Gravity ("curved spacetime")

[Solar]

For one, remember that your "static object" is part of the "coordinate system", not an arbitrary separate manifestation riding above it. In such a case, it is the density of the coordinate system that dictates its behavior.

Call it a force field if you desire... The "curvature" or distortion of the coordinate system (field) models the force. The "appearance" of the force distorted field dictates the available behavior in the local region of distortion.

Well said. And well understood.

Siggy_G your diagrams are telling you the answer to the question. Your depictions of the "coordinate units ... fairly uniform" is the answer to your question. Although the diagrams present the "units" in relation to an object; as a linear 'slice'. The nearest approximation of the nature of "space", as represented by your "coordinate units", would be an ideally uniform distribution of [for example] the fine structure constant - in a 'lattice array' of equal "points". That is to say "charge" (both positive and negative) uniformly distributed as an oscillating lattice.

See: Insight into the Aether

The nature of "charge" is to obtain equilibrium. The mCMB is the result of the 'lattice array' of "equally distributed charge" shedding energy in order to maintain that equilibrium. It ("space") is not an "object" because we know not the 'end' of it (if such a thing exist). It, the 'lattice' array' of equally distributed "charge' has a "jitter". It is in constant vibratory motion which when imparted to an object imparts spin (angular momentum).

This is also the "structure" of the "vacuum", the "virtual particles" of quantum physics which "pop in and out of existence". That "jitter" or 'popping' in and out of existence is the oscillatory vibration of 'something'. You have it linearly depicted there in your diagrams as the "coordinate units".

It, the 'lattice array of equally distributed "charge"' (assume the fine structure constant here if necessary) is analogous to sight. There are those aspects of the electromagnetic spectrum which do not fall within the necessary parameters to become visible. Yet we know the spectrum far exceeds those required parameters. Likewise, the physical condition does not perceive of the 'lattice'.

"Matter" is a 'phase-shift', (upon reaching some critical value ("scrunching")) of that 'lattice' - which then becomes resonantly 'phase-locked' electromagnetically displacing the "coordinate units". Which are then called "fields" i.e. the displacement of "charge" from is ideal uniform 'lattice' equilibrium (" broken symmetry").

"Space-Time" is simply Einstien's cantankerous way of trying to re-work that which preceded him.

[junglelord]

Good point about the fine structure constant.
That is clearly a relationship of EM geometry to ES geometry.
137 is the key to the universe, ask Feynman.

[Total Science]

Curved spacetime is mathematically impossible.

"Theorem 20: If in any triangle the sum of the three angles is equal to two right angles, so is this the case for every other triangle." -- Nikolai I. Lobachevsky, mathematician, 1840

"Riemann … turns out to be even more divorced from intuition because it involves the denial of a second, implicit, Euclidean axiom, namely that a straight line, in being indefinitely extended, never returns on itself." -- Eva T.H. Brann, philosopher, 1991

[junglelord]

Frequency is ALWAYS curved.
Charge is curved.
The parameters of the vacuum, curved.
The fifth dimension is spherical geometry.

[earls]

"Such as modeling the structure of a force field. But this doesn't mean that nature literally is shaped like this. It doesn't necessarily mean that spacetime has a physical structure."

But... It does. The calculated topographic map of the "curvature(s)" of spacetime about the solar system allows us to navigate them. If the map says "there's a gravity well here" then nature is physically going to "feel" "behave" "look" like the structure of a gravity well. Am I way off base here? Do you have a different definition for "structure?"

"Something made up of a number of parts that are held or put together in a particular way"

Your first graphic shows this... Only the first pane of the graphic "compacted" spacetime is appropriate. It models the the mass (the compacted spacetime) and the force - the stretched spacetime around the object. As you move away from the object, the coordinates become less dense, like our atmosphere.

I see what you're getting at, one pane shows the structure (matter) the second pane shows the force, if you overlap them, they cancel out. But this is not required by spacetime, only if you have a separate flat coordinate system do you need a second layer to show the forces present. The structure of spacetime dictates the forces present, the forces present dictate how the structure moves.

"I'm viewing space as what's left, when all matter/particles are removed."

...But you still have energy present. EM/Gravity fields... If there is literally nothing there in the space, then there's nothing there - not even the "space"! What's the distance between nothing and nothing?

"I could also visualize that if space was thinned out matter, you'd get heavier objects by packing it together - but that is still speculative."

Still speculative?!?

"it will be stretch the structural units farther away (causing slowdown) - is this taken into account as well?"

Yep. Perhaps everything in the Universe is literally a meter next to each other, but because spacetime is warped (stretched) so much between certain points, moving at a fixed speed (light) it will take you x amount of time to travel between two points based on how much spacetime is warped.

There's your dark energy and redshift for ya... As local pockets of gravity gain mass and further warp spacetime around them, they would appear to increase in distance from everything else, as light has to travel that much further. There's an equation in here to be checked: If two points are moving away from each other at a specific velocity, the light will redshift x amount, that amount, divided by two (though there could be an uneven ratio) will give you the current gravity/mass of the two objects. Gravity accelerates, dark energy accelerates... distance increases.

The masses of the objects (galaxies) can be checked based on the galactic rotation. Any discrepancies can be accounted for by determining the correct ratio between galaxies, and then by any possible sort of "intrinsic" redshift.

"the units 10 meter above the surface wouldn't be very different than the units 1 meter above the surface."

Which explains why Gravity requires such an a large amount of mass to become relevant.

"why isn't curved space necessary to explain magnetism?"

I can be, but it's not required: "In classical mechanics, the use of Euclidean space instead of spacetime is appropriate, as time is treated as universal and constant, being independent of the state of motion of an observer." We just don't deal with magnetic fields over such an expanse that time relativity becomes important to their interaction. Why do complex spacetime calculations for an infinitesimal margin of error? If however, Gravity was EM, then magnetism is already explained by "curved spacetime."

List all of your "paradoxes" and I will do my best to knock them out one by one! Be sure to scrutinize everything I say and try your best to punch logical holes in my statements, becauseI have no idea what I'm talking about! ;D

[junglelord]

The "fields" need an explanation.
They are not a product of the matter..............
for instance Aether is a rmfd (rotating magnetic field) that is derived via 16pi^2 x Kc
where Kc is Coulombs Constant. So the field between the magnets is the aether itself.

All matter exists in forward frequency/time and must have either left or right hand spin.
In fact all matter exists in 1/2 spin quantum domain....

PHI is the result of the two spin ratios....rmfd and primary angular momentum
I see no place where nature is not curved.

[seasmith]

visualaid



http://www.nanowerk.com/news/newsid=9703.php

[kevin]

Siggy-g,
Your diagrams are not showing the parallel nature of the lines, you are persisting in simply radialing single lines out from the centre of a sphere.
the sphere is the product of the geometry of parallel lines, it is a consequence of the geometry, not a source at all.

If you take every line that you now have and simply add parallel lines either side of them, you will begin to see how they create the spheres( polygons)
The parallel lines do not all bisect the sphere centrally, they will continue add infirnitum out past the edge of the sphere, but the geometry will only create spheres where it meets in a focus point.

the geometry creates the platonic solids etc, thus matter is formed in that area of geometry, no-thing exists outside of the geometry area where the relative shapes of creation are found.
Kevin

[SpaceTravellor]

"Curved time in space"?

Forget the subject of "Time".

"Time" is OK in order to catch a bus in the right time, but it makes non sense using a linear measurement on the spiralling and bending movements in the Universe.

Insert the subject of "Movement" in stead of "Time". Then look at the whole Universe as "local matters of in-folding and out-folding" movements.

The movement in for instants spiralling galaxies goes both ways. Therefore "time" goes both ways.

A mathematical equation - or graphs and diagrams - of "time" i. e. "local movement of in-folding and out-folding matter", should therefore be able to describe the total movement in these 2 basically sequences.

First then it will make some natural and logical sense.

[junglelord]

Siggy-g,
Your diagrams are not showing the parallel nature of the lines, you are persisting in simply radialing single lines out from the centre of a sphere.
the sphere is the product of the geometry of parallel lines, it is a consequence of the geometry, not a source at all.

If you take every line that you now have and simply add parallel lines either side of them, you will begin to see how they create the spheres( polygons)
The parallel lines do not all bisect the sphere centrally, they will continue add infirnitum out past the edge of the sphere, but the geometry will only create spheres where it meets in a focus point.

the geometry creates the platonic solids etc, thus matter is formed in that area of geometry, no-thing exists outside of the geometry area where the relative shapes of creation are found.
Kevin

On the contrary the sphere is the source of all geometry.
Again if one knows the equations for charge then one sees Pi over and over and over.
You do the math


For instance the rmfd (rotating magnetic field) of the aether is 16pi^2 x kc (Coluombs Constant)
so if you understand that spherical geometry is the fifth dimension, then you understand the geometry of distributed charge.

[kevin]

Junglelord,
Which came first, the sphere or the geometry?
I consider that the geometry creates the spheres, and that the straight lines create the geometry, but they are not straight other than they are arranged in to ourselves straight lines, at the scale we can measure them, and they they are composed of aligned spherical aether spheres.
They allow transport of alternative angled aether units which act under attraction to their opposite, and compress and coalesce at suitable geometric focus points, the formed matter been relative to the geometry contained in the geometry of each focus point.
The formed matter then begins to act symbiotically with what made it, either and normally amassing and expanding relative to the geometry and the inputs around that sphere that are cyclic .
kevin

[junglelord]

I believe the Sphere is the Archetype along with the Spiral Toroid.
The Platonic Solids, the Geometry....follows from the RATIO b/t Aether and Angular Momentum.

[Siggy_G]

Regarding geometry and nature:

Isn't geometry a field and tool invented by humans, in order to make a simplified frame work for understanding (certain aspects of) nature? It is our way of re-constructing shapes from nature (usually simplified), and constructing shapes from scratch, that already are geometrically defined.

Geometrical shapes and tendencies that appear in nature, seem to always be the result of certain forces and energy conditions working together (electromagnetic forces, mass interaction, velocity, pressure, temperature and chemical reactions). It is not as if something created it by using geometry. I'd say thinking so is somewhat religious thinking, and not really in line with scientific / physics reasoning.

Geometry was invented and elaborated in order to understand nature, do measurements and as a tool for multi-field constructions. Then later, when geometrical shapes and conditions are recognized in nature, one thinks that nature is based on geometry - that nature was geometrically constructed. That's reverse or circular reasoning.

I'd say, distinguish between the drawing board and nature. We can construct and build things, even simulating nature, but it will still be human inventions, also within cosmology. For instance, when a planet follows an eliptic path, this is based on an observation. It's also possible to calculate and reconstruct (geometrically) that it does so. But the geometry is the result of certain forces and conditions, the way I see it, and not literally because the planet is forced to follow a geometrical rule or frame work (curved space).

On a side note, check out this video of a guy constructing a simulated 3d world: http://www.vimeo.com/3365942

[junglelord]

This debate about the word geometry, thats merely semantics.
Everything is SPIN...TORSION.
Ratios of Aether to Angular Momentum
That would be quantum spin of 2 to a quantum spin of 1/2.
At the beginning of the second cycle, PHI is created.
From this Golden Mean the forms of Nature are expressed.
Simple, very very simple.
Charge geometry is the sphere and the torous.
Simple, very very simple.
Mass is the linear aspect of EM Charge.
Simple, very very simple.
Frequency is the proper analysis of Charge, not time.
Simple very very simple.
There are two frequencies operating all the time, linear and distributed.
Simple, very very simple.
Quantum Resonance is distributed Frequency.
Time is linear Frequency.
Simple, very very simple.

Pi, PHI, e, the natural expression of charge geometry.
Simple, very very simple.

[bboyer]

Forum: Electric Universe

Electric Universe
Plasma and electricity in space. Failure of gravity-only cosmology. Exposing the myths of dark matter, dark energy, black holes, neutron stars, and other mathematical constructs. The electric model of stars. Predictions and confirmations of the electric comet.

Please steer back on track or this topic will be going south.