e. hyperbolic

File: tumblr_n39m42DO7k1rhb9f5o2_r1_1280.jpg (403KB, 1152x768px) Image search: [Google]

403KB, 1152x768px

>>8845764
It's an infinite torus or Möbius strip and God is sitting in the center.

>>8854314
>finite distance of farthest visible objects
that's the observable universe only

>>8854286
The cosmic microwave background is the strongest piece of evidence. No infinitely old cosmology has explained it's blackbody spectrum (despite many attempts) not to mention it's other statistical properties.

>>8846553
Only due to triple integrals