You can't curve space

[KenBrace]

I tend to think of it like a pool of water. Imagine blowing an air compressor at a pool of water and watching the way a spherical 3D curve is formed.

[Xris]

I tend to think of it like a pool of water. Imagine blowing an air compressor at a pool of water and watching the way a spherical 3D curve is formed.

It's very nice to imagine but there is nothing for you to translate your imagination into reality. Space is not filled with anything you can replicate water.

[DarwinX]

I tend to think of it like a pool of water. Imagine blowing an air compressor at a pool of water and watching the way a spherical 3D curve is formed.

So what is blowing on space to make it curved? More hot air?

[Misty]

we know that clocks slow down in strong gravitational fields. This has been experimentally confirmed, and there is no doubt about it.

I can show the opposite, that time slows down and even stops in low/zero gravity.

So I took my hourglass to the middle of intergalactic space, and the sand didn't move. According to my hourglass clock, time stopped...

When an event stops, it is time stopping. Time is the event, the event is time.

[Steve3007]

Frank Aeillo:

Space (or rather, spacetime) does indeed curve. ...

You can then protest that four-dimensional spacetime is simply a mathematical model; an abstraction used to explain the physical phenomena. The only problem is, it's not. Gravitation is the manifestation of 4D spacetime curvature.

I would indeed protest that, but I would miss out the word "simply" and I probably wouldn't call it "protesting". Gravitation is also an abstract concept designed to describe observed physical phenomena.

[Xris]

Frank Aeillo:

Space (or rather, spacetime) does indeed curve. ... K You can then protest that four-dimensional spacetime is simply a mathematical model; an abstraction used to explain the physical phenomena. The only problem is, it's not. Gravitation is the manifestation of 4D spacetime curvature.

I would indeed protest that, but I would miss out the word "simply" and I probably wouldn't call it "protesting". Gravitation is also an abstract concept designed to describe observed physical phenomena.

But it's not that simple Steve. Science claims that empty space has an ability and then claims observations prove it. Observations can be interpreted to fit your model but it does not prove your model. How can the sun set and not believe in god?

[Val Valiant Five]

What a roller-coaster of a post this is, so many ups-and-downs! Kind of curve-y even!

The possible shape of a liner/finite universe has been explained. If you start with Einstein's notion that if you keep going in a perfectly straight line, you will eventually end up back at our starting position, then what would that accurately look like?

Take a flat circle and imagine that leaving any edge of the circle connects you to the exact opposite edge of the circle, because technically they touch. Not to get into the geometry of it, but if you wrapped that flat circle so that every edge was touching physically, then the surface space you end up with would be the shape of a doughnut.

It has even been suggested that the expansion of the universe is happening because our perspective is from a point on a linear doughnut that is constantly rotating into and out of it's center. Our universe is expanding (from our point of view) because our view is from the inner edge rotating to the outer. And that wormholes are literately holes in forth dimensional space that lead to other parts of the doughnuts surface area that is third dimensional space.

This is exactly like the CGI motion of the forth dimensional cube.

[Xris]

The concept of the torus universe has never been seriously considered because the damned BBT occupies every aspect of cosmology. Confusing movement with expansion will remain a stubborn fact no matter how illogical it appears.

[DarwinX]

The possible shape of a liner/finite universe has been explained. If you start with Einstein's notion that if you keep going in a perfectly straight line, you will eventually end up back at our starting position, then what would that accurately look like?

Just because Einstein said something doesn't make it a fact. If you go in a straight line you will not end up where you started, this is illogical. Most of Einstein's ideas were stolen from other scientists because he was a clerk in a patent office and had the golden opportunity to steal other inventors ideas and to claim them as his own. He was just a common thief who didn't have one original idea of his own during the entire course of his career. He was chosen as an ambassador of physics because he looked the part and was Jewish, which meant that he would be protected from criticism due to political correctness and fear of being called racist. Thus, a whole bunch of nutty ideas have completely permeated the physics world and have thus side-tracked the advance of science because of this.

Note - The ruling classes have planned this to happen so that the masses would never be able to understand the laws of nature and the universe. This is all part of a controlling procedure which uses ignorance as a tool of manipulation.

[Val Valiant Five]

The concept of the torus universe has never been seriously considered because the damned BBT occupies every aspect of cosmology. Confusing movement with expansion will remain a stubborn fact no matter how illogical it appears.

Now those are interesting sentences to me. ~I will be vigorously looking into this point of view.

-- Updated June 20th, 2014, 3:23 pm to add the following --

Note - The ruling classes have planned this to happen so that the masses would never be able to understand the laws of nature and the universe. This is all part of a controlling procedure which uses ignorance as a tool of manipulation.

I think I recall Michael Tsarion mentioning something about this in one of his 4 hour lectures. I will investigate what you said here with an open mind and see what I can see. ~cheers to digging deeper.

[Atreyu]

You can't curve space because space is 3 dimensional. You can only curve a 2 dimensional plane or line within space. The concept of curved space-time is logically impossible, because no one has every seen or produced 3 dimensional curved space which surrounds a sphere object such as a planet or sphere. This is why, whenever you see a demonstration of curved space time, they always use a 2 dimensional curve around a 3 dimensional sphere to demonstrate it. It's a load of nonsense, in other words.

If you want to speak in absolutes, space is not 3 dimensional. It has more than three dimensions. I personally say six but current string theory says 11 or so. Space appears to have only three dimensions because our psychic apparatus can only deal with three dimensions of space, not 5 or 7.

'Space' is not absolute. You can imagine a two dimensional 'space', the 'space' of a being living within a plane, for example. You can also imagine one dimensional 'space' --- the 'space of a being living within a line. We can even imagine 'zero dimensional space --- the point. Our direct perception of space simply is limited to three dimensions because of the limitations of our perceptive and cognitive apparatuses.

So... we can indeed imagine curving one dimensional 'space'. We can imagine a line curving as it travels through two or three dimensional space. We can also visualize curving a plane. A plane can curve as long as there exists one dimension higher in which it exists. We can bend the plane because there is another dimension one above it in which it exists. And if we draw a line on a sheet of paper, we can make it curve because it exists within a two dimensional world, the sheet of paper. So we can always curve a given 'space' if there is one dimension higher than it in which it exists. If we assume there is no higher dimension in which it is contained, then no, it does not make any sense to talk about curving a 'space' when it exists in no higher dimension of space. The next higher dimension of space allows for curvature.

Now we can extrapolate this idea to our three dimensional space. We can curve it if it indeed exists within four dimensional space, which it does. However, being able to visualize this curvature implies, as in the above examples, can we can also visualize it existing in one dimension higher. We can easily visualize two dimensional space curving because we can easily visualize it existing within three dimensional space. For us to be able to visualize three dimensional space curving, we have to be able to visualize it as existing within a four dimensional space, and as you have pointed out, this is very difficult.

The reason for this is because four dimensional space is what we perceive and cognize as chronological time. We don't perceive or cognize it as a spatial phenomena at all. Instead, we perceive it as 'before, now, and after'. 'Yesterday, today, and tomorrow'. So being able to visualize and model three dimensional space curving entails us being able to turn the phenomenon of 'before, now, and after' into something more like 'here and there'. To 'turn time into space' as it were. To be able to visualize time as a higher dimension of space, in which our entire three dimensional space is contained, rather than cognizing it as something chronological.

[Obvious Leo]

If you want to speak in absolutes, space is not 3 dimensional. It has more than three dimensions. I personally say six but current string theory says 11 or so.

There is no such thing as "current string theory". String theory has thankfully gone the way of phlogiston and nowadays almost nobody in the world of physics is still working on it. The latest fads are quantum field theory, which looks like a dead end also, and loop quantum cosmology, which may yet show some promise.

The reason for this is because four dimensional space is what we perceive and cognize as chronological time. We don't perceive or cognize it as a spatial phenomena at all. Instead, we perceive it as 'before, now, and after'. 'Yesterday, today, and tomorrow'. So being able to visualize and model three dimensional space curving entails us being able to turn the phenomenon of 'before, now, and after' into something more like 'here and there'. To 'turn time into space' as it were. To be able to visualize time as a higher dimension of space, in which our entire three dimensional space is contained, rather than cognizing it as something chronological.

This pretty much sums up why the current models in physics make no sense.

Regards Leo

[DarwinX]

If you want to speak in absolutes, space is not 3 dimensional. It has more than three dimensions. I personally say six but current string theory says 11 or so. Space appears to have only three dimensions because our psychic apparatus can only deal with three dimensions of space, not 5 or 7.

'Space' is not absolute. You can imagine a two dimensional 'space', the 'space' of a being living within a plane, for example. You can also imagine one dimensional 'space' --- the 'space of a being living within a line. We can even imagine 'zero dimensional space --- the point. Our direct perception of space simply is limited to three dimensions because of the limitations of our perceptive and cognitive apparatuses.

So... we can indeed imagine curving one dimensional 'space'. We can imagine a line curving as it travels through two or three dimensional space. We can also visualize curving a plane. A plane can curve as long as there exists one dimension higher in which it exists. We can bend the plane because there is another dimension one above it in which it exists. And if we draw a line on a sheet of paper, we can make it curve because it exists within a two dimensional world, the sheet of paper. So we can always curve a given 'space' if there is one dimension higher than it in which it exists. If we assume there is no higher dimension in which it is contained, then no, it does not make any sense to talk about curving a 'space' when it exists in no higher dimension of space. The next higher dimension of space allows for curvature.

Now we can extrapolate this idea to our three dimensional space. We can curve it if it indeed exists within four dimensional space, which it does. However, being able to visualize this curvature implies, as in the above examples, can we can also visualize it existing in one dimension higher. We can easily visualize two dimensional space curving because we can easily visualize it existing within three dimensional space. For us to be able to visualize three dimensional space curving, we have to be able to visualize it as existing within a four dimensional space, and as you have pointed out, this is very difficult.

The reason for this is because four dimensional space is what we perceive and cognize as chronological time. We don't perceive or cognize it as a spatial phenomena at all. Instead, we perceive it as 'before, now, and after'. 'Yesterday, today, and tomorrow'. So being able to visualize and model three dimensional space curving entails us being able to turn the phenomenon of 'before, now, and after' into something more like 'here and there'. To 'turn time into space' as it were. To be able to visualize time as a higher dimension of space, in which our entire three dimensional space is contained, rather than cognizing it as something chronological.

You need to watch the Carl Sargan video where he is trying to explain 4 dimensions of space. Its hilarious, he should have been a comedian, he would have made a fortune.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v

There is an endless procession of so called other dimensions, but these are called inner and outer dimensions. For example - A galaxy is an atom in another larger dimension, and an atom is a galaxy in another smaller dimension. Its all a matter of fractal reality. There are galaxies within galaxies within galaxies which extend to infinity in both directions both inwards and outwards. The concept of there being 11 dimensions is childish and narrow minded.

[enegue]

GPS does not indicate space curves.It simply confirms that time is influence by gravity.

I agree with your assertion regarding GPS and curved space, Xris. However, time is just a reference scale, not an object in motion.

... in order for the clock to work, you need to take a bunch of cesium atoms, expose them to the light that you’re hoping to use as a reference, and see if they move from one state to the other. In order to know this, though, you need to know which state they started in, and which state they ended up in. Magnets can help you do this state selection, as shown in this schematic of an atomic clock
-- Chad Orzel



The article I got the quote from simply explains how the states of caesium atoms are detected, and has nothing to say about explaining gravitational influence on atomic clocks. However, it's not unreasonable to suggest that the gravitational influence on the OPERATION of an atomic clock is the reason they get out of sync, not that TIME is being affected in any way. As, I said, TIME is simply a reference scale on which gravity can have no influence.

Cheers,
enegue

[Atreyu]

You need to watch the Carl Sargan video where he is trying to explain 4 dimensions of space. Its hilarious, he should have been a comedian, he would have made a fortune.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v

There is an endless procession of so called other dimensions, but these are called inner and outer dimensions. For example - A galaxy is an atom in another larger dimension, and an atom is a galaxy in another smaller dimension. Its all a matter of fractal reality. There are galaxies within galaxies within galaxies which extend to infinity in both directions both inwards and outwards. The concept of there being 11 dimensions is childish and narrow minded.

Yes! Thx Darwin for this video. Unfortunately it seems to have ended before he got to the good part. I was thinking of just this kind of visualization to explain the 4th dimension but didn't want to try and elucidate it in this forum.

The key point, which the video apparently ended before getting to, was that the plane beings would regard our three dimensional world as their past and their future. If the apple crossed and re-crossed their plane in regular intervals, no doubt the plane beings would use it as a means of establishing their unit of time. They would say that these peculiar lines appear and disappear at regular intervals. The lines 'go into the past' and will be 'coming from the future'. What they think is the past and the future we would regard as the eternal present in 3 dimensions.

The same is true in relation to our cognition of time. We say that the moment is here, but the past 'is gone' and the future is 'yet to be'. But in reality all the successive moments of time eternally coexist side-by-side in the world of higher dimensions. The ancient Hindus called it 'the Eternal Now' --- where all the past, present, and future are all realized simultaneously. And, of course, in the so called 'multiverse' view, not only is the actual or realized past, present, and future all existing simultaneously and eternally, but also all the possible pasts and futures and presents --- those that could have happened but didn't, as well as those that could happen but will not. And in some models even impossible pasts, presents, and futures can all eternally coexist.

I could elucidate a pretty good model to help visualize this idea better, but it's very complex so I won't do it unless requested. But yes, that video was the beginning of a very good way to learn to visualize the dimensions of space beyond the first three (which we have the capacity to perceive as spatial, rather than as chronological, phenomena).