Science
08 Apr 08
03 Feb 09
Originally posted by Andrew HamiltonAs for visualizing it, I attempt to do so by imagine space as if it were like a box spring mattress except this box has springs connecting little balls from every direction, kind of a 3D matrix of springs leading away from what is the essence of space, which I assign to be a little ball, so hundreds of little springs are attached to each little ball going to the other balls in 3D space. So a mass comes through, it just goes through the springs, doesn't know they are there but the mass causes the springs to compress a bit from all directions at once. If you can follow that, maybe a virtual model could be built on that principle that mimics relativity. Does that make sense? Mass causes the springs to compress which draws the 'essence' of space together which would be a 3D representation of the 2D rubber sheet analogy. That's my 1/4 baked idea # 349 anyway.
[b]…Explain a little more about the curvature of space around mass. .…
I am afraid I am ill-qualified to do that so it would be better to leave that to a real expert on the subject.
I could try and explain it with the analogy of heavy balls pressing down on a trampoline that thus cause it to curve but the problem with that it may just conf ...[text shortened]... ource of misunderstanding because, in the corresponding 4D, there is NO space above or below it![/b]
03 Feb 09
If you analyze two masses in space that way, the springs represent a contraction of the distance in time and space between the two masses, that is what I was trying to visualize. Kind of as if the masses were magnetic and the springs were made of iron, the mass would 'attract' space together.
03 Feb 09
My visualization about 4D-space is helped by thinking of it as a gravitational field. Every point in space has a 3D vector pointing at the sum of all gravitational bodies its vincinity, and a length corresponding to the strength of the gravitation in that point. Easy peasy. 🙂
04 Feb 09
Originally posted by FabianFnasA length according to the mass of the lass.....
My visualization about 4D-space is helped by thinking of it as a gravitational field. Every point in space has a 3D vector pointing at the sum of all gravitational bodies its vincinity, and a length corresponding to the strength of the gravitation in that point. Easy peasy. 🙂
That would also be a space-time vector, time slows down as you get closer to a mass.
08 Feb 09
1 edit
Originally posted by black beetleThis is deep! Perhaps deeper than we think.
Gravitation is the footprint of mass😵
Does mass give gravitation or does gravitation give mass?
Can it be gravitation without mass, and can there be mass without gravitation?
Now, one important effect of mass is inertia. What has gravitation to do with inertia? What exactly is the coupling?
08 Feb 09
Originally posted by FabianFnasNo mass, no gravitation😵
This is deep! Perhaps deeper than we think.
Does mass give gravitation or does gravitation give mass?
Can it be gravitation without mass, and can there be mass without gravitation?
Now, one important effect of mass is inertia. What has gravitation to do with inertia? What exactly is the coupling?
09 Feb 09
Originally posted by FabianFnasPerhaps the answer could be provided through this theory or though another, or not answered, never;
There is always a "why".
Perhaps string theory will give us the "because" in the future. I hope in the near future.
However, as a scientist you are the first who has to accept that there there is not always a "why";
For starters, why the universe as we know it, it exists? It seems to me that after a while you will find yourself at a dead end.
Our history is a string of unanswered "why"s. Some are answered, some are not. That's all😵
09 Feb 09
Originally posted by black beetleOh, what an unsufferable dolt I am!
Perhaps the answer could be provided through this theory or though another, or not answered, never;
However, as a scientist you are the first who has to accept that there there is not always a "why";
For starters, why the universe as we know it, it exists? It seems to me that after a while you will find yourself at a dead end.
Our history is a string of unanswered "why"s. Some are answered, some are not. That's all😵
Of course there is always a "why". So I stand corrected, and instead of my previous post I forward the following:
Perhaps the answer could be provided through this theory or though another, or not answered, never;
However, as a scientist you are the first who has to accept that there there is not always a "because";
For starters, why the universe as we know it, it exists? It seems to me that after a while you will find yourself at a dead end.
Our history is a string of unanswered "why"s. Some are answered, some are not. That's all😵
Excuse me for the inconvenience FF pal😵
09 Feb 09
Originally posted by black beetleIn my view of the universe and its mysteries there is always a 'because'. Or perhaps I should call it all the "Supraverse".
Oh, what an unsufferable dolt I am!
Of course there is always a "why". So I stand corrected, and instead of my previous post I forward the following:
Perhaps the answer could be provided through this theory or though another, or not answered, never;
However, as a scientist you are the first who has to accept that there there is not always a "bec ...[text shortened]... re answered, some are not. That's all😵
Excuse me for the inconvenience FF pal😵
There is no beginning in Supraverse. Perhaps in our universe but in a larger (temporal and spacial) perspective, a supraversal perspective, every 'why' has its 'because'.
Do I have any scientific reason to make this claim? No, I have not.
09 Feb 09
Originally posted by FabianFnasIf we accept big bang as a correct theory, it seems to me that we have to start from the point singularity and from the idea that all the Time/ Space was the same time and same place at the start. Therefore it is meaningless to talk about the pro big band conditions, thus in this variation there is not a "because".
In my view of the universe and its mysteries there is always a 'because'. Or perhaps I should call it all the "Supraverse".
There is no beginning in Supraverse. Perhaps in our universe but in a larger (temporal and spacial) perspective, a supraversal perspective, every 'why' has its 'because'.
Do I have any scientific reason to make this claim? No, I have not.
Regarding your view about Supraverse, does your multidimentional Supraverse expands or does it contrancting, or it stays quite stable, and why? Does it expands following the Jacob's ladder model -and why, or does it contracting following this model all the way down but backwards -and why? Or does it remain stable -and why?
However my main point over here is that even you too, you agree that there is not a "beginning in Supraverse"; so you appear to admit that the "why"s regarding these variations cannot have a scientifically backed up "because".
So, why you claim that in a larger supraversal perspective every "why" has its "because"?
09 Feb 09
Originally posted by black beetleBTW, if your answer to the above is simply "because" and nothing else, just "because", then congrats FF, way to go!
If we accept big bang as a correct theory, it seems to me that we have to start from the point singularity and from the idea that all the Time/ Space was the same time and same place at the start. Therefore it is meaningless to talk about the pro big band conditions, thus in this variation there is not a "because".
Regarding your view about Supravers ...[text shortened]... y you claim that in a larger supraversal perspective every "why" has its "because"?
For, if this "because" of yours exists, then at the same time there is not "because" in a known existent and at the same time non-existent condition; and for sure the invisible Cat smiles big time😵