The Conceptual Flaw of a 'Curved Space'

Sorry, I can't resist continuing. Everything we understand is a fractal. Flat space is only the simplest type and if it doesn't explain things well, we should drop it. If you want flat space, you take a single cubic elyson and mirror image it on each axis recursively each time and it expands into the flat space we all know and prefer but place these edges at a slightly bent angle and we get a circle, flex the mirrors we see an elipse, place them at different angles and you get rocks, trees, snowflakes, DNA structures etc. What in the universe doesn't have some force or curvature to it? I can't think of anything except a purely mental model. If you add single nonlinearity to anything, boom, you have complexity and we know these non-linearities exist. We can experience them by touching something, the rest unfolds in a complex fashion unless we have a clearer understanding of how these non-linearities interact on a macroscopic scale. 1/d^2 forces we have fractal methods of compressing already to create massive n-body simulations, so we take advantage of fractal aspects already for large simulations but it can be even better than this - we may very well not have to approximate these but instead know the true fractal structure that the universe uses and create massive simulations much larger than these.

Yes, I'm doing a salespitch on an unfinished product, but I'm hoping to consolidate some ideas and see what unfolds (yes, pun intended []).

I just another search and found someone else who's already been doing some math on these relationships and seems to be finding extremely interesting correlations that scale well between atoms, stars and galaxies.

www.amherst.edu/~rlolders/NOF.HTM

Now combine this idea with a thin holographic view of space, of which we see the "surface" of it and it makes for a very interesting picture.

In a sense it's hard to imagine our observations of space being anything other than periodic if not fractalized, whether or not the universe is truly of this form doesn't matter. Our observations of it are in the form of detecting waves, if these waves happen to strike anything, then you instantly get a moire pattern with mirrored images, and if these strike something else, they we get multiple images of those multiple images etc. Consider that if matter is composed of waves like this, then matter itself would be mirrored. Though it might seem complex, it may not be once we cancel out a few of these refractions and reflections, and fold out the symettries to find the core. Attempting to view things as operating within a flat space makes this very difficult and seems likely to miss the larger (or smaller, depending on your view ... or level of fractal unfolding) image.

To verify these ideas first hand for yourself, grab a handy laser pointer, set it on a solid surface and shine it on virtually anything. Hold steady and look closely at the light - you'll see a ton of black dots floating in space. Real or imaginary? If seeing with your own eyes is imaginary, then you're still reinforcing the idea that the universe does not operate as we view it first hand. (Now imagine that everything you've seen since before you can even remember seeing anything has been a part of this process ... what you see as flat space, may be largely the way your brain interpretes interacting with the environment. Why does the eye need such complexity to view something that should already be flat? ... I believe because it's not as flat as it seems. Does anyone know specifically what transformations an eye does on recieved data? If we simply assume it's all based upon linear transforms my guess is that we're missing a lot and that things are much more tighter and knotted than we realize. A fish could live in water and never realize either air or water exists until he gets out a microscope and looks at particles of water then realizes it was so pervasive a part of his life that he never noticed it before. His body and fins knew about water and were adapted to it but mentally there was no real need to consider this until he finally wonders why a fish, very much like himself except from a different perspective is floating above him in "space" (assuming the water surface could reflect light back, though possibly distorted by the surface).

SteveA, You pose some very interesting concepts. What I would like to know is; what is the first observed event that you witnessed that preceeded your theory? Not something you read or heard, what did you witness. Thank you for your time.
thebobgy

SteveA,

I had to delete this post for security reasons.

One or more of the links you had inserted triggered an attempt to install a cookie on my compurer without even clicking on the link.

Sorry for the inconvienence.

LB

[SteveA} "I don't want to confuse things ... "

Oops. Too late.



[SteveA} " ... but I'm thinking outside the box."

Until you understand what is inside the box, how can you know that <an idea of yours> is not in there?

You ask some interesting questions, but your proposed answers are confusing because A) they are based on physics that seems poorly understood (such as your confusion over the difference between rope behavior and light beam behavior in a gravity well), and they are based on physics that is in part obsolete. Much better answers already exist. However, until you spend some time studying the inside of the mainstream box, and especially some more time studying the inside of the MM box, you will probably continue to make long, confusing posts.

Look at the similarities and the differences between what is in those two boxes, then try asking/answering some truely "out of the box" questions. At the very least your confusion quotient ought to go down a bunch.

Regards,
LB

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by Larry Burford</i>
<br />SteveA,

I had to delete this post for security reasons.

One or more of the links you had inserted triggered an attempt to install a cookie on my compurer without even clicking on the link.

Sorry for the inconvienence.

LB
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

Ok, sorry about that. I guess I should have posted links instead of the images.

Well check out the fractal drawing of the periodic table at least and see if that doesn't spark some ideas. []

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by SteveA</i>
<br /><blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by Thomas</i>
<br /><blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by SteveA</i>
A force would need to be applied to this rope. The rope itself would tend to orbit along the same path as the satellites, so you'd have to apply a force on the rope to deflect it into a constant straight line between the satellites but if you apply this force, does it still represent a "straight line"?
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

You could hypothetically assume that the rope or string has an infinitesimally small mass, so the gravitational force on it and the force required to straighten it are zero.

Alternatively you can also realize a straight line between two points in space by equipping a projectile with a propulsion system programmed such as to exactly offset the gravitational force at any point. Again, if the mass of this projectile is assumed to be infinitesimally small, the required propulsion power would be infinitesimally small as well.

<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

If we take mass out of the equation, then maybe yes, we could see a straight line, but consider that we've removed all <i>known</i> forces on it and would assume it would be a straight line as we imagine by looking at similar objects nearby us.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

We don't take the mass completely out of the equation by assuming the mass of the rope or the projectile to be infinitesimally small. The mass of the earth i.e. the alleged space curvature would obviously not be affected by this. The assumption merely enables the realization of straight line orbits without using any force, but it is not fundamentally necessary (you could just as well use a projectile with a finite mass and a corresponding finite propulsion power to compensate for the gravitational force).
So since a) corresponding operations allow straight line orbits and b) the gravitational field of the earth (or whatever mass one considers) is unaffected by these operations, the claim of GR that points lying on a straight line would effectively not be accessible in the presence of masses is clearly wrong. They are as much accessible as for instance any point lying on the straight line connection between any two locations on the earth's surface by digging a corresponding tunnel through the earth.

Thomas