Massive Space Time : Spacetime itself having mass.
What are the hurtles preventing this theory from gaining any ground? Were there / have there been any tests done to disprove it?
Established Member
Massive Space Time : Spacetime itself having mass.
What are the hurtles preventing this theory from gaining any ground? Were there / have there been any tests done to disprove it?
Established Member
Where can I find a website on this?
Order of Kilopi
Apparently, dark energy (which might be thought to be synonymous with spacetime) is considered to have mass (since E=mc^2). Dark energy acts as a pressure to push the universe apart more strongly than the dark energy mass pulls things in. I believe WMAP tested the existence of dark energy by careful analysis of the CMBR.Originally Posted by TravisM
Another idea concerned the finding that spacetime is a frothing sea of virtual particles blinking in and out of existence. When calculations were made to see if this could account for the excess gravity observed (dark matter), the figures came back way - and I mean WAY - too big, so something's off with that idea, but I'm not sure anybody knows what.
Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not his own facts.
Established Member
Are you sure about this?
PS: I mean, I hadn't heard that before. Do you have some information on it?
Order of Kilopi
Well look, just today I heard the History Channel say that Einstein worked with the US Navy in 1944 to make a ship disappear. They said he used his “unified field theory” which told about the “three forces of nature”, the “electromagnetic force”, the “gravitational force”, and the “atomic energy force”. Yup, made the whole ship disappear. Unfortunately, the History Channel said the experiment made all the sailors on the ship crazy, so the Navy had to stop using the method.Are you sure about this?
PS: I mean, I hadn't heard that before. Do you have some information on it?
Order of Kilopi
Well, I guess I'm taking some liberties there. It's likely more accurate to say that dark energy pervades spacetime.Are you sure about this?
Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not his own facts.
Order of Kilopi
If what you say is true, it is a sad day for the History Channel. (Or the World War II channel as we call it.) Are you sure it wasn't a presentation of the movie The Philadelphia Experiment? They sometimes show historical fiction, because fiction is the operative word here.
A quick search on Google for the phrase "Philadelphia experiment" reveals 43,600 matches, some of them a quick ticket into Woo-Woo-Land. Here's a site with a good debunking. One particularly telling argument is this:
They mention the book Thin Air that I read many years ago. It was a delightful work of fiction. I can't believe that people believe that it actually happened.
Established Member
Yeah, the Philadelphia experiment never happened. Remember, the principle behind such a feat would be warping spacetime. That would require a freaking enormous amount of energy. As for the insanity thing... I think it would have been more likely that the crew (and the ship) appeared inside out. Despite what one Mr. Lovecraft would have had us believe, seeing weird stuff probably won't drive you insane. Though there are such things as post-traumatic stress disorder, and I believe soldiers have been known to go insane under bad conditions...
Order of Kilopi
The History Channel is notorious for presenting woo woo versions of history. They had such a bad and inaccurate show on last November, they had to produce a special report a few weeks ago saying that they actually had no evidence that LBJ killed JFK.
They’ve run several incorrect versions of the Scopes Trial, and they often air other fantasy reports about other historical events. They don’t seem to care if their reports are accurate or not, as long as people watch their channel and their commercials. This is typical of American television today.
Order of Kilopi
Yes, several of us here experience that every time we get into an argument about relativity theory.
Established Member
How are you sure of that?Well, I guess I'm taking some liberties there. It's likely more accurate to say that dark energy pervades spacetime.Are you sure about this?
Order of Kilopi
Did I say I was sure of that?How are you sure of that?Well, I guess I'm taking some liberties there. It's likely more accurate to say that dark energy pervades spacetime.Are you sure about this?
Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not his own facts.
Established Member
I was asking about the "likely"
Established Member
Okay, so Dark Energy pervades space-time, maybe... Okay, I'll say again I don't like the term 'Dark'. I guess it was picked for its mysterious sound due to the mysteries surrounding this energy...?
I still don't like energies we can't interact with. Well, then again, tell anyone in the 1600's there would be invisible waves in the air carying music, moving images and information and you'd have been locked in a padded room...
When these values came back how much 'mass/energy' did they attribute to space time? What values did they pick and from where? What equation where 'they' plugging these values into?
If space time can be moving in a time direction and can be curved in other than our three spatial dimensions, gravity, then why can it not be vibrating in still other dimensions? This is what super string theory or 'M theory' looks like to me... am I way off?
Member
Travis honey
Dont be bamboozled.
There is no such thing as time, its man's invention. Lorentz discovered / realized that 100 years ago. Wake up.
The dutch have coveted science since they invented the lens, and misled the world so they can have the power. Get it?
Emperors clothes look mighty good today...see thru that they are.
Established Member
So the Netherlands is taking over the world, eh?
We must act now, friends! Or soon the world will be rife with wooden shoes and legal prostitution! :P
Established Member
Most definately. ohmmmmMY has them figured out apparently. They're leading us blindly into enslavement with fake sciences such as physics.
Frightening. They must be stopped!
Newbie
How can spacetime have any mass? Mass itself is represented as the curvature of spacetime, mass curves spacetime, then what would spacetime curve in order for its mass to be calculated?
Established Member
strewth! we have been found out! our cover is blown! 8-[Most definately. ohmmmmMY has them figured out apparently. They're leading us blindly into enslavement with fake sciences such as physics.
Established Member
If space time was the source of mass then why couldn't spacetime have localized curvatures? Wouldn't these look like massive particles to us? What is the energy that matter is constructed from? This is all way against the mainstream in my convoluted... that's for sure!
What!? LEGAL Prostitution!? Lord help us, next those Dutch will be giving it away FREE!!!!*
*Two pair of wooden shoes w/ purchase of a medium sized hooker or more. No purchase necessary. You must enter to win. Avoid where prohibitid by law. Seek the advice of a clergyman before use. Do not fornicate with/around/on heavy machinary. Not available in all areas. NJ and WA residents add 5$ sales tax.
Established Member
if it's legal they can tax it... :roll:
Established Member
And regulate it.if it's legal they can tax it... :roll:
Established Member
May cause drowsiness and general unawareness in males;
May cause talkative behavior in females;
May cause Dutch profit margin to balloon.
THIS IS SO WAY OFF TOPIC!
Established Member
Travis, spacetime can bend itself IIRC. Or rather, bent spacetime warps itself a little further.
This is one way (my prefered way) to explain how a BH continues to exist, despite the mass inside the event horizon being unable to communicate with us.
The space-time around a BH is bent so much, that the spacetime (since it bends itself, if bent, the stronger the bend, the stronger the self-bending...) can perpetuate the disturbance.
you could call it an elasticity, or delayed reaction. I.e. Space-time doesn't instantaneously snap back into place, it slowly does so (well, slower than instantaneously anyway).
And since mass bends space-time, and bent spacetime can bend itself....you might be able to say that's mass. Except, spacetime can't initiate a warp in itself...
Established Member
Only 'massive' particles can initiate a warp in space time. And what are these particles I'm made of? What energy creates/maintains them? Rhetorical question...
The BH thing makes sense, it's like a dynamo, or perpetual motion. Kind of like a star, but the 'fuel' is spacetime rather than hydrogen.
I love the 'what if' game, more so now than as a child (although my boy is giving me a run for my money). What kind of mass ratio are we talking about when we speak of Dark Energy? I think its supposed to be a large percentage of the total energy density of the universe, like 70%, but I could be wrong...
I'm getting at this: What if spacetime was massive and it was the only 'source' for mass? What would the math look like for universal densitiy then? I'm plugging away in the dark here. In my head I have this beautiful vision of the universe as some really neat interaction with itself, but my mind keeps getting in the way! #-o
Another thing: I don't like the idea of transfer particles, it's completely counter-intuitive (not that particle/quantum physics is supposed to be). Why do we have a need for extra particles to 'glue' atoms together and/or to give them mass? This all by itself should be an indicator that something is amiss here.
Established Member
one thing to remember about quantum: Most of it comes from observation, not prediction.
I.e. we saw some strange things, and they can be explained by transfer particles.
It wasn't: Hey, we need transfer particles, lets explain things that way...and then went looking fo rit.
Most of quantum anyway. THen the newly observed/explained thing makes a prediction, and we look for that as confirmation.
Established Member
Hi TravisM.
I am probably repeating myself somewhat, but your topic directly pertains to the following relationships.
Check out this dimensional relationship
F = MA = M D/T^2
F = g MM/D^2
g is an experimentally derived “fudge factor” it is not based upon any theoretical model, it is the number used to make the relationship work. (Compare to E= m cc, theoretical model predicts relationship between mass and energy. No experimentally derived “fudge factor” than carries dimensional measures. G has to be experimentally determined, as opposed to theoretically determined.)
If mass were some description of space-time (D and T) then it is possible to propose a theoretical model that has no gravitational “fudge factor”
M = D^3/T^2
Now F = MA = D^4/T^3
And F = MM/D^2= D^4/T^3 (g fudge factor now gone)
(Did anyone catch the mistake? F = D^4/T^4)
Inertial force is now truly equivalent to gravitational force.
If space time also was dimensionally described by D^3/T^2 then the dimensional relationship between mass and space time would also be equivalent.
My uniform expansion of space-time proposes that any region of space-time is expanding as the square of the absolute time elapsed. (Absolute time is a measure of time with 0 starting at the moment of creation) Double the age of the universe and the volume increases 4 times. Locally this expansion is undetectable since all rulers and timepieces change in the exact proportion to keep relative measures “constant”. The formula describing this “absolute” rate of expansion is D^3/T^2, (The volume of space D^3, increases 4 times if the absolute measure of time doubles). A specific region of space-time can be represented by a constant k = D^3/T^2.
This now allows mass to be a scalar number M, times D^3/T^2, and a region of space-time to also be described by a scalar number k times D^3/T^2.
The dimensional relationships that describes matter, also conforms to the dimensional relationships that describes space time.
(My web site for a uniform expansion is www.uniformexpansion.com )
Snowflake
Established Member
Snowflake: I poked around on your website for a while and want to question you in detail. There seems to be some analogies and parallels that might prove interesting.
Ricimer: I think it's neat, how they did some observation, theorized, came back, tested, verified, theorized some more, then: viola (wah-la)!(The history of these events is truely astounding considering when most of them occured, early 1900's.) Our universe gave us glimpses some really wierd things. Light interference patterns, the arrow of time, probability distributions, infinities both large and small, Black holes... Texas tea...
So, now, we have this beautiful representation of spacetime and the forces that govern it. The math of some of this is astoundingly accurate. But I still think it's a pale reflection of our real universe. We could still plant crops and expect the rains when the earth was the center of the universe and the sun was the 3rd rock, albeit hot... That theory was 'right' back then because of the application. Now, we're trying to figure out EVERYTHING! I'm all for the forward march of understanding. I just want to help, even if I hinder doing so
Now, my question to Ricimer is: What observation prompted transfer particles?
I've got to learn to keep my rants shorter...
Posting Permissions
