Flat spacetime vs. Curvature

Imagine a triangle which expands outwards from a point we shall call simply ‘’a’’. The Pythagorean Theorem, suggests that the triangular formula: a^2 + b^2 = c^2 is a flat dimensional spacetime vector, given through x, y giving z, which are basically formulas of 3-dimensional coordinates.

Imagine these formulas as a flat, two dimensional images: In other words, you can draw a triangle from (a) – which would be the starting point, or singularity, expanding outwards:

a=b x c

This two dimensional imaginary visual, can also be rotated (x’, y’ and z’), giving a negative or even, a reversed formulization of:

b x c = a

These equations describe a spacetime that is flat, but because Hawking integrates an imaginary vector, through relativistic concepts, given simple as a new variable (t), is turns out to be only a mathematical adequacy.

The reason why, is because you can rotate the Pythagorean Variables, which I can, reprepresent as a single triangle: ∆, then which point is (a), (b) or (c)? In theory, you could rotate the triangles sides x, y and z, to fit this any directionality.

So what does this mean?


1. That the values of the current microwave analysis are a proof that spacetime is only curved in the presence of real matter.
2. This is because the vacuum is mostly void of real distortional matter.
3. Therego, Einstein was wrong, and that the universe is not an actual spherical composition. Its expansion was flat, and only when potential matter is bubbled into real qualities does the spacetime tensor relate to geometrical values.

Summery:

All matter extrapolated from a flat foundation, rather than a spherical expansion.

2ND Summery

Now the mind takes two-dimensional objects, and casts it into the three dimensional phenomena of what we perceive as spacetime: This might be proof as well that the space and time we see are two dimensional, and anything else outside of the mind is but an illusion. This must also mean that Einstein might have a few if not, many mistakes in his geometrical relativistic equations, for he he hated the postulate that the mind is the real reality only ever in existence.

Reiku...Einstein wrong or not...will be tested by results of Gravity Probe B will tell us.

http://einstein.stanford.edu/

http://www.centauri-dreams.org/wp-content/uploads/2007/04/aps_startracker.jpg

You d'tnderstand my rotational values did you>?
Niether did you read it properly.

Read over it again please.

Flat spacetime vs. Curvature

Imagine a triangle which expands outwards from a point we shall call simply ‘’a’’. The Pythagorean Theorem, suggests that the triangular formula: a^2 + b^2 = c^2 is a flat dimensional spacetime vector, given through x, y giving z, which are basically formulas of 3-dimensional coordinates.
Umm... ok. So, a^2 + b^2 = c^2 describes a euclidean triangle. Good. I agree.

Imagine these formulas as a flat, two dimensional images:
Ok. Easy, since they are.

In other words, you can draw a triangle from (a) – which would be the starting point, or singularity, expanding outwards:
Ok.

This two dimensional imaginary visual, can also be rotated (x’, y’ and z’), giving a negative or even, a reversed formulization of: ...
Allright.

These equations describe a spacetime that is flat,
They describe what? They don't describe a spacetime. They work in a flat space.

but because Hawking integrates an imaginary vector, through relativistic concepts, given simple as a new variable (t), is turns out to be only a mathematical adequacy.
WTF?

The reason why, is because you can rotate the Pythagorean Variables, which I can, reprepresent as a single triangle: ∆, then which point is (a), (b) or (c)? In theory, you could rotate the triangles sides x, y and z, to fit this any directionality.
Of course.

So what does this mean?
That I can draw triangles and rotate them?

1. That the values of the current microwave analysis are a proof that spacetime is only curved in the presence of real matter.
Where the fuck did that come from?

2. This is because the vacuum is mostly void of real distortional matter.
Ok...

3. Therego, Einstein was wrong,
WTF?

...and that the universe is not an actual spherical composition.
Was AE a cosmologist?

Its expansion was flat, and only when potential matter is bubbled into real qualities does the spacetime tensor relate to geometrical values.
Bubbled into... WTF?

Summery:

All matter extrapolated from a flat foundation, rather than a spherical expansion.
WTF?


2ND Summery

Now the mind takes two-dimensional objects, and casts it into the three dimensional phenomena of what we perceive as spacetime:
It does? Is this an assertion or a daydream?

This might be proof as well that the space and time we see are two dimensional, and anything else outside of the mind is but an illusion.
How so?

This must also mean that Einstein might have a few if not, many mistakes in his geometrical relativistic equations, for he he hated the postulate that the mind is the real reality only ever in existence.
So your mind is real but what your mind percieves is not. Then how does your mind percieve it? Or are we all sharing the same common delusion?

Reiku...Einstein wrong or not...will be tested by results of Gravity Probe B will tell us.


Apparently the fuzed-quartz gyro spheres are so finely polished that if they were enlarged to the size of the earth, the highest/lowest surface features would be only +/- 8 feet high. Amazing.

Reiku...Einstein wrong or not...will be tested by results of Gravity Probe B will tell us.

http://einstein.stanford.edu/



Then there was no need to send the probe because you already knew the results.

Then there was no need to send the probe because you already knew the results.

no...the results are yet to come.

Then there was no need to send the probe because you already knew the results.
What are you fucking smoking? He sad that the probe would provide a TEST of einstein, no mention of AE being right or wrong. READ FOR CHRIST SAKE!

What are you fucking smoking? He sad that the probe would provide a TEST of einstein, no mention of AE being right or wrong. READ FOR CHRIST SAKE!

No, you read the message again.

Umm... ok. So, a^2 + b^2 = c^2 describes a euclidean triangle. Good. I agree.


Ok. Easy, since they are.


Ok.


Allright.


They describe what? They don't describe a spacetime. They work in a flat space.


WTF?


Of course.


That I can draw triangles and rotate them?


Where the fuck did that come from?


Ok...


WTF?


Was AE a cosmologist?


Bubbled into... WTF?


WTF?



It does? Is this an assertion or a daydream?


How so?


So your mind is real but what your mind percieves is not. Then how does your mind percieve it? Or are we all sharing the same common delusion?

''They describe what? They don't describe a spacetime. They work in a flat space.''

Basically, it can be said either way, since niether terminology of mine or yours are wrong. Just twisted complimementarity's.

''WTF''

In a more simpler sense, Hawking showed us that we can look back in time (t) using an imaginary dimension. But it has been argued that this can be incorrect, as it can be just an adiquate set of solutions for time-reversed or negative values.

''That i can draw and rotate them?''

Yes. But there is more. The (a) a described first as a singular point in a directional spacetime, but the rotational values shows that (b) or (c) could be the singularities. So (a) may not be the true singularity. In another solution, we could say that (a), (b) and (c) are all singularities, or even perhaps one of the same sides of a coin.

''WTF''

Einstein said that everuthing was curved. We now know that this is not necesserily true, since Minkowski spacetime (which is flat) is the most acceptable theory in the New Physics.

''Was Einstein a Cosologist?''

He was actually many things. He was a relativisic scientist, and also speculated heavily on the cosmological configuration. He was also a quantum cosmologist, in other words.

''Bubbled into... WTF?''

This is called quantum foam. It is when a potential particle converts into a real particle when energy is added into a certain region of spacetime. This is called the ZPE.

''WTF''

If spacetime is flat, it expanded as a a flat or wave of energy. A spherical universe is not always the answer.

''It does?''

It is a speculation of mine. Actaually, i think it makes perfect sense.

''How so?''

Because what we observe, is only a two dimensional surface. When a single photon hits off the retina, the energy causes molecules and protiens to split and combine. The current theory, is this is how we observe a three dimensional world.

'' So your mind is real, vut what your mind percieves is not.''

Yes... and no. What we observe, is the only real reality, because if alll the six billion minds where to suddenly disappear, then there is no one to say the outside is real.

''Then how does your mind percieve it?''

This hasn't been proven, but i suspect that the mind is its own spacetime, which could be made as an extension to relativity.

''Or are we sharing the same dillusions?''

Very possible.

So if a tree was cut down in a forest and fell but there was noone there to hear it, does it make a sound?

Then there is Schoedinger's Cat....

The imaginary (T) turned spacetime into a series of events rather than coordinates because of relativity. You cant really say that a star 500 trillion light years away is at (A,B,C) can you? so you have to add T to compensate..

Im just not seeing what you are getting at...maybe Im stupid..or maybe I just perceive me as stupid, but if all the rest of the 6 billion people were to disappear..would I still be stupid?

but if all the rest of the 6 billion people were to disappear..would I still be stupid?
You'd be the smartest person alive. Thought that would be obvious...

You'd be the smartest person alive. Thought that would be obvious...

Interestingly enough, this question was posed to me once. Didnt know how to answer.

They asked me that what if everyone perceived colors differently. So, what if the color I see as yellow, someone else sees as red..but they were taught that its designation was yellow..so that is how they see it. Or what if the color I see as purple..someone else sees as green, but they were told its purple..so that is what they call it.

ranthi. We are just about irrelevant in the universe so do not affect natural causes by our absence.

Cat = AB. Push it one way and it becomes A and the other and it becomes B. Spookiness is just some idiot waving their hands and trying to make it look complicated.

As regarding spacetime, it is in this instance just projecting what we believe to have happened. We look at a star even just a hundred light years away and for all we know, it could have blown up eighty years ago and we would not know for another twenty years.

The way to learn is to ask questions. The way to ignorance is just to accept everything you are told.

Basic colour blindness is often when people mix up red and green colours. If they have learnt that what they see as red is green, then they will accept that. There are even people who see noises as colours.

Spookiness is just some idiot waving their hands and trying to make it look complicated.
I assume you are talking about quantum entanglement here? "Spooky action at a distance"?

The fact that you label some of the most exquisitely intelligent scientists of our time as "idiots" leads me to not take you seriously at all. Can you understand why?

As a simple exercise, why don't you analyze this article and point out where the idiocy lies? Thanks in advance.

http://www.mathpages.com/home/kmath521/kmath521.htm

The way to learn is to ask questions. The way to ignorance is just to accept everything you are told.
Well said.

There are even people who see noises as colours.
Synesthesia.

There are even people who see noises as colours.
I had greened that.:)

How very interesting.\

I've created sock puppets... why don't you ask them yourselves? They know what i am talking about, question though... do you who are against me? I would say yes. There seems to be more inteligent people round here than what i first comprehended...

superluminal. Spin one particle up and one down. Entangle them and you have the equivalent of 1. If you check on one and it comes out to (for convenience sake) 0.4, then the other one will be the equivalent of 0.6. It's a simple trick.

About a decade ago when a new generation of faster super-computers came out, it was shown that the calculations which shows what happens to a piece of metal when it is heated, which used to take 20 years to perform could now be done in a few months. If you do not know all these calculations, can I assume you have no idea what happens to a piece of metal when you heat it up?

post deleted

A black cat... sock puppet if you ask me.

superluminal. Spin one particle up and one down. Entangle them and you have the equivalent of 1. If you check on one and it comes out to (for convenience sake) 0.4, then the other one will be the equivalent of 0.6. It's a simple trick.
A simple trick.

You are missing a crucial point. The spin states of the particles in an entangled pair are in a state of superposition. This means that neither particle has a definite UP or DOWN orientation, until you measure tham and collapse the complete wave function.

So, upon measuring "your" particle, you randomly (there are no selection rules) collapse it into an UP state (that was previously superposed with the other particles state). The other particle, of course, is now in an DOWN state, instantaneously, when you measure it.

The problem is that if there are no hidden classical variables (which Von Neumann and Bell I think have pretty firmly shown?) then there can be no classical explanation for how one particle "knows, instantly" what state the other particle was measured to be.

Hope this helps.

''You are missing a crucial point. The spin states of the particles in an entangled pair are in a state of superposition. ''

TRUE BUT FALSE.

Because:

Kaneda said:

''superluminal. Spin one particle up and one down.''

Because an electron NEEDS to spin at superluminal speeds, to accunt for all fermions.

''Entangle them and you have the equivalent of 1.''

And again... this is true.

''If you check on one and it comes out to (for convenience sake) 0.4, then the other one will be the equivalent of 0.6. It's a simple trick. ''

Maybe. I would agree actually.

TRUE BUT FALSE.

Because:

Kaneda said:

''superluminal. Spin one particle up and one down.''

And if they are truly entangled, neither of the pair is in an actual spin UP or DOWN state. The are in quantum superposition, which means that they share the same wavefunction. They are coherent.

''Entangle them and you have the equivalent of 1.''

And again... this is true.
Ok.

''If you check on one and it comes out to (for convenience sake) 0.4, then the other one will be the equivalent of 0.6. It's a simple trick. ''

Maybe. I would agree actually.
Then you have (respectfully) completely failed to understand what quantum superposition means. I cannot help you any further.

I will not talk anymore. You think you are so smart.... You're are not all that smart that you think.

I will not talk anymore. You think you are so smart.... You're are not all that smart that you think.
Of course I do. Do you not think you are smart? And yes, I am pretty darn smart. Only a fool disparages his own intellect when he knows it to be in fairly good shape.

Are you finished with your tantrum yet?

Yes... Sorry. My Dr. Put me on medication yesterday.

Yes... Sorry. My Dr. Put me on medication yesterday.
Sorry to hear it. I am also on meds.

I was put on Liquid Dothiapin... rotten stuff... yuk... but it works... that's the main thing i suppose :)

superluminal. You have 2 entangled particles. Measure one and you get the other whether it is five seconds later or at opposite ends of the universe. A memory trick as some call it. That is why it is handy in quantum encryption in that all pairs are different and if you measure one to find the other, it will be known.

What fascinates me, is that most physicists should know that Bells Hypothesis doesn't necesserilly MEAN a non-local effect; All he did was mathematically prove in the lab that the entanglement could be observed.... so,....

Imagine we have a universe that has 90 billion years to survive.... Which would mean that 45 years expansion, and then a 45 billion years contraction... since the universe, according to Dr Hawking, should expand as fast as it did forward as it did backwards - that is - if it is a closed universe.

This would mean that ''our hypothetical time'' in the present (which would be 30 billion years after the first chronon, we could have three photons: One 30 billion years agp, one to this present day, and one at the final moments... if an observation was made on one of the ohotons during the present was made, both the past and the future are determined, despite any limitations.

There can only be two conclusions i think:

1. That the universe is non-local
or
2. That information CAN INDEED move at superluminal speeds, and reach all destinitations without any time spent at all!!!

This is why i think the universe might be about 150 billion years old, because cosmologists including Lerner and Einstein calculated that certain supergalaxies should have taken arounf 80 billion years to form... ,,,,???

superluminal. You have 2 entangled particles. Measure one and you get the other whether it is five seconds later or at opposite ends of the universe. A memory trick as some call it. That is why it is handy in quantum encryption in that all pairs are different and if you measure one to find the other, it will be known.
Learn what QM and non locality means. Till then, STFU.

1. That the universe is non-local
Right.

Learn what QM and non locality means. Till then, STFU.

Pope Superluminal I posts again. I do love these infallible Papal bulls of his. Mind, posting on this forum is not the same as addressing an adoring audience of millions from your balcony. :D

This is why i think the universe might be about 150 billion years old, because cosmologists including Lerner and Einstein calculated that certain supergalaxies should have taken arounf 80 billion years to form... ,,,,???


There is a 500,000,000 solar mass black hole, apparently from only half a billion years after the BB. We have walls of galaxies too and so on. It does make the universe seem older than claimed.

Since photons provably experience time because they do change, it is possible that we may never see 14 billion years ago because all visible light photons have red shifted to microwaves so all light from that period just appears as a microwave haze (CMB).

Yet, another one runs it's course.