Image: Miracle Studios (www.miraclestudios.com)
In Brief
- In Albert Einstein’s theory of general relativity, gravity arises from spacetime being curved. Today, 90 years after Einstein developed the theory’s equations, physicists are still uncovering new surprises in them.
- For example, in a curved space, a body can seemingly defy basic physics and “swim” through a vacuum without needing to push on anything or be pushed by anything.
- Curved spacetime also allows a kind of gliding, in which a body can slow its fall even in a vacuum.
In a famous series of stories in the 1940s, physicist George Gamow related the adventures of one Mr. C.G.H. Tompkins, a humble bank clerk who had vivid dreams of worlds where strange physical phenomena intruded into everyday life. In one of these worlds, for instance, the speed of light was 15 kilometers per hour, putting the weird effects of Einstein's theory of special relativity on display if you so much as rode a bicycle.
Not long ago I figuratively encountered one of Mr. Tompkins's great grandsons, Mr. E. M. Everard, a philosopher and engineer who is carrying on his ancestor's tradition. He told me of an amazing experience he had involving some recently discovered aspects of Einstein's theory of general relativity, which I will share with you. His remarkable story is replete with curved spacetime, cats twisting in midair, an imperiled astronaut dog paddling through a vacuum to safety—and Isaac Newton perhaps spinning in his grave.
Already a Digital subscriber? Sign-in Now
If your institution has site license access, enter here.
See what we're tweeting about
68 Comments
Add CommentWow. Interesting ideas, but someone please introduce this author to an editor -- or maybe a shrink ray.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisFascinating stuff.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThis authors longwindyness could get him back to the ship faster than light. I fell asleep before I found out if this theory has been tested, and if it has, what space and time did the traveler go to?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe print article example demos a swimmer paddling across a sphere. The success of the paddling seems to depend on the swimmer's arms being able to curve longitudinally from north to south. But since a real swimmer would not be able to curve her arms to take advantage of the curvature (assuming mass does not change shape in space-time), then how would the paddling create real, forward movement?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisFANTASTIC!!!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThis reminds me of Einstein's thought experiments!
Great writing style, complex information in an easy to read and understand format, plus it's funny. The mark of a true master!
Now the doors this opens, very interesting. I knew that space time was curved by gravity (or at least I was TOLD that). I just never thought about the ramifications and possibilities of using those curves. Anybody got a surf board? :-)
Very interesting story; I'm happy to take the time to read these. Please consider not listening to the above comments about editors and such; it's these articles I look forward to reading.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThank you very much.
It is possible to move in space without reaction motor like rocket engine. Just research this: CIP engine of Robert Cook:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thishttp://www.ufocongressstore.com/servlet/the-406/Robert-Cook-Presents-The/Detail
interesting stuff. so according to what you say about space-time being curved like the earth could that make it possible that how wormholes are able transport us around space could they also transport us to and from parelel dimensions and creating a hole in the space-time curriculim and mixing up all parelel dimensions and alter the time curiculem.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisinteresting stuff. so according to what you say about space-time being curved like the earth could that make it possible that how wormholes are able transport us around space could they also transport us to and from parelel dimensions and creating a hole in the space-time curriculim and mixing up all parelel dimensions and alter the time curiculem.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI wonder how well the dynamics of this are worked out ... If the swimmer's tail goes off to the east a meter, how do you know their extended hands move a meter to the west? And the muscles of the swimmer to extend and retract their tail and hands are exerting forces ... I wonder if there is a well-defined dynamics in curved spacetime. If you can't have a well-defined center of mass, how do you know what would happen when the swimmer tries to swim?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAnd some spacetimes perhaps have a unique center of mass; perhaps they are close to spacetimes that don't. That would cause problems with his theory too, because if a swimmer is traveling with a non-infinitesimal speed in spacetime, and you perturb it a bit, you'd expect to perturb the swimmer's path just a little, not to abolish swimming completely.
Douglas Adams proved that a human could fly simply by falling toward the ground and missing the surface.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThere are those who claim that energy can be gained from levered pendulums, or other dual oscillator systems operating within our curved space-time environment. While the excess energy claims for such systems are generally considered fringe science, these systems can clearly perform useful mechanical advantage type work, at high efficiency, without gears, belts or hydraulics. A good example of such a system is the Milkovic Pendulum.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thishttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dvst47E5CvM
Given a flat space time, deposit a swimmer which produces it's own gravitational distortion.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisCan that swimmer exploit the curvature of spacetime that it produces to motion?
What is it's maximum possible velocity?
If a soliton working near fermi scales of length can swim through it's own strongly curved local gravity, this might provide a mechanism for quantization, as well as the origin of movement, momentum and the conservation of energy.
Einstein has it wrong. Try this idea. ----
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisUnification Theory ---- http://www.aclepd.com/universe.html ----
Thank you, ----
Robert Evan Howard ----
aclepd.com ----
aclepd@aclepd.com
Einstein has it wrong. Try this idea. ----
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisUnification Theory ---- http://www.aclepd.com/universe.html ----
Thank you, ----
Robert Evan Howard ----
aclepd.com ----
aclepd@aclepd.com
why would not spinning an object around, attached to a rope, then releasing it in the direction of the space ship once enough momentum was gained also serve to return the Astronaut to the ship
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisHuh? Could you clarify this?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"If a soliton working near fermi scales of length can swim through it's own strongly curved local gravity, this might provide a mechanism for quantization, as well as the origin of movement, momentum and the conservation of energy."
Good question, whether somebody could "swim" in spacetime that was distorted only by themselves.
Unless the spcatime is extremely curved, the effect would be negligible. For most massive objects, such as an average planet, at the surface gravitational field curvature, it would be in the order of 10E-22 m/s. (3.15E-15 m/year).
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisUnless the gravitational curvature is extreme, the effect would be negligible. For gravitational curvature at the surface of the earth, the speed would be of the order of
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this10E-22 m/s (3.15E-15 m/year, i.e. in one year you would cover the distance of approximately the diameter of an atomic nucleus).
This interesting highly speculative article agrees with the basic assumption of General Relativity that the spacetime continuum is something distinct from the gravitational mass embedded within it. Then where are the universal measuring rods of the presumed spacetime continuum? If they are derived a posteriori by measurements in this physical creation, where is the justification for raising them to a priori status to explain creation? This is boot strapping run amuck.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisLate in life Einstein doubted that physics could be based on continuous structures in which case, quote: my castle in the sky amounts to nothing but so does the rest of modern physics. The only alternative is a discontinuous and synchronous universe. This introduces a new methodology that defines the universal measuring rods of space and time relative to each atom a posteriori to creation. The synchronous projection of atoms themselves defines external linear space with respect to their spherical inner space. Light comes from within atomic processes and it DEFINES a specific linear distance with respect to each atom in each synchronous space frame. That is WHY the speed of light is universal. Where there is no light there is a black hole. A Primary Interval of Time is implicitly defined by the synchronous duration of each successive still frame projection with respect to the frequency of light, as in a cosmic holographic movie. Light (EM radiation) is the only activity in each space frame. Relative motions occur as atomic quantum jumps in relative position between space frames consistent with Plancks constant. Light comes to us as a series of discreet pulses in each integrated space-time frame, making it quantized. The integrated fabric of space-time has curvatures introduced by relative space-frame skipping associated with relative motions BUT this integrated fabric IS NOT an independent spacetime continuum.
The universally synchronous projection of atomic matter is consistent with Foucaults pendulum. The arc of its swings is constant with respect to the fixed stars thousands of light years distant, even though its swings are energized by gravitational attraction to Earth which rotates under it. Inertial velocity is thus distinct from synchronous gravitational mass. General Relativity has no explanation for this phenomenon. Gravity is associated with the primary universal projection of matter which defines space-time, not vice-versa. This means that swimming in spacetime can not work because the swimmer himself defines space-time.
See the website articled Gravity, Quantum Relativity, & System 3 at www.cosmic-mindreach.com. A direct transparent derivation of the Lorentz transformations results from a unique method of Historic Coordinates consistent with both Special and General Relativity as well as quantum mechanics. A new approach to astrophysics and cosmology necessarily follows.
If it worker for a swimmer, it should work for a particle that pulsates a certain way orthogonally to the direction of travel and pulsates in a different manner along its instantaneous travel vector which most closely approximate the curve of its local space.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe most interesting curved space around is near black holes and an infalling object does get distorted by tidal effects somewhat akin to the hypothesized motions of the swimmer. Hmmmm.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisDoesn't this violate conservation of momentum?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIt is obvious that spacetime is curved, and to propell through it does not require a rocketjet, but special manuevers. Perhaps if looking at fluid dynamics, one could see a parallel between the acceleration through space and water. In other words, what I am trying to point out is the possibility that you could "swim" through a space vaccum, in the same concept as you would through water...
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this...interesting, but obvious
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe speed of the swimmer would be dependant on how fast 'it' could cycle through these motions, along with the curvature of spacetime. Therefore even in spacetime with relatively little curvature it would be possible to move at a velocity which would be suitable for travel.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisif what you say is true you would cover about 0.1cm in about
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this1 year and like DVSKaz pointed out it would not be suitable
for travel unless there was some device that could create by
itself a fully extreme gravitational curve
if what you say is true you would cover about 0.1cm in about
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this1 year and like DVSKaz pointed out it would not be suitable
for travel unless there was some device that could create by
itself a fully extreme gravitational curve
I found this very interesting. It makes logical sense, because of space-times curves through gravity. It's just that I don't think it would ever be proven; the best place to expierement would be a dwarf, neutron star, and/or a black hole. And, as we all know, getting close enough to test this near any of those would crush a human being, and I haven't seen any expendable aliens swimming around lately. Interseting, but definatly staying in the theory state for a long while. :)
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisOK, so I have a question. In the first example, "With the laser beam serving as a guide, he jetted straight out 100 meters." If he's in the vacuum of space, how precisely did he use the laser beam as a guide? In a vacuum, nothing is scattering... or back-scattering... the photons. They go happily on their way away from the astronaut and never back to his eyes. Hmmmm...
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAlso, if the astronaut is stranded in space (the second example), he could use photons to send him back to his ship. Just point the laser pointer away from the ship and the ejected photons will serve as a thrust. OK, not much thrust... and perhaps not enough to beat "swimming"... but it's a thrust.
Gamow always got the physics right, even if some of the constants were altered.
Small problem, mass produces dimples, not pimples. That is, the curvature is negative, not positive. One result of positive curvature would be objects falling away from each other. It is the negative curvature of space-time caused by mass that results in objects falling towards each other.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisA better analogy of the mass related curvature of space-time is the inner surface of a sphere, not the outer surface. Gives one a more accurate picture of what's going on.
Interesting. Can this technique result in antigravity effects? How can one produce relativistic motion to effectively travel in this way?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI asked someone the interesting question of whether somebody can "swim" in self-curved spacetime, and I got an interesting answer, which I don't understand.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisBut here it is: maybe somebody in Goedel's rotating universe could "swim" in self-curved spacetime.
is this theory??
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this:where'm ah go'n?
In the August 2009 edition there is an article entitled: "Adventures in Curved Spacetime" by Eduardo Gueron. It is stated that, due to the curvature of space-time, it is possible to repeatedly extend the dimensions of an object (the scenario in the article uses a cat with extreme mass distribution characteristics) to change the objects center of mass. And, by doing so, it is claimed that a form of "swimming" is possible in which the object can change position along some brane in a non-Euclidean geometry. However, I find a difficulty in the accelerations at different stages: wouldn't forces involved in extending portions of the object (the cats arms and legs) cause a 'backward' motion that would counteract any forward motion when these appendages are subsequently retracted? In other words, with the combined extension and retraction, would this not cancel out any net motion in any direction?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIn the August 2009 edition there is an article entitled: "Adventures in Curved Spacetime" by Eduardo Gueron. It is stated that, due to the curvature of space-time, it is possible to repeatedly extend the dimensions of an object (the scenario in the article uses a cat with extreme mass distribution characteristics) to change the objects center of mass. And, by doing so, it is claimed that a form of "swimming" is possible in which the object can change position along some brane in a non-Euclidean geometry. However, I find a difficulty in the accelerations at different stages: wouldn't forces involved in extending portions of the object (the cats arms and legs) cause a 'backward' motion that would counteract any forward motion when these appendages are subsequently retracted? In other words, with the combined extension and retraction, would this not cancel out any net motion in any direction?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisBeing educated beyond your intelligence can cause strange nightmares.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisHmm, at first glance it seems like someone in a flat 3-space describing a curved space and its consequences which may not be the same as actually being in a curved space. Need to see some more math here.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThis article, as many on scientific american, is blatently wrong. If true, this would violate the conservation of energy, or at least somehow "steal" energy from the curvature of space time. The fundamental error here is observer bias. You are thinking that there are 2 tensors, one curved, one not curved, and the motion that you see as occuring through "swimming" occurs in "flat space." In other words, to the actual Spaceman, space is NOT curved.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThis is best explained by an analogy to a black hole. For the moment, disregard being ripped apart by a black hole. Let us say that, from a far distance, you measure the diameter of a black hole's event horison to be 500km. Thus, the distance to the center is 250km in "flat space." Now assume you are standing on the event horison and head towards the center of the black hole. Assume that you have already calculated the mass of the black hole and therefore can calculate how long it will take you to get to the center from 250km. However, while going towards the center (assuming you did the proper lorentz transformation etc. to account for the time dilation) you would find that the actual amount of time to get to the center would be greater because the distance to the center from the event horison in the curved-space time is actually greater than what you measured in "flat" space. In other words, if you live in curved space time, it doesn't look "curved" to you, even though, with a big enough triangle, you could see that it was in fact curved.
Your LOCAL center of mass does not move. If you do a PROPER transformation to flat-space, you would also see that your center of mass would NOT change. However, if you do NOT do a proper transformation, and instead move the objects in "curved" space and then "switch" it to flat space, it will APPEAR that the center of mass changed. However, all you did was an improper transformation, assuming data points in "curved" space are the same as in "flat" space. Does the author know Linear Algebra? I suggest you show some math here on how to transform the datapoints to compute the "center" of mass. Your suggestion violates conservation of energy. This is quack science.
My suggestion about the speed of light is a bit different.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIn my opinion we have a constant speed trough spacetime.
On this youtube animation I try to explain this idea.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6Kff8EBJ3Qo
My question is then..
Do we have a speed trough the 4 dimensional spacetime?
Best regards,
Rudolfhendriques
Mr Everard could have swam against time and made it back to the air-lock before he left, except that in time there is no center of gravity, because his head is not 2 seconds away from his feet In curved time, this may be different,a very nice article by Eduardo Gueron
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this(...Now, as a long-retired [and, therefore, quite obsolete] engineer And machine designer, I have created a preliminary design [using CAD] of a mechanical device that mimics/emulates the "swimmer" mentioned in the linked article. The difference is that the motorized "motions" are extremely rapid. This creates a "thrust" that might be considered an antigravity device, at least in microgravity, that would achieve a very high V before relativistic effects become pronounced. Once I build the device and test it on a sensitive scale in a local vacuum, I will post the results here and elsewhere.... 'Nuf said. Carry on, folks.)
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this(...Now, as a long-retired [and, therefore, quite obsolete] engineer And machine designer, I have created a preliminary design [using CAD] of a mechanical device that mimics/emulates the "swimmer" mentioned in the linked article. The difference is that the motorized "motions" are extremely rapid. This creates a "thrust" that might be considered an antigravity device, at least in microgravity, that would achieve a very high V before relativistic effects become pronounced. Once I build the device and test it on a sensitive scale in a local vacuum, I will post the results here and elsewhere.... 'Nuf said. Carry on, folks.)
Ps. since I am old and of ill health, I urge others to also build a similar device and test it on a sensitive scale.
To Poplar Science:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI would like to write about the article Adventures In Curved Space By Eduardo Gueron.
I finally found an article to put in writing my understanding of the universe. Ever since I watched a science video in the 70's showing someone putting dots on a balloon and then blowing it up to show the expanding universe, I understood that the universe is curved. I see that as telescopes look farther into space, the curvature of space distorts the apparent distance. I am one who thinks that space curvature influents increased redshift. It is impossible for a star 10 to 50 times the mass of our star to be flying through space at near the speed of light. Many astronomy articles have claimed that stars are flying through space much faster closer to the edge of the observed universe.
Please consider the earth as three dimensions. If I stand on a mountain then I am plus elevation 5 to 10 thousand feet looking out on a valley. If I am at the bottom of Death Valley, I am at minus elevation. In geometry and calculus we learn about the Z axis.
It interesting that there are so many articles about warped space but there are none who understand the real meaning. Yes gravity can be thought of as fabric between different gravity centers.
Brad Philpott
I think Larkalt on 7/21 is on the right path. The physics of this thought experiment are dependent on the there being flat spacetime within the regions defined by the body and distorted spacetime outside that region. However, the body exists within spacetime; it does not define its own. So, when the arms move 1 m west; they do so within the region were spacetime is compressed. A meter there is 'shorter' than a meter near the equator; so, when the arms are retracted, they are still only a meter forward. It is not clear that a body existing in curved spacetime can be aware of the curvature.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThough, you still might be able to do interesting things with orbital mechanics and altitude modifications.
I'm thinking of the gravitational lens effect. Within the region where the light is bent from our perspective, it still appears straight to an observer within it.
bernsten69, I started skipping articles after a few repetitions of the same theme; you have already said much the same thing that I did.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisBernsten69, I am sorry but you did not understand the article. First: There is no conservation of energy there, is there any problem with this? When we move our arms, we lose mechanical energy (classical mechanics).
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAbout the motion of center of mass: Please imagine a Newtonian Curved Space (not spacetime). Right cyclic motions allow you to move there (see the Avron example or the one presented at Wisdom�s paper). It is not a problem of proper transformation. Do not be arrogant, try to understand before...
Eduardo Gueron, along with Stephen Hawking, is acclaimed in The Omniverse Almanac as being a scientist thinking outside the box.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisEduardo Gueron is listed alongside Stephen Hawking in The Omniverse Almanac, as being one of the few living scientists currently thinking outside of the box...
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisNothing to see here—that is, nothing new here. It's sheer gravity and there's no need for GR. Gravital "swimming" is a manifold slingshot.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisBesides, the astronaýt and craft are weihtly and would eventually drift back together.
Jokunen, Cook's engine is at best a paddlewheel and at worst a fan.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thislarkalt, a swimmer has no their, retard.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisMITDGreenb, fotonic thrust is bunk unless there is matter to absorb and react against. In a solar sail, this would be the sail. So you'd have to thrust against solar wind and dust, which is lame.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisvendicar9, shit-head, it's -> its
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWeir, a bunch of non-sequiturs and bullshit
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAlan Kellogg, dolt, the inside or outside of a ball is still positive curvature; a saddle is negative. One could mock the former between two heavy bodies.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisesaether, look at the pathwidths.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe article was a journey of fantasy. The cures of space time would not make a significant difference to person in space during their day to day activities.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSorry for the spelling error. It should read as curves of space and time rather than cures of space.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisLysdexia --
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this1) Your comment proves my first point: that there's nothing to reflect or scatter the beam in the first example in the article.
2) If photonic thrust requires something to reflect it, then you can still use the pointer. Specifically, switch it on and point it at the ship. Then put the astronaut into the beam. (This is clearly possible since he's holding the pointer.) Then let go. The beam will reflect off the astronaut and thrust him toward the ship as if he were a solar sail. The remaining argument would then be if there is a counter-thrust on the pointer or not. This is left as an exercise for the reader since, regardless, there is a thrust on the astronaut.
I think this is a great article. It shows how far scientists have come in the way they describe science - instead feeling forced to describe his insights in neutral numbers, Gueron describes his ideas in an exuberant, complex and ultimately understandable way.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI think this article shows how far scientists have come in describing findings and insights through their research. Instead of using "neutral" numbers and equations, Gueron uses exuberant, interesting metaphors that are ultimately understandable - and fun.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisplease let me know what is the exact reference of john wheeler's article by the title of "curved empty space-time as the building material of the physical world" which is the report of a speech he gave in france in 1960(or 61 sorry i'm not sure);
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thishere's my email:
manou_manouchehri@yahoo.com
please let me know the exact reference of the article by john wheeler with the title "curved empty space-time as the building material of the physical world" which is the report of a speech he gave in france in 1960(or61 sorry i don't remember)
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisOn The Origin And Nature Of Cosmic Evolution
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIt Is Space-Distance, Not Space-Time
Life's Is A Ubiquitous Evolution Mode
The mode of a gene's response to organism-culture's feedback signal, i.e. "replicate without change" or "replicate with change" in case of proven augmented energy constrainment by the offspring, is the mode of Life's normal evolution, which is the mode of evolution universally.
Genes' Expression Modification
http://www.the-scientist.com/community/posts/list/200/122.page#3649
Again, the scope of of genes lifehood is not just the lifehood of genes.
Genes, and Life in general, are but one of the forms of mass, of constrained energy formats. The lifehood of genes is the foundation of the subject of evolutionary biology, which is a major component of the subject of life, which is a minute component of the subject of evolution of the universe, which is the subject for which humanity seeks a unified field theory.
Since the big-bang resolution of E/m superposition ALL the energy of the universe is destined for the galactic clusters expansion plus laying down of the gravity natrix for the eventual cosmic impansion, and ALL the mass is destined to revert to energy for these ends. The mass-to-energy reversion is resisted by the mass, this resistance being the archtype of selection for survival by all materials, including life. This resistance is due, exciting to us, to the fact that - as we know from everyday experience - formation of mass requires investment of energy, that dissipates when the mass disintegrates. And as we also know from everyday experience all energy forms other than gravity end up eventually as gravity energy. This is expected since ALL the contents of the universe are manifestations of the gravity energy freed at Inflation.
And again, a unified field theory is sought since unlike the evergrowing list of specific science/technology divisions drawn by the "scientists" trade-unions like the AAAS, the universe and Earth evolve as an integrated intertwined interrelated tangled whole and not as a collection of individual divisions.
Dov Henis
(Comments From The 22nd Century)
Updated Life's Manifest May 2009
http://www.the-scientist.com/community/posts/list/140/122.page#2321
Implications Of E=Total[m(1 + D)]
http://www.the-scientist.com/community/posts/list/180/122.page#3108
On The Origin And Nature Of Cosmic Evolution
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIt Is Space-Distance, Not Space-Time
Life's Is A Ubiquitous Evolution Mode
The mode of a gene's response to organism-culture's feedback signal, i.e. "replicate without change" or "replicate with change" in case of proven augmented energy constrainment by the offspring, is the mode of Life's normal evolution, which is the mode of evolution universally.
Genes' Expression Modification
http://www.the-scientist.com/community/posts/list/200/122.page#3649
Again, the scope of of genes lifehood is not just the lifehood of genes.
Genes, and Life in general, are but one of the forms of mass, of constrained energy formats. The lifehood of genes is the foundation of the subject of evolutionary biology, which is a major component of the subject of life, which is a minute component of the subject of evolution of the universe, which is the subject for which humanity seeks a unified field theory.
Since the big-bang resolution of E/m superposition ALL the energy of the universe is destined for the galactic clusters expansion plus laying down of the gravity natrix for the eventual cosmic impansion, and ALL the mass is destined to revert to energy for these ends. The mass-to-energy reversion is resisted by the mass, this resistance being the archtype of selection for survival by all materials, including life. This resistance is due, exciting to us, to the fact that - as we know from everyday experience - formation of mass requires investment of energy, that dissipates when the mass disintegrates. And as we also know from everyday experience all energy forms other than gravity end up eventually as gravity energy. This is expected since ALL the contents of the universe are manifestations of the gravity energy freed at Inflation.
And again, a unified field theory is sought since unlike the evergrowing list of specific science/technology divisions drawn by the "scientists" trade-unions like the AAAS, the universe and Earth evolve as an integrated intertwined interrelated tangled whole and not as a collection of individual divisions.
Dov Henis
(Comments From The 22nd Century)
Updated Life's Manifest May 2009
http://www.the-scientist.com/community/posts/list/140/122.page#2321
Implications Of E=Total[m(1 + D)]
http://www.the-scientist.com/community/posts/list/180/122.page#3108
The universe is a disturbed field of pure energy seeking equilibrium ---- I think.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisMaybe the biggest surprise is that there could be other reasons for the Einstein results.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this