23 replies to this topic

[sepulchrave]

keithisco, on 11 December 2012 - 08:14 PM, said:

To begin with this phrase:

"And we know that according to the Theory of General Relativity it is possible for a sufficiently dense object to form a gravitational singularity"

We dont actually know that this theory (.much more a hypothesis than a theory) is correct, so Scientifically speaking you must NOT say that we "know" anything from a theory, but that "it is surmised"

Well the ``Theory of General Relativity'' is definitely a theory, not a hypothesis.

But other than that I was trying to say the same thing as you are here: I wasn't claiming that gravitational singularities actually exist, only that their existence is possible according to the theory. Whether or not the theory is true is a separate issue...

keithisco, on 11 December 2012 - 08:14 PM, said:

"Time and Space Distortion"  is very much unproven, in fact it only has Einstein's and Hawking's backing...

And offers a lot of predictions that are an accurate description of real empirical observations.

Plus ``only has Einstein's and Hawking's backing''? Eddington, Schwarzschild, Reissner, Kerr, Wheeler, Chandrasekhar, and Penrose (to name a few) might be put out by that statement...

keithisco, on 11 December 2012 - 08:14 PM, said:

these people are not Gods in the pursuit of Science, they are theoriticians, the Math propounded is flawed, as has been shown many times  ("C" magically reintroduced in a new term "Y", AFTER "C"  has been negated)

Can you be more specific? I have studied General Relativity a bit, and I am not aware of any mathematical flaws.

[MarvelAtTheWords]

Hello Sepulchrave, I'm miss Marvel, your new stalker.
You're awesome!

[sepulchrave]

MarvelAtTheWords, on 11 December 2012 - 10:42 PM, said:

Hello Sepulchrave, I'm miss Marvel, your new stalker.
You're awesome!

Thanks..? I guess..?

[MarvelAtTheWords]

Lol... I'm joking. About the stalkerpart.
I'll be nice. Just keep talking It's really interesting.

[behavioralist]

I doI ha   lll

sepulchrave, on 09 December 2012 - 06:05 PM, said:

Technically we don't know much about black holes.

We know that there really are regions of space that appear to have an immense gravitational pull but are otherwise invisible.

And we know that according to the Theory of General Relativity it is possible for a sufficiently dense object to form a gravitational singularity.

We don't really know that the former is a consequence of the latter, and without a full conformal field theory that merges Quantum Mechanics with gravity we can't really prove it, but there is good evidence to suggest that the ``black holes'' we see in telescopes are the gravitational singularities suggested by General Relativity.

With that in mind, in General Relativity, light can't really be ``accelerated'' by anything. (Even in the sense that ``acceleration'' can mean a change in direction; light always travels along geodesics so technically near a black hole the light doesn't change direction; rather space-time does.)

So to the extend that black holes are described by General Relativity as a gravitational singularity, no... there is no temporal anomaly or ``faster than c'' light.

If General Relativity is not an appropriate (or a complete) description of a black hole then... I don't know.

Are you familiar with the distortion of time and space caused by gravity, especially in regards to inside and outside the event horizon of a black hole?
(In particular, do you understand the meaning of the first image in the wiki page on event horizons?) If not, it might help answer some of your questions.

I am aware of the illustrations. But time-travel seems to me a misconception; energy is directional in intent and habit, the direction being evolution, a new previously impossible time. Given the fusion' time-space', the prospect seems more that of abandoning only time-space, as mass or the bulk of it carries onward. Things move, in other Words, but time-space doesn't necessarily move along, or exist solely where mass we are aware of does. It can stretch to infinity behind us and ahead of us, with nothing of ours there.Which leaves time-space behind and ahead of us for other things, perhaps other universes. And that invites the idea of light (in entanglement with time-space) leaving us, to end up in Another matter-energy "membrane", perhaps as dark energy.

[sepulchrave]

behavioralist, on 13 December 2012 - 05:44 PM, said:

I am aware of the illustrations. But time-travel seems to me a misconception; energy is directional in intent and habit, the direction being evolution,

I agree that ``evolution'' in the thermodynamic sense is not the same as ``time'' in the space-time sense, but I would say the two are closely related.

behavioralist, on 13 December 2012 - 05:44 PM, said:

... a new previously impossible time. Given the fusion' time-space', the prospect seems more that of abandoning only time-space, as mass or the bulk of it carries onward. Things move, in other Words, but time-space doesn't necessarily move along, or exist solely where mass we are aware of does. It can stretch to infinity behind us and ahead of us, with nothing of ours there.Which leaves time-space behind and ahead of us for other things, perhaps other universes. And that invites the idea of light (in entanglement with time-space) leaving us, to end up in Another matter-energy "membrane", perhaps as dark energy.

I agree ``things'' are always moving. The point of space-time (and General Relativity) is that whether something is moving ``ahead'' in time only, space only, or both depends on the perspective of the observer.

Some things are ``real''; like the space-time interval (which is equivalent to ``age''). No matter what your perspective, everybody will agree that an object has ``moved'' the same space-time interval. Whether that interval was all space, all time, or a mixture again depends on one's perspective; but everyone should agree on the magnitude of the interval.

Everything else you say I don't really agree with.

[behavioralist]

sepulchrave, on 13 December 2012 - 07:47 PM, said:

I agree that ``evolution'' in the thermodynamic sense is not the same as ``time'' in the space-time sense, but I would say the two are closely related.


I agree ``things'' are always moving. The point of space-time (and General Relativity) is that whether something is moving ``ahead'' in time only, space only, or both depends on the perspective of the observer.

Some things are ``real''; like the space-time interval (which is equivalent to ``age''). No matter what your perspective, everybody will agree that an object has ``moved'' the same space-time interval. Whether that interval was all space, all time, or a mixture again depends on one's perspective; but everyone should agree on the magnitude of the interval.

Everything else you say I don't really agree with.

You mean you don't agree that matter may occupy only a slice of space, among a potentially infinite number of simultaneously existing slices separated by time? You feel that the sum of space is what the sum of our universe occupies, so that the sum of space always follows the sum of the mass of our universe?

Are  matter-energy and space-time present in a similar sense, or is matter-energy present in finite space-time and hence passing through time, a moving singilarity or membrane that never coexists in more than one space-time, so that it leaves an infinite amount of space-time unoccupied by itself Always?

Isn't it plausible that space-time is all space and all time perpetually present with matter-energy passing through it, time serving as a wind of evolution?

I Think it tends to be a habit to continue to view time the way we did Before it was space-time, not unlike the habit of seeing the World as flat even though a significant body of water testifies to the curvature.

How about the plane of time? Do you feel it's a flat plane, Everything occupying the exact same Place on that plane? That nothing bulges away from the smallest instant, where light stands absolutely still? You don't feel that an ominous mass, for example, not only deforms space but also is a bulge in time? That seems to me to be suggested by the constancy of c. Everything weighs upon time as space-time as much as it weighs upon space as space-time.

I'm not interested from the Point of view of a fiction fan. I don't expect that there is a universe chasing us where Hitler won, and that a singularity connects us to it. I expect that every slice of space-time that has a universe in it is as distinctive as animal and vegetable. Evolution is not about possible outcomes, but about seriously earned ones, commission and omission. There is a more that is Always beyond more complexity, as more wonderful.

[sepulchrave]

behavioralist, on 16 December 2012 - 05:07 PM, said:

You mean you don't agree that matter may occupy only a slice of space, among a potentially infinite number of simultaneously existing slices separated by time? You feel that the sum of space is what the sum of our universe occupies, so that the sum of space always follows the sum of the mass of our universe?

I think that Relativity gives pretty compelling arguments that space and time are not separable, and therefore our Universe occupies a volume (finite or unbounded, or whatever) of space-time, and since space-time can be reshaped by the matter in our Universe, the two are not really separable.

It was really this line in your post that I was objecting to:

behavioralist, on 13 December 2012 - 05:44 PM, said:

...Which leaves time-space behind and ahead of us for other things, perhaps other universes. And that invites the idea of light (in entanglement with time-space) leaving us, to end up in Another matter-energy "membrane", perhaps as dark energy....

I don't really have a problem with ``elsewhere'' or ``elsewhen'' in space-time being occupied by other things, but light can't criss-cross membranes in a sensible manner (unless everything can) and it should never manifest as ``dark energy'' in any other type of Universe.

Light is a non-self-interacting transmission of energy that is very diffuse and fairly non-local. Any circumstances where light in our Universe could influence a neighbouring membrane should have much more significant influences from the other stuff in our Universe.

behavioralist, on 13 December 2012 - 05:44 PM, said:

How about the plane of time? Do you feel it's a flat plane, Everything occupying the exact same Place on that plane? That nothing bulges away from the smallest instant, where light stands absolutely still? You don't feel that an ominous mass, for example, not only deforms space but also is a bulge in time? That seems to me to be suggested by the constancy of c. Everything weighs upon time as space-time as much as it weighs upon space as space-time.

Again I think that Relativity makes it pretty clear that there is no ``plane of time''. There is no simultaneity; any time-line you construct is subject to your personal perspective.

You can not separate time from space in a manner which is not dependent on your choice of perspective.

It is pretty clear that matter and energy deform space-time, just like space-time alters the trajectories of matter and energy.

But I don't really understand your other arguments.

You seem to be claiming that ``time'' in the sense of entropy/evolution of an object can be directly mapped to the ``time'' component of ``space-time'' in a universal and unambiguous manner - which I do not think is the case.

You also seem to be claiming that based on this universal system of time there could be separate Universes (or membranes or whatever) occupying the same ``space'' coordinates but past (or future) time coordinates as our Universe.

Even if one could have a universal timeline, I think the past (or future) time-coordinates for are Universe are occupied by our Universe. We may perceive our Universe as the ``wavefront'' of ``now'' moving through time; and it is a reasonable idea to think of other wavefronts (from other Universes) ``ahead'' or ``behind'' ours; but I think the space-time region in the past is (and always has been, in some sense) occupied by our past. There can't be another system there. (Especially since I do not think there is a universal timeline; and ``now'' is entirely subjective.)

[behavioralist]

Keep in mind that we are just playing with this. It isn't serious! Think-tanking is to play at reasoning together. No pressure to be right or wrong.

If space-time is an elevation, then evolution is all known matter-energy climbing space-time, not like a vine but like a bug, leaving nothing of itself behind. It has done all the tricks of getting this high.

(I disagree with the notion of entropy, since it is Always signifying decay. It is like saying trees die. Where would trees be if the past were not spread out as Death under them?)

If other universes are climbing behind ours and ahead of it, we can feel them, as dark matter and dark energy. That would mean that these two things are unobservable except as the exertion of mass. No universe exerts only its own mass. Any universe, no matter how Alien, has in common that it is an evolving mass.