0beron wrote:All put behind us and not a problem. In a way my initial post countering you was a little dismissive, though I tried to keep it factual rather than combative (and apparently failed). So I'm also sorry for coming off as dismissive and rude, it wasn't my intent (in fact, generally speaking I like a lot of what you post).
Anyway, if I may be so bold as to say...."gravity" discussion closed! haha. Water under the bridge as far as I'm concerned, and since it is unrelated we can leave it as that.
Thank you. I should probably quite while I'm ahead, but....
BLANDCorporatio wrote:This looks somewhat confusing to me. Do you mean an actual straight line, do you need to observe anything beside an exterior "unexplained" constant force to be able to decide you're either under gravity or under acceleration, would "inertial" observers assume there is no gravity acting on them or anything else? Are you referring to the fact that the weighlessness of space is actually free-fall?
The classical interpretation of General Relativity is that gravity changes the metric, which determines the shape of space(-time), which is a fancy way of saying that it determines what the shortest paths are. The idea has much older roots than Einstein, but that's another rant.
...you know the saying, "Keep silent and world thinks you're a fool. Speak and remove all doubt." You basically answered your question. I was refering to objects taking the shortest, I used the term straight
, route, and what we perceive as gravity being the force acting on us that prevents us from doing the same, rendering the observer uninertial. Gravity curves space, the geometry of space becomes non-Euclidian, parallel lines meet. Objects move in the straighest possible
path. It's like flying from New York to London, you flight "straight" but the curviture of the Earth will not allow it, so you actually travel a great circle route. I phrased it poorly...again. I'm probably still phrasing it poorly.
BLANDCorporatio wrote:Now this is what confuses me. My understanding was, the more (Sun-like) matter, the more spacetime curves in on itself and the universe becomes "closed", and would undergo a crunch sometime in the futute. Last I checked, the history of the ideas was, initially a crunch was hypothesized, then it was discovered there isn't enough matter to allow this, then the mysterious repelling force was observed.
So you're saying, the default of spacetime is, well, hyperbolic, "wide-open", with (Sun-like) matter pulling on itself attempting to close it in, but only meeting it half-way at flatness being the first hypothesis. But then it turned out there's not enough of that to flatten it. Ok, but then how would a pushing force help?
BLANDCorporatio wrote:That I get. What I don't get is why it's appropriate to describe that situation as "the universe is flat, but the Sun-like matter in it is not enough to flatten it, so there must be something else that also happens to act in an opposite fashion to the way Sun-like matter does".
I think I understand this question, so I'll give it a stab. e=mc^2. Mass and energy are equivilent. The amount mass and energy in the volume of the universe is its density. Like you said, if the universe is too dense, it becomes closed and collapses in on itself, possibly long before reaching its current age. If the universe is not dense enough, it becomes open, and possibly flying apart so quickly that galaxies never form. The universe is neither open or closed, it is flat and appears to have always been flat. In order to have a flat universe, you have to have near perfect density, Ω, and density must be near Ω throughout the entire history of the universe. The problem is that the universe is expanding. As volume increases, density drops, so you can't have a constant density. So you have dark energy. It is a property of vacuum, which increases with volume, and keeps density at Ω. Given the amount of calculated matter and dark matter in the universe, dark energy must make up 70% of the current universe to keep the density at Ω. We also know, that universal expansion did originally slow due to gravity, however, once it reached a certain volume, the expansion began to accelerate. So, this also seems to be a property of vacuum. The more vacuum between to objects, the more of a repulsive force there seems to be. So, dark energy is a term used to explain observed properties of vaccum, including the fact that vacuum seems to maintain Ω as it expands. So, basically, you need something that acts like normal energy and matter in satisfying the density requirement but that behaves the opposite of normal energy and matter in its gravitational interactions. I don't know if that answered you question. I may have misunderstood your question. I may have so poorly worded that explaination that its useless. Still, I hope
it helps. I also hope it isn't so mutilated that it makes those with a better understanding than I heads hurt.
0beron wrote:This is all very tricky stuff that could go either way.
On the one hand, you could be right that her debt is gradually paid off with every unit she kills. I suppose this could make sense from a Numbers perspective, as the loss of those units' values helps balance the total value of Erfworld.
On the other hand, the text mentions that the buyer of this unit was getting "far more than they paid for" suggesting that someone who benefits from having Wanda may eventually be the one to pay that balance due. If this is the case, I would even wonder if all the units she kills and/or Decrypts actually increase her debt, or were included in it in the first place as part of her lifelong value.
It's an interesting idea. It occured to me earlier that Wanda had probably done more harm than good to Gobwin Knob in the past. Perhaps that is why they are able to benefit so much from her now. At others sides, such as Goodminton and Faq, they got an upfront benefit, but it ended up destroying them. Wanda was originally a detriment to Haffaton, since she helped Goodminton, but that may be the reason she will be able to serve there for such a supposedly long time. Perhaps every side Wanda serves ends up having to pay for every credit with a debit. It isn't what the narrator described, but your comments made me think of it.