Big Think

tim hall on October 7, 2009, 9:00 PM

Thanks David,

I do not believe that we are arguing so much as sorting out what we can claim as concrete facts. To theorize that there is a grand creator does not seem as logical as millions of years of earth’s evolution. It is important to argue the facts when governments can be persuaded to teach fiction in their public schools. It is important when a leader of a nation has enough oil resources to purchase it’s way into nuclear weaponry attainment and has publicly voiced it’s desire to exterminate a religious sect.

We continue to learn knew information from science, sociology and history. There is no good reason to only believe words written 2000 years ago in religious text. However, there is good reason to compare historic text with what we have discovered up to date. It is always wise to sort out fact from belief in all writing, oral passages, images, language, songs, poetry and folklore. It was not untill very recent that humans believed the Earth was flat. It was written in the book of Enoch. Would it not be conducive for us to pick that entire book apart to reliinguish truth from ignorance and folklore? When a leader of a nation voiced exterminating millions of people?

We may not know the complete answers to how we arrived or what soul completely means. But we can eliminate all ignorance of the past and promote peace if we are willing. We can have fun moving pieces of a puzzle around to see how much closer we can get to completing it. That makes more sense than believing what some ignorant historic men wrote or giving up and saying we will never know.

David Gallo on October 8, 2009, 2:08 AM

I agree…but my question then is…if  we are unable to separate religious ideals from conversations unable to use the facts, science and/or sociology, to come up with a reasonable conclusion to a given problem, then how do we converse (and make progress with) those with dogmatic tendencies?

Denys Artasevych on October 8, 2009, 2:16 AM

Hey david. First let me applaud you for boldly saying i don’t know, i have enormous respect for this kind of religious view. Unlike the i know for sure because i have faith perspective. I mean how absurd would it sound if you said i know for sure that there are 7 planets around the middle star in orions belt because i have faith.

But enough about that, let me dissect your argument a bit. Im not gonna go into my usual skepticism about everything rant and accept your assumption that we indeed are all here. Now, the concussion you draw is not at all unreasonable, but what i take issue with is the premise. What exactly do you mean by perfect? Im gonna go out on a limb and say you mean ordered symmetrical or neat, please let me know if i misunderstood.

Now why do you say our universe is perfect, or fits together perfectly, why do you say its complex? You see these words only have relative meaning a watch is complex compared to a vase, and superficial compared to a computer processor. The problem with making the statement that the universe is ordered or complex is that there is no point of comparison, we only experience this universe. Thus if i say the universe seems disordered, or superficial i would not be right or wrong, in fact we cant even really call this an educated opinion because again there is no point of comparison thus such terms are entirely arbitrary in relation to the universe.

Since we exist in and experience only this universe it may appear ordered and as if everything fits just right. We cant even truly conceive a universe not ordered as ours. Just like we cant truly conceive a 4 dimensional object (4 spacial dimensions not time) it simply does not make sense to us, its hard to picture because we have no experience of such objects. For us 3 dimensional makes sense and seems ordered and right. But that does not mean there is anything particularly perfect about it it just seems so again because it is the only kind of experience we have.

As far as order being necessary for life to exist, forgive me if im being to bold here but im gonna assume that what you find most remarkable about life is consciousness, which could be said to be the pinnacle of complexity. Well there is no reason to assume that consciousness cant develop in a more chaotic universe, it would most likelihood not be life the way we think about it but non the less theoretically just as possible as with the particular order of our universe.

Good to be back guys, why good because i love to argue, there’s nothing wrong with it DG haha. Good to see you

David Gallo on October 8, 2009, 3:22 AM

Denys thanks for the input.  First.  Yes perfect as in ordered.  And I do understand that it is only our indivudual reality that we can take from, but even in a different and possibly more chaotic universe, there would still be underlying priciples allowing for conciousness.  There are an infinite number of possible situations, but we do find ourselves in this particular one. 

But what’s the problem with not being sure?

I don’t want to stop trying to uncover truth. 

But can truth/absolute certainty, be obtained?

HerbieP on October 8, 2009, 7:17 AM

Hello David and welcome back Denys.

It’s great to see someone who posts and then engages rather than posts and runs.

“It would seem to be a pretty big coincidence for everything to happen so perfectly to allow  for life to exist, and evolve to be able to communicate and interact with beings in it’s similar and crazy situation.” I am just really echoing Denys; what do you mean by ‘coincidence’? A coincidence is simply two events occuring in proximity, usually implying that they occur in an unlikely or unexpected way. As Denys says we only have experience of one universe. We don’t know if this is the only way that things can be or if this is just one of many or infinite possibilities where consciousness just happens to have come about. There is no coincidence because this is all that we’ve got to judge from. We just don’t know if we are unlikely or inevitable. 

David Gallo on October 8, 2009, 1:17 PM

Hey Herb, thanks.

When I say coincidence I mean, even in THIS ordered universe the chances of us being here IS highly unlikely.  And yet we remain.  The chances of the earth being a certain distance from a star with the composition to sustain life and then have it evolve to the point of conciousness is remote to say the least.  Which I why I say it can’t be coincidence.  There has to be a reason for us being here.

The problem is that all of the reasons don’t make sense.

Either this just started. Or. It’s been here forever.  Neither makes sense.

tim hall on October 8, 2009, 3:02 PM

Well, it could make more sense if we knew there were trillions of universes of similar make-up creating varied star constelations and galaxys. It would make sense that there would be some even more perfect situations and less perfect situations. You could have planets with atmospheres that sustain plant life but only very small form of animal life.

But in our current state of knowledge of all, we only know of one roll of the dice and the number seven came up.

I think we perceive the human race as being unique because our knowlege is so limited.  We could be living in the most limited universe of all or we could be the most unique.

Where the creator thing has yet to make sense is why would a creator create such a perfect situation and throw other useless objects in the mix (extra stars, matter, etc.) It would be like us creating cities with streets and states with hy-ways and then throwing in a bunch of roads to nowhere. Our situation with our climate and predators is far from perfect. We only exist out of a single moment because of hope. We could be eaten or crushed to death the same second we are born. And we have become our single woarst preditor. But if we stop a giant rock from colliding with earth some day, we become the single greatest asset on our little world within our little galaxy. In the most grand picture of all, we matter as much as our automobiles unless we save our planet from disaster. Many of us act as though we are special animals. We only live and die the same as all other life. Only if we live to make a difference, are we really different.

God, what comfort is the but comfort of a wasted life?

Denys Artasevych on October 8, 2009, 9:43 PM

But again david, why exactly is our existence unlikely? Within this universe there are countless planets, it only stands to reason that a few would be right for our particular form of life. And its not entirely impossible that within this universe other forms of sentient intelligence could have come about on different planets not suited for our existence.

And if we assume that earth is the only place sentient life exists, only in this universe, Then we are left with the same issues i pointed out earlier since we are all there is its impossible to say that our existence is likely or unlikely.

Lets say a woman won the lottery twice in the same year (i think this actually happened) we would at first glance say its too unlikely to be a coincidence, but considering the number of people who play and win the lottery it stands to reason that at some point a single individual would win twice in a short amout of time, this just happened to be her.

And the creation of a universe that is perfect for life as you say cant be called a coincidence because a coincidence requires to instances, the universe is a single instance. Its neither likely or unlikely it simply is.

David Gallo on October 8, 2009, 10:27 PM

Denys, a few things.

I don’t think it’s a coincidence.  The only thing I’m trying to say here is that it can’t be random.  It can’t be chaos.  There is order in the universe.  Something had to cause the order.  Does that mean you think order comes from nowhere? The universe just is…has it always been?

The fact that we are here means that somehow we got here.  There is a cause. 

Either time started at some point, or time has been going on forever.

Both explinations of our origins don’t make sense.

Yet we find ourselves here.  Something got us to the point we find ourselves in.  What that reason is I don’t know.  

Was there a first cause?

Denys Artasevych on October 8, 2009, 10:39 PM

I have little ability to speculate on origins or lack there of of the universe. because i exist within the universe the conception of anything outside of it is beyond my perception thus any assumption i make will have no meanining.

As Herbie pointed out beginning is a concept that is only relevant within the realm of time, if the universe is to have a beginning of any kind time must exist outside the time-space we experience which is a paradox.

There is a compelling idea within the realm of string theory, that our 3 dimensional universe is the result of some action within the higher or lover dimensions. This would allow for something to exist in relative terms prior to our experienced universe, there is no proff for this again because we cant even as much as experience the higher dimensions so to say that i believe this to be the case would again be arbitrary, but it is a theory that does not end in a paradox.

Denys Artasevych on October 8, 2009, 10:49 PM

Chaos is actually a state between perfect order and absolute randomness much like the universe we experience. So we exist in what you call chaos. Yes there is a particular order in the universe, but there is nothing that says we need a conscious intelligence to create what we experience as order. It may be inevitable. In fact intelligence requires matter and order so for such a thing to exist outside of and to create these very concepts is nonsensical. If there is something that you call a prime cause calling it intelligent or sentient in any way is absurd.

And if its just a compulsory cause like pool balls hitting one another ending up in a pattern of movement then its no more special then any other process in the universe.

But again applying the concept of cause outside the laws f physics makes no sense. So if there is something outside of the physical universe not only can we not experience it, we cant even label it with the word cause.

tim hall on October 9, 2009, 12:23 AM

I agree with Herbie and Denys on begining is a concept that is only relevant within the realm of time. I agree that the big-bang theory is correct. But how matter or energy appeared in emptyness regardless of time or no time is still a cause yet to be explained. A creator theory outside of the universe is laughable, knowing how humans have aways looked at themselves as creators and tried to explain away unknowns in likeness of themselves. I like Deny’s theory of likelyhood of other intelligence out there. I understand chance.

I can’t imagine what force would cause the expansion of the universe to speed up. The gravitational forces are all different levels in relation to objects and velocity of orbits etc. At some instances no gravity at all.

HerbieP on October 9, 2009, 2:22 PM

Once again superb summary Denys.

I think that you have a linear view of time David which I have pointed out before is an unjustified extrapolation on a cosmic scale. Time is not linear, that is merely our local experience of it. According to general relativity spacetime is curved. Imagine any surface (I like to think of a doughnut because shapes with holes in them are a special order of shape), locally any point may seem to be preceeded by another and followed by another. However this is just a local perception. Spacetime is a four dimensional shape at the very least. Events are just points in spacetime and causality our way of perceiveing it. The idea of beginnings and infinite causal chains is not justified. We simply do not know how time works, but we do know that it’s not linear. 

You dichotomy of “Either time started at some point, or time has been going on forever.” is a false one. As is your assertion “Something had to cause the order.” The order we percieve cannot be compared and contrasted with anything else as Denys has said. Perhaps it is the only possible state of being. We cannot say that it is ordered relative to anything because we know nothing else. Order is just a word we use to describe things around us. We only know that there is such a thing as order because we also see things that we regard as disordered. we can say nothing about absolute order.

David Gallo on October 9, 2009, 7:26 PM

Alright guys, I enjoy an uphill battle…

Denys,

“I have little ability to speculate on origins or lack there of of the universe. because i exist within the universe the conception of anything outside of it is beyond my perception thus any assumption i make will have no meanining.”

I can’t agree more.  In fact, I can’t comment on anything outside of my consciousness.  We can’t even prove that the physical world exists with absolute certainty.  But what I do assert here is. I (something that once did not exist) currently exist.  What was I before I existed.  Don’t know. Did I not exist prior to my consciousness.  What is consciousness?  If I can’t even understand what I am, how can I explain where I came from?

All I know is I arrived.  I’m here.  Thinking in a way that is inseperable from the order that I find myself a part of.

“As Herbie pointed out beginning is a concept that is only relevant within the realm of time, if the universe is to have a beginning of any kind time must exist outside the time-space we experience which is a paradox.”

Seems pretty relevant to me. I’m in time.

If the universe were to have a begining it would be paradoxical.  So then the universe has been here forever? Thats a paradox too. Yet we are here.

I’m a fan of string theory and multiple dimensions. But as far as proof, good luck.

“Chaos is actually a state between perfect order and absolute randomness much like the universe we experience. So we exist in what you call chaos. Yes there is a particular order in the universe, but there is nothing that says we need a conscious intelligence to create what we experience as order. It may be inevitable. In fact intelligence requires matter and order so for such a thing to exist outside of and to create these very concepts is nonsensical. If there is something that you call a prime cause calling it intelligent or sentient in any way is absurd.”

I didn’t say a conscious being created us.  I said that there is order in the universe.  This order requires a source.  It may be inevitable.  But would that require everything to be inevitable? And does that mean that things are inevitable just because they exist?

A begining itself is absurd, let alone someone with a magic wand so to speak.

All that I can say is…

I am here.  Somehow I got here.

Tim,

“I agree that the big-bang theory is correct. But how matter or energy appeared in emptyness regardless of time or no time is still a cause yet to be explained.”

I assume Denys would say that the big bang theory creates a paradox. I’d have to agree, even though I think it’s probably right.  If the big band theory happened.  Then where’d the (ordered) materials come from.  And if the universe is expanding, then into WHAT? And if there is other intelligence out there (and I’d say there probably is) isn’t that more proof for some kind of cause for this intelligence?

“I can’t imagine what force would cause the expansion of the universe to speed up. The gravitational forces are all different levels in relation to objects and velocity of orbits etc. At some instances no gravity at all.”

There ARE these embedded constants such as laws of physics, gravity etc.  Don’t they have to have some kind of explanation?  Does lack of explanation mean that there isn’t one?

Herbie,

Alright herb lets drag it out of the forth dimension.  Let’s talk about the infinite number of infinite possible realities.  Even then you can only extrapolate out so far.  There has to be an end (or a beginning) somewhere.  There can’t be an actual infinite…

Also, doesn’t there have to be some kind of causality?

“Perhaps it is the only possible state of being. We cannot say that it is ordered relative to anything because we know nothing else. Order is just a word we use to describe things around us. We only know that there is such a thing as order because we also see things that we regard as disordered. we can say nothing about absolute order.”

It could be the only possible state of being.  If that is the case, aren’t you just saying it is because it is? 

Order is just a word we use to describe things around us but it doesn’t mean it isn’t there.  Which means it has some kind of explanation.  Granted we may have no ability to compare our experience to any other but does that mean that it shouldn’t have an explanation.  Even if everyone we come up with is paradoxical?

Denys Artasevych on October 9, 2009, 11:30 PM

I think we are close to being on the same page david.

First, about the beginning thing again. The problem we keep running into is you are applying the concept beginning and the concept of forever to the supposed source of the universe. But since these concept require the physical universe to be present, applying them to the source of what is necessary for them to exist is problematic. And again even the concept of souse is only present within the physical space-time so again anything outside of the universe cant even be discussed or labeled with our limited language and perception.

Let me draw a shaky analogy, lets say the universe is a cake, and all the ingredients flour, eggs, sugar are concepts and patterns within the universe. Since this is an analogy for the universe lets say flour can only exist in cakes and only to make cakes, Lets call the concept of source, or beginning flour. Well since we exist within the cake we try to speculate about what the flour of the cake is (beginning of the universe), as you can tell the question already makes no sense since flour only exist in the cake we can not apply the concept of flour outside that very cake. And lets say that prior to being flour within the cake it was grain, well the concept of grain is not present within the cake, thus us cake dwellers cant label it, imagine it, or possibly know anything about it. Its a sketchy analogy at best but i could not think of anything better.

The big bang is no a paradox because it refers to the expansion of matter and energy in a giant burst, it does not speculate in any way on where this matter or energy came from.

And one last point, though again neither the concept of infinite nor the concept of beginning apply outside the physical universe so this question is not so relevant. But why do you say there cant be an infinite?

tim hall on October 10, 2009, 12:39 AM

David, thanks for your great idea post and joining in this discussion. I find it more enjoyable when folks are discussing theories in a combined effort to find a solution than just trying to prove to the theist how unreasonable their solutions are.

Denys, thanks for stopping back by. I think I started posting hear in late May. But I read your back posts. You seem to have a solid common sense approach to science.

Herbie, as always thanks for helping me learn the basics of physics. Do you remember that theist awhile back calling you the leader of our gang. That was funny as heck. You three headed snake.

There is an answer to the origin of the big bang. There is still reasonable chance of answering a lot of these questions. Physics, biology, psychology all have a part in finding the answers and we have know way of knowing if we are in the earliest stage or at the verge of finding the solutions.

We could conclude that the universe is expanding into infinite nothingness and leave it at that. But just a short time ago the earth was flat and left at that.

When I think of order in the universe, I think by chance some planets lined up with their unique elements to create what seems orderly to how the term order is used in our existence. I don’t see how this term can be applied to all of the universe. It looks quite chaotic to me.

Paradoxes and infinites seem like our only out. Are they more valid than claiming a creator? Sure they are. It is a realization that questions go unanswered. A creator is a false conclusion with no basis. It does not mean that there is no possibility of a creator. But a creator could just as well be computer like as well as gaseous like or anything that we have never experienced. Why say creator? Why not say we are still exploring and have no solution? We just recently came on the scene.

What ever we therorise, it would be wise to consciously be careful not to make comparisons with how we know things work on planet earth and always explore the unatural theories whether we like them or not. Science should consist of more dead ends than solutions or somebody is not thinking hard enough.

HerbieP on October 10, 2009, 4:44 AM

“What ever we therorise, it would be wise to consciously be careful not to make comparisons with how we know things work on planet earth and always explore the unatural theories whether we like them or not. Science should consist of more dead ends than solutions or somebody is not thinking hard enough.”

I could agree more Tim.

What is the universe expanding into? It is important to realise that space and time are relative measurements. Space is the distance bewteen things usually expressed in three dimensional axes. Time is the ordering of events. In the absence of matter there is no time and no space because there is nothing to measure between. Spacetime is being made by the matter that is in it.

The visible universe is 93 billion light years across (we don’t know if that’s all there is) whilst it has only been in existence for 13.5 billion years. Despite the limitation of the velocity of light for matter and energy spacetime itself can expand at any rate. This will give you some idea of how counter-intuative cosmology is.

By extrapolation and using general realtivity we can wind it all back to a point where everything must’ve been in the same very small space. Here everything we know breaks down. Not only the physics but also our very ideas of what space, time and nothingness even mean. Science can’t help us here at the moment but neither can common sense ideas about time being measured by clocks and there being events ordered before-after or of them being separated in space. We cannot draw conclusions about the nature of time from our conscious perception of waiting for a bus.

Our own perception of time is confused. Consciousness is dependent upon memory and perception both of which we know are faulty. Time might even be a conscious phenomenon and nothing to do with the physical world at all. Minkowski spacetime does not imagine time as ‘flowing’ forward. The way we have developed the laws of physics could be scewed by the way we percieve time.  

tim hall on October 10, 2009, 2:45 PM

Herbie, see if I got this?

Minkowski can measure an event happening at point (a) in relation to an event at point (b) by using our revolutions scale or other scalable relation. But he cannot place those events on a time scale moving forward or back within the universe. There is no way of scaling time. So why use the terminology space time? It is confusing. Time is a scale that is only relative to events happening within a scale that possesses a begining and end.

HerbieP on October 11, 2009, 10:08 AM

Tim Minkowski space and the later General Relativistic version of it defines points in spacetime in terms of events. Each point has four co-ordinates. In this sense it is neutral about the ‘flow’ of time. The time axis is not treated any diffrently to the spatial ones. The difference between teh original euclidean minkowski space and Einstein’s general relativistic space is that the latter is non-eulcidean and is described by tensors.

I’m never quite sure what you are talking about when you say ‘revolutions scale’. 

tim hall on October 11, 2009, 1:57 PM

Herbei, “revolutions scale” Human’s tracking time by revolutions of earth around the sun or historic natives rotation of the earth (many moons). I thought I could graph it and scale it, showing the simple time moving forward in days and years. Sorry.

Then I was saying this method or relation to our revolving planet to keep track of events, ageing ect. is not being used in Minkowski’s definition of time in the universe, “In this sense it is neutral about the ‘flow’ of time.” When someone says “flow”, my brain says ok, I can draw a two dimensional graph and scale it.

I can also draw a three dimensional semi transparent cube and have the ability to measure as many coordinates of points as I please as long as the cube stays closed on all sides. That being true, I can measure points inside of any closed shape. If I open the 3 dimentional shape in any way and let a point out, that point’s coordinate with another point becomes irrevelent to the inside of my shape. I can measure the distance away from the shape that my outside point is and create a new 3 dimensional shape to find that point’s coordinate with any point within my inside shape. As long as I can close them inside of a new geometric shape, I can measure distances and movement. I can only measure time of movement or event of one point to another point’s event by comparing it to how long it took for the earth to complete a rotation or how long it took light to travel accross a plane.

If you can explain Minkowski’s space time with 3 dimentional shapes within shapes, I think I can realize it better by creating it in Illustrator by using transparent layers to create fake dimensional shapes inside of shapes. I can then put them into flash and move them or explode them within seconds of each other. (causing an animated event) Or simply send me a great animation of Minkowski’s space time with your own notes. I will see if I can find animation that you can help me with.

tim hall on October 11, 2009, 3:27 PM

http://www.mathematicaguidebooks.org/animations/minkowski2d_anim.gif

This is what I mean by creating a closed geometric shape around points. We can measure anything we want. 

I am concluding that any one of those points could represent a galaxy, or any form of matter.  Is that right?

HerbieP on October 12, 2009, 8:53 AM

Sorry Tim I still have no idea what you’re trying to say. 

The measurements of space and time depend not only upon one’s relative location but also the reference frame. General relativity accounts for non-inertial reference frames. Time will appear to ‘flow’ more slowly the stronger the gravitational field (or acceleration). The second factor to affect the ‘flow’ of time is the relative velocity of the reference frame. The faster the frame the slower the ‘flow’ of time.

Spacetime can look a very different shape depending on where you are and what your reference frame is doing. Time measurements are always relative to where you are and your relative motion.

tim hall on October 12, 2009, 12:13 PM

Herbie, lets try this:

1. My frame is a large area containing many galaxies including my disk shaped spiral galaxy with 100,000 million stars.

2. I am setting up two separate cameras by computer to take separate snap shots at the exact instant of each other.

3. Camera (A) is traveling with my galaxy staying focused on my center 10,000 light years outside of my galaxy.

4. Camera (B) is traveling with the next nearest galaxy staying focused on it’s center 10,000 light years outside of it’s galaxy.

5. Note these cameras have extreme wide angle lenses and are framing a large group of galaxies that happen to contain mine and my nearest neighbor. Both their reference frames are exact same dimensions with centers locked on centers of their galaxy following their every move.

6. If I keep snapping these pictures every second, what if any space time measurments can I calulate with relation to A and B. Can I measure their distance per second from each other? Do my cameras have to continue to rotate and face one another while holding their galaxy centers? If an event happens on (B), I will only see it on camera (B). Even though the computer clicked both cameras at the exact instance the image from (A) does not have the recorded event? Can computers become all knowing and see future events?

HerbieP on October 12, 2009, 5:34 PM

I’m afraid that you’ve picked an example that is immensely complex. To start with you have the problem of simultaneity. Over great distances you have to wait for light to reach you before you can judge simultaneity which in case of galaxies is thousands of years. Next you have decided on rotating refrence frames which are therefore accelerating. Not only that but distant stars will appear to be exceeding the speed of light because you are fixed and so they appear to orbit you at vast speeds so there are enormous distortions of spacetime to avoid them appearing to travel faster than the speed of light.  You can only measure such distances by relying on Cephid variables or blue and red shifts.

You seem to be under the impression that you can have an absolute reference frame with absolute measurements. The whole point of relativity is that there is no absolute frame. Events that appear to be symultaneous in one reference frame do not appear to be so in another.  

tim hall on October 14, 2009, 11:39 AM

Thanks Herbie,

I am still quite ignorant of the laws of relativity. To the point that I am not under any impressions, but rather throwing out lab like experiments to learn where their relationships fail and succeed. At any point my hope is for my professor to walk by my experiment and say " Tim, try using your cameras like this instead" “Take out this event, it has no relativity to the rest of your experiment, it only serves to distort your path to finding your solution.” or "First you need to position these images like so to understand this elementary law before setting up the more complex experiment.

If it is unavoidable that I need to understand a complicated physics equation along with my imaging experiments as any simple lab experiment that I have ever been exposed to, then I am wasting everyone’s time.

However, with my extensive study in visual communications, I can create correct (mind maps) images in two or three dimentions within a split second. I also can add fourth dimentional points and totally distort said image. The problem comes when someone tries to present an incorrect imagery to explain laws of relativity.

As in the example in my previous post. The way I perceive that image: "While being obviously scaled down for it’s use of explaination, it states that it has a general 3 dia. shape of 1/2 inch thick by 3 inches accross by 9 inches long. The thickness is 4th dimensionly distorted to include points extending out beyound it’s 1/2 inch dimension to create mountainous shapes.Then all points of this whole shape are totally elastic, moving about as energy force is applied to specific points, sets of points, force applied next to none or lessor or greater force on neighboring points or sets. It also is suggesting that this image as a whole is locked into a set frame. I assume it must be for viewing purpose only. It could be traveling at a speed of light as a projectile. If I were to place myself into it’s center it is not a blob like as it is more flat. How do they know that? If that is wrong imagery, it confuses my solution to their experiment. Even more so than a non-visual communicator.

HerbieP on October 15, 2009, 6:57 AM

If I understand you correctly Tim you are imagining a Euclidean space. General relativity does not describe a Euclidean space. Einstein tensors (a form of Ricci tensor) are quite complex. To describe a region of spacetime from a particular reference frame you have to solve a difficult partial differential equation that depends on the matter and energy that the region contains. The amount of energy in the frame depends significantly on its motion relative to other frames (as in special relativity). The equation is so difficult because the variables are interdependent.  

The net result is that you have a curved four dimensional space which essentially means that the shortest distance between two points is a geodesic rather than a straight line as in Euclidean geometry. This is why light does not travel in ‘straight lines’ and time appears to ‘flow’ at different rates.

The curvature of spacetime can be extreme in strong gravitational fields.

A simple two dimensional non-Euclidean geometry can be imagined on the surface of a sphere where the shortest distance between two points is on  a curve and triangles do not have internal angles that add to 180 degrees.