It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

A Crazy Theory Or The Longest Distance From Any Given Location Is That Exact Location

page: 1
10
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 4 2010 @ 06:56 AM
link   
I just wanted to run an idea/theory that came to me.

The theory is the furtherest spot from an given location is that exact location.

Let me explain, it is theorised that not only is our planet curved but so is space time.
en.wikipedia.org...'s_equations_in_curved_spacetime

Say you start on a walk & kept on going & going. You keep on walking in a straight line right around the planet, until you get back to the exact location from where you started. Hence furtherest location from where you are is exactly where you are.

I know some would say the exact opposite side of the planet is the furtherest spot, but if you have to walk there first, then when you get there you are only half way from point of origin.

Another way to look at it might be, say you are at home & decide to go for a walk. You are asked where are you going for a walk to & you respond "You are going for a walk to home". Technically this would be correct because wherever you walk takes you, you wind up back home.

I first started thinking about this after see video of Supertramp - Take The Long Way Home.
www.youtube.com...

In this video penguins are walk in along by way of the North Pole. I got to thinking there are no penguins at the North Pole, but what longer way to the South Pole is there than by way of the North Pole.

I once had a teacher explaining space being curved by saying that if you had a telescope powerful enough to see all the way through space that you would see the back of your own head.

If anyone knows this idea/theory has been thought of before, please point it out & shoot me down in flames.

Likewise if anyone can figure this out mathematically please feel free, just please show me as I would like to see it explained better than I can.

If in wrong forum please relocate.







[edit on 4-4-2010 by acrux]




posted on Apr, 4 2010 @ 07:16 AM
link   
I understand what you're trying to say by invoking the concept of curved space.
However, on a circular closed path, the furthest distance from any given starting point on that closed path is another point exactly diametrically opposite to that given starting point. Once on that diametrically opposite point, taking steps to the left or right starts to reduce the distance between the opposite point and the original starting point



posted on Apr, 4 2010 @ 08:04 AM
link   
reply to post by acrux
 


I get your point but I'll let other posters agree or disagree. I just wanted to say that your OP folded my brain into an origami crane
.
Especially the bit about seeing the back of your own head.
You have an interesting mind.
I think it's great to explore commonly accepted concepts this way.
S&F



posted on Apr, 4 2010 @ 08:12 AM
link   
reply to post by jeanvaljean
 


Thank you, but there are thousands of minds more interesting then mine.

To tell the truth I still have LOTS of trouble understanding any of, just look at the page of Maxwell's equations on curved space. Gives me a headache just looking at it.



posted on Apr, 4 2010 @ 08:15 AM
link   
so, say, if you were to keep moving directly away from earth you might eventually come back to it? seems like if you had a point of reference (the earth) to move away from that this would be impossible. Not saying that space doesnt have a curve, but the paradox lies in that if you can see earth behind you, can it also be in front of you?



posted on Apr, 4 2010 @ 08:49 AM
link   

Originally posted by SPACEYstranger
so, say, if you were to keep moving directly away from earth you might eventually come back to it? seems like if you had a point of reference (the earth) to move away from that this would be impossible. Not saying that space doesnt have a curve, but the paradox lies in that if you can see earth behind you, can it also be in front of you?


I don't really understand it myself, but my take is you see the back. Like with the earth, walk right around & come back to the origin, so as to see it in front of you, technically would be what is behind you is also in front of you, but just at a longer distance way.
To expain say you start your journey with your back to a tree, then by walking all the way around the earth & that same tree is then in front of you. Hence with the tree behind you it is also in front of you, just that the distance that it is in front of you is greater than the distance it is behind.

I think I have a headache now.



posted on Apr, 4 2010 @ 10:07 AM
link   
im so glad you posted this acrux ive been thinking about something recently and this curved spacetime theory would mean my strange ( weed enduced ) theory could well be possible.

what if the scientists at the LHC trying to recreate the big bang actually are the actual cause of the big bang that created the universe, i know it sounds nuts lol. it's kinda like an infinite loop first came the big bang, universe created, life starts on earth, we evolve to the point that we try and re-create the big bang and boom BIG BANG we start over again lol.



posted on Apr, 4 2010 @ 10:58 AM
link   
reply to post by truthseeker10
 


what if the scientists at the LHC trying to recreate the big bang actually are the actual cause of the big bang that created the universe, i know it sounds nuts lol. it's kinda like an infinite loop first came the big bang, universe created, life starts on earth, we evolve to the point that we try and re-create the big bang and boom BIG BANG we start over again lol.

Thats an interesting & scarey thought all at the same time.

Taking it a little further, what if this was how our universe started, but instead of this continuing in the loop of destroying our universe to start afresh, it does create another smaller universe without destroying ours. It then continues on down the line getting smaller & smaller. Likewise, there was a universe above ours that did the experiment that started our universe & then another above that & so on.

A possible explation to the parallel universes theory?


[edit on 4-4-2010 by acrux]



posted on Apr, 4 2010 @ 11:26 AM
link   
Assumes a certain closed topology of the universe.

Here's an interesting thing to think about, along the same lines: the Principle of Least Time.

Light doesn't take the shortest path. It takes the fastest path.

So perhaps in your analogy the farthest point is the one that is slowest to get to?



posted on Apr, 4 2010 @ 01:14 PM
link   
reply to post by Ian McLean
 


Originally posted by Ian McLean
Assumes a certain closed topology of the universe.

Here's an interesting thing to think about, along the same lines: the Principle of Least Time.

Light doesn't take the shortest path. It takes the fastest path.

So perhaps in your analogy the farthest point is the one that is slowest to get to?


Could be, could be.

Have never considered in relation to travelling time taken, but whereas the longest distance from any given spot is that exact location when taken in relation to space being curved, it is also the shortest because you are already there.

Maybe the furtherest point may also be the closest when considered in conjuction with folding space time.
en.wikipedia.org...
library.thinkquest.org...

If I'm wrong, please fell to shoot down in flames.

I think I'm get out of my league, but at least I'm getting ready to admit it.

[edit on 4-4-2010 by acrux]



posted on Apr, 4 2010 @ 01:50 PM
link   
This is a philosophical concept and can be thought of either way as the longest distance or the shortest, depends on your personal perspective.

Be where you are because you cannot be anywhere else. If you wish you were somewhere other than where you are then you're screwed because you can only be where you are at. Another way to look at it is you can be anywhere you wish to be so long as where you wish to be is where you are at.

Other than all of that the longest distance between two points is a curve and on a sphere the longest distance would be a circle. I think one could say that there are no such things as linear motions or straight lines in 3D space. An object will continue in motion in a straight line until acted upon by another force. Mass is everywhere and gravity from these masses is a force that continually acts upon all objects causing circular/elliptical, parabolic and hyperbolic curves. So with that being said are there still such things as straight lines?


Originally posted by acrux
...my take is you see the back. Like with the earth, walk right around & come back to the origin, so as to see it in front of you, technically would be what is behind you is also in front of you, but just at a longer distance way.

Do not forget about the motion of time here, the concept of "lookback time" is flawed in this respect. You can never look back to a time where you used to physically be any more than you could go back and meet yourself in the past.



posted on Apr, 4 2010 @ 02:04 PM
link   
It almost seems plausible to me that if I were standing in my front yard and ran fast enough in a straight line/curve that I would be able to touch the back of my own head before I left. It's a cool thought. Even faster and maybe I could pass myself before I left.



posted on Apr, 4 2010 @ 02:09 PM
link   
reply to post by Devino
 


Originally posted by Devino
Do not forget about the motion of time here, the concept of "lookback time" is flawed in this respect. You can never look back to a time where you used to physically be any more than you could go back and meet yourself in the past.

Yes dealing with the time aspect is something I have had trouble with when dealing with when it come to seeing the back of your own head concept.

Since seeing through space to yourself, would have such infinite distances, the light travelling from yourself to then travel through space back to yourself would take so incredibly long you would either be already dead or moved to somewhere else.

Like the old concept of when you look at the sun. You are not seeing the actual sun now, you are seeing the sun where it was 8 minutes ago.

Starts to get very confusing.



posted on Apr, 4 2010 @ 02:17 PM
link   
reply to post by IllMannered
 


Originally posted by IllMannered
It almost seems plausible to me that if I were standing in my front yard and ran fast enough in a straight line/curve that I would be able to touch the back of my own head before I left. It's a cool thought. Even faster and maybe I could pass myself before I left.


So does that mean that by running at just the right speed you end up being up yourself.


Sorry only joking

I have to admit it adds a whole new concept to touching yourself.


Seriously interesting way of looking at it when the speed is added.

[edit on 4-4-2010 by acrux]



posted on Apr, 4 2010 @ 02:26 PM
link   
reply to post by acrux
 


Lol. Ever get that itch on your back that u just can't reach? Just run around the earth really fast and scratch it.

Sorry for off topic.



posted on Apr, 4 2010 @ 04:39 PM
link   
As far as I'm concerned you are 100% correct. It has to be so....and the comment about the telescope and seeing the back of your head is classic. The visuals that are produced by these ideas make it particularly easy to understand, and in my opinion, self-evident. Good job, OP!



posted on Apr, 4 2010 @ 10:12 PM
link   
reply to post by kismetphayze
 

Thank you



posted on Apr, 4 2010 @ 11:45 PM
link   
Okay, up late and came across thread. I will not go into the space/time curved component. What you are talking about reminds of of a saying, If you want to see the world, stay where you are, the world will come to you.

Or some such thing. May be a zen thing.

Okay, changed my mind. Here goes. The shortest or longest path is a straight line is what you are saying. But, you are thinking as in a spherical path when you are using the earth as an analogy. Of course this is what you mean when you are talking in reference to the universe also. That if you follow a straight line it will in actuality be spherical. So you are saying in regards to Einstein's theory of space time that the straight line is following the curvature of space/time. I had an idea awhile back that Einstein's description of a flat surface of space/time did not fit into our ability to perceive it correctly. In other words the waterbed analogy. It being really only two dimensional in it's perception.

I do not even know where I am going with this but hang on. I think their has to be a third component to space/time. Say it is the unknown, so we have space/time/unknown. The best analogy I can come up with is instead of being on the surface of the waterbed, we are inside the waterbed and the water being the third component.

Now that I have gotten to this point, I am going to take an aspirin and check the thread later.



posted on Apr, 5 2010 @ 12:43 AM
link   

Originally posted by endisnighe
The shortest or longest path is a straight line is what you are saying. But, you are thinking as in a spherical path when you are using the earth as an analogy. Of course this is what you mean when you are talking in reference to the universe also. That if you follow a straight line it will in actuality be spherical. So you are saying in regards to Einstein's theory of space time that the straight line is following the curvature of space/time.

Yes that is part of it but the main point I'm trying to make is that the "furtherest point from where you are is that exact spot" because of the curvature of space/time.. For if you leave that spot & go stright ahead without any deviations you end up back at that exact location. Making that the longest/shortest distance from point of origin.


The best analogy I can come up with is instead of being on the surface of the waterbed, we are inside the waterbed and the water being the third component.

I can sort of see what you are getting at, That we are just one spot floating around inside our universe & that if space is curved, there must be asn outside to the universe, hence the waterbed analogy, which leads to the possibility of parallel universes.(or parallel waterbeds)


Could you please try & expand on this idea a little please, I am interested to see where this may lead.

[edit on 5-4-2010 by acrux]



posted on Apr, 5 2010 @ 05:05 PM
link   
reply to post by acrux
 


Alright, you are making put my idea from early on about my theorem on the existence of everything.

It started out in bio 3 in high school. Since the beginning of time, the first breath that a human took consisted of a certain amount of atoms. I cannot remember the quantity but it is directly related to the amount of breaths there are in the atmosphere. This is where my theory began.

Now, what you bring to the table is that the furthest distance from any point is the same point, also the closest.

Let me go down the road of infinite realities. If there are infinite realities or infinite universe and each of these are infinite, let me show you the closest way 2 dimensionally I can represent it.



Okay, it is just a basic diagram of 3 different realities. Each one is connected to an infinite number of other realities. Hence, those infinite realities are connected to those infinite realities. So on and so forth on to infinity.

This diagram cannot even get close to what I am stating but you get an idea of what I am postulating.

Now for what you said about the point being the furthest distance from and the closest. I postulate it is all distances from the point, meaning it is the furthest, closest and every unit of measure in between.

Each point of any given reality intersects with every other point of every other reality, so, the point is closet to and the furthest from.

Now, taking the analogy of the ball on a waterbed inverted was just my way of saying that the water inside the waterbed is all the other realities touching our reality.

Say you have a black hole, it does not actually go anywhere except the closet and furthest reality away.

See, this is where I mind cannot comprehend in a graphical nature what I am talking about. Maybe you can put it into a better descriptive nature than I. Or maybe someone that will read this will.

Now that I have tried to visualize this theorem again, I will go back to the political section and take it ez.



new topics

top topics



 
10
<<   2 >>

log in

join