dimensions

[steve01]

Guys I know I'm an infant when it comes to this stuff so please try and refrain on the flaming. <br />I'm trying to conceptualize the dimensions: from what I understand there are 4 dimensions, right? length, width, height and time.<br />Does gravity not constitute another dimension? I've seen diagrams of Einstein's General Relativity and it appears that massive objects dimple a surrounding plane holding smaller objects near ie: earth and moon. If you do not consider this plane a dimension, what would better describe it? Thanks

 

[newtonian]

Steve01 - And I am an adolescent or infant depending on the reference point!<br /><br />What curves space-time? Gravity?<br /><br />4-D space-time has been called a fabric. <br /><br />In the Bible, (3-D?, 4-d?, ?-D) space is compared to a fabric.<br /><br />The expansion of our universe is compared to an expanding stretching fine gauze (Isaiah 40:22, literal from the Hebrew).<br /><br />It is very complicated, despite the simple illustration - the illustration is correct, though!<br /><br />Now if you stretch a cloth and put an object with weight (more specifically: mass) on (or in - more-D) it, the fabric will be depressed with a specific curve depending on the mass and the resistance of the fabric. <br /><br />I'm not sure if the resistance of the fabric can be compared to or influenced by dark energy. It seems so, but only crucial at long distances. In short distances the curve caused by gravity overwhelms dark energy. <br /><br />Thus, while space is expanding, Milky Way is heading towards Andromeda, and the entire local group of galaxies is heading towards a great attractor. <br /><br />The depression in the fabric of space caused by gravity is not usually called a dimension - but in the illustration it is certainly a dimension.<br /><br />This is probably because we don't see the depression in 3-D observations + computer simulations + time. <br /><br />It is real, though.<br /><br />And it is observed in special cases, such as in gravitational lensing of light from distant stars (or quasars, etc.). <br /><br />Now as for other dimensions, this is crucial since it may impact the future of the local galaxies.<br /><br />The origin of our universe may involve interaction with other dimensions in a very small space (in our 3-D), though perhaps a much larger space in other dimensions, or perhaps just a point of contact - called a singularity because space-time did not exist until it was created, possibly by interactions in other dimensions - sometimes called branes as in the bran

 

[newtonian]

BTW - Bonds can be broken. The original Hebrew root includes "crumbling." A stretching fine gauze can separate into separate sections. In fact, this may already have happened beyond our visibility horizon!<br /><br />I.e., direct gravitational influence may be broken, but dark energy influence may continue beyond our visibility horizon.<br /><br />Sorry I am not giving definite answers here - the data is simply insufficient to be sure.<br /><br />Dark energy could simply be good old gravity from beyond our visibility horizon by a sort of domino effect!<br /><br />Or we could be within a vastly larger universe which attracts our universe from all directions, almost exactly equally from all directions. <br /><br />BTW - that is a model based on 1 Kings 8:27, which also may mean there are other universes (heavens) besides ours within that vastly larger universe (heaven of the heavens).

 

[5stone10]

<font color="yellow">BTW - that is a model based on 1 Kings 8:27</font><br /><br /><br />I'm Sure !<br /><img src="/images/icons/rolleyes.gif" />

 

[newtonian]

5stone10 - Hi! <br /><br />Of course, we cannot as yet determine what lies beyond our visibility horizon. There are many models.<br /><br />Loeb feels we will expand into other universes, for example.<br /><br />Other astronomers who advance inflation models indicate what we see within our visibility horizon is but a small fraction of our universe.<br /><br />Since we cannot determine this yet scientifically, why not consider the Bible, since it has been proven accurate up till now in things that were previously unknown scientifically; e.g.:<br /><br />earth round - Isaiah 40:22<br />universe expanding - Is.40:22<br />terminator a circle- Job 26:10<br />earth hung on nothing- Job 26:7<br />heaven and earth had a beginning - Genesis 1:1<br />Etc.<br /><br />All these statements have now been proven scientifically accurate. <br /><br />There are still a few which cannot be determined by the limits of present science. 1 Kings 8:27 is one of them:<br /><br />King Solomon praying to God:<br /><br />(1 Kings 8:27) 27 "But will God truly dwell upon the earth? Look! The heavens, yes, the heaven of the heavens, themselves cannot contain you; how much less, then, this house that I have built! <br /><br />It seems reasonable to me to substitute universe for heaven, and that is the model I posted. Universes within a universe of the universes.<br /><br />Note, however, that the Bible does not contain the word universe, since the prefix "uni" implies there is only one, while in the Bible heaven is often plural.<br /><br />Models involving many universes are certainly in harmony with Biblical cosmology.<br /><br />Ditto many dimensions - note that tent in Isaiah 40:22 can involve more than one stretching fine cloth, it could imply something akin to brane models for many universes and dimensions. <br /><br />Or, more likely, the illustration simply applies to the threads, filaments and walls astronomers have discovered in our universe, since tent is in singular.<br /><br />That is left to the joy of scientific

 

[newtonian]

5stone10 - Hi! <br /><br />Of course, we cannot as yet determine what lies beyond our visibility horizon. There are many models.<br /><br />Loeb feels we will expand into other universes, for example.<br /><br />Other astronomers who advance inflation models indicate what we see within our visibility horizon is but a small fraction of our universe.<br /><br />Since we cannot determine this yet scientifically, why not consider the Bible, since it has been proven accurate up till now in things that were previously unknown scientifically; e.g.:<br /><br />earth round - Isaiah 40:22<br />universe expanding - Is.40:22<br />terminator a circle- Job 26:10<br />earth hung on nothing- Job 26:7<br />heaven and earth had a beginning - Genesis 1:1<br />Etc.<br /><br />All these statements have now been proven scientifically accurate. <br /><br />There are still a few which cannot be determined by the limits of present science. 1 Kings 8:27 is one of them:<br /><br />King Solomon praying to God:<br /><br />(1 Kings 8:27) 27 "But will God truly dwell upon the earth? Look! The heavens, yes, the heaven of the heavens, themselves cannot contain you; how much less, then, this house that I have built! <br /><br />It seems reasonable to me to substitute universe for heaven, and that is the model I posted. Universes within a universe of the universes.<br /><br />Note, however, that the Bible does not contain the word universe, since the prefix "uni" implies there is only one, while in the Bible heaven is often plural.<br /><br />Models involving many universes are certainly in harmony with Biblical cosmology.<br /><br />Ditto many dimensions - note that tent in Isaiah 40:22 can involve more than one stretching fine cloth, it could imply something akin to brane models for many universes and dimensions. <br /><br />Or, more likely, the illustration simply applies to the threads, filaments and walls astronomers have discovered in our universe, since tent is in singular.<br /><br />That is left to the joy of scientific

 

[a_lost_packet_]

<font color="yellow"> steve01- Guys I know I'm an infant when it comes to this stuff so please try and refrain on the flaming. </font><br /><br />Nobody who is respectable or who is anyone that anyone else would pay any attention to would flame you for asking a question. <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" /><br /><br /><font color="yellow"> I'm trying to conceptualize the dimensions: from what I understand there are 4 dimensions, right? length, width, height and time. </font><br /><br />That depends on what your definition of "dimension" is. If you are referring to the space-time fabric of our perceived Universe then Length, Width, Height would constitute 3 <b>spacial</b> dimensions. Time, as it is perceived to function in our Universe constitutes an intimately connected <b>time</b> dimension. So, for "descriptive" purposes, we exist in a Universe with four dimensions: Three spatial dimensions and one time dimension.<br /><br /><font color="yellow">Does gravity not constitute another dimension? I've seen diagrams of Einstein's General Relativity and it appears that massive objects dimple a surrounding plane holding smaller objects near ie: earth and moon. If you do not consider this plane a dimension, what would better describe it? Thanks </font><br /><br />The classic "rubber sheet with dimples" example of the effects of gravity could be misleading. The "plane" is actually a simple, visual, representation of the fabric of the Universe itself. The "dimple" in the fabric is a visual representation of the effects of mass on the fabric of our space-time. In order to demonstrate to the viewer the effect of this "stretching/shrinking" of space-time presented by mass and it's possible effects on an orbiting body, the demonstrater would roll a ball across the rubber sheet. The sheet itself is nothing more than a plane of orbit which has been physically represented. The dimples in the sheet show the "effect" of mass on the space-time fabric. T <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <font size="1">I put on my robe and wizard hat...</font> </div>

 

[a_lost_packet_]

<font color="yellow">Hasn't Stephen Hawking put another bet on with Kip Thorne that they won't find a Higgs-Boson particle when they go hunting for it? Do you reckon they'll get the HBP? </font><br /><br />Hmm. I dunno about the bet. I'll check around and see what I find.<br /><br />As far as the HBP... who knows? <shrugs /> Heck, they've "almost found it" several times. Once the new collider is in place (2006?) I bet that's one of the first tests they'll run. Considering that was the last thing they did before turning over the stuff to CERN (and they received some interesting results) and the HBP has been SWAG'd to death concerning it's properties I couldn't rightly say.<br /><br />I'd love to see conclusive proof of the HB. Once someone gets a handle on a particle, then it's all a matter of figuring out how to manipulate it right?<br /><br />I posted a buncha links over the months with all kinds of info on them. I'd link to them if they were still on the board. Like always, I was really interested in it for awhile then the facts slowly faded from memory. <img src="/images/icons/frown.gif" /> More inc when I'm able. I'll try and dig up something.<br /><br /><br />a_lost_packet_ <br /><br /><edit />p.s. I meant to say it was turned over to Fermilab when CERN shut down and started construction on the new collider. <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" /> I'll leave the condemning statement I made showing my ignorance in plain view as a warning to others: Don't try to act like ya know something when you can't even remember what time it is.. with a clock even. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <font size="1">I put on my robe and wizard hat...</font> </div>

 

[a_lost_packet_]

<font color="yellow">Hasn't Stephen Hawking put another bet on with Kip Thorne that they won't find a Higgs-Boson particle when they go hunting for it? Do you reckon they'll get the HBP? </font><br /><br />Quick and dirty referrences: (copy and paste)<br /><br />http://www.guardian.co.uk/life/science/story/0,12996,1266514,00.html<br /><br /><blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>The nature of a black hole is not Stephen Hawking's only scientific wager. In December 2000 he made a $100 bet with theoretical physicist Gordon Kane of the University of Michigan about the existence of a subatomic particle, the Higgs boson, otherwise known as the God particle. Prof Kane says an atom smashing machine near Chicago will find it. Prof Hawking says it won't.<p><hr /></p></p></blockquote> <br /><br />It seems that the bet is that Hawking says that Fermilab won't discover the Higgs Boson. The bet was with Gordon Kane. However, in June, the mass of the HBP has been estimated at being, probably, beyond FERMILAB's capabilities. Since the LHC will not be ready until 2007 (I though it was supposed to be 2006.. oh well) then we'll probably have to waite until then. It looks like Hawking may win that bet. Here's a quick and dirty link to an article on the revised mass for HBP:<br /><br />New Mass Estimate for HBP:<br />http://www.newscientist.com/news/news.jsp?id=ns99995095<br /><br /><br />a_lost_packet_ <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <font size="1">I put on my robe and wizard hat...</font> </div>

 

[a_lost_packet_]

CERN (old collider) was the LEP: Large Electron Positron Collider. The last run on that was for HBP evidence and they found some interesting results that indicated it may be just out of the LEP's range. Then it was shut down, amongst alot of protest, in favor of starting construction on their newest toy.<br /><br />CERN (Under Construction): LHC: Large Hadron Collider - Due to be up and running in 2007. (I swear the original completion was supposed to be 2006 though! <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" />) The LHC will be the largest collider on the planet and should be able to detect a HBP which is now thought to be out of the range of the Fermilab Tevetron.<br /><br />FERMILAB - Tevetron - A proton/anti-proton collider. In June their findings indicate that the HBP is probably out of the range of the Tevetron.<br /><br />I've got a food processor, some magnets, a microwave and some parts from an old TV set. If someone doesn't answer the HBP question soon, I'm gonna grab some duct-tape and start experimenting on my own! <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" /><br /><br />Interesting article. I'm a little astonished at the vehemence of Higg's remarks. I suppose I can appreciate the difficulty of trying to engage Hawking in a verbal discussion of his theories. After all, he was only able to answer a couple of questions from the audience during his last 30 minute Q&A session during a recent lecture if I recall correctly. However, is that any reason to have such a bad attitude? If Higgs has some questions, then he can respectfully write them down and waite for a respectful answer. I applaud the heck out of both of them but the argument Higgs presents seems childish imho.<br /><br />I'm a Hawking fan also to a certain extent. I'm a much bigger Feynman fan though. <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" /><br /><br /><br />a_lost_packet_ <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <font size="1">I put on my robe and wizard hat...</font> </div>

 

[steve01]

I think one of the biggest benefits of Hawking betting with colleagues is that it draws the general public(news services) in and in some little way makes math/science a little closer to the lay-person!

 

[jitte]

"Does gravity not constitute another dimension?"<br /><br />steve01, you might be interested in the Gravity is the 4th Dimension theory. If so, you can read about it at my site.<br /><br />Tyrell Corp. Solar Storm Monitor<br />http://uberkomplex.com/

 

[newtonian]

jitte- Thank you for the link. That will take some time to study!<br /><br />So, what is causing those space probes to slow down? I had a thread on that but it was lost!<br /><br />For now, I will just say:<br /><br />I don't think we fully appreciate the gravity of the matter!

 

[jitte]

I recently found some links to newer material concerning the slowing of the Pioneer probes and hope to update my page soon. I think the difinitive answer as to why they've slowed is still out though.

 

[newtonian]

jitte - On the old SDC a knowledgable poster, Borman, had posted on my thread an interesting, detailed, theory that postulated that the space probes were being slowed by the cosmological constant (aka dark energy).<br /><br />Well, dark energy and gravity may well be related. <br /><br />Somehow it was explained that the counter-intuitive seemingly reverse effect was actually due to our frame of reference - but it was far too deep for me to explain from memory!<br /><br />I guess being in a sort of free fall compared with orbiting planets - if I remember correctly - so we don't note this effect in orbiting bodies.<br /><br />Anyone out there know where borman is?

 

[steve01]

So, are comets affected by the same force?

 

[jitte]

In my understanding, the Cosmological Constant is a force acting in opposition to gravity so I don't see how that would be the cause of the probes slowing. <br /><br />The fact that they're both going in opposite directions (according to the graphic on my page) should rule out one body, such as that pesky Planet X, as being the cause.

 

[newtonian]

Steve01 - No orbiting body, including comets, seems to be influenced.<br /><br />As I said, it seems to only effect objects not in orbit. Or, in other words, not bound gravitationally. Comets are bound gravitationally.<br /><br />By freefall I meant not primarily influenced by solar (system) gravity. <br /><br />There are lost SDC links which add detail, btw. <br /><br />What I came away from Borman's detailed posts on this with was:<br /><br />1. We may have a frame of reference problem. (Alas, it was complicated - hopefully the logic will come to my memory - or someone elses.)<br /><br />2. The cosmological constant primarily influences universal bodies which are not gravitationally bound to each other - compare Job 38:31,32<br /><br />3. (My take) In those verses. the bonds of stars are in plural - we usually assume singular: gravity. I doubt that assumption is correct.<br /><br />We need more data of course. One logical question would be: what are the properties of those bonds? <br /><br />SPECULATION: If loosened or broken, can they have an effect like a rubber band, for example? Note that a rubber band can slow something down until the bond is broken - and then....<br /><br />Note, btw, that we are in a gravitationally bound system - our local section of universe is NOT expanding due to the cosmological constant (or dark energy, vacuum energy, whatever). Not only is the local group in some cases gravitationally bound to each other (albeit individual stars may not be bound to each other, etc.), but also virtually all galaxies in a very much larger local portion of our universe is attracted to a Great Attractor in the direction of Orion. (Virgo supercluster?)<br /><br />In that rubber band scenario, remember that our solar system has separate gravity and may have a separate 'rubber band.' Ditto our galaxy; ditto the Great Attractor, etc.