M-Theory is a theory which 'combines' the five superstring theories

[the blob inc]

i think vectors are wrong

 

[janusz]

It isn't the curvature of the Earth (that sphere we live on) that makes the acceleration, it's the curvature of the spacetime near the earth. This makes the shortest path for the Kg. of sugar curved (it's just straight down in 3-space, but curved when you include the time dimension, which is experienced in 3-space as acceleration). And aren't your kids right? What we want from a Kg. of sugar is a certain amount of sweetenig power, not what it shows on a spring scale. This is why the metric Kg is better than the avoirdupois pound; it is a measure of mass, which is the same on the Earth, Moon, and Jupiter, and even in free fall, while the pound is a measure of force which is not constant even on Earth (lighter at the equater than at the poles due to centrifugal force).
So,where the curvature of Earth starts? I meant something else,spacetime as the entity,as the third observer.I have given this primitive example to form my question about space as a frame not a background...



The atom in its own rest frame does not notice any dilation effects. Its physics is just as good as some observer who sees it as traveling fast. All inertial frames see the same physics internally, is one of the two postulates of relativity.

And the relativistic effect on length is to shrink it. If two observers see each other moving with 86% of the speed of light, they will measure each other's lengths as half of their own.

And again,the spacetime as the third observer supplying the mater of framing of dimension and in the case of accelerating atom having not enough power to push the time into the reality of the atom.For the spacetime is it atom stretched half way trough Galaxy?
Thank You very much for your time .

 

[CJames]

As I recall, the idea of the big bang came from the observation that the universe we can see is expanding. It seems logical that if you could follow the paths of all the particles in the universe back in time, you would find that they had a common origin, a single point, at which space and time all the universe we know occupied a singularity. It isn't practical to actually follow all the particles back in time, but we can do calculations to show what might result.

There was some argument at first about whether the particles would actually come to a singularity. Maybe they just came into some close region of points, not actually a single point. But IIRC this argument was resolved in favor of the singularity. Gravitational forces would become immense, and no surface irregularities could endure. The universe, run backwards, would have to collapse into a perfect sphere, which would then have to collapse into a single point.

There are two definitions here of singuarity. Basically a singularity is just something that starts pumping out infinities. Physicists don't like singularities and usually interpret them as meaning something isn't quite complete, as do pretty much all other sciences.

In any case as I know it the current model of cosmology is something like this. The universe is infinite in space and time. That is, it will never collapse again, and it has no measureable size. I don't think this is totally confirmed, but I was under the impression that measurements of the cosmic background radiation had lead to this conclusion. The singularity that the universe supposedly sprang from, which is ultimately something that needs to be explained away, is infinite in size and density, rather than infinitely small and infinitely dense.

On the other hand, it is still possible that the universe is closed and will eventually collapse again. In this case the original singularity was in fact a point. However do NOT think of the universe after this as being spherical. The universe has no center and no edge. Instead, think of this model of the universe as though it were the SURFACE of a balloon, except 3-dimensional rather than 2-dimensional. I realize some of this may be over your head and for that I appologize.