The center of space
in [Physics]
|
Prev: Urgent: Cosmology Group: 'Where is the Centre of the Universe?'
Next: Albert Einstein didn't accept black holes or the idea of totally collapsed stars
From: Mathal on 22 Apr 2010 11:57 On Apr 22, 5:57 am, Antares 531 <gordonlrDEL...(a)swbell.net> wrote: > On Thu, 22 Apr 2010 21:43:03 +1000, SolomonW <Solom...(a)nospamMail.com> > wrote: > > > > > > >On Wed, 21 Apr 2010 15:52:46 -0500, Antares 531 wrote: > > >> On Thu, 22 Apr 2010 00:56:25 +1000, SolomonW <Solom...(a)nospamMail.com> > >> wrote: > > >>>On Tue, 20 Apr 2010 15:47:37 -0500, Antares 531 wrote: > > >>>> Our perceivable space/time is made up of three spatial dimensions and > >>>> one temporal dimension that seem to be a part of a multiverse of ten > >>>> spatial dimensions and one temporal dimension. > > >>>This is still yet to be shown. > > >> I agree, but String Theory, SuperString Theory and Membrane Theory, > >> now called SS-M Theory, are giving us some very substantial reasons to > >> think this may be true. Just hang on for a while and see what > >> develops. > > >It has been 50 years already with little to show, how much longer do you > >think it needs? > > String Theory has stood the test of time for 50 years and has not been > falsified. Maybe it is due some marginal consideration as being valid. > It sure does match up with lots of things we can and have validated. When string theorists try to resolve what gravity is and what the shape of the universe is they invoke images of a universe filled with (dare I say it? -yes!) aether. It's all a conspiracy to discredit Einstein!!! Kidding aside string theories, in order to be verified as being on the right track, have to come up with something that can be tangibly measured. Here on earth we lack the means to confirm the existence of strings or extra dimensions. The only possibility I've read about that could offer some hope of displaying a divergence from the GR interpretation of the shape of space is accurately measuring effects near a naked singularity, if such an object is even possible. Even if one exists it would be hundreds to billions of years away from us. Perhaps we will be able to momentarily create one here but again it would be too small and brief an existence to gain any knowledge of other dimensions (probably). Personally I think rethinking the photons relationship with the shape of space and time is more likely to lead to a coherent melding of GR and QM. Mathal
From: Don Stockbauer on 22 Apr 2010 01:02 Just hang on for a while and see what develops. Isn't this cosmology's perpetual song?
From: Paul Hovnanian P.E. on 22 Apr 2010 01:14 About midway between your right and left ears. -- Paul Hovnanian mailto:Paul(a)Hovnanian.com ------------------------------------------------------------------ Quando Omni Flunkus Moritati (When all else fails, play dead) -- Red Green
From: SolomonW on 22 Apr 2010 07:43 On Wed, 21 Apr 2010 15:52:46 -0500, Antares 531 wrote: > On Thu, 22 Apr 2010 00:56:25 +1000, SolomonW <SolomonW(a)nospamMail.com> > wrote: > >>On Tue, 20 Apr 2010 15:47:37 -0500, Antares 531 wrote: >> >>> Our perceivable space/time is made up of three spatial dimensions and >>> one temporal dimension that seem to be a part of a multiverse of ten >>> spatial dimensions and one temporal dimension. >> >> >>This is still yet to be shown. >> > I agree, but String Theory, SuperString Theory and Membrane Theory, > now called SS-M Theory, are giving us some very substantial reasons to > think this may be true. Just hang on for a while and see what > develops. It has been 50 years already with little to show, how much longer do you think it needs?
From: BURT on 22 Apr 2010 23:24
On Apr 22, 8:57 am, Mathal <mathmusi...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Apr 22, 5:57 am, Antares 531 <gordonlrDEL...(a)swbell.net> wrote: > > > > > > > On Thu, 22 Apr 2010 21:43:03 +1000, SolomonW <Solom...(a)nospamMail.com> > > wrote: > > > >On Wed, 21 Apr 2010 15:52:46 -0500, Antares 531 wrote: > > > >> On Thu, 22 Apr 2010 00:56:25 +1000, SolomonW <Solom...(a)nospamMail.com> > > >> wrote: > > > >>>On Tue, 20 Apr 2010 15:47:37 -0500, Antares 531 wrote: > > > >>>> Our perceivable space/time is made up of three spatial dimensions and > > >>>> one temporal dimension that seem to be a part of a multiverse of ten > > >>>> spatial dimensions and one temporal dimension. > > > >>>This is still yet to be shown. > > > >> I agree, but String Theory, SuperString Theory and Membrane Theory, > > >> now called SS-M Theory, are giving us some very substantial reasons to > > >> think this may be true. Just hang on for a while and see what > > >> develops. > > > >It has been 50 years already with little to show, how much longer do you > > >think it needs? > > > String Theory has stood the test of time for 50 years and has not been > > falsified. Maybe it is due some marginal consideration as being valid. > > It sure does match up with lots of things we can and have validated. > > When string theorists try to resolve what gravity is and what the > shape of the universe is they invoke images of a universe filled with > (dare I say it? -yes!) aether. > It's all a conspiracy to discredit Einstein!!! > > Kidding aside string theories, in order to be verified as being on the > right track, have to come up with something that can be tangibly > measured. Here on earth we lack the means to confirm the existence of > strings or extra dimensions. The only possibility I've read about that > could offer some hope of displaying a divergence from the GR > interpretation of the shape of space is accurately measuring effects > near a naked singularity, if such an object is even possible. > Even if one exists it would be hundreds to billions of years away > from us. > Perhaps we will be able to momentarily create one here but again it > would be too small and brief an existence to gain any knowledge of > other dimensions (probably). > Personally I think rethinking the photons relationship with the > shape of space and time is more likely to lead to a coherent melding > of GR and QM. > Mathal- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - Space flow immaterial is without rate and is inward toward center radial and spherical. Space flow strength is equal spherically. Mitch Raemsch |