Results 1 to 10 of 10

Thread: Liquid Universe

Hybrid View

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Posts
    1

    Cool Liquid Universe

    I worked on this for at least 10 years. I think that I can explain gravity and some other things.

    I would really like to hear your comments.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eGguw...wrQzbUIi-CAHtg,

    he says that it is impossible for a human mind to comprehend 4 dimensional space. He is completely wrong. I will put it to you bluntly, we live in a 4 dimensional universe. The fourth dimension is not the dimension of time, like Einstein said, it is simple special dimension.

    Let me explain this. One dimension is a plain straight line with 0 thickness in a space.
    2D is a square with no thicken in a space. 3D is a cube in a space. 4D is one cube in a space with six additional cubes laying on its sides into space. Connect sides of those cubes with one another into space. Curve it into a ball into a space – because it is curved. You would get a sphere. You would get a spherical universe in which you could perceive fourth dimension because all those dimensions are blended in.

    Time is not a dimension by itself. The flow of time is curved itself by the 4D curvature of the space and it is determined by it. It is intertwined by the inflation of the space itself.

    Lets talk about planet Earth and about planets and galaxies in general. If you had clumping of material in a 3D space for certainly it would never take a form of a sphere. Why should it. The forms of the planets, if you think in that way should always be irregular.

    If you take clumping of material into 4D space it would always clump as it clumps – into spheres. If you theoretically consider how the picture of the planet Earth would look like in one of those surrounding cubes (this is just theoretical because all the dimensions are blended in, there are no 6 dimensional cubes surrounding one in the middle) – it would look like you watch it on a TV screen, 2D. the very fact that you are walking on sphere is determined by the forth dimension. But we cannot perceive it taking into consideration our size.

    How would time pass into 4D universe. It would do exactly as it passes right now. It would be curved and it would seem to us that there is something wrong with it since it does not behave as it should.

    For the light coming to from distant galaxies it would take progressively longer time to reach as depending to the increase of the distance from where it comes, considering the spherical shape of the universe and the fourth dimension.

    How would galaxies clump into 4D space. In 3D space, if you eject the dark matter from the equation, the shape of galaxies would be completely irregular. Make those calculation in 4D space, and eject the dark matter, you would get the exact shapes they have it today. This all is taking into consideration their sizes. I do not think that modern physicists take enough into consideration their sizes. In 4D space there would be no missing matter and no need for the dark matter to fill up the gap in scientific observations. They would be moving as they move.

    The distortion of light coming from the distant galaxies would be easily explained by the use of the fourth dimension.

    In the space there would be areas which are not surrounded with clumped matter with 0 time. I really mean 0 time.

    The very explosion of universe produced disturbances into a see of energy (Tesla waves, 0 point energy). There is the energy encompassing this universe. There came to be two basic forces into expanding universe (disturbances), repelling force and attracting force. I imagine it as a glass ball filled with liquid of 2different colors (lets say red and blue) and than shaken. On some places the attracting force was weaker (weaker blue), smaller galaxies and clumps of them (and the stronger color of red surrounding it), and on some places the attracting force was stronger (stronger blue and weaker red surrounding it – although it does not necessarily has to be weaker at all), bigger clumps of galaxies.

    What would those galaxies do in a 4D space which is expanding and all stirring up, the space filled with basic energy that surrounds us all It would flow sometimes and have streams and it has – the dark flow. It would be liquid. Just like that glass ball with its liquid inside.

    What would really be gravity into 4D space. There would be no particle or Higgs Field. It would simply mean that more the matter clamped is more the space bent is du to the fourth dimension. You would be walking on the planet Earth the way that you walk just due to the general distortion of space from all its sides. Heavier the plane is of the same size heavier is bending of the space in 4D universe.

    There is a primordial energy all around us. What would an anti-gravity mean in such universe. All the matter is simply clamped energy. If you add to a physical body as same amount of basic energy in some form as the clumped energy is that attracts that body, it would simply start to levitate. If you add more it would start to drift away. If there is a primordial energy (and all the evidence of modern science says that there is) it would be possible to simply dive through that energy (using the energy) on which ever place you need. If some physical body would receive as the amount of non-clumped energy in some form (or just be surrounded by it) equal to the amount of its physical (clumped) energy, its weight would annulled and it could theoretically go over the speed of light.

    What would happen if you would add to the planet Earth as same amount of non-clumped energy as it has in its clumped form. It would brake its molecular bonds and the planet would dissipate. Keep adding more and more energy into that energy and it would start to flow away.

    Here is the reason. What if (theoretically of course) you have a patch of universe with a certain amount of attracting force and you pump in it more basic energy than it can take. The energy would never coagulate into matter and it would flow away. It would be flowing among patches of attracting and rejecting. Like water in a see due to its temperature. It would be flowing through a primordial special disturbance. Like the dark flow does.

    There is no special particle for gravity or anti-gravity. It is simple the curvature of space due to its four-dimensionality. There is no time dimension in 4D universe. For the physics of that universe it is not necessary and that universe would look exactly like the one we live in. Just do the necessary mathematical calculations and see how the things go in my model. You would get all the explanations and fill up all the holes you have now in modern physics. And we all, humans, would finally start to grow.

    If there is an energy field going through out our universe what would it mean for photons and other types of radiation. There would be no photons. Photons would be just a product of the way you conduct your experiments. All the radiation would be simply disturbances, waves propagating through the sea of energy of our universe.

    Subatomic particle accelerators simply produce particles by adding more and more energy into smaller and smaller spaces. Universe can be simply more simplified.

    You have a galaxy (or a couple of them) and you record the dark matter. There is no dark matter. That is just a space time disturbance created by the bending of space and time from the gravity of that galaxy. In this model even during the collisions of galaxies that disturbance (we see it as a disturbance due to the bending and twisting of radiation and time) would keep on going its way, but just for some time.

    The time is simply curved and nothing else. Otherwise Einstein’s formulas would explain it all. The bigger we look it some of its conclusions simply do not work.

    The shape of planets and galaxies is only logical in 4D universe.

    Science is no religion and free thinking is no heresy. The reality is almost always different from what it seems. My mind is free and not restrained. There are many concepts and not all are real.

    I hope you enjoyed reading about my model. I am positive that the universe has 4 dimensions and that it is filled with energy. There is no such thing in this universe as an empty space.

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Posts
    3,767
    What test or experiment would show your theory to be correct over currently held mainstream views.

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Nov 2002
    Posts
    6,238
    There's just too much to answer. So I'll some of it and skip to towards the bottom....

    Quote Originally Posted by senna View Post
    You have a galaxy (or a couple of them) and you record the dark matter. There is no dark matter.
    Then how do you record dark matter if there isn't any?

    Quote Originally Posted by senna View Post
    That is just a space time disturbance created by the bending of space and time from the gravity of that galaxy.
    By how much, according to your idea?

    Quote Originally Posted by senna View Post
    In this model even during the collisions of galaxies that disturbance (we see it as a disturbance due to the bending and twisting of radiation and time) would keep on going its way,
    What would keep it from not going on it's way?

    Quote Originally Posted by senna View Post
    but just for some time.
    How long?

    Quote Originally Posted by senna View Post
    The time is simply curved and nothing else. Otherwise Einstein’s formulas would explain it all. The bigger we look it some of its conclusions simply do not work.
    Then I would assume that your model can produce the prediction of the shift of Mercury's perihelion and the in spiral of binary pulsars at some point. But we'll make it easy and just start with you showing how your idea reduces to Newtonian gravity first. When can we expect you to show us how your idea reduces to Newtonian gravity?

    Quote Originally Posted by senna View Post
    The shape of planets and galaxies is only logical in 4D universe.

    Science is no religion and free thinking is no heresy. The reality is almost always different from what it seems. My mind is free and not restrained. There are many concepts and not all are real.
    Yeah, and there is a lot of junk out there that is nothing more than a bunch of words strung together that cannot produce any kind of quantitative predictions. The difference between science and junk is that science can produce numerical predictions, junk can't.

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    Perthshire, UK
    Posts
    150
    There's a great deal of hypothesising in your post, but let me pick on one particular idea to ask for clarification :-
    Quote Originally Posted by senna View Post
    Lets talk about planet Earth and about planets and galaxies in general. If you had clumping of material in a 3D space for certainly it would never take a form of a sphere. Why should it. The forms of the planets, if you think in that way should always be irregular.
    Why do you think a "clump" of material, or a collection of particles influenced by mutual gravitation, shouldn't form into a sphere in 3D space? It can easily be shown that a sphere is the lowest energy configuration, and therefore the natural end result of gravitational accretion (ignoring effects from rotation etc.).

    You've presented a lot of ideas, but no mathematical foundations to support them, or to refute current theories. Some things can, perhaps, be described by words alone, but when it comes to fundamental physics and cosmology we need a more rigorous approach...
    Days spent at sea are not deducted from one's alloted span...
    (Phoenician proverb)

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    2,885

    No Fourth, No Fifth, No Sixth, No . . .

    Additional dimensions

    In physics, three dimensions of space and one of time is the accepted norm. There are theories that try to unify different forces and such – these theories require there to be more dimensions. Superstring theory, M-theory and Bosonic string theory respectively posit that physical space has 10, 11 and 24 dimensions. These extra dimensions are said to be spatial. However, we perceive only three spatial dimensions and, to date, no experimental or observational evidence is available to confirm the existence of these extra dimensions. A possible explanation that has been suggested is that space acts as if it were "curled up" in the extra dimensions on a subatomic scale, possibly at the quark/string level of scale or below.
    An analysis of results from the Large Hadron Collider in December 2010 severely constrains theories with large extra dimensions.[6]”- from Wiki, Dimension. (my bold)

    Several problems with your idea:

    1. There is absolutely no physical evidence of any dimensions beyond the three space and one time that we all experience. This means (see the signature line below) that you have no observations to support your claim of a fourth dimension.

    2. You present no math to back up your speculations. Without math they remain unprovable speculations.

    3. Science is naturalistic philosophy. We observe nature and then attempt to explain what we see. You have decided there are four spatial dimensions and are trying to force nature to match. Nature, unfortunately, doesn’t care one whit what you, or I, or anyone else thinks she should do.

    4. You present no way to test your ideas.

    You have taken on way too much for an ATM idea. I would suggest that you narrow your claim to the existence of a fourth dimension (and note that it is ‘4th’ or ‘fourth’, not ‘forth’.

    Regards, John M.
    Last edited by John Mendenhall; 2012-Jun-13 at 01:52 PM. Reason: typo
    I'm not a hardnosed mainstreamer; I just like the observations, theories, predictions, and results to match.

    "Mainstream isn’t a faith system. It is a verified body of work that must be taken into account if you wish to add to that body of work, or if you want to change the conclusions of that body of work." - korjik

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    2,885
    Hello? Anybody home?

    Senna, are you aware that you are expected to defend your ATM ideas, and respond to questions? If not, you might want to contact a moderator about what to do with this thread.

    Regards, John M.

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Posts
    235
    When you speak of the fourth spatial dimension, are you speaking of the fourth dimension that lies within the eleven or twelve, or however many, dimensions that string theory claims?

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Posts
    8,213
    Fluidic space. The Borg better watch that.

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Nov 2001
    Posts
    3,168
    I hate to mention this, but even small experimental fires built in the absence of gravity, turned out to burn in spheres, from it's own gravity of the fuel. A Sphere is the natual shape of anything that forms from it's own gravity, that doesn't have external forces acting on it.

    Even water in space, demonstrates this quite well.

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Falls Church, VA (near Washington, DC)
    Posts
    4,933
    Quote Originally Posted by dgavin View Post
    I hate to mention this, but even small experimental fires built in the absence of gravity, turned out to burn in spheres, from it's own gravity of the fuel. A Sphere is the natual shape of anything that forms from it's own gravity, that doesn't have external forces acting on it.

    Even water in space, demonstrates this quite well.
    I think the self gravitation at this scale is vanishingly small. We have intermolecular cohesive forces that are far stronger and act in the same direction, thus causing blobs of fluids to become spherical.

Similar Threads

  1. Gas Gaints-Liquid Surfaces or Gradual Change into Liquid?
    By Mr. Milton Banana in forum Astronomy
    Replies: 8
    Last Post: 2008-Aug-02, 12:25 PM
  2. The universe is a string-net liquid
    By Blob in forum Science and Technology
    Replies: 6
    Last Post: 2007-Mar-16, 06:48 AM
  3. Perfect Liquid Hints at Early Universe
    By Fraser in forum Universe Today
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 2005-Sep-10, 01:12 PM
  4. Early Universe was 'liquid-like'
    By Darrrius in forum Astronomy
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 2005-Apr-21, 02:16 PM

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
here
The forum is sponsored in-part by: