Quote:
Originally Posted by Steffen
Why does it matter what "shape" the universe has – flat, cubical, spherical, prismatic, or otherwise? Surely, this is not at the heart of the matter?
Kepler wasted his life (much of it anyway) trying to squeeze his, and other people's, observations into a system of simple geometric bodies.
We need to move on from our current patterns of thinking in order to achieve the next level of insight. Doing that on a rational base without sliding into metaphysics is the challenge, not arguing over old-fashioned stereotypes.
Cheers
Steffen.
|
The "shape" is confined to three possibilities Closed, Flat and Open.
Closed, Flat and Open Universes are based on Spherical, Euclidean and Hyperbolic geometry respectively.
What shape the Universe has depends on the amount of matter.
So rather than having some esoteric or metaphysical significance, the shape is based on physical considerations.
Just to throw a spanner into the works in an already difficult subject, it should be noted the Cosmologists and Mathematicians definition of flat is not the same as the layman.
For example all would agree a sheet of paper as being flat, but the surface of a cylinder or a torus are also "flat" to the Cosmologist and Mathematician.
Regards
Steven