Flatlander 3D: Hypersphere to Flat Space

Page 3 - Seeking answers about space? Join the Space community: the premier source of space exploration, innovation, and astronomy news, chronicling (and celebrating) humanity's ongoing expansion across the final frontier.
Jan 2, 2024
294
41
210
Visit site
Are you referring to your previous post?
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"
 
You 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)!
 
Last edited:

COLGeek

Cybernaut
Moderator
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"
Here is the image via imgur:

View: https://imgur.com/a/NECz1hp


No security flags on my side on the original link.
 
Better, possibly:


And even better illustration, probably:


I see them fitting together multiverse multi-dimensionally! And where is the "beef", the "volume"?! No beef, no volume ('0'-dimensional . . . an infinite density of beef, of volume)!
 
Last edited:
Jan 2, 2024
294
41
210
Visit site
You 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)!
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.
 
Gibsense,
As I've shown, I've been there, done that. But there is always more depths, more sharpness in the the painting of the pictures, the sculpting of models, to be filled in to structural outlines. Yes, go with it where you will in visualizing it yourselves and I will follow along maybe adding my two cents to the pot!
 
  • Like
Reactions: Gibsense

Catastrophe

"Science begets knowledge, opinion ignorance.
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.


We need to address this point, or we will be at loggerheads, discussing same words with different meanings.


Wiki give s this:

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.


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 :)
 
Last edited:
Jan 2, 2024
294
41
210
Visit site
We need to address this point, or we will be at loggerheads, discussing same words with different meanings.


Wiki give s this:




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 :)
Agreed.
Hopefully, I have only ever used a ball to demonstrate a hypersphere (the surface of a ball). The hypersphere is not an analogy. It is however the equivalent of your balloon analogy. The increasing radius of the hypersphere (by time passing) is equivalent to you blowing up a balloon and noting the separation between dots.
In the case of a hypersphere, it is the separation between gravitationally bound areas (galactic groups).
Have we cleared up the definitions?
PS The surface of a hypersphere is defined as 3D space (Wikipedia)
 
Last edited:
Jan 2, 2024
294
41
210
Visit site
Cat, You quoted: "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."

I have never thought otherwise and am puzzled that you may think that is not the case.
Maybe I have been loose with words somewhere in the past. The above of course applies also to a 3-sphere (hypersphere to any confusion by the terminology)

I have posted on "Light Cones Onions and Time" which addresses the issue of Absolute Time (your ABCD)
 
A hypersphere is a manifold sphere, a 'Menger Sponge', of manifold spheres (bubbles within bubbles, within in bubbles . . . bubbles -- spheres -- offsetting, offset by offset, by offset going away to infinities), all of the countless many hyperspheres overall reducing to a base set shape of sphere. An 'Atom' particle potentially infinitely deep in subatomic particles . . . and infinitely broad in atoms. A Pyramid of all pyramids adhering to the base geometry of "pyramid." Binary base2, '0' and/or '1' . . . to 'THREE!' infinities of "and/or"; 'THREE!' infinities of 0's [and/or] 1's, but no infinity whatsoever (excepting "potential") to the fundamental binary base of 2, or the third dimensional trojan singularity of the "parity" bit.

I see you, Cat, being very wrong concerning 'relevance' and 'irrelevance' as the observed potential of "accelerating expansionism" points out.
 
Last edited:
Jan 2, 2024
294
41
210
Visit site
If your analogy is using the ball, instead of the surface, we will get nowhere. AAgreed?
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.

But of course that surface has 3 Dimensions (drawn and imagined as 2d but in the case of a hypersphere the surface is 3d)
 
Jan 2, 2024
294
41
210
Visit site
I can mention a commonality in the media that talks about Holistic projections of reality onto a canvas. Sounds a bit like hash 55 page " 3D flatlander view of the Hypersphere"
 

Catastrophe

"Science begets knowledge, opinion ignorance.
Gibsense, you have me highly confused.

I have never thought otherwise and am puzzled that you may think that is not the case.

Yet, in #65 I quoted:

"Mathematicians consider a sphere to be a two-dimensional closed surface embedded in three-dimensional Euclidean space."

Are you suggesting that a bubble SURFACE is not 2-dimensional?
The bubble has a very small thickness, but the surface has not.
In practical terms, a bubble is not a surface - it is contained between two surfaces.
In mathematics, a sphere (not a ball) is a 2-dimensional closed surface. See Wiki.

Why introduce extra words. This is unnecessarily complicated.
Let us stick to the surface of a sphere.
BECAUSE
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.

My checking suggests that they are not the same.
WHATEVER, let us please stick with sphere.


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."

We cannot proceed until we sort this out. Not using non-agreed terms.
Can we agree the paragraph immrdiately above?
We are not discussing a ball, or even a bubble, but a sphere.

Cat :)

Finally, please look at the formula for the surface of a sphere. 4πr^2 Square units

There is no (r2-r1) which would denote thickness.
 
Last edited:
Pressing for more strands of the same picture:

--------------------------

I've noticed the language of higher mathematics is actually many different people of scientific interests divided by a growth of common language having many different individual interpretations. Increasingly expansive of what, how, where and why, and necessary of expansion describing expanding physics, it doesn't reduce in language or complexity and chaos of interpretations! Unless it deals in very narrowly focused, very hard, realities, there is no such thing as "exact science."
 
Last edited:

Catastrophe

"Science begets knowledge, opinion ignorance.
So much so that I think we need a new thread probably titled "Onions, Spheres, Time, Light Cones and Gravity.

Thanks for getting this going. Just before we move over there, I would just like to finish off here, so we are not getting confused jumping about.

1. Let's confirm what we mean by surface.

2. I note we didn't finish on entropy. Decreasing in contracting Universe.
If we suggest a contract to (or almost to) a nexus (in place of point re-start), I cannot see how we fail to re-set entropy to minimum, so it starts over from a minimum.
If it starts with min entropy, and entropy increases, to get to a restart it must decrease again. But see section on broken eggs.

Cat :)
 
Jan 2, 2024
294
41
210
Visit site
1. Let's confirm what we mean by surface.
Most surely a highly relevant point!
I mean - in the case of an 'in this world say a dark glass globe': the 2D outside you can see.
In the case of a 3-sphere (hypersphere), I mean the (3D) outside that you can see of a 4D Ball if you were a superbeing in 4D.

Entropy I find more difficult through lack of knowledge! I will need your guidance. If I guessed: we can prevent a singularity by using the expert's conjectured repulsive forces as the star approaches Planck Level size. Is this relevant to the Entropy issue?
 
  • Like
Reactions: Catastrophe

Catastrophe

"Science begets knowledge, opinion ignorance.
Sorry if we are cross-threading. Plese see #19 in:


which is relevant to the first part.

Regarding entropy (please forgive if I oversimplify - I am trying to summarise), entropy is linked with one-directional time.
We cannot "unbreak" an egg, is the classical example.

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?

Obviously "unbreaking an egg" is over simplistic. We do not go directly from some distant future where everything has become separated atoms, with no structure, to some egg being broken. Going backwards in time does not have to mean reliving time in reverse. Going to work in the morning and returning in the evening does not mean walking backwards all the way. (OK, I know all about the time complication. We are in an area we cannot understand).

We have to accept that this is a really difficult question (probably impossible at present) for us to understand. If you want to follow this up, I can suggest Endless Universe - Beyond the Big Bang by Steinhardt and Turok, Doubleday 2007. This involves some rather complicated ideas, but it is the best I can suggest at present.

Here is an example.
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.

Cat :)

P.S. I think your guess is excellent, and helps understand that part of the cycle.
 
Last edited:
Jan 2, 2024
294
41
210
Visit site
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?
Ok I get you there! Very relevant - thanks for that.
I think we can address this issue you raise. At the moment I can only make an assertion without references but I will check and return. My assertion would be that time is always positive and although it can reverse direction it is never negative.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Catastrophe