cosmic rain

You are the one who brought general relativity into the conversation. I didn't mention it once in my post. If you know so much about gravity then why can't you explain the nature of gravity and how gravity works?

Perhaps I should rephrase Earth's core to mean the center of the Earth. Your nineteen minutes sounds like too short of a window to cover such a distance at the rate of freefall. I would rather believe what I saw on T.V.

We can't say gravity is produced from matter. We tend to view gravity as something local, when in fact it could be something non-local. For all we know, gravity may be a separate arrow of time opposing matter. Since we don't know the nature of gravity or how gravity works, the equations we use should be treated with a fair amount of objectivity in the analysis. To understand the action of gravity doesn't require any special mathematics (unless you're talking about specific densities of a planet or a star's interior), however a basic understanding of the Law of Inverse Square is required. It also helps to realize that specific gravity and specific density are synonymous. Therein lies the confusion where we may mistake gravity for density, which is only associated with matter and energy. But it is the Law of Inverse Square at work here; the higher the density, the stronger the gravity. The action of gravity moves from concentric space, or surrounding space, to the centrosymmetric position of the physical geometry within that space, i.e. planets and stars. This action holds our atmosphere in place and holds everyone on the planet simultaneously. The specific density of a planet or a star is usually stronger at the center because of pressure and compactification. Exotic stars such as neutron stars are an exception to the rule. One of the most interesting things about gravity is that you will only find it where matter is present. This is another reason we so closely associate the two main forces of nature. But gravity could be holographic, dividing itself every time matter divides. It depends on whether or not there were precision based mechanics at the beginning of time. We know for example that gravity is fine-tuned and that any variance whatsoever would have produced an entirely different universe. This is why many scientists believe there are unknown physics yet to be discovered. The Earth is very wide indeed. A freefall from the surface of the Earth to the core would take over three days. But the calculation is based on samples from above the Earth's surface. This is a region of space which is fairly empty. The rate may increase slightly as you approach the Earth's core, or it may increase exponentially. It all depends on the specific density of the surrounding matter. Splatttt.

Physicists now admit they know the universe is flat. They have reasoned that only a flat universe with equal amounts of both positive energy and negative gravity can come from nothing. They say the rules for quantum mechanics allow for a universe to exist from nothing, based on the prediction that if opposite A is true, then eventually opposite B will also be true. Quantum physicists have never been able to explain why there is even distribution in the quantum theory, and the cosmologists have never been able to explain the uneven distribution of energy in the big bang. They have been able to determine that 98% of the materials needed for a successful universe came out of the big bang in the first several minutes, while the rest of the big bang poured out radiation for many thousands of years. Scientists like to describe nothing as the absence of space, the absence of time, or the absence of anything associated as information. However there are differences of opinion for what the real definition of nothing is, and I guess it depends on how you want to look at it, literally. One renowned physicist doesn't believe in the absence of space as nothing. He believes nothing to be space with nothing in it. He theorizes that all of empty space can have weight, which can cause a vacuum fluctuation, and initiate a big bang. This is a scenario which can avoid many questions; one of them being how do you explain what appears to be precision based mechanics in nature? It's not just the quantum theory and the distribution of energy in the big bang that needs further explanation; it's the question of how nature can provide equal amounts of both positive and negative in a flat universe from nothing. One has to ask, can a vacuum fluctuation do all of that?

100 years ago the popular belief in science was that the physical universe was infinite in all directions. The science is called plasma physics, and is better known today as the steady state theory. Einstein proposed a definition for the space-time continuum in the steady state theory as the material universe extending for infinity into the past without beginning, and forward into the future without end. If you believe this definition is correct, then you are considered to be a steady state theorist who doesn’t believe in the big bang. You would explain the evidence of the microwave background as low temperature hydrogen, and you would believe energy is infinite.

You should read up on the uncertainty principle. It says you cannot know the truth about a particle's position and momentum simultaneously. You can only know the truth about one or the other at any given time.

I found out that graviton research is still very active at CERN and FERMI . What I really meant to say is that the hunt for the elusive graviton has generated many billions of dollars for research and development in the industry, not that they were specifically trying to build graviton collectors. 8 CERN - The Standard Model [10 KB] ...this site all CERN CERN logo CERN - European Organization for Nuclear...Although not yet found, the 'graviton' should be the corresponding force-carrying...pieces. Copyright CERN 2008 - Web Communications, DSU-CO... http://public.web.ce...rdModel-en.html - Find similar - Exclude similar 9 CERN - Secret dimensions [6 KB] ...this site all CERN CERN logo CERN - European Organization for Nuclear...fundamental forces? Does its carrier, the graviton, exist and where? The idea...lead! Copyright CERN 2008 - Web Communications, DSU-CO... http://public.web.ce...ensions-en.html - Find similar - Exclude similar 10 EXO2011RSJetMet < CMS < TWiki [22 KB] ... Discovery Readiness for RS Graviton into a Jet plus MET (Exo2011RSJetMet) RS Jet + MET Team On Statistical Methods Internal Cross-Checks... https://twiki.cern.c...EXO2011RSJetMet 1. [PDF] Gravitons and Dark Matter in Universal Extra Dimensions - Fermilab conferences.fnal.gov/dmwksp/.../Graviton%20Nausheen%20Shah.pd...Similar You +1'd this publicly. Undo File Format: PDF/Adobe Acrobat - Quick View by NR Shah - Cited by 21 - Related articles Gravitons and Dark. Matter in Universal. Extra Dimensions. Nausheen R. Shah. Carlos E. M. Wagner. PRD 74:104008, 2006 [arXiv: hep-ph/0608140] ... 2. Search for New Dielectron Resonances and Randall-Sundrum ... www-cdf.fnal.gov/physics/exotic/r2a/...gravitonee/index.htmlCached You +1'd this publicly. Undo Jun 16, 2011 – CDF Logo, Search for New Dielectron Resonances and Randall-Sundrum Gravitons at the Collider Detector at Fermilab, Exotics Logo ... 3. [PDF] Search for Randall-Sundrum Gravitons in the µµ ... - CDF - Fermilab www-cdf.fnal.gov/physics/exotic/...fullgraviton/RS_mm_public.pdf You +1'd this publicly. Undo File Format: PDF/Adobe Acrobat - Quick View Apr 7, 2011 – A search for RS-gravitons in the dimuon channel using data recorded by the ... graviton mass limit for the coupling k/MPl = 0.1 is 1111 GeV/c2, ...

I guess a lot has changed since the mid- eighties and early nineties when gravitons and gravitinos were in the spotlight. You can see how important it would have been had they found them. I remember watching a T.V. show where they asked a technician at CERN what they were really hoping to find and he said gravitons.

The simplest definition of time is the physical universe which begins as a thermodynamic arrow of time.

Under laboratory conditions, a famous English physicist by the name of Paul Dirac discovered the presence of virtual pairs in a vacuum. Awhile back Stephen Hawking wrote a book about zero, and posited that the universe could never achieve zero because of virtual pair production. This goes to show you how limited our thinking was before the question of space became so popular. Even without a universe or virtual pairs you still don't have zero as long as there is space. A mistake in numerology science can often lead to a mistake in cosmology science as it has in the past, however mathematicians are a lot smarter and wiser about it today. After all, they are the ones who brought up the question of space in the first place. Just wanted you to know I agree with your statement 100%. The universe is obliged to follow the way nature intended. There is nature, and then there is the action of nature, the universe. So far, none of our known mathematics has been able to explain nature. This leaves the question of unknown mathematics open to possibility. Nothing cannot have representation as a zero because zero is information.

The hunt for the elusive graviton has generated many billions of dollars in research money for the building of particle accelerators worldwide, with most of the funding coming from governments. The reason the graviton is so important is that it would validate the general theory of relativity.

The experiment concluded that there was no way to know whether the cat in the box was alive or dead without direct observation. Since direct observation violates uncertainty, a determination of the truth had to be made without it. The cat is both alive and dead, and reality is a superposition of states.

I am very happy with the way things are turning out in theoretical physics. When mathematicians took the helm of modern cosmology a decade ago they raised a very important question. What is dimension? It was reasoned that dimension had to come first to allow the big bang room for expression, and the question of three-dimensional space was ushered in as the third most important question in modern cosmology. The other two questions, what is energy, and what is gravity, still remain unanswered. For the mathematicians, the desire to identify the very first thing in existence is all part of a larger quest to explain the number one, and possibly what came before it. Since the ultimate goal of modern cosmology is to explain the nature of the universe, mathematicians who work in this field are just as anxious to find out everything they can in order to complete their numerology science of the number one. So far, all they have managed to do is to completely redefine our views and shake the very foundation of modern cosmology. Instead of having to explain the big bang creation, we are now beset with the additional task of having to explain the nature of three-dimensional space. Is space infinite? Is space finite? Did space pre-exist, or did space have to be engineered, like time, into existence? I'm sure everyone has their own thoughts on this. I would go with the popular view today which seems more mathematically sound. Scientists now believe nothing existed before the big bang. They describe nothing as the absence of space, the absence of time, or the absence of anything associated with information. On the other hand, the physicists also claim they need a mathematical language to describe the singularity of the big bang, and that without this language, we will never be able to explain how the big bang happened. We are going to need this information, and it doesn't appear as if nature is going to give it up very easily, whether it is capable or not. I know this seems hopeless, but it really isn't as bad as people think. The additional task of having to explain space has really brought us into focus with better questions and better answers about nature. I have been doing theory work for many years and I don't mean to come across as an expert even though I may sound like one. I have found what I feel is a good path in science, and I'm passionate about discovery, and sharing. A reexamination of some of our definitions will be the subject of my next topic. Let's see if we can't find something more interesting to say about nothing. In the meanwhile, here is a question to think about. Is space infinite in scope and without physical parameters? This is the question our most renowned physicists try to avoid. I am new to the forum and don't know if this question has been popularized yet or not. Although mathematicians cannot agree on a definition for infinity, most scientists agree with the logic of infinity as something without beginning or end.

All physical systems in the universe are subject to entropy and decay from the moment they appear. It all comes down to the second law of thermodynamics. For example, the big bang left a signature called the microwave background. Some scientists believe the signature to be that of low-temperature hydrogen. Either way, heat flows toward the cold, and time flows only in one direction.

Hi. I'm cosmic rain. Now what? Cosmic rain here. Just kidding. I really am a serious student who just likes to goof around, and because science is so complex, we will always be students. If we knew how to explain everything then maybe we would become the masters of our universe. Instead, we are in the subjective reality, and I don't give a hoot about observer dependent realities claim that reality is objective. The only reason that something doesn't exist unless you are looking at it is that it doesn't exist as information, unless you're looking at it. They've got everybody thinking that all physical reality disappears and reappears every time you blink. Well, gotta' go for now. Nice meeting you. . Hello, I would like to introduce myself. I'm cosmic rain and I just joined the forum. I will be posting on the subject of anti-space as you call it. Space is a very interesting subject these days. I've been thinking about it for some time now. The thought of closed space first occurred to me after a writing project over twenty years ago, and I still haven't got used to the idea. It's probably because we are physical entities living in a three-dimensional world that requires space. Thinking about no space is uncomfortable, but that is the price we pay for being intuitive. Modern science has finally awakened to this idea of anti-space, and scientists now believe there was no space or time before the big bang. More on that later.