‹ First  < 2 3 4 5 > 
 
   
 

Is Spacetime Flat or Curved ?

 
Rick Robson
 
Avatar
 
 
Rick Robson
Total Posts:  39
Joined  22-09-2017
 
 
 
07 January 2018 11:45
 
burt - 28 December 2017 07:35 PM
Rick Robson - 28 December 2017 03:31 PM

^Ouch… again you seem not to understand what I was talking about. I suggest you then request it to the phisicists who stated that, not to me.

Anyways one doesn’t need to be a MATHEMATICIAN to understand what their aforementioned discoveries stand for; let alone that those phisicists simply used the English language to also state that there are still quite a few issues involving black holes.

I think that when you have a more open-minded approach you won’t always need a mathematical description or answer or whatever it be for all and every issue arised in the scientific milieu.

You are like a tone deaf person trying to critique a symphony orchestra. If you can’t understand the actual theory (not the superficial glosses) then you can’t really get what’s being said.

“In order to show where the professors of any subject have gone wrong it is necessary to make a deep study, indeed, to know more of that subject they they themselves know.” al Ghazali


Please try bringing us a convincing answer to at least ONE of the questions arised here, I sure will be no deaf to your so enlightening explanations using “predicting mathematical equations” - or whatever is up your sleeve - for the happiness of the supposedly non-expert forum and guest members around here. If you can’t really just do that then please back off with your heavily criticizing behaviour, gently saying.
.

 
Rick Robson
 
Avatar
 
 
Rick Robson
Total Posts:  39
Joined  22-09-2017
 
 
 
07 January 2018 11:48
 
socratus - 05 January 2018 11:09 PM
burt - 05 January 2018 07:02 PM
socratus - 05 January 2018 06:24 PM

  Is Spacetime Flat or Curved ?

‘’ A world without masses, without electrons, without an
electromagnetic field is an empty world. Such an empty
world is flat. But if masses appear, if charged particles
appear, if an electromagnetic field appears then our world
becomes curved. Its geometry is Riemannian, that is, non- Euclidian.’’
/ Book ‘Albert Einstein’, the page 116, by Leopold Infeld. /
#
Masses (like Sun’s) can appear only in local places and therefore
the curvature can appear only in local places.

=======================

Dead wrong.
There exit solutions of the Einstein equations corresponding to empty but non-flat spacetimes;
e.g., gravitational wave solutions in empty spacetime.
Infeld was not aware of this and is mistaken.
And you are wrong about locality.
If what you say were true, the Sun would have no gravitational influence outside of a local region.
But gravitation is a universal force.
The correct term for a localized distribution of matter in an otherwise empty spacetime
is “asymtotically flat.” Meaning it’s not actually flat until you get to an infinite distance
from the mass distribution.

Thank you for explaining the common scientific meaning.
=====

a) The detected material masses of the matter in the Universe is so small
(the average density of all substance in the Universe is approximately
  p=10^-30 g/sm^3) that the Universe as whole cannot be curved,
the Universe as whole must be a flat continuum.

b) The gravity is the weakest force in the Universe.
Electromagnetic force is about 10^36 more powerful than gravitational force.
Then a few electrons wouldn’t allow gravity to curve the spacetime and later
to gather all masses into singular point and then create the ‘‘big bang theory’‘.

The gravitation is not universal force.
The quantum particles are universal forces of the Universe.

By the way, the ‘‘big bang theory’’ doesn’t give answer to the question:
‘’ where did masses of the ‘‘big bang’’ come from ?’‘

‘‘Masses of the big bang came from singular point and
masses of singular point came from big bang’’ - stupid closed ‘‘scientific’’ answer.

c)  DISCOVER.
FROM THE AUGUST 2008 ISSUE
Nothingness of Space Could Illuminate the Theory of Everything
Could the vacuum contain dark energy, gravity particles, and frictionless gears?
By Tim Folger.  Friday, July 18, 2008

‘’ When the next revolution rocks physics,  chances are it will be
about nothing—the vacuum, that endless infinite void.’‘

‘’ Some physicists like to think that M theory will form the basis of what
they call a theory of everything, a set of laws that will completely
describe the universe in all its strangeness, where dark energy, quantum theory,
extra dimensions, and magazine readers will all fit into one tidy package.
But in the end, the key to cosmic truth may well come from another window
on reality, the looming void. A good theory of nothing just might be the
theory of everything physicists have sought for so long.’‘

http://discovermagazine.com/2008/aug/18-nothingness-of-space-theory-of-everything
===========================


Then again, one more time we see Phisicists facing yet another puzzling dead end…. as well as having to deal with speculations coming around again.

And about time, this is what the renowned John Baez says about the arising hypothetical schemes for tapping the vacuum’s energy:

“Perhaps not as doomed (to failure) as trying to prove the world is flat,” Baez says. “One thing I can say is that I sure hope it doesn’t work, because if you could extract energy from the vacuum, it would mean that the vacuum is not stable. For normal physicists,” he adds with a laugh, “the definition of the vacuum is that it’s the lowest-energy situation possible—it has less energy than anything else.”

And about the Higgs field and its bosons, hunted by generations of physicists ever since Peter Higgs:

“The discovery of the Higgs boson would answer one of the most basic puzzles of our reality, and yet physicists seem oddly blasé about the prospect. “If it’s found, that would actually not be that exciting,” Baez says. “It would be a relief, maybe. Well, it would be exciting, but only in the same sense as if you lose your keys and then you find them again. Someone would certainly win a Nobel Prize for it, but after the initial excitement, particle physicists would become grumpy because it would just mean that what we thought was true is true, and all the things we don’t understand we still don’t understand, and there is still no new evidence.”
.

[ Edited: 07 January 2018 11:52 by Rick Robson]
 
burt
 
Avatar
 
 
burt
Total Posts:  14771
Joined  17-12-2006
 
 
 
07 January 2018 15:54
 
socratus - 26 December 2017 11:41 PM

Nobody knows what Minkowski space really is .

 

Nobody except every physicist, astrophysicist, and anybody with a minimal mathematical background. Minkowski space is not a physical space, it is a mathematical space. In particular, it is a four dimensional point continuum with an indefinite metric. Topologically, it’s structure is determined by the light cones at each point. More exactly, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minkowski_space.

 
burt
 
Avatar
 
 
burt
Total Posts:  14771
Joined  17-12-2006
 
 
 
07 January 2018 15:57
 
Rick Robson - 07 January 2018 11:45 AM
burt - 28 December 2017 07:35 PM
Rick Robson - 28 December 2017 03:31 PM

^Ouch… again you seem not to understand what I was talking about. I suggest you then request it to the phisicists who stated that, not to me.

Anyways one doesn’t need to be a MATHEMATICIAN to understand what their aforementioned discoveries stand for; let alone that those phisicists simply used the English language to also state that there are still quite a few issues involving black holes.

I think that when you have a more open-minded approach you won’t always need a mathematical description or answer or whatever it be for all and every issue arised in the scientific milieu.

You are like a tone deaf person trying to critique a symphony orchestra. If you can’t understand the actual theory (not the superficial glosses) then you can’t really get what’s being said.

“In order to show where the professors of any subject have gone wrong it is necessary to make a deep study, indeed, to know more of that subject they they themselves know.” al Ghazali


Please try bringing us a convincing answer to at least ONE of the questions arised here, I sure will be no deaf to your so enlightening explanations using “predicting mathematical equations” - or whatever is up your sleeve - for the happiness of the supposedly non-expert forum and guest members around here. If you can’t really just do that then please back off with your heavily criticizing behaviour, gently saying.
.

Yeah, right. If you can actually formulate a coherent question I’ll comment. Crackpot nonsense and self-righteous assumptions that because one can talk one deserves to be heard doesn’t deserve anything other than contempt.

 
socratus
 
Avatar
 
 
socratus
Total Posts:  194
Joined  28-05-2015
 
 
 
08 January 2018 23:20
 
burt - 07 January 2018 03:54 PM
socratus - 26 December 2017 11:41 PM

Nobody knows what Minkowski space really is .

 

Nobody except every physicist, astrophysicist, and anybody with a minimal mathematical background.
Minkowski space is not a physical space, it is a mathematical space.

In particular, it is a four dimensional point continuum with an indefinite metric.
Topologically, it’s structure is determined by the light cones at each point.
More exactly, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minkowski_space.

Mathematical definitions of spacetime:
a) Plus 4D is spacetime.
b) Light-cone world is spacetime.
c) Minus 2D (pseudo Euclidian space)  is spacetime.

And all these definitions is used to explain the space and time
(spacetime) where light is traveling.
#
Physical definition of spacetime:
the velocity of light in the vacuum (!)  is constant and independent of its source,
#
Vacuum (!)  is frictionless continuum.
All mathematical definitions of spacetime also must be frictionless continuum.
#
Without unity these definitions the SRT debates have no end.
==============

 

Image Attachments
 
SRT_4D.jpg
 
 
 
socratus
 
Avatar
 
 
socratus
Total Posts:  194
Joined  28-05-2015
 
 
 
08 January 2018 23:40
 
burt - 07 January 2018 03:54 PM
socratus - 26 December 2017 11:41 PM

Nobody knows what Minkowski space really is .

 


Minkowski space is not a physical space, it is a mathematical space.

‘’ Minkowski space is not a physical space, it is a mathematical space.’‘

The “inertia” does not have its own material entity.
#
>>  “Inertia” is a quality of matter according to which every material object, in
absence of forces, tends to remain in its state of rest or movement. The concept of
inertia is the description of a particular behaviour of the object, but it is not itself a
physical entity. The “inertia” does not have, then, its own material entity.

It can be explained, demonstrated or be used as cause or consequence of other
physical properties,  but this does not mean it can become something material.
It is only the description of an observed behaviour. <<
              / From some article. /
#
SRT - ‘’ Minkowski space is not a physical space’’  and
the “inertia” does not have its own material entity.

Now try to understand the physical reality of Nature using these definitions
of space and movement.
==============

Image Attachments
 
Inertia.png
 
 
 
socratus
 
Avatar
 
 
socratus
Total Posts:  194
Joined  28-05-2015
 
 
 
09 January 2018 00:45
 
socratus - 08 January 2018 11:40 PM
burt - 07 January 2018 03:54 PM
socratus - 26 December 2017 11:41 PM

Nobody knows what Minkowski space really is .

 


Minkowski space is not a physical space, it is a mathematical space.

‘’ Minkowski space is not a physical space, it is a mathematical space.’‘

The “inertia” does not have its own material entity.
#
>>  “Inertia” is a quality of matter according to which every material object, in
absence of forces, tends to remain in its state of rest or movement. The concept of
inertia is the description of a particular behaviour of the object, but it is not itself a
physical entity. The “inertia” does not have, then, its own material entity.

It can be explained, demonstrated or be used as cause or consequence of other
physical properties,  but this does not mean it can become something material.
It is only the description of an observed behaviour. <<
              / From some article. /
#
SRT - ‘’ Minkowski space is not a physical space’’  and
the “inertia” does not have its own material entity.

Now try to understand the physical reality of Nature using these definitions
of space and movement.
==============

======

SRT - ‘’ Minkowski space is not a physical space’’  and
the “inertia” does not have its own material entity.

. . . . when you take these definitions to quantum theory -
-  then you can read:  ‘’ the quantum physics is strange’’ ,
‘’  The weirdness of the quantum world is well documented. ... ‘’
‘‘Respected scientists, including Albert Einstein, felt the same way, and made many
attempts to prove that these strange new theories couldn’t be correct. Each attempt,
however, failed, and instead reinforced the reality of quantum physics
in contrast to our conventional intuition.’‘

===============================

 
 
socratus
 
Avatar
 
 
socratus
Total Posts:  194
Joined  28-05-2015
 
 
 
10 January 2018 23:24
 

  Book: ‘‘What we cannot know’’  by Marcus du Sautoy.

‘’ Gravity is actually the distortion of this space-time surface.
If something has mass, it curves the surface. The classic way to imagine
this is to consider space-time as a two-dimensional surface, and the effect
of mass as that of placing a ball on this surface. The ball pulls the surface
down, creating a well. Gravity can be thought of as the way things get
pulled down into this well.
This distortion of space-time has on interesting effect on light.’‘

‘‘So in order to find the shortest space-time path. light will
follow a trajectory . . . .’‘

/page 270 /

‘’ . . . light would be bent by presence of a large mass.’‘
‘’. . . a curved space-time was provided by the British astronomer
Arthur Edington’s observations . . .’‘
‘’  . . . light from distant stars would be bent by the gravitational
effect of the Sun.’‘
‘‘The fact that the light did indeed seem to bent round objects of large mass
confirmed that the shortest paths weren’t Euclidean straight lines but curved.’‘

/ page 271 /
===============
It seems that everything is correct.
Author, a British mathematician Marcus du Sautoy,
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marcus_du_Sautoy
only forgot to say that ‘’ objects of large mass’’ (like our Sun) in the
Universe as whole are very few and therefore the gravitations effects
are only local effects. Light is curved only near (!) the ‘’ objects of large mass’’ 
The gravity of our Sun doesn’t have influence out of the solar system.
Gravity doesn’t work in the Milky Way and therefore was invented so-called
‘‘dark matter’’ and ‘‘dark energy’‘, a new words, a new speculations to prove
that ‘‘gravity’’  do indeed is fundamental (not local) effect for all the Universe.
#
If you see on the gate of lion the inscription ‘‘cat’’ . . .  would you go inside?
The facts say:  the absolute space-time (the Universe as whole)  is flat
but modern ‘‘scientific’’  inscription is said ‘’ Universe is +/- curved’’  or
‘‘spherical’’  after ‘’ the big-bang’‘.

===============

 

Image Attachments
 
Perception.jpg
 
 
 
socratus
 
Avatar
 
 
socratus
Total Posts:  194
Joined  28-05-2015
 
 
 
11 January 2018 17:37
 

The world began not with a Bang, but with a Black Hole
Scientists challenge the Big Bang Theory of origin of the universe
By Adrita Biswas
Updated January 10, 2018 13:01 +08

The world began not with a Bang, but with a Black Hole

===========================
Scientists have come up with a new theory about the origin of the universe,
and it does not involve a Big Bang! Instead, they are saying that the universe
was formed from the black hole of a previous cosmos.

Researchers from the Perimeter Institute have claimed that the Big Bang Theory,
which states that the world burst into existence from a singularity, seems unlikely.
“The big bang hypothesis has our relatively comprehensible, uniform,
and predictable universe arising from the physics-destroying insanity of a singularity
It seems unlikely,” they say, as reported by Outer Places.

Instead, according to them, it is more likely that black hole is at the bottom of the matter
as they have the capability of creating as well as destroying celestial bodies, majorly stars.

According to the new theory, our universe has been formed by a fourth-dimensional black hole
that is a part of another universe. In that case, we are living beyond the horizon of the event
and it is also possible that other universes have been created by black holes in the ‘parent universe.’

This theory solves the ‘information paradox’ related to black holes that have been confusing
scientists for many years. It states that all information and physical matter disappears permanently
into the black hole, where all physical states devolve into the same state.

If we apply this explanation to this theory, it would seem that the matter going inside a black hole
is not destroyed after all. Instead, it forms a part of a new universe.

The world began not with a Bang, but with a Black Hole

===========================
Where does the matter for ‘’ a fourth-dimensional black hole’’ come from ?
Where does matter for ‘‘previous cosmos.’’ come from ?
The matter came from ‘’ another universe’‘.
And the matter for ‘‘another universe’’ came from some ‘‘another fourth-dimensional black hole’‘
And so down - down . . . .

The Earth stands on tortoise and this tortoise stands on another tortoise
and so down - down . . . to infinity.

========================

 
 
Rick Robson
 
Avatar
 
 
Rick Robson
Total Posts:  39
Joined  22-09-2017
 
 
 
12 January 2018 06:32
 
socratus - 11 January 2018 05:37 PM

The world began not with a Bang, but with a Black Hole
Scientists challenge the Big Bang Theory of origin of the universe
By Adrita Biswas
Updated January 10, 2018 13:01 +08

The world began not with a Bang, but with a Black Hole

===========================
Scientists have come up with a new theory about the origin of the universe,
and it does not involve a Big Bang! Instead, they are saying that the universe
was formed from the black hole of a previous cosmos.

Researchers from the Perimeter Institute have claimed that the Big Bang Theory,
which states that the world burst into existence from a singularity, seems unlikely.
“The big bang hypothesis has our relatively comprehensible, uniform,
and predictable universe arising from the physics-destroying insanity of a singularity
It seems unlikely,” they say, as reported by Outer Places.

Instead, according to them, it is more likely that black hole is at the bottom of the matter
as they have the capability of creating as well as destroying celestial bodies, majorly stars.

According to the new theory, our universe has been formed by a fourth-dimensional black hole
that is a part of another universe. In that case, we are living beyond the horizon of the event
and it is also possible that other universes have been created by black holes in the ‘parent universe.’

This theory solves the ‘information paradox’ related to black holes that have been confusing
scientists for many years. It states that all information and physical matter disappears permanently
into the black hole, where all physical states devolve into the same state.

If we apply this explanation to this theory, it would seem that the matter going inside a black hole
is not destroyed after all. Instead, it forms a part of a new universe.

The world began not with a Bang, but with a Black Hole

===========================
Where does the matter for ‘’ a fourth-dimensional black hole’’ come from ?
Where does matter for ‘‘previous cosmos.’’ come from ?
The matter came from ‘’ another universe’‘.
And the matter for ‘‘another universe’’ came from some ‘‘another fourth-dimensional black hole’‘
And so down - down . . . .

The Earth stands on tortoise and this tortoise stands on another tortoise
and so down - down . . . to infinity.

========================


Newborn theories like that take a long time to be proved right or wrong. If it’s really fact, then, in my viewpoint, based on what some phisicists just discovered, our Universe possibly would be heading that way right now. The famous Kip Thorne and Rai Weiss have been intrigued by their recent detection of - as they tell - a big galaxies’ huge collision generating the biggest Black Hole ever, which seems to be ever increasing in size at some far away point in our Universe.
.

 
socratus
 
Avatar
 
 
socratus
Total Posts:  194
Joined  28-05-2015
 
 
 
12 January 2018 08:40
 
Rick Robson - 12 January 2018 06:32 AM

The famous Kip Thorne and Rai Weiss have been intrigued by their recent detection of - as they tell -
a big galaxies’ huge collision generating the biggest Black Hole ever, which seems to be ever increasing
in size at some far away point in our Universe.

Most galaxies don’t like neighbors and therefore each run away from another after big bang.

========

Image Attachments
 
big_big_bang.jpg
 
 
 
Rick Robson
 
Avatar
 
 
Rick Robson
Total Posts:  39
Joined  22-09-2017
 
 
 
12 January 2018 08:59
 

^Sorry, but I think you didn’t get my point. What those scientists just observed has nothing to do at all with the Universe expansion after the supposed Big-Bang.

 
socratus
 
Avatar
 
 
socratus
Total Posts:  194
Joined  28-05-2015
 
 
 
12 January 2018 18:34
 
Rick Robson - 12 January 2018 08:59 AM

^Sorry, but I think you didn’t get my point.
What those scientists just observed has nothing to do at all with the Universe expansion after the supposed Big-Bang.

===========

Do you know the name of the forces that create
‘’ a big galaxies’ huge collision’’ ?
========

 
 
Rick Robson
 
Avatar
 
 
Rick Robson
Total Posts:  39
Joined  22-09-2017
 
 
 
13 January 2018 02:32
 

http://hubblesite.org/news_release/news/2018-05
Researchers Catch Supermassive Black Hole Burping — Twice
Release date: Jan 11, 2018

The Full Story:

NASA Great Observatories Team-up to Identify Flickering Black Hole:

Supermassive black holes, weighing millions of times as much as our Sun, are gatherers not hunters.
Embedded in the hearts of galaxies, they will lie dormant for a long time until the next meal happens to come along.
..........
.......
Astronomers have caught a supermassive black hole in a distant galaxy snacking on gas and then “burping” — not once, but twice.
..........
.......
“We are seeing this object feast, burp, and nap, and then feast and burp once again, which theory had predicted,” said Julie Comerford of the University of Colorado (CU) at Boulder’s Department of Astrophysical and Space Science, who led the study. “Fortunately, we happened to observe this galaxy at a time when we could clearly see evidence for both events.”

So why did the black hole have two separate meals? The answer lies in a companion galaxy that is linked to J1354 by streams of stars and gas produced by a collision between the two galaxies. The team concluded that clumps of material from the companion galaxy swirled toward the center of J1354 and then were eaten by the supermassive black hole.
.
For further details:
http://chandra.si.edu/press/18_releases/press_011118.html
.

[ Edited: 13 January 2018 05:58 by Rick Robson]
 
socratus
 
Avatar
 
 
socratus
Total Posts:  194
Joined  28-05-2015
 
 
 
13 January 2018 18:09
 

When Galaxies Collide! And Then Eat Each Other!
1/09/08 10:00am

There are moments when I think that science exists purely to blow my puny human mind.
Take galaxy NGC 4622, for example. For years now, astronomers have wondered about
the fact that it seemed to be moving in reverse, spinning towards the direction of its spiral
arms instead of away from them. Now a new analysis of images of NGC 4622 has revealed
that there’s more to the galaxy than thought. Namely, it may be deformed because
it swallowed another galaxy.
I’ll say that again, in case you missed it:
Scientists have found a galaxy that might have swallowed another galaxy.
The further analysis of images of NGC 4622, you see, revealed that the galaxy actually
has another set of arms inside the center, arms that trail in the opposite direction
to the known arms.
According to New Scientist, that got them thinking:
Scientists still do not understand how the galaxy got its oppositely oriented arms.
One possibility is that the inner arms are the result of a struggle with a smaller galaxy
that veered perilously close to NGC 4622 and was swallowed. Before being ripped to shreds,
the smaller galaxy could have stirred up matter in NGC 4622’s inner regions, leading it
to settle in a spiral pattern opposite to that in the outer regions.
It’s as if the universe saw the last Fantastic Four movie, got upset at their take
on Galactus and decided that it could come up with something much more impressive and
with a bigger appetite. Of course, this now makes me more optimistic at our odds of finding
a real-life Silver Surfer, so it’s not all bad news.

https://io9.gizmodo.com/342520/when-galaxies-collide-and-then-eat-each-other

============
Very good scientific fiction and they know to prove this fiction with pompous phraseology
without to explain which forces create their ‘’ swallowing’‘.
=============

 
 
‹ First  < 2 3 4 5 >