Can we push "space" or turn it off?

a reply to: Xeven

I was looking for answers the alike your own..
This video explained it for me

a reply to: wildespace

No even than space is nothing objects on space react. It really isn't all that much difrence considering I teach theoretical physics. Problem is we can't find amy thing that produces gravity. There is no turning it on or off the only person that has been experimentally proven to be right is Einstine. Currently we have not been able to find anything that can link thr quantum world to gravity in the real world. The current understanding of gravity is based on Albert Einstein's general theory of relativity. We have not been able to discover quantum gravity. So I wasn't going to confuse you with possibilities.

But I will say for quantum gravity to be proved it must operate in the realm relativity that is its standard for proof. So nothing I said would make the slightest difrence in quantum physics only the method would change.

originally posted by: wildespace

originally posted by: rockintitz
a reply to: Xeven

Space is just that, space. As close to nothingness as you can get.

And yet, the absolute nothingness doesn't exist, and space is actually a "something" that can be bent, has some intrinsic energy, and can give rise to particles. In fact, the Big Bang and our whole existence could be due to false vaccum decaying to a lower energy state.

For the poster of this thread (and for everybody else), you might be interested in reading about the Casimir effect, which is a pushing force exerted by vaccum, thanks to quantum fluctuations of vacuum energy. In fact, I believe that the expansion of the universe is due to this effect.

Speaking of space and gravity, you must not forget the "time" component of space-time. Gravity not only bends space, but also slows the local time down. Standing on a very massive planet, you would age slower than the guy who lives on an asteroid.

As a bonus to all these tidbits of information, here's my video that illustrates how mass and gravity bends space - shown in 3D rather than with that lame and innacurate "trampoline" analogy:

www.youtube.com...

So time...seems like time is a measurement of the interactions between " fabric of space" and "mass particles"? So the more space that is bent into a portion of mass slows those interactions down. Add more mass you get more space fabric interacting with the local "mass particles". Such as the speed electrons orbit a nucleus slows in heavy gravity thus we age slower? Even though a year still seems like a year, everything ages (interacts) slower? Or like in a sponge when it gets full the water flows through it slower.

Call the sponge space and mass and the water is time? The more dense the sponge the slower the time/water?

originally posted by: Xeven

So gravity is basically the result of interaction between space and matter? Space is really gravity if you are matter?

Gravity is movement of spacetime. That's about as simple as it gets.

All matter exerts a force on spacetime, which is essentially energy. This force leads to a type of gravitational 'current' that results in an overall attraction between two masses. This is typically represented as a 'bending' of spacetime for sake of simplicity. At the same time, matter itself is also energy (E=mc^2) but it is energy that has somehow become trapped in spacetime. I believe this to be the result of a standing wave equation, the stable frequency of which would be determined by the resonance of spacetime.

Planck's Constant also equates energy to frequency (E=hf) or wavelength. That means hf=mc^2, or that all energy has a mass equivalent. This mass equivalent is typically so small, however, that we have not yet been able to measure it (to the best of my knowledge). Even frequencies as high as light frequencies are orders of magnitude less than that of, say, a proton. I ran some calcs some years ago that indicated the measured size of subatomic particles were predictable from a multiple of their energy-equivalent wavelength. Unfortunately, those calcs are locked up in an old, dead, hard drive.

So in summary, everything is energy in spacetime. Matter is 'trapped' energy embedded in spacetime; gravity is an inward movement of spacetime created by matter. This causes us to observe gravity as an attraction between mass.

TheRedneck

originally posted by: TheRedneck
So in summary, everything is energy in spacetime.

Actually, I think of matter as "condensed" spacetime. This condensation of spacetime is also what causes time to slow down, and the slowing down of time, in turn, is what causes gravity. Mass gravitates (forgive me for using that word) towards space where time flows slower. You could think of this in terms of osmosis: curved space with slower time is like salty water, attracting fresh water (i.e. the less-curved space with faster-flowing time).

P.S. I think this thread might be served better in the Science & Technology forum.

originally posted by: TheRedneck

originally posted by: Xeven

So gravity is basically the result of interaction between space and matter? Space is really gravity if you are matter?

Gravity is movement of spacetime. That's about as simple as it gets.

All matter exerts a force on spacetime, which is essentially energy. This force leads to a type of gravitational 'current' that results in an overall attraction between two masses. This is typically represented as a 'bending' of spacetime for sake of simplicity. At the same time, matter itself is also energy (E=mc^2) but it is energy that has somehow become trapped in spacetime. I believe this to be the result of a standing wave equation, the stable frequency of which would be determined by the resonance of spacetime.

Planck's Constant also equates energy to frequency (E=hf) or wavelength. That means hf=mc^2, or that all energy has a mass equivalent. This mass equivalent is typically so small, however, that we have not yet been able to measure it (to the best of my knowledge). Even frequencies as high as light frequencies are orders of magnitude less than that of, say, a proton. I ran some calcs some years ago that indicated the measured size of subatomic particles were predictable from a multiple of their energy-equivalent wavelength. Unfortunately, those calcs are locked up in an old, dead, hard drive.

So in summary, everything is energy in spacetime. Matter is 'trapped' energy embedded in spacetime; gravity is an inward movement of spacetime created by matter. This causes us to observe gravity as an attraction between mass.

TheRedneck

I like the description but I would change one thing. Gravity is a contraction of spacetime. When a mass or energy is in space time it causes this contraction of space time we see as an attractive force. I'll have to find a paper I read but it was interesting. It was discussing why we only see effects of inflation in areas wit no matter. We know the areas between galaxies is expanding. Litterally space is being created. Yet inside galaxies thus doesn't occur. The reason is mass causes a contraction of space time. This contraction in effect is gravity.

If this is correct it would fall on line with relativity. Since Einstine would say gravity works in both directions. Meaning I could say you fall towards the earth or the earth falls toward you.

a reply to: wildespace
a reply to: dragonridr

'Condensed' is a useful model for comprehension; you are both essentially correct.

I'm sure we have all seen the pictures and videos (I think someone posted some earlier) that show spacetime bent downward in a funnel shape and objects settling down into that funnel. It's essentially an accurate model, except that there is no up or down in space. For comprehension purposes it works, because people are comfortable with the idea that things move 'down' naturally. Stephen Hawkins has used this model many times to help explain his theories. But the better model (and the one Hawkins uses in his calculations) is that the spacetime is in motion toward all nearby masses.

The same with 'condensed spacetime.' Consider a body of water and a vacuum placed in the middle of it. The water will all start to move toward the vacuum, but the water closest to the vacuum will be moving much faster than water far from the vacuum. As each water molecule gets closer to the vacuum it will move faster and faster, because the area around the vacuum is smaller the closer to the vacuum it is. Similarly, as spacetime moves toward a mass, it moves faster the closer it gets to the mass. When it moves at the speed of light (relative to a stationary observer) we call that the Schartzchild's Radius, or in the case of a black hole, the Event Horizon.

So yes, as spacetime approaches matter, its speed increase can indeed be visualized as a type of 'condensation.'

TheRedneck

a reply to: TheRedneck

An event horizon is where space is curved effectively cutting off that area from our universe. There is litterally no path to return. Think of a highway and everything travels along perfectly straight roads. As you cross an event horizon these perfectly straight roads only lead back to where you started. I'll see if I can explain how something straight can be curved. Let's say we are an ant on a basketball. As an ant we can use simple geometry to create a straight line. So as an ant we take a small area and draw a straight line than thr next then the next and so on. To an ant he has walked in a perfectly straight line.

But now being humans we can see that the ant did not in fact he walked along a curve. Space time works similar if I take an area of space and I start drawing straight lines they will be perfectly straight. But when we look at it on a bigger scale we see it was actually curved. This essentially means the universe behaves one way on a small scale and entirely diffrent on a large scale. So how can space curve without us noticing and thinking it's straight??

Well that deals with geodesics which is simply what we get when we aply a straight line to a curved surface. To get into orbit we have to do something interesting we use rocket power to essentially keep missing the earth. This is why when we launch instead of going straight up a rocket starts traveling east the higher it gets the more eastward it's travel. What we are doing is constantly changing the highway i was telling you about all hwys lead back to Earth as well close to the ground . But luckily for us there is ones that are higher up that take longer to return. Amd ones above that that dont return at all.Are goal is to get to one that doesn't return at all but misses the ground. This is all an orbit is a freefall that misses thr ground. And interestingly the rocket travels in a straight liNE as far as astronauts are concerned. Realize that rockets only push in one direction.

a reply to: dragonridr

Curvature is, again, a concept used to comprehend. It's more like what happens when you try to drive a boat in a straight line against a cross current. Your path will veer with the current, despite the fact you're steering perfectly straight. In the case of an Event Horizon, anything moving into it at a tangent, with the proper momentum, would forever orbit the black hole. Anything moving into the Event Horizon at a non-tangential trajectory would pass through it.

Remember that Einstein's Relativity is based on velocity with respect to an observer. As stationary observers relative to the black hole, we would never see the movement inside the black hole, but relative to whatever entered it (which I will call the target), its trajectory would appear undisturbed; it would no longer be able to observe us.

So what actually happens? Einstein gives us a mathematical clue. Observed velocity would, at the Event Horizon, be 0 (some number divided by infinity). But simple geometry tells us the speed of spacetime must continue to increase as we approach the singularity. When v>c in Einstein's equations, the result is a multiple of the imaginary number i.

i is essentially an orthogonal shift in the equations. We would see the target stop and literally freeze on the Event Horizon. The target would not notice itself 'freezing in place' because it is still moving along with spacetime, just now in a new direction (or dimension). It would see us freeze on its side of the Event Horizon, never to move again. In other words, we cannot observe past the Event Horizon in either direction.

That is not a 'cutting off' from the universe, however. We might observe it as such, but the target would not.

I could go into the details of the math or where the target would finally wind up, but I'll save that for another post.

TheRedneck

*The above assumes the target could survive the gravitational forces that exist near an Event Horizon for purposes of explanation.

a reply to: Xeven

Do you mean like what The Time Machine did?

Inadvertently HG Wells separated time from space.

On the other hand, traveling through space, without time, would do what? lol!

Or is that what a wormhole does?

I'm so confused!

originally posted by: burgerbuddy
a reply to: Xeven

traveling through space, without time

Now you're describing travelling at the speed of light. When you travel at the speed of light, your time doesn't just slow down, it stops completely. So, any such travel will be instantaneous for you.

It's all described in Einstein's Special Relativity.

Weirder things happen when you (purely hypothetically) consider travelling at faster than light speed. The equation for time dilation uses a square root of a variable that approaches zero as you appearch light speed. At faster than light speed, this variable would have to be a negative number, and you can't have a real number as the square root of a negative number. That means you'd have to use imaginary numbers, implying that time, for you, would also become "imaginary". Perhaps, that would mean that you would wink out of this universe and its time flow and pop out in some parallel universe or parallel time.

originally posted by: wildespace

originally posted by: burgerbuddy
a reply to: Xeven

traveling through space, without time

Now you're describing travelling at the speed of light. When you travel at the speed of light, your time doesn't just slow down, it stops completely. So, any such travel will be instantaneous for you.

It's all described in Einstein's Special Relativity.

Weirder things happen when you (purely hypothetically) consider travelling at faster than light speed. The equation for time dilation uses a square root of a variable that approaches zero as you appearch light speed. At faster than light speed, this variable would have to be a negative number, and you can't have a real number as the square root of a negative number. That means you'd have to use imaginary numbers, implying that time, for you, would also become "imaginary". Perhaps, that would mean that you would wink out of this universe and its time flow and pop out in some parallel universe or parallel time.

Do light photons travel in warps?

originally posted by: chr0naut
Also, in the Earth's core scenario, you'd float as all the forces would oppose in balance. If you moved closer to a wall, however, you'd not be on centre anymore, you'd disturb the balance and you'd get a slight attraction to the nearest wall.

Getting a slight attraction to the nearest wall is apparently what proponents of the "hollow Earth hypothesis" think would happen, but according to our models of physics, that's not what would happen inside a uniform spherical shell, as explained here:

Gravity Force Inside a Spherical Shell

The net gravitational force on a mass m anywhere inside a uniform spherical shell of mass M is zero!

So moving closer to the wall doesn't result in any attraction to the wall.

That's not the only reason the hollow Earth theory is wrong of course, it's just one example that the proponents of the theory don't know physics. You correctly point out the other huge problem of how to keep the hollow shell from collapsing. They have more flawed ideas trying to explain that.

originally posted by: Xeven
Do light photons travel in warps?

Photons travel at Warp factor 1.0, the speed of light.

originally posted by: dragonridr
There is no point in the earth with zero g. The earth itself is in motion and as such will always create a force see above.

True, with some definitions of zero-g, or as they sometimes call it on the ISS, microgravity, where the gravity from Earth is maybe 0.9g so much closer to 1g than 0g. With other definitions of zero g the 0.9g on the ISS is called "zero-G". The usage of terminology can be a little confusing sometimes, since I've heard people refer to "zero-G" or "microgravity" aboard the ISS where gravity is not really zero. This video tries to explain the confusing terminology:

Why Isn't "Zero G" the Same as "Zero Gravity"?

a reply to: Arbitrageur
The "g" in "zero-g" stands for the force of acceleration rather than gravity. I.e. you can experience high g's in a fighter jet or racing car, but you're not actually experiencing higher gravity. That's why, I think, it's totally correct to use the term "zero-g" for weightlessness aboard the ISS - the total forces on you are equalled out and you don't feel any acceleration.

On the other hand, I find the term "microgravity" silly. What does it mean, exactly? Going just by what the word is, it should mean miniscule, almost non-existent gravity, such as there is on comets and asteroids. Nothing to do with the Earth or stuff orbiting it.

Astronauts on the ISS are almost in the full pull of Earth's gravity, but experience zero-g due to free-fall.

a reply to: wildespace
If you watched the video, it correctly says that "zero-G" probably wasn't a very good choice of terminology due to the confusion it causes, same thing with microgravity, but their usage is too common to get rid of them now.

What is Microgravity?

The condition of microgravity comes about whenever an object is in free fall.