Russell, Yes, that's correct. I'm just saying my theory predicts Omega MUST be >1 and the universe a positively curved hypersphere.
1. Because that's the only cosmological geometry consistent with p-time. 2. Because an Omega <1 results in a universe either infinite or with edges, neither of which is physically possible in my judgement for reasons I've stated previously here. Edgar On Saturday, February 8, 2014 12:26:45 AM UTC-5, Russell Standish wrote: > > 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 [email protected]<javascript:> > 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 [email protected]. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
