gravity as a function of linearity

[verklingen]

einstein saw beauty in the concept of an eternal, infinite universe, but to his dismay neither observation nor his very own equations aligned with that beauty. his equations explained gravity as the result of mass bending space-time into grooves which the various heavenly bodies "roll" about, creating the impression of an orbit which we can observe. the problem, though, was that these very same equations dictated that all objects in the universe would eventually converge upon a center point. if the universe was eternal, this would have happened an eternity ago. yet here we are observing and wondering, so this must not be the case.

to solve his dilemma, einstein scoured his equations in search of a force to counter gravity so as to allow for his eternal universe. he proposed the cosmological constant: an alteration to his theory which seemed to work, but his idea lost all footing in the scientific community when edwin hubble made his groundbreaking observation of galactic redshift. we would expect to observe an object shifted to the red if it were traveling away from us, and if galaxies are traveling away from us they must have once been closer than they are now. the universe, it seemed, had a definite beginning: a point of origin from which all its contents seemed to be evacuating. and so we have the big bang.

i don't see it quite that way, though. i see all my life experiences -- past, present and future -- as centered around one now moment from which i project my own beliefs and expectations about those experiences to create my reality. i consider the linear integration of these experiences a mere habit. . . perhaps as deeply-rooted as a habit can possibly be, but a habit nonetheless and one i am slowly breaking. i am trying to see the moment for what it is and what i can make of it rather than what it can make of me. the interconnected elements as well as the themes they negotiate are all too apparent, and, moment-by-moment, i can see within them a constancy which provides a freedom i'm only now understanding.

so what's all this got to do with the big bang? of course physics and astronomy are linear; i can track the orbit of a planet myself and prove that through time its position changes in a predictable fashion. and beyond mere predictions, there are equations which actually explain how this happens. . . it's pretty cut-and-dried, gravity works. but why? earlier i touched on how einstein's original equations predict an eventual coalescence of all universal matter. but what if the matter was never truly separate to begin with? what if the "end game" were presently realized, but we're just calling the observable manifestation of it -- in accord with our linear perception -- "gravity?"

it seems to me that we can impose whatever limitations we like upon the framework of our reality, separateness and segregation included. but even then we will have hidden clues which remind us that it is all due to a perceptive choice: a choice which we can either affirm or reconsider moment-by-moment. and don't think it's not all about physics, either.

just some thoughts.

[Captain Cannabis]

einstein was pretty epic in that as recently as 2005 as experimentally verified some of his results to be accurate within 1% (gravity probe b -- Gravity Probe B - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia). he was right about the geodetic effect--the amount by which the mass of the earth warps the space-time in which it resides--and frame dragging--the amount by which the rotating earth drags local spacetime around with it.

http://einstein.stanford.edu/content...aps-041807.pdf

[PokeSmot42]

If you split seconds upon milliseconds upon nanoseconds you wont reach an end or singularity. If you magnify cells and atoms you wont reach an end. Infinity. I can only picture time as a line that keeps continuing, much like how the universe expands.

I read some where if an unstoppable object were to collide with a unmovable object time would stop. Dont know how to use my brain to figure out how that would work but it seems to hold some sort of reality in it. There is really no stationary object in space(that we know of) so it wont work i guess.

The big bang theory. Nothing went bang and created everything?

[Smaerd]

Call me a dumb ass but just how exactly would mass bend "space". If space has no mass wouldn't the Earth crash into the sun then? if space holds no mass, holds no light ,and has no friction then wouldn't we all kind of be condensed into one spot. Maybe I just don't understand exactly what "space" is.

Is it possible that the universe has a shape/structure that our being cannot sense or comprehend by the senses?

[this goes into a tangent]
I always pictured the universe as a big sphere that was either growing or contracting. However that couldn't be possible if the theory that the universe is infinite. Cuz every shape has dimensions, even if it's growing it still has dimensions. So do we live in nothing, and syngeristically does that mean we live in everything. Any possibility that space is just a barrier between energy(everything is made out of energy) to allow for infinite potentials.

The two languages of the universe Math, and Logic. They are a part of everything and can be applied to anything. Infinicy, can only exist if nothing can exist. Opposites existance's are based on their own symbiosis. If we cannot separate something then we cannot understand it(positive, origin, negative but at first glance that's just ------ ), and we cannot learn it but we could surely name it a line.

If everything is infinite then does that mean that our earth must touch every milimeter in our universe at one point in our dimension or not. The only way this is feasible is that in another dimension it is. By this I don't neccesarily mean entangled objects in another locus of plane outside of our own, I kind of mean more of beyond our human limitations.

By human limitations I mean think of a flies lifespan, a day in the some odd tens of thousands of days we live. Existance really is a blink of an eye, because time isn't real it is but a tool mankind created to help disect functions of life[beauty is in the eye of the beholder and so is time]. Just remmember you can take a tylenol to treat a headache, or you can live through the headache and truely understand it. We are only alive now, in an instant, not by our previous experiances.

We don't live in the day we were born, we only live now. We don't live in the next decision we just made, we only live now. Does that mean that beyond, durring, and after our flash of now existance there couldn't very easily be your identity infinetly entangled beyond our observation.

So now this might be a stretch but if our minds can emit waves to other things. Is it possible that we as a foodchain aspect purpose of life; were only meant to praise everything around us.

It's been proven that everyone has unique traits and body. It has also been noted that human beings can be entangled(twins). Twins may have their senses confused with one another[they may both be upset but their 3000 miles away and only one had the traumatizing experiance]. So now durring our flash of existance it is equally probable that our identity(unique DNA) exists at the same time and is entangled with us light years away, because everything has to be possible right.

Is Extinction merely running out of infinite genetic possibilities, but if we travel this far into this unstable thought of mind there is no extinction, just biological weakness to understand that the species life still is in existance.

It's been experimented that energy doesn't act in waves when under observation, is this so that our lives can be solid and experianced yet still infinite.

feeling this way allows me a sensible easment, a religion in science.

KILL ME KILL ME BLAHH LBAHHJEIHUIDAHOSIUHD UHCSYIHD
Sorry I get like that whenever I feel altruistic... I sometimes feel like none of that can be true because if it was then why am I even alive hahahahhahahahahhaha hahaha let me go mother, let me go earth, free me from my emotional addictions

so what are you and what am I
if everything around has little hope
and will certainly die.

clouds why are you so far away?
I thought I was on a hill, a mountain,
but in a valley I shall stay.

...sorry for free write...

Even more sorry for how jumbled it is...Off topic it is, and if this is deleted I won't frown.

[The Rev]

Originally Posted by verklingen

. . . it's pretty cut-and-dried, gravity works. but why? earlier i touched on how einstein's original equations predict an eventual coalescence of all universal matter. but what if the matter was never truly separate to begin with? what if the "end game" were presently realized, but we're just calling the observable manifestation of it -- in accord with our linear perception -- "gravity?"

This is a really good idea.



The Rev

[Hedons]

You had the first half about matter telling space how to bend.

The astrophysicist, John Archibald Wheeler put it very nicely when he said, "Matter tells Space-Time how to curve, and Space-Time tells matter how to move."

Newtonian gravity was good enough to get rockets and space probes where they were intended to go. But even so, Newtonian gravity was an incomplete theory. In comes General Relativity... better, but still not quite there. Next stop, a theory of quantum gravity.

Einstein called the cosmological constant his greatest blunder, but the idea is alive and well and it's leading the way... however it's now termed dark energy or quintessence.

-Hedons

[matthewmunari]

Originally Posted by verklingen

einstein saw beauty in the concept of an eternal, infinite universe, but to his dismay neither observation nor his very own equations aligned with that beauty. his equations explained gravity as the result of mass bending space-time into grooves which the various heavenly bodies "roll" about, creating the impression of an orbit which we can observe. the problem, though, was that these very same equations dictated that all objects in the universe would eventually converge upon a center point. if the universe was eternal, this would have happened an eternity ago. yet here we are observing and wondering, so this must not be the case.

to solve his dilemma, einstein scoured his equations in search of a force to counter gravity so as to allow for his eternal universe. he proposed the cosmological constant: an alteration to his theory which seemed to work, but his idea lost all footing in the scientific community when edwin hubble made his groundbreaking observation of galactic redshift. we would expect to observe an object shifted to the red if it were traveling away from us, and if galaxies are traveling away from us they must have once been closer than they are now. the universe, it seemed, had a definite beginning: a point of origin from which all its contents seemed to be evacuating. and so we have the big bang.

i don't see it quite that way, though. i see all my life experiences -- past, present and future -- as centered around one now moment from which i project my own beliefs and expectations about those experiences to create my reality. i consider the linear integration of these experiences a mere habit. . . perhaps as deeply-rooted as a habit can possibly be, but a habit nonetheless and one i am slowly breaking. i am trying to see the moment for what it is and what i can make of it rather than what it can make of me. the interconnected elements as well as the themes they negotiate are all too apparent, and, moment-by-moment, i can see within them a constancy which provides a freedom i'm only now understanding.

so what's all this got to do with the big bang? of course physics and astronomy are linear; i can track the orbit of a planet myself and prove that through time its position changes in a predictable fashion. and beyond mere predictions, there are equations which actually explain how this happens. . . it's pretty cut-and-dried, gravity works. but why? earlier i touched on how einstein's original equations predict an eventual coalescence of all universal matter. but what if the matter was never truly separate to begin with? what if the "end game" were presently realized, but we're just calling the observable manifestation of it -- in accord with our linear perception -- "gravity?"

it seems to me that we can impose whatever limitations we like upon the framework of our reality, separateness and segregation included. but even then we will have hidden clues which remind us that it is all due to a perceptive choice: a choice which we can either affirm or reconsider moment-by-moment. and don't think it's not all about physics, either.

just some thoughts.

you should become a theoretical phyicist verk, unless you already have a degree in that field, cause you would easily ace the classes,,

[Praise Jah]

Originally Posted by matthewmunari

you should become a theoretical phyicist verk, unless you already have a degree in that field, cause you would easily ace the classes,,

that degree could easily get him a job at 7/11... i don't quite know where else though...

[matthewmunari]

Originally Posted by Praise Jah

that degree could easily get him a job at 7/11... i don't quite know where else though...

haha true, but its nice to have on your resume'!

[tedkennedy]

all i need to know is acceleration due to gravity = 9.81 m/s

PHYSICCSSSS UGHHHH!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!

[gweetar]

All I will add, is that it's much more simple than that. Everything is simple. I mean this. And, when we finally really do understand, we'll realize just how simple it is. The human race continually burdens itsefl with mathematics and symbols, and complicated ways of doing and understanding everything - living, eating, playing music, trying to "understand" the "mysteries" of losing weight, understanding the topics of which you speak. Let's not mention how hard they make the law, and the tax system. We go out of our way to make things complicated or "unreachable"; I guess, to make us feel important and show us how smart we are - and make it harder for other people to know what we know! When it's all right out in nature (no, not the law and taxes...) We might not have seen it yet, we might not know how to see it, or that it even needs to, or can be, seen - but it's all out there. Everything that is possible to see or understand is out there before us. We are so far removed from nature and a "oneness" and natural understanding of and with this wonderful planet, that most need the weather channel 24/7 to see that it is going to rain in the spring, a supermarket to buy overly-processed and unnatural foods to live, complex mathematics to understand any "relationship" in science, in nature, in music, an "expert" to tell us that "exercise is good for us", a DVD player cause "there's nothing to do"....etc. It's hilarious, sad and alarming, really.

Nature show us that everything is meant to grow and die. As someone said, it shows us the immense discrepencies in the lifetimes two different creatures share - that life is only a few days for some creatures and a 100 years for others - thousands of years for trees. It showed us that heavier than air flight was possible, as birds roamed the skies for millions of years, yet man couldn't see it, understand it or figure it out until 100 years ago (Well, let's not count Da Vinci...) and didn't think it possible - even though it was right in front of us.

It's all in front of us. The universe will die, in the greatest example of a "lifecycle" reaching its end, possible. And, will be re-born, as unfathomable as the idea of that time and event happening, is.

[Captain Cannabis]

Originally Posted by tedkennedy

PHYSICCSSSS UGHHHH!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!

quoted for anyone who knows what a hamiltonian operator is

[verklingen]

Originally Posted by gweetar

All I will add, is that it's much more simple than that. Everything is simple.

. . .

It's all in front of us. The universe will die, in the greatest example of a "lifecycle" reaching its end, possible. And, will be re-born, as unfathomable as the idea of that time and event happening, is.

you're right, everything IS simple. so simple in fact that even our concept of time, something we passively consider "simple," seems to be, after serious scientific inquiry, a grossly complicated mess in comparison. when you think about it, all the complexity of physics or meteorology or any other natural scientific discipline is based on a sense of separation. . . how does the effect of this action relate to its effect on another object or under a different set of circumstances, and what method can explain both the effect and the measured discrepancy between circumstances in tandem? this seems to be the root of the tree of science, and planted firmly within the fertile soil of a curiously enthusiastic mind it will and has produced an abundant menagerie of scientific proliferation and complexity.

so science has become an exploration of separation: a process of reaching out and imposing limitations upon objects and the phenomena which apparently rule them. but are these phenomena truly apparent or are we simply looking for what we are trained to look for, or even what we wish to look for? the oft-cited example is einstein's unwillingness to accept quantum mechanics on purely personal grounds despite data in its favor which others saw as "apparent." thus it is easy to accept that appearance is more about what we're looking for than what is to be seen. as science grew its theoretical and speculative aspects began to blur the lines between the complex of forces which apparently rule the universe. disparate doctrines became blended and melded into something completely novel: apparent simplicity. one might say that as science expanded outward it eventually reached a threshold of understanding where, having no place left to go, this expansion continued inward leading to new revelations which the outward movement made less apparent. science looked at itself, its methods, and its ideas and saw something it hadn't taken the time to notice before.

i raise this concept of an "inward expansion" because it is in line with my conception of our universe, any intellectual endeavor (such as science), and also my self. the traditional view of a big bang model wherein there is enough matter to slow and eventually stop universal expansion leaves one with a sense that, once maximum expansion is reached, the gravitational pull of all matter will usher in a phase of contraction. the universe will retrace its steps, so to speak. i remember first learning about this idea around the age of 9 or 10 and wondering what the universe might be "expanding" into. the first answer to cross my mind was that it might be expanding into itself, and that's the easiest way i can illustrate a sense of inward expansion. for the universe itself caused the expansion, and the universe itself again causes the contraction. if they share a common cause, what separates the events other than the perception we adopt to consider them through? we don't consider science any different when it shifts paradigm and turns inward to clarify its discoveries. in this way, we should share a common view of all things. including life and death, and the life and death of the universe. and that's simple.

[Ego Tripping]

I read a channeling recently that said "death" of the phsysical body is actually when energy stops expanding and contracting, it needs both to survive. I can't help but apply that to the Universe...except the Universe doesn't seem to cease that.

[verklingen]

ego you might be interested to read the thread a message from 6th density sirius energy if you haven't already.

[matthewmunari]

Originally Posted by verklingen

\
, but his idea lost all footing in the scientific community when edwin hubble made his groundbreaking observation of galactic redshift we have the big bang.


just some thoughts.

actually, verk in kaku's book parallel worlds he says thas the 1st person to discover galaxies moving away from earth, and exhibiting aforemenionedd galactic redshift was Vesto Slipher in 1912, Hubble made a trip to Holland to meet with Willem deSitter, who urged Hubble to look into this effect in his data, so even tho Hubble is generally noted as the 1st person to discover galactic redshift, it was actually Slipher who discovered it..

just thought I'd point that out