the essence of the question is in the curved space : ) does the grid curve toward an object, or wrap around it?
here's another example of it curve "toward it"..
Does True Randomness Actually Exist? ( ^&*#^%$&#% )
Sort:
Feb 15, 2020
0
#923
Space
and Time
Are two distinct elements that make up the universe, the third being energy/matter.
The term space-term is a concoction, representing the notion/idea that they linked together in a 4th dimension. We have researched the farthest reaches of known space, and by thinking we know much about it, we assume this knowledge is directly applicable to Time.
Time is it's own element, that interacts with the two other elements of Space and Energy/matter that make up the universe.
A 4th element exists, that of "Consciousnesses". A Life -force, can go by many descriptions, but something that lies outside the other 3 -metaphysical. This 4th element naturally brings skepticism to it's very existence.
My man . . 
"One thing only I know, and that is that I know nothing."
"Education is the kindling of a flame, not the filling of a vessel."
"By all means, marry. If you get a good wife, you'll become happy; if you get a bad one, you'll become a philosopher."
Feb 15, 2020
0
#925
Feb 15, 2020
0
#926
The ideas of space-time came about from Einstein's work in relativity, making explanations by describing how Gravity works. They got it all wrong.
Gravity is the interaction between Space and the other element of nature, that of energy/matter. Gravity can be better explained by such a mathematical model. That Gravity is explained by the "4th dimension continuum" of time+space = a set of rules, .... is a backward step.
Elroch wrote:
Optimissed wrote:
It hasn't had a singularity for nearly 50 years.>>
Are you saying that you're nearly 50 years old?
What I said wasn't about me. It was about the fact that the standard model of cosmology had inflation added in the 1970s.>>
Only by the people who were rather behind times, since inflation was known about in the 1950s. But the static model persisted. This is what I mean .... academics tend to be behind reality. Same as interested amateurs, who read their books always thirty years previously.
<<<While people refer to this being very early in the Big Bang, there is no bound on how long inflation lasted, nor any knowledge of anything that might have preceded it (information is effectively eradicated by inflation).>>>
I don't know the supposed difference between inflation and expansion. I have always assumed that they are just trying to fudge the maths. They can't let go of the Big Bang, because it's what they learned when they were young. It takes a decent amount of mental control not to be attached, you know, to be able to become non-attached. It's a meditation thing.
It's all downhill now, you know. At 45 I could still play football for three hours. Now, 23 years later, I can barely crawl out of bed.
Son also got an MMath (1st) from Newcastle, and the physics bit was at St Andrews. He once told me that he thinks physics PhDs are easy and hard, or "soft" and "useful". He thinks that a relatively average person can get a physics PhD if they're lucky with their assignment.
LOL. The average person can't pass A-level physics, so your son is very generous.
Average PhD candidate is what he meant. Even I have A level physics. I think I took it twice, even though I passed the first time. I was taking another subject and I entered for physics the second time just for fun, did no revision at all and got the same level pass as the first time, which I think was a D .
He also thinks that the less able tend to be drawn to cosmology for the reason that it's much harder to get real evidence which will prove them wrong. So actually I got the impression he doesn't have too much respect for cosmologists.
My experience tells me that people are driven to what attracts them most and the appeal of the branch of science that deals with the history of everything we can observe is clear. It is the biggest subject of all ("subject" in the sense of that which is studied).
That's because the largest amount of PhD candidates are just moderately bright. It fits into what Edmund said. I've talked to them in droves on Physics sites in Facebook. I was once in a tremendous argument about an hypothetical elecromagnetic machine mounted on a base and stood on a floor with sequential electromagnets firing off. It was in a really big Facebook physics group dominated by a number of people with physics PhDs. It was meant to be a trick question and in their view, the machine, which was a kind of living sculpture, wouldn't move because of equal action and reaction.
I explained that it would move and I explained why, and the physics PhDs became very angry and of course they were backed up by 100 or so people of somewhat average intelligence. Ultimately they threw me out of that group and one chap, an Aussie, brighter than the others, left with me in protest.
Unbeknown to me, my son had watched the whole proceedings and messaged me to tell me that I had won that argument in about 15 different ways and in his view, never made a mistake. I think he was a 3rd year PhD student at the time. You know, he never ever took physics in his life before becoming a physics PhD candidate , theoretical physics being mainly maths, and in his first term he learned physics up to degree level. Anyhow, that was his take.
My take is that cosmologists are divided into three. By far the largest part is data collectors and by and large they don't know what's going on. Then there are the people who design the experiments and so on, and set out the maths. The third set is those who are capable of interpreting the data and the results. There aren't any of them, because there is no cosmologist at the moment, in the world, of sufficient stature. So the others have no-one to follow. 
Feb 15, 2020
0
#928
Strictly speaking, a Bayesian needs to choose the hypothesis/model class before seeing the data, which seldom reflects scientific practice.
https://medium.com/intuitionmachine/cargo-cult-statistics-versus-deep-learning-alchemy-8d7700134c8e
MustangMate wrote:
in other words.. in 2d the grid always wrap around the object, but almost all 3d illustrations show the grid going inward to the object. why?
here's another example..
Feb 15, 2020
0
#930
MustangMate wrote:
Strictly speaking, a Bayesian needs to choose the hypothesis/model class before seeing the data, which seldom reflects scientific practice.
https://medium.com/intuitionmachine/cargo-cult-statistics-versus-deep-learning-alchemy-8d7700134c8e
Seems to surprisingly miss the point. It is true that the data that has been seen before a hypothesis is chosen cannot be used to validate that hypothesis. However, the data that is seen after choosing a hypothesis can be used to strengthen belief in that hypothesis.
This is exactly the same as the scientific method, only made quantitative.
Feb 15, 2020
0
#931
The lines drawn on the "fabric" of space are meant to represent "Gravity"
Feb 15, 2020
0
#933
Optimissed wrote:
Elroch wrote:
Optimissed wrote:
It hasn't had a singularity for nearly 50 years.>>
Are you saying that you're nearly 50 years old?
What I said wasn't about me. It was about the fact that the standard model of cosmology had inflation added in the 1970s.
Only by the people who were rather behind times, since inflation was known about in the 1950s. But the static model persisted.
No, inflation is not that old as a hypothesis, and no, static cosmology was not a tenable viewpoint in the 1950s (barring the extremes of speculation that never convinced many people). Einstein correctly dropped his static universe model (which was anyhow unstable) in 1929 due to Hubble's observations, and there is no time it has made sense since then. For one thing, the early Universe is visibly different to the present Universe (eg quasars and, the CMB, dating from when the Universe was a pretty homogeneous gas).
I believe you are confusing concepts here. Later you mention you don't have much idea of what cosmological inflation is, so I suggest you refer to any history of science (and be careful about the terms being used).
This is what I mean .... academics tend to be behind reality.
You are seriously suggesting cosmologists lag the general public in their ideas? 
Same as interested amateurs, who read their books always thirty years previously.
So who the heck are the academics lagging then? You have eliminated professionals and amateurs, which is everyone. Alien cosmologists, maybe?
<<<While people refer to this being very early in the Big Bang, there is no bound on how long inflation lasted, nor any knowledge of anything that might have preceded it (information is effectively eradicated by inflation).>>>
I don't know the supposed difference between inflation and expansion.
It has a distinct character. The expansion is exponentially fast (rather than linearly fast) and is able to explain homogeneity in a way expansion of the normal (Hubble) kind cannot. However (IMHO) it is misleading to describe the expansion as being superluminal, as some carelessly do. Similarly, it is incorrect (and misleading) to say that any two points in the Universe are moving apart at greater than the speed of light (which even well-qualified people sometimes do). This is because this conclusion relies on adding speeds that just cannot be added in a relativistic context. A consequence of this is that the idea of things going completely out of range of communication from each other (sometimes claimed about the cosmological horizon) is not true.
I have always assumed that they are just trying to fudge the maths.
That indicates an unreasonable lack of respect for people who really know their stuff and who have checked the arguments for this in considerable detail over several decades. Note in particular, inflation is predictive, and it has taken decades to test some of these predictions. It is doing well!
They can't let go of the Big Bang, because it's what they learned when they were young. It takes a decent amount of mental control not to be attached, you know, to be able to become non-attached. It's a meditation thing.
It works as a scientific theory, and has just become better and more successful as more detail has been added (with some fascinating exceptions, some of the biggest questions in physical science, such as the matter-antimatter asymmetry).
It's all downhill now, you know. At 45 I could still play football for three hours. Now, 23 years later, I can barely crawl out of bed.
Son also got an MMath (1st) from Newcastle, and the physics bit was at St Andrews. He once told me that he thinks physics PhDs are easy and hard, or "soft" and "useful". He thinks that a relatively average person can get a physics PhD if they're lucky with their assignment.
LOL. The average person can't pass A-level physics, so your son is very generous.
Average PhD candidate is what he meant. Even I have A level physics. I think I took it twice, even though I passed the first time. I was taking another subject and I entered for physics the second time just for fun, did no revision at all and got the same level pass as the first time, which I think was a D.
ok, while I not going to pretend a D is a great grade, that identifies you as of significantly above average intelligence, IMHO. Your skills are probably somewhere other than physics, but physics is a subject that only attracts brighter people (in the way some arts subjects don't).
He also thinks that the less able tend to be drawn to cosmology for the reason that it's much harder to get real evidence which will prove them wrong. So actually I got the impression he doesn't have too much respect for cosmologists.
My experience tells me that people are driven to what attracts them most and the appeal of the branch of science that deals with the history of everything we can observe is clear. It is the biggest subject of all ("subject" in the sense of that which is studied).
That's because the largest amount of PhD candidates are just moderately bright.
People who get an excellent results in a degree in a hard subject (generally a requirement for a PhD in such subjects) are in a small percentile of brightness in any reasonable sense.
It fits into what Edmund said. I've talked to them in droves on Physics sites in Facebook. I was once in a tremendous argument about an hypothetical elecromagnetic machine mounted on a base and stood on a floor with sequential electromagnets firing off. It was in a really big Facebook physics group dominated by a number of people with physics PhDs. It was meant to be a trick question and in their view, the machine, which was a kind of living sculpture, wouldn't move because of equal action and reaction.
I have had a problem on a physics site with one narrow-minded person in a position of influence, who seems to spend most of his time regurgitating basic physics on the net but who appears unable to intelligently discuss physics that is not yet set in stone. My response, don't waste time where there are such people.
I explained that it would move and I explained why, and the physics PhDs became very angry and of course they were backed up by 100 or so people of somewhat average intelligence. Ultimately they threw me out of that group and one chap, an Aussie, brighter than the others, left with me in protest.
Unbeknown to me, my son had watched the whole proceedings and messaged me to tell me that I had won that argument in about 15 different ways and in his view, never made a mistake. I think he was a 3rd year PhD student at the time. You know, he never ever took physics in his life before becoming a physics PhD candidate , theoretical physics being mainly maths, and in his first term he learned physics up to degree level. Anyhow, that was his take.
My take is that cosmologists are divided into three. By far the largest part is data collectors and by and large they don't know what's going on. Then there are the people who design the experiments and so on, and set out the maths. The third set is those who are capable of interpreting the data and the results. There aren't any of them, because there is no cosmologist at the moment, in the world, of sufficient stature. So the others have no-one to follow.
There have been a lot of very talented cosmologists over the decades, and also other excellent physicists and astronomers who delve into this area. It is amusing that you reject them all as being fools!
MustangMate wrote:
The lines drawn on the "fabric" of space are meant to represent "Gravity"
yes, but i like to keep it simple, so lets just call it space. like that...
and with matter...
Quote: "Instead of an empty, blank, 3D grid, putting a mass down causes what would have been 'straight' lines to instead become curved by a specific amount. Note that they appear to drag towards, rather than away from, the mass in question. Christopher Vitale of Networkologies and the Pratt Institute"
Feb 15, 2020
0
#935
so if the lines are drawn inward, how is it that light bends around an object?
i'm not sure. but first comes first. im still trying to find out if it really does curve inward : )
Feb 15, 2020
0
#937
Geezz..... Elroch, all that copy'/paste just to add a silly comment? You seem to think of the thread as a school room, with red lining, colored pencils, grades being handed out along with the obligatory pointing out the right and wrong way to think.
There have been a lot of very talented cosmologists over the decades, and also other excellent physicists and astronomers who delve into this area. It is amusing that you reject them all as being fools!>>
It's amusing that you persist in missing the point. I have said I think you're intelligent but if you used your intelligence well, we wouldn't be having an argument. I wouldn't be feeling I have to talk down to someone I'd much rather used his mind well.
In particular, talent is one thing. Yes, a lot of people are talented but I don't see anyone who is capable of showing clear vision and leadership, which is what this subject so desperately needs. Talking in terms of maths all the time is a losing streak that they don't seem to be able to break. It needs someone with the confidence to combine classical principles that will cut through the obscurantist haze that YOU are increasingly resorting to.
They are not fools and you're a fool if you imagined I was saying that. But they have given up trying to think for themselves because the subject of cosmology is now so complex that no-one has an overall view.
Feb 15, 2020
0
#939
MustangMate wrote:
Geezz..... Elroch, all that copy'/paste just to add a silly comment?
Ten comments actually. None of them "silly".
You seem to think of the thread as a school room, with red lining, colored pencils, grades being handed out along with the obligatory pointing out the right and wrong way to think.
My habit is to reserve red for when all other colours that contrast well with those used have already been used. That was the case here.
I almost included a note to this effect, but I thought it was pretty obvious.
MustangMate wrote:
so if the lines are drawn inward, how is it that light bends around an object?>>
It doesn't really do so. A "light wave" heading straight for a massive object will hit it unless its deflected due to a collision with some other entity.
A light wave travelling obliquely to the centre of mass of an object, however, will be deflected towards the centre of mass of the object, due to a force proportional to the inverse square of the distance, so it'll deflect towards a straight line projected between the centre of mass and the photon and therefore tend to curve around the object.
You really need a 5 dimensional canvas to illustrate the curvature of space-time in 4-dimensions! As these are in short supply, no diagram can be more than illustrative.
1 dimension of space and 1 of time fit conveniently on the flat page, and the curvature can be represented in a different way (like contour lines on a map for example). But this is an incomplete, simplified version of reality.