Non-Euclidean

Talkin'boutFreedom wrote:Everything you just said is well... already said . They basically say our universe is simply a ''membrane'' and we are part of a bigger cell and this can go either way; macro or micro for a good amount of turns

But does it loop in on itself and thus if you "travel" so far through either larger or smaller dimensions you eventually arrive back at the start point?

I don't think it would loop on itself since these things are essentially a ''line'' and for looping on itself macro and micro would require a figure 8 shape.

Talkin'boutFreedom wrote:I don't think it would loop on itself since these things are essentially a ''line'' and for looping on itself macro and micro would require a figure 8 shape.

yes but we are starting to realize that our own universe may be "closed" and that is why time travel is possible. Why not apply that on a larger scale and say the entire multiverse (aka everything) is closed as well? If nature has shown anything, its that patterns exist and repeat themselves on many scales. This would explain why existence itself is "infinite" since essentially we are stuck on the "skin" of a globe. Any direction we move in will only bring us to the original position.

Master CoG wrote:Not up oo

Well technically you can move in any direction in our 3 dimensions and still be travelling along the same surface of the "sphere" because space and time are warped by gravity.

you only will return to a previous position if you travel perpendicular to a conservative force

That applies in 3 dimensional space physics. These are all ideas, i shake to call them theories.

Sinusoidal wrote:you only will return to a previous position if you travel perpendicular to a conservative force

The reason why the universe expands in every direction with no set boundry is exactly because of gravity bending space/time. Physicists have had the deal with the question of if this bend is great enough where the universe closes in on itself. If it is, then we are essentially living on the surface of a sphere with no center. That would be the best way to envision it.

basically. Straight lines, according to the hyperbolic geometry are to be represented as segments of euclidean circles which meet the the bounding circle orthogonally. The hyperbolic notion of an angle between any two curves, as it would turn out, at their point of intersection, IS PRECISELY THE SAME AS THE ECULIDEAN MEASURE OF ANGLE BETWEEN THE TWO CURVES AT THE INTERSECTION POINT. A representation of this nature is called "conformal", basically meaning angle conserving. Where these orthogonally bounding hyperbolic straight lines, like the lines on a basketball, do create an intersection, the three angles add up to less than 180 degrees simply described, if a value is assigned to each angle, X Y and Z, and where Q is the area of the triangle and C is a constant based upon unit value choosen, then we realize a proportion between unit area and angle.

180-(X+Y+Z+)=CQ

Which is pretty interesting considering you can't find the area of a triangle in euclidean geometry when given purely the angles.



*wait why are we discussing something completely unrelated now XD

Why not?