|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Is space flat? | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
purplecorndog Inactive Member |
Hey there everyone.
I've gone through these posts for awhile now and it's evident that everyone knows what they're talking about! The one thing I just can't seem to wrap my head around is space: is it flat or three-dimensional? I suppose 'dememsional' was a bad word to use. Diagrams I've found while roaming around show a pit, for lack of a better term, in space. To me, that means that there's a literal fabric. I don't know if I even made myself clear, but I tried. Thanks in advanced for clarifications.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
AdminNWR Inactive Member |
Thread moved here from the Proposed New Topics forum.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
cavediver Member (Idle past 3674 days) Posts: 4129 From: UK Joined: |
Wow, so many new folk. Hi purplecorndog!
space: is it flat or three-dimensional? 3d? Yes, but we don't like to separate it from time, which gives us 4d. Flat? Well, it depends. Over small distances it is, to a very good approximation, flat. However, as you look on larger length scales you realise (using incredibly sensitve instrumentation) that around the earth, it is not totally flat. On sufficiently large scales the curvature can be quitepronounced, such as the whole universe being possibly curved into a (hyper)sphere, or around a black hole where things appear to curve the wrong way because the curvature is so extreme.
Diagrams I've found while roaming around show a pit, for lack of a better term, in space. The pit is space. This is a very common misconception with depictions of space(time). The pit shows that space is being stretched and distorted (by some mass such as a planet, star, black hole, etc)
To me, that means that there's a literal fabric. Yes, in quite a close sense, space(time) is a fabric.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Gary Inactive Member |
I think you're referring to pictures that show a massive object like a black hole distorting spacetime, maybe with a ball rolling around the edge of a pit. They are usually drawn that way because it is easier to get the point across in two dimensions than three. Really, the "pit" exists in all directions, so the ball would roll around in any plane about the object in the middle.
Here's a picture of a gravitational lens, which illustrates that point. APOD: 2001 October 7 - Abell 2218: A Galaxy Cluster Lens
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Xeriar Inactive Member |
Unfortunately this isn't a question with a single answer.
As mentioned, on extremely small scales, the Universe is pretty flat. Gravity wells are modelled as the warping of spacetime, however, so what we perceive as gravity is, actually, us being interrupted in our otherwise 'straight' motion in spacetime. This is more of a compression of space, however, rather than curvature into a higher dimension (well, at least as I understand it). ---- If you are asking 'Is the Universe a hypertorus or hypersphere', we only have the WMAP results to go by, which suggest that, at least on the scale of the visible Universe, it is flat to measurement error. There may be some large-scale structure to the Universe, but it suggests that the Universe is either1: Really, really forking huge 2: Infinite I consider both #1 and #2 to be equally mindboggling, personally
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
cavediver Member (Idle past 3674 days) Posts: 4129 From: UK Joined: |
This is more of a compression of space, however, rather than curvature into a higher dimension (well, at least as I understand it). Outside mathematics, it is a common misconception that a "higher dimension" is required for curvature. This is not true. Often a higher dimension is required for us to visualise curvature, e.g. a sphere (such as the surface of a snooker ball) is 2-dimensional, yet for us to appreciate that curavture we require a 3 dimensions in which to view it. The sphere itself requires no such higher dimension.
we only have the WMAP results to go by, which suggest that, at least on the scale of the visible Universe, it is flat to measurement error Flat here refers to space and not space-time. We say spatially flat to be unambiguous. Space-time on the other hand is very curved.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
1.61803 Member (Idle past 1535 days) Posts: 2928 From: Lone Star State USA Joined: |
Space is where god keeps his pocket change and pocket watch. Space is full of quantum activity; without space there is no movement, no movement, no change. No change, no time. And the only reason for time is so that it everything does not happen at once.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
john6zx Member (Idle past 4852 days) Posts: 66 Joined: |
Yes, in quite a close sense, space(time) is a fabric. A fabric that can stretch, things can move through it w/o tearing it. It never wears out? How much would a square foot of it weigh?What is this fabric made of? How far can it stretch before breaking? What is it stretching into? How would someone grab this fabric to stretch it? Has anyone recreated this stretching?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
cavediver Member (Idle past 3674 days) Posts: 4129 From: UK Joined: |
Hi, welcome to EvC
A fabric that can stretch Yes
things can move through it w/o tearing it No. 'things' as we think of them are actually ripples and bumps in the fabric. There is only the fabric.
It never wears out? How much would a square foot of it weigh? Those concepts don't have much meaning
What is this fabric made of? It just is. Everything that we think of is an aspect of the fabric. The fabric is existence.
How far can it stretch before breaking? What is it stretching into? By stretching, we simply mean there is a concept of distance associated with pairs of points on the fabric, and distances can grow (or shrink) Thus the fabric doesn't tear nor stretch into something.
How would someone grab this fabric to stretch it? See above
Has anyone recreated this stretching? What we think of as gravity is an effect of this stretching. We can see it in astronomical observations. But for us to strecth space-time would require manipulating immense energies - something for the far future.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
zcoder Member (Idle past 6239 days) Posts: 66 Joined: |
quote: I maybe wrong here, but when a object of any mass is in spacethe space does not exist where the mass object is. space and mass can not take up the same space. so in a sence, massdoes stretch space around it distorting it, and this is on top of the fact that space is also stretching in all derections away from a mass object. zcoder....
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
cavediver Member (Idle past 3674 days) Posts: 4129 From: UK Joined: |
I maybe wrong here, but when a object of any mass is in space the space does not exist where the mass object is. No 'maybe' about it A physical object does not preclude space, it just occludes it - i.e. the object hides the background space. You have to understand that a 'physical object' is just a concentration of excitations of the underlying matter and force quantum fields. These fields overlap the space-time field perfectly - it is not a case of either/or. All the fields exist everywhere.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
zcoder Member (Idle past 6239 days) Posts: 66 Joined: |
I don't know much about theorys, I just try to think it out
logicly. So if it's true that space can not exist where mass is, then whatmakes gravity on mass objects that don't spin? The main thing I noticed was that when you watch the astronautsplaying with liquids. and what I noticed was that the liquids would ball up together into a ball. And the larger clumbs would draw the smaller ones into it,if they got close enough to them. And as the clump got bigger it could draw in alot more. which meansthat it is growing in mass, and gaining in gravity, enough to pull in more. But, what in space is making gravity on objects that are notspinning?? Like our moon, which really has no spin to say, but turns once every lunar month, which is such a slow spin that that could not account for the gravity that the moon has , so I had to conclude that the moon's mass created most of it's gravity. But I still needed to explain how mass makes gravity.and this is what I came up with. Picture a ball in space, and as space expands in all directionsaway from the ball, the effects on the ball is as if it was falling into it's self. This also puts the effects of gravity on the ball which is relatedto the balls mass. in other words the ball is falling into it's self in all directions, while space is rushing away from it in all directions and it's this effect that couse's a inward force onto the ball hence gravity. and the amount of gravity asserted is in relation to it's mass. Is this idea flawed? is there something I did not consider? Zcoder....
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taz Member (Idle past 3322 days) Posts: 5069 From: Zerus Joined: |
zcoder writes:
First of all, this isn't AIM chat. Stop pressing the enter button unless you want to start a new paragraph. I don't know much about theorys, I just try to think it outlogicly. Did you know that logic is actually a field of it's own in colleges? Did you know that you can major in logic? Did you know that you can get a Ph.D in logic and become a logician? In other words, logic ain't common sense. Allow me to show you why your common sense is far from logic.
So if it's true that space can not exist where mass is, then what
Can you give me a reference where it says the current gravity theories state that "spinning" creates gravity? I honestly don't know where this came from.
makes gravity on mass objects that don't spin? The main thing I noticed was that when you watch the astronauts
Liquids ball up together into a ball because of hydrogen bonding not because of gravity. What hydrogen bonding is should have been covered in your high school chemistry class.
playing with liquids. and what I noticed was that the liquids would ball up together into a ball. And the larger clumbs would draw the smaller ones into it,
No, larger clumps don't draw the smaller ones toward them. It's just an illusion. What happens is they coincidently float into each other and hydrogen bonding takes over.
if they got close enough to them. And as the clump got bigger it could draw in alot more. which means
No, as the clump got bigger, it has more volume which gives it more and more chances to encounter other clumps.that it is growing in mass, and gaining in gravity, enough to pull in more. Yes, those clumps of liquid do have their own gravitational fields, but they are so minute that you might as well think it's zero.
But, what in space is making gravity on objects that are not
I don't get it. Where did you get the idea that gravity comes from the spin of an object?
spinning?? Like our moon, which really has no spin to say, but turns once every lunar month, which is such a slow spin that that could not account for the gravity that the moon has , so I had to conclude that the moon's mass created most of it's gravity. Picture a ball in space, and as space expands in all directions
Ok, let's go with what you just described. If space is rushing away from an object to make the object "fall" into itself, how come more massive objects exert more gravitational force on other objects?
away from the ball, the effects on the ball is as if it was falling into it's self. This also puts the effects of gravity on the ball which is relatedto the balls mass. in other words the ball is falling into it's self in all directions, while space is rushing away from it in all directions and it's this effect that couse's a inward force onto the ball hence gravity. and the amount of gravity asserted is in relation to it's mass. Is this idea flawed? is there something I did not consider?
Perhaps you forgot to consider that we're not in the dark ages anymore and that our understanding of the natural world isn't like how dark ages science worked: witches burn-->wood burns-->wood floats-->duck floats... or something along that nonsense.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
zcoder Member (Idle past 6239 days) Posts: 66 Joined: |
I will ignore the insalt.
like I said I don't have a degree in all this. But I am feeling I was wrong to think I would get answers in a polite manner to the correct meaning of what creates gravity. "how come more massive objects exert more gravitational force on other objects?" the effect I described is in relation to the objects massso the greater the mass the more gravity it has, so it will exert more gravitational force on other objects. Zcoder....
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
zcoder Member (Idle past 6239 days) Posts: 66 Joined: |
Never mind,
I wanted in my later years to try out some science as a hobby sence I now have the time in my life to do so. I spent most of my life as a electronics engineer and programmer. I know first hand how a programmer can use his imaginationto create in the computer, worlds that don't really exist and set laws, which he knows can not ever exist, and when the program is started it can create, detroy, worlds and systems all while following the laws set forth by the programmer. once set in motion even the programmer(the creator) does not knowwhere at the program is at, in any instance, nore what will come next. even though he is the creator. I have even been surprised at some of the things I have seen happen, even though I was the creator. And all the different laws or realms I made was pure imaginationnot basted on real models of real worlds. I also know that taking theorys and building programs to follow those theorys to a tea can also be done. So with evolution and creation both being theorys and the factthat doing them in a computer or in your mind does not make them so. and a theory is just a theory not a fact, nore is it provin. infact it is more of an adoption of an idea, mostly based on appeal becouse it sounded logical, If this is not the case then it would have to be a fact that you believe it, otherwise it is just a theory. This leads me to then believe that if you adopt a theory which isnot proven in real life, then it has to be on faith. for instance, In physics, the term theory is generally used for a mathematical framework, derived from a small set of basic principles. the theory in present time can not be confirmed, but is adopted as doctrine base only on it's fiting into a mathematical model or it's basic principles. same goes for creation, all is faith, so now this leaves only onedifference between the two believe systems. Why each individual will accept one system over another can not be fully explained. So if one believe system is false then so is the other. becouse they are both alike in more then one way. But this will never even get fair thought by a evolutionist after allthey believe that the word theory is a science fact, becouse they learned it in school, and other scientists believe it also, so it has to be true. after all the mathematical model proves it, infact just for shits and giggles, a group of us back in the 80's made a mathematical model that proved god existed, yet we did not believe it. and we used also christian basic principles, only thing we lacked was an einstein or darwin to prove it. like my experience making world models in a computer, so can a creatorand watch his creation turn out surpizes after surpizes. but that too is just a theory. So why do I see in this forum, which says they have good scientists butare unwilling to say the truth that at this time in mans journey, we really have no idea what the hell kind of realm we live in. why must it be one sided? why so many attacts on believers, would a believer threaten your theory? I believe not, whould it threaten your mathematical model, I believe not. So why can't there be real honest diversity in these forums from the socalled scientists, and a real respectful discussion on these theorys? I believe the theory of string theorys, I believe in the expansion of space, I believe alot that you do, but I don't on all things. is this not healthy? what is the problem? When I came here I was excited, I just knew that what ever I may havebelieved would be shown to me to be wrong, with explanations so I could wrap my head around it all, but what I got was attacted for being wrong I never even got to rebuttal back. it's not like a got into a post that lasted along while before getting insulted, it was right away. then when I ended my post with, is there something I am flawed at in my thought? It's a shame of none-academic honest diversity from a communityI have ever seen, not even in collage have I ever seen this. Zcoder....
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024