Is the Universe OPEN, FLAT, CLOSED?

[Raphael37]

Brian Schmidt: The accelerating Universe - Vice-Chancellor's Lecture Series - YouTube

Which of these three universal models do you prefer?
Watch the video if you need help deciding.

The fella in the video is Brian Schmidt, a noble Nobel winner in 2011.

Open - Infinite - Light

Flat - Just Right

Closed - Finite - Heavy

Here is another analogy re: OPEN vs. CLOSED.



source of image:
http://www.energeticforum.com/171565-post160.html

Before voting you might want to read post #14 first.
http://www.energeticforum.com/231200-post14.html

Why do we need to decide what the fIELd looks like?

"If you want to control the field you must replicate the field geometry....structure and function cannot be seperated.

Thats what Tesla was doing when he experimented with different geometries."

-Junglelord

RIP Junglelord

selah V

Raphael

[Raphael37]

This thread has 47 views.

And this interesting lecture given by a noble Nobel winner has managed only 2 votes.

Would it not be important to zero in on a 'model' that sciences can agree on...?
At least the sciences?


(...religion comes later...)

cheers,

[Allcanadian]

If we were a fish in the middle of an ocean of water would we call the "medium" we have no conception of -- flat, open or closed?.

I would say none of the above because water is not flat, it is not open nor is it closed. If we are a fish in what appears to be an infinite ocean then we cannot define a beginning or an end as we have already defined it as infinite. As well we cannot define it as closed because we have concrete proof there is an end to it. We cannot say it is open because we do not know and a flat universe is really not much different than the flat Earth concept and we all know how that turned out.

AC

[Raphael37]

If we were a fish in the middle of an ocean of water would we call the "medium" we have no conception of -- flat, open or closed?.

I would say none of the above because water is not flat, it is not open nor is it closed. If we are a fish in what appears to be an infinite ocean then we cannot define a beginning or an end as we have already defined it as infinite. As well we cannot define it as closed because we have concrete proof there is an end to it. We cannot say it is open because we do not know and a flat universe is really not much different than the flat Earth concept and we all know how that turned out.

AC

So if I were you or a fish I would cast a vote for 'other'

But I cannot vote for you.

Vote now

cheers

[Ein~+ein]

Ask those on a cosmology forum. This one's on renewable energy.

[Kytsun]

There is respectable evidence that 1) the vaccuum contains a "formally infinite" amount of energy, and 2) that the universe is not only expanding, but accelerating. If we accept these as true, then I would say the universe is open, and will continue to be open forever.

However, my own nutty two cents: defining the universe in terms of the conventions invented to grasp it is a mistake. You can model a desk in terms of cartesian coordinates, but really that desk is a heap of atoms that exist in space, not as length and width and depth, but distance from the perciever. If there really is only one dimension of space, then "open", "closed", and "flat" might not properly define the universe.

[Raphael37]

Thank you for the votes cast thus far.

Ask those on a cosmology forum. This one's on renewable energy.

LOL
Yes there are folks who BELIEVE that renewable energy has nothing to do with the underlying cosmology of the universe.
Are you one of those?

Do you know what ASYMMETRY is?
I see one of the most popular threads in this forum is about ASYMMETRY.
i.e. >> http://www.energeticforum.com/renewa...-machines.html

Hey Einstein I guessed you missed what I posted in the opening thread, suggesting WHY I posted this particular poll in this sub-forum?

"If you want to control the field you must replicate the field geometry .... structure and function cannot be seperated.

So what is renewable energy and why should ASYMMETRY be part of the solution?

As far as I am concerned before we can arrive in the place called FREE ENERGY that above quote must be respected.

TEDxMarin - Jay Harman - An Alternative Cure for Global Warming - YouTube
Therefore please watch the following video, the first 3 minutes will do and then comment.

Mind if I say you and most folks are chasing your own tail/tale and you don't even know it!

Did ya know that the SWASTIKA which is about 12,000 years old, is ASYMMETRIC?
Because it is.

Did ya know that the SWASTIKA architecture has been used to design the NANO LIGHT MILL, a motor that can turn a DISK that is 4000 times its own size?
Is that efficient?
Is the swastika a mechanism that Mother Nature uses to get the job done?


Here is a link illustrating the SWASTIKA NANO LIGHT MILL, scroll down to APP (application) #6.
NANO World APPLICATIONS for the SWASTIKA – the true blue AVATAR | Alternative Thinking 37

Are you getting in over your head, is cognitive dissonance about to embrace you?
Maybe, hang in there TRUTH is on the way.

namaste

[Raphael37]

There is respectable evidence that 1) the vaccuum contains a "formally infinite" amount of energy, and 2) that the universe is not only expanding, but accelerating. If we accept these as true, then I would say the universe is open, and will continue to be open forever.

However, my own nutty two cents: defining the universe in terms of the conventions invented to grasp it is a mistake. You can model a desk in terms of cartesian coordinates, but really that desk is a heap of atoms that exist in space, not as length and width and depth, but distance from the perciever. If there really is only one dimension of space, then "open", "closed", and "flat" might not properly define the universe.

But did you watch the video in its entirety?

This one might help you decide?
TEDxMarin - Jay Harman - An Alternative Cure for Global Warming - YouTube

cheers,

[aljhoa]

But did you watch the video in its entirety?

This one might help you decide?
TEDxMarin - Jay Harman - An Alternative Cure for Global Warming - YouTube

cheers,

Name the tune @ mark 0:42 - 1:20
Movie Moment - Contact (First Contact) - YouTube

Al

[freepenguin]

Do we have luxury to entertain and enjoy Metaphysics under name of objective science?

I consider cosmology is pseudo science. Those scientists should spend their time and energy to solve real problems in the world.

[Allcanadian]

@Raphael37

But did you watch the video in its entirety?
This one might help you decide?
TEDxMarin - Jay Harman - An Alternative Cure for Global Warming - YouTube

Yes and thank you, imagine that, a man named Victor Schauberger knew all this and much more almost 100 years ago yet he was labelled a quack. He was ridiculed by most all of main stream science and it still continues to this day. I hope this tech goes viral so they may finally see what fools they have been.

AC

[Raphael37]

@Raphael37


Yes and thank you, imagine that, a man named Victor Schauberger knew all this and much more almost 100 years ago yet he was labelled a quack. He was ridiculed by most all of main stream science and it still continues to this day. I hope this tech goes viral so they may finally see what fools they have been.

AC

All Viktor S. did was find an APPLICATION for what 'just is' is.
Jay Harman is doing exactly the same thing i.e. finding APPLICATIONS, but IMHO he is finding great APPLICATIONS for what 'just is'.
(the way it should be)
Both Viktor S. and Jay Harman built on the wisdom of those who came before them and have found APPLICATIONS.

Viktor was NOT the first to be mesmerized by helical vortex motions.
Viktor was not the first person to observe nature and conclude the obvious:

"The observer affects the observation"

...something the ancients summed up and called KARMA.
What if - Wave/Particle duality suggests KARMA?

BTW Democritus pondered such movements 2000+ years before Viktor S. was born and 370 years before Christ walked on water.

Born: about 460 BC in Abdera, Thrace, Greece
Died: about 370 BC

Democritus's philosophy contains an early form of the conservation of energy. In his theory atoms are eternal and so is motion. Democritus explained the origin of the universe through atoms moving randomly and colliding to form larger bodies and worlds. There was no place in his theory for divine intervention. Instead he postulated a world which had always existed, and would always exist, and was filled with atoms moving randomly. Vortex motions occurred due to collisions of the atoms and in resulting vortex motion created differentiation of the atoms into different levels due only to their differing mass. This was not a world which came about through the design or purpose of some supernatural being, but rather it was a world which came about through necessity, that is from the nature of the atoms themselves.

Democritus biography

And having said that I ponder what Jesus would say about the VORTEX?
Did the son of god know about the vortex?

I think he did.

How do I know, what kind of evidence exists?
Go ask the Freemason/Rosicrucian/scholar Arthur Waite what CARD X and CARD XXI of the Rider/Coleman/Waite Tarot deck signify.


selah V

[Raphael37]

This link is just a reminder that there are MANY MANY MANY theories of everything or ToEs out there in lalala land.

Open Directory - Science: Physics: Alternative: Unified Theories

I would also include the I-Ching, the QaBaLaH, the Vedas, and all versions of the bible, OLD and NEW including the Quran as potential ToEs.



selah V

[Raphael37]

So I was reading an article today on Jain beliefs and I found the quote I am about to share on page 142

http://www.jainlibrary.org/elib_mast...ana_008333.pdf

...and I can guarantee you that this article and the beliefs found within the article antedate (came before) anything Max Planck, Albert Einstein, Brian Schmidt or Quantum mechanics proposes.

Yantras are further divided into three categories. If the metal plate, which is used for carving, has a inward curve, i.e. concave surface, then the yantra is called a ' saucerlike yantra'.

If it has flat horizontal surface then it is called a 'flat yantra' and, lastly, if the yantra has an outward curve, i.e. a convex surface, then it is called a 'tortoise body-yantra'.

The first is not recommended for worship.
The second is tolerable, but the third is the best for worship.

So how does Jain cosmology match up with 21st century science/cosmology?

1/ inward curve, i.e. concave surface, then the yantra is called a ' saucerlike yantra'.

2/ flat horizontal surface then it is called a 'flat yantra'

3/ outward curve, i.e. a convex surface, then it is called a 'tortoise body-yantra'

So need I say more?

I only want to mention that the UNIVERSE appears to be a FUN HOUSE equipped with three kinds of MIRRORS!!!

Convex, Concave, and Flat
ALL three mirrors are capable of distortion.


BTW

Shall we continue to probe the nano realms using Jain cosmology and Jain science promoting the swastika?

http://www.energeticforum.com/renewa...-machines.html
NANO World APPLICATIONS for the SWASTIKA – the true blue AVATAR | Alternative Thinking 37

selah V

Raphael