| Topic: |
Science > Physics |
| User: |
"G=EMC^2 Glazier" |
| Date: |
26 Jan 2005 09:31:01 AM |
| Object: |
The Bending of Space |
We know light bends.It can bend in all directions. That means
space is both concave,and convex. Lets make a theory using this. Convex
is "outward",and concave is "inward" Our local space is concave and
inward fits with the reality of this areas spacetime. Now lets go with
convex space,and its spacetime is 7 billion LY away from us. Now we
see this space moving outward. This outward moving space is stretching
photon's wave,and that means slowing its vibration(less vibration less
energy) we call this "red shifting" The convexing of space gets
greater with spacetime. This tells us the universe is getting bigger at
an accelerating rate. It all fits with observation. It goes well with
Einstien's relativity theories. I like it Bert
.
|
|
| User: "Bjoern Feuerbacher" |
|
| Title: Re: The Bending of Space |
26 Jan 2005 11:37:28 AM |
|
|
G=EMC^2 Glazier wrote:
We know light bends.It can bend in all directions.
Right.
That means space is both concave,and convex.
Non sequitur.
A convex lense can also bend light "in all directions".
It does not have to be concave at the same time in order
to achieve that.
Lets make a theory using this. Convex
is "outward",and concave is "inward"
Outward and inward of what?
Our local space is concave
How do you know?
and inward fits with the reality of this areas spacetime.
I have no clue what this is supposed to mean.
Now lets go with
convex space,and its spacetime is 7 billion LY away from us. Now we
see this space moving outward.
Do you mean "away from us" when you say "outward", or what?
This outward moving space is stretching
photon's wave, and that means slowing its vibration (less vibration less
energy) we call this "red shifting"
Strangely worded, but essentially right.
The convexing of space gets
greater with spacetime.
What is this supposed to mean?
This tells us the universe is getting bigger at
an accelerating rate.
Huh? How does this follow?
It all fits with observation. It goes well with
Einstien's relativity theories. I like it Bert
I don't.
Bye,
Bjoern
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Sam Wormley" |
|
| Title: Re: The Bending of Space |
26 Jan 2005 10:07:16 AM |
|
|
G=EMC^2 Glazier wrote:
We know light bends.It can bend in all directions. That means
space is both concave,and convex.
No
.
|
|
|
| User: "tj Frazir" |
|
| Title: Re: The Bending of Space |
26 Jan 2005 01:13:49 PM |
|
|
Sam is a coward and knows nothing about anything.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Y.Porat" |
|
| Title: Re: The Bending of Space |
27 Jan 2005 04:45:58 AM |
|
|
space is nothing except incorperating distanc ebetween particle
so space is nothing else so it is not bending and not shmending!
light nest to the sun bends because ....
light has mass!!!
will you stick it once and for all into your physics retarded mind???
(i mean all those who stick to that curved space
no personal offence to Sam wormly i replied to him just ocationally
it could be any of the others who stick to it though it leads no
where..)
Y.Porat
---------------------------
.
|
|
|
| User: "tj Frazir" |
|
| Title: Re: The Bending of Space Porat |
27 Jan 2005 11:01:13 AM |
|
|
Poor rats.
Energy slope then idiot.
Up is a gain in mass .
so 1/2 evry atom is pushing its other 1/2 twards less mass.
The center of the atom is where all its parts are falling.
But atoms change mass at C.
one side of the atom has more mass than the other side , falling twards
its center and 1/2 the atom is pushing the other half.
You suck at physics uncle dumbass.
Im ramming this page up your *****.
" YOU DONT KNOW ***** ABOUT GRAVITY"
Still your turn.
=A0=A0I said this.
=A0=A0=A0=A0In an energy slope the atom pushes it's self. 1/2 of evry
atom pushes the other 1/2 down the energy slope. =A0 Gravity is a push
to less energy . UP is a gain in mass and atoms change mass at C.
=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0Gravity is push to less mass ... .......
As a mass is pushed up , it gains mass. Pushed up in an energy slope .
=A0=A0 =A0 1/2 of evry atom has more mass than the other half of evry
atom in the field of low.
=A0=A0=A0=A0More mass of evry atom is falling twards it"s own pit at the
center of the atom then the other.
=A0=A0Evry atom has the same energy diferance in the field. evry 1/2
atom pushes its other half as there is more mass on one side than the
other.
=A0=A0=A0=A0There is no pull. Its a push to LESS MASS =A0 How one atom
falls ..1/2 the atom has more mass and pushes it that way.
=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0 our turns SAM and AL.
=A0=A0tell all us dumbasses how gravity works.. Al and Sam are hiding
from me.
=A0=A0=A0=A0The subject of gravity is not one they like to deal with
because they have no clue.
=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0As the universe expands a low forms around mass.
=A0 Gravity is a push to less .
=A0=A0Not a pull No attraction.
=A0The atom pushes its self.
=A0=A01/2 of evry atom is pushing its other 1/2. =A0 Its undeniable.
=A0=A0Bacause if you might notice the mass gain of evry atom and the
mass loss side of evry atom
is proportional and te driferance is F andd F--MA yet V is allways the
same.
=A0=A0F--MA is not suposed to work here.
=A0=A0I have combined GR and SR.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "tj Frazir" |
|
| Title: Re: The Bending of Space Porat |
27 Jan 2005 11:01:48 AM |
|
|
Poor rats.
Energy slope then idiot.
Up is a gain in mass .
so 1/2 evry atom is pushing its other 1/2 twards less mass.
The center of the atom is where all its parts are falling.
But atoms change mass at C.
one side of the atom has more mass than the other side , falling twards
its center and 1/2 the atom is pushing the other half.
You suck at physics uncle dumbass.
Im ramming this page up your *****.
" YOU DONT KNOW ***** ABOUT GRAVITY"
Still your turn.
=A0=A0I said this.
=A0=A0=A0=A0In an energy slope the atom pushes it's self. 1/2 of evry
atom pushes the other 1/2 down the energy slope. =A0 Gravity is a push
to less energy . UP is a gain in mass and atoms change mass at C.
=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0Gravity is push to less mass ... .......
As a mass is pushed up , it gains mass. Pushed up in an energy slope .
=A0=A0 =A0 1/2 of evry atom has more mass than the other half of evry
atom in the field of low.
=A0=A0=A0=A0More mass of evry atom is falling twards it"s own pit at the
center of the atom then the other.
=A0=A0Evry atom has the same energy diferance in the field. evry 1/2
atom pushes its other half as there is more mass on one side than the
other.
=A0=A0=A0=A0There is no pull. Its a push to LESS MASS =A0 How one atom
falls ..1/2 the atom has more mass and pushes it that way.
=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0 our turns SAM and AL.
=A0=A0tell all us dumbasses how gravity works.. Al and Sam are hiding
from me.
=A0=A0=A0=A0The subject of gravity is not one they like to deal with
because they have no clue.
=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0As the universe expands a low forms around mass.
=A0 Gravity is a push to less .
=A0=A0Not a pull No attraction.
=A0The atom pushes its self.
=A0=A01/2 of evry atom is pushing its other 1/2. =A0 Its undeniable.
=A0=A0Bacause if you might notice the mass gain of evry atom and the
mass loss side of evry atom
is proportional and te driferance is F andd F--MA yet V is allways the
same.
=A0=A0F--MA is not suposed to work here.
=A0=A0I have combined GR and SR.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "raymond" |
|
| Title: Re: The Bending of Space |
26 Jan 2005 02:18:02 PM |
|
|
G=EMC^2 Glazier wrote:
We know light bends.It can bend in all directions. That means
space is both concave,and convex. Lets make a theory using this.
Convex
is "outward",and concave is "inward" Our local space is concave and
inward fits with the reality of this areas spacetime. Now lets go
with
convex space,and its spacetime is 7 billion LY away from us. Now we
see this space moving outward. This outward moving space is
stretching
photon's wave,and that means slowing its vibration(less vibration
less
energy) we call this "red shifting" The convexing of space gets
greater with spacetime. This tells us the universe is getting bigger
at
an accelerating rate. It all fits with observation. It goes well
with
Einstien's relativity theories. I like it Bert
if you trow a rock in the water, you see waves moving
away from the impact. is the convex space the one moving
away from the gravity centers?
raymond
.
|
|
|
| User: "G=EMC^2 Glazier" |
|
| Title: Re: The Bending of Space |
27 Jan 2005 09:08:15 AM |
|
|
Hi raymond The answer seems to point to "yes" You will note that
galaxies are red shifted I have them taking a deeper red when viewed 7
billion LY from us,and use this as the flipping from concave to convex
spacetime event I'll add that the largest space of our expanding
universe is convex. If it was the other way we would have an accelerated
crunch(inward flow of galaxies) Gravity creates concave space.(GR) it
only attracts Space energy creates inflation(Raisin bread theory)
Space energy gives space an outward flow an repels galaxies from each
other (convex) Bert
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Marcel LeBel" |
|
| Title: Re: The Bending of Space |
26 Jan 2005 05:56:48 PM |
|
|
G=EMC^2 Glazier wrote:
We know light bends.It can bend in all directions. That means
space is both concave,and convex. Lets make a theory using this. Convex
is "outward",and concave is "inward" Our local space is concave and
inward fits with the reality of this areas spacetime. Now lets go with
convex space,and its spacetime is 7 billion LY away from us. Now we
see this space moving outward. This outward moving space is stretching
photon's wave,and that means slowing its vibration(less vibration less
energy) we call this "red shifting" The convexing of space gets
greater with spacetime. This tells us the universe is getting bigger at
an accelerating rate. It all fits with observation. It goes well with
Einstien's relativity theories. I like it Bert
Bert,
Because there is a speed limit in the universe, there is always some
time between any two points. Basically, nothing is instantaneous except
our perception and thinking. So, of all the points that form the
standard meter, no two points are at the same moment. The conclusion is
that space doesn<t really exist except in our own constructed reality.
Don't spend too much time flexing space because it is only your
perception that you are playing with, not the real universe.
Marcel,
.
|
|
|
| User: "tj Frazir" |
|
| Title: Re: The Bending of Space |
26 Jan 2005 10:54:48 PM |
|
|
Energy slope.
A low forms around mass as the unverse expands.
Still your turn.
I said this.
In an energy slope the atom pushes it's self.
1/2 of evry atom pushes the other 1/2 down the energy slope. =A0 Gravity
is a push to less energy . UP is a gain in mass and atoms change mass
at C.
=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0Gravity is push to less mass ...
........ As a mass is pushed up , it gains mass. Pushed up in an energy
slope .
=A0=A0 =A0 1/2 of evry atom has more mass than the other half of evry
atom in the field of low.
=A0=A0=A0=A0More mass of evry atom is falling twards it"s own pit at the
center of the atom then the other.
=A0=A0Evry atom has the same energy diferance in the field. evry 1/2
atom pushes its other half as there is more mass on one side than the
other.
=A0=A0=A0=A0There is no pull. Its a push to LESS MASS =A0 How one atom
falls ..1/2 the atom has more mass and pushes it that way.
=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0 our turns SAM and AL.
=A0=A0tell all us dumbasses how gravity works.. Al and Sam are hiding
from me.
=A0=A0=A0=A0The subject of gravity is not one they like to deal with
because they have no clue.
=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0As the universe expands a low forms around mass.
=A0 Gravity is a push to less .
=A0=A0Not a pull No attraction.
=A0The atom pushes its self.
=A0=A01/2 of evry atom is pushing its other 1/2. =A0 Its undeniable.
=A0=A0Bacause if you might notice the mass gain of evry atom and the
mass loss side of evry atom
is proportional and te driferance is F andd F--MA yet V is allways the
same.
=A0=A0F--MA is not suposed to work here.
=A0=A0I have combined GR and SR.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "G=EMC^2 Glazier" |
|
| Title: Re: The Bending of Space |
27 Jan 2005 09:20:40 AM |
|
|
Hi Marcel If we used what you have stated for space for all the
universe we just need only the Anthropic theory. Einstien had the space
between the stars more dynamic then the stars Space energy is part
of todays astronomy. Casmir made space energy fit well in the QM realm
It is proven in both QM and the macro realm by observation,and
experiment Bert
.
|
|
|
| User: "Marcel LeBel" |
|
| Title: Re: The Bending of Space |
27 Jan 2005 05:43:21 PM |
|
|
G=EMC^2 Glazier wrote:
Hi Marcel If we used what you have stated for space for all the
universe we just need only the Anthropic theory. Einstien had the space
between the stars more dynamic then the stars Space energy is part
of todays astronomy. Casmir made space energy fit well in the QM realm
It is proven in both QM and the macro realm by observation,and
experiment Bert
Bert, read it again. Sorry, but there is no other way. There is no space
in the universe. This is what "space-time" means. It is the hardest part
to understand and/or accept. The scientific picture is pretty much
anthropic since it describes the universe as if it could not exist
outside without us watching... As usual (Sorry Galileo) we are still at
the center of the universe!!
Because there is a speed limit in the universe, there is always some
time between any two points. Basically, nothing is instantaneous except
our perception and thinking. So, of all the points that form the
standard meter, no two points are at the same moment. The conclusion is
that space doesn<t really exist except in our own constructed reality.
Don't spend too much time flexing space because it is only your
perception that you are playing with, not the real universe.
Marcel,
.
|
|
|
| User: "son of sound" |
|
| Title: Re: The Bending of Space |
27 Jan 2005 09:17:40 PM |
|
|
Marcel LeBel wrote:
G=EMC^2 Glazier wrote:
Hi Marcel If we used what you have stated for space for all the
universe we just need only the Anthropic theory. Einstien had the
space
between the stars more dynamic then the stars Space energy is
part
of todays astronomy. Casmir made space energy fit well in the QM
realm
It is proven in both QM and the macro realm by observation,and
experiment Bert
Bert, read it again. Sorry, but there is no other way. There is no
space
in the universe. This is what "space-time" means. It is the hardest
part
to understand and/or accept. The scientific picture is pretty much
anthropic since it describes the universe as if it could not exist
outside without us watching... As usual (Sorry Galileo) we are still
at
the center of the universe!!
so you don't believe in curved spacetime?
this is one of the basic ideas on SR and GR?
what spacetime means is that time doesn't
have any meaning if is not related to SPACE.
some minds think the opposite way of what you said:
that TIME is an ilusion and does not exist.
regards
raymond
.
|
|
|
| User: "Y.Porat" |
|
| Title: Re: The Bending of Space |
28 Jan 2005 01:48:53 AM |
|
|
i dont think that curved spacetime is the most part or fundamental
so SR
it is sort of 'appendix guess' to it.
anyway a bad guess!! that leads us to nowhere
Y.Porat
------------------------------------
.
|
|
|
| User: "tj Frazir" |
|
| Title: Re: The Bending of Space |
28 Jan 2005 02:02:53 PM |
|
|
I bent space over one atom.
No one comprehended it.
1/2 the atom has more mass than the other 1/2 because the space it's in
is bent.
Boath 1/2's of the atom are fallling twards it's center but one side
has more mass than the other falling twards its center and that pushes
the atom twards less mass.
Gravity is a push to less energy.
Gravity is a push to less mass.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Y.Porat" |
|
| Title: Re: The Bending of Space |
29 Jan 2005 12:58:34 AM |
|
|
now why do you bend space only around one atom
and not aroung any particle or conglomeration of particles
or around a star
or aroung a galaxy??
is it not some aritrary approach?? is actualy a privete postulate of
yours??
---------------
Y.Porat
--------------------------------
.
|
|
|
| User: "tj Frazir" |
|
| Title: Re: The Bending of Space |
29 Jan 2005 10:42:27 AM |
|
|
I bent space and put one atom in it to show you how the atom gets
moved.
Shure the paricals are in an energy slope of the atom moving by the
same GAIN .
A planet or gallaxy is just allot of atoms.
They are all moving this way.
Evry parical neutron proton electron is in orbit around its center of
gravity slope. In a gravity field energy slope up is more mass.
As the particals orbit the top side they have more mass as the
particals displace more dark energy.
Now there is more mass falling to the center of the atom on its top
side than is falling to the center of the atom on the bottom side.
More mass falling in one direction than the other. the top side has
more mass falling as the gain in mass is the force pushing the atom and
causing it's motion threw the field. Evry mass gain is proportional to
the mass of the atom.
If the mass gain is thust pushing the atoms mass , then F is the mass
gain .
The mass of the atom is M.
V is constant because evry atoms gain is exsact proportion to its mass.
F--MA
It proves its self.
SR or GR and the law UP is a gain in mass.
I jsut used F--MA on all falling masses and it works because F is the
mass gained .
Or falling to a mass loss.
Up is mass gain s down is mass loss.
Gravity is a push to less energy.
Gravity is a push to less mass.
Because the math says so.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Jimi" |
|
| Title: Re: The Bending of Space |
04 Feb 2005 01:54:13 PM |
|
|
On 27 Jan 2005 23:48:53 -0800, "Y.Porat" <maporat@012.net.il> wrote:
i dont think that curved spacetime is the most part or fundamental
so SR
it is sort of 'appendix guess' to it.
anyway a bad guess!! that leads us to nowhere
Y.Porat
------------------------------------
Hey guys, one thing that most people seem to forget is that matter is
just another form of energy and therefore is in constant motion (c) at
a fundamental level. It is the energy which makes up the atom that
follows curved space time in addition to the tight paths it takes in
the confines of elemental matter and therefore "curves" ever downward
like a free photon would do if trapped between two mirrors in a
gravitational field.
Make sense?
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Marcel LeBel" |
|
| Title: Re: The Bending of Space |
28 Jan 2005 04:53:11 PM |
|
|
son of sound wrote:
Marcel LeBel wrote:
G=EMC^2 Glazier wrote:
Hi Marcel If we used what you have stated for space for all the
universe we just need only the Anthropic theory. Einstien had the
space
between the stars more dynamic then the stars Space energy is
part
of todays astronomy. Casmir made space energy fit well in the QM
realm
It is proven in both QM and the macro realm by observation,and
experiment Bert
Bert, read it again. Sorry, but there is no other way. There is no
space
in the universe. This is what "space-time" means. It is the hardest
part
to understand and/or accept. The scientific picture is pretty much
anthropic since it describes the universe as if it could not exist
outside without us watching... As usual (Sorry Galileo) we are still
at
the center of the universe!!
so you don't believe in curved spacetime?
this is one of the basic ideas on SR and GR?
what spacetime means is that time doesn't
have any meaning if is not related to SPACE.
some minds think the opposite way of what you said:
that TIME is an ilusion and does not exist.
regards
raymond
Raymond,
There is metaphysics (ontology), pseudo-metaphysics/pseudo-physics and
there is physics. Physics studies the structure of our reality in order
to gain insight into the working of the universe. Whenever they find
some insight (metaphysical) they quickly retrofit it with attributes of
our reality (observables) so that this idea can walk to the test bench
in an experimental "proof". In doing so, they spoil the very insght they
got. Metaphysics is the heart of physics, but something it can never
obtain.
Knowing this, I choose to study physics and extract these insight and
build a logically coherent structure of the real metaphysical universe.
This approach finds that we know that space does not (really)exist, but
we choose to ignore it. You are welcome to do it too! Ignore!
Marcel,
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "G=EMC^2 Glazier" |
|
| Title: Re: The Bending of Space |
29 Jan 2005 09:07:16 AM |
|
|
Marcel you see space as an empty void.It is not. We have the raisin
bread theory.That theory gives us an idea(picture) how space inflation
is creating a bigger universe a an accelerated rate. At a rate of speed
that can be faster than light. Think of space curving as light taking a
curved path.That is what Eddington showed in Africa in 1918(hope the
date is right) Einstien thought time was more important than space
even after he merged them together Each year space is getting
more respect Bert
.
|
|
|
| User: "tj Frazir" |
|
| Title: Re: The Bending of Space |
29 Jan 2005 10:49:10 AM |
|
|
Bending space and put one atom in it.
Up is a gain in mass so the atom has more mass at its top than bottom .
ALL of the atoms mass is falling twards its center. There is more
mass falling twards its center from one side than the other .
1/2 the atom is pushing the other half as it has more mass falling
twards the center of the atom.
Not pulled by anything , its psuhing its self down the energy slope.
.
|
|
|
| User: "tj Frazir" |
|
| Title: Re: The Bending of Space |
30 Jan 2005 03:31:12 PM |
|
|
Bending space and put one atom in it.
Up is a gain in mass so the atom has more mass at its top than bottom .
ALL of the atoms mass is falling twards its center. There is more
mass falling twards its center from one side than the other . 1/2 the
atom is pushing the other half as it has more mass falling
twards the center of the atom.
=A0=A0=A0=A0Not pulled by anything , its psuhing its self down the
energy slope.
dragging space , by Dr Ienstien
coverted to a working machine by Dr Feaser
stand the wheel up and forget the laser driving it and ice cooling it.
The supperconductor disk is standng like a bike wheel with a magnet
beside it.
=A0=A0That magnet will point evry dipole in the disk down no matter how
fast the disk turns.
=A0=A0=A0=A0Atoms change mass at C .
=A0They Gain mass at C then move.
then move is extra time.<<
=A0=A0Note where the mass gain is if te wheel is not turning ,on top is
the mass gain then move.
=A0=A0=A0=A0The magnet wount let the atom reverse its self as the disk
spins . Now RPM of disk 1/2 C.
=A0=A0changed mass at the bottom and was on top when it moved and the
atom can only change mass twice in the time of one revolution.
=A0=A0My 8 ton disk at 1/2 c isfalling up instead of down ,,and dragging
0,02 % of space around with it ,,some low is turned to be on top and
that dragging space around gives the 8 ton disk 8000 tons of lift.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Nick" |
|
| Title: Re: Seeing The Bending of Space |
31 Jan 2005 12:14:31 AM |
|
|
There is no absolute rest.
You can see no curved space-time on its own.
It can only properly be seen through motion on matter/light.
It changes motion.
If space and motion combine then if you want to see space
look at motion.
I say: stop trying to visualize a curved space. Just see
motion. That is where it is at.
Mitch Raemsch -- Light Falls --
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Y.Porat" |
|
| Title: Re: The Bending of Space |
06 Feb 2005 06:16:52 AM |
|
|
Edington showed nothing in Africaa
light bends next to the sun because ......
it has mass !!!!!
----------------
Y.Porat
-----------------------------
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Raymond Yohros" |
|
| Title: Re: The Bending of Space |
04 Feb 2005 06:39:33 PM |
|
|
G=EMC^2 Glazier wrote:
Einstien thought time was more important than space
even after he merged them together.
why?
.
|
|
|
| User: "G=EMC^2 Glazier" |
|
| Title: Re: The Bending of Space |
06 Feb 2005 07:20:17 AM |
|
|
Raymond Not sure why Einstien thought time was more important than
space?? Maybe because there is a limit to an objects spatial velocity:
the maximum speed through apace occurs if "all" of an object"s motion
through"time" is diverted to motion through space. Very tricky stuff to
understand how Einstien revolutioned our understanding of space and time
by showing that they warp and distort to communicate the force of
gravity. Raymond Here is a question for you Einstien also
told us that "all objects in the universe are always traveling through
spacetime at one fixed speed-that of light" How do you answer that very
strange idea? After all we go by the notion that objects travel at a
speed less than light.Hmmmmm Tricky stuff Bert
.
|
|
|
| User: "Raymond Yohros" |
|
| Title: Re: The Bending of Space |
08 Feb 2005 04:02:31 PM |
|
|
G=EMC^2 Glazier wrote:
Raymond Here is a question for you Einstien > Raymond Not sure why
Einstien thought time was more important than
space?? Maybe because there is a limit to an objects spatial
velocity:
the maximum speed through apace occurs if "all" of an object"s motion
through"time" is diverted to motion through space. Very tricky stuff
to
understand how Einstien revolutioned our understanding of space and
time
by showing that they warp and distort to communicate the force of
gravity. also
told us that "all objects in the universe are always traveling
through
spacetime at one fixed speed-that of light" How do you answer that
very
strange idea? After all we go by the notion that objects travel at a
speed less than light.Hmmmmm Tricky stuff Bert
i can't picture how time can exist without space or viceversa.
when space grows, so it's the flow of time
when space shrinks, time slows down
answering you're trick question:
to travel through spaceTIME things need to be at full speed
while any speed below it it's just traveling through space
regards
raymond
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Raymond Yohros" |
|
| Title: Re: The Bending of Space |
08 Feb 2005 04:02:36 PM |
|
|
G=EMC^2 Glazier wrote:
Raymond Here is a question for you Einstien > Raymond Not sure why
Einstien thought time was more important than
space?? Maybe because there is a limit to an objects spatial
velocity:
the maximum speed through apace occurs if "all" of an object"s motion
through"time" is diverted to motion through space. Very tricky stuff
to
understand how Einstien revolutioned our understanding of space and
time
by showing that they warp and distort to communicate the force of
gravity. also
told us that "all objects in the universe are always traveling
through
spacetime at one fixed speed-that of light" How do you answer that
very
strange idea? After all we go by the notion that objects travel at a
speed less than light.Hmmmmm Tricky stuff Bert
i can't picture how time can exist without space or viceversa.
when space grows, so it's the flow of time
when space shrinks, time slows down
answering you're trick question:
to travel through spaceTIME things need to be at full speed
while any speed below it it's just traveling through space
regards
raymond
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Marcel LeBel" |
|
| Title: Re: The Bending of Space |
31 Jan 2005 06:28:29 PM |
|
|
G=EMC^2 Glazier wrote:
Marcel you see space as an empty void.It is not. We have the raisin
bread theory.That theory gives us an idea(picture) how space inflation
is creating a bigger universe a an accelerated rate. At a rate of speed
that can be faster than light. Think of space curving as light taking a
curved path.That is what Eddington showed in Africa in 1918(hope the
date is right) Einstien thought time was more important than space
even after he merged them together Each year space is getting
more respect Bert
Bert,
You got me wrong there. Space doesn't exists. Space is a perceptual and
intellectual concept we create ourselve from the apparent simultaneous
perception of multiple points physics already showed to be away in time
from each other. Space is about perceiving things as being at the same
moment; the Sun, the Moon, a Star can all be seen at a glance in the
evening. BUT, science says the Star is x millions light-years away =
for practical purpose = years away. The Sun is about 8 minutes away and
the Moon, about half a second away. The first view describes our
reality, the other describes (partly) what the real universe is about.
Can't mix both together...
..... SO, "space" in our reality is o.k.! In the real universe.. no
space, just the passage of time ..exploding in all points... in all
directions... great agitation.. virtual particles....inflation and all
etc. Yes, it is full of activity out there....but there is no space!!
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "tj Frazir" |
|
| Title: Re: The Bending of Space |
27 Jan 2005 06:34:33 PM |
|
|
The speed limit is the Time Energy reacts with energy.
Energy has no shape or size and its value at any point constant.
Photons dont change speed they change directions more.
A gravity pit is a low .
Light is a rize and fall in energy.
100 % of the energy universe is still expanding so a low forms around
mass.
Gravity is an energy slope .
Up is a gain in mass.
1/2 evry atom is pushing the other 1/2 down to less energy to less
mass.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
