Hi All,

Though I am a computer programmer by profession, I do occassionally
wander into physics and have a general interest in it. Experience wise,
I'm familiar with elementary physics but I never got into the heavy
stuff, which brings me to my question.

I keep hearing about curved space-time in a variety of articles but
can't seem to get my head around the notion space being curve-able and
of time and space being fusable.

First off, when I think of space I think of the absence of matter to a
given degree. Vacuo are at one extreme being completely empty space,
while dense solids are at the other extreme with very little space in
them.

Then when I think of time, I think of a man-made logical device used
for measuring the "distance" between the occurrence of two events of
interest. (Time seems to be one of those things you can't define easily
without using the word "time" itself, though I am aware of the
definition of a second in terms of transitions of state in the
cesium-133 isotope).

Now then, how do you fuse/combine space (the general absence of matter)
and time (a logical device for measuring)? Or is this fusing a purely
mathematical concept?

Furthermore, how can space curve? That sounds like taking "nothingness"
and giving it shape which doesn't seem to compute in my mind. OK,
suppose that it could curve and we treat it as a hypothetical fourth
state of matter coming after the gaseous state. Wouldn't it need to be
contained in something and hence take on the curved shape of that
something (much like a liquid in a container)? Or looking at it another
way, how would curved space maintain its structure?

I believe these questions should be answerable in the same language as
they were posed: English. So if someone in-the-know can clue me in on
these issues without having to resort to (abstract) mathematics, I'd be
really grateful. (If some mathematical treatment is necessary, then I'd
prefer to be told both the logic being used and the mathematics
expressing that logic numerically).

Cheers,
Eric.

Eric Mutta wrote:
[snip]

I keep hearing about curved space-time in a variety of articles but
can't seem to get my head around the notion space being curve-able and
of time and space being fusable.

Annalen der Physik 4, XVII, pp. 891-921 (1905)
spacetime
Annalen der Physik 4, XLIX, pp. 769-822 (1916)
spacetime curvature

First off, when I think of space I think of the absence of matter to a
given degree. Vacuo are at one extreme being completely empty space,
while dense solids are at the other extreme with very little space in
them.

Casimir effect, Lamb shift, Rabi vacuum oscillations, electron
anomalous g-factor... The quantum vacuum is brimming with stuff.
Zitterbewegung,

http://delta.cs.cinvestav.mx/~mcintosh/comun/symm/node11.html

Matter is hollow. Electron Fermi exclusion keeps the Earth inflated
to larger than a cantalope. Nucleon Fermi exclusion prevents major
compaction thereafer. Hey bozo, maximum ambient matter density is
about 22.65 g/cm^3. Nuclear density is about 2.3x10^14 g/cm^3. The
difference is empty space.

Then when I think of time, I think of a man-made logical device used
for measuring the "distance" between the occurrence of two events of
interest. (Time seems to be one of those things you can't define easily
without using the word "time" itself, though I am aware of the
definition of a second in terms of transitions of state in the
cesium-133 isotope).

Time is what a clock measures, oscillator or radioactive decay. It is
locally consistent and externally arbitrary. The reference frame that
travels most through space travels least through time. ds^2 is a
constant.

Now then, how do you fuse/combine space (the general absence of matter)
and time (a logical device for measuring)? Or is this fusing a purely
mathematical concept?

Annalen der Physik 4, XVII, pp. 891-921 (1905)
spacetime
http://fourmilab.to/etexts/einstein/specrel/specrel.pdf
http://www.geocities.com/physics_world/sr/ae_1905_error.htm
http://www.physics.gatech.edu/people/faculty/finkelstein/relativity.pdf
Longitudinal and transverse mass

Furthermore, how can space curve? That sounds like taking "nothingness"
and giving it shape which doesn't seem to compute in my mind.

A Moebius band is a non-orientable surface. It has no twist.

OK,
suppose that it could curve and we treat it as a hypothetical fourth
state of matter coming after the gaseous state. Wouldn't it need to be
contained in something and hence take on the curved shape of that
something (much like a liquid in a container)? Or looking at it another
way, how would curved space maintain its structure?

This would be a good time for you to stop making a public ass of
yourself and do some reading. If you don't like Einstein's spacetime
curvature you can use Weitzenboeck's spacetime torsion and get the
same answers.

I believe these questions should be answerable in the same language as
they were posed: English.

Math. You made a horrible garbage midden with the English.

So if someone in-the-know can clue me in on
these issues without having to resort to (abstract) mathematics, I'd be
really grateful. (If some mathematical treatment is necessary, then I'd
prefer to be told both the logic being used and the mathematics
expressing that logic numerically).

http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/hframe.html
overview of all physics
http://www.motionmountain.net
overview of all physics
http://www.mat.univie.ac.at/~neum/physics-faq.txt
theoretical physics FAQ

--
Uncle Al
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/
(Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals)
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/qz.pdf

Eric Mutta wrote:
Hi All,

Though I am a computer programmer by profession, I do occassionally
wander into physics and have a general interest in it. Experience
wise,
I'm familiar with elementary physics but I never got into the heavy
stuff, which brings me to my question.

I keep hearing about curved space-time in a variety of articles but
can't seem to get my head around the notion space being curve-able
and
of time and space being fusable.

First off, when I think of space I think of the absence of matter to
a
given degree. Vacuo are at one extreme being completely empty space,
while dense solids are at the other extreme with very little space in
them.

Then when I think of time, I think of a man-made logical device used
for measuring the "distance" between the occurrence of two events of
interest. (Time seems to be one of those things you can't define
easily
without using the word "time" itself, though I am aware of the
definition of a second in terms of transitions of state in the
cesium-133 isotope).

Now then, how do you fuse/combine space (the general absence of
matter)
and time (a logical device for measuring)? Or is this fusing a purely
mathematical concept?


Yes, it is, and it's wrong. Albert Einstein (AE) claimed time and
space are interdependent, but my model of the universe shows that time
is independent of space as it is a property of visible discrete matter
while space is a property of the universe. Time does not pass for
empty space, it passes only for visible matter, and it passes inversely
proportional to it's states of motion. We can have space without time,
even though we must have space in order to have matter with time
accruing to it, but since we can have space sans time, that proves time
and space are not inseparable, nor, interdependent. Thus, the
Time-Space Continuum exists only as a math construct and not as a real
place.


Furthermore, how can space curve? That sounds like taking
"nothingness"
and giving it shape which doesn't seem to compute in my mind. OK,
suppose that it could curve and we treat it as a hypothetical fourth
state of matter coming after the gaseous state. Wouldn't it need to
be
contained in something and hence take on the curved shape of that
something (much like a liquid in a container)? Or looking at it
another
way, how would curved space maintain its structure?


Of course space cannot curve. If it did, the orbits of objects which
it affects would show a definite shape to the curvature of space. And
for it to curve, it would have to have some power to do so, or be bent
by some external power. There is no evidence to that effect other than
the theory of gravitation which some claim has been replaced by GR.

AE claimed that massive objects curve the space around them and that
there is no attractive force to them but objects follow the curved
paths set up by massive objects. It was a very good try by ol' AE to
explain gravitation, but I think most people now agree he failed in the
attempt.

Since space is invisible to us, one can say almost anything one wants
to as to what it is and does. AE fixed it up to have curved space
replace classical gravitation, but he only fooled most people all of
the time. Some he never fooled, but they are in the minority in these
ngs. Here you will find the most rabid Relativists, those who defend
Relativity as reality even in spite of their knowledge that it was
intended to describe the effects of what we call gravitation, and not
to replace it.

Uncleal is one of those, and no one can post here without him jumping
up onto the bridge and attacking any ideas or questions which may shine
some light on the boondoggle which is part of Relativity. That type of
religious zeal cannot abide any criticism of his god, and so he stands
ready to refer everyone to some website or another. He's harmless, as
he cannot have an original thought of his own, but his antics can be
distracting, unfortunately.

TomGee

Eric Mutta wrote:
Hi All,

Though I am a computer programmer by profession, I do occassionally
wander into physics and have a general interest in it. Experience wise,
I'm familiar with elementary physics but I never got into the heavy
stuff, which brings me to my question.

I keep hearing about curved space-time in a variety of articles but
can't seem to get my head around the notion space being curve-able and
of time and space being fusable.


Are There Any Good Books on Relativity Theory?
http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physic..._booklist.html

Casimir effect, Lamb shift, Rabi vacuum oscillations, electron
anomalous g-factor... The quantum vacuum is brimming with stuff.
Zitterbewegung,

Structure. Brimming with structure, which is ordinarily invisible due to a
relativistic effect. But it is definately there.



Then when I think of time, I think of a man-made logical device used
for measuring the "distance" between the occurrence of two events of
interest. (Time seems to be one of those things you can't define easily
without using the word "time" itself, though I am aware of the
definition of a second in terms of transitions of state in the
cesium-133 isotope).


Time is the 4th dimension.



Furthermore, how can space curve? That sounds like taking "nothingness"
and giving it shape which doesn't seem to compute in my mind.

Empty space is not nothingness. It is merely an invisible substance. It is
just dimension, but it's definately not a "nothingness".




OK,
suppose that it could curve and we treat it as a hypothetical fourth
state of matter coming after the gaseous state. Wouldn't it need to be
contained in something and hence take on the curved shape of that
something (much like a liquid in a container)? Or looking at it another
way, how would curved space maintain its structure?


I believe that waves in spacetime may exhibit some type of superfluidity.
This is why atomic particles are so stable. Consider a photon travelling
across the whole universe. The photon is just a wave in spacetime, and yet
this wave has the ability to traverse the diameter of the universe. The
photon is a wave which is propagated through the medium known as spacetime,
and it is a "frictionless" process.

Spacetime waveforms exhibit superfluidity.

Eric Mutta wrote:
Hi All,

Though I am a computer programmer by profession, I do occassionally
wander into physics and have a general interest in it. Experience wise,
I'm familiar with elementary physics but I never got into the heavy
stuff, which brings me to my question.

Well, what one considers to be elementary and what heavy is a quite
subjective viewpoint... ;-)


I keep hearing about curved space-time in a variety of articles but
can't seem to get my head around the notion space being curve-able and
of time and space being fusable.

First off, when I think of space I think of the absence of matter to a
given degree. Vacuo are at one extreme being completely empty space,
while dense solids are at the other extreme with very little space in
them.

I think you go wrong already here. "space" isn't just simply the stuff
"between" the particles. Space is everywhere. A block of steel with a
volume of 1 m^3 has just as much space as 1 m^3 of vacuum.


Then when I think of time, I think of a man-made logical device used
for measuring the "distance" between the occurrence of two events of
interest.

One could as well say that space is a man-made logical device used
to measure the distance between two material things.


(Time seems to be one of those things you can't define easily
without using the word "time" itself, though I am aware of the
definition of a second in terms of transitions of state in the
cesium-133 isotope).

Physicists usually say simply "time is that which the clock measures". ;-)



Now then, how do you fuse/combine space (the general absence of matter)
and time (a logical device for measuring)?

By first noting that your notions of space and time aren't really
adequate for the question.


Or is this fusing a purely mathematical concept?

One could say so, yes. Einstein showed that space and time measurements
are not unique, but depend on (relative) motion; Minkowski then pointed
out that Einstein's equations can be formulated as coordinate
transformations in a four-dimensional space (with a non-positive
definite metric...)



Furthermore, how can space curve?

How couldn't it? ;-)


That sounds like taking "nothingness"
and giving it shape which doesn't seem to compute in my mind.

Equating "space" with "nothingness" is a bad idea. You could as well
ask "how can nothingness have a volume"?


OK, suppose that it could curve and we treat it as a hypothetical fourth
state of matter coming after the gaseous state.

*Very* bad idea. Why on earth should we do that?


Wouldn't it need to be
contained in something and hence take on the curved shape of that
something (much like a liquid in a container)?

No. General Relativity uses Riemannian geometry. In that, curvature
of something can be defined without referring to anything outside.



Or looking at it another
way, how would curved space maintain its structure?

The curvature is determined by the matter (or, actually, energy)
content. As long there is matter, there will be curvature.

Think of the (bad!) analogy of a rubber plane, with marbles lying on
it, depressing it, forming troughs.



I believe these questions should be answerable in the same language as
they were posed: English.

Only partly. After all, if everything in physics were explainable in
plain English, it wouldn't take years of study!

Do you also think that the question "Why are the possible orbits in
a gravitational field around a central mass parabolas, ellipes and
hyperbolas"? That's classical Newtonian physics...


[snip]

Bye,
Bjoern

"Theo Wollenleben" wrote in message
...
Eric Mutta wrote:

Now then, how do you fuse/combine space (the general absence of matter)
and time (a logical device for measuring)? Or is this fusing a purely
mathematical concept?

There is no absolute time. The time a clock meassures depends on its state
of motion through space. Consider an observer in rest and another
oberserver that moves with a constant velocity with respect to the first
observer. Then each observer can describe points in space-time ("events")
by coordinates (t, x) and (t', x') respectively. The Galileian
transformation of time is t = t'. That means time is absolute and is
separated from space. But that's only an approximation for small
velocities. Actually the coordinate t' depends also on x: t' = t'(t, x),
so we are forced to treat space and time as an single entity.

Furthermore, how can space curve? That sounds like taking "nothingness"
and giving it shape which doesn't seem to compute in my mind. OK,
suppose that it could curve and we treat it as a hypothetical fourth
state of matter coming after the gaseous state. Wouldn't it need to be
contained in something and hence take on the curved shape of that
something (much like a liquid in a container)? Or looking at it another
way, how would curved space maintain its structure?

Uncle Al has already pointed out that the vacuum isn't "nothingness" but
has a lot of structure in quantum field theory. But the theory which
describes the geometry of space-time (General Relativity) don't need QFT.
Actually both theories can't be combined to give a quantum theory of
gravity.

An example of a two-dimensional curved space is the surface of the earth.
This surface is embedded in our three-dimensional space. But we don't need
a higher dimensional embedding space to describe a curved space
mathematically. The geometry of space-time is given by the metric, which
is used to calculate for instance the length of a path through space-time
or the curvature of space-time.

You can't tell curvature without some kind of gauges of maximum curvature
and minimum curvature (i.e., straight (most minimum curvature being
straight)). The Sombrero galaxy shows us progression to an exceedingly
straight line, an exceedingly flat plane, in showing itself to us nearly
edge on. Yet in diameter that line of spacetime covers a length approaching
our own galaxy's diameter, straight across its plane. If space were curved
neither of these galaxies could have such straight radiuses and overall
diameters to their planes displayed edge on to the distant observer.

Our own solar system displays such a straight line plane reaching radial
out from the Sun toward the Kuiper and Oort Clouds at the outer edge of its
flat plane. The planets are all orbiting the Sun while maintaining
themselves in this flat plane, never drifting very far either below or above
the straight line of a CD flat and straight line plane when observed or
realized edge on. One might call them all flatly equatorial planes, not one
of which has any discernable curvature whatsoever to arrest and destroy a
longer lasting term symmetry of the systems.

Every millimeter of the vertical a thing can get above or below one of
these flat planes is to get hyperspatial, or hypertimely as the case may be,
to the flat space and time of whatever the particular plane. To warp or to
get inversely proportional to the entire plane, or to make changes faster as
it were, turning by far the vast majority of the flat plane into "fly over
country" rather than slogging and plodding through "travel through country."

The greater plane of interstellar space (versus interplanetary space) is
always thought of, and depicted as, being the space beyond the Kuiper and
Oort Cloud edge of this solar system. The actual beginning to and/or
attainment of interstellar space is anytime anything can get going vertical
(to whatever degree of curvature) to the flat horizontal of the solar
system's interplanetary plane. With regard to a galaxy, such as our galaxy,
the actual beginning to and/or attainment of intergalactic space is anytime
anything can get going vertical (to whatever degree of curvature) to the
flat horizontal of the galactic system's interstellar plane. Anything should
be able to transfer faster between points of a lower plane by either curving
toward or actually attaining a higher plane before descending back into the
lower plane at some other point of it.

As the observable universe itself shows us, magnitudes of space and time
do not curve from higher to lower magnitudes--or from lower to higher
magnitudes--of it. Getting or going vertically higher to lower or lower to
higher gets asymmetrically 3-dimensional rather than symmetrically
2-dimensional.

I don't know what forces operate to corner more or less 3-dimensional
looking objects into great flat 2-dimensional planes, holding them there.
Edge on though, those great flat 2-dimensional planes couldn't be straighter
in their equatorial line. Thus any curvature vertically over or below that
2-dimensional plane from any relatively distant point to distant point is
the straightest line between the two points [in that lower plane].

Brad

The atom moves in the energy slope because it has more mass on one side
of it's center than the other side.
As the atom is across an energy slope and up is a gain in mass then
the orbiting parts have less mass when at the bottom of the orbit than
the top.
All of the atoms parts are falling twards the center of the atom but
there is more mass falling in one direction than the other.
This GAIN in energy across evry atom is allways peroprtional to the
weight of the mass.
The gain in mass is F pushing the weight of the atom. The atom is
pushing it's self down the energy slope.

99.7 % of all the energy inside the universe takes up space in time and
pushes out as the universe expands.
mater is condenced energy taking up space.
THE BIG NOTHINGESS BOX.
The NB is 100 times larger than the small box of expanding energy that
will expand and fill the box.............
but this other box has a rock in it and that box of expanding energy
will take longer to fill the box of nothingess because less of the box
of energy will expand so it will take more time for the box wih the rock
to fill the big box of nothingness.
The atom moves in the energy slope because it has more mass on one side
of it's center than the other side.
As the atom is across an energy slope and up is a gain in mass then
the orbiting parts have less mass when at the bottom of the orbit than
the top.
All of the atoms parts are falling twards the center of the atom but
there is more mass falling in one direction than the other.
This GAIN in energy across evry atom is allways peroprtional to the
weight of the mass.
The gain in mass is F pushing the weight of the atom. The atom is
pushing it's self down the energy slope.

"Eric Mutta" wrote in message
ups.com...

[snip]

.. (If some mathematical treatment is necessary, then I'd
prefer to be told both the logic being used and the mathematics
expressing that logic numerically).

I would suggest that as a starting point, you might look at the
relationship between logic and mathematics. I'll give you a hint:
Mathematics is simply the essence of logic.

--
Franz
"The great tragedy of science -- the slaying of a beautiful hypothesis
by an ugly fact."
T.H. Huxley