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.
Originally posted by the sloth
reply to post by tkwasny
Thank you for ranting. I've often felt that since gravity appears to pull inwards, that time (or positional change if you will) must be working inwards as well. Perhaps, like I believe you somewhat stated, this is due to an expansion and simultaneous implosion of the universe. Consider for a moment (and this is going to sound ludicrous, but just indulge me) a universe in which the laws of electromagnetism, strong, and weak were the same as ours, except matter repelled the space-time fabric instead of drawing it in. So instead of matter being drawn to matter it would instead tend to repel it. I imagine the universe would be mostly gas, dust and liquids. I'm not sure what the ratio of empty space to matter is exactly in the universe, but I'm betting that in such a world there world be a noble attempt by every atom and molecule to fill every void in the cosmos. The only kinds of attractions going on would be large scale electromagnetic attractions. At this point, that universe would be behaving macroscopically as our universe behaves microscopically. I'm not sure how accurate of a description that was for this preposterous world. I've never postulated anything so ridiculous before. I'm merely trying to grasp a higher understanding of gravity by throwing abstract scenarios about I suppose.
Originally posted by lifestudent
reply to post by the sloth
Very interesting post... I once had an opportunity to meet Steven Hawking, and I asked him if he believed we'd find a way to create anti-gravity. His answer was "I don't believe in anti-gravity because that would mean there would also be time travel, and I have never met someone from the future."
Your post, whether true or not, makes sense in my opinion.
Originally posted by Fromabove
Originally posted by lifestudent
reply to post by the sloth
Very interesting post... I once had an opportunity to meet Steven Hawking, and I asked him if he believed we'd find a way to create anti-gravity. His answer was "I don't believe in anti-gravity because that would mean there would also be time travel, and I have never met someone from the future."
Your post, whether true or not, makes sense in my opinion.
What is amazing is that Stephen Hawking actually believes in gravity. There is only space-time displacement causing a curvature in the area around any mass. It is still refered to as gravity but there is no real force there at all, and if it were not for the presence of a mass such as a planet, moon, or even a grain of sand, space-time would not be displaced creating a void in which other objects near by would simply start to fall into.
As far as him never meeting someone from the future, so that means he can't believe in time travel is like saying I've never been to the south pole so it doesn't exist. I think Einstein was more correct.
edit on 28-5-2013 by Fromabove because: (no reason given)
Originally posted by raj10463
(space + time) * (mass + force) = gravity : the result of space/time and mass/force is gravity.
Originally posted by raj10463
Originally posted by Fromabove
Originally posted by lifestudent
reply to post by the sloth
Very interesting post... I once had an opportunity to meet Steven Hawking, and I asked him if he believed we'd find a way to create anti-gravity. His answer was "I don't believe in anti-gravity because that would mean there would also be time travel, and I have never met someone from the future."
Your post, whether true or not, makes sense in my opinion.
What is amazing is that Stephen Hawking actually believes in gravity. There is only space-time displacement causing a curvature in the area around any mass. It is still refered to as gravity but there is no real force there at all, and if it were not for the presence of a mass such as a planet, moon, or even a grain of sand, space-time would not be displaced creating a void in which other objects near by would simply start to fall into.
As far as him never meeting someone from the future, so that means he can't believe in time travel is like saying I've never been to the south pole so it doesn't exist. I think Einstein was more correct.
edit on 28-5-2013 by Fromabove because: (no reason given)
in order to time travel you need anti gravity which goes against basic mechanics.
Originally posted by Fromabove
As far as him never meeting someone from the future, so that means he can't believe in time travel is like saying I've never been to the south pole so it doesn't exist. I think Einstein was more correct.