4 ms·

Are you familiar with the equations? I'm not prepared to simply take your word for it. In short, this seems to say the exact opposite of your claim: https://en

Are you familiar with the equations? I'm not prepared to simply take your word for it. In short, this seems to say the exact opposite of your claim: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dust_solution https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dust_solution

pwatsonwailes 2y ago
You're on the wrong thing there. I could be wrong but I think you're outside your field on this one.
- ganzuul 2y ago
  It says that spacetime exists as an interaction of gravity alone. This implies that there is no other frame of reference in this type of solution to GR. i.e. without mass there is no time in such a universe. Not a new idea. > I could be wrong but I think you're outside your field on this one. And in contrast what would that make of you?? I'm saying that if there in some point in the future (because we can see it now) is sufficient mass density in the region of space of that big ring, and it is rotating, we tick every box we know of to theoretically allow for an eternal circle. "Engineering" it would mean that someone wanted some type of eternal existence, which is the profound idea at play here. Engineering things without the technology to manufacture it happens all the time. Just because we can't imagine how to build it does not mean we can't calculate if it could exist.
qsi 2y ago
Where in the Wikipedia page does it seem say so? I can't find anything relevant but then again I don't understand all of it.
- ganzuul 2y ago
  > A perfect and pressureless fluid can be interpreted as a model of a configuration of dust particles that locally move in concert and interact with each other only gravitationally, from which the name is derived. That "only" is important but unintuitive. It means space and time can not be separated from mass.
  - nyssos 2y ago
    It absolutely does not. "Interact with each other only gravitationally" has its plain and ordinary meaning: we're ignoring other interactions. No charge, no collisions, no radiation, etc.
  - NemoNobody 2y ago
    Are you trying to say the ring is proof that something assembled the stars as such to engineer an eternal circle, intentionally - the intent being the profound thing? Light travels very fast but space is very big, so the light from stars we see is very old - some of the lights have outlived their stars, so I assume you meant the past but tbh I'm unsure
deleted 2y ago
[deleted]

pwatsonwailes 2y ago

You're on the wrong thing there. I could be wrong but I think you're outside your field on this one.

ganzuul 2y ago
It says that spacetime exists as an interaction of gravity alone. This implies that there is no other frame of reference in this type of solution to GR. i.e. without mass there is no time in such a universe. Not a new idea. > I could be wrong but I think you're outside your field on this one. And in contrast what would that make of you?? I'm saying that if there in some point in the future (because we can see it now) is sufficient mass density in the region of space of that big ring, and it is rotating, we tick every box we know of to theoretically allow for an eternal circle. "Engineering" it would mean that someone wanted some type of eternal existence, which is the profound idea at play here. Engineering things without the technology to manufacture it happens all the time. Just because we can't imagine how to build it does not mean we can't calculate if it could exist.

qsi 2y ago

Where in the Wikipedia page does it seem say so? I can't find anything relevant but then again I don't understand all of it.

ganzuul 2y ago
> A perfect and pressureless fluid can be interpreted as a model of a configuration of dust particles that locally move in concert and interact with each other only gravitationally, from which the name is derived. That "only" is important but unintuitive. It means space and time can not be separated from mass.
- nyssos 2y ago
  It absolutely does not. "Interact with each other only gravitationally" has its plain and ordinary meaning: we're ignoring other interactions. No charge, no collisions, no radiation, etc.
- NemoNobody 2y ago
  Are you trying to say the ring is proof that something assembled the stars as such to engineer an eternal circle, intentionally - the intent being the profound thing? Light travels very fast but space is very big, so the light from stars we see is very old - some of the lights have outlived their stars, so I assume you meant the past but tbh I'm unsure

deleted 2y ago

[deleted]