It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Thank you.

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

# Plasma Ribbon Confirms Electric Sun

page: 49
55
share:

posted on May, 18 2014 @ 07:24 AM
Any ideas out there as to what space actually is? To my simple mind, if something can be bent/warped/curved/folded(?) then it must be something.

While I don't actually believe space is curved by gravity, I think it's possible that it could work as a model while not being the actual reality.

posted on May, 18 2014 @ 07:55 AM
Everyone has different strategies for coping with such concepts. Ima Fungi is curious and asks a lot of questions about what is the field REALLY like.

From my own perspective, my understanding of a thing is based on the measurements of it.

So, for a magnetic field, I have a lot of mental pictures combined, of the iron filings pattern approximating a visual of "field lines", to a series of compasses around the magnet showing field orientation, to field strength meters showing how the intensity of the field varies over space. Applied to those mental pictures are the mathematical formulas which seem to fit observation.

I also visualize how the field is formed by spinning electrons, but as for what the field is "made of" I have no deeper understanding.

With gravity bending space-time it's somewhat similar, I just create a visual image of our measurements superimposed on what we observe, like the curved space-time holding the moon in orbit somewhat like the rubber sheet analogy with a depression in the sheet where the Earth is.

But it's really hard for me to look at empty space and visualize a lot of properties for it.

General relativity is a good model, but not good enough to solve the unsolved quantum gravity problems, so while it's a good idea to visualize curved space in the relativity model, it may take someone thinking outside this box to solve the unsolved problems.

posted on May, 18 2014 @ 12:11 PM

My intuitive knee jerk reaction to discovering the idea that there exists an energetic medium which is curved in the presence of mass and this is the mechanism that causes planets to orbit stars and stars to orbit galaxies; was that if one were to imagine the gravity field, or all of space being composed of a 'fabric' or full of particles, call the gravitons if youd like, and this is the energetic medium of space, no matter where a mass goes in the universe it will create a gravity field (I think...of course we arent sure about outside of the galaxy, I wonder if you took our solar system and it was traveling at the same speed it is now, and you all the sudden placed it outside the galaxy if it would work exactly the same way, or if existing inside the greater gravity field of the galaxy causes some differences)

so then just think how can a ball cause another smaller ball to orbit it, without physically touching their surfaces, while both existing in the same medium?

Well if you think how if you are in a swimming pool and there is a tennis ball floating just a foot out of reach from where you are standing, you can drag the water in front of you towards you and this will cause the ball to come towards you.

The reason my intuition and logic told me the rotation of the star and planets might have something to do with orbits, is because according to that logic of, mass moves in the medium, medium changes locally, local changes of medium, affect other mass that is in sufficient proximity to the changed medium, if we imagine a rotating star in such a medium (rotating hecka fast) then perhaps the medium is also rotating locally, and it is this medium rotation that causes, like a stream, to catch a smaller body in its flow.

This concept makes the most classical sense to me, and I will admit I suppose you can get around the rotating medium part perhaps with this, maybe;

Have you ever seen those wave makers

Imagine if that was 3d enclosed, and moving through space fast. Like a mass, like the sun, moves through the medium, so it displaces the medium where it exists (this is why gravity is proportional to the mass, because more mass, more gravity field per volume displaced)

So the gravity well is a less dense area then outside the gravity well, its hollowed out in a sense, but that may imply there is a sort of lip, if it is spherical hollowed out area, not even a lip, but a half sphere wall.

Now if a body that is going to orbit a larger body enters this well at an angle, that is to say does land exactly in the bodies tail so it just shoots straight back, its pretty impossible for that to happen it seems, but if it comes into the well at an angle, if the well walls are energetically dense enough compared to the mass that will be orbiting, it will ramp along the walls and then ride around the walls, as the star constantly is moving forward, this will cause the back wall to constantly move forward, always giving a guiding force to the orbiting mass to be compelled to continue to wrap around.......maybe.

posted on May, 18 2014 @ 01:14 PM

Since you seem to be interested in space time im going to recommend you look at some of Sean Carrolls papers. Hes is heavily into figuring out space time also since we mention the observer effect he has an interesting paper on Boltzmann Brains.

www.preposterousuniverse.com...

posted on May, 18 2014 @ 02:07 PM
Apply this to the motion of comets and what do you have?

posted on May, 18 2014 @ 02:09 PM

I think its a mistake to refer to space as space time. And then to say, that 'space time' is something that actually exists in the universe. Like I think its a mistake to say that 'according to light, time doesnt exist'. I think this is all math semantics and adjustment of definitions, makes the true terms meaningless. But I will check out those links, and search for the one about 'space' I suppose.

posted on May, 18 2014 @ 02:10 PM

Can you be more specific, what are you asking?

posted on May, 18 2014 @ 02:36 PM
This is kind of how I think gravity might work.

But perhaps with the medium being more 'taught/elastic/densely stressly energetic tensor', so when the medium surrounding the 'hollowed out/displaced portion' starts to close back in, it does so at such an energy level as to be able to push a mass and keep it in orbit.

A potential conundrum. Well this is quite difficult to comprehend for me no matter how I look at it, but how a 3d well, contains 8 planets at differing distances.

So if a gravity well is a displacement of the energy density of local gravity field, to create a less dense locality, and square of the distance yes its strength diminishes, im not exactly sure how to understand this. What the field physically according to its energetic values appears at from an increasingly incremental distance, and what the mass planets are doing in that field to remain in a locked orbit. Like if planets have orbits further away from the sun, why dont the planets closer to the sun creep towards outer orbits?

Or is it all about, the local gravity field is like treadmill/stream like, and so where the planets were formed they were locked into that path, just as light will go around the gravity curves instead of going perpendicular to them, perhaps the planets were created quite near their current orbits and because the pattern of gravity waves and field movement, the planets are not compelled to go against the grain, they are compelled to follow the groove they are in?

posted on May, 18 2014 @ 04:52 PM

originally posted by: ImaFungi

Can you be more specific, what are you asking?

How is the behavior of comets or any other bodies that orbit the Sun (or crash into it) accounted for in your idea?

if we imagine a rotating star in such a medium (rotating hecka fast) then perhaps the medium is also rotating locally, and it is this medium rotation that causes, like a stream, to catch a smaller body in its flow.

Comets, for example, move in directions not attributable to rotation of any possible medium. Just wondering if you've thought about that or maybe have an answer I didn't see coming.

posted on May, 18 2014 @ 05:25 PM

originally posted by: ImaFungi

I think its a mistake to refer to space as space time. And then to say, that 'space time' is something that actually exists in the universe. Like I think its a mistake to say that 'according to light, time doesnt exist'. I think this is all math semantics and adjustment of definitions, makes the true terms meaningless. But I will check out those links, and search for the one about 'space' I suppose.

Well since we know gravity effects time and space id say the two are indeed linked. So the term isnt so useless they are both properties of our universe that occur in all of space.

posted on May, 18 2014 @ 05:42 PM

Your trying to make a medium for gravity to work in its really not necessary. When space is warped bent or folded things traveling through it do not even notice. You in a gravity well from our planet in turn its in a gravity well from our sun. Theres nothing to detect because space itself is bent around us. The only way to see the effect of space would be to be outside our universe than you can see the curves of space itself. In a way this is what Bicep 2 attempted by using background radiation to detect gravity waves. When it comes to empty space i always look at it like a canvas until you interact its blank yet it has the ability to allow us to paint on it. But like any canvas there can be different kinds which effects are paint differently.

There could be other universes where this canvas makes it impossible for particles to interact. Or this canvas may not allow time to even exist just one huge now. All the properties we attribute to space time was created when the universe began. Space time isnt an object it isnt a medium its a place that allows energy to interact and allows thing to happen in some kind of order though its all relative.
edit on 5/18/14 by dragonridr because: (no reason given)

posted on May, 18 2014 @ 11:13 PM

originally posted by: dragonridr

originally posted by: ImaFungi

I think its a mistake to refer to space as space time. And then to say, that 'space time' is something that actually exists in the universe. Like I think its a mistake to say that 'according to light, time doesnt exist'. I think this is all math semantics and adjustment of definitions, makes the true terms meaningless. But I will check out those links, and search for the one about 'space' I suppose.

Well since we know gravity effects time and space id say the two are indeed linked. So the term isnt so useless they are both properties of our universe that occur in all of space.

Time is not a thing, that is the problem. Time is not a thing. Time is not a thing. Time is not even an event. Distance is real. Energy is real. Time is an abstract, relationship between the two. Its not even a characteristic or attribute of an object. An object can decay, over space and distance, which 'over space and distance' being this measurement of time. But that measurement is just that, a measurement, not something that is actual.

Gravity doesnt affect space. If you define space as pure nothing, then no gravity does not affect that. If you define space as the sum of fields, well then I suppose it does affect it, but this just means the gravity field is coupled to the other fields in some sense. So what is your definition of space, please tell me, is it; Gravity field, higgs field, EM field, quark field, electron field? Is that your definition of space? Yes, gravity affects those fields as those fields affect gravity.

Now, to say gravity affects time. This is really saying because gravity is not really a nothingness space, that it is a medium, gravity affects velocity in distance of an absolute distance when compared to the density of the medium. I mean, depending on what we are talking about I agree in a sense that these things 'affect time'. In the sense that you can say, a runner runs faster on a track then in sand, thus sand has an affect on time. Or a plane has an affect on time, compared to a walker.

posted on May, 18 2014 @ 11:16 PM

originally posted by: DenyObfuscation

originally posted by: ImaFungi

Can you be more specific, what are you asking?

How is the behavior of comets or any other bodies that orbit the Sun (or crash into it) accounted for in your idea?

if we imagine a rotating star in such a medium (rotating hecka fast) then perhaps the medium is also rotating locally, and it is this medium rotation that causes, like a stream, to catch a smaller body in its flow.

Comets, for example, move in directions not attributable to rotation of any possible medium. Just wondering if you've thought about that or maybe have an answer I didn't see coming.

Yes it might be able to work. I have no clue how the gravity field behaves, because its not like water, or sponge, or metal, or wood, or lava, or jello, it is a very mysterious and novel material. So depending on the size of the particles, and their average distance away from one another, or average density, and the binding energy used to bind each particle, then it might be possible to imagine if a gravity field is like a 3d whirpool, which affects masses differently depending on their inherent mass, and depending on the angle at which they entered the well, and depending on the velocity at which they entered the well, it is certainly plausible that a foreign object, or even under some other condition, such as a comet, could enter in the well and have a very oblong orbit.

posted on May, 18 2014 @ 11:21 PM

originally posted by: dragonridr

Your trying to make a medium for gravity to work in its really not necessary. When space is warped bent or folded things traveling through it do not even notice. You in a gravity well from our planet in turn its in a gravity well from our sun. Theres nothing to detect because space itself is bent around us. The only way to see the effect of space would be to be outside our universe than you can see the curves of space itself. In a way this is what Bicep 2 attempted by using background radiation to detect gravity waves. When it comes to empty space i always look at it like a canvas until you interact its blank yet it has the ability to allow us to paint on it. But like any canvas there can be different kinds which effects are paint differently.

No im not trying to make a medium for gravity to work in, im saying, as the accepted theory suggests, gravity is the effect of a medium, its called the gravity field. The gravity field is a medium. Mass exists in the gravity field, the gravity field is a medium, a medium means a field of energy. When you say space time curves, and thats gravity, the masses causes the gravitons to behave a certain way, and thus the total field of gravitons appears a certain way, and it appears curved, this is a medium, I dont not care for personal games of semantics, I will not call it a medium if that is what upsets you, I will call it a field, but a field is a medium.

There could be other universes where this canvas makes it impossible for particles to interact. Or this canvas may not allow time to even exist just one huge now. All the properties we attribute to space time was created when the universe began. Space time isnt an object it isnt a medium its a place that allows energy to interact and allows thing to happen in some kind of order though its all relative.

You are so anti thinking it is embarrassing. You are good at reading and memorizing words and math. I am great at thinking. You dont know, you dont comprehend. Your knowledge is so superficial, you dont question, you dont know, you dont comprehend. Im sure you have a comfy life, and thats nice, if not, thats not nice.
edit on 18-5-2014 by ImaFungi because: (no reason given)

posted on May, 18 2014 @ 11:47 PM

Your not understanding a gravitational field at all. In a field model, rather than two particles attracting each other, the particles distort spacetime via their mass, and this distortion is what is perceived subjectively as a "force". In fact there is no force in such a model, rather matter is simply responding to the curvature of spacetime itself.

posted on May, 19 2014 @ 12:09 AM

originally posted by: dragonridr

Your not understanding a gravitational field at all. In a field model, rather than two particles attracting each other, the particles distort spacetime via their mass, and this distortion is what is perceived subjectively as a "force". In fact there is no force in such a model, rather matter is simply responding to the curvature of spacetime itself.

You are not understanding that 'space time' then is 'the gravity field', or 'the gravity field' is at least embedded in space time.

So when you say the particles distort spacetime, you are saying the particles distort the gravity field.

Or are you saying there is no such thing as a gravity field, there is only EM field, Higgs field, electron field, quark field. And they are bundled together as 'space time', and when a mass moves through them, the affect it has on them, is called 'the gravity field'? Either you are suggesting that, or you agree with me.

That a separate component, other then Em, higgs, quark, electron exists, and this is the gravity component. And this is an energy dense medium, or field, or substance, or material, that the other fields are attached to, in the way that what physically happens to this gravity component via mass, happens to light, in the sense of, light following the curve of the gravity field?

posted on May, 19 2014 @ 05:43 AM

originally posted by: ImaFungi
Time is not a thing, that is the problem. Time is not a thing. Time is not a thing. Time is not even an event. Distance is real.
If you don't think time is real, how can distance be real? We use time to define distance in the definition of a meter:

The meter is defined to be the distance light travels through a vacuum in exactly 1/299792458 seconds.

posted on May, 19 2014 @ 06:44 AM

originally posted by: Arbitrageur

originally posted by: ImaFungi
Time is not a thing, that is the problem. Time is not a thing. Time is not a thing. Time is not even an event. Distance is real.
If you don't think time is real, how can distance be real? We use time to define distance in the definition of a meter:

The meter is defined to be the distance light travels through a vacuum in exactly 1/299792458 seconds.

Energy changes. That is true and a thing. Energy existing is a thing. The fact energy changes, is a thing (the 4th dimension, time). So you say when energy changes at lesser and greater rates, thats the slowing down and speeding up of time? I think thats where terms get messy.

Like why even refer to energy then, why not just time. Like when you freeze ice cubes, you are not removing energy, you are slowing down time.

I think distance exists. And change of energy. So I guess this means I think the inch exists, and the second.

Just how the inch is a self consistent incremental system of measurement, so too is the second. Mathematically proportional, like, 1 inch, 2 inch, 3 inch, 4 inch. 1 second, 2 second, 3 second, 4 second.

So if we build a ruler for increments of time. and say a second is 1. and the ruler is a machine that is a real sensitive stop watch. Then a stop watch is like an abstract, or digital, ruler being grown. and so it starts at 0, non existence. Collaborated with the light shooter. The light is shot and the timer is started, and then when the stop watch reached that number, they moved the photon detector closer, im sure with trial and error, and with the math theory to get that exact number, until the distance between the photon nozzle and photon detector was an exact 'meter'.
edit on 19-5-2014 by ImaFungi because: (no reason given)

edit on 19-5-2014 by ImaFungi because: (no reason given)

posted on May, 19 2014 @ 10:13 AM

originally posted by: ImaFungi
Energy changes. That is true and a thing. Energy existing is a thing. The fact energy changes, is a thing (the 4th dimension, time). So you say when energy changes at lesser and greater rates, thats the slowing down and speeding up of time? I think thats where terms get messy.

Like why even refer to energy then, why not just time. Like when you freeze ice cubes, you are not removing energy, you are slowing down time.
The second was originally defined as 1/86 400 of the mean solar day, but days are getting longer so we can't have seconds that are changing, so that's why we based the newer definition of a second on energy frequency, and frequency does have time-based units, so those are what we use, not energy units.

Your idea about freezing ice cubes slowing down time is probably the most inaccurate thing I've seen you say, and there's a lot of competition for that title. Ice is not just water slowed down, it has completely different properties even if you make adjustments for time

posted on May, 19 2014 @ 12:44 PM

originally posted by: ImaFungi

originally posted by: Arbitrageur

originally posted by: ImaFungi
Time is not a thing, that is the problem. Time is not a thing. Time is not a thing. Time is not even an event. Distance is real.
If you don't think time is real, how can distance be real? We use time to define distance in the definition of a meter:

The meter is defined to be the distance light travels through a vacuum in exactly 1/299792458 seconds.

Energy changes. That is true and a thing. Energy existing is a thing.

No it's not. It's a quantifiable property of things in certain configurations, and important because it is a consequence of symmetries in physical equations of motion.

things: one fish, two fish, red fish, blue fish

properties of things: one, two, red, blue

edit on 19-5-2014 by mbkennel because: (no reason given)

new topics

top topics

55