vanholten Posted October 29, 2018 Author Share Posted October 29, 2018 (edited) https://www.bbvaopenmind.com/en/the-universe-is-not-infinite-and-it-is-shaped-like-a-soccer-ball/ https://www.nature.com/articles/nchem.644 Edited October 29, 2018 by vanholten Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ghideon Posted October 29, 2018 Share Posted October 29, 2018 2 hours ago, vanholten said: Didn’t find the right page right away, but this side explains it. The following page seems to have same formulas but less Sci-Fi:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kinetic_energy#Relativistic_kinetic_energy_of_rigid_bodies I think I'm too slow to keep up with all the different aspects of this topic ... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vanholten Posted October 29, 2018 Author Share Posted October 29, 2018 I think you got the essential picture right immediately. Don’t be overwhelmed by all this knowledge. What lies beneath is nature itself. -1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Strange Posted October 29, 2018 Share Posted October 29, 2018 1 hour ago, vanholten said: https://www.bbvaopenmind.com/en/the-universe-is-not-infinite-and-it-is-shaped-like-a-soccer-ball/ You said: "There were NASA speculations about the universe in the shape of a buckyball." None of the authors of that paper work for NASA. Quote https://www.nature.com/articles/nchem.644 I'm not sure why you think this is relevant. Apart from anything else C60 molecules are icosahedrons while the paper is about a dodecahedron model of the universe. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ghideon Posted October 29, 2018 Share Posted October 29, 2018 (edited) I think I now understand most parameters of the rhombus. The circles seem to be insignificant*. On 2018-10-28 at 5:49 PM, vanholten said: This diagram results from a theory concerning the universe. Ok! The diagram seems to be based on basic concepts in SR, given the explanations so far. And I believe SR is indeed related to some aspects of the universe. So the above statement seems correct. Just to clarify, other posts imply that SR is not valid: On 2018-10-28 at 12:13 PM, vanholten said: For those reasons I think Special Relativity is no valid theory. and On 2018-10-28 at 3:41 PM, vanholten said: To free our minds first we have to be aware that that SR is no valid theory. The above statements seems to imply that the theory behind the diagram in this context is not SR. If so please describe, preferably in detail, what the theory is*. 1 hour ago, vanholten said: https://www.bbvaopenmind.com/en/the-universe-is-not-infinite-and-it-is-shaped-like-a-soccer-ball/ I would prefer some more details to be able to comment. I haven't read enough about the topic to comment on that article. But while searching for more facts: Quote An apparent periodicity in the cosmic microwave background led to the suggestion, by Jean-Pierre Luminet of the Observatoire de Paris and colleagues, that the shape of the universe is a finite dodecahedron, attached to itself by each pair of opposite faces to form a Poincaré homology sphere.[2] During the following year, astronomers searched for more evidence to support this hypothesis but found none. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jean-Pierre_Luminet#Timeline *) I believe it had been quicker to figure this out if initial questions from @Strange had been answered. Edited October 29, 2018 by Ghideon grammar Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Strange Posted October 29, 2018 Share Posted October 29, 2018 6 minutes ago, Ghideon said: I would prefer some more details to be able to comment. I haven't read enough about the topic to comment on that article. But while searching for more facts: This was published in Nature: https://www.nature.com/articles/nature01944 Full paper available here: https://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0310253 7 minutes ago, Ghideon said: The circles seem to be insignificant*. That is my impression too. 7 minutes ago, Ghideon said: The diagram seems to be based on basic concepts in SR, given the explanations so far. I agree. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vanholten Posted October 29, 2018 Author Share Posted October 29, 2018 1 hour ago, Strange said: You said: "There were NASA speculations about the universe in the shape of a buckyball." None of the authors of that paper work for NASA. I'm not sure why you think this is relevant. Apart from anything else C60 molecules are icosahedrons while the paper is about a dodecahedron model of the universe. I made already clear there were some speculations about the buckyball. As I remembered the article was related to NASA. You got me there! The link says "soccer-ball" btw. A buckyball and soccer-ball are different names for the same shape. C60 has the shape of a buckyball. Please provide a link to support your claim that C60 molecules are icosahedrons. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Strange Posted October 30, 2018 Share Posted October 30, 2018 (edited) 9 minutes ago, vanholten said: Please provide a link to support your claim that C60 molecules are icosahedrons. Oh that’s great from someone who refuses to answer questions or explain anything. But here you go Quote has a cage-like fused-ring structure (truncated icosahedron) https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buckminsterfullerene It has absolutely nothing to do with relativity or the shape of the universe, of course. Now. How about you answer all my outstanding questions and explain what your “theory” is. Actually, I don’t think you know what your theory is. You are just making up random nonsense as replies to questions. So, in summary You have drawn a more complex diagram (with irrelevant circles) than the standard SR geometry You have produced much more complicated (and less useful) equations for the Lorentz transform You have claimed SR is wrong but produced no evidence - even though you claimed to have some You claim to have a theory but refuse to say what it is You introduce random, irrelevant nonsense like C60 and the shape of the universe (and refuse to explain why) You refuse and/or are unable to explain your diagram or your theory This thread has become completely pointless. I’m not sure why you are being so difficult. Edited October 30, 2018 by Strange Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vanholten Posted October 30, 2018 Author Share Posted October 30, 2018 1 hour ago, Ghideon said: The above statements seems to imply that the theory behind the diagram in this context is not SR. If so please describe, preferably in detail, what the theory is*. You are right. I need to translate it from Dutch first. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
swansont Posted October 30, 2018 Share Posted October 30, 2018 ! Moderator Note Closed at OP's request. Which means we won't be discussing these topics anymore. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts