Space-Time question, can this happen, need your input

page: 1
14
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join

posted on Feb, 13 2013 @ 09:13 PM
link   
so you think you know about space and time? ok, now factor in light...
factor in how light can variate our understanding of how space and time works, in respect of the observer.

Looking at our solar system
Then trying to wrap my brain around space-time and how our sun effects it

wondering if i can contribute what I think I know about the role the sun plays… to our neighbouring planets?

I briefly thought of something, my brain eventually dismissed it, but I want to share this 0.000001 secs of my brain wave….and what I “downloaded”, I think needs to be shared….lol

Ok

I,ll just say it, and then explain it

What if…the planets in our solar system….are all the same planet…in different stages of its life!?

Hear me out

Each planet existing in its own dimension of space-time
The further from the sun….the “older” the planet is in that dimension of space-time

The planets, starting from mercury, look like an evolutionary process, from start to finish.


Mercury - newly born… Venus - maturing… earth - alive in prime….mars-dying… asteroid belt - disintegrated/dead….Jupiter - gravity reforming light elements, larger pieces as moons…..Saturn - moons disintegrate, become rings, core becomes more dense…Uranus - dying gas giant…..Pluto - dead


If we factor out “movement” in spacetime…and look at it as a still/moving image….of all dimensions….in one image…is that not like an evolutionary process??

what if we ae looking at our past and future...in different leaps of realms...all in the same place, all within the age of the sun in its 8 or 9 dimensions....

Ouch my head! lol

But how can we see the planets?…light is a wonder

Forgive me…I needed to share
Just something to think about…while we learn

peace
edit on 13-2-2013 by thePharaoh because: (no reason given)




posted on Feb, 13 2013 @ 09:20 PM
link   
It's all a hologram dude.

Universe is a computer simulation.

None of space is real.



posted on Feb, 13 2013 @ 09:36 PM
link   
No worries. This is exactly how the process of discovery and self awareness begins. This is truly a valid concept and aside from the "simulated universe", I've pondered the idea that planets are in various states of existence, especially Venus, Earth, and Mars.

Excellent post, and I think it's great that you're sharing your ideas. You really give the readers something to think about.



posted on Feb, 13 2013 @ 09:41 PM
link   
No, I do not think it would be even remotely possible to entertain that idea.

To me the underlying fabric of space is such that it exists on all dimensions, at all times and in all possibilities. It's the one uniform thing, but we cannot describe it. It is beyond our simplistic 3 dimensional reality, of which we can only ever really understand 2 dimensions under the illusion of 3 by the mechanism of our brain which developed this ability over evolution.

Like a magnetic field is only visible when we interfere with it. There is something at the very fabric of space-time that causes everything to occur, and it doesn't follow strict 3d rules so we cannot see it.

Like looking at a tesseract in 3d. We see one 'frame' of the entire 4d object. You can change the frame, you can change the shape. It still represents 1 frame of a 4d object. As 3d is to 2d, in there is no way to perceive the 3rd dimension, the 4th dimension cannot be seen or understood properly in terms we can comprehend sufficiently.

The planets are planets. Each unique, distinct and separate. There is no hidden law that defines them as separate to earth or the moon. The sun is not a cause of reality, it is a result of it. The gravity it has is only the resulting interference of it and the underlying nature of space-time. And all we can see is how it affects objects. We cannot ever fully understand the complex and random nature of things at the base level, because we can never ever fully see or realise it.

Things work at the subatomic level far removed from what we can observe in the macrocosm.

Anything we think we know, is only a frame of what the total is. And we will never know any more than this.

We're not living in a hologram, or a computer program. Any more than the goldfish in the bowl is living in a bubble.

We either define our limited understanding of reality as it is, and get on with life.
Or we try vainly to grasp the intricate impossibilities of infinity in the microcosm as with the macrocosm, and end up insane.



posted on Feb, 13 2013 @ 09:41 PM
link   
Don't feel like you're crazy for thinking outside the box. This is how we make discoveries, by thinking FREELY.


I have wondered that myself from time to time, while pondering over time itself.

To wonder what if everything is happening NOW and we see it, just don't notice it.

I've been there dude! lol



posted on Feb, 13 2013 @ 09:44 PM
link   
reply to post by winofiend
 


Everything you are saying is true. To an extent.

Its the "purpose" that's being dismissed by your frame of thought.

What if though, everything had a purpose in this dimension (as well as others), on behalf of the grander scale of things?



posted on Feb, 13 2013 @ 09:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by cybro
It's all a hologram dude.

Universe is a computer simulation.

None of space is real.


I thought, you know I'd be interested to see what this refers to, as I've read thoughts on this before.

Then I saw who it was.

Oh well, that's that then... what a shame..



posted on Feb, 13 2013 @ 10:01 PM
link   
reply to post by MamaJ
 


This may be, but we can't determine it from our perspective.

It's like we can only ever see one side of the equation.

? + 1 = 2. we know the unknown is 1. But from our perspective, ? + 1 = infinity. We can't determine what the unknown is. we can only ever speculate. There is yet no unifying answer.

And we'll never be able to prove one way or the other if we're even close. We can only see a correlative outcome by experiments we can perform at our level of understanding, and from these we see random outcomes at the quantum level.

Where is the electron as it spins around the atom? Everywhere and no where. Is light a particle or a wave.

Imagine music being played at the subatomic level. As it changes, so do the things it effects at that level, which only become apparent to us by that slight frame we may be able to determine in some convaluted experiment where we have to change the parameters to see the result.

We change the flow of music to hear an atom spin.

If it were music, by time we repeat the experiment, the song have changed.

For all we know, god is listening to his ipod and that's why we exist.

we'll never know.. it's not dismissive, it's just knowing an inability to ever know.



posted on Feb, 13 2013 @ 10:05 PM
link   
That's an interesting perspective OP. If I may add another perspective on the same theme.

The differences in the apparent states of the planetary bodies are a function of the changes of energy level to the distance from the sun. Since light/energy/gravity follow the inverse square law [Inverse Square Law], and the light from the sun represents/carries the energy it is producing, including the solar wind of charged particles.

The closer to the source (Mercury) the hotter and seemingly younger since there can be no change possible there.

Get a little further away (Venus) and the energy drops off to a point where the solar wind can no longer overcome the planet's gravity to hold its atmosphere. But, the energy level is still high enough to heat the planet, causing massive volcanism, resulting in the CO2 level skyrocketing from the eruptions, triggering a runaway greenhouse effect. That much atmosphere created even more pressure, and with pressure comes more heat etc...

Just a mere "hop" further and a planet (Earth) is in that delicate balance of distance from the Suns energy and the cold of space. The temps are high enough for water to exist in various forms (solid, liquid, gas), moderate atmosphere, moderate volcanism, heavier gases can be retained, etc...

Further out still, a planet (Mars) has even less energy....but the size of Mars means a weaker gravitational field which cannot hold its atmosphere either so it remains cold with less energy.

Asteroid belt it at a position between the sun, Mars and Jupiter where the gravitational forces of all three prevent the formation of another planet there....similar to a resonant frequency distance.

At the distance of the remaining planets, the lighter gases are so cold that they begin to condense (like water vapor condensing on a glass of ice water in the summer), which is why these atmospheres are made up almost exclusively of these lighter gases that are more rare on the inner planets.

etc....

So, what you could be perceiving is really the inverse square law in action, manifesting itself in many different aspects (or dimensions) such as light, heat, gravity, solar wind, etc...





posted on Feb, 13 2013 @ 10:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by thePharaoh
What if…the planets in our solar system….are all the same planet…in different stages of its life!?


No, that doesn't work at all, I'm afraid.


Mercury - newly born… Venus - maturing… earth - alive in prime….mars-dying… asteroid belt - disintegrated/dead….Jupiter - gravity reforming light elements, larger pieces as moons…..Saturn - moons disintegrate, become rings, core becomes more dense…Uranus - dying gas giant…..Pluto - dead


Mercury is not newly born -- in fact, there's a lot of craters on it and on Venus and all the other planets. They are chemically different, they have different elemental compositions, they have different metallic core sizes -- and that doesn't even bring in the part about moons the size of Pluto, asteroid belts, Kuyper Belt Objects (Sedna, etc), extinct volcanoes on many planets and so on and so forth.

The light from the sun reaches us in 8 minutes, so the Mercury we see is actually 8 minutes younger than it really is. Light takes about 5 1/2 hours to get from Earth to Pluto, so the Pluto we see is around 6 hours younger than it currently is.

And remember the inverse square law.



posted on Feb, 13 2013 @ 10:15 PM
link   
its because im tired of using logic, when dealing with an issue in which we know not the foundations of.

how can i build a logical model, without knowing my initial "step" forward...?

i was using ration....

as our existance is very short in the grand scheme of "light"! lol

using logic, in this "settled" ages....is like
looking at a ruler...and only using a spectrum of 1mm

making logic in this field....dunce!

without logic...my brain is taking leaps of faith...hence the ration and the "hypothesis" lol

yea i dont agree...with myself lol....but im saying there is "wiggle-room" to talk BS...cause we dont really know...do we?


thanx for entertaining my thoughts

much appreciated

peace
edit on 13-2-2013 by thePharaoh because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 13 2013 @ 10:19 PM
link   
reply to post by thePharaoh
 


Different sizes, shapes, compositions, atmosphere, colours, orbits, angular moments, magnetic fields, electrostatic effects, to name a few points of difference.

Not to mention that they are all gravitationally linked, physically distant and affect each other in more ways than reflected light.

They are not even slightly possibly the same planet.

They are, however, mostly round, which is one similarity.
edit on 13/2/2013 by chr0naut because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 13 2013 @ 10:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by Byrd
No, that doesn't work at all, I'm afraid.


maybe.. but do you really know that it really doesnt? lol



Mercury is not newly born -- in fact, there's a lot of craters on it and on Venus and all the other planets.

how about
newly born, without a magnetic field or atmosphere...like a volcanic hard crust moon
hence being unprotected against meteors

and with venus..its growing an atmosphere
ie...just been hit by a comet


once again just saying



posted on Feb, 13 2013 @ 10:28 PM
link   
reply to post by thePharaoh
 


I also wonder about the logic of a disintegrated dead planet (the asteroid belt) doing the jump from rubble back to a gas giant (Jupiter) in the middle. How does this form anything like a sequence?

Additionally, the true sizes and spacings of the planets are not actually anything like in this image.

edit on 13/2/2013 by chr0naut because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 13 2013 @ 10:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by chr0naut
reply to post by thePharaoh
 


Different sizes, shapes, compositions, atmosphere, colours, orbits, angular moments, magnetic fields, electrostatic effects, to name a few points of difference.


yes i know

but if you need a scenario to trigger a thought, here is one

mercury...then add atmosphere, as well as added chemicals from a comet....with core expanded = venus

settelled chemical reaction...= earth

minus water... probably add moon crashing into earth = mars

asteriod belt = large asteriod crashing into mars

jupiter = collection of debris...light parts as planet. large as moons




thank you



Not to mention that they are all gravitationally linked, physically distant and affect each other in more ways than reflected light.

just realised...im not using gravity, but rather an unknown law of attraction...as well

ie..jupiters moons....orbiting a gas planet,



as i said..its BS...but we do use this when addressing different galaxies dont we

peace
edit on 13-2-2013 by thePharaoh because: (no reason given)
edit on 13-2-2013 by thePharaoh because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 13 2013 @ 10:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by thePharaoh

Originally posted by Byrd
No, that doesn't work at all, I'm afraid.


maybe.. but do you really know that it really doesnt? lol



Mercury is not newly born -- in fact, there's a lot of craters on it and on Venus and all the other planets.

how about
newly born, without a magnetic field or atmosphere...like a volcanic hard crust moon
hence being unprotected against meteors

and with venus..its growing an atmosphere
ie...just been hit by a comet


once again just saying


Except Mercury has BOTH and atmosphere and a magnetic field:

Atmosphere of Mercury


Mercury has a very tenuous and highly variable atmosphere (surface-bound exosphere) containing hydrogen, helium, oxygen, sodium, calcium, potassium and water vapor, with a combined pressure level of about 10−14 bar (1 nPa).[2] The exospheric species originate either from the Solar wind or from the planetary crust. Solar light pushes the atmospheric gases away from the Sun, creating a comet-like tail behind the planet.


Mercury's Magnetic Field


Despite its small size and slow 59-day-long rotation, Mercury has a significant, and apparently global, magnetic field. According to measurements taken by Mariner 10, it is about 1.1% as strong as the Earth’s. The magnetic field strength at the Mercurian equator is about 300 nT.[63][64] Like that of Earth, Mercury's magnetic field is dipolar.[62] Unlike Earth, Mercury's poles are nearly aligned with the planet's spin axis.[65] Measurements from both the Mariner 10 and MESSENGER space probes have indicated that the strength and shape of the magnetic field are stable.[65]


Also, Mercury rotates faster than Venus at 3.02 m/s. Venus has only a 1.81 m/s rotation rate......

So how did Mercury slow down to be Venus, then speed up to be Earth?

Also, how do you explain each planet's inclination to the plane of the solar system?

Mercury is 7 degrees to the ecliptic. Venus is 3.39 degrees to the ecliptic. Earth is 7.15 degrees to the ecliptic.....Mars is 1.85 degrees.......



posted on Feb, 13 2013 @ 10:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by chr0naut
reply to post by thePharaoh
 


I also wonder about the logic of a disintegrated dead planet (the asteroid belt) doing the jump from rubble back to a gas giant (Jupiter) in the middle. How does this form anything like a sequence?

Additionally, the true sizes and spacings of the planets are not actually anything like in this image.

edit on 13/2/2013 by chr0naut because: (no reason given)


maybe

the one asteriod that contained the core of the earth/mars...i take it they will be the strongest atoms

is now the core of jupiter, and has an attraction of EM forces NOT gravity

moons eventually collide...one after the other, dislodging orbits
becoming saturns belt of dust

i should write a movie lol

peace dude
edit on 13-2-2013 by thePharaoh because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 13 2013 @ 11:01 PM
link   
going away from the sun...the planets have a different rate of time...due to not only axis...but orbit

if one can factor out the observer....surely the answer will be purer!



posted on Feb, 13 2013 @ 11:33 PM
link   
As soon as you start ANY statement out with "What if ... ", you may as well just stop right there and let monkeys fly out of any and every orifice you claim ownership to.

What if ... ?

Yeah.
What if we had two heads?
What if we were like clownfish and changed sexes throughout our development?
What if unicorns and dragons and fairies and elves and all the other Dungeons and Dragons trappings were real?

The moment you say "What if ... ?", you take the conversation back to a wide-eyed childhood fantasy land of gawking at the universe from a wide-eyed child's entirely uneducated and completely ignorant point of view.

What if we all had six fingers on each hand?
What if there was no such thing as war?
What if we were all blind and used sonar like bats?
What if?

It goes on and on.
Anyone can play the "What if ... ?" game.

That's all it is, however; a game, and an integral part of childhood developmental processing in exercising imagination, but, beyond that, it's just "What if ... ?"



posted on Feb, 14 2013 @ 03:07 AM
link   
reply to post by thePharaoh
 


Interesting theory... Seeing the planets lined up like that does indeed remind me of the chart we see on human evolution.

Question - Does the asteroid belt between Mars and Jupiter represent a mid-life crisis?

While typing this response I remeber reading some time back about different dimensions and how they relate to Earth and our solar system. One of those articles suggested that each planet in our solar system is hospitable to life based on the dimension occupied.

The example given talked about current Earth and the form we are in now. It discussed the criteria for life as we see it in this form, while also noting the other planets could not support human life. As we move into the next dimension the theory is life would be located on say Mars. The enviornment there can support life and Earth would be toxic an uninhabitable to us. It moved from inner to outer panets like you were talking about.

I will dig around and see if I can find the article. It does a better job of expplaining the concept.

Either or an interesting topic..





top topics
 
14
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join