It really seems like our universe could be part of a hypersphere, but... it's probably not 

That's call growing

Away from you!

AWAY FROM YOU DUMBASSS

Away from the edges obviously 🙄

@@davidlion8762 but…THERE NO EDGE.

Do you think it's possible for dark matter to exist at the centre of the Earth????

Oh yeah, I love re-watching Kurzgesagt's false vacuum video whenever I feel like having actual nightmares.

@akacurryful - that's exactly what I do too... When I said this to a couple of close friends, they thought I was crazy :). Nice to know there's someone else who thinks the same way.

@@arifsaifee4146 You're not crazy. It works on many people. It just reminds us how insignificant our lives are, which makes our problems insignificant too. :-)

After an existential crisis, I'd imagine you'd be almost glad to have something to focus your attention on for the moment to get your mind off the dread.

Our universe is a sphere, but that sphere transforms into a cube :) Our Universe is a Box. Holding us hostage inside so we never escape. Going up or going down, doesnt matter. You always end up back were you started "As Above As Below"

Like now.

You know how people got mad a few hundred years ago for people suggesting the idea the earth was spherical? I kind of see the same thing happening with the shape of the universe argument. Then eventually scientists are almost 100% certain whether it is spherical or flat. But then instead of flat-earthers it's flat-universers or spherical-universers

What if you combine milti-verse idea as well as hypersphere.. time being the depth of the sphere. Still with space, except theres an invisible depth, where entirely similair or different worlds exist

@@OpenMindArtist well done! - COD Voice

Some people still believe in the earth is flat, aren’t they?

Hope they find this video

so if we know the universe is round (if it even is) we might have flat universers

@@No_name_to_give that’s may be true.

We got eem.

There’s always a bigger fish except for beings on the 11th

@@usaball9190 wait. why 11? cant dimensions just go up infinetly?

​@@adrianoippolito1999i think it's something related to string theory, but i don't know how to explain

@@fellipsilva I think you're right. String theory requires 11 dimensions. As far as i know its not possible to formulate a universe like ours with any fewer dimensions than 11 if you use strings as the fundamental particles. M-theory is similar to string theory, but includes a 12th dimension by turning some strings into membranes. In both string theory and M-theory some of these dimensions are curved and very very small so they dont fit with the 'hyperspheres all the way down' model implied by the initial post. If you ask me thats unfortunate, because it would be funny if the universe was hyperspheres all the way down, just like the old 'turtles all the way down' myth. Come to think of it, a hyperturtles-based theory of everything would probably be my favorite theory of all time :D

Ruben & Anja Vreesma 😐

Fucking hell that is logic! Live long and prosper!

Yeah exactly. When talking about the universe, the universe means "everything". It makes no sense to think about what it is expanding "into", or what is "outside". From our point of view, the universe is all there is.

@Kenzita This is incorrect. It wasn't in one tiny place, it happened everywhere. It was only "smaller" in the sense that distances between objects was less and the universe was denser. And "exploded" is misleading as it didn't go anywhere, just stretched.

that just made a big bang happen in my brain oof

uhhh hold up explain? I thought they big bang came from a singularity of “nothing”?

3D: beings: guys, i've got something that'll blow your mind-

@@diondredunigan2583 4D beings: One more dimension, and we can finally warn our 3D ancestors to get the hell off that rock.

Eminsomethingthatisntem Lmao, I’ve been dreaming of this type of thing for the past month. weird coincidence.

You mean they don't know what the correct shape of further dimensions but predict on the basis of their own shapes?? Like a 4d sphere (but actually sphere is 3d)

4D Beings: Guys! I think the Universe is a 5D Hypersphere!

Welcome Neo, we've been expecting you.

You're telling me, this entire video fucked with my mind

Inflate a balloon a little. Put on a lot of dots on its surface. Continue to inflate it. What's so mindfucking about it?

@@alexeysaranchev6118 that it happens naturally, and theres no big man blowing air on the universe

@@eugene5153 does wind blowing also amaze you then?

I always wondered why they always say a 2 dimensional being can’t conceptualize 3D but we can do it with 4D

@@jelaninoel Some of us can, and then mostly with math. Intuition quickly fails on anything more complicated than a hypercube.

@@jelaninoel The thing is 2d creatures more than likely do not actually exist. And if they do exist in another universe somewhere the laws of physics which govern that universe would be one of the most perplexing mysteries and discoveries of science ever.

@@jelaninoel We have mathematical descriptions of higher dimensions. We do not have a strong conceptual understanding of these dimensions.

@@jelaninoel they say they can, but we can show a 4D (hypercube) corollary by drawing 3D concepts (persective) in 2D (on paper). Can these 2Ders do the same in 1D? I say Nay good sir, NAY! Analogy debunked.

What a comment 😂😂

this was literally my first thought lol

I am thinking, people used to think the earth is flat due to lack of perspective. Relatively, we don't have perspective of our universe. Its simply too big.

@@97YoAnDrEwYo97 and the fact that all SPACE AGENCIES had their own flaws and solar system is just faulty, like , what is sun made of? if fire, why would it burn on a vacuum space? fire needs oxygen, right?

they should be Flatuniversers hahaha, they got it wrong

Lol

Dumb fools: "The Earth is flat!!" Smart fools: "The universe is flat." Don't think so? Check this out: www.uvs-model.com/UVS%20on%20overviews.htm#validity

@@vincentwee5332 another Bashir batshit concept. Funny how that page has reference to the definition of truth.

@@octapc Those who believe the universe is flat are just another lots of fools, and it doesn't matter some N-prizes were awarded to such fools. Get over it.

@@alexanderday6754 The reply to your point number 1 is, the current scientific development is merely for pragmatic theories of truth with the consilents that do not refer to reality. It merely requires the scientific hypotheses to work in the objective reality with its hypothesized subjective reality. FYI, the quantitative prediction for the retrograde motion of the Mars is very precise in the geocentric worldview. Despite the geocentric model could fairly precisely predict, we all now know geocentrism is fundamentally flawed without a doubt. For your point 2, you need to understand the predicated logic of the scientific hypotheses that were validated to work pragmatically, are not tantamount to the reality of nature they are emulating. The contemporary modern physics is entirely built on its fallacious posits that flopped on every aspects under the law of noncontradiction. Check this out: www.uvs-model.com/UVS%20on%20time%20dilation.htm And this: www.uvs-model.com/UVS%20on%20clarifying%20the%20concept%20of%20gravity.htm If you could grasp these, you would understand I did not simply consume media that some else had handled to me. For your point 3, the SI measurement for the definition of a second is alright, but the assumption for the caesium atom would remain stable under different gravitational potential, is just an assumption. This scientific consensus was concluded with circular reasoning, and consequently all the modern physics propositions were thus inbued with that confirmation biased. To answer your point number 4, it would be: be enlightened to a paradoxical reality of nature. www.uvs-model.com/UVS%20on%20paradoxical%20effect.htm And the structure of the observable universe: www.uvs-model.com/UVS%20on%20the%20structure%20of%20the%20observable%20universe.htm BTW, by understanding the actual underlying mechanisms of the cosmos, among the resolutions to the numerous unsolved problems of physics, the 400-year mysteries of the solar cycles are unequivocally resolved. Check this out: www.uvs-model.com/WFE%20on%20sunspot.htm#solar_cycle Galileo was never given a podium, so am not holding my breath the smart fools could really come to their senses at all even a podium was given. It would take alot more than that, but I foresee a scientific revolution of physics is inevitable.

They didn't make it to 20 seconds. come on bro.

They: Earth is flat! We: Don't be silly, earth is sphere. But, you see, universe is flat. Some higher beings: Don't be silly, univers is Hypersphere... Some Higher higher beings: Don't be silly dimensions don't exist everything is simulation and every conciousness percieve reallity as it wish...

@@vasiljambazov higher beings, or high beings?

@@igs8949 :) it also suits well

noice

^^^^^^^

You need more upvotes. "I'm doing MY part!" /Starship_Troopers

@fynes leigh what do you mean?

@fynes leigh OK firstly, I don't struggle with language (I am c1 level in English) Secondly, what I meant is explain what you mean by "we are imaginary", like *how* are we imaginary. Maybe also provide proof for that statement.

@fynes leigh You always aim just left of the mark. It's a great way to play cat & mouse. I counter with: Wargames

the plum pudding model might not fit with the atom but at least it applies to the fucking universe

i hope the 4 dimensional baker doesn't sell us to someone who eats us

4D bread is hella thiccc

The universe could also be the toe nail of a giant baby 👶🏻 xD

You mean a cat?

Agreed. Gravity is the drag that our universe experiences as it moves forward through the 3-sphere.

@@kippchapin7750 so what we experience as the passage of time is the, causes gravity?

Very interesting idea!

@@hunterkudo9832 Well, gravitational waves travel at the speed of light. We know that much.

wait a minute that explaination is so beautiful

How old are you?

@@rockharddock1711 2 and a half years old. Ya, that is fcking cool.

One month

I think people don't actually get what it means to be in an infinite universe. Just to blow some brains i will say there would be infinitely many earths almost exactly like ours, and by "almost exactly" i mean almost exactly with us people included, our history and our personalities. That same thing you watched in sci-fi moovies about parallel universes, but all in our universe, just because it is infinite

@@Uressabe Exactly, that's why it's basically impossible to imagine infinite >>>anything

is there a universe where i eat riley reids ass while playing country music?

Divest_. Yes

@@divest_.2759 Well, if the universe has infinite parallel-universes, then yes.

Nah, that was pretty funny thumbs up bud

Love to see what the cosmos considers it's covid. That shit must be nuts.

Stfu ken

Caolan Sheridan “Ken” should now be what we call the male version of a Karen

@@frightenedsoul being a bit ignorant, this guy might be defensive cause he just lost a loved one, leave him be. But also yes Corona jokes.

Agreed, thought the very same thing. The hypersphere idea is somewhat easier to grasp for me, for the concept of infinity, when applied to the physical world (beyond mathematics), usually turns out to be very problematic in many different ways.

I agree. Also, how do we know that the hypersphere is or is not on the hypersurface of a 5D hyper-hypersphere? We, as human beings are extremely limited in our capacity to understand the brain of the creator.

yep, it makes a whole lot of intuitive sense, practical sense, etc. and then at the very end. “nope the math doesn’t check out”. Using 3D geometry it all still appears to be 3D, well no shit! lol Like it was forgotten that the math for the model is not going to be the same math as the real thing. It has been said that in order to learn more about the universe, like quantum mechanics and what not, but we have to ‘discover a new math’ so this is no surprise.

Perhaps, but it's just a hell of a lot of matter in one spot.

"around" :thinking:

i think you mean 'the flat universe society has members all around the glome'

Didn't the mystery schools of ancient Greece teach that the universe was a polytope dodecahedron? And if you were to ever speak of the existence of such a shape you would be instantly killed it was so secret. The reason it was so secret is the fact that it is no infinite. The expansion is key to the framerate of our perceived time. Eventually the universal will likely contract.

@Alchemica Blackwood It al should be easier to prove than it is. I still don't know why there isn't a single untouched photo of earth from outter space. Not one.

I honestly can’t tell if this reply section is a joke.

100%

This comment got my brain working haha thank you

I just watched n read your interesting comment, I felt u might be suggesting the micro/ macrocosm universe theory that it seems people shy away from?

@Sarvesh LM yeah, let´s never think again, it´s just to futile.

In 1980 my mother wasn't even born yet lol

Not possible, god doesn't smoke

How will humanity learn if people would rather enjoy themselves than to be bothered to think? I dunno the shape of the universe, but I believe it's like that loaf of bread analogy...and yes that loaf of bread has a center.

Where exactly they told u ?

RC

@@PapaFlammy69

@@PapaFlammy69 Hallo Papa Flammy

You'll be more hard pressed to explain to us steady state universe types why it is physics from trillions of years ago at the edge of our observed universe looks almost identical to now, even though a proton should have been half the size and the existence of our elements impossible. Unless things didn't exist in particles back then. Which would be amusing as the quantum eraser would make them into particles.... There is a physics brain-bender for you. In any event, what is more interesting is that these stars which were some of the first ever formed, supposedly, have a high concentration of transition metals in them, if their spectra is any indication to be taken seriously. Of course, I'm something of a skeptic of time dilation and lorentz transformations of "space time" - so tie me to the stake and burn me like a heretic I suppose.

@@Aim54Delta OMG, you idiot. I would say get an education, but you obviously dont have the brainpower,lol. Protons half the size, hahahahahahahahahahah..Not in THIS universe moron,lol..Hmm, on second thought this comment was a bit mean. Its not a subject that most people know much about:) As for the "steady state"idea. This is not 1950, that idea is out the window big time:/

@@TheZacdes idk if you know but protons are shrinking in size. Are you saying that protons being half the size they are now is impossible, or are you saying the protons cant shrink? Im asking because i want to know more about physics

@@TheZacdes I'm assuming that since you can't articulate any kind of explanation as to why I am incorrect or flawed in my example, you, yourself, lack the necessary knowledge of physics theory to engage in much of a discussion. However, here is the problem with "space expands" theories: we have to then define what space is. Now, by taking the speed of light as a universal constant, we can arrive at what have been termed Planck units. These are, effectively, the smallest units of length, volume, and time. If you know your quantum mechanical experiment history and how field theories were developed, you'll note a direct relationship between wavelength, energy, and particle behaviors. Those of us who come from radio and microwave fields of experience tend to think of the subatomic universe less as particles and more of stupidly small radio systems where harmonics, interference, coupling, etc all play major roles in how things play out. All of this works because the planck units are defined as set to the speed of light. Which is constant so far as we have experienced in the vacuum. Which ... Gets interesting because all of this implies a scalar field and therefore a prefferrential reference frame. But that is another story. The world in which much of cosmology operates is in one dominated by relativity. Relativity utilizes what are called lorentz transformations to explain how space and time can be distorted. The problem is that these operate completely detached from any material reality we have observed. Lorentz transformations don't explain what gets stretched or how it does so - only illustrates how it is possible to stretch apparent dimensions into uncountably infinite space - where I can fit a whole universe inside a marble, or something. Of course, this is more of an illustrative tool than a physical model as even though there is a ton of empty space inside things - and arguably nothing there to begin with until you look for it - the entire premise of space expanding or contracting flies in the face of every physical mechanism we know to be consistent with everything we consider to be material fact. If space is expanding between galaxies as part of a 4d expansion, then that same space must necessarily be expanding as well within our planets, atoms, etc. If the photon and the speed of light are the units of measure we use to measure our world and define space, then the question then becomes "what is space other than the amount of time it takes for information to be transferred?" - and what is time other than the distance over which something travels between the occurrence of two events? Spatial expansion theories, therefore, argue that space expands and attenuates the wavelength of a photon. Because the volume of space containing the photon has increased, the total wavelength has decreased (this requires energy to have dissipated, somewhere, as photons have an energy proportional to their wavelength). Thus, if a photon arrives with a shifted frequency implying a 5% reduction in wavelength, we would estimate that space has expanded roughly 5% in that timeframe. So, all subatomic particles would be expected to occupy 5% less space (well, to have a 5% smaller diameter... So a lot less space, actually). This is a disaster of a problem as you can't do that in QM. So, there are four potential courses to address this. First is that space doesn't expand and redshift is caused by some other factor - perhaps light "leaks" energy and this is why red shift seems proportional to distance. Perhaps there are other explanations. The second is that some weird mechanisms take over we are not familiar with - IE - space is somehow different than the methods we use to measure it, and thus it can expand without disrupting the behavior of subatomic particles. The third is that physics is in a temporarily stable state and spatial expansion will eventually trigger a catastrophic shift in the way the subatomic world works. This also has interesting implications as the photons we are encountering from distant parts of the universe are entities which came into existence under our current physical reality from a fundamentally different one. The fourth is basically an appeal to ignorance in that it would argue we know too little about our world to be making these determinations because almost any internally consistent theory can be proposed to explain our world granted the inability to test the claims. Grant us one free miracle and we'll explain the rest.

@@anteconfig5391 hahahaha. Protons cant shrink man, they are what they are given the rules governing this universe. If Protons were half the size[in another universe say] things would be entirely different. We would not be here:) I could go into detail but as you are not educated in the field it would mean nothing:/ I could also copy/paste any number of easily found articles on this that YOU could find with a VERY simple google search:/ If you want to know more..GOOGLE IT!!

Less of a big bang and more of a big "!"

Me: What is my country of birth? Parents: Yes

Also it never stopped happening

even tough 98% of em are stoners sitting in their couch saying woooooow dud ? ok then

@@ricksanchez694 Sure. We all start somewhere.

I am presumptuous then.

@John Barber you dont know that. be humble

@@anubis63000jd some crawl before they walk, other keeps crawling.

كل الا حطتك ببومهن ونسهن

According to a theory based on higher energy state calculations, the size of the whole universe is 10²⁴ x observable universe. That's 90 billion light years times with 10 followed by 24 zeroes. And still growing faster than the speed of light...

@@ahmetakgun7709 Do you have a link? I'd like to see those calculations. A few ultra-large structures in the universe plus a picture where the same (rare type of) galaxy appears twice, just billions of light years apart, make me uncertain at the moment whether we really expand faster than light or may just get this impression because light traveled around the universe a few times and we see a much larger universe than there actually is.

@@ahmetakgun7709 According to NASA, no-one really knows: www.nasa.gov/audience/foreducators/5-8/features/F_How_Big_is_Our_Universe.html

@@ahmetakgun7709 The popular extreme size estimates are based on one group saying they were able to calculate the curvature of space, but I have yet to see a good source detailing their methods in an easy to test and reproduce way. If the entire universe expanded at the speed of light for 13.7 billion years, it's radius is exactly 13.7 billion years and it's diameter is 27.4 billion years. Things change if we assume the spatial expansion is in 4 dimensions and we can only see 3 of them - the surface. Like a comic hero painted on the surface of a balloon can only see and move in 2 dimensions. That would make the apparent (3D) diameter of the universe equal the circumference of it, similar to the comic hero seeing itself in the center of a plate larger than the radius of the balloon. So we get a 'diameter' of 84 billion ly. More if there are more dimensions or if hyperinflation is true and such. If we move at such a fast speed, only the light of nearby galaxies becomes visible to us, after a time which corresponds to the distance. That's the visible universe. It's not clear how much of a percentage of the universe is actually in the view - that depends on our rate of expansion. I personally believe it might be considerably slower than light. That would allow the light we see to travel around the universe multiple times before reaching us. So the universe might have a radius of 10 billion ly or less and we see 3 billion of that as mirror images. I don't think we could tell by just looking at the galaxies, like above mentioned scientists say they can. But there are a few indicators, like a 5 billion light year ring of gamma ray bursts, which is not possible in a flat universe with inflation, among other mega structures and anomalies. Your sources are not able to convince me otherwise, among others because of sloppy explanations, like assuming that objects from 13.7 billion light years away have moved more than the expexted 13.7 billion light years away from us, without real explanation (math formulas). In my model, it would be a maximum of 27.4 Gly, appearing as 43 Gly if we assume a 4D hypersphere.

I added this to a story I'm writing. Well, I haven't started really writing it down anywhere but it's more of a collection of ideas in a way.

Ignoring time, a 4th dimensional being could pick one of us up, rotate us in the fourth dimension, and place us back. This would eventually kill you. Most of the nutrients we take in are right-handed isomers, but your body would now be prepared for left-handed isomers. Hence you'd never absorb another nutrient again. (Simplified to keep the comment short.)

Ah yes, I see it now. Thank you!

Excellent observation! Understandable simplicity trumps all!

Just think,there's no beginning and no end to the universe,it's forever, always was and always will be

😂

Dubiously

😂😂😂

And yet you morons still don't get it, that earth is a level plane. Just continue typing idiotic one liners and post brain-dead memes. All the while oblivious to your enslavement and many preferring it, and wanting to impose it on others. Oh well... still a level plane.

@@Execrate200 hi darling en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schizophrenia

@@user-mz7cn9hq8v Bye sweetheart Kisses hugz

@@user-mz7cn9hq8v www.simplypsychology.org/cognitive-dissonance.html

@@Execrate200 better get professional help than talk about it on internet

😂

Jesus, that actually makes sense.

Everything in the universe: "I WAS IN A POOL!!"

probably a better way to explain it. Einstein says, "You can't prove either. It's relative. And reference frames."

@@Jamie-Russell-CME yeah, i was about to write that it's basically the same thing if you don't have another universe to compare 😄

You will meet a problem with the not decreasing orbital period of electrons and such things... It might work with the string theory. The elementary foundation of reality has to be fuzzy, without any constant.

Did you just post this message 6 days ago? :P

Video uploaded minutes ago, comment uploaded 6 days ago. Yup, time is working just fine i guess.

Time is relative takes on a whole new meaning now.

What the hell

whaaaa

Same here! What did you end up doing for your major?

@@faarisalam3900 youtuber

Elie The Prof : My thoughts exactly. The is expanding thru the 4th spatial dimension at “c”. Since we’re on the surface, far away galaxies will seem to move faster. For example, a galaxy on the “opposite side “ would be moving from us at twice that speed.(if measured through the “center “. Our movement along this 4th dimension would seem like what we call time. The past would be unreachable because it’s now inside the hyper sphere.

That sounds like it could make a lot of sense. Surface area increases as radius increases just like how the universe expands as time goes on. This is just my intuition, but now that I think about it, it wouldn't make sense if radius was *not* the time dimension if all the other points were true.

As time goes on, the radius increases. Hence everything is expanding away from each other.

Nope, it's a TRIMOIUS(R), US Patent 4,138,744.A single sheet of a 3-ball in 7-space.

How about air is ancient unicorn farts? A theory is a hypothesis plus a mathematical model that agrees with current observations and makes predictions of what you will observe under differing conditions.

So... youre saying you're a flat earther basically

Nah. Because we are willing to accept to change our views through science and data... They refuse to listen.. we don't

With the major difference that when we use reason and experiment we find that the earth is a spheriod while the same principles indicate an overall flat universe. It's more of language thing I'd guess.

Some people still do think it’s flat

@@Neoplasie1900 Well we did use reason when we thought the earth was flat. We said it looked flat so it was. It wasn't great reasoning but it was all we have. It is the same thing here where we use all the reasoning we have now to say the universe is flat but we certainly still don't have the full picture not even close.

Nobody in history thought it was flat, flat earthing is actually a recent event.

@@Ludifant Really -_-? So you think that hunters and gatherers though they lived on a planet and that the planet was round

you mean a hand ball ??

visualise a bubble of space and u get the idea

ASMR Gaming nah it isn’t proven. The plane of our existence can either be a plane, a curved plane, or a sphere. We don’t know yet but research shows we are most likely in a curved plane I think.

It could also be a cylinder, a torus, or some more complicated surface, too.

@@amonGustavo07 Research shows we're most likely in a 3d flat plane

Donald Baird which is a curved plane I don’t remember the actual name

Were those ten steps standardized? How likely is it that you will always land your foot on the same distance for an n number of times around the perimeter of a square? Probably very low. If you expected this to be an R/whoosh, nope! Here’s my UNO reverse card: 🔁

@@topsecret1837 You are right, I will play my skip card until i re-do the experiment, i will bring my yard stick and protractor and give you the new results soon.

I- 👁👄👁

@@spindoctor6385 your comment is going to end up in one of their videos lmao

Bruh, it only works if you travel a quarter of the distance around the sphere along each line lol

both are actually the same thing, depending on your perspective.

And you could be looking at the same thing but in opposite directions.

Ever heard of Dank Energy and Matter? The Cosmic Inflation?

@DankMemeKid - we have no direct observations of distances increasing. We have redshift of distant light. Cause could be an expanding universe. Could be a million other things as well.

@DankMemeKid - well, the problem is that if we shrink - then all things not shrinking should expand equally. Expanding universe model states that far away objects are expanding away faster than closer ones.

@@Mosern1977 The far away objects are shrinking much longer, which we perceive as "moving away faster". Also the photons that we receive from the far away galaxies may be 'shrinking' which influences their frequency (redshift).

@IdkGoodName Vilius Yeah,we know

School band practice is known to give worse headaches lol

Hahaha

Exactly. I mean the alternative here is an infinite flat universe. If the flat universe needs to be infinite to exist, then you'll never really be able to be sure you're measuring far enough to verify there's no curve. Idk why it would be easier and more logical to assume an infinite flatness, rather than a finite 3 sphere that's just much larger than our current observable universe.

i thought it was faulty because shining two beams of light parallel to each other isnt the 4D version of verifying this. Shining two beams parallel to each other in a 3D space will result in a hypothetical 2D plane like the 3D sphere example. I think the 4D way of verifying that we live in a hypersphere is with parallel 2D planes separated through 3D space; If they make a 1D cross-section anywhere in space when they meet, then we do.

I guess our instrument sensitivity would have to be so low in comparison to viewable versus actual size that we can't see a change. Possible, but I don't know.

@@rouninpanda6318 I don't like the flat universe because to me it seems it must have edges if it's not closed.

Nah, probably incomparable.

Catgirl girlfriends for all.

alone, at the edge of a universe humming a tune

It hasn't been ruled out that the universe could be curved. However, if you are a physicist making calculations over gigantic distances, you can safely assume that the universe is flat.

This is true, but for calculation purposes it's helpful to say it's flat. And locally, a flat surface and a sphere are identical. If you're familiar with topology, it's why those two manifolds are equivalent. Because when proving equivalence you only talk about tiny infinitesimal regions. We view the universe as in we are in one of those tiny infinitesimal regions, so it seems flat. Whether it is or not we have no way of knowing, but it behaves that way for us so it's helpful to use occams razor and assume the simplest case based on all observations.

@@gameguy8101 From an engineering view point, on a small scale, this might be useful, but it is still illogical to assume.

Lmfao

That is still a possibility. Neither proven nor disproven.

This is why scientists talk about the observable universe. They say the observable universe is flat, because the size of the observable universe is known, and measurements of flatness can be made within that context.

Olivia Kittridge : Exactly. The margin of error is 0.4%(or something like that). Anywho, it means the universe could be curved but it have be at least 250 times the diameter of the observable universe, and if we get more accurate, even bigger than that. It’s probably impossible to get 100% accuracy so I’m holding out for the curved universe. That way, we can have colliding bubble multiverses of different sizes and other cool stuff.🤗

The clue is in the answer Olivia.... 'found it was "close"... maybe, maybe not! What a surprise!

Not a physicist but you can find evidence for expansion by looking at redshifting of light sources. Tl;dr it's a similar phenomenom as how the pitch of a ambulance siren deepens as it passes you by.

@@jeromeorji1057 seems like the only reason we can register expansion is the fact that we get information about different chunks of space from different timeframes. By the way, what will change if space will stay the same size, but the speed of light will decrese?

The distance between your head and your feet does not constitute two raisins, cause Gravity. It would rather be part of the raisin. Since Gravity cancels out the effect of the expansion, the raisin would be an equivalent to our Solar System, which stays constant in size. Just like the raisin does not increas, but merely the space in between.

The distance between your head and feet is not expanding because the forces holding you together are stronger than the expansion of space. This extends all the way up to structures like galaxies and such, which are gravitationally bound together. Imagine you had a rubber band with two ants drawn on it. The drawings would be stretched apart from each other, but the drawings themselves would be getting stretched wider and wider as well, because each ink particle is moving with the rubber. Now if you had two real ants on the same rubber band, they would be getting further from each other as the rubber stretched, but they wouldn't get stretched/ripped apart because they're not bound to the rubber itself - sure their legs touch the rubber itself, but it just gradually slips under their feet as it stretches. But they're still being carried away from each other because they're not tied together.

@@zerobyte802 how the forces keep everything togther if them acts within the space and space itself expands? Do we just can not measure expansion at scales like star systems or galaxies simply because it's too small for our instruments? Does calculations of stars trajectories orbiting gelaxy center consistent with expansion included or not, and how (may be Earth orbit is stable cause it's spiral but that cancels out with univerce expansion too)?

I saw a similar article about positive curvature. I'm surprised it wasn't mentioned. As to the size question, I believe this calculation has been done. I remember watching a science video on YT like Spacetime or Arvin Ash where they mentioned someone did the math and if I remember right, the minimum size to see no curvature was huge. Like mind boggling larger than the observable universe.

@@norcal_faithful775 Well, if the size was that of the observable universe, we would quite easily be able to observe the curvature... So it's quite natural to expect the size to be humongous. Just think about it: you can observe the curvature of Earth just by stand on a shore and watch a ship to disappear under the horizon. And the size of Earth is huge compared to what we can observe when standing still. Not completely analogous to observing curvature of space, but it gives some perspective.

Oh, and the article posted my Milan seems quite intereating, amd I've missed it. Cool to see some possible progress in this direction - I'm wondering how different models of multiverse we currently have could survive if the curvature indeed is globally positive (or do some of them actually predict it? I'm not familiar enough to know this x) )

Good observation !

correction: perceiving a hypersphere moving through the fourth dimension

Wouldn't you see new things popping into existence constantly then? Imagine passing a 3D spherical universe through a 2d plane. To those on the 2d plane, there wouldn't be expansion, it would look different entirely

@@orik737 this might happen on such a large scale and plus our observable universe is limited by the expansion Nice try tho

@@orik737 do we really understand higher dimensional objects tho

aman varshney perhaps not, you've got a point when it comes to things happening on such a large scale, but I'm inclined to believe that we would notice something so obviously unintuitive, on however large a scale, but obviously neither of us are going to have a compelling argument on the basis of evidence beyond a hunch and shaky logical reasoning. As for understanding higher dimensions, we have no way to actually observe them so I suppose you're right, but id argue that they're likely to follow the same patterns as lower dimensions, which we can observe. Plus your initial proposition required assumptions regarding the nature of 4 dimensional objects. While we don't necessarily understand them, I think it's reasonable to hypothesize on the basis of what little understanding we do have.

@@orik737 u r a smart person mate Should become a defense lawyer or something However this could also explain y gravity is so weak since it already spreads in the 4th spacial dimension unlike the rest of the forces I should just stop trying now Really 😂

so that if you travelled for long enough in one direction, you would eventually end up where you started, at the beginning? I dont really like that idea at all.. lol.. its seems so much like any living entity travelling withing this universe would just be chasing its tail..

Nope, it's a TRIMOIUS(R), US Patent 4,138,744.A single sheet of a 3-ball in 7-space.

Yes, Live long and prosper!

actually, if the universe was like that but not expanding, the more likely idea is that the light from all the stars in the universe would loop back around, basically causing everything to fry and become the heat of infinity suns.

Well there is no “center” in infinity, but I get your point

What does it mean?

@@davidarvingumazon5024 - it means…the universe is so vast the human brain is incapable of comprehending its scope and age.

@@wkanost pogchamp

I have most definitely thought about it myself

actually I heard some other guy say that the minimum is 11 dimensions, but in string theory. In “M-theory,” (idk what that is either) there are 12 minimum. So, infinite dimensions is possible, but 11 dimensions is required, at least in string theory.

Sometimes I hate the limitations of being human. I want to know this stuff!

They did but it doesn't make it right...

@@swine13 It's just a theory

Cool man, I love your vids btw.

Bruh, I'm also early af ngl m8

@@benooft1355 Thx Ben

Bruh, f for the RU-vid polls :”(

OYY! You're not allowed to watch any RU-vidr apart from Andrew Dotson!