jajrussel

Which event, which horizon, and why? The universe, a black hole, a solar system, a galaxy, and again why? Are you being philosophic? You, have peaked my curiosity, can you sate it?

From what I think I understand others to say time can speed up and time can slow down, but it never stops. As I have thought about this it seems to me that this thought is slightly wrong. It seems to me that it is more of a spatial distortion. Where time remains the same and only seems to change from a distance. If the speed of light is constant to your frame of reference when space stretches or shrinks you would never notice because the speed of light adjusts with the changes. When you do any calculations from your frame of reference c is still equal to c and since distant is a derivative of c you would never notice a distortion of distance. Three meters would always be three meters from our reference point; it seems to me that none of this could be possible if time itself actually changed. The clock keeps ticking with the same continuous meter. Things stretch, shrink, speed up, or slow down; all consistent with our frame of reference, and we notice these things because we say that c is constant. But, it seems to me that the reality of it is the only thing constant about c is its value, and the reason this is so, is that from our frame of reference whenever we test the value it always comes out to be c. If you chart it; using a wave to represent distorted space and a straight line to represent your frame of reference; wherever you are in time on the wave it will line up exactly in time with the straight line, because wherever you are on the wave your reality, is the straight line. On the chart you can see that time remains constant; space is the only distortion.

The moderators may decide to move this thread to speculations because my original question seems to have led to a speculative thought and questions. {The greater the intensity of a gravitational field the greater the curvature of space-time. (This statement seems to agree with what ajb said?)} The speed of light in a vacuum is said to be constant, but what if vacuum is an assumption? If vacuum were an assumption couldn’t we say that what we normally call a constant (speed) is actually an average velocity in an assumed vacuum? Then say that the greater the change in a gravitational field the greater the change in velocity? The implication being that an assumed vacuum is always occupied by a gravitational field and is not actually a vacuum. I am assuming that we could then say a photon has mass, but not necessarily at rest. Then think of gravity as an attractive force between two masses and explain the curved path of light as it passes an intense gravitational field this way? Is this thinking too far outside the box? Is there something I am not considering here? After thinking about it I decided to change a word. I used the term (constant velocity) when perhaps I should have used the term constant speed.

I am not a scientist and am somewhat slow learning, so I am having difficulty understanding what you mean. It seems to me that what makes space and time discrete is that space is measured in units of distance and time is measured in units of duration. I can use the inverse square law to understand why a distant very long line appears to be a very short line; then understand why something moving along that line appears to be moving very slowly when in fact it is moving very fast. Since the observation can change with my position the observation seems to be observer dependent. Assuming that when you say c you mean the speed of light in vacuum; I don’t understand the need to declare c as infinite when the only obvious observation I can make is a more distant one where something moving at near c would appear to be moving more slowly and not faster. But, since I am not sure what you mean this could be completely out of context.

When you use gravity: Fg=G(M1)(M2)/r2 When you say point A and point B a certain distance apart then move them closer together, regardless the distance change you still only have point A and point B. There are an infinite number of positions that A or B can hold, even with limited direction, unless you define what constitutes one change of position. When the two touch you have A&B, but neither can occupy the same position they can only in a sense touch. So you have two points and so long as you have two points r will never be zero. You still have two points thus gravity.

Distance is a physical measurement. Point A to point B. Point A and point B can always be said to have a physical relationship even though as separate systems they may seemingly act independent of each other. There is their synchronic relationship to time; there is their gravitational relationship, etc… Space though difficult to define is to some degree defined. We expect certain things of it. It shares a synchronic relationship to time; it takes shape or is shaped by matter. It is as much a thing, as point A and point B is, in that it is independent of A and B, but is so correlated to A and B that either A or B would not exist except for space. I will grant that most of spaces properties, if not all, are implied, but most of those implications are accepted and generally expected. We say that space is expanding and accept the statement as fact, because we can not conceive matter moving through an area where there isn’t space. More important for this discussion, we can measure sections of space using the same system we use for matter, and we express the measurement as distance. Your argument concludes that one dimensional space exists; there would be no measurement. I apologize for the statement that there would be no measurement. I tend to see a line as a string of multiple points. I forget that most people see a line as a representation of a single dimension. I still question if one dimensional space exist?

I am a little late to this thread... I agree that there is a relationship between time, distance and speed; but why do you imply that distance and space are the same thing?

So, are you both saying that gravity is not a force; but a direction? Or maybe you are saying that gravity is a force that determines direction? But in either case there is no pull? I didn't think this through. Any change of direction has to be the effect of a force. but there is still the question of pull? If it is just a matter of curved space what happens to that space when I use enough energy to leave? Am I somehow changing the curve to the point that I simply flow away or am I forcing my way through the curve?

If light has no mass, why is it affected by gravity?

Distance the distance from A to B can be different depending on the path you take, so the number of time intervals taken would also depend on the path, or we can approach the thought from a different angle. I can paint a dot on the side of a ball 3 inches in diameter, spin the ball in place and calculate the distance the dot traveled. Other than to spin the ball doesnt move, but the dot does. Now we take the ball with the dot pointing up, spin the ball again. Other than to spin neither the ball nor the dot moves. If in both instances we can get the ball to spin in place for 15 seconds we will record two different distances in 15 seconds. Now we are going to spin the ball two more times, same scenario, but this time we are going to spin the ball at the speed of light. Hopefully it will spin for at least fifteen seconds. Okay, we are going to have to stop the ball after fifteen seconds otherwise this is going to take way too long. So after counting down fifteen seconds for both spins compare the results, pretty much what we expected. Now we are going to do this same scenario one more time only I will be the dot on the side, you can be the dot on the top and one of the other readers can spin and stop the ball, but remember we are going for light speed. Lets all three count down the fifteen seconds. I am fairly certain that we three will count in sync, and that neither you nor I will be surprised when the ball stops spinning after fifteen seconds. Now, you didnt go anywhere, and I went further, and for both of us fifteen seconds went by. So it would appear, as you pointed out, that we can have distance with time, and it would also appear that we can have time without distance, both in a relative way. At the end of fifteen seconds I will be no more than 3 straight line inches from where I started, again in a relative way. Having not done the calculation there is a good chance I will be less than 3 straight line inches away. Having proposed, but not actually having done all these calculations all our answers would have had to do with time and distance, even the straight line distance, however none have actually affected space, but they have told us a little bit about space, distance and time. Distance in effect is the length of any specific path through space. If it is agreed that time is limited by the speed of light, and use the metric standard. One second divided by the speed of light gives us the furthest distance we can go in one second using the metric scale. They are effectively linked. Space is the medium that the dots moved through. Each dot moved a different distance through the medium. Space is not the distance, the medium did not move, it has no energy. In order to know that something has energy we have to compare it to something that has no energy. In numbers the zero is useful. On a scalar we count the zero as if it is a unit, a starting point with negative numbers going left, and positive numbers going right. In the physical universe there are no negative numbers, you either have something, or you have nothing. We can take nothing and give it volume, but other than a set of coordinates it remains nothing. Usually, were we to add 1 something to our volume of nothing it would assume the value of what we have added, but in truth it is 0+1; Space is the 0; Energy is the 1. Now, again, it sounds like I am saying that Space doesnt exist, but we have to have something to compare energy to. Space is something; it just has different properties compared to energy. So we have 2 things different enough that we can make true comparisons. In order for energy to have any true comparable value we have to compare it to something that has a value of 0 energies. At this point we have little choice, Space is one thing, and Energy is another, or Space is Energy with nothing to compare to, except values based on assigned properties such as volume; we end up losing the 0, and not really knowing what 1 energys is. Okay, enough of trying to think of Space as nothing. It doesn’t seem to be working, not in the sense that I want it to. It seems I have already, sort of again, started thinking about the possibilities of Space being Energy’s in the forms of what we call the Universe. In this new definition Space is viewed as particles linked through interacting energy waves that affect the particles. In this view it would seem that Space can change with distance and direction thus making the properties very flexible for any given volume of space. There are new questions popping into my head. I need time to think about them. Actually, one of the questions regards Time. It seems to me that some people view time as if it is energy, as if time affects Energy rather than energy affects being the result of Energy’s own properties.

I thought about just attaching this to my Aether thread to end the Aether thought, so to speak. One thought has led to another. However with the new thought the subject changed enough that I wish to remove Aether from its substance. The new thought is an effort to define space. There do not seem to be many direct values I can give to space. 1. It can be occupied. 2. We can think of it in terms of volume, which means we can divide it into units of measure. 3. Any other defining value is related to what occupies space. 4. Any observation, of that given volume, can be affected by what occupies space outside our chosen limits of observation. 5. Space is a medium; any energy can occupy and move through unaffected. In a sense this means that space can not warp, it does not move, it has no energy, is not affected by energy. It sounds as if I am saying that space does not exist, but that is not what I am saying. Space is a medium any energy can occupy and move through unaffected. This does not mean that energy won't change direction, only that any change will be the result of energy that already occupies a given volume of space. It was said in another thread that you can not fire a photon through a conduit tube with a diameter that is smaller than the photon. I believe the statement to be true. The present energy that occupies that space won't allow it. It really doesn't matter what the conduit is made of so long as the present occupying energy has properties that prevent the photon from entering and passing through the space of its interior. We could just as easily be talking about a particle accelerator. I am not sure that what I have said here completely changes present views of science. It would certainly change concepts of space/time. There would be no folding of space, and no weird time occurrences. The only thing we would be able to warp, bend, or fold would be energy. Present science allows us to explain why a straight path from A to B takes less time than a curved path. We could be talking about me walking, or again a particle moving through a particle accelerator. We could be talking about earth orbiting the sun, or a photon passing an intense gravity body. Some thoughts would change. Most would stay the same.

I don’t know that Aether is the answer. I am not ready to say that it isn’t. If Aether exist in this thought it has to have properties that define its existence, and how it fits in the existing universe. I do not see for the moment in the model universe I am thinking of any room for space. There is always a point of center mass between two objects that shows a gravitational link connecting the two objects. So, where is the space? We can take the view that if we don’t see something in a given area that, that area exists as empty space, but should we? Is there a point in any area of the universe that we can point to and say that that point does not exist as a point of center mass? Yes, we can say that a certain point doesn’t exist as a point of center mass for two specific objects, but there are more than two specific objects in the universe. So, where is this space between spaces? Where is there a point that does not exist as a point of center mass? Where is there room for space?

I am thinking that I may be wrong in an earlier part of this thread. I said that I thought of Aether as the fundamental source of all energy and not gravity. In essence Aether would be the fundamental source of energy because of its volume. In essence in keeping with the thought all matter would be made up of Aether, but the effect is curved space, also known as gravity, so it would seem that the two are linked, and it would be wrong to name Aether alone as the fundamental source of energy. Having had this thought I have begun to wonder what would happen if elas’s thoughts on gravity were applied to an Aether particle? Perhaps the sum would be better explained. So, I would invite elas to consider the thought, and know of no one better to explain the application as it would apply to Aether since the elas thoughts on gravity belong to elas. If you feel that there is a remote possibility that your thoughts on gravity could be applied to the speculative thought of Aether I invite you to present those thoughts as they would apply. Of course you could just simply dismiss the thought as not possible, and I would be disappointed, but I would not want you to think that your contribution to this thread is limited. I would point out again that this thread is speculation and anyone and everyone should be allowed to speculate without their sincerity to science being questioned.

How would you describe space dimensionally? Is it a single Time dimension? Is it 3d plus 1 time dimension making it 4d? Is it an infinite number of dimensions plus 1 Time dimension? Is it a nearly infinite number of dimensions plus 1 Time dimension? Is it a single space/time dimension? How does something without substance compare to something with substance dimensionally? If space/time has substance, what is it? If space/time does not have substance how can we segment it? What is it that we are adding up? What is it we are dividing? How do you divide 0 into segments and then add 0’s up to find 1 second of time? We don’t, everything is based on substance. We then use the concept to define distance, distance in time and distance in space. Only things of substance can travel the same spatial distance with different time intervals. How can we so easily accept General Relativity if space has no volume, no substance? That substance may not be Aether. It might be one big gravity field, but it would seem to me that what ever it is it would have to be something substantial. Aether is just a thought that I found to be interesting. I thought then, and still do, ‘Wouldn’t it be something if the thing that tied everything together was a single, very tiny piece of matter, an answer that was thrown away in the past because of the view in which it was presented.’ Truthfully I can’t do the thought justice, but still it has been fun. With Aether, there is a sense of continuity. I don’t feel that time had to start with the Big Bang. The Universe as we know it might have needed that jump start, but there is no reason to believe that a different type of universe wasn’t already around before the Big Bing, and I would think that, that universe would need time just as much as the universe we have now needs time. There is no reason to believe that the Big Bang would have completely destroyed the previous universe, so there is no reason to believe that the universe we have now isn’t made up of both universes. Then there is the fact that Aether would explain the energy whose source we can not account for. So, I am not ready to give up on the Aether thought just yet, but the name Dark Matter sounds so cool that, that thought is really hard to resist. Who knows, if they had called Aether, Dark Matter instead of Aether we might be looking at the Universe a little differently now. I should have worded this phrase differently; “There is no reason to believe that the Big Bang would have completely destroyed the previous universe, so there is no reason to believe that the universe we have now isn’t made up of both universes.” The law of energy conservation does not allow that any portion of energy be destroyed, so it would have been better had I worded it this way; “There is no reason to believe that the Big Bang would have destroyed the previous universe, so there is no reason to believe that the universe we have now isn’t the same universe somewhat but not completely changed.”

Time is exactly where and when it is supposed to be. If your question actually is; do I think time started with the Big Bang? My answer would be; no. In my opinion the sense that the Big Bang was the beginning of everything, well it is just too spiritual. It is the Genesis imprint moved from God to science. As to rules; the only rules or laws that I want to apply are the laws of physics. The particle does have other qualities that are implied, such as size and density. Then there is the fact that in keeping with the original beginning of this thought, this particle is supposed to be the seed particle from which all heavier particles and elements come from. So, there is that quality also. In keeping with the thought of Aether I can not call this particle of Aether a gravity particle. Space as Aether would still have the effect of space being one big gravitational field. I am thinking that Aether is the fundamental source of all energy, and that if gravity were actually given that title the curvature of space would suffer for it. And, if you are wondering why I keep using the word space without the word time it is because when the two words are put together it makes some people have crazy thoughts. It just occurred to me that maybe that is the reason for the question; where is time at in all this. When you use the term space/time it tends to signify a special relationship between time and space. In my opinion time is relevant to everything, but in a universe where space is made up of Aether, or even a gravity particle for that matter, any special time relationship would have to be with distance, not space, and I am fairly certain that any change in distance is not going to warp time and that any apparent change in time between two systems would be mechanically related; meaning that the mechanics of a system is gravity related, and yes time would still be relative. It just wouldn’t be weird. But, I could be wrong.

It seems, I am trying to describe nothing, and I am trying to describe it as a particle. It gets more confusing because I am trying to give this nothing particle gravity. (I can blame this part of the thought on Einstein.) So, in a sense I am also trying to describe this nothing particle as a field. It seems that the only quality that I can relate to this nothing particle is gravity. I could simply say that space is just one big gravity field. Then loosely keeping within that thought the nothing particle, becomes a gravity particle. Then all I would have to say is that the greater the density the greater the gravity. This thought pretty much kills the Aether thought unless one wants to say that Aether is a gravity particle. I am not sure I see a lot of sense in that, since we already have something called Gravity, and any other thinking in that direction would relate specifically to gravity.

As matter (Aether) would be subject to gravity. I am thinking of starting with the Universal Law of Gravitation. At the moment I am thinking of Fg as representing the relationship between two mass bodies as curved space and not as a force. I am thinking that as curved space and not an energy there is no speed limit, because curved space is simply a path that will be followed, but that any energy lent to the two bodies is subject to the speed limit. That the measured mass of any body is the sum of its rest mass plus any lent energy, and that this lent energy effects the curvature to some degree. I hope to eventually say that the smallest of small particles (Aether) to all appearances would (seemingly) be moving in a straight line because it’s size would be the least effected by the curve that it is a part of, and this same thought would also imply that it’s mass would be least effected. I have tried to choose my words carefully here. I am trying to answer your question as it relates to my thoughts for the moment, and I don’t want to be detracted by using the wrong words. I suspect that others have already done most of my thinking for me, and that all I have to do is figure out how to put the thoughts together. I want everything to tie together and the Universal Law of Gravitation seems a good place to start. Further explaining – basically Fg represents the relationship between two masses as a curve, the smaller m1, or m2 the smaller the curve. In mass the collective effect would show up in a distant galaxy. It would appear that there is more gravity at work than there ought to be.

If the view is that I do not like mathematicians then the view is wrong. I am thinking of a particle so small that math would be the only way to explore the possibility. I am thinking that if we can rationalize a singularity then it should be okay to rationalize a mass particle of similar size if not smaller without the black hole. My first thought was that the particle would have to be bigger because we tend to view a singularity as being infinitely small, but I am not comfortable with the thought of infinity unless it is accepted that the word is only being used to describe an unknown number to the extreme left or right. In the sense of Aether, I wanted to stick with the thought of Aether and space as separate entities. I was thinking that there had to be some mass to space ratio needed. Violate the ratio and a black hole is formed. I haven’t thrown the thought out, but the thought has entered that the mass particle needs no more space than the area it occupies. This doesn’t necessarily violate the thought, but it does change it. In this sense all space does is define where two fields end. I am thinking that not even a singularity can change this.

Actually I think that a scientist is more likely to admit to not knowing than say an idealist with a pet theory. Some idealist would actually be scientist if they would admit, at least to themselves that they may be wrong. At the same time I am not saying that they should completely abandon their thought, as an example, when a thought is complimented by something, seemingly, pushing, and nothing seems to be pushing. Then one should at the minimum entertain the thought that something might be being pulled, or an allusion of pull, is being created by it’s following a path of least resistance. One of the things wrong with the concept of Aether is that it was often a subject of metaphysics. The cause in cause and effect abandoned to a spiritual realm. This isn’t physics. The Quantum Theorist seldom helps their cause by saying that in the Quantum world things don’t behave the way they should. For every effect there is always a cause. What is being seen to happen is happening for a reason. If there is a response to a cause, even thousands of miles away, then there is a reason. The question is what is the reason? Are things throughout the universe materially linked, or is the observed effect the result if space changing shape? Can both questions be part of the answer? Am I asking the right questions? Am I willing to ask the right questions? Is there anything new I need to learn before I can ask the right questions? Is there anything new I need to learn before I can figure out the answer, or do I need to unlearn what made sense until I asked this question? Do things actually not behave the way they should in the Quantum world?

One of the purist definitions of space that I can think of is that space is not matter, but even this definition is lacking because matter occupies space. This occupation lends a qualifying definition to matter. So, am I defining space or am I defining matter. Another use of the word space is to describe the distance between to objects. We often substitute the word space for distance, but in this sense we are not describing space we are describing distance. In nearly every sense that I can think of at the moment, definitions meant to define space usually work better as qualifying definitions for something other than space. The only definition that I can think of for space that to me seems pure is that space is any area that is not occupied. To me this would make it a vacuum. It is fairly amazing to me that this area is so often refused to be seen to exist. The universe is made up of only two things, space and matter. Everything else defines one or the other. The scale of definitions seems a little unbalanced toward matter, but is it? We tend to think of space as infinite, and matter doesn’t even come close to that unknown. Matter is easier to count, easier to define, but we can’t seem to agree on one simple definition of what space is, because it is very hard to find a definition that doesn’t work better as a qualifying definition for something else. On a scale, one good definition of space would be worth all the definitions of matter, so maybe the QT”s are right, in a way. Quantum Theorist seem to like their water muddy. Space isn’t just occupied with matter it is occupied with other material universes. A vacuum is not wanted. They paint a picture of interwoven universes. When I think of this picture I still see places that are void. But, if the universes exist similar to a light spectrum the void places pretty much go away. Each universe has a frequency. Everything in phase with that frequency exists in that universe. If a particle gains or looses enough energy it pops into another universe just long enough to give up the energy it has gained, or acquire the energy it has lost, it then pops back into it’s original universe. There is even the possibility that the particle could move across multiple universes exchanging energies as it goes. If we could observe this happening we would only see it happening in our universe. It would appear almost magical, and somewhat random, but it would be happening all around us, at every instant, throughout the universes. It would puzzle us greatly until one of us figured out what was happening, why it was happening and how it was happening. Then they would have to figure out how to explain it. This is where rhetorical mathematics comes in handy for those who understand the language. There seems to be plenty of those people around, but like one good definition of space, the rest of us are willing to listen to one single person gifted rhetorically in our native tongue. Sorry, I couldn’t resist inserting my own sense of humor. I will completely understand if a few mathematicians feel the need to throw a few negatives at me, but back to the QT train of thought. It seems to me that, that thought brings us back to a very similar if not the original concept of Aether. On one hand we have space existing as space occupied by Aether. With space being well, space, and Aether being matter. On the other hand Space is Aether and our universe is simply one of the many plains of Aether’s existence. At this point I am a little confused, maybe I need another hand. Merged post follows: Consecutive posts mergedYou are right. I am speculating, pretty much all of it. I got the idea while watching a show on the science channel. Not a single scientist questioned about what dark matter/energy knew what the stuff was, and some of them actually made fun of their own ignorance. I use the word ignorance here meaning lack of knowledge, and am in no way meaning it as a detriment to their character, or their intelligence. I wouldn’t do that. So, I started thinking about it, just what is dark matter? The only things I know about it is the reasons why they say it must exist, and my mind has been going from there. It is really difficult for me to stay focused. My thoughts tend to go where they go, and speculation is a big part of my thinking process. Add in the subject, Aether, and speculation is pretty much a given. I tend to be a purest at heart. I like things to be in black and white, but I don’t insist on it. There is a difference between science fiction and science, but they do seem to keep moving the line. I don’t believe in multiple universes, probably never will, but I will entertain the thought. Why? Because it is fun.

I am not happy with current explanations of the Universe. We either have to accept unreasonable events, or unreasonable explanations. A Big Bang is reasonable, but not without explanation. The universe as we no it, is not lumpy. So, we explain it away, i.e. Inflation. The thing is I am not unhappy with the thought of inflation, but with the thought that sudden inflation is needed. We don’t know what existed before the Big Bang, but current black hole models say that matter as we accept it does not allow for a Big Bang. However, the Law of Energy Conservation says matter existed. If matter existed, gravity existed. Something caused preexisting matter to mass. There is no reasonable reason to think it was not gravity, nor is there a reasonable reason to think that preexisting matter wouldn’t still exist. Otherwise, what went bang? So, to me the only reasonable explanation is that preexisting matter is very small in mass, small enough that gravity would cause it to mass but not reach a point related to a black hole, so it could go bang in a big way. Thus producing matter that is much heavier, one of which we call Hydrogen. For Years the possibility of Aether was thought to exist. Ways of measuring or simply observing Aether were tried to no effect. It is my opinion that Einstein felt the need for Aether to exist in order for his own thoughts to make any sense, yet neither he nor anyone else could prove the possibility. Today we look at the universe and we still say nothing makes any sense. Galaxies should fly apart. The universe should not be expanding with apparent over eagerness, so we propose things called Dark Matter, and Dark Energy, which lend just enough gravity to hold galaxies together, and allow the universe to expand. I don’t know if the figure was careless, but one person said that this Dark Matter exist as seventy five percent of all known matter. This is a very large percentage, and I am not certain that the figure isn’t too small. However, when compared to the distances of space matter in any form is a very small percentage, and there in lays the problem of Aether. The thought was that space was made up of Aether. It isn’t, Aether simply occupies space like any other matter, only we now call it by the more foreboding name of Dark Matter/Energy. Now we can try the earlier experiments and expect the same results. No disappointments exist. In those experiments its density is too low for observation. However, when we look at distant galaxies the effect is apparent, because we are comparing a very small portion of occupied space to the Universe.

Part of the question is out of context, a misunderstanding on my part. I am still not certain that it wouldn't apply in the thought of a universe expanding. My misunderstanding, began when I assumed the misconceptions you were speaking of. When one views an expanding universe, one can tend to see any portion of that universe as changing shape because of the expansion. A defined portion of space time does not need to change because the universe is expanding. By questioning my questions, you have given me something else interesting to read about. Sometimes I do speak in ignorance, then have to do a quick catch up on the conversation, or simply listen. I'll listen for a while. Merged post follows: Consecutive posts mergedOkay, I said I would just listen for a while, but then I thought of your cone example. Each section gets larger, and the cone is defined by each section. If you decided to lengthen the cone all you would be doing is adding larger and larger sections until you reached the desired length. The definition of each individual section is unchanged. Only the cone is larger. The cone representation just changes the shape of the block. The layering is the same. I don't think that any geometric shape can accurately define space/time but the cone shape better represents expansion than does the block. However, this being said what I have read about a block universe describes it as an unchanging 4 dimensional block universe. No stacking is mentioned. It doesn't allow for a sense of time. The only thing implied is movement, hence the 4th dimension. Suggesting to me a philosophical vision of time I have yet to figure out where a Cauchy curve fits into an unchanging block universe, unless you were asking if I was suggesting that a Cauchy surface changed the structure of an unchanging block. The answer would be no, though it might suggest a view of philosophic time in an unchanging block universe. However, you never mentioned the word unchanging, when you said a block universe, so maybe I am still out of the loop, and maybe you can tell me what block universe view, you are talking about?

I am not disagreeing with you ajb, but wouldn't thinking 4D always, imply that what is moving can be thought of as being within a 4D object and that the outside 4D object would also be moving? Also, aren't most misconceptions because one assumes that one changing shape effects the other dimensionally, 3D?

Thank you for your answers. More Questions. I was watching the MIT lecture number two on You Tube, about black holes, and it was said that they had no visible way to detect gravity waves, yet. My questions are; Wouldn't the red shift or blue shift of a star moving through space be a visible indication of gravity waves? Wouldn't the galaxy around a black hole be a visible indication? If we are going to use descriptive words like, fabric of space time, wouldn't we expect the fabric to ripple if we threw another rock in the mix? Or is it just that there is the need to detect the little ripple, so it can be said; yes it is doing what it is supposed to do? Merged post follows: Consecutive posts mergedWouldn't the star or the rock be viewed as a moving divergence in the whole (not hole) fabric of space time, and what is seen is part of the effect? Merged post follows: Consecutive posts mergedFor clarification. I understand that blue shift might not apply to the star. I just meant the idea.

What I have read makes sense in most ways. What I was having difficulty accepting was how something can become smaller and still have enough mass to be a black hole. Density explains it, the closer things are the more energy it takes to overcome the bond of gravity. I have read that the larger a black hole gets, the less dense it becomes. I think the explanation had to do with size comparisons. It was smaller now it is bigger therefore its over all density has changed. The changed part of the statement makes sense. A change has occurred, but how would the change affect the overall density? Even applying spin? To me it seems that spin if it had effect would have an equalizing effect on density. Random density samples within the shape would begin to even out in value across the shape. Is this thought wrong? Merged post follows: Consecutive posts mergedIt has occurred to me that if a black hole were spinning it would have to be spinning very fast in order for density to change across the shape, gravity would not allow it otherwise, and likely never allow it. The ratio always favors gravity.