What is "the fabric" of space-time?

That's just adrenaline kicking in during the emergency reaction.

It is interesting that adrenline is the excuse given to other people like myself in an emergency testifing that they too experienced time slowing down.The problem with adrenaline in my situation perhaps in those other people is that it takes a second or two for adrenline to kick in !!!!!!!P.S. The only solution is that time stood down for that instant of time due my experience it all happened within less than a second of real time and adrenaline needs at least a second or two to kick in, etc...+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++Because adrenaline has to be carried by the blood to all the different parts of the body, it takes a second or two before people will feel its effects.http://www.kidpowervancouver.org/id40.htmlEdited by johnfolton, : No reason given.Edited by johnfolton, : No reason given.Edited by johnfolton, : No reason given.Edited by johnfolton, : No reason given.

Ya, but the initial avoidance of the golf ball was mediated by your reflex arc (which bypasses directed thought and moves you automatically).Academic Programs and Professional Training | Virginia-Maryland College of Veterinary Medicine | Virginia TechYou move fast and get a fright at which point adrenaline kicks in and gives you (among other things):'[a]feeling as though time has slowed down''difficulty in thinking clearly'http://www.kidpowervancouver.org/id40.html

I agree the reflex arc helped me move automatically but time slowed down before I moved and after I moved it went back to normal time.P.S. I suppose if time has two dimensions and velocity time slowed down around me and positional time was not affected then I had more than enough time for adrenline to of kicked in even though less than a second of real time expired? Edited by johnfolton, : No reason given.

You don't think it could be your recall of the event that led you to perceive time as being 'slowed down' rather than your god taking a direct hand in altering the speed in which you travelled through time?

No, I suppose it could be that God sped the speed I was travelling thru time so my surroundings as I observed them slowed down? I looked at it more that the balls velocity was slowed by time and not that God sped the speed I was travelling thru time.P.S. I suppose from my view point it was more like when God stopped the sun and the moon in the sky for Joshua. akjv Joshua 10:13

How could he since he is a Materialist?We know that anyone can prove anything with numbers.Ray

Yea, but it'd still be interesting to see how someone can define something with no energy and no mass as "material" or "physical."

We can let cavediver speak for himself but he already stated they had no mass, nor energy, but that these concepts are derived from these fields.In reality, these fields or whatever you want to call them are more fundamental. That's the point, and they do not conist of mass, nor energy (as defined by physics). I'd argue they do consist of energy, just not physical energy.One way to illustrate this basic immaterial aspect of the universe is the phenomenon of entanglement or non-locality. Note: this is not making an argument based on quantum uncertainty as some have suggested though the same basic QM principles demonstrate quantum uncertainty and so that is related. It's an argument based on observed, repeatable science first predicted by quantum theory. Einstein didn't like those predictions, deriding it as spooky action at a distance, but Einstein turned out to be wrong as entanglement has been amply demonstrated just as it was amply predicted.For anyone not knowing what it is, the short version is that 2 distant particles that became entangled at some point act as one system. Depending on how one observes or how a particle is observed (we can discuss that later on a different thread), the particle becomes either more wave-like or particle-like with specific characteristics within the physical universe. If we can determine it's path, it propagates in our perspective/universe in one path as if it was a particle along one path. If this information is not determinable by the way we observe it, then it propagates like a wave on all paths. The dominant interpretation of quantum physics is that until one of these observation events takes place, it doesn't exist in any discrete physical form at all, but exists as a potential for form (physicality). This process has often been referred to as collapsing the wave function, which used to be thought of as irreversible, but not necessarily now due to lab experiments.Well, grasping that takes some effort the first few times one ponders it......the next part involves the fact that how one particle collapses or becomes discrete (aka as a physical form with definite, observable properties) the other entangled particle must take on specific properties as a counterpart. That's even if the other particle is on the other side of the universe. That's why Einstein called it "spooky" because there is no observed physical connection between the entangled particles, and it's not considered possible for there to be some superluminal (faster than light speed) particle to communicate and even if there was, which is not considered possible, it would have to vary it's speed to make the collapse of both particles instant.So in summary, we have evidence that somehow differently spaced partices are connected and act as one system, but we also have strong evidence there can be no physical connection between the particles. Informationally and behaviourally, they are connected and act as one system, but physically they are separated with no ability we know of for them to be connected by another particle.What does this show?This shows that the connection is immaterial or non-physical and that it is an informational connection outside space and time.Edited by randman, : No reason given.Edited by randman, : No reason given.

Then, with numbers, prove God exists

quote:

---

We can let cavediver speak for himself but he already stated they had no mass, nor energy, but that these concepts are derived from these fields.

​

In reality, these fields or whatever you want to call them are more fundamental. That's the point, and they do not conist of mass, nor energy (as defined by physics).

---

That's the problem. You aren't fully taking into account the point that the fields are more fundamental. In short the fields ARE physical reality.

quote:

---

I'd argue they do consist of energy, just not physical energy.

---

Strictly speaking that argument is self-contradictory. Presumably you mean some hypothetical non-physical thing that you call "energy" (even though it isn't). But what possible basis can you have for such a claim ?By the way entanglement cannot be used to transmit useful information faster than light. That suggests that it isn't quite what you think.

No, I am taking that into account. In fact, that's my point. The fields, realms, whatever we call them are fundamental and physical properties such as energy and matter are derived, secondary properties, which is why the universe is fundamentally immaterial. It's pretty simple really when you think about it. It's a non-physical realm with the potential for physical mass and energy. So it has properties similar or analogous in some respects to energy.....it has physical effects.Edited by randman, : No reason given.

Tipler already did that.

quote:

---

No, I am taking that into account. In fact, that's my point. The fields, realms, whatever we call them are fundamental and physical properties such as energy and matter are derived, secondary properties, which is why the universe is fundamentally immaterial.

---

So you accept that the fields are physical and that it is foolish to ask what they are composed of ?

quote:

---

It's pretty simple really when you think about it. It's a non-physical realm with the potential for physical mass and energy. So it has properties similar or analogous in some respects to energy.....it has physical effects.

---

If it's so simple then why don't you answer the question ? What reason DO you have for supposing that the fields are composed of this hypothetical non-physical thing that is somehow vaguely like energy ?

Already answered it, PaulK.Not my fault if you cannot understand it.Maybe trying a new tack with you would help. Do you think entangled partices are connected via a field as an explanation for their inseparability or not?