Naked Science Forum
Non Life Sciences => Physics, Astronomy & Cosmology => Topic started by: time-cop on 09/10/2008 20:30:16
-
Is space full of different elements, or are there gaps all over the place, and what the heck is dark matter, and can its exsistence be proven ?
-
What do you mean by elements? If by elements, you mean things on the periodic table: hydrogen, helium, lithium, or even more complicated matter made up of these things, then the answer is "no." Space is mostly empty. However, even this "empty space" is a sea of quantum fluctuations that can (over very short times) spit out particles (there's a bit about that here: http://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=17355.0).
Dark matter is another topic. The basic idea is that we know matter has mass and therefore causes gravity. By looking at how galaxies behave, we can deduce how much mass they must contain. However, when we then count all the matter we can see (either visually or through other parts of the spectrum), it doesn't add up to nearly enough mass. Therefore, there must be some matter we can't see, and since we can't see it we call it "dark matter." There's theories out there about what it might be, but until someone manages to find some evidence in an experiment, it's mostly speculation.
-
Space, and the universe, is full of the Cosmic Background Microwave Radiation from the Big-Bang. In addition to this, space would also seem to be full of a lot of other wavelengths of EM radiation, from low RF to gamma. This can be shown by the fact that we are able to observe this radiation across the gaps between galaxies and even across the 'voids' that have been identified.
In fact, and because the universe is regarded as being the same everywhere, it follows that any point in space will have radiation passing through it from every direction, bearing in mind Olber's paradox about infinite quantities etc.
-
Space, and the universe, is full of the Cosmic Background Microwave Radiation from the Big-Bang. In addition to this, space would also seem to be full of a lot of other wavelengths of EM radiation, from low RF to gamma. This can be shown by the fact that we are able to observe this radiation across the gaps between galaxies and even across the 'voids' that have been identified.
In fact, and because the universe is regarded as being the same everywhere, it follows that any point in space will have radiation passing through it from every direction, bearing in mind Olber's paradox about infinite quantities etc.
I agree that "empty space" is full of radiation and other forms of energy. I understand the vacuum is filled with virtual particles and every point in the vacuum is can be considered to be a location in the overall gravitational and electromagnetic fields. These fields have their local characteristics of field strength and curvature everywhere. In other words, spacetime is "something".
My question is about "rips" in spacetime that Feynman and others have written about. If you "rip" spacetime, what do you rip into? Is such a rip an open communication of spacetime with absolutely "nothing"? Spacetime has properties. What are the properties of "nothing"? Can physics actually talk about "nothing"?
-
Is it possible to rip spacetime or does it sound unlikely? I haven't read it.
-
The 'rips' in space-time that Feynman and others may have written about are not currently a scientifically defined phenomenon - they aren't something that has been observed and known to exist - they are, for the time being, just a hypothetical concept.
I believe that the basis for them is that if space-time is regarded as a continuum then a hypothetical discontinuity in that continuum could be termed 'Rip'. This isn't to say that it's all just a bit of pointless mind-fun though because, if you consider how the rate of time slows to zero at the Event Horizon of a Black Hole, you then seem to have such a discontinuity in the time dimension, at least, across the diameter of the EH. In terms of unified space-time, where you can't separate space and time from each other (the existence of space with no time doesn't permit any change in that space), this would seem to represent such a discontinuity in space-time.
Black Holes may therefore, be 'rips' in space-time, but until we've been able to devise suitable experiments with one we won't know for sure.
-
What is space made of is the wrong question. Obviously, space is a lack of matter. Therefore it is not "Made" of anything. The point of asking the question, is to question the commonly held beliefs of the universe's origins. Attributing the known universe to the Big Bang, begs the point. How came there to be a place in which the Big Bang could occur? The Big Bang is just an event in an endless cycle of expansion and contraction. Somehow, matter had to occur. Somehow, there had to be space in which the matter could occur. Our knowledge isn't even that of an ant walking across a computer screen. At least the ant can get to the other side and return. We don't even know the extent of the universe of matter let alone the extent of space. My point is to encourage those who think that they have the answers to also have the courtesy not to laugh at those of us who believe that some sort of supreme being has a hand in it. When discussing such matters, for one to say the "There is" instead of I "Believe there is" constitutes an act of ignorance and bigotry.
Now that I gotten that off my chest; I really would like to hear opinions on the subject of space. When surfing the net in search of information, I find that there is almost nothing available on the subject from the scientific community. If anyone knows of a good site, please let me know.
Elmer the confused
-
How came there to be a place in which the Big Bang could occur?
The Big Bang doesn't appear to have occurred in a place but rather created a place (our universe) as a consequence of it's occurrence.
The Big Bang is just an event in an endless cycle of expansion and contraction
The universe currently seems to be expanding and there are neither theories or evidence to suggest it will contract.
Our knowledge isn't even that of an ant walking across a computer screen
When compared with an ant, we have a much better understanding of our environment. The ant has no understanding of the screen it is walking across - it knows nothing of it's composition, design or purpose. I think we do quite a bit better than that regarding the universe.
My point is to encourage those who think that they have the answers to also have the courtesy not to laugh at those of us who believe that some sort of supreme being has a hand in it
People who already try not to ridicule ignorance don't need encouragement, which will be ineffective to those people who do. People are just like that.
...for one to say the "There is" instead of I "Believe there is" constitutes an act of ignorance and bigotry
Knowledge and belief are mutually exclusive. Belief requires a lack of knowledge - it is the trust that something is true when there is no proof of it. You have knowledge when there is proof that something is true or false. Trying to compel people to accept that there is no knowledge, on the basis that the universe was created to be beyond our understanding by a supreme being, seems to be both ignorant and bigoted to me.
That's just my personal view, of course.
-
"Trying to compel people to accept that there is no knowledge..."
I was hoping to find a site where there was some interesting conversation. Unfortunately, you seem to have a problem with anyone who mentions religion. I will leave you to be a "Hero Member" and look elsewhere for intellectual company.
-
What is space made of???
In times past, eons ago... it was thought that our atmosphere was composed of nothingness. I believe that when the time is right, we too will have to ability to detect matter on a much smaller scale than we can currently which will allow us to see the matter, which is largely considered void of matter. This space which does contain matter, I believe does account for the unseen matter that is theorized as Dark Matter.
-
The Big Bang doesn't appear to have occurred in a place but rather created a place (our universe) as a consequence of it's occurrence.
What a cracker of an answer. Can I use it in future, please?
-
When compared with an ant, we have a much better understanding of our environment.
You do realise that we could be completely and utterly wrong. We could be the mite on the ant's leg.
-
"Trying to compel people to accept that there is no knowledge..."
I was hoping to find a site where there was some interesting conversation. Unfortunately, you seem to have a problem with anyone who mentions religion. I will leave you to be a "Hero Member" and look elsewhere for intellectual company.
Or perhaps it is you who has the problem with him mentioning science.
-
When compared with an ant, we have a much better understanding of our environment.
You do realise that we could be completely and utterly wrong. We could be the mite on the ant's leg.
We could be, but it just doesn't look like the best-fit solution.
And yes, of course you can.
-
The Big Bang doesn't appear to have occurred in a place but rather created a place (our universe) as a consequence of it's occurrence.
What a cracker of an answer. Can I use it in future, please?
The big bang occured inside a giant atom! Some "GIANT" physicist created a "SUPER GIANT" particle accelerator and shot an electron into that atom and thus our big bang occured :) and matter was created...now our super giant physicist are puzzled of where the other matters came from...maybe they are calling them "qeerks" or some weird words :)
-
Attributing the known universe to the Big Bang, begs the point. How came there to be a place in which the Big Bang could occur? The Big Bang is just an event in an endless cycle of expansion and contraction. Somehow, matter had to occur. Somehow, there had to be space in which the matter could occur. Our knowledge isn't even that of an ant walking across a computer screen. At least the ant can get to the other side and return. We don't even know the extent of the universe of matter let alone the extent of space. My point is to encourage those who think that they have the answers to also have the courtesy not to laugh at those of us who believe that some sort of supreme being has a hand in it. When discussing such matters, for one to say the "There is" instead of I "Believe there is" constitutes an act of ignorance and bigotry.
You left out the "might" before "have had a hand in it," which means you are saying "there is." That is fine if you change it to "supreme principle" or something else that is not anthropomorphic. To assert that it began with an unexplained invisible "Being" is, imho, an act of hubris and bigotry. We undifferentiated clumps of dark matter resent it.
-
Is space full of different elements, or are there gaps all over the place, and what the heck is dark matter, and can its exsistence be proven ?
Yep, depending on where you look space is filled with different elements, in so called outer space we will have more 'matter', like dust from Earth perhaps "Contrary to popular understanding, outer space is not completely empty (i.e. a perfect vacuum), but contains a low density of particles, predominantly hydrogen plasma, as well as electromagnetic radiation. Hypothetically, it also contains dark matter and dark energy...Intergalactic space is the physical space between galaxies. Generally free of dust and debris, intergalactic space is very close to a total vacuum. Some theories put the average density of the universe as the equivalent of one hydrogen atom per cubic meter." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Outer_space
As for what space itself may 'consist' of, we don't know. To us it is a 'absence' of matter that defines it.
The concept of a "perfect vacuum with a gaseous pressure of absolute zero is a philosophical concept that is never observed in practice. Physicists often discuss ideal test results that would occur in a perfect vacuum, which they simply call "vacuum" or "free space" in this context, and use the term partial vacuum to refer to real vacuum."
And dark matter is definitely another matter:)
It's a theory trying to explain why the universe seems to have more mass than we can account for.
"Only about 4% of the total energy density in the universe (as inferred from gravitational effects) can be seen directly. About 22% is thought to be composed of dark matter. The remaining 74% is thought to consist of dark energy, an even stranger component, distributed diffusely in space." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dark_Matter
-
It is worth noting Hydrogen atoms as opposed to molecules are a very energetic form of matter the single obiting electron produces a field of 40T and two atoms combing to produce a molecule liberate vastly more energy than one Hydrogen molecule combining with an Oxygen atom.
-
Elmer, we don't know what 'space' consists of.
We define it as something being empty of 'matter', that is defining by excluding.
It doesn't really define it as being anything, although it seem to have an enormous potential for energy.
As for God, nobody should tell you that it is wrong to have faith, but you need to see the difference between having faith, and building up ideas to theorys by logical deductions and experiments.
We are only humans, not all knowing beings, and we need to define our universe from what we can observe.
Faith is another 'matter':)It can move mountains, and give hope and solace in the most terrible circumstances.
So whether God exist or not I don't know, but it is up to each one to believe.
Let us first try to define by what experiments we can make:)
-
Elmer, we don't know what 'space' consists of.
We define it as something being empty of 'matter', that is defining by excluding.
It doesn't really define it as being anything, although it seem to have an enormous potential for energy.
As for God, nobody should tell you that it is wrong to have faith, but you need to see the difference between having faith, and building up ideas to theorys by logical deductions and experiments.
We are only humans, not all knowing beings, and we need to define our universe from what we can observe.
Faith is another 'matter':)It can move mountains, and give hope and solace in the most terrible circumstances.
So whether God exist or not I don't know, but it is up to each one to believe.
Let us first try to define by what experiments we can make:)
What I like to put space into theory as.
We are in a positive liquid ion right now.
We are entering into a ginormous negative liquid ion when we go into space. With fluxuations within the seismic "waves". I just dont feel like we dont have the technology yet to measure this
-
two [hydrogen] atoms combining to produce a molecule liberate vastly more energy than one Hydrogen molecule combining with an Oxygen atom.
That is simply not true.
Energy released when two hydrogen atoms react to form H2 is 104 kcal/mol.
Energy released when H2 reacts with an oxygen atom to form water is 117 kcal/mol.
If you meant reaction of hydrogen molecules with oxygen molecules to make water, then the statement would be correct, as the energy released per molecule of water is 58 kcal/mol.
-
Hi Elmer,
Your last post was nearly 6 years ago, so I guess you are long gone. If you happen to see this, it might be worth giving TNS another go. E.g. you might look at:
http://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=50418.0
-
We are in a positive liquid ion right now.
We are entering into a ginormous negative liquid ion when we go into space.
The Earth is approximately neutral when it comes to electrical charge.
Space satellite designers must be careful to avoid the buildup of static charges on the satellite. Ultraviolet and X-Ray photons from the Sun can kick electrons off the satellite surface; particles in space can also cause charges to built up on the satellite. When an electrical discharge occurs, it can damage satellite electronics.
I just dont feel like we dont have the technology yet to measure this
We have pretty good technology for detecting electrical charge.
What we lack is good technology to detect neutrinos, gravitational waves and the (theorised) particles which may make up Dark Matter.
With fluxuations within the seismic "waves".
The Solar Wind certainly has gusts and outbursts, which can affect Earth's magnetosphere & atmosphere, and also affects satellites.
Please keep unconventional use of terminology like this in the "New Theories" section.
-
Space is made of whatever the big bang leftover. Matter, particles, dark matter etc., we don't know all yet.
The fact EM wave has same speed in all directions and sources and other things suggest me that the space is filled with negative charged medium. Something similar to ether but it is charged.
How to proof it? In a highly vacuum tube rotate a fan, it should produce EM field, or even electrical wind/thrust.
Can I try it? No way. Can you try it? If you have the means, why not?
-
Space is made of whatever the big bang leftover. Matter, particles, dark matter etc., we don't know all yet.
The fact EM wave has same speed in all directions and sources and other things suggest me that the space is filled with negative charged medium. Something similar to ether but it is charged.
How to proof it? In a highly vacuum tube rotate a fan, it should produce EM field, or even electrical wind/thrust.
Can I try it? No way. Can you try it? If you have the means, why not?
Spiral galaxy should produce a magnet field across its center. If the space is filled with such charged medium.
-
What is space made of?
The place where an electromagnetic/gravitational field exists making it possible for mass/energy to aggregate producing an environment suitable for beings like us.
There is NO SPACE EMPTY OF FIELD
NO FIELD = NO SPACE
-
Space is made of whatever the big bang leftover. Matter, particles, dark matter etc., we don't know all yet.
The fact EM wave has same speed in all directions and sources and other things suggest me that the space is filled with negative charged medium. Something similar to ether but it is charged.
How to proof it? In a highly vacuum tube rotate a fan, it should produce EM field, or even electrical wind/thrust.
Can I try it? No way. Can you try it? If you have the means, why not?
Spiral galaxy should produce a magnet field across its center. If the space is filled with such charged medium.
Wiki says spiral galaxies do have magnetic fields at disk center, just like I predicted. They don't know the mechanism yet.
Who deleted my previous post? For what reason?
-
Time.
-
What is space made of?
The place where an electromagnetic/gravitational field exists making it possible for mass/energy to aggregate producing an environment suitable for beings like us.
There is NO SPACE EMPTY OF FIELD
NO FIELD = NO SPACE
Space isn't made of anything. It could even, in one sense, be defined as nothing.
-
What is space made of?
The place where an electromagnetic/gravitational field exists making it possible for mass/energy to aggregate producing an environment suitable for beings like us.
There is NO SPACE EMPTY OF FIELD
NO FIELD = NO SPACE
Space isn't made of anything. It could even, in one sense, be defined as nothing.
Firstly, space can't be considered as a single entity. Mainstream science defines it more concisely as Space/Time. The two terms have no meaningful reality when considered separately. And when time is added to the mix, the quality of change must be taken into account. For change to evolve, something has been altered from it's former state.
I must respectfully disagree with you my friend.
-
Firstly, space can't be considered as a single entity. Mainstream science defines it more concisely as Space/Time.
That is incorrect. Space is only part of spacetime.
Space is the boundless three-dimensional extent in which objects and events have relative position and direction. A point in space is where an event occurs.
Time is what a clock reads. A point in time is when an event occurs.
Spacetime is the combination of space and time. Spacetime is the collection of all events.
Since I'm a mainstream physicist whose expertise is in special relativity I know this area quite well. It's my bread and butter in a manner of speaking. Space and time are very different concepts and shouldn't be confused.
Please read about the differences in space, time and spacetime:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time_in_physics and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spacetime
I must respectfully disagree with you my friend.
That's okay. You have every right to disagree. I have no problem with that. :)
-
-Space is the perfect vacuum - nothing.
-Electromagnetic radiation is a stationary particle resting in a vacuum.
-The matter is the same particles in a fast intermittent collapsing with V=c .
-The quant is the illusion exists only because exists the collapse of the system of reference in which measurement is done.
-Gravity is an acceleration from intermittent collapsing of the matter.
-
In our present physical universe, there exist more than 3 dimensions. Reality requires a 4th, namely the dimension of time.
Space without the addition of time is an insufficient description of reality. I stand by my former statement.
-
In our present physical universe, there exist more than 3 dimensions. Reality requires a 4th, namely the dimension of time.
That's correct.
Space without the addition of time is an insufficient description of reality.
That too is correct. However you went beyond that and erroneously claimed that space and spacetime are the same thing, which is not correct. Space is a part of spacetime.
It's like saying that in a house you must have the following according to the very definition of a house. You must have a floor, a ceiling and walls. However you can't say that the floors, ceiling and walls are the same thing. A floor is a ceiling and a ceiling is a floor. That'd be wrong. In the same way you can't claim that spacetime is space and space is spacetime. They're different, but related, things. You can disagree all you want but that won't change the fact that space and spacetime are not the same thing. Any relativist will tell you that. Not just me.
-
Is space full of different elements, or are there gaps all over the place, and what the heck is dark matter, and can its exsistence be proven ?
Why would someone ask what space is made of and not ask what time is made of?
-
That too is correct. However you went beyond that and erroneously claimed that space and spacetime are the same thing, which is not correct. Space is a part of spacetime.
I never claimed that space and space/time were the same. I am assuming that when the author of this thread uses the term "space", he's referring to the universe within which we live. And if true, the space he's referring to should be termed; Space/Time. And Space/Time cannot exist devoid of field.
So, to correct this misunderstanding, I should have worded my response as follows: There is no SPACE/TIME empty of field.
When people refer to space, never assume that they are speaking about the universe.
-
Is space full of different elements, or are there gaps all over the place, and what the heck is dark matter, and can its exsistence be proven ?
Why would someone ask what space is made of and not ask what time is made of?
Yes !
Length , width, height, time is the measuring system , not physical objects or processes. But many physical phenomena were not understood and therefore not another remained but to give them physical properties. ( this is a temporary measure which provides the mechanism of measurements but which has no physical sense or implication ).
-
I never claimed that space and space/time were the same.
Then what did you mean when you wrote
Firstly, space can't be considered as a single entity. Mainstream science defines it more concisely as Space/Time.
And if true, the space he's referring to should be termed; Space/Time.
Why?
And Space/Time cannot exist devoid of field.
Why not?
When people refer to space, never assume that they are speaking about the universe.
I never do. I don't know anybody that does in fact.
-
I never claimed that space and space/time were the same.
Then what did you mean when you wrote
Firstly, space can't be considered as a single entity. Mainstream science defines it more concisely as Space/Time.
And if true, the space he's referring to should be termed; Space/Time.
Why?
And Space/Time cannot exist devoid of field.
Why not?
When people refer to space, never assume that they are speaking about the universe.
I never do. I don't know anybody that does in fact.
Please refer back to post #35 of this thread. I hadn't finished editing before you began asking your questions. If this doesn't explain my position and leave us with some common ground, then I believe we will just have to disagree...................
-
The average amount of space between earth and the moon is about 238,900 miles or about 1.28 light seconds via a photon. This same trip took Apollo 8 about 57 hours, the same distance, about, but with a difference in the duration for the trip. I will never make this trip and with this in mind I would say that space may be boundless but it is limited in time.
-
Regarding the original question, to try to state what space is, we ought first inquire into whether it exists at all. The conventional view of the past is that it is simply nothing. However, the following evidence suggests otherwise:
The location of any thing ever observed may be defined in terms of three numbers. Extended objects may be located in terms of arrays of three number sets. We call this length, width, and height, or some equivalent expressions. Throwing Einstein into the problem, we must expand this to state that every known event can be addressed by four numbers, or an extended collection of events by arrays of four-number sets. If space (space-time) is simply nothing, why four dimensions? Zero would seem more likely, But why four? Why not seven or eight? Why not an infinite number of coordinates? It is hard to imagine how "nothing" can have the property of being described by four variables and not some other amount.
Someone might argue that the dimensions we observe are not properties of space-time itself, but of the matter within it. But if that is so, what are the properties of space-time itself? Well, there can't be any properties, because it is "nothing". But that means that it cannot impose any limits upon how matter can move, meaning that matter ought to be able to go flying off into dimensions that we have never seen, resulting in the universe basically disintegrating as its parts lose contact with each other.
Space-time exhibits the ability to be curved differently in different places. We call it "gravity". If space-time is simply nothing, how is this possible?
Quantum mechanics tells us that in "empty space", fluctuations creating momentary particles occur. How is this possible of "nothing"? (One could, at this point, say that the quantum fluctuation phenomenon is something in space but not identical with it, just as normal matter is in space but not identical with it. Perhaps that argument is valid, but one could also argue that what we call space-time is actually nothing more or less that the overall quantum field, and that every phenomenon we observed is one or another state of that field, just as every image seen on a computer screen is one or another state of the screen. In fact, based on the concept of quantization of the electromagnetic field that teaches that the "complete absence" (classically) of electromagnetic energy is actually a state having energy slightly greater than zero, and that all observable electromagnetic radiation is the same field energized to some higher energy state, meaning that the presence or absence of photons is simply different states of the electromagnetic field that is nonetheless present at all times and places, and extending that idea to other particles in a more generalized concept of the field, leads to the conclusion that the only difference between what we observe as empty space and what we observe as matter is the energy state of the field at that location. Therefore, the fact that the earth and moon seem to be rather solid and bulky and have certain radii simply means that their section of the overall quantum field exists in an elevated energy state, and the fact that there are about 230,000 miles of "empty space" (or at least, less-full space) between them simply means that that portion of space-time is energized to a lower and different state. This concept would also seem to lend itself to agreement with the existence of gravitation associated with both, by reason that the quantum field, when energized to a higher energy state, may somehow expand or contract relative to that at a lower state, introducing curvature. And as to the why are their three dimensions of space and one of time, that question reduces to asking why the quantum field has this property, and frankly, no scientist knows the answer, but the subject leads into string theories. If and when anyone figures that out, we may know.
As for the big bang and the dimensions of the universe: Viewing space-time as something, and therefore capable of properties, makes room for the possibility that it could have started out as a small entity and expanded, and that it need not be Euclidean. All that is not understandable if space-time is simply nothing.
As for the philosophical dilemma that for the universe to have started out as a tiny dot requires that there be some place for it to have done so, implying there must be a greater concept of underlying space: First of all, if that be correct, then the greater space is something about which we know nothing. We don't know, for example, whether iit has three dimensions, four, eighteen, 133, or whatever. Although it obviously would have to possess at least four. If, that is, it is a space at all. But is it? Consider this: It is possible to create a computer simulation of five-dimensional space (with time presumably included as a sixth for operational purposes). We could create simulated creatures therein, and they could ask, what is the larger space that holds the one we know? They would conclude it had to have at least five spatial dimensions, but the truth would be that it did not at all, because it simply does not exist. The underlying reality that created their "space" is not spatial at all, but logical.
On the basis of this observation, it seems clear that we may well be able to conclude very little concerning the nature of the "framework" in which the universe originated or is supported, and specifically, we cannot conclude that whatever that framework may be is necessarily a "space" as we might generally understand that term. If that be so, trying to give the coordinates where the Big Bang detonated is a meaningless concept.
Of course, all this leaves us with the conclusion that we really don't know what space-time is, but that a partial answer is that it may well be identical with the overall quantum field, whatever that is.
-
Regarding the original question, to try to state what space is, we ought first inquire into whether it exists at all. The conventional view of the past is that it is simply nothing. However, the following evidence suggests otherwise:
Excellent post Atomic-S,.........What ever the space/time continuum is in realistic or logical terms is yet to be discovered. But of a truth, it is not NOTHING. Choose what ever medium you like, whether a quantum field, or a computer program, the space/time within which we live is surly SOMTHING.
-
It is easier for me to think that there is only one dimension, time, and that space is a subset of this dimension. Newton thought that there was a straight line of movement when considering gravity, a rock dropped from a tower travels in a straight line, yet Einstein showed us that in reality it is a curved line in space/time. The time stays the same yet the path of the rock is not as we see it. He also said that you can look at it one of two ways either as the rock moving and the earth standing still or as the rock standing still and the earth dilating out to meet it. Myself I think that you have to look at it both ways, to see the reality of the falling rock.
It is our view as receivers that give us the backward view of the rock falling in a straight line yet if we could see the future we would see the curved path. The co-moving frame of reference we view the world through is dilation, everything dilates in time, and it is this static frame of reference in the present that gives us the illusion of a static Earth in space. Try taking your eyes out of focus, it is a blur of motion, to see the world of motion. Our accelerated frame is the co-moving frame second per second that we see and measure in space as static but in time there is nothing static in the universe just everything single thing dilating at different rates.
Time is space, even if your mind thinks it is viewing emission, make no mistake, that the image we all have of the present is upon reception of the photons we are receiving now. Space is the age of the photon and an illusion that we can not see past. Once you realize that time is the limit of the present then you may see that mass is the past dilating into the future. Don't be fooled into thinking your memories of past events is the past when in fact the past as our anchor in the present is mass.