the expanding universe

[oldschoolmojo]

"Einstein considered that space might be finite but boundless, in this manner. General relativity models the universe as a four dimensional manifold and it seems a pretty good analogy. "<br /><br />Space is a relativistic word, and yet it is not. Relative to the outside of your skin, the space within your body is finite. Relative to the outside of the Universe, the space within is also finite. All such measurable deliniations will be relative to other things: my body ends here. My property ends there. My city ends over yonder, and so on. But since space will always be a non relativistic concept and not a thing in and of itself, it will always be boundless. Isn't it wonderful that so many people can be correct? <br /><br />I would suggest that a better understanding of the Universe we live within would benefit from a study of the same magnetosphere archetype we see with an atom, with a planetary magnetosphere, with a solar magnetosphere, with a Galactic magnetosphere and just take this to the logical conclusion. To understand the larger system of what our Universe is, it seems to be time to consider that we actually live within influence of a Dark Energy Star. Which would imply that there is a larger system of course. Science once considered our Galaxy as the Universe. It may be that we shall call the domain of the postulated larger system as a Multiverse and our local system shall continue as a Universe... or we may someday call our local system as a super massive Dark Energy Star and the larger system beyond the veil then becomes the Uni (one) Verse. <br /><br />How far can this be taken? Wouldn't there be an event horizon deliniating a distinct magnetosphere (scalar field) shape to the Multiverse? If so, what comes next? Microverse? Macroverse? Is the archetype ever continuing or do we at some point arrive at shapes resembling Platonic solids? Would this set continue unabated forever, in a truely "boundless" series? Who knows for sure. <br /><br />Th

 

[ajna]

"The manifold itself has one more dimension than we can know of.... see where this is going?"<br /><br />Thanks speedy now i know what a manifold is, i infer that a manifold is a system of dimensions then... Got me wondering about the 11D 'manifold' the M-theorists postulate, which would rely on a 12D frame. We have not yet thought about the zero dimension, maybe its an interdimensional number in that it can transform anything to anything else. If we count 0 plus the 11 we get 12, exactly what we need for an 11D maifold. <br /><br />Can we consider 0D as a concept? Consider this: you said above that a circle is a 1D manifold in 2D. Then there must be a 0D manifold in 1D, which I imagine would be an infinite line curled inward so as to be a point. I think 0D must anchor the others. And BTW this would lead to base-12 math, which would seem to be a natural system for a 12D universe.<br /><br />I don't want to divert the discussion, if there's another forum for this please let me know thanks <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" />

 

[ajna]

"This horizon isn't the edge of an expansion wave but the point where the matter within is bunching up against the scalar field in a sort of shock wave."<br />"We can see our position relative to this center and understand we are in a Universal accretion disc."<br /><br />Both of these statements rely on an independent frame-of-reference within which the universe rests. There can be no rotation of a disc unless its is referenced to that which is 'not-rotation'. What is this independent frame? It would have to contain the multiverses (if existant). <br /><br />As an aside, I like the nested idea, but as a ring.

 

[SpeedFreek]

<font color="yellow"> Then there must be a 0D manifold in 1D </font><br /><br />Sound a little like string theory? <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font color="#ff0000">_______________________________________________<br /></font><font size="2"><em>SpeedFreek</em></font> </p> </div>

 

[oldschoolmojo]

"Both of these statements rely on an independent frame-of-reference within which the universe rests." <br /><br />Noting that our Galaxy is in what I called a Universal accretion disc is intuitive. However, "accretion disc" is an improper term. Equatorial disc would be more appropriate. We can see from the CMB pics that the Milky Way is in line with the two southern poles of the Universal quadrupole. This is exactly the same periodic view we have of our own solar system. To explain, every 11 years, Sol's poles switch from north to south, but before they do, a quadrupole developes wherein both ends of the dipole become north aka attractors, and additionally, two south or repulsor poles strongly emenate from the solar equator and begin spewing partical ejecta directly into the solar plane. Scalar dynamics dictates that what was once the Solar accretion disc still lives on in the form of a mostly invisible magnetic structure stretching out from Sol's equator beyond the point of Termination Shock (76 to 94 AU), the Heliopause (110 AU), and even beyond the Bow Shock (230 AU) to the inner reaches of the Oort Cloud. We know now that this equatorial plane is a "current sheet" which ripples like a ballerina's skirt every 27 days due to the rotation of the sun. This can only be due to the permanence of the equatorial poles. This means that, whereas we can see this current streaming along what must be the solar magnetosphere become a sort of conch shell shape every 11 years, in actuality the quadrupole is a permanent part of the solar magnetic structure which merely prominates during the end or beginning point of the 11 year cycle heralding the flip-flop of the solar north and south dipole. We must intuit that most if not all magnetospheres have an equatorial disc as part of their planar dynamic. We can see this demonstrated in the rings of Saturn, Jupiter and Uranus which are in line with the equatorial "neutral sheet" ending in the magnetopause. We can also see it

 

[oldschoolmojo]

I would be interested to see your sources for this "fact". <br /><br />Depends on your perspective. I think it was Einstein whom said that a fact was only something one man could convince another man was true. How many scientific facts have we seen fall by the wayside in recent years? In any case, you should check into the underground uproar created by the "CMB Quadrupole Problem" which has, um, *polarized into two streams of thought. Campanelli, Cea, Tedesco, (Physical Review Letters, 29 September 2006) suggest that only an Ellipsoidal Universe Can Solve The CMB Quadrupole Problem (http://www.arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0606266), while the spherical camp has their retorts to the retorts of the retorts. The whole thing started when the CMB data revealed a strong anisotropy, or polarization to all light in the Universe. Peering closer in the data, a monopole and quadrupole structure was revealed as part of a multipole system. Now typically, the pole system steps up from mono to di and then to quadru, and tends to be three dimensional and non-euclidian. When you get to a quadrupole you tend to have a very evolved three-dimensional and spherical magnetic structure, which many believe was implied in the first place by the unexpected discovery of this Universal anisotropy. In any case, wherever you have a pole system of any kind you have a center to the system do you not? You do unless you want to first prove the idea of diffuse magnetism and then disregard the essential key word (pole). So out the window went the non-centrist theories and the idea of the boundless Universe began its inevitable intellectually contracted death. <br /><br />In short, those with access to this data krapped their tighty-whities and prepared for the biggest and latest mother of all battles since Evolution took on Creationism. And it's just getting started. Should be fun to watch it unfold! <br /><br />I will note once again that as associated with the Universe, the word "flat" has been mi

 

[SpeedFreek]

Well, <i> you </i> seem to have made your mind up about there being a universal centre, inferred from the apparent observation of a quadrupole structure "deep" in the data of the CMB. I <b> have </b> read quite a lot on this issue this year and there is a school of thought that the structure so closely resembles the quadrupole structure around the Earth that it might well be <i> that </i> which is showing in the CMB data. The many scientists that have spent years studying the local quadrupole structure immediately recognised it as such. This may also apply to the polarization of the data as a whole. We really need to be measuring the CMB from somewhere else to confirm this one way or the other!<br /><br />You seem to have misappropriated the meaning of the term "flat" in relation to the universe too. It's is not as you say the way the "heathens" have it, a flat disc. Nor is it as you think it might be yourself, a bulging disc with such structures as a "north" halo. You seem to be making the same mistake as they are.<br /><br />The term "flat" in relation to the universe actually only indicates the global geometry of space-time. And recent research suggests that the three spatial dimensions may tend to equalise in length. This does not necessarily mean the universe is a bulging disc - it could just as easily be a sphere or ellipsoid.<br /><br />And your phrase "while space beyond the veil is still boundless" bothers me. You use boundless in a non scientific context. The surface of a sphere is boundless, but that surface has no centre. The length of a line is boundless if that line forms part of a circle.<br /><br />This continual quest to define the "shape" of the universe seems futile when our observations conform to a model where the whole thing folds back on itself and expands within itself.<br /><br />If the universe is indeed an (ellipsoidal or spherical) manifold, then any concepts of a centre become irrelevent, and that includes a manifold with a quadrupole structure. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font color="#ff0000">_______________________________________________<br /></font><font size="2"><em>SpeedFreek</em></font> </p> </div>

 

[oldschoolmojo]

"Well, you seem to have made your mind up about there being a universal centre, inferred from the apparent observation of a quadrupole structure "deep" in the data of the CMB." <br /><br />You seem to be disregarding that the CMB radiation was vestigial and the data itself was being collected to verify that there was in fact once a Big Bang. The thinking was that where there is smoke there was once fire, and by extension, where there is an explosion from a small primordial seed of matter there is a catalytic center which in some way shape or form expanded or inflated outward into what we see today. <br /><br />I've always found it amusing how people can talk about a Big Bang and the data which supports this event all the while disregarding the center-out dynamic. These are the same folks which keep looking for Dark Matter which mostly doesn't exist, sweeping aside the logic of centrifugal force from a Universal disc revolving around a central core. They also seem adept at disregarding the magnetosphere archetype (disc, central bulge, halo) which is so prevalent all around us. <br /><br />"I have read quite a lot on this issue this year and there is a school of thought that the structure so closely resembles the quadrupole structure around the Earth that it might well be that which is showing in the CMB data."<br /><br />For starters, it is a multipole system we are seeing in the CMB, not merely a quadrupole. Where are you getting data that the earth has a quadrupole and a monopole by the way? Additionally, this multipole system is seen in the background in the same way one would gaze at a coin held up to the night sky and happen to see the full moon or the Milky Way in the background. The CMB data took a snapshot of the Universe extending outwards from Earth in all directions to the farthest extent possible, and it should be recognized that compared to the Universe at large this snapshot is a relatively small bubble of space. The center of the pole system in ques

 

[derekmcd]

Great converstation guys. I would just like to remind you, though... the 'evidence' we use to determine the make-up of the Universe is analogous to taking one fluid ounce of ocean water and trying to determine the make up of the entire ocean. You are welcome to scoop up that ounce of water, but make no illusions of being able to attempt to determine the center of the ocean, much less its shape. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <div> </div><br /><div><span style="color:#0000ff" class="Apple-style-span">"If something's hard to do, then it's not worth doing." - Homer Simpson</span></div> </div>

 

[ajna]

Nice, like the discussion. A few q's...<br /><br />"a quardupole is most often associated with a rotating object"<br />if we're talking about the universe though we're establishing an external frame of reference by saying this. I suggest we look at the interdimensional structure of (the) 12D manifold (thanks speedfreak), and then we will see what that external reference is, because it will also be described in such a way.<br /><br />"There are ways to estimate the size of the Universe out to the magnetopause, or what I called the "shock wave" at the edge of the Universal scalar field."<br />Another way of saying magnetics is an interdimensional force which undergoes a symmetry change at this boundary. I have read that photons are associated with gravity. EM/magnetic/gravity all undergo a dimensional phase change at this boundary because they are all related interdimensionally. The Big Bang was probably just an expansion of dimensions within a universe IMO.<br /><br />The universal quadrupole must produce the same dynamic effects as Sol's then? Are the two south's created always in the same place wrt to the disc or are they variable, and are we in their line of site? What would be the effects? Just wondering if they would have any benefit for or detriment to life.<br /><br />"the "Great Wall" is in fact a figment of a spiral arm of the Universal equatorial disc."<br />I hope so!<br /><br />"We can even use this information to extrapolate the speed at which the Universal disc is rotating."<br />Well, if relativity is universal, this would only be a ratio, not a speed. True speed would only be defined against that which contains the manifold, which I believe is the 0D, that which is all in a point. That is what our parent universe looks like, because we are just a point in it. My point is if we align our math to 12-base along with the 12D manifold universe, incorprating 0D as the first dimension, we will be able to fit our rotation into a meaningful space. At the moment we are just

 

[ajna]

"there is a school of thought that the structure so closely resembles the quadrupole structure around the Earth that it might well be that which is showing in the CMB data. The many scientists that have spent years studying the local quadrupole structure immediately recognised it as such."<br /><br />Well if a fishbowl is covered with red cellophane it will deduce the universe to be red...<br /><br />Q: Why is the COBE data not subject to the same restriction other EM astronomy has? How can we say we are seeing all the way back? The microwave data may be like the heat in an oven after the cake has been taken out and eaten. What if it is only showing us what our own local patch was like when it formed, then of course we will be aligned to 'the' center. Question is, is it THE center?<br /><br />"This does not necessarily mean the universe is a bulging disc - it could just as easily be a sphere or ellipsoid."<br />Yet a disc is a 2D representation of a sphere right?<br /><br />"The length of a line is boundless if that line forms part of a circle."<br />Or a spiral, which in 4D Earth would be a circle.<br /><br />"our observations conform to a model where the whole thing folds back on itself and expands within itself."<br />What's this model? M-theory? or what? I thought there was still argument. <br />What can create itself? What in the physical universe can create itself?<br />'The universe created itself' is not a scientific nor satisfactory answer don't you think? It might sustain itself, but what is the cause? The answer is dire, for if it is not physics and maths, then its consciousness.<br />We must find the 0D, and thence we will find the cause.

 

[ajna]

Can I just clarify, just as a cosmic string can undergo its own expansion phase as our universe did, thus are created universes within universes. This is perceived as the 0D (ie a point of all-that-is) by the daughter universe.

 

[oldschoolmojo]

"Great converstation guys. I would just like to remind you, though... the 'evidence' we use to determine the make-up of the Universe is analogous to taking one fluid ounce of ocean water and trying to determine the make up of the entire ocean. You are welcome to scoop up that ounce of water, but make no illusions of being able to attempt to determine the center of the ocean, much less its shape." <br /><br />The CMB data was in fact a large bubble when comparied to our loci, but a small bubble when compared with the Universe at large. Thus, you are at least partially correct in your assessment. The debate here is concerning the data showing first that there was this unexpected anisotropy, or polarization to most of the light in the Universe. In short, there are magnetic lay lines indicative of a massive scalar field. With further inspection, the source of this magnetism was discovered: in the background of this bubble was this immensely monstrously huge multipole system which can only be part of a Universal magnetosphere which would logically be replete with all of the normal constituent parts-- sphere, pole, equatorial disc, lay lines, a center, a central bulge and etc etc. This is relatively new information and the debate on the relevance of the CMB data has basically just begun. We seem to be truly entering a new age of our understanding of the Universe.

 

[SpeedFreek]

I may have a different (and probably less well grounded) understanding of manifolds and the different concepts for for their bounds as you, but I'm pretty sure I was treating them as a surface in the same manner that we treat space-time. And the surface of a sphere (a 2D manifold) has no centre. The problem may be that I cannot think in 4D so I cannot visualise a 4D manifold!<br /><br />I have a good understanding of the metric expansion of space though, which is why I will always question whether there is a centre of <b> expansion, </b> but <i> that </i> is a different kind of centre from the one you are proposing, I can see.<br /><br />I still have questions though... <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" /><br /><br />You say the CMB data contains evidence indicative of a massive scalar field. Well, I was under the impression that the CMB was actually <i> caused </i> by a scalar field in the first place! The scalar field I refer to existed during the inflationary epoch, some 300,000 years before the recombination that gave us the CMB.<br /><br />The inflationary epoch has been hyothesised to have been caused by the phase transition which marked the end of the grand unification epoch. One of the properties of this phase transition is a scalar field, known as an <b> inflaton </b> field.<br /><br />As this scalar field tended towards it's lowest energy state it is thought to have generated the repulsive force that caused the exponential expansion of space. When the field reached its lowest energy state the inflation finished with the potential energy of the inflaton field decaying into a hot relativistic guark-gluon plasma.<br /><br />The decay of the potential energy of this scalar field is termed <i> reheating. </i><br /><br />Now I know a lot is supposed to have happened between the reheating at the end of the inflationary epoch (caused by a scalar field) and the recombination 300,000 years later, where photons finally decoupled and became independent from matter. But seeing as it <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font color="#ff0000">_______________________________________________<br /></font><font size="2"><em>SpeedFreek</em></font> </p> </div>

 

[alokmohan]

Can there be event horizon of universe?Some body has posted.What lot of talk of four dimensional universe?We perceiv three dimesions.Time is 4th dimension.

 

[SpeedFreek]

We <i> perceive </i> four dimensions, one of which is time. Without a 4th dimension we could not perceive any movement. Space-time is four dimensional. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font color="#ff0000">_______________________________________________<br /></font><font size="2"><em>SpeedFreek</em></font> </p> </div>

 

[oldschoolmojo]

"Can there be event horizon of universe?"<br /><br />Soon after the Big Bang the Universe went through a phase of rapidly accelerating expansion, which inflated the currently observable Universe through 70 powers of 10 from much smaller than the size of an atom to the size of a tennis ball, and this series of inflationary expansions continued in a series of epochs. The initial Big Bang would have sent a wall of force and ejecta to the limitations defined by the epoch in which it expanded. Each extension would have an event horizon deliniated by the Cosmic flotsom, and perhaps jetsom if need be. The current event horizon would deliniate the so-called surface topology of our current Universe. <br /><br />My research indicates that each event horizon would have left behind a very strong Scalar Field which would survive the further expansions, afterword becoming an intrinsic part of the Universal magnetosphere structure, like a series of nested Russian dolls. I will pick up more on this subject in a response to one of speedfreak's recent posts.

 

[SpeedFreek]

In reference to your earlier question, I was indeed wrong about the CMB data being contaminated by the quardupole of the Earth. <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" /> As you can see this is not really my area, and my memory of the discussion was a little vague (I should have checked).<br /><br />It was the possible contamination of the CMB data by the <i> galactic </i> quadrupole I was of course referring to! There has been some discussion as to whether the galactic component has been correctly subtracted from the data. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font color="#ff0000">_______________________________________________<br /></font><font size="2"><em>SpeedFreek</em></font> </p> </div>

 

[oldschoolmojo]

" I will always question whether there is a centre of expansion, but that is a different kind of centre from the one you are proposing, I can see. "<br /><br />Your understanding of manifolds seems to be well developed. As you admit, you have been dwelling on the surface topology while I have been referring to the center of the inflationary bubble. Nobody here is debating whether the surface has a center which would be (pun alert) fairly *pointless. <br /><br />"I still have questions though..." <br /><br />Yes and one of these is a good one: does the Universe have a center? You keep giving away your inner rational when you say things like: "One of the properties of this phase transition is a scalar field, known as an inflaton field." <br /><br />This surface topology you are so fascinated with, what did it inflate from? The CMB was supposed and did provide definitive proof which was added to other proofs that the hypothesized Big Bang actually happened. So the bubble inflated from a tiny seed of matter the size of an atom, and there is the center you keep speaking of and questioning at the same time. Accept your own inner voice. <br /><br />"I was under the impression that the CMB was actually caused by a scalar field in the first place!" <br /><br />Yes, as you so adroitly summarized, your impression is spot on. <br /><br />"The decay of the potential energy of this scalar field is termed reheating."<br /><br />Ooh, you just broached one of my favorite subjects. I've said that a magnetosphere is a manifold and being the dominate archetype on so many levels of nature is likely to represent the actual shape of the Universe. To this I'll add some of my research on Scalar Fields. They are conductors, with the respective dilation, displacement and the centrifugal force of high and low pressure systems (the so-called Coriolis Effect). There are two types of Scalars: mathematical and physical (to every point in space relative to the field). Examples include Vector and

 

[oldschoolmojo]

"In reference to your earlier question, I was indeed wrong about the CMB data being contaminated by the quardupole of the Earth. As you can see this is not really my area, and my memory of the discussion was a little vague (I should have checked). <br /><br />It was the possible contamination of the CMB data by the galactic quadrupole I was of course referring to! There has been some discussion as to whether the galactic component has been correctly subtracted from the data."<br /><br />They are orthogonal or at right angles to each other. There may be overlapping anisotropic resonances, but they are distinctly different.

 

[SpeedFreek]

<i> "So the bubble inflated from a tiny seed of matter the size of an atom, and there is the center you keep speaking of and questioning at the same time. Accept your own inner voice." </i><br /><br />My inner voice tells me that if the bubble inflated from a tiny seed of matter, then the whole of space was once inside the tiny seed of matter. Therefore the whole of space is what was originally the "centre", or the source.<br /><br />Alternatively, why do you think it is that if we want to look back towards the beginning of time, we can look towards the <i> surface </i> of last scattering in <i> any </i> direction? Because the point that was originally the tiny seed of matter can now be considered to be at the edges of our universe, in all directions. So, technically, any "source" of expansion is located at the furthest distance in any direction.<br /><br />I'm talking surfaces again <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" /> But if we are within the volume and the surface of last scattering is a "shell" all around us, then anything earlier in the universe than that will be outside that "shell" in all directions.<br /><br /><br /><i> "Now that we have a confirmation on the Universal center" </i><br /><br />Excuse me? We have confirmation of this? When did this happen? It is still a hypothesis at the moment.<br /><br /><br /><i> "While the Graviton and Anti-Graviton have been proven" </i><br /><br />This one is news to me too! I must have been asleep for a long time. When were these particles <i> proven? </i><br /><br /><br />A couple of links for your perusal:<br /><br /> CERN Courier - Does the motion of the solar system affect the microwave sky? <br /><br /> On the large-angle anomalies of the microwave sky <br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font color="#ff0000">_______________________________________________<br /></font><font size="2"><em>SpeedFreek</em></font> </p> </div>

 

[oldschoolmojo]

"My inner voice tells me that if the bubble inflated from a tiny seed of matter, then the whole of space was once inside the tiny seed of matter. Therefore the whole of space is what was originally the "centre", or the source. "<br /><br />Ok, but what we call the inflationary Universe is a tongue-in-cheek phrase because inflation only happened after an explosion, hence big "Bang" which expanded outward from a catalytic center. Try injecting an explosive force into a balloon and see what happens. Irregardless, even an inflated balloon has a center does it not? So if you cannot accept a center to the Universe you might consider selecting a different terminology to describe inflation to yourself. <br /><br />"Alternatively, why do you think it is that if we want to look back towards the beginning of time, we can look towards the surface of last scattering in any direction? Because the point that was originally the tiny seed of matter can now be considered to be at the edges of our universe, in all directions. So, technically, any "source" of expansion is located at the furthest distance in any direction."<br /><br />That was a prior misconception which was dispelled by the CMB data which showed a definitive and well developed multipole system to the Universe. The pixelated CMB data shows the far side of the Universal quadrupole as blue (colder) and the near side of the as red (hotter). With this information, we can look "backwards towards the beginning of time" in a specific direction. And I might add, the fact that there are Galaxies in the Universe which are far too old for their position relative to this "beginning" has already thrown your supposition into disarray. <br /><br />"I'm talking surfaces again But if we are within the volume and the surface of last scattering is a "shell" all around us, then anything earlier in the universe than that will be outside that "shell" in all directions."<br /><br />Not so. Think this through. Whether the Universe exploded or

 

[SpeedFreek]

<i> "As often happens these days, science is passing the uninformed and the naysayers by." </i><br /><br />Well, I will admit to being uninformed. <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" /><br /><br />This has been an interesting discussion and I will have to look into this further, I can see.<br /><br />I can understand all your arguments, but I cannot yet reconcile them with the metric expansion we observe. It seems to me that the two concepts aren't really linked. And yet you link them.<br /><br />Although there are always a few anomalies, we generally see a picture of the universe where the further away a galaxy is, the faster it's recession speed is. The correlation is pretty much consistent in any arbitrary direction. This implies that the volume is expanding, the metric that defines distance is changing over time, and the same would be true wherever you were.<br /><br />And yet you still try to link the multipole "centre" with a centre of the metric expansion. Like I said, it seems to me the two things are different. I have been thinking of the whole picture in a different way.<br /><br />I see the initial point (the big bang, which is itself originally a tongue-in-cheek name given to the theory by skeptics, as it is not described as an explosion), a point of zero dimension if you like, and then the point expands from <i> within. </i> All of space is inside this point, and the point expands within itself. There is no "outside" of the point to consider. Space was created inside due to the initial event and resulting metric expansion.<br /><br />So I don't see the big-bang as an explosion through space, I see it as an explosion <b> of </b> space, if you like. Then I consider the geometry of this space, and it is possible it folds back on itself so that geometrically, a centre is purely arbitrary.<br /><br />The centre may indeed not be so arbitrary to the matter within this space though. I just doubt the multipole centre is any kind of centre of expansion, or can be considered in t <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font color="#ff0000">_______________________________________________<br /></font><font size="2"><em>SpeedFreek</em></font> </p> </div>

 

[kyle_baron]

<font color="yellow"><br />As I typed that I wondered if you wouldn't chaffe at the Graviton reference as well. Russia created their first Graviton in the 1950's, and America followed suite a few years after in the early 1960's. We beat them in the race to create Anti-Gravitons, so bully for us. Check into the work at Los Alamos. Start by googleing Pontecorvo, Sakata, Fermi, Teller, Lovelock and all of the other Titans of the Graviton research. You'll get citations, dates, masses, and anecdotes to satiate most of your questions. </font><br /><br />That's B.S. Supply credible internet links, or retract your statement. <img src="/images/icons/tongue.gif" /><br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font size="4"><strong></strong></font></p> </div>

 

[ajna]

Speedy: "We perceive four dimensions, one of which is time. Without a 4th dimension we could not perceive any movement. Space-time is four dimensional."<br /><br />How do we know 'one of which is time'? You've also said that without it we would not perceive any movement, and I agree, but differently. There is only one moment that exists, and that is now. This 'dimension' is simply the state of things at that moment. Linear time is a psychological phenomenon. The Second Law of Thermodynamics can 'go backwards' relative to most experience, yet its operation has nothing to do with linear time and everything to do with an evolving state that is all that exists.<br /><br />I would prefer to call 'space-time' 'space-now'. <br /><br />On the other hand, if linear time exists, then so does circular time, or no time, or other forms we don't know of yet. <br /><br />Both must exist I think, and so the latter is contained within the former.