• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Spacetime theory

E

everman

Lifer
Just a strange idea I had the other day...
(a little simplified background info)
We know that the the more mass an object has, such as a planet or black hole, the greater effect of gravity it will have on surrounding objects. This is generally depicted as a curvature in spacetime.

My idea was, has it ever been theoriezed that there could be regions of spacetime where spacetime itself was "denser". What I mean is that a massive object would curve that region less than if it were located in another area? And what about the opposite: Regions of spacetime that are more "flexible" or "less dense", causing greater curvature and thus greater gravitational pull?

I guess I'm basically thinking that why does spacetime need to be entirely consistent as to how it reacts to objects? Why not have "softer" or "denser" areas and things like that?

I've never actually read "anything" at all on this idea, it just came to me a couple days ago. Perhaps I'm just crazy 😛
 
maybe it could happen....but I dont think scientists have found proof of such regions. (blackholes wierd them out as it is)
 
Originally posted by: everman
Just a strange idea I had the other day...
(a little simplified background info)
We know that the the more mass an object has, such as a planet or black hole, the greater effect of gravity it will have on surrounding objects. This is generally depicted as a curvature in spacetime.

My idea was, has it ever been theoriezed that there could be regions of spacetime where spacetime itself was "denser". What I mean is that a massive object would curve that region less than if it were located in another area? And what about the opposite: Regions of spacetime that are more "flexible" or "less dense", causing greater curvature and thus greater gravitational pull?

I guess I'm basically thinking that why does spacetime need to be entirely consistent as to how it reacts to objects? Why not have "softer" or "denser" areas and things like that?

I've never actually read "anything" at all on this idea, it just came to me a couple days ago. Perhaps I'm just crazy 😛
Click to expand...

Interesting idea. The closest I've seen to it is the idea that spacetime is quantized at different sizes, depending on how you observe it.
 
there would still have to be a reason WHY its softer or denser or whatever. it cant just BE something for some unexplainable reason, science wouldnt be doing its job.
 
i would think that this happens.
gravity should have a sphere of influence. the surface of a moon would probably have slightly different gravity if it was in the middle of nowhere instead.. you would hope that this is already figured into space travel equations.
 
Originally posted by: Wahsapa
there would still have to be a reason WHY its softer or denser or whatever. it cant just BE something for some unexplainable reason, science wouldnt be doing its job.
Click to expand...

...But that doesn't mean that the reason is known until some time after the effect is discovered. Remember, Radium caused some controversy in the scientific community at first, since it was always a few degrees above the ambient temperature and yet suffered no discernable change in mass.
 
Here's another example of what I have in mind: Consider a piece of dust, or anything that will float on water because of surface tension. All planets, stars, etc could be considered objects that are not big enough to break the "surface tension" of spacetime. (Perhaps a black hole would be something that does?)
 
Perhaps black holes have broken the surface tension of space time. Perhaps space time is just a huge 2D-esque pool cover on the swimming pool of the universe, and if you go in the black hole, you see the real universe.

Perhaps..
 
Can space have velosity? Momentum? Is it more durable when not contaminated with matter and energy? Is it finite, infinite, self-replicating? Can space be displaced, destroyed? Can the properties of time be described with out measurement? Can gravity exist independent of matter? If so, perhaps gravity merely collects matter, in quanities proportional to to the gravimetric force, and we then say "Oh, that much mass has such and such an amount of gravity." instead saying "That gravity field has acumulated such and such an amount of mass.". (And we are of course looking at the universe rather late in the game when the observable gravity fields have already reached equilibrium with their capacity to attract matter.)
 
many assumptions have to be made to speculate on this question.

first of all, is the 'empty' in space truly void of anything, or is their an actual fabric of space? my logic, though possibly flawed, says that their is a fabric of space and the big empty is just a 'something' that we have yet to measure and define properly. i think that this fabric is what limits the universal constant(the speed light is limited too. to be clear, light isn't the fastest think, light is simply the only thing that hits the speed limit, light actually doesnt matter it just shows us where the limit is). anyway, the closest relation i can make is that the fabric of space has its own friction like property that moving objects feel in the form of time delay and mass magnification. i also believe that mass increases with speed the way it does because the fabric of space has develops 'friction' more at higher speeds, and this exact same effect is what slows time.

so, the question is. does this fabric have different properties in different areas? yes and no. i think that the fabric has a relaxed state, like a peice of nylon fabric. BUT, if you apply pressure to the fabric, not only does is flex and give the 2 dementional equivelent of gravity forcing smaller objects to fall towards it, but at a certain point, the fabric gets so thin that it loses certain properties. in the world of nylon fabric, it may be water proof until stretched out so far, then water may leak through the weak point, as i think the fabric of space allows. theirfore, if anything i say or think has any validity, the different regions of space can have different densities of 'fabric' because of the effects of matter.

also, i think this means something else. if the fabric of space is stretched sufficiently, then the friction it places on moving objects may be less(or more purhaps) but would then allow things to violate the standard rules light the cosmic speed limit or allow time to be more variable. as it is time is a constant at low speeds, all things seem to be traveling through time at very similar rates up til very close to light speeds, but in certain circumstances those same effects that are seen when traveling very fast or percieving things that are traveling very fast might be perceived at much slower speeds.

did that make any kind of sense?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top