Philosophy Discussion Forums | A Humans-Only Club for Open-Minded Discussion & Debate

[DarwinX]

You can't curve space because space is 3 dimensional. You can only curve a 2 dimensional plane or line within space. The concept of curved space-time is logically impossible, because no one has every seen or produced 3 dimensional curved space which surrounds a sphere object such as a planet or sphere. This is why, whenever you see a demonstration of curved space time, they always use a 2 dimensional curve around a 3 dimensional sphere to demonstrate it. It's a load of nonsense, in other words.

Below is a typical video of a 3D planet surrounded by a 2D curved space plane.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v

[Xris]

A bit like we never see an image of 3 dimensional waves permeating space.

[DarwinX]

A bit like we never see an image of 3 dimensional waves permeating space.

You clearly do not understand either waves nor this current post.

[Spiral Out]

It's a load of nonsense, in other words.

Agreed. I don't understand they use a 2D representation of space either. It seems to be a gross misrepresentation of the universe simply to make the "laws" of some suspect theory fit the greater "understanding".

[Xris]

(Nested quote removed.)



You clearly do not understand either waves nor this current post.

When you can present an image of waves permeating a 3D space you are allowed to call me ignorant. I do understand the post. It clearly shows space with a 2 dimensional drawing.

[Philosophy Explorer]

Now who says it can't happen? Just because we can't see it doesn't mean it can't happen. What if our universe were contained within a higher dimensional space (which obviously we can't see). Then curvature of space within our universe can happen under these circumstances. I already know from previous DarwinX posting that he acknowledged the idea of higher-dimensional universes when we were talking about gravity leakage. So it's not that much of a leap towards at least acknowledging the possibility of curvature of space within our own universe under these circumstances.

[Theophane]

I think it would be more accurate to say this: You can't depict 3-D space being curved on a 2-D medium.

The map is not the territory.

[Xris]

Now who says it can't happen? Just because we can't see it doesn't mean it can't happen. What if our universe were contained within a higher dimensional space (which obviously we can't see). Then curvature of space within our universe can happen under these circumstances. I already know from previous DarwinX posting that he acknowledged the idea of higher-dimensional universes when we were talking about gravity leakage. So it's not that much of a leap towards at least acknowledging the possibility of curvature of space within our own universe under these circumstances.

To say it's not possible has no value. You can not create an image of a 2dimensional space and try and indicate how a 3 dimensional space curves. The problem with the accepted concept of light it changes from particle to wave function depending on what the advocates want it to be. There is no diagram that shows how waves curve in space.

[Philosophy Explorer]

Responding to Xris.

Any depiction won't be perfect. Mathematicians say we shouldn't be looking at pictures for proofs, we should be looking at the equations instead and the same goes for physics. In regards to wave-particle duality, it's not who you ask, it's which experiment you're referring to, repeatable experiments. Some show light as a wave and some show it as a particle stream. To date, no experiment simultaneously shows light to be both ways.

[DarwinX]

Now who says it can't happen? Just because we can't see it doesn't mean it can't happen. What if our universe were contained within a higher dimensional space (which obviously we can't see). Then curvature of space within our universe can happen under these circumstances. I already know from previous DarwinX posting that he acknowledged the idea of higher-dimensional universes when we were talking about gravity leakage. So it's not that much of a leap towards at least acknowledging the possibility of curvature of space within our own universe under these circumstances.

There are both higher and lower dimensions, but this is due to the fractal nature of the universe. We have dimensions of scale - 1. Galaxies, solar systems and atoms - each scale is the same in relative dimensional distance to one another. Note - They are constantly falling into and out of one another, thus we have weight, gravity and mass which is a result of this falling into and out of process.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v

http://users.accesscomm.ca/john/

[Dolphin42]

DarwinX: How are you getting on with that concept of objects in orbit being in "free fall" these days? Remember you were going to look on the NASA website to see if there was any mention of it? Did you find anything?

[Philosophy Explorer]

DarwinX,

What do you mean by...

"They are constantly falling into and out of one another, thus we have weight, gravity and mass which is a result of this falling into and out of process?"

[DarwinX]

DarwinX,

What do you mean by...

"They are constantly falling into and out of one another, thus we have weight, gravity and mass which is a result of this falling into and out of process?"

Gravity and mass is the result of aether falling into mini black holes that we call atoms.

[Philosophy Explorer]

(Nested quote removed.)


Gravity and mass is the result of aether falling into mini black holes that we call atoms.

But you said that black holes are at the center of atoms. So which is it, is the entire atom a black hole or just the center/nucleus of it?

[DarwinX]

(Nested quote removed.)


But you said that black holes are at the center of atoms. So which is it, is the entire atom a black hole or just the center/nucleus of it?

Your not reading my posts very well, you need to read all of the post, otherwise I have to keep explaining minute details over and over again.

http://users.accesscomm.ca/john/