But I haven't went to school

wrote in message
oups.com...
But I haven't went to school


Well that is fairly obvious.

Nick wrote:
I say the surface of a hypersphere.

It'll work for this problem, as long as you bear in mind that it only
represents one of the three possibilities, the others being an infinite
flat universe and an infinite saddle-shaped universe. If you want to
get an idea of what each looks like, you can build a model. You can
approximate a sphere nicely with pentagons and hexagons in the pattern
of a soccer ball. Substitute hexagons for the pentagons, and you get
flat space. Substitute seven-sided heptagons, and you get the
saddle-shaped possibility.

The next step in what it seems you are trying to do is to introduce
time. Special relativity treats time as a dimension, just like length,
width, and height. The main difference between time and space is that
for a right triangle where the legs are distances, the hypotenuse has a
length of sqrt(x^2 + y^2), but if one of the legs is a time, the
hypotenuse's length is sqrt(x^2 - c^2 t^2).

Only one possibility as I see it
Closed universe obeying No boundary proposal

That universe is the surface of a hypersphere.

wrote:
Only one possibility as I see it
Closed universe obeying No boundary proposal

That universe is the surface of a hypersphere.

The others don't have boundaries either, because they're infinite.

If you make your hypersphere big enough, it gets closer and closer to
an infinite flat universe. If you accept a closed universe as a
possibility, you should be okay with the flat case, unless you have
some objection to an infinite universe.

What objection could that be?

Infinite universe Jim?
It had a beining and is expanding at a finite rate.
You can't get infinity out of that.

The only infinity is the future.

wrote in message
ups.com...
Infinite universe Jim?
It had a beining and is expanding at a finite rate.
You can't get infinity out of that.

The only infinity is the future.


Do you understand what gibberish this is.

If you had a piece of string, of infinite length, it would have a start
point and as you followed it, its length would expand at a finite rate.

If the universe is finite - where is the boundary?

Let me take the oportunity to use this post for which
it was orignally intended twake:

If a closed universe is expanding there is no edge.
Instead the space inbetween the galaxies is stretching.
What is interesting is that in cosmology the light
transversing this space is also stretched. It gets
longer and less energetic. This redshift is how we
determine their distances.

If there is no boundary the universe can be seen to
be the surface of a hypersphere.

wrote in message
ups.com...
Let me take the oportunity to use this post for which
it was orignally intended twake:

Ok, a novel approach for you.....

If a closed universe is expanding there is no edge.

Well, it depends how you use closed. The general cosmological use for a
"Closed Universe" is one which has a finite amount of expansion possible. It
is still infinite in size.

If the universe is anything but infinite in size, it has an edge.

Instead the space inbetween the galaxies is stretching.

No. Stretching is a bad analogy as it implies things which aren't so.

The balloon model is not the real thing. It is an analogy to help people
understand some of the concepts.

What is interesting is that in cosmology the light
transversing this space is also stretched. It gets
longer and less energetic. This redshift is how we
determine their distances.

Where does the energy go?


If there is no boundary the universe can be seen to
be the surface of a hypersphere.


Nope.

Space stretches and this is the cause of the light stretch.

What is your explanation?