Shape of the Universe

Best to keep in mind that the density of the universe must be
responsible for its shape(geometry) That means a universe with
subcritical density is "positively" curved making it a ball A
universe that has critical density does not have net curvature and I'll
call that to be flat. The last shape for the universe is the one I like
best. Its that the universe is "negatively" curved and that is a saddle
shape.(opened) My theory concave,an convex space curving fits well
with a saddle. Like double-A told me "in dent in the middle means
curving out away from the middle" That fits with a saddle. A rock
falling into the water in a pond makes a dent going in,and than the
water curves upward and away. Bert

Reality is Einstien denting in of space is much harder to
explain(gravities attraction force) than my curving outward of space
repulsion. Had Einstien heard of the accelerating expansion of the
universe I'm sure he would have given space its concave and convex
curvatures. I did not beat him to it I just was living in a later more
knowledgeable spacetime Bert Hubble did show the universe was
not in a constant state. and getting larger

Many theories indicat that universes are parallel.


"G=EMC^2 Glazier" wrote in message
...
Reality is Einstien denting in of space is much harder to
explain(gravities attraction force) than my curving outward of space
repulsion. Had Einstien heard of the accelerating expansion of the
universe I'm sure he would have given space its concave and convex
curvatures. I did not beat him to it I just was living in a later more
knowledgeable spacetime Bert Hubble did show the universe was
not in a constant state. and getting larger

On 7/7/06 18:48, in article ,
"G=EMC^2 Glazier" wrote:

Reality is Einstien denting in of space is much harder to
explain(gravities attraction force) than my curving outward of space
repulsion. Had Einstien heard of the accelerating expansion of the
universe I'm sure he would have given space its concave and convex
curvatures. I did not beat him to it I just was living in a later more
knowledgeable spacetime Bert Hubble did show the universe was
not in a constant state. and getting larger


If you had half the brain you were born with, you'd know exactly what is
meant by k and curvature.

--

Relf's Law? -+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
"Bull**** repeated to the limit of infinity asymptotically approaches
the odour of roses."
-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Jaffa cakes. Sweet delicious orange jaffa goodness, and an abject lesson
Why parroting information from the web will not teach you cosmology.
-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Official emperor of sci.physics, head mumbler of the "Cult of INSANE
SCIENCE". Pay no attention to my butt poking forward, it is expanding.
-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
TomGee proves his physics education is beyond measure...
"I don't know that much math." - 2 April 2006
"I don't claim to know what I'm talking about" - 10 May 2006
"There is no such thing as relativistic momentum" - July 2006
-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
"Puddle**** tou are on my kill file. Good bye" - Vert admits he cannot
calculate \gamma for a photon and admits defeat - 2nd July 2006
PWNED
-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

"G=EMC^2 Glazier" wrote in message
...
Reality is Einstien denting

First of all, it's Einstein, as in beer STEIN, Einstein

in of space is much harder to
explain(gravities attraction force) than my curving outward of space
repulsion. Had Einstien heard of the accelerating expansion of the
universe I'm sure he would have given space its concave and convex
curvatures.

Concave, convex curvature my ass. It's bull****, Beeert. The Universe is
INFINITE. If you had paid attention, you would know that the density and
the distribution of galaxies and their galaxy clusters is pretty much
homogenous, in all directions, Beeert. The fact that we can only see
backwards in time to about 12.5B years ago has absolutely nothing to do with
the end of the Universe, any kind of curvature, concave, convex or globular.
There are also no parallel universes.

The reason we are limited in our view has to do with the SOL limit, and we
just can't see and farther back in time. Fools like you like to take that
as the permanent boundries of Space. There is NO end, Beeert ... get over
it.

I did not beat him to it I just was living in a later more
knowledgeable spacetime

To compare yourself as a mental peer to Einstein just shows how ****ed up
you really are, Beeert. Go take your meds, then go take a big **** to
relieve the pressure from your brain.

Bert Hubble did show the universe was
not in a constant state. and getting larger

Ahem ... I think his name was Edwin Hubble, Beeert .... and he did NOT say
the Universe was getting larger, he merely pointed out that it was
expanding, which is by no means synonymous with getting larger, especially
if you don't have a clue what lies beyond the 12.5BY boundary.

Uno My evil twin Treb is all the proof that I need to know universes
are created in pairs. They are more than an mirror image.
Relative to each other they have opposite spin and charge. If in the
future we find the direction of our spin I will know our parallel
universe's direction of spin. If ours is a left handed universe Treb's
universe is right handed. Reality is they relate to each other in a
perfectly symmetrical way. Like two snow flakes Bert