digg

Join DiggAbout

The Digg Crew wants to hear your thoughts!
Please take our short survey about Digg and potential feature ideas.

Einstein was right: space and time bend

observer.guardian.co.uk — 90 years after he expounded his famous theory, a $700m probe has proved that the universe behaves as he said. The early results from Gravity Probe B, one of NASA's most complicated satellites, confirmed 'to a precision of better than 1%' the assertion Einstein made - that an object such as the Earth does indeed distort the fabric of space and time.

show profanity settings
expand all
  • Takteek, on 10/12/2007, -5/+88I wish the article would explain how they proved it. I don't understand how ultra-precise spheres could prove that gravity is not a force, but space-time distortion.
    • stou, on 10/12/2007, -1/+77This is the experiment's site:

      http://einstein.stanford.edu/

      Here's Wikipedia's entry too:

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravity_Probe_B
    • jubydoo, on 10/12/2007, -3/+32I'm just making a stab in the dark here, just based on a Cliff's Notes version of the general theory of relativity that I got in my college astronomy class, but if Einstein was correct in that massive objects distort space-time, then a perfect sphere would become elongated slightly into an egg shape when exposed to a gravitational field.
    • littlebylittle, on 10/12/2007, -20/+5"space and time bend"

      Even more so if you're on a bender.
    • angryredplanet, on 10/12/2007, -11/+3@jubydoo

      How would the scientists go about measuring the effect, as everything else near the gyroscopes will be stretched in a similar way? To be able to measure this effect, it seems logical that the measurement device(s) would need to be external to or not affected by the field. I fail to see how this is "provable".
    • oxdeltaxo, on 10/12/2007, -7/+2They'd prove it based on a constant measure of change of on Earth and in orbit, theoretically it would be different the further away from the earths center you got.
    • vertinox, on 10/12/2007, -13/+6@jubydoo

      But the earth is not a perfect sphere.
    • HayString, on 10/12/2007, -3/+5That's weird, I was just watching a NOVA program that talked about space-time & gravity last night and this morning I find this. Pretty cool to see they're making advancements towards understanding it all.

      If you want to find out more about this whole space-time & gravity thing, and also black holes, check out the NOVA site to watch the program online here: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/blackhole/
    • JackOCat, on 10/12/2007, -4/+49Congratulations to the team, and congratulations to Einstein, one of the greatest minds in all of history.
    • Tripacer, on 10/12/2007, -28/+8But will it blend?
    • alky, on 10/12/2007, -4/+31They shouldn't use the word "proved." What really happened is more evidence in favor of general relativity came in, or you could also say that the experiment didn't disprove relativity. The article is written like scientists were completely unsure whether or not relativity works (the fact it works for everything else means you expect it to work here, but you do the experiment to make sure).
    • realitybias, on 10/12/2007, -13/+2Will WHAT blend?

      Gravity?

      I mean, I know that sometimes, the jokes are funny, but at least read the title first before you ATTEMPT to be witty.
    • lordsteve, on 10/12/2007, -12/+5No, I got it - Space and time will _bend_, but will it _blend_?
    • Gambit89, on 10/12/2007, -2/+46@Alky

      "No amount of experimentation can ever prove me right; a single experiment can prove me wrong." ~ Albert Einstein
    • monospaced, on 10/12/2007, -12/+5So where are all the creationists?
    • ThndrShk2k, on 10/12/2007, -8/+1Gravity is a force upon objects, in which when on is attracted to an object, You move, it moves, or both move towards each other. As large objects in space seem to be traveling at high speeds, and also rotation, it seems only logical that the combined forces themselves distort space-time like traveling at light-speed would. Of course this distortion would only be minimal in the first place.

      It's not that gravity is a space-time distortion, but rather a force of immense magnitude forcing objects to move through space. Moving at high enough speeds would produce space-time distortion, and since gravity affects the matter around it, it would appear that large enough objects would distort space-time.

      This is also why so many people forget how long they have played the XBOX for.
    • Masterrer, on 10/12/2007, -2/+6Images of space warped by gravity sing 3D grid:

      http://i155.photobucket.com/albums/s319/Masterrer/Space%20warped%20by%20gravity/snapshot20070415223658.jpg
      http://i155.photobucket.com/albums/s319/Masterrer/Space%20warped%20by%20gravity/snapshot20070415223549.jpg
    • dicerandom, on 10/12/2007, -12/+2@Takteek:

      Demonstrating that gravity isn't a force is easy: all you have to do is jump off a diving board. Before you do so, pay extra special attention to what you're feeling. That pressure on your feet is the force of the diving board pushing you upwards. Now, after you jump, pay attention again. You won't feel anything. There is no force.
    • changyang1230, on 10/12/2007, -1/+8@dicerandom

      Sorry but you got it totally wrong. You felt your weight on the diving board because the diving board is pushing back at you with a force equal but opposite direction to what you are exerting at it. It's called "normal force". The force you are exerting at the diving board is provided by your weight, or to be specific, the gravitation force acting on you.

      When you are in the air, you no longer feel the normal force because there is nothing there to push back at you. However, the gravitation force is still acting on you - you are accelerating downwards with 9.8 ms^-2.

      Of course I ignored air resistance, but this is just to illustrate my point.
    • dicerandom, on 10/12/2007, -4/+6@changyang1230:

      Sorry, no. That's the classical Newtonian explanation, not what GR says. In GR the *only* force acting on you while you're on the diving board is the normal force. It is serving to accelerate you off of the 4d straight line path, which near the earth is falling towards its center. When you leave the diving board, neglecting air resistance as you said, there are no forces acting on you. You are following the straight line path towards the center of the earth.

      As I was trying to demonstrate in my little visualization, the GR explanation makes a lot more sense. You never feel a gravitational force, but you feel normal forces all the time.
    • changyang1230, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3@dicerandom

      I beg to differ.

      I agree with your GR explanation, but the problem is, It's not at all demonstrated with just jumping off a diving board. Do you see your logical fault there? Yes you can try to explain the gravity in diving using GR's warped space-time theory, but you don't use diving to demonstrate warped space-time.

      You have got your logical sequence wrong - you can't use a preconceived notion to explain something, and with that explanation think that you have demonstrated/proved that preconceived notion.

      The fact that you never feel a gravitational force doesn't constitute the "proof" that gravitation is not a force in its strictest sense. For example, the fact that you don't feel the centripetal force while you negotiate a bend, doesn't mean that it's not there.
    • dicerandom, on 10/12/2007, -2/+3"For example, the fact that you don't feel the centripetal force while you negotiate a bend, doesn't mean that it's not there."

      Huh? Of course you feel the centripetal force when you corner. If you're taking a hard left your seat pushes you left, along the radius of your turn. What you *don't* feel is the fictitious centrifugal force which, like the gravitational force, is simply an artifact of the fact that someone tried to apply Newtonian mechanics in an accelerated reference frame.

      There is no flaw that I can see in the logic of my original argument if you accept something along the lines of "a push you can feel" as a definition of a force. Sure you can make a more precise definition by stating that a force is something which causes an object to deviate from its straight line path through spacetime, but what it really boils down to is that forces are things you can feel.
    • changyang1230, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3@dicerandom

      I know it's actually centripetal force that's pushing you inwards while you take a corner; but the thing is, you actually feel that you are being "forced to the right" when you are taking a left turn. Try it when you drive the next time, don't simply say it from physical viewpoint.

      Yeah of course your seat pushes you to the left, but what you actually feel is that you are being "thrown to the right" and most people feel that they are pushed outwards by the "centrifugal force". Centrifugal force is what you "FEEL", "centripetal force" is the real force acting on you, provided by the car seat. You got it inversed. Yes I know centrifugal force is an artifact of applying different reference frame.

      The problem I had with your first post was your logic with this deduction: you can't feel the gravity force while you are free-falling --> demonstrates that gravity is not a force. As I demonstrated in the centripetal force argument above, the fact that you don't feel it doesn't mean it's not a force.

      Yes, you got it right with the GR explanation in the following post, but it doesn't mean that the logic was right in the original post. To put it briefly, yes it's true that GR gives an alternative, or you may argue, a more precise mechanism of gravity; however, that you don't feel a force during free-falling DOES NOTHING to DEMONSTRATE GR.
    • dicerandom, on 10/12/2007, -2/+2@changyang1230:

      I actually just got back from driving to Starbucks (yes, evil corporate devil coffee, but they're nearby) and I was paying particular attention to what I felt since I was thinking about our conversation. It does not feel like you are being "forced to the right", what it feels like is that you slide to the right until you come in contact with your seat, which then pushes you to the left. It's easy to call this "being pushed to the right" since that's the direction of your initial movement, but if you pay close attention anyone can tell that what you actually feel is the sensation of being pushed to the left.

      It's simply a matter of paying attention to what you feel pushing on you and calling that the force rather than calling the direction you moved the direction of the force.
    • achoo5000, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5I think I can help chang yang out:

      The real way to solve this problem is to keep it simple, stupid. Don't think about humans, we're big complicated objects. Think of small rigid bodies.

      So a ball thrown in the air would not feel gravity because the force (in a newtonian picture) of gravity pulls on each part of the ball equally, there are no stresses or strains on the ball's structure.

      This is like the diver, he feels the diving board because it's pushing his feet, which push his legs, which push his body, etc. He doesn't feel gravity because his whole body is pulled equally. For example his blood wont rush to his head when he's pulled down because his blood is pulled just as much as his head!

      So is this something that can onlt be explained by a GR curvature? Well maybe practically, but not fundamentally. Imagine some other ball, which has a net electric charge _which is equally distributed throughout the ball_ (constant charge density). Then put this ball in an electric field. It won't feel the field, it will just move toward the source of the field. But put an oppositely charged ball in the same situation and it will move the other direction, so it is not just a curvature effect.

      So gravity is unique in that all objects (and all parts of an object) are pulled eqaully by them. This is called the equivalence principal and Galileo was the first to really think about it. But it does not prove curvature. Although I must admit, it was the equivalence principal which was a major _clue_ for Einstein when he was developing his theory.
    • Xabora, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1A better explanation of this phenomenon.
      http://www.cartoonfeed.com/videos/Family_Guy/Family_Guy_-_Peter_And_His_Orbit
  • sTiVo, on 10/12/2007, -2/+14I thought NASA's probe verified einstein's theory about a year or so ago.
    • Misogyny, on 10/12/2007, -1/+9You're probably thinking of the geodetic portion of the experiment. The frame-dragging effect is much more subtle, and thus will take longer to extract from the available data.
  • Coestar, on 10/12/2007, -6/+34Albert is always amazing.
  • pauljaroszewski, on 10/12/2007, -10/+55Of course he was right, he's friggin Einstein!
    • jpjandrade, on 10/12/2007, -2/+18Actually, Einstein refused to accept the whole Quantum Mechanics, and the whole "uncertainty principle" from Heisenberg, which pretty much defined Physics to this day.

      But he was a freakin' intelligent guy, and also defined Physics. Also, he was the guys who corrected Newton in pretty much everything he had done, so, how can you not respect him?
    • widman, on 10/12/2007, -1/+12Not always. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bell%27s_theorem

      Always question what's assumed and not proven completely yet. IMHO that should be the main teaching from Einstein's work. He questioned Newton and Euclid, and the generally liked "luminiferous aether" theories.

      General relativity doesn't fit in places where Quatum mechanics fits well.

      Edit: jpjandrade beat me :)
    • DaLeech, on 10/12/2007, -4/+3Also Einstein was darn sure that the universe was static and was not expanding until later scientific data proved him wrong.
    • MercFox1, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2Well, he came to the right conclusion with his initial Equation for General Relativity, but he added a "cosmological constant" when his results showed that the universe was expanding or contracting, and his thoughts were that the universe should be static. LeMaitre later stopped by and showed Einstein should've trusted his gut. That's the Cliff Notes version, anyhow.
    • kaplanfx, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1@MercFox1 - While LeMaitre was involved with the creation of the Big Bang Theory, I believe it was Edwin Hubble and his study of the redshift of galaxies, that gave us the first proof that the unvierse was expanding (and accelerating as well). He noted that the further a galaxy was from ours, the more redshifted it was, meaning the galaxies further away were also moving away from us faster than galaxies that were close by.

      -kap
  • anar1987, on 10/12/2007, -131/+2Why we put in a big shadow Einstein's brilliant intelligence by doubting his theories. The man was a great physician, according to many people he was the greatest physician ever existing ... so WHY WE DOUBT HIS THEORIES?
    • ninjakarl, on 10/12/2007, -5/+101I always thought he was a Physicist, shows what I know.
    • ScoTTeh, on 10/12/2007, -6/+78Because even smart people can be wrong?
    • noahhoward, on 10/12/2007, -1/+57Physicist; physicians are medical doctors.
    • Eeqmcsq, on 10/12/2007, -1/+59Because science is about testing and verifying theories. How do we know that Einstein isn't wrong or incomplete? Even Newton's equations of gravity, which lasted for several hundred years was incomplete. The only way to know is to test the theories.
    • oesj, on 10/12/2007, -5/+34@ mr "why would be doubt him"

      just because he got something right, doesn't mean he got everything right!

      take Darwin: evolution - right ; marrying cousin - wrong

      we all make mistakes :P
    • xekko, on 10/12/2007, -11/+2"WHY WE DOUBT HIS THEORIES?"

      It's not about doubt, it's about proof via experiment. This experiment has proved Einstein's theory is perfectly accurate and there isn't any other details we've missed.
    • Radan, on 10/12/2007, -2/+67You know, doubt is what differs science to religion.
    • crgnetworks, on 10/12/2007, -23/+2@oesj
      Evolution hasn't been proven either jackass.
    • icoup, on 10/12/2007, -2/+12no? then neither has marrying your cousin...
    • angryredplanet, on 10/12/2007, -1/+13@oesj

      To highlight your point, Einstein divorced his wife and married his cousin too.
    • JorgeGT, on 10/12/2007, -1/+8Even Einstein's theories will be replaced some day with more accurate ones. Then that new theories will be replaced again... until the end of Science as we know it.
    • OisinT, on 10/12/2007, -1/+13Damnit Jim, I'm a Doctor not a Physicist!
    • widman, on 10/12/2007, -2/+7That guy has to be a troll.
  • crashflow, on 10/12/2007, -45/+9but do they blend?

    the red box on the right, yes, i deserve it.
    • Psykus2, on 10/12/2007, -3/+23The crossed circle on the left, you've earned.
  • Campfiresteve, on 10/12/2007, -3/+40What's interesting is that they spend $700 million and 50 years to prove him right and then explain the results in terms of a bowling ball and a marble on a trampoline. I can hardly wait for the Onion headline.
  • ChewyBass, on 10/12/2007, -4/+35I could have saved them millions and proved his theory. All they had to do was monitor my step mother-in-law as her large space took very little time to bend the fabric of objects she sat on.
    • skidme, on 10/12/2007, -15/+5If you hate her that much you should move out...
    • Flummoxer, on 10/12/2007, -1/+8When did he say he was living with his mother-in-law?
    • 8177, on 10/12/2007, -1/+15I think step mother-in-law is when your wifes parents divorce and then your wifes father marrys someone.

      God that woman would be twice the bitch.

      Edit: well if someone actually asked what a step mother-in-law was.
  • crashflow, on 10/12/2007, -5/+1the one thing that confuses me about the marble/bowling ball/trampoline is this:
    the reason why the marble moves toward the bowling ball is because of gravity, right?
    so the geodetic effect states that gravity is not a force, but something like gravity...?!?

    oh heck, he can have casual conversations with his wife about his mistresses, he explained matter is energy, time is not absolute, light is a wave and a particle, He wasn't even the brightest student. he is a science and personal diety if there ever was one.
    • rulezgetbent, on 10/12/2007, -7/+1lol i thought about the same thing, gravity is causes the trampoling to sag with the bowling ball in it... but then i thought about it again and something snapped and it made sense to me.
    • rodrigo74, on 10/12/2007, -1/+6The thing about analogies is that we must know until when it is correct to use it.
    • sergiolopes, on 10/12/2007, -1/+15It's not to be taken literally. It's just an example to help you picture how a warped surface can influence a trajectory.
    • knaps, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5If you painted a grid onto a rubber sheet and then put a bowling ball in the middle, those lines will bend according to the sag in the sheet. Consider those lines to be geodesics, which are the (when completely untouched by mass warping them) straight lines that objects travel through the spacetime manifold on. When a large object bends those lines, the objects that follow them still follow them, just as they were before, on a curved continuum.
  • daza, on 10/12/2007, -4/+30I could have sworn for a brief second that the title said "Einstein was right: space and time blend". Thanks to all the "will it blend?" comments, no doubt.
    • aelias, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3For $700M, it had BETTER ***** blend.
  • rulezgetbent, on 10/12/2007, -7/+1helps explain why there is a "Milky Way", and not a "Milky Sphere". Also why the planets travel around the sun at generally the same angle, just farther away, instead of the orbit angles being completely different
    • jubydoo, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5That's more due to the rotation of the Milky Way. Think about taking a pizza doughball and tossing it up in the air whilst spinning.

      The bending of space-time that Einstein proposes occurs in all 3 dimensions, not just two - it's just easier to explain it in terms of two dimensions, because people have a harder time gripping the idea of a third dimension being distorted in the fourth (though that's why gravity and high speeds cause time to travel at different relative speeds).
  • spazzm, on 10/12/2007, -1/+22Actually, no scientific theory is ever proven right. The theory can pass experimental tests and will then become strengthened by new the evidence (as is the case here), but it can never be "proven" in the mathematical sense of the word.

    But you all knew that already.
    • Gambit89, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4"No amount of experimentation can ever prove me right; a single experiment can prove me wrong." ~ Albert Einstein
  • JoeBaynham, on 10/12/2007, -2/+13So if the earth slowed down we would be sucked into the sun.. Cool.
    • Eraser85, on 10/12/2007, -16/+1omg we'll get eventually a blowj from the sun.. that's uber cool! :D
    • specz, on 10/12/2007, -18/+1Do you get along with your mom?
      http://www.christianforums.com/t5101327-do-you-get-along-with-your-mom.html&page=4
    • angryredplanet, on 10/12/2007, -1/+16"So if the earth slowed down we would be sucked into the sun.. Cool."

      That's what orbit means. The delicate balance between inertia and gravity.
    • vaga222, on 10/12/2007, -1/+7I'm sure that if Einstein was wrong and gravity was a pulling force which pulled objects down then we would still be sucked into the sun if the earth slowed :P

      Any spaceship or satellite in orbit right not has to travel at a fast speed just to stop from falling to earth. That's how most things return back here. It's because they slow down and gravity forces them closer.


    • Smills, on 10/12/2007, -2/+1Heh, though the forum you posted made for some great laughs, it is the wrong topic. Umm, it would have to come under comedy, but i am not sure exactly what topic you would want to post that under, but good find anyway, oh those wacky Christians!
    • Smills, on 10/12/2007, -3/+1Damn edit time, I meant for the above comment to be directed @ specz
  • crowbarred, on 10/12/2007, -13/+3wha cannot people who get them selves WET over Einstein, for some god unknown reason CANNOT explain themselves in pure simple basic ENGLISH? like make a point 87% of us WILL understand? or is it warped?
  • juneau, on 10/12/2007, -2/+15Only fools are enslaved by time and space.
    • nwoantibody, on 10/12/2007, -7/+4Only bigger fools can destroy matter and time travel.
      Welcome to reality land: Where you can't do anything outside the parameters already set in place.
      Hope you enjoy your short stay here.
  • HughBetcha, on 10/12/2007, -4/+1What causes a smaller object to move along the distortion lines created by a larger object?
  • drlha, on 10/12/2007, -9/+1The trouble with this satellite is that at $700 million its simply a big waste of money. The reason? Well if it proves Einstein right, everyone would just sit back happy and continue their usual lives of thinking Einstein was right. If it proved Einstein wrong, everyone in the scientific community would simply think that there was something fundamentally wrong with the satellite and dismiss the results.

    This is how engrained the idea of Einstein being right is in the scientific community.

    Regardless, we've spent $700 million on proving something that everyone has already accepted, and has been proven in other, cheaper, ways. I'm all for space research, but this $700 million could have been spent on a satellite that answered a question that is perhaps more pressing?
  • yournamehere, on 10/12/2007, -2/+22this explains why it takes me longer to run away from a fat chick ... feels like forever!!!
  • Vinzent, on 10/12/2007, -9/+1I like how the first 20-40 posts are from geeks questioning the measurements without even knowing what the statement is about or what exactly the are questioning, just for the purpose of sounding smart. This comes from a educated physicists who has spend quite a lot of time playing around with relativity, special and general, and it's interplay with quantum mechanics.
    • arcangelgabriel, on 10/12/2007, -5/+1Not including the thousands of physicists who've worked on this problem apart from this project.
    • imperium2000, on 10/12/2007, -1/+7So We're not allowed to ask questions just because we're not physicists?
  • BZKyle, on 10/12/2007, -5/+2Since time bends now... can I cook my macaroni in the microwave, and have it finish instantly? :o
  • spdorsey, on 10/12/2007, -8/+2So will it now be called "Einstein's Law of Relativity" and no longer his "theory"?
    • ssam, on 10/12/2007, -2/+4words theory and law are used differently in science than general conversation (and slightly differently from maths aswell).

      this site explains quite well http://notjustatheory.com/
    • DanJohnHarris, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1A theory is any assertion, no matter how tried, that has not been disproven. This can go for every day use, or science. A law is an unquestionable fact of behavior, and can go for every day use, or science. The use of the word 'Law' to define the rules set forth by government is hoping to capitalize on the word's authority.
  • NikoKun, on 10/12/2007, -2/+1so i wonder if any planets could be on a different time speed than the rest of the universe? like that voyager episode where years pass on that one planet in just minutes in the rest of the universe. XD
    • GiggleStick, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2Sort of. Right now everything in the universe is flying away from everything else due to the expansion of the universe thing (of course locally that's not the case, I'm talking over the entire universe.) Now since we are traveling very quickly with respect to each other, if we could observe each other, we would each think that time has slowed for the other planet compared to our own. If we could some how turn our planet around, and catch back up to the other planet and then match our speed and direction to that planet, (sort of pull up along side it), then we would think that our time had been slowed down the whole time, or there's had sped up, depending on how you look at it.

      At least I think that's right, it's a bit confusing.
  • PjsPjs, on 10/12/2007, -9/+1Proof!!! 1%
    Within 1 % of what?
    Like is this nineteen times out of twenty?

    Next question.
    ok let us say it does bend
    It bends because there is something into which it can.
    what exactly?

    third question

    To bend implies some polar attachment.
    Attached to what?

    This sounds an awful lot like God's spandex.



  • phmfthacim, on 10/12/2007, -2/+1some physicists are building gravity wave detectors too, but it is a hard process because they have to be able to detect things with crazy precision!
    • achoo5000, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1Thanks for the shout out.

      /post from LIGO Livingston
  • manogamez, on 10/12/2007, -4/+2This theory has already been scientifically proven. There is no doubt about it. However, this is the first time it has been confirmed through experimental measurements.
    • fires, on 10/12/2007, -1/+6How do you scientifically prove something without using measurable experiments?
  • grav3k33p3r, on 10/12/2007, -6/+0That is where our tax money go.
    • SammyJr, on 10/12/2007, -1/+8Meh. Bush pisses that away in less than a day on his war.
  • saleem, on 10/12/2007, -5/+2$700,000,000 and all we get is 1% accuracy??
    • PjsPjs, on 10/12/2007, -2/+1wrong button
      they should move them farther apart
      sorry friend
    • breadfred, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5RTFA 'better then 1 %' means error margin is less then 1 %.
  • adamwho, on 10/12/2007, -5/+0This is hardly news, General Relativity was verified in 1915, see wiki.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tests_of_general_relativity
  • neio, on 10/12/2007, -6/+1Einstein > Hawking
  • Vasant56, on 10/12/2007, -6/+1It's only a proof if it's been proven 100%. 1% is great supporting evidence, but not proof.

    Not even gravity has been proven.
  • painting, on 10/12/2007, -6/+0but none of this is in the Holy Bible.
  • PjsPjs, on 10/12/2007, -11/+2@adamwho

    E=M sure, the bomb.
    C^2 - does not mean plastic time.
    There could be any number of other explanations that could account for what appears to be plastic time.
    Of course TAP can only take us so far, and technology can get as good as it can, yet one cannot measure that which is too other or minuscule to affect any Technologically Augmented Perception.
    If you can't measure it, then you can't quantify it.

    Time is an illusion we have conceptualised to deal with the very unique and very human capacity for reflective long term memory. The speed of light is a straw dog, it is the speed of light squared in which path to understanding lies.

    There is no such thing as time. What we encapsulate as time, these clock-values, merely count iterations. The speed of light squared is the synchronization at which God bound coherently the universe into persistence The speed of light squared is GodSong.

    respectfully

    PJ
    • imperium2000, on 10/12/2007, -1/+6Step away from the LSD dude, what the ***** are you talking about?
      • PjsPjs, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1There are solutions to relativity that are indifferent to any concept of time. Einstein stepped out of his box when alleged that time was the determining factor in his theory.
        You will see one solution published shortly.
    • Jugalator, on 10/12/2007, -2/+7I'll take what he drunk.
    • PjsPjs, on 10/12/2007, -5/+2"
      imperium2000
      Step away from the LSD dude, what the ***** are you talking about?
      jugalator
      I'll take what he drunk.
      "

      we are told by some that light exhibits two behaviors.

      Wave motion and particle motion

      Two behaviors
      one speed.

      Which behavior is prosecuted at light speed?

      If light is helicle, then every point on the radial arm is travelling at a different speed.

      They are still counting angles on pins.
    • PjsPjs, on 10/12/2007, -4/+2I meant angels not angles
    • PjsPjs, on 10/12/2007, -3/+2hmm which brings us to the question:
      if light is a wave, then what holds it place? 0 mass = 0 inertia.
      about or around what exactly is it oscillating?
    • achoo5000, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2Although those are important questions, you are not the first person to think about them. I suggest going to the library.

      http://www.amazon.com/Classical-Electrodynamics-Third-David-Jackson/dp/047130932X/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1/102-4992141-0547323?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1176682686&sr=8-1
    • angryredplanet, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1@pjspjs

      "if light is a wave, then what holds it place? 0 mass = 0 inertia.
      about or around what exactly is it oscillating?"

      Light has demonstrable inertia - solar sails are an example of this in zero gravity. This implies that it must also have mass, again implying a distinct particle nature. In the "double slit experiment", light can also be diffrected and made to constructively and destructively interfere with itself, implying a distinct wave nature. Hmmm...

      Addressing your question more directly we must delve into "ye olde" ether theory, which science has adopted and then discarded many times throughout history. The vacuum is apparently inert, but with observations to the contrary how can it be? There are too many things that happen that demonstrate this is not the case. There is background energy everywhere, the fabric of space-time and everything therein is comprised of it. This can be demonstrated by dropping a particle to 0°K (-273.15°C/–459.67°F), where, in theory it shouldn't oscillate or spin due to thermal (or any other) energy input. Yet... it does. The vacuum seems comprised of energy, which under certain conditions can interact with matter.

      This goes a long way to explain observable phenomena. Particle pair production of matter and antimatter/gravity and antigravity, our expanding universe - without the need to introduce dark matter/dark energy (i.e. unobservable unknowns - akin to arbitrarily adding an "x" variable to a math equation), how a permanent magnet can perpetually hold itself to a fridge without an observed energy input and finally, how light may propagate through "empty" space. This last point is the result of virtual particle flux, a "bubble bath" of energy that, under certain circumstances, produces particles and antiparticles. They generally exist for only fleeting moments before colliding with and anihilating each other. Some do persist, hence all the observable mass around us. In both cases the medium for light propagation within the vacuum can be hypothesised as being background energy and/or a particle flux.
  • dkern, on 10/12/2007, -12/+1One of the things that I find colossally hilarious about this article is that Albert Eistein's IQ is clocked to be one of the highest IQ's ever recorded- you'd think we could just take his word for it rather than spend $700 Million dollars on something we already knew!

    No wonder there are homless people and rampant famine!

    The Bush administration probably released this money money via a Pat Robertson graduate...Can anyone say Monica? Clinton had Lewinsky and Bush has Goodling- which is why none of us have *****!
    • imperium2000, on 10/12/2007, -4/+5Einstein is not a prophet or Science God. His theories have been surpassed and many of his theories have been modified. His theories are at the Grad Student level. PhD. Physics student study way more advance physics nowadays. This is how science works, you verify and test. You don't just accept someones word.

      PS: He has never had an IQ test. Where are you getting your information from?
  • maanwi, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2Clear this up for me. Put a bowling ball on a surface, and there is a dent. Throw a marble across this surface, and the dent influences its travels; I'm okay with this - it's obvious, but it supposes that there are 3 dimensional objects being supported by a 2D surface. The analogy doesn't work when everything is 3 dimensional. We aren't being held on top of some surface, but are suspended in space - like an air bubble floating in water. How does the Earth moving around in suspension distort space or influence the path of travel anymore than in just the immediate vicinity around itself where the positive shape is excluding the void?
    • da5id, on 10/12/2007, -2/+2It is a metaphor...or simile .. something like that. We mere mortals are screwed because we can't understand the math.
    • PjsPjs, on 10/12/2007, -3/+2Yes.
      It is just math and physics. I find it interesting even a little underhanded that these disciplines have bandied about irrational numbers confusing "tolerance for error" with truth.
      I also find it rather sanctimonious that while they talk on for decades about all manner of infinities, they never suggest that they should acknowledge that "we the masses" have absolutely no syntax for addressing the idea of an inwardly infinite. Like evolutionary philosophers, uh well umm we just don't know how it all started but here is the truth, um nineteen times out of twenty - good luck now.

      respectfully

      PJ
    • Masterrer, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2Well imagine a 2D surface that the bowling ball dents being horizontal, then imagine a second 2D surface the same as the first but vertical, then imagine those two surfaces combined with one bowling ball in the center, as you add more and more surfaces at different angles you basically get a 3D space distorted by the mass of the bawling ball (or any other object, such as a planet, star, etc.).
      In other words the 2D surface given in the example is just a slice of the 3D space.
      It also can be visually displayed using a 3D grid, you can see one in discovery channels: "100 Greatest Discoveries: Astronomy"
    • michaelb1, on 10/12/2007, -2/+1Try to picture this to understand the affects of gravity in a 3D space.

      picture a stationary round object under water in a current. Water (space time) flows around the object. The object is bending the flow around it.

      Now drop another object into the current. it goes with the flow and moves around the object.

      Now try to imagine that the round object actually pulls the current towards it.

      Nevermind, this isn't working.
    • Masterrer, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4Images of space warped by gravity sing 3D grid:

      http://i155.photobucket.com/albums/s319/Masterrer/Space%20warped%20by%20gravity/snapshot20070415223658.jpg
      http://i155.photobucket.com/albums/s319/Masterrer/Space%20warped%20by%20gravity/snapshot20070415223549.jpg

      Hope this helps :)
  • da5id, on 10/12/2007, -2/+0I knew it!
  • nogChoco, on 10/12/2007, -5/+1Blasphemour!!

  • insidesource, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1Yeah, he's good. But he's no Einstein.
  • AngryPenguin47, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1I am having trouble visualizing which way space-time is sagging in order to keep my ass in this chair.
    Explanations?
  • michaelb1, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3Not bad for a mere patent clerk.
  • wbtn, on 10/12/2007, -2/+0Imagine a washing machine on full spin, imagine a bowling ball and a marble inside, imagine a cat in it ....cool
  • EnforcerErik, on 10/12/2007, -1/+7My dad worked on this satellite at Lockheed Martin. The gyros were quite amazing. They were so smooth that if they were amplified to the size of the earth the highest mountain would be 10m tall. Its been a while, but I am pretty sure that they were very smooth and covered in liquid helium (or hydrogen, I forgot) so that they were super conductive. Then they read the way the electrons are facing to get a reading, that way there isn't anything touching the gyros that would ruin it. They aligned the satellite with a star and read the difference over several years.
    • yournamehere, on 10/12/2007, -6/+1being the janitor doesn't mean he worked on it.
  • clkou, on 10/12/2007, -2/+4Hey, I was curious, where are all the nerds hanging out? Oh, nevermind ... I found it
  • PaulLev, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2@jpjandrade: "Actually, Einstein refused to accept the whole Quantum Mechanics, and the whole "uncertainty principle" from Heisenberg, which pretty much defined Physics to this day."

    Yep, and Einstein's "realist" interpretation of QM effects could go contrary to his view about speed-of-light limits, and open up the possibility of faster-than-light travel. http://www.paullevinson.net/archives/entries/books_by_paul.phtml#realspace
  • nick2, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2Hiro from Heros could've told you that.....
  • user1notfound, on 10/12/2007, -6/+0a $700m probe has proved that the universe behaves as he said. The early results from Gravity Probe B, one of NASA's most complicated satellites

    just my thoughts:

    1. $700m? how does this help starving people in USA, Africa, or any other country? how does this help disaster victims. does this help the the educational system in the USA? purely rhetorical questions but, waste of ***** money, ***** NASA

    2. time and space bend? sure. AND time and space never began. seriously, think about it. something just popped into existence out of now where? impossible, unless you hold theistic religious beliefs this is pretty apparent.
  • stepnw1f, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1The best analogy I have ever heard to explain this phenomena, was from a science teacher I had in highschool, back in the '80's. Goes something like this:

    Place different sized bowling balls (a planet or star) on a matress (the universe). The contour of the matress bends due to the gravity or density of the bowling balls themselves. Thus the contour of the matress's surface illustrates the fabric of time and space bending underneath the density/mass of those bowing balls. All smaller objects also tend to be pulled toward one another depending on it's own mass which bends the surface of the matress, representing gravity.
  • blooba, on 10/12/2007, -1/+0But the marble eventually does lose speed and fall into the bowling ball, so why don't the planets eventually fall into the sun? Doesn't frame dragging imply resistance which will ultimately bleed our angular momentum and therefore doom us in the end?
    • trogdoor, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1Yes. Yes it does. All projectile orbits decay.
  • muzy, on 10/12/2007, -4/+1you know that his theory has been stated in the Muslim book the Qouran nearly 1500 years ago.... The prophet traveled at 5000,000,000,000,000,000 light years in one second using a machine called The Light. he described it with the basic language of that time, so people can blieve em. The light can shrink two points at any distance within 5000,000,000,000,000,000 light years in less than 0.5meter.

    if you don' believe what I am saying then start read the story of his travel to Heaven and come back to earth....... Einstein based his on this one.

    edit: you may say this is *****, but I stand next to my word, (READ THE DAM STORY)
    I love the amount of ignorant people the world have today.
    • changyang1230, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1I happen to be in awe with the amount of ignorant people as well. To be precise, ignorant people who think that others are all ignorant.
  • chuckayoub, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1His life in pictures:
    http://www.the-planets.com/star-biography/Albert_Einstein_Biography.htm
  • matthekc, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0so what is this bend caused by is and electromagnetic thing or the actual mass of the body?
  • Fetching more discussions...
    Show 51 - 52 of 52 discussions
  •  

    Login or register to add a comment

    Create a new account or login to join in the conversation on Digg. You'll also be able to Digg stories to help promote things you like.


© Digg Inc. 2008 — Content posted by Digg users is dedicated to the public domain.
DIGG, DIGG IT, DUGG, DIGG THIS, Digg graphics, logos, designs, page headers, button icons, scripts, and other service names are the trademarks of Digg Inc.