Can we know that space is 'curved'

[a_lost_packet_]

From the little I have learned of metallic hydrogen and without looking it up (tired atm)<br /><br />1) It's "color" in a stable state not known. (IIRC)<br />2) It probably acts like a superfluid.<br />3) It has not been produced in a stable form. However, there are ideas that suggest it may be possible to do this.<br />4) It is created under extreme pressure.<br />5) The full extent of it's conductive properties are not known. (AFAIK)<br /><br />Commonly, it would be produced in a diamond anvil. In the link I provided you in SB&T for Lawrence Livermore, they used a technique in which they produced extreme pressures in a diamond anvil, then blasted the thing with (something) under high pressure. Contacts in the cell measured conductivity (IIRC) and that confirmed "metallic hydrogen." It didn't hang around very long though. (btw, I believe there were papers that described it as being able to reach a non-metallic state in the links I provided to you.)<br /><br />It does not have any unusual gravitational properties that I know of. I do not know anything relating to "light" and metallic hydrogen but I'm not an expert on metallic hydrogen. <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" /><br /><br /><br /><br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <font size="1">I put on my robe and wizard hat...</font> </div>

 

[kmarinas86]

0 kelvin = 0 movement<br /><br />- kelvin = negative movement/????????? lkajdflfajdflajl LOL

 

[jatslo]

<font color="yellow">It cannot be both transparent, and absorb light.</font><br /><br />For example, if I held a cut pure white diamond with a pair of tweezers under a light, the diamond would sparkle and shine, because the diamond is absorbing, emitting, and reflecting light. There is some resistance, but you wouldn't notice it by watching the chain of events.<br /><br />For example, if I held pure metal hydrogen with a pair of tweezers under a light, the metal hydrogen wouldn't sparkle and shine, because the metal hydrogen is absorbing, and emitting light. There is absolutely no resistance, but you wouldn't notice it by watching the chain of events. In fact, I suspect you would have trouble finding it because it appears invisible.<br /><br />It conducts electricity and photons; only photons are better, because they have zero mass, zero charge, and can travel much faster.<br /><br />Why wouldn't metal hydrogen be indestructible?

 

[jatslo]

I was kinda of thinking that I could freeze a photon inside of metal hydrogen to the extent that the photon travels backwards in time.

 

[Saiph]

1) diamonds aren't absorbing the light, they reflect and refract the light. If it absorbs light, it begins to become opaque. <br /><br />2) Once agian, show me material to support your claims that Hydrogen would be invisible, and it has the properties you claim. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p align="center"><font color="#c0c0c0"><br /></font></p><p align="center"><font color="#999999"><em><font size="1">--------</font></em></font><font color="#999999"><em><font size="1">--------</font></em></font><font color="#999999"><em><font size="1">----</font></em></font><font color="#666699">SaiphMOD@gmail.com </font><font color="#999999"><em><font size="1">-------------------</font></em></font></p><p><font color="#999999"><em><font size="1">"This is my Timey Wimey Detector.  Goes "bing" when there's stuff.  It also fries eggs at 30 paces, wether you want it to or not actually.  I've learned to stay away from hens: It's not pretty when they blow" -- </font></em></font><font size="1" color="#999999">The Tenth Doctor, "Blink"</font></p> </div>

 

[a_lost_packet_]

<font color="yellow">jatslo - Just because we can't go below Kelvin, does not mean that it is not possible. </font><br /><br />Jatslo. Temperature measurements are a convention of mankind. However, the Kelvin scale was developed so there is a uniformly recognized standard variable describing temperature. It's different than "Celsius" and "Fahrenheit." Zero degrees Kelvin would be a state in which all molecular movement has ceased. Stopped. Done.<br /><br />If you took a very large Kelvin thermometer and inserted it into the "Universe" you'd come out with a temperature of about 3 degrees Kelvin. ..Alot of empty space out there.<br /><br />-10^10 K doesn't make any sense. We developed the scale. Therefore, we define 0 deg K as the limit. What do you define -10^10 deg K as? What is the thermodynamic property of molecular matter at that temperature?<br /><br /><br /><br /><br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <font size="1">I put on my robe and wizard hat...</font> </div>

 

[jatslo]

<font color="yellow">not an expert on metallic hydrogen</font><br /><br />Nobody is an expert. Maybe it would be easier to work with mercury, or methane. Maybe we could mine metal methane from Titan.

 

[jatslo]

<font color="yellow">It's different than "Celsius" and "Fahrenheit." Zero degrees Kelvin would be a state in which all molecular movement has ceased. Stopped. Done.</font><br /><br />Apparently, this does not include light. I want to freeze photons within metal hydrogen.

 

[a_lost_packet_]

<font color="orange">a_lost_packet00- (I'm) not an expert on metallic hydrogen </font><br /><br /><font color="yellow">jatslo - Nobody is an expert.</font><br /><br />Well, the guys at LLNL wouldn't be a bad source to get info on Metallic Hydrogen from. Some of the links I gave you before would have people that qualify as "top in their field" in the way of metallic hydrogen.<br /><br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <font size="1">I put on my robe and wizard hat...</font> </div>

 

[jurgens]

jatslo, you offer absolutely no valid scientific theories, everything you say is riddled with contradictions. <br /><br />Quite frankly, your speaking out of your ass and have absolutely no understanding of current modern physics. Ill say it again, do some studying on current modern physics then go off on your crazy contradictory theories.<br /><br />Sorry to be offensive here, but you need to be straighten up before someone actually believes in what your saying...

 

[jatslo]

<font color="yellow">Well, the guys at LLNL wouldn't be a bad source to get info on Metallic Hydrogen from. Some of the links I gave you before would have people that qualify as "top in their field" in the way of metallic hydrogen.</font><br /><br />I hope they don't give up, it could be the missing link, with respect to unification.

 

[jurgens]

"I hope they don't give up, it could be the missing link, with respect to unification."<br /><br />Why, please please tell me why? Do you have any scientific reason to believe this other then the fact that it has a cool name like "Metallic Hydrogen" Do you even understand what scientists want to "unify" into a single theory?

 

[jatslo]

<font color="yellow">Why, please please tell me why? Do you have any scientific reason to believe this other then the fact that it has a cool name like "Metallic Hydrogen" Do you even understand what scientists want to "unify" into a single theory?</font><br /><br />Because I think Metallic Hydrogen is Dark Matter, and the discovery of Dark Matter will open up doors of biblical proportions, as in (The Missing Link). <br /><br />String theorems are philosophical and will never be proved, or disproved. On the other hand, Dark Matter might be proved, or disproved as a great attracter.<br /><br />Attracter might be the gravity that causes curvature.

 

[jurgens]

Now im going to ask you again, WHY!?<br /><br />WHY do you think its "Dark Matter" Show me some formulas, show me the math. Better yet, show me the science.<br /><br />And im going to say right now that you have no clue why, you just think "Hey Metallic Hydrogen sounds so exotic!! oooo it must be the missing link!! It must be the key to unifying the theories!!"<br /><br />If you can't answer why, your going to need to show me some scientific evidence to back up your ridiculous claim, because sure there where and still are events that happen in life that have yet to be explained exactly mathematically(at the fundemental levels, like why it happens and how it happens), such as gravity. But you are just pulling stuff out of your ass and spouting it out, Im also going to bet you have never tried to do any real astrophysical research on Dark Matter either theoretical or observational. Nor have you ever worked with Metallic Hydrogen to know what it is and what it does. Your speculations have no scientific validity behind them.

 

[a_lost_packet_]

<font color="yellow">jatslo - Why wouldn't metal hydrogen be indestructible? </font><br /><br />Nothing is indestructible. Forms, states, arrangements can be altered. Even if you couldn't "destroy" something such as a particular particle, you could probably alter something in regards to it's original state. By destroying the original configuration, it is no longer "indestructible."<br /><br />Metal Hydrogen is hydrogen in a superfluid state (state is hypothesized atm). It is created using extreme pressure. So far, it isn't known to be a material that can remain stable without extreme pressure. (Although there are ideas being explored that may differ.)<br /><br />Even though it is a unique form of hydrogen, it is still hydrogen. Hydrogen is no more indestructible than a diamond or carbon nanotube, some of the toughest materials we know of.<br /><br />There is alot of strange stuff on the internet concerning metal and crystalline hydrogen. Moreso for crystalline hydrogen I suppose. It appears that there is much concerning these materials that dwells in the realm of "psuedoscience" and "religion." There is nothing wrong with exploring new ideas and beliefs. However, "science" has a strict code. To declare something as scientific fact without having a firm basis for the proof resting in science, is counterproductive.<br /><br />You are, of course, welcome to your own opinion regarding metal hydrogen et al. However, by posting such on a public board, you invite scrutiny. SDC has alot of members who are very knowledgable in a wide variety of disciplines. It is to be expected that if your ideas do not rest within the realm of possibilities predicted by current scientific (insert discpline here) knowledge, you will receive posts correcting "mistakes" and asking questions concerning conflicting "science like" statements.<br /><br />Gaining knowledge is a prescious process. It should be undertaken at every opportunity. When someone posts in correction/question o <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <font size="1">I put on my robe and wizard hat...</font> </div>

 

[jatslo]

I don't need to show you anything. Since when do I need to get your signature of approval? I said dark matter might be an attractive force that is curving space, and that metal hydrogen might be dark matter, so why don't you pull your head out of yours, and get with the picture, because I care less what your credentials are.<br /><br />And that goes double for you lost_packet_ <br /><br />If you all want to complain, then go talk with the moderators in some other place or time, because you are disrespecting the purpose of curvature, not me.

 

[jurgens]

The Earth is Flat! The Earth is Flat!!<br /><br />I don't need you scientists to tell me that it's not!! Your all wrong and im right!! Why? I don't need to tell you why!!

 

[siarad]

My topic isn't about <i>what</i> curves space but can we <i>know</i> it's curved & the <i>implications</i> of not knowing

 

[jatslo]

<font color="yellow">My topic isn't about what curves space but can we know it's curved & <b>the implications of not knowing</b></font><br /><br /><b>Implication:</b><br /><br />If you try to travel in a straight line, when the G forces prevent you from traveling in a straight line, the particles that make up your being could be subjected to <b>Particle Annihilation</b>. How's that for Implication?

 

[a_lost_packet_]

<font color="orange">siarad - My topic isn't about what curves space but can we know it's curved & the implications of not knowing </font><br /><br /><br /><font color="yellow">jatslo - Implication: <br /><br />If you try to travel in a straight line, when the G forces prevent you from traveling in a straight line, the particles that make up your being could be subjected to Particle Annihilation. How's that for Implication? </font><br /><br />That ... statement.. has absolutely nothing to do with the curvature of space. In fact, I don't have the any idea how you get from "the implications of not knowing (causes and true knowledge of space curvature) to ... whatever it is that you said. I don't see where you get particle annihilation where"g-forces" (inertia, centripedal etc ?) occur. It makes absolutely no sense whatsover in the context of the question posed by Siarad.<br /><br />I have avoided posting a treatise on the "curvature" of space because I wasn't sure of what type of "curvature" the OP was discussing. If it is generally cosmology involved in the nature of the Universe (Open/Flat/Closed and why we think we know) then I can contribute to a general discussion. If it is "local" curvature due to the presence of a massive body, I can only go so far before I feel that another, such as Saiph (or others who have demonstrated detailed knowledge), would serve the topic better.<br /><br />I'll re-read the thread and see which applies best. If it is general cosmology, then I will post a detailed reply.<br /><br />Jatslo, explain, in detail, the contents of your post quoted above. Relate that to current theory. (Simple, general knowledge will suffice.) As it stands, you post does not make any sense to me and I doubt it does to anyone else. Other posters are free to respond to the contrary in an attempt to help me understand what it is you are trying to say and how it relates to the question posed by Siarad.<br /><br /><br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <font size="1">I put on my robe and wizard hat...</font> </div>

 

[a_lost_packet_]

<font color="yellow">siarad - My topic isn't about what curves space but can we know it's curved & the implications of not knowing </font><br /><br />Firstly, I'd like to apologize for participating, albeit innocently, for helping to fuel the hijacking of your thread. Sorry it's taken so long to get to the heart of your question.<br /><br />In order to attempt an answer, or provide information for those more capable who read the thread, I'd like to ask a question:<br /><br />siarad - "how can we know it's curved." In this portion of the question, are you referring to:<br /><br />1) The local "curvature" due to the presence of mass? (gravity "curving" spacetime) <br /><br />2) Are you referring to the general "geometry" of the Universe( Open, Closed, Flat Universe)?<br /><br />3) Or, if you are referring to the theorized effect of objects appearing to "bend" from the point of view of a traveler moving at close to the speed of light? (As you suggested was your main point of inquiry near the beginning of the thead.)<br /><br />4) Other/Unsure which to pick.<br /><br />If "4" please give an example of the type of "curving." If I am able, I will try to give valid answers. If I am not able, I will provide what links I can and try to help you find your answer. <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" /><br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <font size="1">I put on my robe and wizard hat...</font> </div>

 

[nexium]

Hi jatslo: It is my understanding that metalic hydrogen can exist only under extreme pressure, so it seems an unlikely candidate for exotic matter.<br /> There are some problems defining what shape line is necessary to achive a staight line with respect to our galaxy or Universe. If we traveled such a line why would you expect an increase in the rate of particle annihilation? Neil

 

[siarad]

It's 3. It was a long while back above <img src="/images/icons/laugh.gif" /><br />As the earth is moving, things must be wrapping around us so how can we rely on any measurements we make. Perhaps we are moving so slowly the effect is not measurable. It's kind of like M&M who tried to measure our place in the Universe against light-speed & I was hoping we could be more successful by using 'bending'<br />Has a measurement been made to check the angles of any triangle we use add up to 180 degrees which would show a plane measurement was made.<br />It seems that non curvature of space would put us in the unique position of the exact centre, clearly impossible as it means all else orbits us. Or the theory above maybe is wrong.

 

[a_lost_packet_]

<font color="yellow">siarad - ..It seems that non curvature of space would put us in the unique position of the exact centre, clearly impossible as it means all else orbits us. </font><br /><br />If the Universe is infinite, expanding at an accelerating rate and matter is traveling with that expansion, every point in the Universe is the exact center. At least, from the point of view of the observer at any rate. Expansion is universal. As galaxyies' seperation speeds touch and surpass the speed of light, information exchange is no longer possible. They "disappear" relative to the observer. Also, when viewing other visible galaxies, almost all the light is redshifted. The Doppler effect tells us this would be due to them moving away from us. This would also be due to expansion. So, if we look at the entire observable Universe we would view ourselves as being within the "exact center." This would be true from any point in the Universe.<br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <font size="1">I put on my robe and wizard hat...</font> </div>

 

[siarad]

I'm disputing we are at the centre.<br />If we could measure the curvature of space we should be able to find out where we are in space assuming the formulae work.