Why we don't fall into the Sun

In 4space Earth is a toroid which sits securely at the corresponding height of Sol's gravity well. Initially a shortsighted observer may find it necessary to pack and/or unpack the dimension of time into one's perception when extrapolating this stance. For instance, the Sun is a sphere when considering Earth's toroidality, yet becomes a toroid itself when considering it's revolution about Sagitarrius*. We may only fall into a gravitational well at the rate at which its source is able to draw in the surrounding space. This seems to be true if space can be seen as having some energy/mass of it's own (being an extremely dilute plasma) because then as mass is added to the bottom of the gravity well, the angle would begin to open wider and wider. Huzzah! This is why singularities appear invisible to us! They are not a "hole" in the fabric of 4space this is impossible as we have just defined space as a dilute plasma. Rather, a singularity is an extremely massive tho compact (perhaps the center is energy itself with no extance at all) toroid whose pull downward on the surrounding 4space is felt over such vast interstellar distances that the angle of the well approaches 180 degrees. This would confer direct invisibility as we have evolved to perceive appreciable gravity spikes. The further we zoom in/out on our familiar world, the further we depart from our proprietarily evolved algorithms for interpreting our surroundings. However one blessed with acumenical (sic) thinking would realize a toroid may just as easily sit at the bottom of a gravity well. When considering what the center hole of the toroid would have upon the fabric of 4space I run into difficulties. Similarly this model breaks down in the relativistic sense. If considering the massive/compact well of Sol, we can imagine the Earth's toroid sitting at it's proper height. However when considering the location of Luna's toroid we realize in order to incorporate relative effects over distances (read: Sol has a much weaker effect on Luna than does Earth) we need to incorporate a model that conveys density of space. A model of this already exists in the form of topographical maps of elevations on a 2D map. This can be applied in a 3D computer generated representation where space is akin to a translucent gas of differential coloring of the visible spectrum which would correspond to a legend (which would change dependent upon the scope of the recreated area of space). In such a model we would be able to begin to push out into an increasingly objective view of our universe.


Mikey Campbell said...

This model begins to get chaotic when considering the shapes of 4space comets.

A simpler view may be that of the technology of ion thrusters. Ions are emmitted out of the thruster in a given direction which accelerates the craft in the opposite direction. May too the constant onslaught of radiation upon our magnetosphere be accelerating us away from Sol at a comparable rate that gravity (magically) accelerates us towards Sol? This would fit with the high gravitational pull of singularities which have no such emmitted ion push to counteract it's pull.

Left-field question: what is the plasma of outer space composed of? Assuming some hydrogen, what defines the size of a star? I imagine there is no demarcation of a surface per se. Perhaps it's better to interpret it as a density of energy map a la: at such point when the energy required to continue the fusion process falls below the limit normal space resumes.

Mikey Campbell said...

I am really beginning to appreciate the dialectic nature of these posts/comments

Mikey Campbell said...

I'm not