Fabric of Space Inside a Planck Length ??
in [Physics]
|
From: Sam Wormley on 1 May 2010 16:07 On 5/1/10 12:22 PM, bert wrote: > Can you at lease realize there is no "flat" space? That curve is in > and flat is out. That objects make a dent in space. That the curvature > of spacetime is the gravitational force? Don't forget, Herb, on the cosmic scale, the WMAP data agree with previous work showing the Universe is flat and in an accelerating expansion. http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/cosmo_03.htm BTW -- do you remember your mommy telling you "where there is smoke, there is fire"? Well you can say, "where is gravity, there is spacetime curvature". And visa versa.
From: bert on 1 May 2010 18:31 On May 1, 4:07 pm, Sam Wormley <sworml...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On 5/1/10 12:22 PM, bert wrote: > > > Can you at lease realize there is no "flat" space? That curve is in > > and flat is out. That objects make a dent in space. That the curvature > > of spacetime is the gravitational force? > > Don't forget, Herb, on the cosmic scale, the WMAP data agree with > previous work showing the Universe is flat and in an accelerating > expansion. > http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/cosmo_03.htm > > BTW -- do you remember your mommy telling you "where there is > smoke, there is fire"? Well you can say, "where is gravity, there > is spacetime curvature". And visa versa. I liken flat to a "two dimentional" sheet I think the density of the universe determines its geometry(yes) I go with "saddle shape" It has a negative curve. Get the picture I think most here would go with a positive curve,like the surface of a sphere. If so they go with a "closed" universe TreBert
From: Sam Wormley on 1 May 2010 22:10 On 5/1/10 5:31 PM, bert wrote: > > I liken flat to a "two dimentional" sheet I think the density of the > universe determines its geometry(yes) I go with "saddle shape" It has > a negative curve. Get the picture I think most here would go with > a positive curve,like the surface of a sphere. If so they go with a > "closed" universe TreBert Herb--It's not a matter of what on "likes". The WMAP data agree with previous work showing the Universe is flat and in an accelerating expansion. http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/cosmo_03.htm
From: spudnik on 1 May 2010 22:27 there is either curvature or there isn't; this is the essence of Cusa's proof, that the circle cannot be "skwared" or rectilineated (that provides both neccesity & sufficiency). > Why would there necessarily be anything special happening to the > curvature at the Planck length, other than the notion that smaller and > smaller pieces of a spherical surface approximate a plane? thus: on the wayside, it is usually given as "p=mv," for historical reasons of "minding your Ps and Qs" (and, I don't think, it's the same "units" as a force). thus: one should read the acolyte of Hubbard at Shell; his two books on Peak Oil, really give a good precis of the whole business -- although they were published way too late, for him to say, I tol'y'so, as he did. the best theory of Earth processes is by a mechanical engineer, who worked at an America oil co. BP's mini-dysaster in the Gulf is certainly suspicisous, but keep in mind the quantification viz-a-vu the Exxxon spill by Puget Sound; the organic seeps in the Gulf are about one Valdez per annum -- with massive pumping. > Think Big -- Local Waste Treatment plants could turn sewage > into potable drinking water and potting soil. like, Bogart that poultice! thus: the original "KE" equation is known as Leibniz' *vis viva*; whereas others had thought it was just the first power of speed (i.e. Galileo, I think). > Experimentally, this is shown to apply to all forms of energy. thus: well, you made an assumption about the general tetrahedron, early in your proof, that only applies to a small class of them (the "orthocentric" ones .-) thus: now that you've read some of it; so? > Nice site, lyndon larouche & 21stcenturysciencetech.googolplexth.com. thus: he seems to be unaware of the neccesity in a"proof," of "neccesity AND sufficiency," as first stated by Leibniz (although having one or the other is, still, very good -- if actually so .-) > state of the aether, as determined by our inability to detect it. thus: so, you applied Coriolis' Force to General Relativity, and **** happened? > read more » thus: with only the "trivial" solutions on the curves o'Fermatttt, it sounds like a "necessary but insufficient" proof; PdF certainly could have done it. > I have been interested in the odd and even aspect of FLT , and > when Cn = 1. May I have your reference? thus: so, your coinage of pi(a,b) is the same as pi(b) - pi(a); now, can you say thr proof as a wordprolemmum? --Light: A History! http://wlym.takeTHEgoogolOUT.com
From: Igor on 2 May 2010 14:02 On Apr 30, 7:44 pm, bert <herbertglazie...(a)msn.com> wrote: > On Apr 30, 12:40 pm, Igor <thoov...(a)excite.com> wrote: > > > On Apr 30, 10:13 am, bert <herbertglazie...(a)msn.com> wrote: > > > > Tricky stuff first put forward by this guy Reinmann as he discribed > > > space not being flat but with curves. > > > "T'weren't tricky at all. The Earth is a sphere. > > > >Einstein jumped on that and > > > grave us GR.He told us curvature of spacetime embodies the gravity > > > force. Hmmm Now does that space curve exist in Planck > > > sizes(Dimentions)? I think not. How say you ? treBert > > > Why would there necessarily be anything special happening to the > > curvature at the Planck length, other than the notion that smaller and > > smaller pieces of a spherical surface approximate a plane? > > Reason for my question was that GR does not relate in the quantum > realm. Planck length being so ultramicroscopic could make this area > where only "special" thinking can fit. TreBert Well, some theoreticians think that maybe spacetime itself breaks down in that ultramicroscopic realm. No one really knows and the math cannot really tell us. In the end, nature will be the final arbiter.
First
|
Prev
|
Next
|
Last
Pages: 1 2 3 Prev: Armageddon (film) First Scene Next: Mental Retardation Is Forever Re: Shhhhhhe-boom shee-boom |