LinkBack URL
About LinkBacksWhen you walk on planet earth, do you:
A. Move through the universe?
B. You don't move, the universe does.
C. A bit of both.
A bit of a trip!
August 3rd, 2011, 09:53 PM
When you walk on planet earth, do you:
A. Move through the universe?
B. You don't move, the universe does.
C. A bit of both.
A bit of a trip!
Last edited by griffithsuk; August 3rd, 2011 at 10:05 PM.
Originally Posted by griffithsuk
When you walk on planet earth, do you:
A. Move through the universe?
B. You don't move, the universe moves towards you.
C. A bit of both, you move through the universe and the universe also moves towards you.
A bit of a trip!
It depends on which reference frame you want to use.
There is only one.When you walk on planet earth, do you:
A. Move through the universe?
B. You don't move, the universe moves towards you.
C. A bit of both, you move through the universe and the universe also moves towards you.
A bit of a trip!
It depends on which reference frame you want to use.
Body weight / Universe weight. Everything effects everything.
Last edited by griffithsuk; August 3rd, 2011 at 10:19 PM.
The universe has a universal moving referance frame, I doubt the universe is where it started.
Last edited by griffithsuk; August 3rd, 2011 at 11:21 PM.
If everything in the universe is spinning, some clockwise, some anti clockwise, which ever is greater, the universe is spinning too.
Earth days, now we have Universe days.
Something like 13.7 billion lightyears * PI * someSpeed.
Soon well have an idea how old the universe is in universe days.
Some believe in the big bang from evidance from redshift. Or it could be light travels at different speeds.
Light years might not be as reliable as universe days.
Far out man!
Last edited by griffithsuk; August 4th, 2011 at 12:31 AM.
Since the universe is everything, then It can't be spinning around anything. It cant be years old, but days old.
So If I place a spinning top in a box the box is also spinning?
I mean planets, and possibly stars and galaxys.So If I place a spinning top in a box the box is also spinning?
The universe has no weight. If it did it would be falling.
May I suggest a subforum that would be akin to pseudo or trash. It would be called "Way to high".
What basis do you have to suggest that the spinning of stars/planets would affect the universe? The Universe is mostly nothing and as far as I am aware, nothing doesn't spin
@griffithsuk, Yarg! There's an edit button. Posting 5 times in a row is painful to read.
Also, you should read the Special Relativity primer. In short, there is no universal reference frame.
The universe is not mostly nothing, it is everything contained in an infinate space.
I don't know if it is spinning, it's just for fun. Though it could be because of the effect of everything must be spinning, or probably is.
If the universe started from a bang and things collided, then each object probably is spinning, whats the chances that it's not? take the picture they releases recently with the supercollider experiments, everything in the picture that collided would then spin. 2 objects colliding could of started the big bang. Then we have the question what made the 2 objects?
Last edited by griffithsuk; August 4th, 2011 at 08:24 AM.
If the big bang made things spin, which would probably happen, then look at the fastest spinnng object in the universe or the average, base the speed of the big bang on that.
The big bang could of been slow, or things have collided so much that each collision slowed down the spin produced by the big bang.
Atomic Spin!
Last edited by griffithsuk; August 4th, 2011 at 08:40 AM.
If you have something finite in and infinte space then the space is mostly nothing. I don't see a way of being able to tell if it were spinning though...The universe is not mostly nothing, it is everything contained in an infinate space.
I don't know if it is spinning, it's just for fun. Though it could be because of the effect of everything must be spinning, or probably is.
If the universe started from a bang and things collided, then each object probably is spinning, whats the chances that it's not? take the picture they releases recently with the supercollider experiments, everything in the picture that collided would then spin. 2 objects colliding could of started the big bang. Then we have the question what made the 2 objects?
Space is nothing as space does not exist as there is nothing there, matter does though, it is everything.
It will be hard to prove if it's spinning as theres nothing to compare the spin against, to have a clock hand spin you compare it to 12oclock.
Last edited by griffithsuk; August 4th, 2011 at 08:51 AM.
Can you fix a object in space like a sky hook, you never know.
Space is not nothing and it most certainly does exist. The fact of the matter is, nothing is not nothing anymore- in space, there is constant virtual particle creation and annihilation from the vaccuum energy of space; you have to account for dark matter (as yet unproven, but likely to exist) and dark energy (which was proven to exist a few months ago, if i remember correctly).
All of the above.
What are these "things" that were made to spin by the big bang?
A meaningless statement, since you have neither time nor distance untill after the big bang, with which to measure speed.
Im guessing atoms.What are these "things" that were made to spin by the big bang?
The big bang may or may not have happened, it could be in infinite space an infinate amount of galaxys formed so how, you never know. Every bit of space there could be a galaxy.
Last edited by griffithsuk; August 4th, 2011 at 04:26 PM.
Not true, it could be that the big bang was not as fast as we thought.
A meaningless statement.
How fast do we think it happened and how fast do you reckon it might have been? What would be the measurable implications of that difference?Not true, it could be that the big bang was not as fast as we thought.
A meaningless statement.
Nothing could be made to spin by the big bang, because there was nothing before the big bang, nor at the precise moment of the singularity. After the big bang the universe expanded at the speed of light.
Well, if you look at a far away star, and look again next year, i doubt it has moved by even it's own width. Theres no "known" images of this and theres no "known" proof of this. If it is expanding today it is not by much.
Hubble images are taken over several days, if it was expanding we would see the streak effect. Yes?
I guess it depense on personal preferance.Space is not nothing and it most certainly does exist. The fact of the matter is, nothing is not nothing anymore- in space, there is constant virtual particle creation and annihilation from the vaccuum energy of space; you have to account for dark matter (as yet unproven, but likely to exist) and dark energy (which was proven to exist a few months ago, if i remember correctly).
To me if theres dark energy bettween here and there then technically it is not empty space, it just looks that way.
Outside the universe(if there is that is) would be empty space forever.
No matter or energy can go on to infinity as the end has to be there somewhere even if you can't get to it, it is still there.
Im happy with an finite/infinite universe within an infinite space.
Dark matter, dark energy, matter or anything else is something, empty space is nothing.
Then you have the problem of every bit of empty space could be something there.
We will never know.
Last edited by griffithsuk; August 4th, 2011 at 09:51 PM.
...Space-Solid-Space-Solid-Space...
Your saying likely to exist, can you give me the reason of this?
You know, i could be wrong.
Like einsteins theory of gravity weakens the more it goes outwards but never reaches zero, 1 - 1/2 - 1/4 - 1/8 - 1/16 - 1/32...
Dark energy could be the same.
Last edited by griffithsuk; August 4th, 2011 at 10:28 PM.
Heres a new one, the other way around.
The closer to the planet gravity gets stronger, even as far as inside the planet to an infinite gravity center.
Be cafefull what hole you fall down
This could be tested down an old mineshaft and see if gravity gets stronger, drop an object a 1 meter distance on to something and test the time it takes.
Last edited by griffithsuk; August 4th, 2011 at 10:49 PM.
Go down a mile and test again, another mile and test again. do a little math and your find the strength of our earths center.
Go the other way and your work out if einsteins theory of gravity is true.
Last edited by griffithsuk; August 4th, 2011 at 10:58 PM.
No, it doesn't. As you get closer to the center, only that part of the mass of the planet closer to the center affects you gravitationally. What this means is that if the planet wwas of uniform density, gravity would decrease linearly until it reaches zero at the center.The Earth, however, is not of uniform density and its crust is less dense than its interior. (this is why continents "float" on the magna below them)
This could be tested down an old mineshaft and see if gravity gets stronger, drop an object a 1 meter distance on to something and test the time it takes.
Thus, you will not get the uniform decrease. At first you will get an increase which will then, as you go even deeper, will start decreasing. Thus your experiment would test over too small a range in order to accurately predict the general trend all the way to the center.
No, had a quick think, thats wrong, if your 25% into the planet you would have 25% gravity pushing you upwards and 75% gravity pushing you downwards. At the center, gravity would be 100% to the center and 0 % upwards.No, it doesn't. As you get closer to the center, only that part of the mass of the planet closer to the center affects you gravitationally. What this means is that if the planet wwas of uniform density, gravity would decrease linearly until it reaches zero at the center.The Earth, however, is not of uniform density and its crust is less dense than its interior. (this is why continents "float" on the magna below them)
This could be tested down an old mineshaft and see if gravity gets stronger, drop an object a 1 meter distance on to something and test the time it takes.
Thus, you will not get the uniform decrease. At first you will get an increase which will then, as you go even deeper, will start decreasing. Thus your experiment would test over too small a range in order to accurately predict the general trend all the way to the center.
This could be true, or my infinite gravity center could be true, needs a think and a testing.
Is my idea original or has someone already though of this?
Solid always floats in liquid if its the same substance, such as ice cubes in water.
Last edited by griffithsuk; August 4th, 2011 at 11:23 PM.
Gravity could be the same throughout the planet and you would hover at its center.
So its one of 3.
A. An infinite gravity center.
B. 25% into the planet you would have 25% gravity pushing you upwards and 75% gravity pushing you downwards.
C. Same Gravity throughout the planet.
Can anyone elaberate?
Last edited by griffithsuk; August 4th, 2011 at 11:29 PM.
If there was an infinite gravity center and a hole right through the planet, if you fell you would fall infinitely faster and suddenly stop at the center.
Sounds crazy!
Need to look at all 3.
Last edited by griffithsuk; August 4th, 2011 at 11:43 PM.
It could be at a planets center there is no gravity, travel upwards and gravity gets stronger untill you reach its surface and then as you travel outwards gravity gets weaker.
Gravity is the same throughout the universe and larger planets have more powerful gravity at its surface because they are larger, you are a greater distance from its center.
So it's now:
A. An infinite gravity center.
B. 25% into the planet you would have 25% gravity pushing you upwards and 75% gravity pushing you downwards.
C. Same Gravity throughout the planet.
D Gravity is the same throughout the universe and larger planets have more powerful gravity at its surface. At center there is no gravity, travel upwards and gravity gets stronger untill you reach its surface.
Ill leave you all with this one...
Last edited by griffithsuk; August 5th, 2011 at 12:00 AM.
Wrong, for the vast majority of substances, the solid form is denser than the liquid and the solid will sink. Water is one of the few exceptions to this where the solid is less dense than the liquid. The crust floats on the magma because it is, for the most part, made of less dense substances to begin with.No, had a quick think, thats wrong, if your 25% into the planet you would have 25% gravity pushing you upwards and 75% gravity pushing you downwards. At the center, gravity would be 100% to the center and 0 % upwards.No, it doesn't. As you get closer to the center, only that part of the mass of the planet closer to the center affects you gravitationally. What this means is that if the planet wwas of uniform density, gravity would decrease linearly until it reaches zero at the center.The Earth, however, is not of uniform density and its crust is less dense than its interior. (this is why continents "float" on the magna below them)
This could be tested down an old mineshaft and see if gravity gets stronger, drop an object a 1 meter distance on to something and test the time it takes.
Thus, you will not get the uniform decrease. At first you will get an increase which will then, as you go even deeper, will start decreasing. Thus your experiment would test over too small a range in order to accurately predict the general trend all the way to the center.
This could be true, or my infinite gravity center could be true, needs a think and a testing.
Newton's shell theorem shows that a hollow shell has no gravitational effect on its interior. (everywhere inside the shell there is zero gravity. Thus there is no "pulling up on you" by the matter "above" you as you descend. The only gravitational pull you will feel is that from the mass closer to the center. At the center this is zero and you feel zero gravity. There is no debate about this.
Is my idea original or has someone already though of this?
Solid always floats in liquid if its the same substance, such as ice cubes in water.
Last edited by Janus; August 5th, 2011 at 05:51 PM.
| « The Holographic Star carpet | Seven "talking type" Seals » |
| Bookmarks |
Bookmarks |
