For clarity,
acceleration is a change in velocity,
so to be analogous it would need to correlate with a change in time flow.
acceleration is a change in velocity,
so to be analogous it would need to correlate with a change in time flow.
Look up "soliton" and/or "soliton wave(s)." Look up "Limitless Space Institute (LSI)" on either an internet search or YouTube's search engine for their video. A great representation of possible UFO tech and our possible future after the next step of Solar Systemic (brute force quantization and qualification) in-SPACE frontier colonization, settlement, and accelerating expansion of energy breadth and depth . . . and mass matter conversion to pyramid life activization and life's activities (frontier civilization).Acceleration and space shrinking are interchangeable, indistinguishable.
To the person in a space ship going really fast, time passes normally. Same thing for someone in a deep gravity well or someone in an area of very high electric field. To an outside observer, their clock runs slow. To them, nothing out of the ordinary is happening. In fact they see the outside observer's clock running slow. They think he is the one with the problem.If the rate of time's passing changes rapidly how do we know someone wouldn't feel it?
Temporal compression or dilation.
Bill, I don't think people feel acceleration unless there is something they feel that is not accelerating along with them.Acceleration is felt by the person but they cannot tell any difference in the rate at which time passes. Two different things.
Space and time have nothing to do with implosive compressions (nor the decompressive opposite), except to record compression's time taking effect. It is your quantum constitution versus the quantum constitution of the environment you inhabit. Or, the quantum constitution of your exoskeletal suit or other intervening vessel you inhabit versus the quantum constitution of the outer environment inhabited. Space and time, as such, are neutrals . . . the neutrality of the universe at large, versus the up close and personal non-neutrality of the Q (QM)-Verse.Bill, I don't think people feel acceleration unless there is something they feel that is not accelerating along with them.
An astronaut orbiting the Earth is constantly accelerating towards the Earth, but feels stationary. Or, if you accelerate different parts at different rates, such as "spaghettifying" near a black hole, you would feel the stretch in your body. Similar to very rapid rotation around your center of mass, different parts of you body are being accelerated differently. And, standing on Earth, you feel which way is "down" by sensing the compressive forces between yourself and the ground, and between the fluid in you inner ear and its surrounding surface nerves, etc. It is the loss of that sensation which we call "falling". And, if we jump out of a plane to skydive, we feel the not-accelerating air whistle past our ears, but would feel nothing in a vacuum.
Interesting. You might be interested in an idea relating to the application of Special Relativity as applied to our whole universe. Oh, just been told I have to take her and the dog to the coast today. Will have to wait - a new thread maybeYes, we cannot feel ourselves falling in a gravitational field. But if we floor it in a car we can sure feel it. I guess it depends if you are being pushed or are simply falling.
I might point out that my discussion of relativistic effects must be confined to non-accelerating reference frames. Special Relativity. Accelerating frames is General Relativity. I understand less of it that the former.
SR can address acceleration, on a limited basis, because it can be treated in iterations, one ref. frame change at a time, more or less. [Not that I would know how, but that's what physicists have stated.]Yes, we cannot feel ourselves falling in a gravitational field. But if we floor it in a car we can sure feel it. I guess it depends if you are being pushed or are simply falling.
I might point out that my discussion of relativistic effects must be confined to non-accelerating reference frames. Special Relativity. Accelerating frames is General Relativity. I understand less of it that the former.
The Earth Spins and it shows as an Equator Bulge. Yes there always will be a foundation reference; ultimately the 'cradle' for all things. But within a reference frame, it is possible to distinguish between spinning and not spinning. For example, space spinning around the planet Earth would include the rest of the universe but then space spinning around the sun would be a contradiction. Our universe might spin and bulge.Does the Earth rotate or does the universe rotate around it? Is space twisting rotationally in between them?
Is an object moving or is the universe moving in the opposite direction? Is some space flowing around the object in one direction or is a universe of space flowing in the opposite direction?
We usually treat the largest reference frame as foundation, but for all we know that frame is itself moving per [embedded in] a larger reference frame.
We are anxiously awaiting your theory of relativity.For people using the erroneous rubber sheet 'explanation' for gravity why would any thinking person expect them to conceptually grasp anything?
Mass slows time. Slower time makes moving things (to themselves) seem to travel faster, which is equivalent to shrinking space.
The rubber sheet nonsense stretches space which is diametrically wrong.
Shrunken space is a shorter path which is why constant inertia favors (veers into) it.
Shrunken space leans into lower dimensionality not higher.
Are they confused or are they trying to confuse everyone else?
Mass curves space-time, but it curves it into lower dimension not higher dimension,We are anxiously awaiting your theory of relativity.
Yes, centripetal force as well as superluminal rotation speeds are the questions about the universe rotating around the Earth.The Earth Spins and it shows as an Equator Bulge. Yes there always will be a foundation reference; ultimately the 'cradle' for all things. But within a reference frame, it is possible to distinguish between spinning and not spinning. For example, space spinning around the planet Earth would include the rest of the universe but then space spinning around the sun would be a contradiction. Our universe might spin and bulge.
And, space dragging around spinning black holes?
Bill, not saying that you should "buy" it, but "string theory" involves more than 3 physical dimensions. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/String_theory .There are only 3 spatial dimensions. One temporal. When scientists say they need many more dimensions to describe something they are talking about things like temperature, pressure, smell, whatever. Note: It is more complicated than that but that's your basic idea.
Additional dimensions of space would be outside of our physics. Aka "magic". I don't buy into it.