Okay... I'm not really good in english but I'll try to explain my point :

Many people think that, for example, the moon is revolving around us because the Earth us attracting it by it enormous density, but in reality, it's not exactly this!

Indeed, when an object is attracted by another object, it's not the density (wich is the result of the mix of the 3 dimensions : width, length and depth) of the bigger object that makes the little one move, but the space-time (the 4th dimenson)!

Okay, to help you visualize this, here is a little example :

Let's say you take a tablecloth and you put in it center a huge ball, it'll create a deformation of the depth...
Well, the huge ball represent the mix of the 3 dimendions (density) acting on the 4th dimension (time).
The deformation represent the 4th dimension.
Now, let's take a small ball and make it roll on the tablecloth as near to the center as possible, but without making it go at the exact center, what will happen? The small ball will curve.

Now, the question is : What made the small ball curve?
The answer is : The Space-Time... and not the density (mix of the 3 dimensions)!

So, anyone could give me feedbacks on this little effort from me to explain some of the basics of the astrophysics?

Post has been edited 3 time(s), last time on Oct 8 2007, 8:54 pm by payne.

Gravity (and speed for that matter), distorts time. So of course your hypothesis would be correct. Gravity is a strange force that is hardly understood, and it is the force that doesn't connect with the other three.

That's a good example. If you were to put something heavier on, it would create a larger impression and the other things would be attracted to it. Scientists think that if you fell into a black hole, no-one would actually see you fall in, because the time you're experiencing would be infinitely slowed down to them (due to the 'infinite' gravity around the black hole).

But I don't like time being the fourth dimension, it's too lame. Four spatial dimensions would be awesome.

This is Syphon's reply to this at Maplantis.


I would have to trust Syphon's word over payne's in this matter.

Density has an effect, but first you need the mass.

When a star goes nova or supernova, it will either leave behind a white dwarf(under 1.4 solar masses in the remaining core),neutron star(between 1.4 and 2 solar masses, neutron star means the star has the density of a neutron), or a black hole(over about 2 solar masses).

The reason density matters is because the gravitational field of one atom on the far side of a blue giant(the kind of star that will collapse into a black hole) will diminish too much over the diameter of the star. Only when the nuclear fuel is exhausted and the core does not have the pressure to prevent the outer layers of the star collapsing, is there enough mass in one place to generate that kind of gravitational field necessary to form a black hole.

Supermassive black hole(the kind at the center of galaxies) are a different matter entirely.

What happens when 2 Black Holes collide.
You might find that interesting.

I'd like to ask if anyone other than me has already heard ( well, read ) this example elsewhere?
Or atleast something very similar to it.

Yeah, I saw holes punched through it on Maplantis.

No, it's attracted due to gravity. And, the Earth is*. Due to this major flaw in your thought process, (not to mention the horrible explanation of everything else) everything you said is wrong from square one.

I am attracting you all because of my mass. Too bad I am rather slim and thus don't attract that many women...

Anyways: The moon attracts the earth as well. And Gravity is just another way of describing the deformation of Space and Time by Mass, there is nothing wrong with the concept of Gravity as far as I am informed.

Yes, EzDay281[MM], this example is very common. It reduces 3D-Space into a 2D-Plane and deforms that one into a third dimension, to allow people to visualize the effect, since you can't visualize 4 dimensional Space.

It isn't his hypothesis. This is a theory that is used to visually describe the events/effects of gravity.

http://fusionanomaly.net/gravity.gif

That is a picture of what the theory describes in a nut shell. A combination of both density and mass effect how deep the depression in the surface of the "universe's fabrication"(so to speak). At the center of a black hole, it is supposed to be an extremely condensed solid that is about the size of a marble(depending upon the size of the black hole but this is the typical example given). It is so dense that it warps the plane on which it lies and makes the depression in the plane(the picture shows this). Anyways even though Earth isn't as dense as a black hole, it still has some of the attractions like unto a black hole, due to its mass. Anyways that just shows that everything is attracted even people have attractions though since they aren't dense and they aren't quite massive, their attractive forces are beyond scale recognition(so far).

That is their attempt at explaining gravity through higher dimensions, which becomes relatively easy to explain. However, when you say the "fabric of space-time" wouldn't you be talking about the 5th dimension? Because the 4th diminsion, time, is a line, not a plane. And the 5th dimension, is a where "static" time is a plane.
However, define density:
Density is the concentration of mass in an object.
Oh wait, the word mass is in there...

Time is no dimension. At least not one similar to our 3 dimensions of Space.

The picture linked by Jello does NOT show how a black hole distorts Space, but rather something like the Sun. And of course this reduces Space by one dimension and thus simplifying it quite a lot. A black hole would tear a hole into the "Space-Plane", creating something like a funnel.

Gravity is (as far as we know) only affected by Mass (and thus indirectly by speed). If that mass is more dense, the distortion of Space is more "dense", too, so in the case of a black hole, the "Space-Plane" is torn instead of just being pulled down a little.

Physical space is described with three dimensions. All gravity distorts those three dimensions. Even the smallest speck of dust in the universe, rather anything with mass, will distort those dimensions. Time moves in one direction, as stated before, but it's still used as a dimension, even if mainly to help us sequence events. Really, dimensions is a rather broad term nowadays with vastly different concepts (coordinates, time, etc.), making comparison of various dimensions very apples to oranges.

I also don't buy the theory that gravity distorts time. If time "stops" when moving at the speed of light, why does light have a finite time? It's all rather confusing, but speed distorts the perception of time. Therefore, if someone is moving at 100,000 miles per second, events will appear to happen slowly when in fact they are happening at the same pace. But because of the speed of light, events can become distorted.

Anything beyond this is purely theoretical (and purely mathematical), and even if these theories were somehow provable, we wouldn't know where or how to begin! I believe that math allows us to reach great new heights of understanding, but current models (and perhaps all possible mathematical models) will also limit our understanding in the end because we operate under the belief that our math is both the foundation and the end for everything possible in the universe. While we can use math to theorize (very accurately or perfectly in many cases), those theories are never necessarily correct, as has been proven by many of those theories being modified or disproved years later.

Yes, the word "mass" is in your definition(not quite the exact definition but it will suffice ) but "concentration" referes to a ratio(ie. 1 particle - 1 centimeter²) Though, to refine your definition, density is mass per unit volume . So something could have a high density and yet a very small attraction(like lead) because it also depends on the actual mass not simply the ratio of mass to space. So if there was a ball of lead the size of earth, yeah it would have lots of attraction. Though I do see your point.

As all of the new points might seem logical and possibly factual, yet they are boardering simple hypothisis, no data can really physically support these conclusions though it is interesting to imagin the possibilites. I like Felagunds analysis especially because, i too, find it hard to percieve the relationship between speed and time.

Though I heard a rather convincing scientific experiment reguarding the relationship between speed and time that I thought was rather fascinating, it stated that two identical clocks that kept (near) impervious time were seperated, one on earth, and one on a spaceship circling earth at max speeds*. The spaceship encircled earth some 40 times and returned to earth. When compairing the clocks they displayed significantly* different time. The one on earth was less than 1 second from atomic time, and the clock on the spaceship was much slower*. Thus indicating, but not prooving, a relationship between time and speed.
(* are relative due to my lack of recalling exact details : Maybe I'll look it up and post a link.)

indeed, however, those same theories which your stating also state that traveling the same speed as light, is impossible. Because light ALWAYS travels light speed away from you, regardless of the speed your going.

A black hole does the same thing on the space-time grid, except it makes an extremely large drop in the shape of a cone, which terminates at the singularity. It does not tear, it's just very steep.

Akar: Traveling at the speed of light with a mass is impossible, as it would require infinite energy.

Post has been edited 1 time(s), last time on Oct 11 2007, 2:02 am by WoAHorde.

I haven't heard that part of the *hypothesis*, could you elaborate? The *hypothesis* says light always moves the same speed regardless of your speed?

(*isn't it really just a hypothesis, not a theory? Because isn't a theory an scientific experiment that has been repeated multiple times and has been accepted by the scientific community? At least I wasn't aware this was the hypothesis they accepted if it is really a theory.* )

-----

Says who? Or is this just your own hypothesis?

The closer you approach the speed of light, the more your mass increases(kinetic energy). To propel an infinite mass, you need infinite energy.