Research suggests universe is flat

[The Vegan Marxist]

hmmm...very interesting. Any thoughts on this?

Research suggests universe is flat
November 25th, 2010 by Andy Simpson

New research published recently in the journal Nature suggests the universe is flat and mainly composed of the mysterious anti-gravity ‘dark energy’.

The author of the paper, Prof. Christian Marinoni, revisited a 30-year old model and developed a simple technique relying on existing data but with fewer assumptions than previous techniques The result turned the estimation of the shape of the universe into basic geometry.

The perceived curvature of the universe affects the view of astronomers as they look into the cosmos as the space-time fabric bends the light coming from an observed object in space. University of Provence professors Christian Marinoni and Adeline Buzzi used this anomaly in their research.

A further bonus was the confirmation that ‘dark’energy’ or matter makes up at least three-quarters of the universe. Cosmology at present holds the view that around 4 per cent of our universe is matter as humans know it – the stars, the planets and all that astronomers can directly see.

The theory holds the unseen remainder is ‘dark matter’ and ‘dark energy’ which do not absorb or reflect light, making them invisible to the human eye. Dark energy has been put forward as the source of the expansion of the entire cosmos which, according to astronomers seems to be accelerating. Gravity attracts, but everything in the known universe seems to be moving apart at an ever-increasing rate.

The mysterious ‘dark energy’, believed to pervade time and space, seems to be forcing anti-gravity, thus fitting contemporary theories, but is imperfectly understood. According to Prof Marinoni, a new machine or telescope which can detect dark energy and matter is needed before enough information can be gathered to make a new mathematical framework for ongoing research.

http://news.carrentals.co.uk/research-suggests-universe-is-flat-34225510.html

[Rafiq]

Man, this stuff is beyond me.

I wonder when they can get a full map of the universe, but then, where does the universe end?

The Renaissance era of Europe believed that the Earth, and Sun, and Moon are in a big crystal sphere, and the Sun and moon revolve around earth, and when you hit the end, you just bump into the sphere....

I wonder what the end of the Universe looks like... Perhaps it is infinite.

[The Vegan Marxist]

Well, I may be corrected on this, but since we've now proven that the early stages of the galaxy were rather liquid-like, than of gases, this helps point out the well-believed idea of the galaxy being an expanding galaxy. Of course, I could be only looking at this from a subjective manner.

[¿Que?]

So if the Universe is flat, does that mean the third dimension doesn't really exist? Just goes to show how science is a human invention and has little relation to the actual nature of things. This might seem a little ridiculous, but if the third dimension is just the "space-time fabric bending light", what about all that other stuff they "discovered," what if that's an illusion too.

[red cat]

So if the Universe is flat, does that mean the third dimension doesn't really exist? Just goes to show how science is a human invention and has little relation to the actual nature of things. This might seem a little ridiculous, but if the third dimension is just the "space-time fabric bending light", what about all that other stuff they "discovered," what if that's an illusion too.

I know almost nothing about this, but to me it seems that this probably refers to an overall non-curved nature of space-time itself on a universal scale. It has nothing to do with flatness as we understand it normally.

To the OP : Does this imply somewhat uniform distribution of mass throughout the universe ?

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Well, I may be corrected on this, but since we've now proven that the early stages of the galaxy were rather liquid-like, than of gases, this helps point out the well-believed idea of the galaxy being an expanding galaxy. Of course, I could be only looking at this from a subjective manner.

Eh? The galaxy isn't expanding. At galactic distances, gravity overcomes universal expansion.


So if the Universe is flat, does that mean the third dimension doesn't really exist? Just goes to show how science is a human invention and has little relation to the actual nature of things. This might seem a little ridiculous, but if the third dimension is just the "space-time fabric bending light", what about all that other stuff they "discovered," what if that's an illusion too.

I think you are confusing the idea of spacetime curvature with the holographic principle (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holographic_principle).

[L.A.P.]

If the universe is flat than this mean that the pythagorean theorem is correct (if the universe was spherical or hyperbolic then that means yes; the pythagorean theorem was a load of bullshit but we would still use it because we don't measure triangles at cosmological scale in math class) and that Omega = 1. Before I read this most evidence suggested that the universe was hyperbolic or "open" meaning Omega < 1 therefore a positive curvature in space meaning the universe will expand at an increasing rate.

[Rafiq]

Wait wait, can someone please explain this all to me? If the universe is flat, does that make us flat as well?

[ZeroNowhere]

We're talking flat here in contrast to open or closed (hyperbolic or elliptical) universes, not in terms of our similarity to squashed bugs.


Eh? The galaxy isn't expanding. At galactic distances, gravity overcomes universal expansion.To be fair, 'galaxy' was probably just a mistype.

[¿Que?]

Wait wait, can someone please explain this all to me? If the universe is flat, does that make us flat as well?
Yeah, sorry if my ignorance on astronomy and physics led you astray. I was trying to make a critique of the scientific construction of knowledge. However, various philosophies and sociologies of science approach the topic in different ways. Robert Merton, for example, argues that we should look at the context and environment that scientists work in, but that the actual scientific theories are for the most part irrelevant to a sociology of science. On the other hand, David Bloor, one of the founders of the Strong Program, argues that we need to examine not just the social context in which scientific knowledge develops, but also the theories themselves. Being more sympathetic to Bloor than Merton, and given my lack of understanding of theoretical physics and astronomy, I'd say this was a bad place for me to make my point.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Wait wait, can someone please explain this all to me? If the universe is flat, does that make us flat as well?

Try this Wikipedia article (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shape_of_the_universe#Global_geometry).

[bcbm]

whats new about this research? i'm reading a book from 2005 that says basically all of the same things...

[The Vegan Marxist]

whats new about this research? i'm reading a book from 2005 that says basically all of the same things...

This study can now confirm what is written in that book as to being correct. The book was probably outlining a theoretical basis on this particular view of the universe.

[gorillafuck]

But if the universe is flat then how do I stand up?

Check mate.



But seriously, I've never heard that. That's interesting, how conclusive is the evidence?

[MellowViper]

Is the "flatness" referring to the consistency of Planks constant or something?