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.

 

NASA Announces Results of Epic Space-Time Experiment

page: 1
8
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 5 2011 @ 05:33 PM
link   

NASA Announces Results of Epic Space-Time Experiment


science.nasa.gov

Time and space, according to Einstein's theories of relativity, are woven together, forming a four-dimensional fabric called "space-time." The mass of Earth dimples this fabric, much like a heavy person sitting in the middle of a trampoline. Gravity, says Einstein, is simply the motion of objects following the curvaceous lines of the dimple.
(visit the link for the full news article)


edit on 5/5/2011 by Mirthful Me because: Title.




posted on May, 5 2011 @ 05:33 PM
link   
Makes me think of the torsion physics I was hearing about on Coast to Coast.
Do we exist in a crossroad of sorts between two forces in equilibrium?
Are black holes just more massive curves in space-time?
New Physics?
Is there a means to harness this knowledge?
Was it utilized by ancients?
These are the things that race through my head.




science.nasa.gov
(visit the link for the full news article)



posted on May, 5 2011 @ 05:36 PM
link   
i am a novice when it comes to space and time

but would it be reasonable to say that time flows faster when its near a heavy object such as the earth and moves slower when the distance is increased from any object?

or do i have it backwards? or does it still move the same amount?



posted on May, 5 2011 @ 05:41 PM
link   
None of this is really "news".

It's the same theory I was taught back in high school physics "several decades ago".



posted on May, 5 2011 @ 05:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by neo96
i am a novice when it comes to space and time

but would it be reasonable to say that time flows faster when its near a heavy object such as the earth and moves slower when the distance is increased from any object?

or do i have it backwards? or does it still move the same amount?



time is merely the dimension above the one you inhabit. think of the third dimension as a box. one 3D frame from reality. how do you give it time? you make it move in another different dimension (4D) much like a stack of pictures (2D) moved through a third dimension makes a movie.

oh, and btw. the faster time flows, the slower things inside it move. just like high speed cameras produce prolonged movies of the events they capture.

dimensions repeat, every third dimension becomes a point. start with a line. move that line in a second dimension and you get a square. move that square in a third dimension and you get a cube. that cube then becomes the point for the start of another line. move that cube in the 4th dimension and you make a line (time to us) move that line in the 5th dimension and you get a square (different possible variations in the timeline) and so on.

this is my own theory of the structure of reality. i call it dimensionality.
edit on 5-5-2011 by Bob Sholtz because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 5 2011 @ 05:48 PM
link   
reply to post by Bob Sholtz
 


i get that just like the earth spins thousands of milers per hour and yet we dont feel any motion.


thanks



posted on May, 5 2011 @ 05:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by neo96
i am a novice when it comes to space and time

but would it be reasonable to say that time flows faster when its near a heavy object such as the earth and moves slower when the distance is increased from any object?

or do i have it backwards? or does it still move the same amount?



Quite the opposite, time flows slower times object with bigger mass.
Second Line.
edit on 5-5-2011 by DuceizBack because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 5 2011 @ 06:00 PM
link   
To the ancients, time was circular; to us, it's linear. We perceive the world with our eyes; they perceived it with their ears. That's the difference. Who knows what's true.



posted on May, 5 2011 @ 07:18 PM
link   

The four gyroscopes in GP-B are the most perfect spheres ever made by humans. These ping pong-sized balls of fused quartz and silicon are 1.5 inches across and never vary from a perfect sphere by more than 40 atomic layers. If the gyroscopes weren't so spherical, their spin axes would wobble even without the effects of relativity.


same source as op

40 atomic layers? wow



posted on May, 5 2011 @ 07:58 PM
link   
Time does not "flow".

Time, if we are to view it as a "dimension", as we perceive space as having, or being expressed as, dimensions, must be "static" and un-changing; just as the dimensions of space must be static and un-changing. Else we would not be able to "measure" anything, with anything!

Our perception of time is what changes. and that perception is wrongly, and foolishly, applied to time.

Just because our perception of time is conveniently Linear, from Past, through Present (Now), and into Future does not mean that this is the true nature of time: How egocentric of us puny creatures!

If time is to be considered as any kind of a dimension, in and of itself, then time must Globular, not linear, and cannot be faithfully modelled as being divisible into discreet, human-compatable and human-definable units such as hours, minutes, seconds, etc..


The more discreetly we seek to "divy-up" time, the further away from the Reality of time we pull ourselves!

And the farther away from an accurate model of our reality we drive ourselves.



posted on May, 5 2011 @ 08:17 PM
link   
reply to post by Bhadhidar
 


time is a dimension. it doesn't have to be static. everything has its own personal clock. this clock can be affected by speed, gravity, and other things. (on spacestations, since they orbit so fast, a watch will show a different time if left for awhile, as opposed to an identical watch with identical time on earth when it first departed) infact time is gradually speeding up, ever so slightly. this is evident in the speed of light slowing down. our movement through the 4th dimension is what creates the illusion of time. its like frames per second on computers or tvs. but instead of dealing with a flat image, we're dealing with a cube of reality.

its hard to visualize because we can't persieve the extra dimension, but we can see the changes in our "cubes". if you could see the fourth dimension, you would appear to be an elogated worm-like creature, snaking through everything you would ever do in your life, from your single celled beginning to your end. we can't see this higher dimension. so we live in the present. the frame of being. the past and future are physical places, solid, just as the present is.

something to think about: when you play a movie, does it ever change? humans have choice, but you would have always picked to do the exact same thing.
edit on 5-5-2011 by Bob Sholtz because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 5 2011 @ 08:21 PM
link   
Does anyone care or believe what NASA says anymore?
Too much disinfo! F*#&!N LIARS!



posted on May, 5 2011 @ 08:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by lestweforget
Does anyone care or believe what NASA says anymore?
Too much disinfo! F*#&!N LIARS!


Agreed.
Anything that comes from NASA might as well have come from some BS TV sitcom in my eyes anymore.
I don;t even bother to read this crap that comes from them anymore.
It is always, and will always.... be crap.



posted on May, 5 2011 @ 09:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by Bob Sholtz
reply to post by Bhadhidar
 


time is a dimension.


I never said that time was not a dimension.

What I said was that for time to be a dimension it must be static, unchanging.




it doesn't have to be static.


Actually, it does. Think about it, what would be the result if , for example, one of the the dimensions of space were able to stretch, to "flow" as we say time flows, or to change dependent upon the relative environment?

An inch (or a meter) could never be counted upon to be an inch (or a meter). What we, at once, might percieve as distant galaxies, might suddenly be close enough to physically touch with your bare hand!

This does not happen, of course, because the dimensions of space are stable, in other words, Static.





everything has its own personal clock. this clock can be affected by speed, gravity, and other things. (on spacestations, since they orbit so fast, a watch will show a different time if left for awhile, as opposed to an identical watch with identical time on earth when it first departed) infact time is gradually speeding up, ever so slightly. this is evident in the speed of light slowing down.


This "Personal Clock" of which you speak is nothing more than a projection of our, human, perception of time; it is not a true expression of the dimension in which time, itself, exists. We cannot communicate with the non-human, and non-animate objects with which we share our existence, therefore we cannot adequately interrogate them about their perception of time in our universe.

At best, we have been able to project our concepts and perceptions of time upon them by various means. But here is the egocentricity of that projection: the various means we've employed are, themselves, simply other expressions of our own perceptions.

We say that an avarage "dog" year is equal to aroximately seven "human" years. But does a dog perceive a "human" year as a human percieves a year? And what is a year to a rock?




our movement through the 4th dimension is what creates the illusion of time.


As you say, our perception of time is but an "illusion" of time.
Created by Us, not time. For the convenience and connivence of we humans.
It is a starting point, Not the Final Answer.




we're dealing with a cube of reality.


You see how easily our words can lock us into a particular frame of perception! A "cube" of reality indeed!

To incorporate time into your "cube of reality", you're going to have to add a seventh "side" to your "cube".


That should be Fun!



Now, here's a question for you:


When we talk of "bending space" (as in what supposedly happens in the vicinity of an extremely high gravitational field: ie., near a blck hole), aren't we really seeing the effects of time, rather than space?



posted on May, 5 2011 @ 09:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by TheseFeveredEgos

Makes me think of the torsion physics I was hearing about on Coast to Coast.
Do we exist in a crossroad of sorts between two forces in equilibrium?
Are black holes just more massive curves in space-time?
New Physics?
Is there a means to harness this knowledge?
Was it utilized by ancients?
These are the things that race through my head.



There are alot of really interesting ideas related to space/time on the forefront of science and physics right now.

I just finished reading "The Universe in a Nutshell" by Stephen Hawking. Towards the end he started discussing dark matter. Of coarse, dark matter fills most of the known universe yet we have no idea what it is. All we know is it creates an intense gravity field, enough to keep stars clusters, galaxies, and galaxy clusters from hurling their contents in all directions.

Thus, Stephen Hawking postulates that dark matter is, essentially, gravity bleeding through from other dimensions of space/time. In parallel universes, which would likely be superimposed over our own reality, galaxies would likely exist in the same location as ours or perhaps in a slightly different locations.

For example, in a parallel universe the andromeda galaxy might be a few hundred thousand miles further away from us. In another, andromeda might be a few thousand light years closer. In each universe, andromeda would produce gravity. Some of that gravity might be bleeding through into our "version" of space/time.

If the gravity is dense enough, in the sagitarrius galaxy cluster for example, the dark matter would be so intense that it would hold the entire galaxy cluster together.

The multiverse would basically be the glue holding everything together in our universe. All galaxies, galaxy clusters, star clusters, etc..etc.. That would go to explain alot about the universe we observe.

Scientists now know that there isn't enough gravity being produced by our galaxy to hold it together. We can't even accurately model the creation of our solar system. Goes to show we still have alot to learn..

As far as Black Holes, all of them "bend" space time. They do so to the point that the normal laws of physics no longer apply. Nobody knows for sure what a black hole might "look" like close up or what would happen to someone falling into one. But the ultimate theory is that you would die.. Slowly. Unless you had the technology to produce negative gravity and offset the effects of the time/space distortion that would increase as you approached the singularity.

Some postulate that "White Holes" might exist. Some say that it is possible all black holes have "white holes". All that matter and energy goes somewhere. You could basically think of a black hole like a vacuum cleaner, a white hole like the vacuum cleaner on "reverse" (like we always see in cartoons). The point of connection would be a wormhole.

Wormholes would be one possible way of traveling to a parallel universe OR traveling to our own universe at another location and/or in the distant past or future.

I once posted on ATS about how all the matter and energy going into a black hole might find its way back to the instant of the big bang. In this case, all (or at least some) black holes might have a singular white hole that disperses that energy instantaneously.

To think of it that way in linear time is kind of mind boggling. It would be more like the probability of all the future black holes existing being responsible for creating the big bang...

-ChriS



posted on May, 5 2011 @ 10:00 PM
link   
Same site as OP


Time and space, according to Einstein's theories of relativity, are woven together, forming a four-dimensional fabric called "space-time." The mass of Earth dimples this fabric, much like a heavy person sitting in the middle of a trampoline. Gravity, says Einstein, is simply the motion of objects following the curvaceous lines of the dimple.


Something that has always bothered me about this illustration of gravity:
The force that causes the the earth to "sit on" the fabric of space-time heavily enough to cause a dent in it is, to my mind, gravity, acting in a fashion quite different from that which Einstein describes as he points out how a smaller body will be pulled into the dimple (gravitational field) of the larger one, orbiting the larger one as its momentum causes it to follow the shape of the dimple, & increasing its speed as it falls further into the dimple.

It always seemed to me that Einstein was using one still-mysterious, unexplained facet of gravity to illustrate another facet of that force, putting that facet forth as the overall explanation of "what gravity is". This overlooks the action that, as a property of the mass of the object (in this case, the Earth), somehow enables gravity to pull on the Earth hard enough to exert a force pressing into the space-time continuum, causing it to bend.
For that matter, this same property of gravity also causes the smaller body to fall further into the dimple, exerting the same "pull" on it, in addition to & apart from its movement in space-time.

So, & I've never been able to decide on an answer to this, is this a flawed explanation of gravity, an incomplete one, or maybe just some kind of massive oversight? Anyone know if there has ever been any additional theory put forth dealing with this, or am I missing something in this illustration, the lack of which has caused me more than one headache-inducing journey into Relativity Land?
edit on 5/5/11 by BuzzCory because: Clarification, I hope...



posted on May, 5 2011 @ 10:11 PM
link   
reply to post by TheseFeveredEgos
 


This is really cool that you brought this up. I remember reading about this about four years ago and I couldn't wait to see what the results would be back then. I slowly forgot about the whole thing until you posted your thread.

I remember being intrigued and I still am about the gyroscopes used in the experiment. The most perfect spheres ever created I believe. Star and flag and thanks again for reminding me!


Imagine a GP-B gyroscope enlarged to the size of the Earth. On Earth, the tallest mountains, like Mount Everest, are tens of thousands of feet high. Likewise, the deepest ocean trenches are tens of thousands of feet deep. By contrast, if a GP-B gyroscope were enlarged to the size of the Earth, its tallest mountain or deepest ocean trench would be only eight feet!


einstein.stanford.edu...



posted on May, 6 2011 @ 02:21 AM
link   
reply to post by Bhadhidar
 


i think alot of what we're talking about is the same thing, just phrased differently. lightspeed is slowing down. it is possible to bend space-time to make things closer and farther away. luckily it doesn't happen naturally on a universal scale (black holes seem to break down time). what i meant by time being physical is that yes, it doesn't change by itself, but our movement through it does change(perception). so from a 5th dimensional view(you would see the whole line of existance from time's beginning to its end), it remains the same, but from a 3rd dimensional view, it changes. our speed in the 4th dimension isn't static overall, as i said, speed, gravity, and other things can affect how fast something travels through the 4th dimension. its all about perspective.

a watch has no perspective. it merely tracks our speed thorough the 4th dimension. notice, those people in spaceships can't persieve the difference. thats why its called "relativity". relative to the personal "clock".

someone walking 5 miles an hour forward and shining a light should cause the photons to break lightspeed by 5 mph (this is impossible), but it doesn't. similarly, if you are travelling at light speed, and you shine a light forward, it will travel at the speed of light away from you, but to an outside observer it won't be travelling twice as fast as photots he is emitting. its all relative to perspective in spacetime and we don't really understand why.

time and space are the same thing, just moving sideways to one another. you can't have space without time, and vice versa.

to the above poster^

did you know that a pool ball enlarged to the size of earth would be less round/smooth? i'm obsessed with things being perfect. perfectly straight lines, perfect circles, things the exact same distance apart. it makes me sad that none of it will ever truly be perfect. it isn't even possible.
edit on 6-5-2011 by Bob Sholtz because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 6 2011 @ 10:26 AM
link   
I still contend that this model is flawed. Space is not a flat plain. The “fat man on a trampoline” example is ignorant. Gravity does not pull you down, it pulls you towards the center. If this model were accurate then every object orbiting another object would be slowly gathering in a pool at the bottom of the object with the largest mass.

But what do I know, I’m just a mad man.



posted on May, 6 2011 @ 04:33 PM
link   
reply to post by neo96
 


Backwards, neo96: Time slows near large objects!







 
8
<<   2 >>

log in

join