Vortices in space time?

In your scenario, how would you interpret "differential velocities" with respect to spacetime for two objects passing each other in from opposite directions?

Also, from what direction to what direction would spacetime be "flowing?" Assuming the Universe is infinite in extent (the "Open" Universe case, as it seems Dark Energy is accelerating the expansion), the Universe has no "center." An "outward" spacetime flow would imply such a center - a central "source" as it were - mightn't it?

Another thing to consider: in this scenario, eddy currents in general tend toward turbulence, which tends to be chaotic. Physical evidence of such turbulence, if present, would be erratic orbital shapes, not the smooth circular and elliptical orbits we see. On much larger scales, such turbulence would distort the shapes of galaxies. Irregular galaxies exist, of course, but in this "eddy current" scenario we wouldn't see any galaxies - not a single one - having a regular, smooth shape in terms of its overall 'envelope'. Andromeda and the Whirlpool galaxy, both having a very common disk shape with a central bulge would not be seen. Even the orbits of our own Milky Way's stars about the galaxy's barycenter would tend to be erratic in a chaotic way.

Every scrap of observational evidence supports the idea of a "smooth," locally-flat spacetime. The presence of eddies - even if non-turbulent - would have different observational evidence; evidence that has not been seen (not yet, at any rate).

But as your post speaks of spacetime 'vortices,' probably the closest thing to a spacetime vortex would be due in part to an effect predicted by General Relativity called "frame dragging." Here a rotating mass drags spacetime around with it to an extent determined by the mass and density of the object. The effect should be quite pronounced around neutron stars, for instance, which are extremely dense (as dense as an atomic nucleus) and very compact (imagine 1.5 x mass of the Sun mashed into a sphere about the size of downtown Chicago.

One might imagine frame-dragging as something like this: picture for a moment straight pieces of string radiating outward from (what will shortly be) the equator of a ball embedded in a bowl of fairly stiff gelatin. The gelatin represents spacetime. An object falling toward the exact center of this ball, which we're imagining is a star, would follow one of these gravitational "strings." By the way, we're not speaking here of String Theory, which is something quite different. Quite different indeed!

Now twist (not continuously rotate) the ball a little in the plane of the strings. You'll see the strings warp in the direction of the twist, as if they're about to wrap around the ball. But because the strings and the ball are embedded in the gelatin, the warp of each string will have a curvature.

In the case of real stars and other masses, these gravitational "strings" radiate outward from all points on the surface, not just from equator. But the frame dragging is most pronounced at the equator and tapers to zero at the poles. As spacetime is four-dimensional, the venturi-shaped "dent" the mass makes in spacetime would tend to spiral-in toward the rotating mass - somewhat like water going down a drain. For a non-rotating mass the dent would be a stationary venturi-shaped gravitational funnel.

My two cents' worth.

-e

Since spacetime is moving in all possible directions at once and at the same speed, direction is irrelevant.Only motion thru spacetime is relevant for time-delay as speed increases.

The big bang had an initial point that it radiated out from, in all directions.If we "turn back the video" there should be a central starting point.

I have seen eddy currents form beautiful spirals, as well as chaotic forms.

With smooth, laminar flow, and a fixed object, the shedding of vortices is very regular and proportional to velocity. (There are many flow meters that use this principle to determine flow.)

If space time is smoothly flowing in all directions, spirals could be produced consistently.

On a time scale as short as our lives, or even the lifetimes of our entire species,we do not really know if the present shape of things will not break down and become chaotic on a large time frame.It takes over 200 milliion years for our galaxy to make one rotation.How can we say that it is really stable?We are only getting a short-exposure snap shot.We can never see the whole movie.We do not even know what is happening in the remote sections of our universe right now.Our information is yesterday's newspaper by the time we receive it.Millions or billions of years old.

If my little (river runs thru it) scenario plays out, then an object at high speed, in additiion to the well accepted time-dilation, would generate less gravity than when at rest.Probably totally wrong, but what if.....?

Thanks for your input, E!.I respect your knowledge and opinions very much.

an object at high speed, in additiion to the well accepted time-dilation, would generate less gravity than when at rest.

I picture what you say, however I would substitute mass for gravity. I have always been confused why mass increases with speed. I believe mass (infer gravity also) would reach 0 at the speed of light. Energy and mass are interchangable. Mass is simply energy moving slower than c. Light is our perception of energy moving at or faster than c.

I like to believe if I could obtain light speed, I would be 'floating' on the space time fabric, like a weightless canoe, that does not require breaking the surface tension of the river. It can travel with the water without distorting it.

This special 'floating' allows one to travel any spacial (3 dimensional) distance without experiencing time, it allows time and distance to be separate. At velocities less than c energy has mass, and experiences time and distance, without separation.

Mass has inertia, this inertia causes a distortion in the flowing space-time. Vorticies are an interesting aspect of the theory that I have never considered before. I realize conventional wisdom, does not feel there is a moving of the space-time fabric, but it is easier for me to understand it (mis-understand it) that way.

You wrote: "At velocities less than c energy has mass, and experiences time and distance, without separation."

Assuming this statement were true, we'd see the following:

1) A compressed spring would have more mass than when relaxed. The compression represents stored, potential energy; energy which is not moving at all. Likewise for charged vs uncharged batteries, etc.

2) Light travelling through any transparent medium whose index of refraction is greater than 1 would gain mass. The higher the index, the greater the mass. (Why might this be?)

3) Wires, coaxial cables, waveguides, optical fibers, etc, would all gain mass whilst carrying a signal. (Again, why?)

4) After travelling an arbitrary distance through space - be it a millimeter or a billion light years - a photon will arrive at its destination in exactly the same phase as when leaving its source, regardless of distance. (Why?)

-e

I just realized that it is impossible to describe all the dimensions in which one resides. For instance, If I were a square (not a far leap) and I existed in a 2 dimensional reality, I could not witness another square, I could only witness 1 side of all other objects, thus I lose 1 dimension of the total reality. So this means that if I can describe 3 dimensional objects, (I'm not a square anymore) I must be existing in at least 4 dimensions.

So forget what I said. Rather than representing the transition from energy to matter as a "slowing" of the energy, how about this: Matter (fundamental particles) exists as energy or mass, it alternates between the two states, faster than we can sample. When it is matter (with mass) in our dimensions it is energy (massless) in the 4th. A photon represents matter existing in our dimensions for the least possible time, that we can sample. More massive particles exist for longer periods in our dimensions and less in the 4th.

So the transition from energy to matter is more like a 'slowing' of the cycle, allowing us to experience the matter in our dimensions. If we figure out a way to look to close enough though, we may see it blinking.

Re. Number 4: I would like to ask: Is it even possible to measure the phase of a single photon more than once, in order to prove it is the same (or different) at 2 points in space?

I prefer a flowing space-time environment because it is clearer to me how warping occurs. I do not insist it is anything more than a theory, based purely on speculation- But I do enjoy debating it so please feel free to take my response and dissect it- No pain no gain.

Mevel123 wrote: "This special 'floating' allows one to travel any spacial (3 dimensional) distance without experiencing time, it allows time and distance to be separate. At velocities less than c energy has mass, and experiences time and distance, without separation."

In your scenario, above, there is no need to measure phase. By your definition time and distance separate at v = c and consequently the traveller does not experience the passage of time. Say I'm a photon and I leave the source with my E & B (or H) fields in a certain configuration (I am also an electromagnetic wave after all). As time does not pass for me in your scenario, my configuration doesn't change at all as such change depends on the passage of time. My configuration must be the same as when I arrive because I depart and arrive in the same instant.

As for measuring the phase of photons more than once, it's done all the time. Anti-refection coatings, for example, depend on destructive interference. Interference depends on relative phase.

-e

Here is where we disagree:

1. Compressing a spring does not 'add' energy to the spring, rather it activates the potential energy already built into the spring due to it's molecular make up and physical arrangement. Thus mass remains the same whether compressed or relaxed.

2. Regarding wires/cables- this represents power transmission. The energy is transmitted using physical interactions within the medium. (holes and electrons moving) it is not the same as energy through the ether. I feel the same applies for refraction of light. This is a conversion from energy through ether to energy through physical reality.

Re 4. I have read your post regarding reflective coatings, and appreciate you taking the time to straighten me out, but I still do not see how destructive interference qualifies as measuring a single photon's phase at two different locations. It sounds more like the photon is sacrificed (or at least altered) to measure it's phase, thus the same photon is not being measured twice.

I am far removed from my field when discussing such things as physics. This is educational to me, but probably only entertaining to you. I will be posting a new thread regarding energy, that hopefully will attract you, and others for some good responses. I want to word it properly before posting, so hopefully the headline will grab some attention and quick responses.

Thanks for the information, you forced me to read up on a few fundamentals, and that is always beneficial-thanks

Matter does seem to have a "grip" of sorts on spacetime.(Frame Dragging)This, I think, is because spacetime must "weave" it's way thru matter.Spacetime tries to reduce matter to the smallest surface area possible, and matter attempts to occupy as much volume as possible.The result is a sphere.Spacetime cannot flow freely thru all the intricate openings within matter, so it is delayed somewhat,and is "left behind" the rest of spacetime that is moving along at a constant speed.This creates a "dimple" in the spacetime field that we interpret as gravity.Matter interrupts the smooth flow of space time, much as a conductor distorts or breaks the magnetic lines of a magnetic field.The result, in the case of the magnet and conductor, is electrical current.The result, in the case of spacetime and matter, is gravity. IMHO

(exit 0)

HTRN

A further thought occured to me as I reviewed the feedback from my first posting: an analogy between gravity and magnetic fields.As I considered the similarities and differences, several things occured to me.If you have a moving magnetic field, and stationary conductors, the voltage varies with the speed of the field.(Compare this to gravity and a mass).The more massive the object in space the more "lines of spacetime" are broken or bent in a given time. Assuming that spacetime is moving at a constant speed (C), the more massive an object,the more the differential speed between spacetime and the object.If the object is moving, in any direction, the differential speed between the object and spacetime is less, time will pass slower for a clock on the object, compared to a stationary one.

I realize that gravity is very weak, compared to the other forces, but it seems to behave similarly if we consider space time as a dynamic, moving energy field analogous to magnetism, and mass as analogous to a conductor in that field.Instead of generating voltage, it "generates" gravity.

I realize this is a very simplistic view of something way over my level of knowledge, but it helps me to visualize it this way.