What if Gravity is gateway to the 4th or 5th dimension?

[Ethnic Vagina Finder]

And black holes represent gravity ripping a hole in the 3rd dimension giving access to the 4th?

Gravity basically connects the 3rd dimension to the 4th, kind like a one dimensional plain connects to the third dimension.

So a black hole is the closest thing to gaining access to the 4th dimension.

 

[NZA]

keep in mind i come from a place with a terrible public education system, but i dont think dimensions are places to access. they are just layers of reality. your brain cant adequately handle 4D, so technology and math have to help give you a glimpse. also, black holes will simply kill you by ripping you into very small pieces

 

[null]

keep in mind i come from a place with a terrible public education system, but i dont think dimensions are places to access.

1D is within 2D and 2D is within 3D and 3D is within 4D.

breh means to move in the 4th dimension to and/or within a different 3D slice.

black holes will simply kill you by ripping you into very small pieces

not true all of the time.

Humans Can Safely Fall Into a Black Hole This One Way, Physicists Say - IGN

A human can safely fall into a black hole under the right conditions, but there's no coming back.

www.ign.com

 

[Ethnic Vagina Finder]

1D is within 2D and 2D is within 3D and 3D is within 4D.

breh means to move in the 4th dimension to and/or within a different 3D slice.



not true all of the time.

Humans Can Safely Fall Into a Black Hole This One Way, Physicists Say - IGN

A human can safely fall into a black hole under the right conditions, but there's no coming back.

www.ign.com

And gravity is something we can only detect. We don’t know what if actually is. Gravity is the result of mass, but dark matter/energy also causes gravity but it’s invisible.

The inside of black holes is where our math doesn’t make since anymore so one could assume that’s where the 4th dimension starts. Anything with mass causes gravity, but it’s not enough to punch through to the 4th dimension. Space/Time is part of the third dimension and gravity bends and distorts it with ease.

 

[Amo Husserl]

If it is a gateway, it may be a meta-reality where the irrational could be better understood and call for another branch of logic to be developed to make sense of it. Assuming the light that passes into a black hole is used on the other side, what you see may be highly disturbing if it is a tangible meta-reality.

 

[null]

sit down and listen for a few mins

And gravity is something we can only detect. We don’t know what if actually is.

Gravity is the result of mass

gravity is the result of deformed spacetime.

gravity is caused by the higgs field and the higgs field is not dependent on mass.

the missing piece of the puzzle is the gravitational force particle i.e. the mediator aka the graviton.

the graviton is still theoretical and has not been observed.

"In theories of quantum gravity, the graviton is the hypothetical quantum of gravity, an elementary particle that mediates the force of gravitational interaction."

Graviton - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

that is the bit we do not "know"

but dark matter/energy also causes gravity but it’s invisible.

nope.

dark matter and dark energy are very different things.

dark matter is the proposed answer to observed gravitational effects within the large scale structure of space.

it is far from conclusive.

"Dark matter is a hypothetical form of matter thought to account for approximately 85% of the matter in the universe."

Dark matter - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

dark energy is the repulsive force that is accelerating the expansion of the universe - i.e. einstein's "universal constant".

it has a similar name but is not related to dark matter in anything like the way bosonic matter is related to energy.

"Without introducing a new form of energy, there was no way to explain how scientists could measure an accelerating universe. Since the 1990s, dark energy has been the most accepted premise to account for the accelerated expansion."

Dark energy - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

The inside of black holes is where our math doesn’t make since anymore

nope. our notions of causality start to break down at the point of the event horizon.

our physics breaks down at the sigularity or as we approach it.

so one could assume that’s where the 4th dimension starts.

er .... what ... ?

Anything with mass causes gravity, but it’s not enough to punch through to the 4th dimension. Space/Time is part of the third dimension and gravity bends and distorts it with ease.

space/time has 4 dimensions. 3 of space and 1 of time.

mass distorts spacetime.

gravity effects are just straight movement through distorted spacetime.

 

[Ethnic Vagina Finder]

sit down and listen for a few mins



gravity is the result of deformed spacetime.

gravity is caused by the higgs field and the higgs field is not dependent on mass.

the missing piece of the puzzle is the gravitational force particle i.e. the mediator aka the graviton.

the graviton is still theoretical and has not been observed.

"In theories of quantum gravity, the graviton is the hypothetical quantum of gravity, an elementary particle that mediates the force of gravitational interaction."

Graviton - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

that is the bit we do not "know"



nope.

dark matter and dark energy are very different things.

dark matter is the proposed answer to observed gravitational effects within the large scale structure of space.

it is far from conclusive.

"Dark matter is a hypothetical form of matter thought to account for approximately 85% of the matter in the universe."

Dark matter - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

dark energy is the repulsive force that is accelerating the expansion of the universe - i.e. einstein's "universal constant".

it has a similar name but is not related to dark matter in anything like the way bosonic matter is related to energy.

"Without introducing a new form of energy, there was no way to explain how scientists could measure an accelerating universe. Since the 1990s, dark energy has been the most accepted premise to account for the accelerated expansion."

Dark energy - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

nope. our notions of causality start to break down at the point of the event horizon.

our physics breaks down at the sigularity or as we approach it.




er .... what ... ?



space/time has 4 dimensions. 3 of space and 1 of time.

mass distorts spacetime.

gravity effects are just straight movement through distorted spacetime.

Everything you just typed is theoretical.


For all we know, black holes are gateways to alternate universes. The “big bang” being the other side of another massive black hole.

 

[null]

Everything you just typed is theoretical.

that depends on what you mean by theory ... as those things are the common accepted truths in the best universities in the land.

if i stated something as "theory-fact" when it isn't just quote it and i'll have a look.

For all we know, black holes are gateways to alternate universes. The “big bang” being the other side of another massive black hole.

i never said anything about the other side of black holes.

the singularity is in the center. the event horizon visible to us in on our side.

not one word said in my text about the other side.

i mainly corrected your inaccuracies.

in a nice way at that so ...

 

[Professor Emeritus]

space/time has 4 dimensions. 3 of space and 1 of time.

That we know of. Many (unproven) theories suggest additional dimensions of space. If these indeed exist and are proven, they would likely be referred to as the 4th/5th/6th etc. dimensions and time would be kicked to the last.

 

[NZA]

LOL

 

[Propaganda]

That we know of. Many (unproven) theories suggest additional dimensions of space. If these indeed exist and are proven, they would likely be referred to as the 4th/5th/6th etc. dimensions and time would be kicked to the last.

string theory used to have the juice out there. haven't heard much on that front for a while now that i'm thinking about it.

 

[Professor Emeritus]

string theory used to have the juice out there. haven't heard much on that front for a while now that i'm thinking about it.

There were issues with string theory that caused a lot of people to transition to brane theory, which is basically two-dimensional string theory (working with 2d branes instead of 1d strings). But it does feel like as a hot topic in physics brane theory has receded quite a bit as well. Not that I really know, I haven't been in those spaces in a long time.


While I'd be stupid to dismiss it outright, I was never a fan of the entire way by which string/brane theory was developed. It always seemed to me to be a contrived model that did a lot more to merely create mathematical fits to what we already know rather than open up new information about reality. Every time real physicists discovered something new the string theorists would alter the strings to fit the new, but their strings never managed to correctly predict anything about reality that the other physicists hadn't discovered yet. It would be like making an incredibly complex math equation with hundreds of terms that perfectly described Giannis's game-to-game point totals over his entire career, but every time Giannis played a new game, you had to change the equation to fit the new info cause it hadn't managed to correctly predict that new information. Eventually you'd just have to admit that your model was an arbitrary fit and had nothing to do with the actual mechanics of Giannis's game.

That being said, the fact that some string theories required multiple additional dimensions to work was always cool (what was it, 11 or 23?), and opened my mind at least to the possibility of additional hidden dimensions somehow being folded into the reality we know.

 

[null]

That we know of. Many (unproven) theories suggest additional dimensions of space. If these indeed exist and are proven, they would likely be referred to as the 4th/5th/6th etc. dimensions and time would be kicked to the last.

that true. but theories are of different strengths in the scientific sense.

4D space-time is currently broadly accepted as being our current "truth".

 

[null]

There were issues with string theory that caused a lot of people to transition to brane theory, which is basically two-dimensional string theory (working with 2d branes instead of 1d strings). But it does feel like as a hot topic in physics brane theory has receded quite a bit as well. Not that I really know, I haven't been in those spaces in a long time.


While I'd be stupid to dismiss it outright, I was never a fan of the entire way by which string/brane theory was developed. It always seemed to me to be a contrived model that did a lot more to merely create mathematical fits to what we already know rather than open up new information about reality. Every time real physicists

two of the great minds behind string theory are leonard susskind (stanford) and edward witten (princeton) and they are two of the greatest living physicists. susskind is a brash man and a fighter. if he heard you call him that he would probably bop you on the nose.

here he is teaching real physics.



IIRC witten is responsible for brane theory.

witten (unlike most physicists) also happens to be one of the greastest living mathematicians.

in other words they are both pretty real.

discovered something new the string theorists would alter the strings to fit the new, but their strings never managed to correctly predict anything about reality that the other physicists hadn't discovered yet. It would be like making an incredibly complex math equation with hundreds of terms that perfectly described Giannis's game-to-game point totals over his entire career, but every time Giannis played a new game, you had to change the equation to fit the new info cause it hadn't managed to correctly predict that new information. Eventually you'd just have to admit that your model was an arbitrary fit and had nothing to do with the actual mechanics of Giannis's game.

traditional scientific method would say that their findings have to i. be falsifiable and their model needs to ii. have predictive power.

i remember seeing arguments that string theory conforms to both of these to some degree.

i can see ii. but not how it can be directly tested.

 

[Professor Emeritus]

two of the great minds behind string theory are leonard susskind (stanford) and edward witten (princeton) and they are two of the greatest living physicists. susskind is a brash man and a fighter. if he heard you call him that he would probably bop you on the nose.

here he is teaching real physics.

IIRC witten is responsible for brane theory.

witten (unlike most physicists) also happens to be one of the greastest living mathematicians.

in other words they are both pretty real.

Quite bright, certainly, and Susskind in particular has the confidence of an evangelist in his theories.

I personally don't have nearly the juice to go after them

traditional scientific method would say that their findings have to i. be falsifiable and their model needs to ii. have predictive power.

i remember seeing arguments that string theory conforms to both of these to some degree.

i can see ii. but not how it can be directly tested.

From what I understand, "i" is still not true and "ii" is possible but has never succeeded. Then again I probably haven't looked for an update in 20 years....not that I've heard they've given me any reason to.