On Fri, Feb 07, 2014 at 04:55:26PM -0800, Edgar L. Owen wrote: > Russell, > > Some good questions! > > Yes, the theory predicts a very small positive curvature of space. The > universe is a closed finite hypersphere with no edges and not infinite. > > A lot of people claim that data suggests the universe is flat, but the data > does not actually suggest that. What the data suggests is only that the > universe is very LARGE, i.e. that the curvature, if any, is very slight. > Also note that for the universe to actually be flat Omega must be EXACTLY=1 > to enormous precision. While if it varies from 1 in only the umpteenth > digit it is not actually flat, just very large. The statistical likelihood > of a number near to 1 being exactly 1 rather than the near infinite other > values it could have is incredibly low. So there is no real indication that > the universe is actually flat, only that whatever curvature it has is > slight. Another good example of how otherwise intelligent scientists often > misinterpret their own data!
Sure, the issue is not whether it is flat, as surely Omega must differ slightly from 1, but whether Omega is greater than 1, or less than 1. If Omega were less than 1, space has a negative curvature, and the universe is open (never contracts into a big crunch). The empirical data I was alluding to was the observation that the universe's expansion accelerated, starting about a billion years ago. I thought this indicated a negative curvature case, although still close to flat. Maybe I'm getting my wires crossed here. A quick Google search indicates they're still arguing over what the WMAP data means, though: http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2003/10/1008_031008_finiteuniverse.html vs http://www.nbcnews.com/science/space/weird-findings-suggest-we-live-saddle-shaped-universe-f8C11133381 > > My theory does NOT assume an embedding dimension. The 4-dimensional > hypersphere is the whole shebang.... > Actually, you're right. The radius of a 4D hypersphere does not depend on the embedding dimension - just as the radius of a circle does not depend on embedding dimension. Sorry. > Since my universe is hyperspherical with p-time the radial dimension, the > passage of p-time is what 'inflates' the cosmic balloon, whose surface is > the current universe, and thus what produces the current value of the > curvature of space and causes the Hubble expansion. > How close does space have to be to a hypersphere in order for your theory to work? General relativity demands local departure from flatness (and sphericity for that matter) to account for gravitational phenomena. This may be related to Brent's comments... Cheers -- ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Prof Russell Standish Phone 0425 253119 (mobile) Principal, High Performance Coders Visiting Professor of Mathematics hpco...@hpcoders.com.au University of New South Wales http://www.hpcoders.com.au ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
