What is "the fabric" of space-time?

It's intensely physical but has no energy or mass?Maybe you thought I was referring to dark energy instead of the fundamentals of what gives rise to space-time?

How about here? Or here? You might take note of my response to you which you never fully answered. After a partial response, I followed up with: And.... So?

Let me add.... So you admit they have no matter or energy, right? And that they are not made of "anything", but here you say they are a "physical, material element"?What's your definition of physical then?

Hmmm, I think I have to repeat... and where exactly did I do this?And please stop crow-barring the word "design" into everything - it is meaningless. Do you realise how hilarious this is? It's not that you are desperate to find design in every aspect of the Universe - that wouldn't be too bad. It's that you utterly insist that it is there, and the rest of us are too blind, too stupid, or too desperate to avoid any hint of a creator to see it. How can communication be profitable? I've already stated how I describe it - mathematics.

Distances and angles.For instance. In flat space the ratio between the circunference and the radius of a circle is always 2pi, no matter how big the circle is.I a warped space this ratio might be different. As an example, think of the surface f the Earth as a 2-dimensional space. Chose a point for the center of your circles (I will use the north pole, but any point would work as well). Start making circles around that point of ever increasing radius. At first, they seem to follow the 2pi ratio between circunference and radius. But what happens when the radius gets really large? Make that radius 10 000 kilometers, for instance and you will get to the equator which has a circunference of 40 000 kilometers (I'm assuming for sake of simplicity that the Earth is a perfec sphere). The ratio between the circunference and the radius is equal to 4<2pi. What happened? the surface of the Earth is curved (or warped).In General Relativity, the space and the time form a 4-dimensional space-time. The presence of mass warps this space-time in a very specific way discribed by Einstein's field equations.Edited by fallacycop, : fixing a trucated phrase

ADMIT??? I'm not admitting anything. A question was asked and I was explaining.The ocean has waves - does that mean that the ocean is made of waves? That, that makes up the Universe.

You kept referring to a field, and at heart all phenomena in the universe, including the dark energy your post opened with, are just perturbations of the quantum field.About "what gives rise to space-time," which is probably the same question as, "Why something instead of nothing?", Cavediver usually expresses this more clearly, and he'll correct me if I'm wrong, but if the quantum field is made up of "something" or "somethings", we don't know what that is at present. Amongst the scientists working at the frontiers of cosmology I'm sure you'll find some interesting speculations, but as far as scientific evidence for what comprises space/time, I don't think there is anything that points in any particular direction right now, or even that says it must be made up of anything.I don't see the point of arguing with Cavediver about what he meant. He's the one that would know, and I don't think he would purposefully lead you to erroneous conclusions.--Percy

Heck, why don't you just ask him if he admits being the inside man for the last bank heist?We have only two moderators, so it is important that we keep discussion focused and productive. It works against these goals to treat others like hostile witnesses determined to withhold evidence. If you think someone's being dishonest please keep these thoughts out of the discussion threads. The place for that would be the Windsor castle thread.

---

--	Percy
	EvC Forum Director

It seems your all looking at the fabric of space how its affected by time gives us the reality of our world.Kind of like a hologram where position and velocity in respect to Times role (God) in affecting normal matter (the fabric of space) gives us our reality, etc...Like if two dimensions of time another of space is being theorized by theoretical physicist like if Itzhak Bars can imagine two dimensions how might there be yet more dimensions to time.Lets say the fabric of the earth has extra dimensions of time as compared to the rest of the universe. That the earth is only 6,000 to 13,000 years young since the creation of life that was possible due to the extra dimensions of time, not that before say 6,000 years when the earth was void of life it was not part of say two dimensional spacetime.Like is the expansion of spacetime between galaxies is this just an example of one dimension of time(velocity)increasing space where the galaxies by not expanding are more evidence of two dimensions of time (position and velocity)? not expansion, etc...P.S. Here's an article about how different dimensions of space might not of all expanded equally since the beginning including there might be more than one dimension too time !!!!!!!+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++USC College theoretical physicist Itzhak Bars has pioneered efforts to discern how a second dimension of time could help physicists better explain the laws of nature.http://www.physorg.com/news98468776.htmlEdited by johnfolton, : No reason given.Edited by johnfolton, : No reason given.Edited by johnfolton, : And I saw a great white throne, and him that sat on it, from whose face the earth and the heaven fled away; and there was found no place for them. akjv rev 20:11 & 21:1Edited by johnfolton, : No reason given.Edited by johnfolton, : No reason given.Edited by johnfolton, : No reason given.Edited by johnfolton, : No reason given.

So mathematics are physical, eh?What is offensive is you patently ignoring the question and misrepresenting me. I already stated "design" here isn't even a reference to God or a Designer, but a reference to information and order, and even stated you can call it X if it offends you.Instead of trying to dodge and weave and avoid real discussion, why not address the questions I raise, and do so honestly please, something you seem unwilling to do and yet self-righteously condemn me for merely trying to discuss the properties and qualities of what indeed is the fabric of the universe. The labels mean nothing. What is relevant is not the words you choose but the qualities that this fabric has.You say it has no energy or matter, and yet is eminently physical. Please follow the rules here and respond. Explain yourself and comment then. Under what definition is something without matter and energy "physical".I suspect you will simply resort to snidely avoiding answering and hide behind the admins perfectly willing to ban me for daring to expect you to answer.And guess what? Math is not an answer. Just in case you didn't realize that despite those 30 plus years of studying it, math is not a physical science. Math is not physical. The fact "math" appears to have such an impact is evidence for what I am saying, not the other way around, namely that information and principle are fundamental and come before physical existence. It's a shame you are not brave enough to admit that fact.

Percy my off-hand reference to dark energy is simply a response to someone that asked it. If you had read the thread, you'd see I was basically saying maybe someone else can comment on that.Cavediver specifically commented that whatever you want to call it, it doesn't consist of anything. I asked him to respond and explain that, but he hasn't. I assumed that he meant nothing physical because it does consist of something, and then he said it was physical but he earlier stated it has no energy.One frustrating thing is I have just asked very simple and basic questions about his statements and offered reasonable comment, and right off the bat, he avoids responding and posts snide comments misrepresenting me. He took issue with the word "design" when he could probably tell I was just saying this field or whatever certainly has specific characteristics, and I clarified, but he still avoided clarifying and then once again, offensively imo, suggests I am merely trying to talk of design, meaning ID, which ought in itself not to be wrong, but I made it clear, pick any word you want, the whole point is this field may have no matter or energy but it sure has PROPERTIES.Cavediver imo is merely trying to avoid real discussion and deliberately misrepresenting my comments.Edited by randman, : No reason given.

Ok, thanks for answering. I became a little angry at your previous response which seemed to just be trying to misrepresent my comments.Saying that whatever is in the universe is physical would mean if something were immaterial or non-material or non-physical or spiritual, it would by definition be physical.That seems like an unsatisfactory definition, correct or not?Certainly, "physical" should mean something specific with specific qualities rather than just everything there is. Under that definition, if there is a God, then God is physical too.Making the definition of physical that elastic serves to make the word essentially meaningless as a descriptive term.Edited by randman, : No reason given.

I think that the problem is that you're not comprehending what cavediver is saying. If the fields are the most fundamental description of the universe then they cannot be made of anything else. If they were composed of something else then THAT would be more fundamental.Given that, the only way to describe the fields is in terms of their behaviour - which is described mathematically.

Please keep discussion positive and constructive. We'll see you in 24 hours.

---

--	Percy
	EvC Forum Director

This is not the thread for these kinds of issues. Please keep discussion in this thread focused on the topic. If you have complaints then please post them to the Windsor castle thread.

---

--	Percy
	EvC Forum Director