Is gravity the flow of spacetime into mass

We would all look like Rudolph Valentino, have bank balances like the Sultan of Borneo and a dick like Lexington Steele.

That seems reasonable for a blind guess.

Us men I ought to have said.

Sorry ladies.

Oh-- BTW jeffie-- Welcome to A2K.

This is the "hatchery" Aldous Huxley was trying to get into focus.

Although we haven't dispensed with the shagging.

Welcome!

Energy also causes spacetime to curve - energy and matter are equivalent in all regards when it come to a relativistic view of how they affect spacetimes topology (curvature).

If you wish to study this you need to view matter and energy as properties of something and space and time as a field which interacts with this something and alters the way its properties are displayed.

So the geometry of the entire field is change by the concentration of matter and space within it - so much so that we can't always say if the entire field is relativistically bound (i.e. in the spacetime between galaxies - we can not definitely say all the laws of relativity definitiely hold, or hold unchanged).

Now carry this to extremes - where the very universe is ripped into existence by a high energy, extremely brief event - whose own initial energy concentrations would have effectively created black holes travelling at lightspeed out from the epic centre of creation - but for spacetime inflating so fast the energy could not have gravitationally collapsed.

Imagine that again - when a grenade blow up you have shrapnel flying around. When the big bang burbed - alot of concentred energy packets (more than enough to create a black hole with a event horizon the size of 2/3 of the current universe today) was flying around. Each energy packet if you imagine it that way had the gravitational equivalant of a super cluster of galaxies - probably in volume of spacetime less than a football stadium of size. But rather than gravitationally collapse the opposite occured - spacetimes expansion itself ripped these concentrations of energy apart unit they were billions of light years in size.

So spacetime sometimes has the dominant say in how amtter and energy move. So there must be factors that can influence space and time - that at least include energy / matter - maybe something else can get involved to - else we'd all be inside the mother of all black holes right now!

We seem to live in one ultra fine-tuned universe.

That's all very well gd but what exactly is an-



supposed to mean?

It might have be a bit of a drag if you were experiencing it.

You're playing with words.

Inflation epoch should qualify - between 10 ^-35 to 10 ^ -34 seconds after the big bang.

Divide a second by the age of the universe in seconds - then do it again - is that brief enough for you?

I'm dumbing down extremely complex theoretcial physics so you might understand it. Tell me you understand the vocabularly of high energy physics and/or SuSy and we can speak in a different way. But if you can do that visit me at the www.advancedphysics.org in say the cosmology or high energy physics forum and lets review what is known and testable there.

Better still ask a great question and folk far smarter and more talented in their fields will try and answer it for you.

spacetime flows into mass

I understand the dogma. My question is whether the dogma of spacetime curvature is flawed. I am suggesting that what has been observed as curvature and "attraction" to mass is simply mass being carried to mass by the flow of spacetime toward mass.

Look at the isobar lines on a weather map. The atmosphere does not really curve around low pressure. A balloon is not 'attracted' to low pressure; it is carried toward the low pressure by the prevailing wind.

So it is with spacetime. Mass is carried toward mass by the prevailing wind of spacetime. Instead of looking at spacetime from a flat dimension, look at the curvature of spacetime as a compressed image of the flow of spacetime toward mass.

I am asking you to think outside your box and suspend your belief in dogma. How would the universe be different if gravity was the flow of spacetime into mass?

Peace
rwj

Dogma - isn't that for religous beliefs - scientific method is for models that can predict verifable outcomes and be statistically analysed (f or p tests or anovas) to assign confidence intervals.

Dogma (noun) - a point of view or tenet put forth as authoritative without adequate grounds, a doctrine or body of doctrines concerning faith or morals formally stated and authoritatively proclaimed by a church.

Not sure why every wild thought has the holder saying but what if scientific method is a crock? Scientific method can describe the effects of gravity - drop a million balls and watch each one fall. Drop another and you can assign it an outcome with a very precise confidence interval as to what will happen - you can then test this against your models hypothesis -to validate your thinking - so why mistake scientific method as a dogma?

You ask does spacetime flow. Well three immediate concerns need to be raised:

1) what is it - is it ether - how many dimensions does it have - how does it interact with things in it?
2) if it can flow how is it directional - relative to what and how many dimensions?
3) what is the prevailing wind of spacetime? Why not suggest it is the emergent colour of spacetime or the frequency of the entropy that relates motion?

I can't validate quantum chromodynamics without explaining it and saying what it predicts and what can or can't be validated. How can you talk about the "prevailing wind of spacetime" with no defintions or underlying model of reality in sight?

To have your thinking critically evaluated you have to supposition some comprehensible framework for analysis. So far I hear one isolated supposition with no supporting framework, no theory, no evidence, no tests for validity and no definition of terms. You're making life tough for us!

So how are we to evaluate your thoughts when you are yet to describe them in any relevant detail.

PS

If you want to criticise science - best to show where it has evidential flaws between theory and observed reality, then suppose a better model that is verifable with testing.

PPS

Scientists are still trying really, really hard to say what is spacetime at its lowest level of reality - and how could we propose to validate this. It's very hard - so bear with us for a few decades! You're talking about things involving Planck levels of realtiy - 10 ^ -43 when at best we can see down and interact with atomic structure levels 10 ^ -19. So we are at best a million, trillion, trillion times above the level of reality we wish to explore - it ain't easy!

rock it to me
dogma: An authoritative principle, especially one considered to be absolutely true.
e.g. flat earth, earth centered solar system, circular orbits of planets on circular epicenters, time is a constant, spacetime is fixed.

1) You tell me. The question is not what spacetime is, the question is whether it is 'warped' around mass or does it 'flow' into mass.
2) Spacetime flows into mass. All other properties of space time are the same except that it is not static and fixed and 'warped' by mass.
3) It seems obvious that you would rather dispute others and exalt yourself in your 'knowledge' than try to understand a new idea or assume that a conjecture might have validity.

The relevant detail is there if you will get over yourself and try to understand, and comment on what is actually said.

I do not criticize science. I have observed flaws between theory and observed reality; I have supposed a better model that is verifiable with observation and testing. If you were a student of Ptolemy, you would look down on and criticize Copernicus.

The question is not what spacetime is. Do you ever read the questions, or do you just go into your preprogrammed rant?

If you wish to have rational discussion, please tell me what experimental evidence of relativity cannot also be explained by the 'flow' of spacetime into (as opposed to the 'warping' of spacetime by) mass. Otherwise, please take your ego and go back down under... your rock.

Peace
rwj

Hey rw-

Just Hatcheds are not supposed to talk to enthusiasts like that. It is a breach of the unwritten laws of decorum.

Gurus-in-training are different. You can say anything you like to them as they don't give a shite.

I'll try this again - with smaller words

My first point is this line of reasoning dismisses considering what actually is spacetime. I would recommend you don't triviliase or ignore this fundamental query, because it goes to the heart of what you are pondering. You are querying its (spacetime's) properties but you aren't analysing in any way showing a deep grasp of how it is classically described.

What is spacetime and what are its properties seems on the surface as simple as asking why does 1 + 1 = 2? Here you go - why does 1 + 1 equal two? You can dodge it and say by the definition - but ask again why? You have to go deep into number theory - fairly advanced number theory and digest all the properties of fields before you can answer what appears to be a simple Noddy question.

It's easy to do the same with spacetime, and spacetime is orders of magnitude harder than number fields and properties of their unities. What is spacetime and what are its properties - you give it direction - without asking why, you acknowledge it can hold mass, without saying all that that means, you comprehend it is positional - without acknowledging the relativity of these dimensions to other sources of mass or energy within the fabric of spacetime.

Spacetime has this rotten, complex nature that as you look at very small parts of it - at atomic scales - things get very complex and incredibly random (alah Heinsenberg). But go below this scale, well complex quickly morphs into acid dream weird - welcome to the world of quantum mechanics.

You are asking questions that delve deep into what is reality at the scale of quantum mechanics - where things can be in two places at once, simultaneously, without crossing any intervening space, things can appear and disappear at random - and do, things can tunnel and get entangled and be in many states at once and do many other mind bendingly weird things.

We don't understand spacetime deeply (so forget trying to give it a flow) - that's too high-level and simply assumes to many properties we don't know it has yet. We are trying to work out its properties - its really, really, really hard. At present our most advanced theoretical models can describe the topology (shape / curvature) of the very edges of the dimensional frameworks we use to describe spacetime - the very edges only. Example - we don't know if spacetime is fractal at all levels of reality - if it is relativity morphs into scale relativity and physics undergoes some amazing shifts at the near quantum level (this is currently under investigation).

Energy and matter are equivalents - and they interact with something we call spacetime and can't fully describe yet. You wish to know specifics of spacetimes interaction with Energy and matter - or postulate another model for reality.

What you are asking is purely, purely speculatively until we can describe what spacetime, energy and matter actually are and describe what their fundamental properties are and why. Being able to do this is at a quantum level is essential - and I would wild guess we are decades away from this level of capability at the best. It's a task not much different from asking Columbus to split the atom - that is the magnitude of the task.