Is this possible?

[Co590]

Hi, im no scientist. Im only 14 in fact but could the dimension of time have been brought into motion at the big bang.

It is said that time and space can be warped in a black hole because of the extremes of one. But the extremes of the Big bang could have brought all of the dimensions into existance or moved them atleast anyway.

Seeing as the universe is expanding and moving outwards, is time doing the same? moving forward at a steady speed as it was nudged at the big bang.

It would therefore be moving forward always just as the universe is expaning in the other 3 dimensions. As to why we can move freely other wise in the other 3 dimsions. Prehaps time is harder to penatrate.

sorry i probably dont even make any sense at all.

Im not sure if this is already a theory or has been proven wrong and sorry if it is but it just came to me.

[wendy]

When it is said space is curved, it isn't curved in any greater space. What happens is that for certian points, the angles on one side (the side nearer the mass) are slightly longer than the angles opposite. This means, for a circle of diameter 114.6 m/ms, the degrees near the mass might be 1.001 m/ms, while those opposite might be 1.0000.

Gravity works then as a tension: there is more "pull" near the mass then away from it.

Although the universe is expanding, it is not "moving", like what happens with a fire-cracker. It's more like a balloon. As you blow the balloon up, the surface stretches, but the dots don't move. You get the effect of moving at great speed away, even when you're standing still!

W

[Batman3]

Wendy: I understand that the gravity force is inversely proportional squared to the distance away(or proportional to the area intercepted by the object pulled upon, divided by the area of the sphere at that distance from the gravity source). Do you know where the rest of the force goes that misses the objects pulled upon? If the force is based on the number of gravitons randomly hitting the object pulled upon, what about the others? How can planets afford that extra force?

I suppose one could make out that the 1/r energy law in 3d is based on a QM uncertainty of dE=h/(dt/c) where (dt/c) = dx so dEdx=h/2pi. c==the constant speed of the force. In 4d and up though the energy law would be the same and the problem of where the force went would be exaggerated as you went up. F3=A/r^2, f4=A/r^2, fn=A/r^2 even f1=A/r^2.

Could it be that a graviton proceeds out until it hits an object randomly and then collapses its spherical wavefunction onto that object? But then what about the objects further out?

I'm confused.

[wendy]

Gravity is a radiant force. The force does not "go" anywhere. Just being there is enough to make a force.

The radiant model is that gravity is radiated from a source, its density becomes less because the same jam covers more bread. Anything that happens to be there just feels the effects, rather likea boat feels the waves. The waves just go on.

W

[PWrong]

Could it be that a graviton proceeds out until it hits an object randomly and then collapses its spherical wavefunction onto that object? But then what about the objects further out?

I've never thought about that, but I think I see what you mean. If you had a spaceship hiding behind the moon, you'd think all the gravitons would hit the moon and then stop, so the spaceship wouldn't be affected.

Anything that happens to be there just feels the effects, rather likea boat feels the waves. The waves just go on.

If water waves hit a boat, they do keep going, but they still lose energy. Same with light (that's why you can't see round corners). Why is gravity different? :?

Actually, come to think of it, why doesn't the Earth lose any energy in producing gravitons? It requires energy to create light or water waves, why not gravity?

[wendy]

the graviton model more clearly describes the inverse-square law.

an alternative model is the curvature of space, where no pull is inflicted, the thing is pulled by the tension of space.

[faranya]

I have no experiance in physics at all, but I was just wondering how you know earth isn't using energy to produce gravitrons? Or is it even producing them? Could it be possible that the Earth is being hit by gravitron produced in the sun, and as well as being effected by them, the Earth stores them, then redirects them, creating it's gravitational field? Of course, like I said I have no experiance in science, so this could sound ridiculus to you.

[wendy]

In the curved-space model, there is no need for gravitons. The effect of gravity is effected by the differences between the length and arc of a circle. (in this model, some degrees of arc are longer, and tend to pull more: which produces the gravity).

i don't tend to believe the graviton model, although some do. I tend to think of gravitation in terms of general relativity. However, we know the two are not exclusive, and one should not dismiss the notion that space itself is particles.

W