Hi, I would have prefered to post this question in a theory development section but none is available. ( at present....a policy of which I have some agreement with)

The space that mass fills and between.

Is it in a state of tension.......is space ( gravity etc) in a state of constant tension? If so, how is this tension achieved?

What is the current thinking on this? Is there any?

The state of tension could be a possible universal constant.... is where I am heading with this question.

What would it mean for space to have tension? How could you measure it?

Can't be measured by existing methods I think, so I guess it is pure hypthetics.

My question was based on the idea of traveling through a two dimensional gateway. "If this was possible how would it be so?"

The theories ( sci fi ) is that space while appearing to be three or should I say 4 dimensions is in fact 2 dimensions. but because of it's polarised state it retains the four dimensions that we perceive.
There fore in a state of volumetric tension.

Basically it would imply that distance is an illusion in that the universe is as small as it is large.

A point of space is actually everywhere at the same time.

Conceptually this can be quite difficult to grasp in full and of course we have no real way of measuring it I think. So therfore it could be relegated to the realms of pure fantasy.

Another aspect of the above is the nature of time tension.

If one takes an object say a marble and observs it for say 10 minutes.

At all times the observer and the marble are "moving" through time.

The marble at the end of 10 minutes has all that past and all it's future sitting there in the Now. If science accepts that the future is fully determined then the marble is in the Now sitting in a state of eternal past and eternal future. Thus time has a duality therefore a state of tension exists. ( the centre of time being absolutely nothing)

So it could be postulated that space has a tension if not just because of time.

What about quantum mechanics and the indeterminate nature of the particles that make up the marble. Is the marble isolated from the rest of universe? If not then it shall participate in the thermodynamics of the universe to be incorporated into its ever evolving attempts to reach configurations of higher entropy. You talk of philosophy, not physics, as the physical world is so complicated that all these parameters cannot be controlled, and the experiement you suggest may never be performed.

Ryans:

You talk of philosophy, not physics

String Theory, the most current theory in physics, is nothing more than philosophy, IMHO. It's not testable either by observation or experimentation, and probably never will be. It's purely theoretical and yet is considered the furthest advance in physics for decades - I ask you: Is THIS science or philosophy?

well said, after all does not science have it's start in philosphy or at least imagination.

Originally posted by Quantum Quack
... does not science have it's start in philosphy or at least imagination. No. It starts with observation.

Although imagination is a key ingredient, all must come back to an agreement with observation.

Originally posted by errandir
No. It starts with observation. Not Mathematics, mind you. Mathematics starts with imagination.

Mathematics starts with counting your sheep to see if there is the same number there in the morning than when you went to bed. I can use my imagination all I like, but in the end it has to conform with reality, or else you can go make a movie and make millions of people that superluminal eggs are actually electrons. I think too many people here believe way too much sci-fi

Originally posted by ryans
Mathematics starts with counting your sheep to see if there is the same number there in the morning than when you went to bed.Actually, I believe Mathematics started by humans developing the abstract concept of a quantity, and then applying it by means of inventing number systems.Originally posted by ryans
I can use my imagination all I like, but in the end it has to conform with reality, or else you can go make a movie and make millions of people that superluminal eggs are actually electrons.Yes, because you are a student of Physics, I however, am not.Originally posted by ryans
I think too many people here believe way too much sci-fi
That may be true, but I don't think you should assume that I am one of them.

Mathematics starts with counting your sheep to see if there is the same number there in the morning than when you went to bed

That was not meant to be taken literally.

Dapthar
Yes, because you are a student of Physics, I however, am not.

Bloody mathematicians!

That may be true, but I don't think you should assume that I am one of them.

Where did I assume that. If I wanted to belittle you, you would have known about it. I think you have got security issues.

Originally posted by ryans
That was not meant to be taken literally.One can never tell online.Originally posted by ryans
Bloody mathematicians!I do not consider myself a Mathematician until I have earned a Ph.D. in Mathematics. Until that time, I am simply a student of Mathematics.Originally posted by ryans
Where did I assume that. If I wanted to belittle you, you would have known about it.I said that "I don't think you should assume", not "stop assuming" on purpose, since I did not know if you were assuming if I was a "crackpot" or not. I made no assumptions about your assumption.Originally posted by ryans
I think you have got security issues.
I think you have jumped to an incorrect conclusion, but it happens to everyone at some time or another.

I said that "I don't think you should assume", not "stop assuming" on purpose, since I did not know if you were assuming if I was a "crackpot" or not. I made no assumptions about your assumption.

Typical mathematician, stripping everything down to its logical foundation, concurrenly confusing the issue by proposing a translational arguement when actually it is more rotational in nature, until you arrive at the point which we started, but disguised as something different

Originally posted by ryans
Typical mathematician, stripping everything down to its logical foundation, concurrenly confusing the issue by proposing a translational arguement when actually it is more rotational in nature, until you arrive at the point which we started, but disguised as something different Or I'm just being careful with my language, since I know that people prey upon misinterpretations.

Arguments that are rotational instead of translational in nature? You've been spending too much time with groups of rigid motions. :)

Hey guys, I think we can assume that the assumption of the assumption is in fact assumed to be an assumption until assumed otherwise.
Am I assuming correctly?