[Bored chemist]

Frequency tells us the state of matter independent of what any reference thinks it sees.

Bollocks.

[Alex Dullius Siqueira]

any chances that what we "see" as light speed, or speed of light to be no "speed" at all?
 What if by geometry, photon could be, avoiding time influence, and the traveling thing is the particle photon taking a ride on a geometrical wave of probability?

 Could be that space is at C while light is just taking a ride along with it, that specific frame in time which it had originated?

 Or there's anything that undoubtedly, states: Light speed is a speed because...?

[pasala (OP)]

any chances that what we "see" as light speed, or speed of light to be no "speed" at all?
 What if by geometry, photon could be, avoiding time influence, and the traveling thing is the particle photon taking a ride on a geometrical wave of probability?

 Could be that space is at C while light is just taking a ride along with it?

 Or there's anything that undoubtedly, states: Light speed is a speed because...?

It is true that we are taking speed of light as constant.  We also know that Gravity slows down movement of light and bends light.  So, speed of light is different from gravity to non-gravity field.  But it is surprise to me:
01  It is true that there is gravity inside the closed elevator.
02  If the light beam is released from a hole on one side of the elevator certainly it moves out through the other hole.
03  If the elevator accelerates forward, it is the frame that is being lifted, in other words, in turn it lifts the gravity field inside the elevator.
04  Gravity at the bottom becomes dense or stronger. 
05  While coming down, gravity drags light beam.  Light beam also accelerates downward. 
06  When the light source is constant, what makes the light beam to change its position.
07  If the light is independent, nothing can stop it moving straight.
08  If there is a change or bend, while moving in a gravity field, certainly we can say that gravity bends light.
09  But light is changing its path according to gravity.
Yours
Psreddy   

[pasala (OP)]

One can measure the gravitational force in the same way we have quantified other forces, using a spring arrangement, instead of pulling on the spring, we simply attach an object and let gravity do the pulling. The
elongation of the spring tells us the strength of the gravitational force pulling the object towards the ground.

This gravitational force is called the object’s weight.

Acceleration = Force / (inertial Mass).
For the acceleration to be the same for all objects, the force must depend on the object’s mass, more concretely: the gravitational force, e.g. the one exerted by Earth on each falling objects, needs to be proportional to each object’s mass. Written as a formula,

Gravitational force = Mass • g,

Where g is a factor that does not depends on any of the object’s intrinsic properties. If this formula holds, then, when we calculate the acceleration, the following happens:

Acceleration = Gravitational force / Mass = (Masse • g) / Masse = g

The quantity g is known as the gravitational acceleration, and its value is approximately the same on (and near) the surface of the Earth.

It is true that there is Gravity inside the closed elevator and the person inside the elevator experiences the same weight as he would on the surface of the Earth. 

If the elevator accelerates forward, the person inside the elevator will be pushed back.  In other words, there is additional gravity.  Where this gravity came from. 

If it is an attraction of Earth, there must be change in gravity from closed elevator to open elevator.  If it is a spatial flow, as usual, there must be change, closed elevator to open elevator.  Besides that, scope for change of gravity inside the elevator is also ruled out.

Then, what made or how the Gravity field inside the elevator is changed. 

It helps us to analyse that:
01  Gravity field, giving you weight can be quantified.  There is Gravity inside the closed elevator.
02  When the elevator accelerates forward, the field is changing its position.
03  Additional Gravity is giving additional weight and it tells us that the medium or the quantified Gravity field itself has weight.
04  As the density of the gravity field changes, it itself exerts additional force or pressure on objects, resulting in Gravity.
05  If the medium is weak, there is no gravity and if the density increases, weight increases, in turn creates pressure on objects, which is known as Gravity. 
06  In other words, density of this medium is weak on Moon and is strong on Earth.  By all means, its density is highest on Sun’s surface. 

Further it is also proved that there is gravity, inside the spaceship cabin, which is far away from gravitational masses.  Actually it is a wrong assumption of Einstein that acceleration creates or generates gravity field inside the cabin.  It is true that there is strong Gravity field on Earth’s surface.  When the cabin of the spaceship is packed, knowingly or unknowingly, a part of this Gravity field is also packed and it continues till the spaceship comes to rest or stationary. 

Undoubtedly, it is clear that Gravity is not due to masses or not a spatial flow.  It is a field created on the Earth.

Yours
Psreddy

[Kryptid]

Undoubtedly, it is clear that Gravity is not due to masses

Not clear at all, actually.

[pasala (OP)]

Undoubtedly, it is clear that Gravity is not due to masses

Not clear at all, actually.

At times, surprisingly, you will be asking, something basic, yet it carries meaning. 

“Theoretically, you could be in deep space, far away from all significant mass concentrations and their gravitational influence. The rocket engine of the observer’s spaceship is firing and produces an acceleration of 9.8 meters (32 feet) per square second. This accelerated observer feels as heavy as we would feel on earth, since the gravitational acceleration with which an object on earth falls to the ground has that exact same value”.

This is Einstein's theory or idea only.  Imagine that space ship is in deep space, far away from all mass concentration.  Yet, as long as the engine fires, person inside the cabin of the space ship, feels as heavy as he on Earth's surface.  In other words there is gravity inside the cabin of the space ship, why?. 

It is a direct question to Newton's inverse square law.  When the space ship is far away, deep space, why, there is no change in gravity. 

That is true.  But, equally, if it is a spatial flow, how there is gravity inside the cabin of the space ship in deep space.  Einstein's Equivalence Principle  equated the effects of  gravitational field to the effects of being in an accelerated frame of reference. 

That is not at all correct.  It is true that cabin of the space ship is closed in a gravitational field and undoubtedly there is Gravity.  As the space ship accelerates forward, no sign of decrease or increase of gravity inside the cabin.  As long as the engine of the space ship is on, it is accelerating forward.  Mean while interaction with the outside space time is impossible.  For that close the cabin of the space ship in a non-gravity field, and if the acceleration, due to thrust of the engine or whatever it may, creates or develops gravity and if the person inside the cabin of the spaceship, feels as heavy as he would on Earth, i am sure that i will accept it. 

Basic doubt of the Einstein is that, space ship is far away from all masses, still there is gravity inside the cabin, how and what produced or warped it. 

It is true that cabin of the space ship is closed in a gravity field.  Even after closing the cabin, there is strong gravity.  This tells us that, in a small area such as cabin, gravity can be quantified.  Besides that it gives same effects as it does on Earth's surface. 

Gravity is not attraction of masses and the same time is not a spatial flow.  It is a field present on the surfaces of the masses, definitely, not all the masses. 

Yours
Psreddy   

[pasala (OP)]

Mr Kryptid,

Let me share, some of the incidents / things happened in the early school days i.e., 7th standard onwards.  I was not accepting  what the teacher says in the class.  Every day,  in the evening, i used to go for revision of the same lesson.  Besides that, I use to rewrite the same lesson, incorporating mine idea.  It is true that, at that age I should not have done or gone by that way. 

Some of the important theories, attempted or rewritten by me in the early school days.

01  Atomic explosion:  For me, it is an important point.  Basic doubt is that, fissile material used in an atom bomb is very small.  Besides that, potential energy stored in the fissile material is very, very small.  How this small amount of energy, when released  is multiplying.  It is true that total energy is not coming from the atomic bomb.  If the total energy is packed within the atomic bomb, how it is stable.

If the explosion or chain reaction slows down, there is no impact of explosion.  Nature absorbs the energy released from the atom bomb and impact is neutralized.  So, to get the best results, it must be exploded within short time.  So, here time is the key player. 

So, slow release of energy is not showing any impact and it all depends on the sudden and abrupt release of energy within short time  plays key role and total energy is not coming from the atomic bomb. 

02  Light:  For me, is also an interest topic.  If we switch on a battery cell light spreads to wide area.  Here total potential energy is not used at a time, still it is being converted into lot of kinetic energy.  Potential energy is being released slowly in an orderly manner and the conversion into light energy continues. 

If we switch on an electric bulb, same results.  Here also energy is released slowly and the conversion continues.

In both the cases, total light energy is not coming from the source.  Small amount of energy released is being converted into light energy only after coming out from the source.   We have only invented technique or method of converting into light energy.  But total energy is not coming from the source.

03  Magnetic Fields:  It is true that charged particles create magnetic fields.  A wire carrying current generates magnetic field around the wire.  It is due to displacement of electrons inside the wire.

To create magnetic field, electrons must be displaced regularly and also in lot of quantity.  If the same thing happens, flow of electricity must be stopped within short area.  But it is not happening so. 

Fewer electrons released are charging and developing an electric field. Similarly, here also, magnetic field is not due to the current flowing in the wire, a few electrons flowing, charges the space and it is being known as magnetic field.

04  Fire:  Fire is a chemical process of combustion, releasing heat, light.  You can cause fire by igniting combustible materials.  I still remember simple incident happened, between me and teacher on a simple experiment.  He lighted a candle and closed it by a glass and when fire put off, he started explaining how things need oxygen to burn. 

Suddenly, I had raised a doubt, why don’t you think that the glass is turning out as an obstruction in between.  That day, it was a big topic.

05  Gravity:  It is another important and endless topic.

Kryptid, due to this type of thinking, I lost control over main subject, lost future and settled as a clerk in Bank.

It true that, life is short and a doubt remained in my mind, whether I could tell these things to the outside world or not. 

Really, I would like to say thanks to “naked scientists forum” Management, for allowing me to share these ideas to the outside world.

Yours
Psreddy

[Kryptid]

It is a field present on the surfaces of the masses, definitely, not all the masses. 

Can you give an example of a mass that has been confirmed to not have gravity?

What's frustrating is that you have consistently refused to learn. Your last post brings up things that you have brought up in the past multiple times and that have been adequately explained. Why you won't accept those explanations is beyond me. Having new ideas is one thing, but stubbornly hanging on to new ideas that contradict existing evidence is something else altogether...

[pasala (OP)]

Matter tells space how to curve, and curved space tells matter how to move. That's the basic principle behind Einstein's General Relativity, which linked, for the first time, the phenomenon of gravity with that of spacetime and relativity.

If mass curves or distorts the space time, it must be clear, what is being curved or distorted and the area or place up to which to curves or distorts. 

Science developed a lot and we know that there are 9 planets in our solar system.  Well, it is true that all the planets curves the space time around them, i.e., Gravity.  Sun is at the centre and other planets are rotating against their axis and also going round the Sun. 

If each planet curves or distort the space time around them, they must act independently and there is no need for them to go around the Sun.  But it is not happening so.  Sun curved or distorted space time up to the end of the solar system and these planets are only existing or curving the space time already curved or distorted by Sun.  What is the basic difference in between, space time curved by Sun and other planets. 

So, we can take Sun as the independent planet and other planets as dependent.  Here important point is what makes Sun to be independent.  If this problem is resolved,  it gives clear idea on "what exactly is gravity".

Place a mass down anywhere in the Universe, and in turn it curves or distorts space time around them, which is known as gravity.  It must be clear that what is being curved or distorted.  We don’t know what space fabric consists of. 

Need not worry, if there is no answer we go for Newton’s inverse square law, which opts or fits in every aspect.  It is true that, Newton’s theory is incorrect, yet we follow it, as Einstein’s theory is incomplete.

Mass curving the space time is different to Gravity.  Though each and every mass curves the space time, we cannot take it as gravity.

Yours
Psreddy

[Kryptid]

What is the basic difference in between, space time curved by Sun and other planets. 

The Sun has far, far more mass than the planets. That's why the planets orbit it and not the other way around.

[pasala (OP)]

What is the basic difference in between, space time curved by Sun and other planets.

The Sun has far, far more mass than the planets. That's why the planets orbit it and not the other way around.

Is it mass alone, not the curved space time.

[pasala (OP)]

Free fall, Elevator and space station:

Let us Imagine that you are in a closed elevator and it is accelerating downwards. 
01  It is true that you are in a gravity field.
02  You are  moving along with the elevator, in other words you are in a free fall.
03  Though you are in a strong gravity field, you are escaping gravity.
04  Here, all other objects moving along with you are also in free fall.

Now imagine that you are in an international space station:
01  The space station along with you is in free fall.
02  It is moving, in an weightless condition around the Earth.

Now we are comparing free fall in an elevator to free fall in a space station.  Is it correct?. 
01  “Free fall” in an elevator is in a gravity field.
02  Here, “free fall” is escaping gravity.
03  Besides that, elevator is moving towards the centre of the Earth.
04  But the space station is already in a gravity free place.
05  When there is no gravity, what is there escaping.
06 Further the space station is moving around the Earth.

So, comparison is incorrect.  Basic question is?.
What makes the space station to move along with Earth is important.  There is no free fall here.  There is something, which is causing Earth to move is also causing space station to go round the Earth.
 
   Yours
Psreddy

[Kryptid]

Is it mass alone, not the curved space time.

The curvature of space is directly proportional to the mass.

01  It is true that you are in a gravity field.

No. It's just that you can't distinguish acceleration in an elevator from being stationary on a planet's surface. They are not literally 100% the same thing. In order to feel "gravity" in an elevator in free space, you have to be accelerating. You don't have to move at all to feel gravity on the surface of a planet.

[pasala (OP)]

No. It's just that you can't distinguish acceleration in an elevator from being stationary on a planet's surface. They are not literally 100% the same thing. In order to feel "gravity" in an elevator in free space, you have to be accelerating. You don't have to move at all to feel gravity on the surface of a planet.

I think you are in out of mood.  I am talking about free fall in a gravity field and the free fall in space.  But you are talking about acceleration and gravity.

[pasala (OP)]

The curvature of space is directly proportional to the mass.

Here, basic point is "what exactly this curvature is".  It is true that mass and the space fabric is different.  Mass curves or distorts the space fabric.  What this space fabric consists of.  Basic difference in between 2d space time to 3d space time.  Without this information, talking, anything about mass curving or distorting space time is immaterial.

[Kryptid]

I think you are in out of mood.

What does that mean?

I am talking about free fall in a gravity field and the free fall in space.  But you are talking about acceleration and gravity.

You mention acceleration and gravity right here:

Let us Imagine that you are in a closed elevator and it is accelerating downwards. 
01  It is true that you are in a gravity field.
02  You are  moving along with the elevator, in other words you are in a free fall.
03  Though you are in a strong gravity field, you are escaping gravity.
04  Here, all other objects moving along with you are also in free fall.

What this space fabric consists of.

One doesn't have to consider space-time as being made of anything other than space and time in order for relativity to work.

[pasala (OP)]

    What this space fabric consists of.


One doesn't have to consider space-time as being made of anything other than space and time in order for relativity to work.

When we talk of anything, it must be specific or otherwise the theory is incomplete or insufficient.

"Matter tells space time how to curve and curved space time tells how to move".   Matter tells what to curve or how this curved space time interacts with matter and tells it to move. 

In general relativity,  gravity is described in terms of the curvature of space time. For example, imagine a sheet of rubber with grid lines like graph paper, suspended horizontally so that it forms a flat surface.  With no weight on it, the grid has straight lines and right angles, corresponding to the "flat space" of Euclidean geometry.
.
If you place a ball on the surface, the rubber sheet stretches around it. The curvature of the grid increases as it gets closer to the ball. This corresponds to the curvature of space-time near a massive object.

If the bowling ball is placed at the centre of the rubber sheet, it will curve or distort the sheet.  If we roll a marble piece in this curved path, it will go round the bowling ball.

This description is ok for non-Euclidean geometry. 

Well, it is true that curved space time is nothing but Gravity. We know that Gravity is keeping the planets in orbit around the sun and also is keeping the moon in orbit around Earth. The gravitational pull of the moon pulls the seas towards it, causing the ocean tides.  Einstein also proposed number of effects, time dilation, light bending i.e.,

Without complete description of what is working like space fabric, being curved by mass, theory will not go further, ends at the one stage or the other.  This is what happening and we are taking Newton’s inverse square law as base.

This is the reason, still “what exactly is gravity” a mysterious one.

Yours
Psreddy

[Alex Dullius Siqueira]

    What this space fabric consists of.


One doesn't have to consider space-time as being made of anything other than space and time in order for relativity to work.

When we talk of anything, it must be specific or otherwise the theory is incomplete or insufficient.

"Matter tells space time how to curve and curved space time tells how to move".   Matter tells what to curve or how this curved space time interacts with matter and tells it to move. 

In general relativity,  gravity is described in terms of the curvature of space time. For example, imagine a sheet of rubber with grid lines like graph paper, suspended horizontally so that it forms a flat surface.  With no weight on it, the grid has straight lines and right angles, corresponding to the "flat space" of Euclidean geometry.
.
If you place a ball on the surface, the rubber sheet stretches around it. The curvature of the grid increases as it gets closer to the ball. This corresponds to the curvature of space-time near a massive object.

If the bowling ball is placed at the centre of the rubber sheet, it will curve or distort the sheet.  If we roll a marble piece in this curved path, it will go round the bowling ball.

This description is ok for non-Euclidean geometry. 

Well, it is true that curved space time is nothing but Gravity. We know that Gravity is keeping the planets in orbit around the sun and also is keeping the moon in orbit around Earth. The gravitational pull of the moon pulls the seas towards it, causing the ocean tides.  Einstein also proposed number of effects, time dilation, light bending i.e.,

Without complete description of what is working like space fabric, being curved by mass, theory will not go further, ends at the one stage or the other.  This is what happening and we are taking Newton’s inverse square law as base.

This is the reason, still “what exactly is gravity” a mysterious one.

Yours
Psreddy

    What this space fabric consists of.


One doesn't have to consider space-time as being made of anything other than space and time in order for relativity to work.

When we talk of anything, it must be specific or otherwise the theory is incomplete or insufficient.

"Matter tells space time how to curve and curved space time tells how to move".   Matter tells what to curve or how this curved space time interacts with matter and tells it to move. 

In general relativity,  gravity is described in terms of the curvature of space time. For example, imagine a sheet of rubber with grid lines like graph paper, suspended horizontally so that it forms a flat surface.  With no weight on it, the grid has straight lines and right angles, corresponding to the "flat space" of Euclidean geometry.
.
If you place a ball on the surface, the rubber sheet stretches around it. The curvature of the grid increases as it gets closer to the ball. This corresponds to the curvature of space-time near a massive object.

If the bowling ball is placed at the centre of the rubber sheet, it will curve or distort the sheet.  If we roll a marble piece in this curved path, it will go round the bowling ball.

This description is ok for non-Euclidean geometry. 

Well, it is true that curved space time is nothing but Gravity. We know that Gravity is keeping the planets in orbit around the sun and also is keeping the moon in orbit around Earth. The gravitational pull of the moon pulls the seas towards it, causing the ocean tides.  Einstein also proposed number of effects, time dilation, light bending i.e.,

Without complete description of what is working like space fabric, being curved by mass, theory will not go further, ends at the one stage or the other.  This is what happening and we are taking Newton’s inverse square law as base.

This is the reason, still “what exactly is gravity” a mysterious one.

Yours
Psreddy

 Well, from a cosmetic point of view the issue seems to be right there... "oriented misconception "
 We are heavily relying on a term that may be clouding overall, "curve"...
We do accept that space (or any other variable) is bending "something", simultaneously to this we do accept that everything is on a straight line.

 Seems that if we take away our "know estimated reference" as a fixed point such as the sun, planets, moons, it will lead to the conclusion, that:
  Gravity is but a "unavoidable mathematical mistake", not real as a force, a mysterious nothing...

 Then why things fall?
 It would also be answered by the same answer that explain, not what gravity is, also not what gravity isn't.
 It would be answered by explanation that excludes it's very existence from the board.

 Surely related, with all that was previously mentioned, corrected to shift away from the necessity that implies Gravity to be, as a feeling entity.

[pasala (OP)]

Then why things fall?
 It would also be answered by the same answer that explain, not what gravity is, also not what gravity isn't.
 It would be answered by explanation that excludes it's very existence from the board.

It is true that apple is falling to the ground.  Yes, without saying or knowing the force that is pulling or pushing the apple to the ground, any idea or theory on Gravity is waste or incomplete.

Well, to find out this truth Einstein carried out number of experiments and his thought experiments or beyond imagination.  However, what i am saying, i am not finding fault with his experiments, simply exploring other possibilities.

Einstein's equivalence principle is incorrect.  His ideas are great, but he has taken wrong notions, which, further diverted leading to "what exactly is gravity" incomplete and incorrect. 

Space time is an important topic, which, i am sure, decides what exactly is causing apple to fall to the ground.  Here, Einstein's idea is correct, but he left it incomplete, without giving or describing all the factors of spacetime. 

It is here that i am struggling hard.  As per my knowledge goes, if we place any mass, anywhere in the universe it will curve the space time around it.  As long as the mass is not placed, it is a 2d space and when the mass is placed, it is converted to 3d space.  How it is possible?.

Even on Earth, the gravity, giving you weight is also doing wonders.  It is true that it is giving weight.  We know this, since Newton told us.  When it gives you, so much of weight, how can we say that it is not influencing other masses and our daily activities..   

If this myth is unleashed, i am sure, several theories are to be re-written. 

To unleash this, we have to re-set our mind set.  Let us take Newton or Einstein's theories as base and explore further to achieve this farthest mission.

Yours
Psreddy

[Alex Dullius Siqueira]

It is here that i am struggling hard.  As per my knowledge goes, if we place any mass, anywhere in the universe it will curve the space time around it.  As long as the mass is not placed, it is a 2d space and when the mass is placed, it is converted to 3d space.  How it is possible?.

 Perhaps, mass messes with a grid geometry and the so called flat 2d space time bases are multiplied and splited into all possible directions as a constant probability, but it can also never set, so it may be adopting the matter configuration for it's own as for being the only possible one...
 The picture would be now, the one of a "possibility into being a force" if it was able to remain static as it was during the 2d flat space instance...  Add a close point of reference to the 2d one, it will perceive it as infinity and infinity is impossible to be reached, even so "the grid" has "reached" the end of it, only thing an endless straight line would be able to do is to cease to be, at the same time it starts to "re chase" infinity... that on the view would be an orbit...

 On this view is "obvious" that the flaw is on the "it falls" approach... I'm wondering that the apple as an ordinary photon was taking a rid with space , and is "moving" towards infinity with it, taking a ride on it's geometry, math, probability for this is not so relevant, still the apple is simple there, as much as it was "before it has (fallen)", and we could restart and say that even at the ground it is still falling, tough, there is room for a change of rules here, if something needs to bypass a bulk barrier to reach infinity... If the apple is to small and the earth to big it would "seems" to be stationary at it would be read as one, also accounting for other sources... If the apple was the size of the moon, it would also try to do the same, but there is the thing, moon also as a infinity of it's own... so should be the apple.

 Just speculating, that mass is a "counter side" of space that only take's place when something, either due geometry or perhaps bulk matter configuration, is "big" enough to mess with the grid, this view is needing a "breaking limit" for curvature to be so, a mathematical one...
 Point of the speculation would be, gravity is an illusion born "over space" when something offers it a point to be read as infinity, take it as a local end of the universe... a flipped would be universal expansion, same rules of the inside out big bang one, tough, due local reference, also replicated outside in...

 I can't see the apple falling, I cannot see a single "curve" here only different sets of scales while the straight line is "trying" to reach infinity, never achieving, and returning to try again, at each rate the line is breaking and resetting itself, that would be at C...
 As if space reads the particle as a potential candidate and while trying to reach it, it misses due geometrical rules it should have derivative of it's own limitations, and as it misses, it sort of "slashes" over itself, creating a loose end(photon) that moves on, as light, if alone...
 while it's being updated to "return as a commodity", better to say, it's updating the trajectory to "try again". The "loose end" adds an atemporal extraction point (that would be photon/light) where it's converted to energy, if the electron or the heavy particle in question takes/traps it for itself, so it can "leak" it's own loop, as a sink filled with liquid that would transbord, but it's on the reverse, the sink would be volume and the hole the one poring liquid in, the hole can't change, so it may redistribute it's own tunneling effect, by adding multiples of itself till it can balance and sustain it's necessity, or the reason behind it... (I'm not into particles, but can see the way their work)
 Goes without saying that the electron on this view, automatically, by it's very existence, "inevitably" stimulates space to try to reach infinity and misses, the slashing effect creates a flat configuration (2d) particle while riding as a wave, and a "temporal vortex" while still on with the electron...
 Feels that photons are more like "layers" around the electron, spiraling around it, each with a specific frequency
  I'll try to link a picture or diagram of what I have in mind, may be subjective, for I'm still curious about golden ratio..
 Not good at math or geometry, only suggesting a scenario, for it may shade some light, some falling apples...

 As for the point, I do know that nothing falls, just digesting, for it's the correct way to go once one cannot explain surely why, or why not..
 The apple act into falling, but an illusion, derivative from the mass effect, not really useful if for causes, but perfect to explain the final result based on the consequence, make sense, works, it simple will not answer...

 Try think of this. Heavy particle, space takes it as infinity, a point of reference, a local target to it's expansive effect, a goal it, always must, fail to accomplish. It "fails", is a commodity term here, but the act was present, the probability is still there, the straight line of the filed possibility of reached infinity, and different from the linear one (2d) that rules all volume and is related with the expansion from big bang, this one is the same potential only on the outside in, the reverse scenario, the reverse math coexisting within the opposite one...
 Space expands on all direction, it may be a mathematical or geometrical cause or consequence to be so, if "gravity", is but an illusion effect due the suggested above, the same rules would be reversed, forcing the reference to behave also on all directions...

 Space makes the 3d configuration as a replica of ti's own expansive answer...

 I mean, if not clear:
 "WHAT would be the mathematical/geometrical "possibilities" if universal expansion was to reach the impossible edge of the universe, would it be forced to bend itself by splitting and multiplying volume, so to "turn around"and reach infinity again?
 and, what if when doing so, it was also accounting for "multiple infinity sources", would every rule be forced to (bend) themselves to accommodate the impossibility?

 If not clear, on this experiment, all indicates that (for space) each particle is the edge of the universe, infinity, so it is expanded over it, it fails, the act of trying to do so is constant, it then originates the probability wave, and the overcharged particle a lesser one so to siphon out the excessive energy/impossible amount of + energy... if it "can't' it's own configuration shifts into another particle, if it can it releases it as light/a loose end /interference point "slashed" taking a ride along the wave... Would that be possible?

 The closes infinity would have preference over the far, also the biggest infinity would also be preferred over the small. Think of a "conic dance" correlation in between multiple infinities, a smaller cone would always fit inside the biggest one.
 The reason may as well be all known ones, not questioning that... Only suggesting that time also may be born from the correlation in between multiple "ending of the expansion" points, each local reference as a universe of itself interacting with others(galaxies) as it's closer to the source it sort of funnels volumes compacting them at the same passe they get more dense, but only as temporal adjustment, not as a different space...
 Also seems to be an illusion, as if particles do almost the same thing as BH do with space.. Consider black hole as a big example, perhaps the loss of geometry, or the fact of being so small and so dense that "space" can no longer "physically reach" the singularity... As if universe was like multiple rain drops that were standing still until Black Holes started to "fall" apart from it all, dragging everything else behind their path..