The Universe is perfectly flat

If you thought that the Universe was a bubble, you were wrong.

According to zetetic astronomers, using the Hubble telescope and cosmic background microwaves, the whole shape of the universe is flat.

The demonstration has been provided by building a triangle on the map of the last scattering surface known to us. The results in measuring the shape of the triangle demonstrated that the Universe is perfectly flat with only 2% of error margin.



Video is 6 minutes long. Practical demonstration starts at 3:05. Interesting beginning on the fact that gravitational theories are very speculative.

This experiment ignores electomagnetic acceleration. With that in mind, them obtaining a "flat" result is clear evidence that the universe is, in their own words, "positively" curved.

The Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe, a mission started by NASA in 2001, WMAP, has confirmed this result with very high accuracy and precision. We now know that the universe is flat with only a 0.5% margin of error.

Also, the experiment was based on analyzing the locations of objects in the universe, and is not an experiment trying to explain why the shape is flat.

So, whatever are the forces sustaining the universe, it is flat.

Just like our earth.

*Moves hand up and down* Nope, it's not flat.

You can imagine the universe as a sheet of paper.

A sheet of paper, relatively to you, is a two dimensional object.

If you are very small, small like an atom, you can walk on the side of the paper which is now a giant rectangle.

The universe is flat as a sheet of paper relatively to its global size.

For us, grains of dust, it's a three dimensional object.

"We judge everything from man made perspectives. A perfectly cylindrical neodymium magnet
doesn't exist in nature. Yet man judges magnetic fields by man made magnets.A perfectly straight laser beam doesn't exist in nature. Yet man judges light and trajectory by man made light. There is also no mathematical symbol to denote the simultaneous decomposition of an equation AS you calculate and arrive at the answer. Everything degrades… even integers. So your answer will never be exactly whatyour paper says. Can’t just have an integer in reality since they actually represent something. And everything decomposes the instant it’s created. (See next chapter called The Apple of My Eye)"

from twin opposing vortexes and the illusion of pull
by Jason Verbelli

Further Articulations by Jason:

Walter Russell - FeandFt.com



This just sums it all up for me.

Imagine a slinky.
But a slinky is a cylinder.
Imagine that slinky as a cone.
Now double that so you have 2 identical slinys shaped like cones.

The left picture represents 2 cone shaped slinkys (Vortexes) passing through each other with the open ends together.

This simulates the inward force of what science would call a "Black Hole" which SIMULATES an attractive force. Literally, it's still a repulsive force, but inward.
Inward thrust with open ended cones is called Magnetism (negative / Yin)

From our perspective, we would see a large ring form seemingly out of nothing and start to shrink to what LOOKS like a single point.
We are only seeing the matter which is merely the result of 2 vortexes passing through each other.

Magnetism or the left picture is the Generation of Mass.


If you put the tip of one cone to the tip of the other.... 1 cone will spin clockwise and the other will spin counter clockwise.
(In reality, they are the same vortex, but from their relative orientations, one is turning left and one is turning right)

The picture on the right does the inverse of everything on the left.
The right picture represents 2 cone shaped slinkys (vortexes) passing through each other tip to tip.

This simulates the outward force of what science calls Radiation.
From our tiny scale, it's difficult to tell if a galaxy is expanding or collapsing. It all depends on how the vortexes first met. Open ends or tips.

The picture on the right shows the Degeneration of Mass.
A ring would seemingly grow from a single point and radiate outward.
purple being on the inside and red on the outside.

Outward thrust is Radiation. (The vortexes are still pushing inward towards each other, but tip to tip. This results in that visible ring "radiating" outward)

Science ASSUMES that the growing ring forms from a spherical source.
And science ASSUMES that a collapsing ring will collect to a spherical point. (singularity)

That is incorrect.
There is no such thing as a singularity or point at which all matter is being attracted to.

All matter is the result of 2 vortexes passing through each other.
There IS NO center point or singularity to a vortex. No nucleus.
It's always a ring. From the beginning to it's end.

All matter is being pushed To the center from the outside in, forming the shape of a ring.

That ring can be so small that it APPEARS as a solid ball.
Just like any star, or any "elementary particle."

It's all illusions.


An alternating current would be when the vortexes pass through each other.... and just before they leave each other... they switch direction and go back. Over and over.

This would result in an ever expanding and collapsing ring.
A Positive direct current would be an ever expanding ring.
A Negative direct current would be an ever collapsing ring.

Now take a look at this ancient structure in Guatemala:
https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=382065803301&set=a.382065128301.163547.683583301&type=1&theater

To me... the column going up looks like 2 vortexes progressively passing through each other.
By: Jason Verbelli

A sheet of paper, relatively to you, is a two dimensional object.

No, it isn't. It's just thin.

Quote from: Agnostic on August 30, 2011, 10:34:26 AM

A sheet of paper, relatively to you, is a two dimensional object.

No, it isn't. It's just thin.

 

bear in mind his understanding of English my mean he thought flat had the same connotation as thin and stright

everything in the universe has 3 dimensionality to it....2 dimensions cannot exist without a space to accommodate. a point is still defined as a relatively measurable thing no matter how "flat" a 2d surface could be it can be zoomed into infinitely at any section therefore making it a possibility of 3 dimensionally inclined existence...even no thing must have pseudo 3d-ness to it...its beyond 3d but it must contain a 3d aspect as an innate quality that can be extracted from it otherwise the universe could not exist...

I have said before that nothingness is not so absurd to be thought of as a source for all things if it is all possibilities collapsed into one formless quality...it cannot be called a thing for things are defined by other things so formlessness is apt. nothing must exist before after and beyond 3d time...there are no points of reference in nothingness otherwise it wouldn't be no-thing a point would entail defined space - nothing is undefined endless space any thought of "point" overlaps infinitely with all other potential "points".
Because it is not expanding nor is it contracting, it is still, but not able to be perceived as still because there is no end. So the infinite non-expanding pseudo-volume of it, being infinite in all directions (including inward and outward) from any "point", nullifies every potential point by all other infinite variations of potential points for they all overlap into each other infinitely...

So there is 3d-ness to the formless space/source its just undefined and endless or cycleless/frequencyless and thus formlessly static. Some even believe that it is light and that defined dark-space moves through the undefined formless light-space with sections of the defined-spaces Torus fields (that are links/nexuses to the origin of their possibility) whereby their cycles have flickers to each completion of a frequency length where they collapse and allow still formless light to slip through as the Vortex Torus' move along producing the  Illusion of light being that which moves 

You can imagine the universe as a sheet of paper.

A sheet of paper, relatively to you, is a two dimensional object.

If you are very small, small like an atom, you can walk on the side of the paper which is now a giant rectangle.

The universe is flat as a sheet of paper relatively to its global size.

For us, grains of dust, it's a three dimensional object.

Essentially I agree that your view is possible... the same way the expanding/contracting rings of a Torus vortex form along the horizontal equator of the Torus field like a disk.
Then so too does the defined space of the universe exist by the horizontal disk of the Torus field a fractal octave above the level of Tori which produce galaxies...
thus defined space is a disk-like shape too...
we don't know absolutely that light travels indefinitely at one speed so the observations of the Hubble telescope cannot reliably tell us if a section of darkness is defined by luminosity that is created by something really far away and big or really close and small.

You can imagine the universe as a sheet of paper.

A sheet of paper, relatively to you, is a two dimensional object.

If you are very small, small like an atom, you can walk on the side of the paper which is now a giant rectangle.

The universe is flat as a sheet of paper relatively to its global size.

For us, grains of dust, it's a three dimensional object.

So, not perfectly flat. Perfectly flat implies two-dimensional. Not a giant box.

Quote from: Agnostic on August 30, 2011, 10:34:26 AM

You can imagine the universe as a sheet of paper.

A sheet of paper, relatively to you, is a two dimensional object.

If you are very small, small like an atom, you can walk on the side of the paper which is now a giant rectangle.

The universe is flat as a sheet of paper relatively to its global size.

For us, grains of dust, it's a three dimensional object.

So, not perfectly flat. Perfectly flat implies two-dimensional. Not a giant box.

Incorrect.

Quote from: Hazbollah on August 31, 2011, 07:16:14 AM

Quote from: Agnostic on August 30, 2011, 10:34:26 AM

You can imagine the universe as a sheet of paper.

A sheet of paper, relatively to you, is a two dimensional object.

If you are very small, small like an atom, you can walk on the side of the paper which is now a giant rectangle.

The universe is flat as a sheet of paper relatively to its global size.

For us, grains of dust, it's a three dimensional object.

So, not perfectly flat. Perfectly flat implies two-dimensional. Not a giant box.

Incorrect.

Incorrect. If it's 3d then it has corners, which means it isn't flat.

Quote from: Verrine on August 31, 2011, 07:27:12 AM

Quote from: Hazbollah on August 31, 2011, 07:16:14 AM

Quote from: Agnostic on August 30, 2011, 10:34:26 AM

You can imagine the universe as a sheet of paper.

A sheet of paper, relatively to you, is a two dimensional object.

If you are very small, small like an atom, you can walk on the side of the paper which is now a giant rectangle.

The universe is flat as a sheet of paper relatively to its global size.

For us, grains of dust, it's a three dimensional object.

So, not perfectly flat. Perfectly flat implies two-dimensional. Not a giant box.

Incorrect.

Incorrect. If it's 3d then it has corners, which means it isn't flat.

Your definition of flat is incorrect.

Quote from: Hazbollah on August 31, 2011, 07:45:18 AM

Quote from: Verrine on August 31, 2011, 07:27:12 AM

Quote from: Hazbollah on August 31, 2011, 07:16:14 AM

Quote from: Agnostic on August 30, 2011, 10:34:26 AM

You can imagine the universe as a sheet of paper.

A sheet of paper, relatively to you, is a two dimensional object.

If you are very small, small like an atom, you can walk on the side of the paper which is now a giant rectangle.

The universe is flat as a sheet of paper relatively to its global size.

For us, grains of dust, it's a three dimensional object.

So, not perfectly flat. Perfectly flat implies two-dimensional. Not a giant box.

Incorrect.

Incorrect. If it's 3d then it has corners, which means it isn't flat.

Your definition of flat is incorrect.

Would you describe this box as flat?

Quote from: Verrine on August 31, 2011, 08:25:55 AM

Quote from: Hazbollah on August 31, 2011, 07:45:18 AM

Quote from: Verrine on August 31, 2011, 07:27:12 AM

Quote from: Hazbollah on August 31, 2011, 07:16:14 AM

Quote from: Agnostic on August 30, 2011, 10:34:26 AM

You can imagine the universe as a sheet of paper.

A sheet of paper, relatively to you, is a two dimensional object.

If you are very small, small like an atom, you can walk on the side of the paper which is now a giant rectangle.

The universe is flat as a sheet of paper relatively to its global size.

For us, grains of dust, it's a three dimensional object.

So, not perfectly flat. Perfectly flat implies two-dimensional. Not a giant box.

Incorrect.

Incorrect. If it's 3d then it has corners, which means it isn't flat.

Your definition of flat is incorrect.

Would you describe this box as flat?

Yes.

That box is not flat.
That box has a visibly flat surface, but it is not flat.

Well, if it were real anyway.
The image itself is flat.


For the Universe to be relatively flat, the Big Bang would have had to occur along a single plane rather than in a spherical nature.  Or more precisely, Empty Space would have to expand along only one plane rather than expanding uniformly in all directions.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/flat

Which of those definitions applies to the box?

Quote from: Verrine on August 31, 2011, 01:45:13 PM

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/flat

Which of those definitions applies to the box?

1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 9, 12, 14, 17, 18, 20, 25.

It's flat in almost every possible way.

Quote from: Particle Person on August 31, 2011, 01:47:39 PM

Quote from: Verrine on August 31, 2011, 01:45:13 PM

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/flat

Which of those definitions applies to the box?

1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 9, 12, 14, 17, 18, 20, 25.

It's flat in almost every possible way.

1. Nearly anything with a smooth bottom set onto a flat surface is "flat" according to this definition. A little too vague.
2. This definition refers to a single flat surface (such as land or a tabletop). The box is composed of six of these flat surfaces, so the box itself is not flat.
3. Similar to the definition above. The box is not without marked projections, as it is composed of six flat planes connected at 90 degree angles.
4. This one comes closest. The box is indeed lying flat on a surface. This refers to the position of the object, however, and not the actual shape. Therefore: irevelant
5. See 4
6. See 4
7. The box has depth.
9. The box is not "spread out". It has 3 clearly defined dimensions.
12. This definition relates to variation with a sequence of data, and is completely irrelevant to a 3D object.
14. This definition refers to "flatness" within literature. Did you actually read these?
17. Similar to the above definition; replace literature with cooking. Admittedly, the box may have a flat taste.
18. Again, this refers to style.
20. "Commercially inactive". This is an economic definition.
25. "Lacking resonance or variation of pitch" ...

Quote from: Verrine on August 31, 2011, 01:51:34 PM

Quote from: Particle Person on August 31, 2011, 01:47:39 PM

Quote from: Verrine on August 31, 2011, 01:45:13 PM

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/flat

Which of those definitions applies to the box?

1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 9, 12, 14, 17, 18, 20, 25.

It's flat in almost every possible way.

1. Nearly anything with a smooth bottom set onto a flat surface is "flat" according to this definition. A little too vague.
2. This definition refers to a single flat surface (such as land or a tabletop). The box is composed of six of these flat surfaces, so the box itself is not flat.
3. Similar to the definition above. The box is not without marked projections, as it is composed of six flat planes connected at 90 degree angles.
4. This one comes closest. The box is indeed lying flat on a surface. This refers to the position of the object, however, and not the actual shape. Therefore: irevelant
5. See 4
6. See 4
7. The box has depth.
9. The box is not "spread out". It has 3 clearly defined dimensions.
12. This definition relates to variation with a sequence of data, and is completely irrelevant to a 3D object.
14. This definition refers to "flatness" within literature. Did you actually read these?
17. Similar to the above definition; replace literature with cooking. Admittedly, the box may have a flat taste.
18. Again, this refers to style.
20. "Commercially inactive". This is an economic definition.
25. "Lacking resonance or variation of pitch" ...

What's your point?

Also,

irevelant

Weren't you the one bitching about our Alternative Spelling System (ASS)?

What's your point?

The box is not flat. This is all a result of your errant correction, here:

Quote from: Hazbollah on August 31, 2011, 07:16:14 AM

Quote from: Agnostic on August 30, 2011, 10:34:26 AM

You can imagine the universe as a sheet of paper.

A sheet of paper, relatively to you, is a two dimensional object.

If you are very small, small like an atom, you can walk on the side of the paper which is now a giant rectangle.

The universe is flat as a sheet of paper relatively to its global size.

For us, grains of dust, it's a three dimensional object.

So, not perfectly flat. Perfectly flat implies two-dimensional. Not a giant box.

Incorrect.

So i guess most of us assume flat means completly level as though squished horizontally all directions out to the most thinnest state possible...so in FET the earth is flat-ish

It's flat but it's not flat.

7. Irrelevant
12. No, it doesn't. They just listed that as an example.
14. See 8.
17. See 8.
18. See 8. (If it really referred to style, they would have mentioned it before the definition, in brackets. Same goes for 12, 14 and 17)
20. Are you saying that the box is comercially active?
25. ??

The box is not flat. This is all a result of your errant correction, here:

You just said it is. Make up your mind.

Quote from: Particle Person on August 31, 2011, 02:02:40 PM

It's flat but it's not flat.

7. Irrelevant
12. No, it doesn't. They just listed that as an example.
14. See 8.
17. See 8.
18. See 8. (If it really referred to style, they would have mentioned it before the definition, in brackets. Same goes for 12, 14 and 17)
20. Are you saying that the box is comercially active?
25. ??

If only the context were simpler, this would be an excellent candidate for the M-M-M-Monster fail thread.

Quote from: Verrine on August 31, 2011, 02:13:41 PM

Quote from: Particle Person on August 31, 2011, 02:02:40 PM

It's flat but it's not flat.

7. Irrelevant
12. No, it doesn't. They just listed that as an example.
14. See 8.
17. See 8.
18. See 8. (If it really referred to style, they would have mentioned it before the definition, in brackets. Same goes for 12, 14 and 17)
20. Are you saying that the box is comercially active?
25. ??

If only the context were simpler, this would be an excellent candidate for the M-M-M-Monster fail thread.

Yes, your inability to grasp the concept of something being flat is quite a M-M-M-Monster fail.

Yes, the universe is globally flat as best we can tell. I don't get what everyone is arguing about.

Yes, the universe is globally flat as best we can tell. I don't get what everyone is arguing about.

But the standard model of science (globularist science, but this is an aside) is that things tend to form spheres due to gravity and that for surface area they have the most volume. Why should something infinitely large (i.e the universe) be any different? Do make your minds up.