davar55's cosmo-autohagiography: Worth its weight in Dunning-Kruggerands

[chalsall]

Originally Posted by davar55

Certainly, and it is just that.

So, then, your entire argument collapses.

[davar55]

Originally Posted by chalsall

So, then, your entire argument collapses.

Certainly not. The two descriptions are compatible.

[chalsall]

Originally Posted by davar55

Certainly not. The two descriptions are compatible.

How?

[davar55]

Originally Posted by chalsall

How?

The skin is orthogonal to the three ordinary dimensions.
It is different in kind from the other three spatial dimensions.
It makes the spatial Universe a 4-ball with one dimension
necessarily weighted differently.

It is derivable as the Riemann-fold of the three ordinary
spatial dimensions. This is better explained in the monogr....

So this Riemann-fold is orthogonal to all three regular
spatial dimensions.

This may be hard for non-mathematicans to visualize,
but like a 4-d Klein bottle or a 4-d 3-torus,
the 4-ball is a perfectly valid topological entity.

[CRGreathouse]

Originally Posted by davar55

Yes. As explained in the monograph, the Universe is a 3-d sphere
Riemann-folded through a fourth spatial dimension, so that it has
no border or boundary or edge. Matter (if small enough) and
em-photonic energy (when of the right frequency as determined
by local conditions) can pass thru this skin and thereby get transported
essentially randomly elsewhere into the 3-d sphere. That's pretty
clearly what I would expect of a dimension. :-).

I would expect orthogonality, which your 'dimension' clearly lacks.

[CRGreathouse]

Originally Posted by davar55

This may be hard for non-mathematicans to visualize,
but like a 4-d Klein bottle or a 4-d 3-torus,
the 4-ball is a perfectly valid topological entity.

Of course. But a 4-ball doesn't have volume 4 Pi R^2 S as you claimed, so what you have is clearly not a 4-ball.

[davar55]

Originally Posted by CRGreathouse

I would expect orthogonality, which your 'dimension' clearly lacks.

Originally Posted by CRGreathouse

Of course. But a 4-ball doesn't have volume 4 Pi R^2 S as you claimed, so what you have is clearly not a 4-ball.

A Riemann-fold IS thru an added dimension, so the skin is a fourth
spatial dimension. I can't HERE repeat the entire discussion found
n the monograph.

It isn't the volume of the 4-ball that formula represents, but the
derived value of the volume of the skin, 4 pi R^2 S, obtained
AS IF the skin were a volume of its width S times the surface
area 4 pi R^2 of a 3-d sphere of radius R. This is where one
might get the visualization of an annulus-like boundary surface
wrong; but then it's explained better already in the monograph.

[Batalov]

Is your space a compact boundaryless Finsler space which is locally Minkowskian?

[davar55]

Originally Posted by Batalov

Is your space a compact boundaryless Finsler space which is locally Minkowskian?

Say what? Let me look that up ...
...
I see that came from Wolfram.
So what's a zero flag curvature?

To answer: compact, yes, which also implies
finite extent in each dimension; boundaryless, yes,
there is no boundary or border to the Universe,
physically or mathemaatically; Finsler space is a
generalization of Riemann space derived by
dropping a geometric condition that I don't claim
to fully understand, so I'll leave open which is
the better mathematical description for our
unique Universe; locally Minkowskian is related
(or is it identical) to the property I termed
locally-Euclidean, which I prefer.

So my answer is, TBH, I'm not sure yet.

Does the math concept, as far as you understand it,
admit of one unique 4-spatial-dimensional solution?
If so, it may be the right math model. If not, not.

[CRGreathouse]

Originally Posted by davar55

It isn't the volume of the 4-ball that formula represents, but the
derived value of the volume of the skin, 4 pi R^2 S, obtained
AS IF the skin were a volume of its width S times the surface
area 4 pi R^2 of a 3-d sphere of radius R. This is where one
might get the visualization of an annulus-like boundary surface
wrong; but then it's explained better already in the monograph.

So what is the volume of the skin, actually? Don't give me an approximation that works as if it was just a spherical shell, give me the actual 4-D content (=hyper-volume).

Also good would be a description of the actual shape: is it a hypersolid of rotation, an extruded hypersolid, or something else entirely?

[davar55]

Originally Posted by ewmayer

"Doesn't the theory fail if you try to apply it to something outside its realm of application?"

BBT only claims applicability for t > 0. Precisely what happened at t = 0, or if there was a t for t < 0, are mysterious. Was there a time before time, or a space outside space? Is it meaningful to even ask such things?

By way of comparison the Steady-state hypothesis has a similar epistemological problem: It attempts to answer "where did all come from?" with "it was always there."

The arrogance ( :-) ) of calling the so-called instant of the Big
Bang "t = 0" is evident. If you can't say what preceeeded it, then
maybe you're only talking about "t = 13000000000 yrs" or WHATEVER.

It is neither mysterious nor an epistemological problem, and is in fact
a necessity, to say the Universe has always been here. This is
discusssed in the monograph. The opposite belief, that there was
a beginning or a Creation, is contradictory.