Understanding through Discussion

QuickSearch

 Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ] EvC Forum active members: 63 (9071 total)
 580 online now: candle2, PaulK, Tanypteryx (3 members, 577 visitors) Newest Member: FossilDiscovery Upcoming Birthdays: Percy Post Volume: Total: 893,110 Year: 4,222/6,534 Month: 436/900 Week: 142/150 Day: 12/23 Hour: 0/0

EvC Forum Science Forums Big Bang and Cosmology

# What is "the fabric" of space-time?

Author Topic:   What is "the fabric" of space-time?
johnfolton
Suspended Member (Idle past 4822 days)
Posts: 2024
Joined: 12-04-2005

 Message 196 of 327 (460674) 03-17-2008 8:21 PM Reply to: Message 195 by Rahvin03-17-2008 4:05 PM

Re: A bit of history.
 This has nothing whatsoever to do with gravity. It's simple mechanics. It has absolutely nothing to do with gravity or spacetime.

I think the mechanics of angular momentum can create gravity of sorts like a centrifuge spinning is creating its own form of gravity?

However is the increase in rotation speed of the skater bringing their arms inward due to the mechanics of angular momentum due to skater alone? How would not the gravity of the earth not be acting as a brake when the skater puts their arms outward?

Is not the earths gravity an inward angular momentum force thats caused by its mass-energy curving spacetime inward (not outward)which is why the earth has gravity.

P.S. Here's a link of questions and answers suggesting gravity plays a part in the increase in rpm of the skater.

Open Question Â»
A skater can spin faster by pulling her arms closer to her body or spin slower by spreading her arms out from?
A skater can spin faster by pulling her arms closer to her body or spin slower by spreading her arms out from her body. This is due to
conservation of angular momentum.
the law of gravity.
conservation of energy.
Newton's third law.
conservation of momentum

Edited by johnfolton, : No reason given.

Edited by johnfolton, : No reason given.

Edited by johnfolton, : No reason given.

Edited by johnfolton, : No reason given.

Edited by johnfolton, : No reason given.

Edited by johnfolton, : No reason given.

Edited by johnfolton, : No reason given.

Edited by Admin, : Get rid of line of pluses.

 This message is a reply to: Message 195 by Rahvin, posted 03-17-2008 4:05 PM Rahvin has taken no action

 Replies to this message: Message 197 by lyx2no, posted 03-18-2008 10:29 AM johnfolton has replied

johnfolton
Suspended Member (Idle past 4822 days)
Posts: 2024
Joined: 12-04-2005

 Message 198 of 327 (460732) 03-18-2008 3:26 PM Reply to: Message 197 by lyx2no03-18-2008 10:29 AM

Re: A bit of history.
 Lord love a duck; read a physics primer.

Why, seems to me that physics believes nothing causes gravity when I believe strings was and is being created from nothing that this is the cause of gravity.

If you go on a gravity ride at the fair is your mass not affected by angular momentum. If gravity (is just a depression in space) then the earth just rides around the sun due to this depression and not connected by bands of energy connecting it to the sun. Do you believe that the depression of space is caused by mass energy strings going backwards and forwards in time from the present and that string theorists will bring the two theories into one theory, once they prove these cosmic strings exists, etc...

P.S. Just because its been proven that space is curved does not mean string theorists are wrong, that the particle is not made up of string energy that has mass if energy was created from nothing at e=0 & and time was created from nothing at t=0 when nothing was expanded by a force greater than the forces of nothing (dark energy / God / true light of true light), etc...

The physists I quoted in an earlier post said they believe these cosmic strings are tubular and stretch across the entire universe that all particles are made from them which seems opposite from gravity being a nothing even if it was and is being created from nothing being expanded, etc...

Cosmic strings are predicted by high energy physics theories, including superstring theory. This is based on the idea that particles are not just little points, but tiny vibrating bits of string Cosmic strings are predicted to have extraordinary amounts of mass

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/01/080120182315.htm

Edited by johnfolton, : No reason given.

Edited by johnfolton, : No reason given.

Edited by Admin, : Get rid of line of pluses.

 This message is a reply to: Message 197 by lyx2no, posted 03-18-2008 10:29 AM lyx2no has replied

 Replies to this message: Message 199 by lyx2no, posted 03-18-2008 6:41 PM johnfolton has replied

johnfolton
Suspended Member (Idle past 4822 days)
Posts: 2024
Joined: 12-04-2005

 Message 202 of 327 (460797) 03-19-2008 12:16 AM Reply to: Message 199 by lyx2no03-18-2008 6:41 PM

Re: Newton was a Christian !!!!!!!

You have to realize that Newton was a Christian so his premise in respect to gravity (Job 38:31-33)is that the oridinances of heaven are like bands in respect to the Word referring to the Orion and the Pleiades. That this dominion was set "in" the earth by God who said he is able to loosen or bind bands that were set in the heavens, etc...

P.S. So Newton correctly describes the ordiances of the heavens like the moon is bound to the earth by gravity like an apple falls to the earth, but then again Newton drew from the greatest scientific book ever written the Bible.

Do you all want to discount Newton because of the basis of his theories on the ordinaces of the universe is biblical based? on these bands of energy, so that there is no bands of energy connecting the earth to the sun or the sun to the center of the milky way, so to like try to prove the bible not correct?

P.S. Are the basic building blocks of matter point like or that the atom is not a fixed point in respect to time and once this is acknowleged you will be closer to unifing relativity, quantum mechanics ???????

Perhaps we have made a hidden assumption?

It turns out that indeed we have. The assumption is that it's possible to consider smaller and smaller distances and get to the point where spacetime pulls itself apart. What has rested in the back of our minds is that the basic indivisible building blocks of nature are point-like â€” but this may not necessarily be true.

http://plus.maths.org/issue45/features/berman/index.html

Edited by johnfolton, : No reason given.

Edited by johnfolton, : No reason given.

Edited by Admin, : No reason given.

Edited by Admin, : No reason given.

 This message is a reply to: Message 199 by lyx2no, posted 03-18-2008 6:41 PM lyx2no has taken no action

 Replies to this message: Message 203 by randman, posted 03-19-2008 1:00 AM johnfolton has taken no action Message 205 by Admin, posted 03-19-2008 9:16 AM johnfolton has taken no action Message 206 by Admin, posted 03-19-2008 9:26 AM johnfolton has taken no action

johnfolton
Suspended Member (Idle past 4822 days)
Posts: 2024
Joined: 12-04-2005

 Message 212 of 327 (461037) 03-21-2008 1:08 PM Reply to: Message 208 by cavediver03-21-2008 8:20 AM

 Forget about all the books on string theory, M-theory, branes, and all that bollocks. It is pointless trying to learn about this without a grasp of the fundementals.

Not saying fundementals are not important but simply don't feel string theory is bollocks. I suspect fields are the direct result of strings that dark energy is increasing nothingness(space) giving rise to space time incuding new energy coming into existence.

If Einstein is correct then energy is created when space expands if so then does this mean the reverse true that energy can cease to exists if space would shrink (contract).

If true then would not all things simply be destroyed if space would contract back to t=0 to nothingness. If energy is created then the entire universe would contract back to t=0 then nothingness would be at a state of rest with no energy existing at t=0. Is Einstein correct that space has special properties that nothing can be expanded giving rise to energy. If so does this helps explain how dimensions such as time are created?

P.S. If dark energy dark matter is not of this universe it would still exists because its apart from the expansion though according to NASA responsible for the expansion, etc...

Wondering if physics is hung up on less than 5% of the universe, meaning are they discounting over 95 % of the stuff in the universe? etc...So string theory stuff including dark matter is expanding on GR and quantum mechanics to include stuff outside the less than 5 % stuff of the universe.

P.S. Its been said that Einstein said space can expand and create energy thus the reverse must be true yet were told energy can not be created nor destroyed. NASA has said dark energy (God?) is responsible for the expansion so is it not the force believed responsible for the creation of energy.

Albert Einstein was the first person to realize that empty space is not the same as nothingness. Space has amazing properties, many of which are just beginning to be understood. The first property of space that Einstein discovered is that it is possible for more space to come into existence. One version of Einstein's gravity theory makes a second prediction: "empty space" can possess its own energy. This energy would not be diluted as space expands, because it is a property of space itself; as more space came into existence, more of this energy-of-space would come into existence as well.

What is Dark Energy?

We don't know. We know how much there is, and we know some of the properties it must have. Other than that, dark energy is a mystery, and it's important that we find out more. Roughly 70% of the universe is made of dark energy. Dark matter makes up about 25%. Everything on Earth, everything that we have ever observed with all of our instruments â€“ normal matter â€“ adds up to less than 5% of the universe. Then again, maybe we shouldn't even continue call it "normal" matter since it's just a small fraction of the universe!

Edited by johnfolton, : No reason given.

 This message is a reply to: Message 208 by cavediver, posted 03-21-2008 8:20 AM cavediver has replied

 Replies to this message: Message 213 by cavediver, posted 03-21-2008 2:45 PM johnfolton has replied

johnfolton
Suspended Member (Idle past 4822 days)
Posts: 2024
Joined: 12-04-2005

 Message 230 of 327 (462089) 03-30-2008 12:47 PM Reply to: Message 213 by cavediver03-21-2008 2:45 PM

The fabric of the universe made up of strings?
 As an ex-'string theorist', neither do I feel that string theory is bollocks. But harping on about string theory, without a grasp of the fundementals IS bollocks.

If string theory is correct and matter is not pointlike "then" the present belief (the status quo fundemental belief) that matter is pointlike is bollocks.

String theory is based on the idea that the smallest known subatomic particles, such as electrons, are not really pointlike objects when viewed close up, but rather very small extended bits of "string."

In fact they are so small that present-day experiments cannot distinguish them from points of vanishing size. This is a little awkward for physicists, who ultimately judge the validity of any new theory by whether it explains what we actually see in nature. At the moment there is no direct experimental evidence telling us that string theory is correct. This has always been its biggest weakness, and a target for skeptics.

This is a clear sign of string theory's success: Once obscure and ignored, it is now attacked by some who believe it is being given more attention than it deserves.

Why is it that string theory has become such a favoured paradigm? Have theoretical physicists deluded themselves? Have they been pressured by social forces to blind themselves to other possible theories? Is there a behind-the-scenes string-theory conspiracy that is propping up a pseudoscientific house of cards?

 This message is a reply to: Message 213 by cavediver, posted 03-21-2008 2:45 PM cavediver has replied

 Replies to this message: Message 231 by cavediver, posted 03-30-2008 1:38 PM johnfolton has taken no action Message 241 by john6zx, posted 04-05-2008 9:13 PM johnfolton has taken no action

johnfolton
Suspended Member (Idle past 4822 days)
Posts: 2024
Joined: 12-04-2005

 Message 327 of 327 (475209) 07-14-2008 3:04 AM Reply to: Message 324 by john6zx07-13-2008 8:16 PM

Re: the gravity of general relativity
 In the all of the demos of this space fabric, the mass is placed on the elastic sheet by a human, and gravity pulls it down.

The Word says the earth hangeth upon nothing. Is the bible's saying without nothing gravity would cease to exists because upon nothing he hangeth the earth?

Is there a dimension of nothing being generated within the atom that is the strong nucleur force responsible for containing the vasts amounts of energy within the atom. Is the strong nucleur force within the atom causing the weak force we call gravity? How is nothing not responsible for this weak force outside of the atom pulling inward on the fabric of spacetime?

Space curving inward appears nothing is being generated within the atom multiplied by all the atoms of the earth are pulling in on the fabric of spacetime.

Edited by johnfolton, : No reason given.

Edited by johnfolton, : No reason given.

Edited by johnfolton, : No reason given.

Edited by johnfolton, : No reason given.

Edited by johnfolton, : No reason given.

Edited by johnfolton, : No reason given.

 This message is a reply to: Message 324 by john6zx, posted 07-13-2008 8:16 PM john6zx has taken no action

 Date format: mm-dd-yyyy Timezone: ET (US)