Everything is flat! The third dimension is all in your imagination. You are being manipulated by Big Dimension! Do your research!
Comment on Good for him.
Zephyr@sh.itjust.works 1 day ago
I’m a flat spacer, I think spacetime is flat, continuous, and homogeneous therefore ensure any finite arrangement of energy is occurring infinite times in any direction you can point. Is there an atom for atom replica of the earth, it’s entire history, and me? Yup, infinitely many in any direction one can point, along with all other finite arrangements of energy.
foo@feddit.uk 15 hours ago
farngis_mcgiles@sh.itjust.works 23 hours ago
i think you have a fundamental misunderstanding of our current knowledge of space and the matter within it bud
Zephyr@sh.itjust.works 22 hours ago
Current astrophysical data shows that the large-scale spatial geometry of our universe is flat, meaning parallel lines remain parallel and triangles add up to 180°. However, flatness does not strictly prove the universe is infinite; a flat, simply connected universe is mathematically infinite, but a flat, multiply connected universe (like a cylinder or a hyper-torus) could be finite.Observations of the Cosmic Microwave Background have measured this geometry with incredible precision, though slight margins for error still allow for the possibility that the universe curves on scales far larger than what we can observe.Whether the universe is finite or infinite remains an unresolved question in physics, though scientists generally use an infinite, flat model for standard cosmological calculations because it is mathematically simpler.
farngis_mcgiles@sh.itjust.works 22 hours ago
this doesn’t have anything to do with your previous claim that there is an an atom to atom copy of earth elsewhere in the universe though. could the universe pe infinite? maybe. We can only see part of it and we can’t measure the total energy of the big bang to determine an answer at this time.
Zephyr@sh.itjust.works 22 hours ago
Nothing? I’m not sure that’s true. If the universe is infinite and homogeneous then that would infer all finite permutations of energy occur, not once but infinitely many times. As for actually proving the universe is infinite? It’s not possible. We can only infer with measurements and laws of physics which make accurate predictions we can measure.
BlackLaZoR@lemmy.world 17 hours ago
He isn’t wrong. With the assumption of homogenous, and infinite universe, basically everything is guaranteed to happen somewhere.
NoneOfUrBusiness@fedia.io 1 day ago
I don't think that makes sense mathematically speaking. To turn the state of a group of atoms into numbers that can be represented by a random experiment, one would need to use continuous (i.e. non-quantized) variables. A continuous variable can take an uncountably infinite number of values, so it can't be modeled by a countably infinite arrangement like the one you've described. It's kind of like how you can choose real numbers at random for all eternity and never get the number 7.
Zephyr@sh.itjust.works 1 day ago
Reality isn’t continuous, at least as far as we are aware. Past the plank scale at least our models don’t work. Infinite information to encode everything seems like it would all just collapse into a black hole immediately so having some limit somewhere makes sense at least in that way.
NoneOfUrBusiness@fedia.io 21 hours ago
Reality isn't continuous according to quantum mechanics (at least with boundary conditions; for example the energy of a free particle/wave is continuous), but it is according to relativity (for example there's nothing quantized about redshifting due to gravity or the expansion of the universe). Also what happens at a Planck scale is that quantum mechanics stop being able to model reality, but it doesn't predict a quantum of distance or anything like that. There's nothing preventing a particle from moving one meter+one Planck length. Really what happens at these scales is anyone's guess, but whatever model succeeds the ones we use today will likely have to accommodate some continuity in order to model relativistic effects.
BlackLaZoR@lemmy.world 17 hours ago
Congratulations, you’re immortal, and with parallel copies.
cAUzapNEAGLb@lemmy.world 1 day ago
Is this like a higher abstraction level version of looking at a mirror pointed at another mirror type situation?, or help me visualize your idea better
NoneOfUrBusiness@fedia.io 1 day ago
If I'm understanding them right, it's more like this: Imagine flipping a coin and recording the result an infinite number of times. Then your record will include any finite sequence of flips, because any event with a nonzero probability no matter how unlikely will happen if given infinite opportunities. For example you'll get a sequence where Shakespeare's Romeo and Juliet is written in binary with heads as 1 and tails as 0 and vice versa. By an easy corollary of this, any finite sequence of flips will be repeated an infinite number of times. What this person is saying is that they believe the universe is like this; if you decide the location and energy of every electon, neutron and proton in a section of the universe with the same mass as the solar system there's a nonzero chance it'll contain an exact replica of the Earth and everything on it, hence in an infinite homogeneous universe there will be an infinite number of such replicas. Now I don't think this makes sense, because the chance of getting such a replica probably is zero (in the same way that the probability of choosing a random real number and getting 7 is zero), but this is the logic I think.
Zephyr@sh.itjust.works 1 day ago
Nope just one really big (infinitely large) universe. Eventually it starts looping. Like a small example, if I have 5 cups and 10 balls and I put all the balls into a cup eventually I get more than one ball in a cup because there’s more balls than cups. For any finite volume there’s a finite number of ways to arrange energy so with an infinite universe with infinite stuff it just starts looping eventually just like the balls in the cups situation.
HeyThisIsntTheYMCA@lemmy.world 11 hours ago
i want to argue this point but i’m not a spaceologist. how is its scedasticity? i only like homoscedastics. heteroscedastics can see themselves out.
Lemminary@lemmy.world 8 hours ago
Whoa there, easy with the heteroscedastophobia, buddy.
HeyThisIsntTheYMCA@lemmy.world 3 hours ago
Image