[faytmorgan (OP)]

So there is LOTS of science FICTION on how to bend space time. Lots of different proposed (mostly bs) ideas. Now I am no nuclear physics phd albeit I do have a wealth of knowledge that applies to what I know. That last sentence is complicated seeing that I know nothing about anything nor does anyone else. We can only prove the science to a point. You don't even know that I exist. WHOO lets not go down that path eh?

Back on point. We have a lot of assumptions in science. One thing I am leaning toward is a theory about things on a nuclear level to bend space time. What if gravity is just a side effect of nuclear force? Why do we assume that it is a substance thing? Also couldn't nuclear force be just centrifugal force that slowly breaks down over (time)? If that is the case then in theory a device can be made that spins(or vibrates) at an appropriate level to create a force that replicates what happens when there is a LOT of mass. Thus bending space-time.

Let throw some holes in this theory. You people (know) much more about this subject than I do. My major is certainly not nuclear physics. I come from a theology background. From what I see there is a fundamental correlation to the hologram principle and most mythology/theology/religion/etc. there is just one thing I am missing to build upon my theory. What is actually bending space-time. Like most of theology people tend to overcomplicated things, at this point I think people, perhaps, are over complicating the science here. For example why is there creation? Well in theology there is something that most people miss, if there is a creator, that is what the creator does. Like a painter paints, the creator creates. Don't over complicate it. Its that simple. The correlation I have found in science and theology is that the hologram IS the creator. People didn't have the science then to communicate what it was they understood. They gave the hologram a persona. And I am getting off track again.

SO in short, please throw some holes in my idea. Also if there is a more (logical) answer that I can research into. Please shout it out, kind sirs and madams!

Fayt~

[yor_on]

Nothing bends it
Or mass do, and rays do, and relativistic mass do too, and 'energy', and 'motion'.

First you need to tell me what 'space' is, to make me bend it
There are geodesics in a space, those get their definitions from the things above.

But I don't know what 'space' consist of. If it 'consist' of anything.

[faytmorgan (OP)]

What do you mean what is space? space (from my understanding) is the in between that the everything is held within.

[yor_on]

ahh, but what is it?

[faytmorgan (OP)]

What do you mean? You are being cryptic.

[yor_on]

Well, space is nothing, or it is something. Is it a medium in where things propagate or is it just empty? An aether was one try for a (vacuum) medium, but the MM experiment killed that one. But as you say, it differs matter from matter, and it has a distance, as far as we can measure existing in four dimensions. Each point of a vacuum can be defined by those four, time and three other. Classically it is a 'nothing', presenting you with no resistance. Quantum mechanically it may be seen to contain energies, and bosons, as the Higg boson. That, although unmeasurable to us directly, still define the Inertia of a object, and possibly also the mass.

And in Relativity 'gravity' is nothing more than a preferred direction, as I think though. But Pete would give you a more solid answer there. But a lot of it hangs together with what ideas you have defining a vacuum.

[faytmorgan (OP)]

Well, for my book I need to come up with a logical/scientific answer that explains how it is possible to;

have a portal on a planet that all the inhabitants go through to another to end up on another planet which also has a portal on it which the inhabitants come through. I also need to show how it is possible for a planet to have a portal at its core that is not accessible until the planet no longer exists (ie blows up).

Any thoughts?

[RD]

... have a portal on a planet that all the inhabitants go through to another to end up on another planet which also has a portal on it which the inhabitants come through...
 
Any thoughts?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wormhole  [ hypothetical ]

[yor_on]

You will need a lot of 'exotic matter' for a wormhole, to keep it from breaking up, also it is a function of gravity as I remember, which makes it a 'hollow world' maybe? You can always place some black holes in a stable configuration inside it, two might work. Maybe one would work better, placed in a perfect center,  'rotating' as being 'at rest' with the 'Earth shell'? I'm not sure there. You will have to assume a ideal perfect sphere, I think, to begin with which should make visitors rather suspicious.
=

Why not use a 'quantum machine' breaking you down into quanta, connected via entanglement to some other place, that then retrieve the information? It will need to use light speed though to send the code for that exact 'copy' that will be built up, each time. So those who use it will not only be lost in space, but also in time. And then it also becomes a question if toughts, and the way you think, will be the same? Although that one is highly philosophical.

[ScientificSorcerer]

I have posted a TOET (theory of every thing) that I think explains pretty well what gravity is and what matter is. just go to the new theory section to read it. it's quite simple, just think of it like this. 

Imagine a pond, when you throw a rock into the water you displace it and as a result you get waves in exactly the same way the big bang displaced space to get waves of light when light forms a photon cloud/electron/quark it bends space like a whirlpool inward this effect is gravity.

[imatfaal]

ScientificSorcerer

No more links or adverts to your idea in New Theories please. 

many thanks

[faytmorgan (OP)]

I have posted a TOET (theory of every thing) that I think explains pretty well what gravity is and what matter is. just go to the new theory section to read it. it's quite simple, just think of it like this. 

Imagine a pond, when you throw a rock into the water you displace it and as a result you get waves in exactly the same way the big bang displaced space to get waves of light when light forms a photon cloud/electron/quark it bends space like a whirlpool inward this effect is gravity.

that doesn't work on many levels. i really don't have the time to point out all of the reasons why it does not work at all. google leonard susskind (spelling) and hologram principle. if you understand theology the way i do. that makes way more sense and it answers way more questions than it asks.
-----------
i am dealing with the issue of mass gaining more mass at as the speed increases closer to the speed of light. where does the mass get more mass? does it suck in more matter and condenses it? etc-

[faytmorgan (OP)]

ScientificSorcerer

No more links or adverts to your idea in New Theories please. 

many thanks

thanks

[faytmorgan (OP)]

You will need a lot of 'exotic matter' for a wormhole, to keep it from breaking up, also it is a function of gravity as I remember, which makes it a 'hollow world' maybe? You can always place some black holes in a stable configuration inside it, two might work. Maybe one would work better, placed in a perfect center,  'rotating' as being 'at rest' with the 'Earth shell'? I'm not sure there. You will have to assume a ideal perfect sphere, I think, to begin with which should make visitors rather suspicious.
=

Why not use a 'quantum machine' breaking you down into quanta, connected via entanglement to some other place, that then retrieve the information? It will need to use light speed though to send the code for that exact 'copy' that will be built up, each time. So those who use it will not only be lost in space, but also in time. And then it also becomes a question if toughts, and the way you think, will be the same? Although that one is highly philosophical.

i am not sure gravity isn't much like centrifugal force which is not a true force. Rather, its a fictitious force that you (or an object) feels when moving in a circle. However, there is something call centriPETAL force. This is the actual force required to keep an object in a circular motion and points toward the axis of rotation.

[lightarrow]

So there is LOTS of science FICTION on how to bend space time. Lots of different proposed (mostly bs) ideas. Now I am no nuclear physics phd albeit I do have a wealth of knowledge that applies to what I know. That last sentence is complicated seeing that I know nothing about anything nor does anyone else. We can only prove the science to a point. You don't even know that I exist. WHOO lets not go down that path eh?

Back on point. We have a lot of assumptions in science. One thing I am leaning toward is a theory about things on a nuclear level to bend space time. What if gravity is just a side effect of nuclear force? Why do we assume that it is a substance thing? Also couldn't nuclear force be just centrifugal force that slowly breaks down over (time)? If that is the case then in theory a device can be made that spins(or vibrates) at an appropriate level to create a force that replicates what happens when there is a LOT of mass. Thus bending space-time.

Let throw some holes in this theory. You people (know) much more about this subject than I do. My major is certainly not nuclear physics. I come from a theology background. From what I see there is a fundamental correlation to the hologram principle and most mythology/theology/religion/etc. there is just one thing I am missing to build upon my theory. What is actually bending space-time. Like most of theology people tend to overcomplicated things, at this point I think people, perhaps, are over complicating the science here. For example why is there creation? Well in theology there is something that most people miss, if there is a creator, that is what the creator does. Like a painter paints, the creator creates. Don't over complicate it. Its that simple. The correlation I have found in science and theology is that the hologram IS the creator. People didn't have the science then to communicate what it was they understood. They gave the hologram a persona. And I am getting off track again.

SO in short, please throw some holes in my idea. Also if there is a more (logical) answer that I can research into. Please shout it out, kind sirs and madams!

Sorry, but could you formulate your question/idea in more direct terms? I sincerely haven't grasped which is exactly.

[flr]

i am dealing with the issue of mass gaining more mass at as the speed increases closer to the speed of light. where does the mass get more mass? does it suck in more matter and condenses it? etc-

It is not that 'mass get more mass'.
The energy and momentum of particles are frame dependent.

E^2 = (m0*c^2)^2 + (p*c)^2

E and (pc) are frame dependent, i.e. the amount of "E" a "p*c"you measure depends on your speed relative to object that you measure it.
The rest mass m0 and the energy associated with it E0 = m0*c^2 is frame independent, and the rest mass does not 'gain more mass'.

[yor_on]

Are you suggesting that gravity might be a centripetal force?
That one I would like to hear

Go for it, it may make a interesting SF, or maybe fantasy?
I read both kinds myself.

[Pmb]

... I do have a wealth of knowledge that applies to what I know.

What exactly does that mean. You just said that you "know what you know" which we all do.

We can only prove the science to a point.

Science is all about making observations, developing theories to describe what we observe then making predictions based on those theories and then testing those theories. We never prove theories.  Science  can't do that.

We have a lot of assumptions in science.

Such assumptions are referred to as either laws, principles or postulates.

One thing I am leaning toward is a theory about things on a nuclear level to bend space time. What if gravity is just a side effect of nuclear force?

Nope. The nuclear force is very different in nature to gravity. It's incorrect to think of force as bending spacetime. The source of spacetime curvature is mass. The effect of spacetime curvature does not extend outside the nucleus. It's a short range force, quite unlike gravity. Also light is ueffected by the strong force whereas its defleected by mass.

Why do we assume that it is a substance thing?

Nobody assumes that spacetime is a substance. We use the term "fabric of spacetime" merely as an analogy to visualize it. It has no substance and that is well known by relativists.

No observation made in nature is consistent with what you suggested.

[Pmb]

Are you suggesting that gravity might be a centripetal force?
That one I would like to hear

Go for it, it may make a interesting SF, or maybe fantasy?
I read both kinds myself.

The centrifugal force is an inertial force which is of the same nature of a gravitational force. However centripetal forces do not curve spacetime. Then again it take more than the presence of a gravitational force to curve spacetime. It requires at least having gradients in the gravitational force. Curved spacetime is a complicated thing.

[faytmorgan (OP)]

how does nasa intend on doing it with that oval space-ship within their holdings then?

"Are you suggesting that gravity might be a centripetal force?
That one I would like to hear

Go for it, it may make a interesting SF, or maybe fantasy?
I read both kinds myself."

exactly- that is my idea. just- you worded it way better. i don't speak science as much as i do theology. i just found a potential problem that i will have to confront and would like to eliminate it by giving a scientific explanation of it.