Are you referring to your previous post?Bit defender has advised me not to use Gemoo ! (the link posted)
No, I received a notification from Bitdefender that it had blocked attempts from Gemoo to connect. Not unusual often happens with sites BUT it is unusual for Bitdefender to advise against using a site. I have copied the notice belowAre you referring to your previous post?
Here is the image via imgur:No, I received a notification from Bitdefender that it had blocked attempts from Gemoo to connect. Not unusual often happens with sites BUT it is unusual for Bitdefender to advise against using a site. I have copied the notice below
"Feature:Online Threat Prevention
The page https://api.gemoo.com/v1/tool/getCa...4252278784&code_id=vJ1dlY4qRk0q9&page_size=15 has been detected with suspicious activity. It is not recommended to continue browsing this website"
Alan0001, HiYou might not realize it but the "Flatland Universe" is actually the static universe Einstein kept trying for. Einstein, for all his genius, apparently never understood "infinite finite", the cancellation of infinities -- always actually existing -- to zero to develop a result in any (real enough) finite local relativity.
The sphere, including in hypersphere, like the Pyramid of all pyramids will keep its shape to magnitudinous infinities of "nested" spheres. The radius from the Planck (BB) Horizon to the horizon of classical physics will never change in measurement. The grand total of mass and energy will always equal zero, thus the infinity of humans in the infinity of universes, will always be mitigated, cancelled to zero, by the infinity of everything else besides humans, infinities also cancelling (though never ceasing to exist. The "meter" can never be pinned down to exactly a "meter," Chaos Theory's self-similar fractal "zooms" (gravitational) universe structure, including Flatland's "Mandelbrot Set," always throwing exactitude to some infinite finite "asymptote" ("Communication across the revolutionary divide is inevitably partial." -- Thomas S. Kuhn).
SPACE warping, shattering SPACETIME's diamond hardness, forbids pinning the metric radius to exactly a metric radius, though the observer can never know that for a certainty because of the damned infinite 1-d depth (again 'Sierpinski Carpet's 1-d linear depth to "Mandelbrot Set", the surface plane of a 3-d "Menger Sponge" that has "surface plane" but no volume whatsoever . . . "the grand total of mass and energy in the universes equaling '0') in 2-d universe canvas!
Some observer, observing at a distance, might observe, or presume, an infinite density, thus an existence at relative Planck heat, at that distance, that in superposition form and functionality would exist for the collapsed cosmological (Horizon) constant (/\) Planck (Big Bang) Horizon (T=1) . . . the set of..., and set external to..., our infinities of "nested," and "offset," hyperspherical spheres ("Onions," he said (thus many more than one onion), "have layers!" -- Shrek)!
'Maybe if we can do the onions and time we can tackle this. If we can all agree, lol that should keep us busy!
Hi COLGeek, Thank you.Here is the image via imgur:
View: https://imgur.com/a/NECz1hp
No security flags on my side on the original link.
My pleasure.I need to understand the image transfer stuff. Thanks to COLGeek for getting the last image uploaded from Igmur. I'll try Igmur.
Hi COLGeek, Thank you.
The analogy is identical. I identify your one dimension higher aWe need to address this point s being a hypersphere. That validates the surface as 3D.
The issue of 'expanding into what' is not a problem the way I think. The canvas or embedding space is 4 spatial dimensions (or more - doesn't matter). The 'outside' existence or not is at this level irrelevant I think.
The point is the 3d Shape is a hypersphere. NB I use that technically to mean the surface of a ball.
The analogy is identical. I identify your one dimension higher as being a hypersphere. That validates the surface as 3D.
Mathematicians consider a sphere to be a two-dimensional closed surface embedded in three-dimensional Euclidean space. They draw a distinction between a sphere and a ball, which is a three-dimensional manifold with boundary that includes the volume contained by the sphere.
Alan0001, Hi
Yeah you guessed it: Onions; Layers representing arbitrary additional steps of time. You might enjoy the main event with me and Cat and Questioner. There is a long way to go. I must find a site that can be used to illustrate what we might think.
Agreed.We need to address this point, or we will be at loggerheads, discussing same words with different meanings.
Wiki give s this:
Sphere - Wikipedia
en.wikipedia.org
So we are both right, up to a point.
We are not discussing mathematics, but an analogy, which I formulated as the surface (as described here) representing the observed universe of a flatlander. My analogy is not concerned with the ball.
If your analogy is using the ball, instead of the surface, we will get nowhere. AAgreed?
Cat
I suddenly realised I had often mistakenly described 'the surface of a hypersphere' as 3d'. My bad. The Hypersphere IS a surface!! Sorry about that. Hope that clears it up.If your analogy is using the ball, instead of the surface, we will get nowhere. AAgreed?
I have never thought otherwise and am puzzled that you may think that is not the case.
"Mathematicians consider a sphere to be a two-dimensional closed surface embedded in three-dimensional Euclidean space."
The Hypersphere IS a surface!! Sorry about that. Hope that clears it up.
A hypersphere is the four-dimensional analog of a sphere. Although a sphere exists in 3D-space, its surface is two-dimensional. Similarly, a hypersphere has a three-dimensional surface which curves into 4-space. Our universe could be the hypersurface of a hypersphere.
Regardless of the choice of convention for indexing the number of dimensions of a sphere, the term "sphere" refers to the surface only, so the usual sphere is a two-dimensional surface. The colloquial practice of using the term "sphere" to refer to the interior of a sphere is therefore discouraged, with the interior of the sphere (i.e., the "solid sphere") being more properly termed a "ball."
So much so that I think we need a new thread probably titled "Onions, Spheres, Time, Light Cones and Gravity.
Most surely a highly relevant point!1. Let's confirm what we mean by surface.
According to the cyclic picture, the universe is infused with a sufficient amount of new material and radiation during each collision to enable the creation of new galaxies, stars and life from the collision of branes along an extra dimension.
Ok I get you there! Very relevant - thanks for that.This may be linked with expansion of the Universe, perhaps via time.
If this reverses, and the Universe contracts (and we have no possible experience of this to pronounce scientifically), does this tendency reverse?