I like how there is not one video or person in the entire world who explains what the universe being flat means. They just say it's flat... Ok... What does that mean?
Just found this video "What Shape is Our Universe? Weird Experiment Shows What Happens In Universes With Different Shapes" Thought it was the best video I've seen so far
I think that you still have to account for time. As you shoot parallel beams of light out in an expanding universe the ruler is stretching so over time the distance between the beams will appear to decrease.
Great talk. Sad that it has so few views. I guess people are more interest in "important" things like the Oscars, football, the latest celebrity scandals etc.
I've never thought that a flat shaped universe made any sense. After all if a "Big Bang" occurred and there was a large explosion it would have exploded in all directions right? Not on some flat plane. No gravity would leave the explosion to form in every direction. The planets are all circular. The planets revolve around the Sun in a global type pattern (circular) but somehow space is flat and doesn't expand in all directions? We used to believe the Earth was flat too. I think we ever get to the point where we can actually find out what its shape is, we will also find that the universe is not flat.
That map of Ohio might be flat however the surface of the landmass of Ohio is not flat. Also, Eastern Ohio, towards Pennsylvania and West Virginia is very hilly. So I'm kind of confused.
You are correct. The presenter’s entire premise is flawed. Ohio is NOT flat. In fact it is curved (3D) because it lies on top of a circular f*****g planet! Ohio does not lie on a flat (2D) planet! Which means, those diagonally drawn parallel lines will NOT equal the same distances to the tee throughout the intermittent span of it. This is also irrespective of the hilly terrain that Ohio has on its surface. Additionally, likening the analogy to shining two beams of light in Space, overtime they will NOT be parallel to each other because space expands in all directions in a 3D plane. This causes complex distortions in those two light rays. Additionally, this is irrespective of gravitational distortion that galaxies, planets, stars, and black holes have on the passing light rays which will permanently change their trajectory and knock them out of a parallel status. There is a ludicrous premise made at (9:58), and thus the rest of the video is ludicrous.
The presenter’s entire premise is flawed. Ohio is NOT flat. In fact it is curved (3D) because it lies on top of a circular planet! Ohio does not lie on a flat (2D) planet! Which means, those diagonally drawn parallel lines will NOT equal the same distances to the tee throughout the intermittent span of it. This is also irrespective of the hilly terrain that Ohio has on its surface. Additionally, likening the analogy to shining two beams of light in Space, overtime they will NOT be parallel to each other because space expands in all directions in a 3D plane. This causes complex distortions in those two light rays because space does NOT expand uniformly at the same speed in all parts of the universe (new study data suggests). Additionally, this is irrespective of gravitational distortion that galaxies, planets, stars, and black holes have on the passing light rays which will permanently change their trajectory and knock them out of a parallel status. There is a ludicrous premise made at (9:58), and thus the rest of the video is ludicrous. It’s really simple. You, as a person, exist in 3D space (x, y, x planes) the same as everyone and everything else. Thus, we have established that the Earth and the universe has 3 dimensions to itself, and matter exists and occupies it, usually filling the entire span of it just as any homogeneous mixture does. This would mean the universe is 3D. Nobody refutes that. But what this video seeks to establish is whether the organization of objects inside this 3D universe is organized “flatly”. The answer to this problem, as I’ve logically deduced, suggests the universe is NOT flat but rather spherical. And since it is a homogenous mixture (as established by the presenter as well), matter in the universe has gone to fill and mix the entirety of its (3D) space, since that is a characteristic of homogenous mixtures. Hence, the universe is NOT flat, which is contrary to the hours-long lecture this presenter needs to conclude the opposite.
The thing I find interesting with any cosmology they say the universe is flat Beacuse of this that and that while that may be true in a way you have to think..🤔and saying that the universe formed from nothing and it will end infinite seems logical but yo have to look deeper 😐and one thing despise all odds even if it’s infinity minus one even if we are the only planet in the whole universe to have complex life it’s still possible. But if the universe is flat then what ?😐if you look at the psychology of every human or animal their mind set is NOT the same 😐and what most cosmologists see is they just see the universe but the don’t even question themselves 😐after all I was born in 1999 but what’s so important that date ?😐well 1999 was a very specific date in witch I was born in 😐and given the earth history I could have Ben anything every second of everyday year 😐so why so specific? 😐if the universe was really open I would not have Ben born in the first place 😑and every human was born and animal has a different point of view of the world and not every one was born with the same mindset if the universe were to end or not ever exist anymore everyone would be born with the same mindset automatically but that’s not the case 😑 it seems to be very specific and that would have to be so how can this just be the end ? 😐 the Big Crunch theory does not explain quantum mechanics the big rip explains that matter can be created and destroyed np but what about energy? you can’t destroy energy and energy can be converted into heat and matter 😐the big chill or heat death if the universe and nothing were to happen EVER AGAIN then how can you explain our very existence? 😐 like I was born in 1999? A very specific year ? and why was I born in the first place ?😐 it’s like acoustic oscillation before we were born we die and then we live just to die again 😐also how can life be very random or by chance ? 😐I had many chances to be whatever I wanted to be before 1999 but it’s not the case😑 my life seems to be very specific so even if the universe is flat that does not explain our very existence of life and death 😐no matter what happens you can’t escape death 😑even planets and stars you could say we are lucky but in my experience their is no such thing as luck 😑I noticed a pattern between extinction and creation many people don’t consider the life and anti-life equations it might sound silly but it could be true 😐and if life were to be forever the universe were to expanding forever stars black holes starts and even planets will last forever 😑if death was forever then our lives and everything we do mean nothing earth means nothing but for some reason 😐if I was dead then how can you explain WHY I was born in the first place at all 😐and not just that it’s also very specific so it only leads to more questions WHY was I not the maker of ford why was I not in WW2 ? Why was I born in 1999? 😐it’s not like I was the first person ever 😑it does not make since ?😐
I find these kinds of videos because most answer nothing and only confuse the issues more (though this one was better than most). For example, I have seen many which state directly that the observable universe is a sphere. Also, as in this video, the speaker stated that in a closed universe, were we to plot a triangle, the lines would curve and the angles add up to more than 180 degrees. BUT THAT IS TRUE ONLY if the triangle were drawn on the surface/outer periphery of a closed universe. Within the observable universe, within the “interior” so to speak, why would it not plot out to appear as if flat and the angles add up to only 180? If we drew a triangle on the surface of the earth, to be sure the angles would add up to more than 180 degrees. BUT were we to draw it through the center of the earth, they would add up to exactly 180 degrees. So I don’t see the proof in the claims of flatness. Are we to believe that the space/time is curved by the presence of the mass of all the existents in a closed universe BUT NOT a flat one? The promoters of the flat universe have stated that space/time is curved in all of the possible universes. So if the triangle would plot the same, why are we to gather that the universe is flat? If it is 3 dimensional which it must be for the observable universe is, would this theory of flatness not suggest that it was expanding in only two? If we were to consider otherwise, i.e., that the universe is expanding in three dimensions which I know is what is being proposed, this is still a closed universe, just possessive of an odd shape, yes? As for it having expanded out to infinity, this cannot be true. IF the universe expanded from a tiny fraction of the scope of an atom and can, as it has been quantified in scope at several milestones in its expansion, and that process is defined and employed as per that definition, i.e., “expansion” then it cannot have nor ever achieve infinity in scope. IF one wishes to argue this then he is denying himself the very use and meaning of the terms he uses to pose his theory to begin with. Expansion is an incremental progression of quantifiable measures from a given size to a subsequent, larger size, also quantifiable. It cannot achieve infinity. Infinity is an abstraction only. It is not a value. Should one wish to challenge this then let him state for us all what that last number/value in the growth/expansion of the universe was just before the next one was infinity. Does anyone understand this that he could explain it in more "mechanical/physical" terms? Thanks.
I will have a very amateur attempt. The analogies used are in three dimensional space. The fabric of the universe is 4 dimensional (3 of space and one of time). It is not the external shape of the universe that is flat or curved, it is the very substance of space and time that is flat. Unfortunately we can not envisage four dimensional objects, so the analogies are only approximate. My understanding is that there is no "surface" to a four dimensional universe. You can not travel, no matter how far, and come to an edge of the universe. Nor can you picture the shape of the universe from "outside" because there is no "outside". I might not be entirely right, but you have to get your brain around such unnatural (to us - the universe copes fine) concepts.
@@Andre_XX I think you are correct with respect to what I have seen from various physicists and cosmologists. What I find hard to accept is’ We live in these purportedly four dimensions In all that we experience, the three special dimensions are that which impose their effects, not that mysterious special phenomenon upon which scientists insist and you referenced. It is hard to accept that what we experience in our daily navigation of material reality and in the scientific experiments we conduct is somehow displaced as relevant by this theory you posed. It is hard to see how scientists can claim to know what the size and density of the universe had been before expansion (I believe it was 10 -15 meters), a quantifiable measure and that it expanded. How? To what shape from what shape? No inside? How then can we claim to understand its density, which we do? How then can we claim as Alan Guth does, for one, that it become uniformly the same temperature for its size and the proximity of every part with every other? A molecule is a material construct. So then is an atom. So then is a proton. So then is a quark. So then must be the energy fields which in composite compose empty space. If this is logically, necessarily so, then how is it that the universe could have expanded in a manner that it is flat and infinite with no inside? This seems very, very contradictory to me. It is easy for these folks to lay out a scheme which they claim is a material truth by means of terms which contradict the total of their theory and then claim that what we gathered from the terms they employed is not what they meant by them. If that is the case then they need to stop using them. I don’t buy it. If an atom is objective and deterministic in its form and function (I don’t mean its behavior necessarily) then that determinism cannot be just tossed aside when it is inconvenient to the filling of the gaps in uncooperative theories which would not otherwise conduce to the narrative these scientists which to promote. Given some of the boundlessly absurd theories they have also promoted, such as Boltzmann brains (LMAO), it is clear that they can be on flights of fancy and should not be trusted just because of their perceived status as scientists.
Sure we'll need better instruments because everything will expand...except us....lmao. the universe all expands together in equal ratio does it not? nothing has changed just our perspective point of the expanding torus.
Shape of the universe is a torus. There saved you millions of pounds and a headache. Get back to me when you've caught up on what is obvious to many of us.
I like how there is not one video or person in the entire world who explains what the universe being flat means. They just say it's flat... Ok... What does that mean?
They obviously dont know.
That's what I want to know too
Just checking in 11 months later to let you know we still don't know.
Just found this video "What Shape is Our Universe? Weird Experiment Shows What Happens In Universes With Different Shapes"
Thought it was the best video I've seen so far
Thats how flat earth theory started, some one drew a tringle on the picure of earth.
I think that you still have to account for time. As you shoot parallel beams of light out in an expanding universe the ruler is stretching so over time the distance between the beams will appear to decrease.
Great talk. Sad that it has so few views. I guess people are more interest in "important" things like the Oscars, football, the latest celebrity scandals etc.
I've never thought that a flat shaped universe made any sense. After all if a "Big Bang" occurred and there was a large explosion it would have exploded in all directions right? Not on some flat plane. No gravity would leave the explosion to form in every direction. The planets are all circular. The planets revolve around the Sun in a global type pattern (circular) but somehow space is flat and doesn't expand in all directions?
We used to believe the Earth was flat too. I think we ever get to the point where we can actually find out what its shape is, we will also find that the universe is not flat.
That map of Ohio might be flat however the surface of the landmass of Ohio is not flat. Also, Eastern Ohio, towards Pennsylvania and West Virginia is very hilly. So I'm kind of confused.
You are correct. The presenter’s entire premise is flawed. Ohio is NOT flat. In fact it is curved (3D) because it lies on top of a circular f*****g planet! Ohio does not lie on a flat (2D) planet!
Which means, those diagonally drawn parallel lines will NOT equal the same distances to the tee throughout the intermittent span of it. This is also irrespective of the hilly terrain that Ohio has on its surface.
Additionally, likening the analogy to shining two beams of light in Space, overtime they will NOT be parallel to each other because space expands in all directions in a 3D plane. This causes complex distortions in those two light rays. Additionally, this is irrespective of gravitational distortion that galaxies, planets, stars, and black holes have on the passing light rays which will permanently change their trajectory and knock them out of a parallel status.
There is a ludicrous premise made at (9:58), and thus the rest of the video is ludicrous.
The presenter’s entire premise is flawed. Ohio is NOT flat. In fact it is curved (3D) because it lies on top of a circular planet! Ohio does not lie on a flat (2D) planet!
Which means, those diagonally drawn parallel lines will NOT equal the same distances to the tee throughout the intermittent span of it. This is also irrespective of the hilly terrain that Ohio has on its surface.
Additionally, likening the analogy to shining two beams of light in Space, overtime they will NOT be parallel to each other because space expands in all directions in a 3D plane. This causes complex distortions in those two light rays because space does NOT expand uniformly at the same speed in all parts of the universe (new study data suggests). Additionally, this is irrespective of gravitational distortion that galaxies, planets, stars, and black holes have on the passing light rays which will permanently change their trajectory and knock them out of a parallel status.
There is a ludicrous premise made at (9:58), and thus the rest of the video is ludicrous.
It’s really simple. You, as a person, exist in 3D space (x, y, x planes) the same as everyone and everything else. Thus, we have established that the Earth and the universe has 3 dimensions to itself, and matter exists and occupies it, usually filling the entire span of it just as any homogeneous mixture does.
This would mean the universe is 3D. Nobody refutes that.
But what this video seeks to establish is whether the organization of objects inside this 3D universe is organized “flatly”. The answer to this problem, as I’ve logically deduced, suggests the universe is NOT flat but rather spherical. And since it is a homogenous mixture (as established by the presenter as well), matter in the universe has gone to fill and mix the entirety of its (3D) space, since that is a characteristic of homogenous mixtures.
Hence, the universe is NOT flat, which is contrary to the hours-long lecture this presenter needs to conclude the opposite.
The thing I find interesting with any cosmology they say the universe is flat Beacuse of this that and that while that may be true in a way you have to think..🤔and saying that the universe formed from nothing and it will end infinite seems logical but yo have to look deeper 😐and one thing despise all odds even if it’s infinity minus one even if we are the only planet in the whole universe to have complex life it’s still possible. But if the universe is flat then what ?😐if you look at the psychology of every human or animal their mind set is NOT the same 😐and what most cosmologists see is they just see the universe but the don’t even question themselves 😐after all I was born in 1999 but what’s so important that date ?😐well 1999 was a very specific date in witch I was born in 😐and given the earth history I could have Ben anything every second of everyday year 😐so why so specific? 😐if the universe was really open I would not have Ben born in the first place 😑and every human was born and animal has a different point of view of the world and not every one was born with the same mindset if the universe were to end or not ever exist anymore everyone would be born with the same mindset automatically but that’s not the case 😑 it seems to be very specific and that would have to be so how can this just be the end ? 😐 the Big Crunch theory does not explain quantum mechanics the big rip explains that matter can be created and destroyed np but what about energy? you can’t destroy energy and energy can be converted into heat and matter 😐the big chill or heat death if the universe and nothing were to happen EVER AGAIN then how can you explain our very existence? 😐 like I was born in 1999? A very specific year ? and why was I born in the first place ?😐 it’s like acoustic oscillation before we were born we die and then we live just to die again 😐also how can life be very random or by chance ? 😐I had many chances to be whatever I wanted to be before 1999 but it’s not the case😑 my life seems to be very specific so even if the universe is flat that does not explain our very existence of life and death 😐no matter what happens you can’t escape death 😑even planets and stars you could say we are lucky but in my experience their is no such thing as luck 😑I noticed a pattern between extinction and creation many people don’t consider the life and anti-life equations it might sound silly but it could be true 😐and if life were to be forever the universe were to expanding forever stars black holes starts and even planets will last forever 😑if death was forever then our lives and everything we do mean nothing earth means nothing but for some reason 😐if I was dead then how can you explain WHY I was born in the first place at all 😐and not just that it’s also very specific so it only leads to more questions WHY was I not the maker of ford why was I not in WW2 ? Why was I born in 1999? 😐it’s not like I was the first person ever 😑it does not make since ?😐
New information seems to indicate the universe is not flat.
I find these kinds of videos because most answer nothing and only confuse the issues more (though this one was better than most). For example, I have seen many which state directly that the observable universe is a sphere. Also, as in this video, the speaker stated that in a closed universe, were we to plot a triangle, the lines would curve and the angles add up to more than 180 degrees. BUT THAT IS TRUE ONLY if the triangle were drawn on the surface/outer periphery of a closed universe. Within the observable universe, within the “interior” so to speak, why would it not plot out to appear as if flat and the angles add up to only 180? If we drew a triangle on the surface of the earth, to be sure the angles would add up to more than 180 degrees. BUT were we to draw it through the center of the earth, they would add up to exactly 180 degrees. So I don’t see the proof in the claims of flatness. Are we to believe that the space/time is curved by the presence of the mass of all the existents in a closed universe BUT NOT a flat one? The promoters of the flat universe have stated that space/time is curved in all of the possible universes. So if the triangle would plot the same, why are we to gather that the universe is flat? If it is 3 dimensional which it must be for the observable universe is, would this theory of flatness not suggest that it was expanding in only two? If we were to consider otherwise, i.e., that the universe is expanding in three dimensions which I know is what is being proposed, this is still a closed universe, just possessive of an odd shape, yes?
As for it having expanded out to infinity, this cannot be true. IF the universe expanded from a tiny fraction of the scope of an atom and can, as it has been quantified in scope at several milestones in its expansion, and that process is defined and employed as per that definition, i.e., “expansion” then it cannot have nor ever achieve infinity in scope. IF one wishes to argue this then he is denying himself the very use and meaning of the terms he uses to pose his theory to begin with. Expansion is an incremental progression of quantifiable measures from a given size to a subsequent, larger size, also quantifiable. It cannot achieve infinity. Infinity is an abstraction only. It is not a value. Should one wish to challenge this then let him state for us all what that last number/value in the growth/expansion of the universe was just before the next one was infinity.
Does anyone understand this that he could explain it in more "mechanical/physical" terms? Thanks.
I will have a very amateur attempt. The analogies used are in three dimensional space. The fabric of the universe is 4 dimensional (3 of space and one of time). It is not the external shape of the universe that is flat or curved, it is the very substance of space and time that is flat. Unfortunately we can not envisage four dimensional objects, so the analogies are only approximate. My understanding is that there is no "surface" to a four dimensional universe. You can not travel, no matter how far, and come to an edge of the universe. Nor can you picture the shape of the universe from "outside" because there is no "outside". I might not be entirely right, but you have to get your brain around such unnatural (to us - the universe copes fine) concepts.
@@Andre_XX I think you are correct with respect to what I have seen from various physicists and cosmologists. What I find hard to accept is’
We live in these purportedly four dimensions
In all that we experience, the three special dimensions are that which impose their effects, not that mysterious special phenomenon upon which scientists insist and you referenced.
It is hard to accept that what we experience in our daily navigation of material reality and in the scientific experiments we conduct is somehow displaced as relevant by this theory you posed.
It is hard to see how scientists can claim to know what the size and density of the universe had been before expansion (I believe it was 10 -15 meters), a quantifiable measure and that it expanded. How? To what shape from what shape? No inside? How then can we claim to understand its density, which we do? How then can we claim as Alan Guth does, for one, that it become uniformly the same temperature for its size and the proximity of every part with every other?
A molecule is a material construct. So then is an atom. So then is a proton. So then is a quark. So then must be the energy fields which in composite compose empty space. If this is logically, necessarily so, then how is it that the universe could have expanded in a manner that it is flat and infinite with no inside? This seems very, very contradictory to me.
It is easy for these folks to lay out a scheme which they claim is a material truth by means of terms which contradict the total of their theory and then claim that what we gathered from the terms they employed is not what they meant by them. If that is the case then they need to stop using them. I don’t buy it. If an atom is objective and deterministic in its form and function (I don’t mean its behavior necessarily) then that determinism cannot be just tossed aside when it is inconvenient to the filling of the gaps in uncooperative theories which would not otherwise conduce to the narrative these scientists which to promote. Given some of the boundlessly absurd theories they have also promoted, such as Boltzmann brains (LMAO), it is clear that they can be on flights of fancy and should not be trusted just because of their perceived status as scientists.
That is very interesting. Thank you very much.
Sure we'll need better instruments because everything will expand...except us....lmao. the universe all expands together in equal ratio does it not? nothing has changed just our perspective point of the expanding torus.
It not the universe is not flat!!!!!
Shape of the universe is a torus. There saved you millions of pounds and a headache. Get back to me when you've caught up on what is obvious to many of us.
the Universe is not flat. Not even the Earth. Some ppl minds instead... ARE! 🤣