Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
1 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 0/13 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   What is "the fabric" of space-time?
johnfolton 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5591 days)
Posts: 2024
Joined: 12-04-2005


Message 196 of 327 (460674)
03-17-2008 8:21 PM
Reply to: Message 195 by Rahvin
03-17-2008 4:05 PM


Re: A bit of history.
This has nothing whatsoever to do with gravity. It's simple mechanics. It has absolutely nothing to do with gravity or spacetime.
I think the mechanics of angular momentum can create gravity of sorts like a centrifuge spinning is creating its own form of gravity?
However is the increase in rotation speed of the skater bringing their arms inward due to the mechanics of angular momentum due to skater alone? How would not the gravity of the earth not be acting as a brake when the skater puts their arms outward?
Is not the earths gravity an inward angular momentum force thats caused by its mass-energy curving spacetime inward (not outward)which is why the earth has gravity.
P.S. Here's a link of questions and answers suggesting gravity plays a part in the increase in rpm of the skater.


Open Question
A skater can spin faster by pulling her arms closer to her body or spin slower by spreading her arms out from?
A skater can spin faster by pulling her arms closer to her body or spin slower by spreading her arms out from her body. This is due to
conservation of angular momentum.
the law of gravity.
conservation of energy.
Newton's third law.
conservation of momentum
http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=2008031512564...
Edited by johnfolton, : No reason given.
Edited by johnfolton, : No reason given.
Edited by johnfolton, : No reason given.
Edited by johnfolton, : No reason given.
Edited by johnfolton, : No reason given.
Edited by johnfolton, : No reason given.
Edited by johnfolton, : No reason given.
Edited by Admin, : Get rid of line of pluses.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 195 by Rahvin, posted 03-17-2008 4:05 PM Rahvin has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 197 by lyx2no, posted 03-18-2008 10:29 AM johnfolton has replied

  
lyx2no
Member (Idle past 4716 days)
Posts: 1277
From: A vast, undifferentiated plane.
Joined: 02-28-2008


Message 197 of 327 (460714)
03-18-2008 10:29 AM
Reply to: Message 196 by johnfolton
03-17-2008 8:21 PM


Re: A bit of history.
Lord love a duck; read a physics primer.

Kindly
******
Scared of the dark

This message is a reply to:
 Message 196 by johnfolton, posted 03-17-2008 8:21 PM johnfolton has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 198 by johnfolton, posted 03-18-2008 3:26 PM lyx2no has replied

  
johnfolton 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5591 days)
Posts: 2024
Joined: 12-04-2005


Message 198 of 327 (460732)
03-18-2008 3:26 PM
Reply to: Message 197 by lyx2no
03-18-2008 10:29 AM


Re: A bit of history.
Lord love a duck; read a physics primer.
Why, seems to me that physics believes nothing causes gravity when I believe strings was and is being created from nothing that this is the cause of gravity.
If you go on a gravity ride at the fair is your mass not affected by angular momentum. If gravity (is just a depression in space) then the earth just rides around the sun due to this depression and not connected by bands of energy connecting it to the sun. Do you believe that the depression of space is caused by mass energy strings going backwards and forwards in time from the present and that string theorists will bring the two theories into one theory, once they prove these cosmic strings exists, etc...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VBzifcgYXZs&NR=1
P.S. Just because its been proven that space is curved does not mean string theorists are wrong, that the particle is not made up of string energy that has mass if energy was created from nothing at e=0 & and time was created from nothing at t=0 when nothing was expanded by a force greater than the forces of nothing (dark energy / God / true light of true light), etc...
The physists I quoted in an earlier post said they believe these cosmic strings are tubular and stretch across the entire universe that all particles are made from them which seems opposite from gravity being a nothing even if it was and is being created from nothing being expanded, etc...

Cosmic strings are predicted by high energy physics theories, including superstring theory. This is based on the idea that particles are not just little points, but tiny vibrating bits of string Cosmic strings are predicted to have extraordinary amounts of mass
http://www.sciencedaily.com/...ases/2008/01/080120182315.htm
Edited by johnfolton, : No reason given.
Edited by johnfolton, : No reason given.
Edited by Admin, : Get rid of line of pluses.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 197 by lyx2no, posted 03-18-2008 10:29 AM lyx2no has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 199 by lyx2no, posted 03-18-2008 6:41 PM johnfolton has replied

  
lyx2no
Member (Idle past 4716 days)
Posts: 1277
From: A vast, undifferentiated plane.
Joined: 02-28-2008


Message 199 of 327 (460767)
03-18-2008 6:41 PM
Reply to: Message 198 by johnfolton
03-18-2008 3:26 PM


A Bit of Nonsense.
Why, seems to me that physics believes nothing causes gravity when I believe strings was and is being created from nothing that this is the cause of gravity.
Because you believe that which follows your question.
If you go on a gravity ride at the fair is your mass not affected by angular momentum.
Fair ride angular momentum has no effect on ones mass unless one's at some really adventuresome fair where one is accelerated to relativistic velocities.
One need not concern oneself too much with string theorists being right or wrong when one doesn’t know that conservation of angular momentum has nothing whatsoever to do with gravity.
You may want to consider that just because others explain ideas with descriptions that you do not understand doesn’t mean that you, too, can explain ideas with descriptions that you do not understand. I know it’s not fair, but what’s to be done.
You are saying nothing meaningful.
Trust me on this one; read the primer.

Kindly
******
Scared of the dark

This message is a reply to:
 Message 198 by johnfolton, posted 03-18-2008 3:26 PM johnfolton has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 202 by johnfolton, posted 03-19-2008 12:16 AM lyx2no has not replied

  
2ice_baked_taters
Member (Idle past 5851 days)
Posts: 566
From: Boulder Junction WI.
Joined: 02-16-2006


Message 200 of 327 (460782)
03-18-2008 8:52 PM


We do not speak of the fabric of speed/distance.
Why would we treat space/time differently?
"Space" according the the latest fermi lab testing is comprised of neutrinos.

Replies to this message:
 Message 201 by cavediver, posted 03-18-2008 9:05 PM 2ice_baked_taters has replied
 Message 216 by john6zx, posted 03-27-2008 10:21 PM 2ice_baked_taters has not replied

  
cavediver
Member (Idle past 3643 days)
Posts: 4129
From: UK
Joined: 06-16-2005


Message 201 of 327 (460785)
03-18-2008 9:05 PM
Reply to: Message 200 by 2ice_baked_taters
03-18-2008 8:52 PM


We do not speak of the fabric of speed/distance.
Why would we treat space/time differently?
Because space and time form a four dimensional structure that in some ways can be described as a 'fabric', where as speed and distance do not. This is confirmed to the nth degree by the multitude of experiemental results of Special and General Relativity.
"Space" according the the latest fermi lab testing is comprised of neutrinos.
I can assure you that 1) it's not, and 2) fermi lab have said no such thing. But I can quite easily believe that some popular science article may have claimed this.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 200 by 2ice_baked_taters, posted 03-18-2008 8:52 PM 2ice_baked_taters has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 207 by 2ice_baked_taters, posted 03-21-2008 3:08 AM cavediver has replied

  
johnfolton 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5591 days)
Posts: 2024
Joined: 12-04-2005


Message 202 of 327 (460797)
03-19-2008 12:16 AM
Reply to: Message 199 by lyx2no
03-18-2008 6:41 PM


Re: Newton was a Christian !!!!!!!
Please do not reply to this message unless you can relate it to the thread's topic concerning the fabric of space/time. --Admin
You have to realize that Newton was a Christian so his premise in respect to gravity (Job 38:31-33)is that the oridinances of heaven are like bands in respect to the Word referring to the Orion and the Pleiades. That this dominion was set "in" the earth by God who said he is able to loosen or bind bands that were set in the heavens, etc...
P.S. So Newton correctly describes the ordiances of the heavens like the moon is bound to the earth by gravity like an apple falls to the earth, but then again Newton drew from the greatest scientific book ever written the Bible.
Do you all want to discount Newton because of the basis of his theories on the ordinaces of the universe is biblical based? on these bands of energy, so that there is no bands of energy connecting the earth to the sun or the sun to the center of the milky way, so to like try to prove the bible not correct?
P.S. Are the basic building blocks of matter point like or that the atom is not a fixed point in respect to time and once this is acknowleged you will be closer to unifing relativity, quantum mechanics ???????

Perhaps we have made a hidden assumption?
It turns out that indeed we have. The assumption is that it's possible to consider smaller and smaller distances and get to the point where spacetime pulls itself apart. What has rested in the back of our minds is that the basic indivisible building blocks of nature are point-like ” but this may not necessarily be true.
String theory: From Newton to Einstein and beyond | plus.maths.org
Edited by johnfolton, : No reason given.
Edited by johnfolton, : No reason given.
Edited by Admin, : No reason given.
Edited by Admin, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 199 by lyx2no, posted 03-18-2008 6:41 PM lyx2no has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 203 by randman, posted 03-19-2008 1:00 AM johnfolton has not replied
 Message 205 by Admin, posted 03-19-2008 9:16 AM johnfolton has not replied
 Message 206 by Admin, posted 03-19-2008 9:26 AM johnfolton has not replied

  
randman 
Suspended Member (Idle past 4899 days)
Posts: 6367
Joined: 05-26-2005


Message 203 of 327 (460799)
03-19-2008 1:00 AM
Reply to: Message 202 by johnfolton
03-19-2008 12:16 AM


Re: Newton was a Christian !!!!!!!
Very good points and indeed time is not point-like, nor space-time....time we understood that.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 202 by johnfolton, posted 03-19-2008 12:16 AM johnfolton has not replied

  
Silent H
Member (Idle past 5820 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 204 of 327 (460802)
03-19-2008 1:10 AM
Reply to: Message 193 by Son Goku
03-17-2008 9:11 AM


Re: A bit of history.
I should have said thank you earlier, instead of letting fulton take the floor.
As a side note, I was aware that the GPS thingy was not designed as a test, but that is what appealed to my mind even more. When something is incidental, and at the same time shows complete practicality, that is very cool.
Your explanations have been very useful, and I appreciate the work you've put into the descriptions.

h
"Civilized men are more discourteous than savages because they know they can be impolite without having their skulls split, as a general thing." - Robert E. Howard

This message is a reply to:
 Message 193 by Son Goku, posted 03-17-2008 9:11 AM Son Goku has not replied

  
Admin
Director
Posts: 12998
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002
Member Rating: 2.3


Message 205 of 327 (460810)
03-19-2008 9:16 AM
Reply to: Message 202 by johnfolton
03-19-2008 12:16 AM


Re: Newton was a Christian !!!!!!!
For a divider, please use
instead of a long line of pluses.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 202 by johnfolton, posted 03-19-2008 12:16 AM johnfolton has not replied

  
Admin
Director
Posts: 12998
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002
Member Rating: 2.3


Message 206 of 327 (460811)
03-19-2008 9:26 AM
Reply to: Message 202 by johnfolton
03-19-2008 12:16 AM


Re: Newton was a Christian !!!!!!!
Newton is not the topic. If you'd like to discuss the impact of Newton's religious views on his science, please propose a new thread.

--Percy
EvC Forum Director

This message is a reply to:
 Message 202 by johnfolton, posted 03-19-2008 12:16 AM johnfolton has not replied

  
2ice_baked_taters
Member (Idle past 5851 days)
Posts: 566
From: Boulder Junction WI.
Joined: 02-16-2006


Message 207 of 327 (461010)
03-21-2008 3:08 AM
Reply to: Message 201 by cavediver
03-18-2008 9:05 PM


Because space and time form a four dimensional structure that in some ways can be described as a 'fabric', where as speed and distance do not. This is confirmed to the nth degree by the multitude of experiemental results of Special and General Relativity"
I apologize in advance if I appear difficult.
how can we say we understand a 4 dimensional structure or that it definitively exists? Why is it assumed that time is tied to theoretical space? I do not see spacetime to be any different than footpound.
My understanding is that "time" is a construct. So is space.
Time it would seem, is an emergent property of mass/energy/gravity
Speed affecting mass/energy/gravity affects time but speed is relative. Mass is not. Mass is mass. You cannot alter time to affect mass. Time is actually not affected. Time is a construct property of mass/energy. Rate of mass interaction,motion "Time" is a function of the quantity of mass. More mass alters it's state. All processes slow down. I do not see space as having anything to do with time or mass.
Any suggestions of things to read that might help?
I wish I had the time to learn the math involved but I fear I might spend the rest of my life as others have.
"Space" would be irrelevant. That is about where you are physically.
Space expanding as a construct I accept. But it is a construct describing a physical phenomenon. therefore it must be a physical thing. We simply do not understand it yet.
Nothing known to man has yet to be proven non physical/massless. Mass may still be considered mass to infinity dissipation. There may be no smallest increment.
Edited by Admin, : Fix quote.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 201 by cavediver, posted 03-18-2008 9:05 PM cavediver has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 208 by cavediver, posted 03-21-2008 8:20 AM 2ice_baked_taters has replied
 Message 209 by lyx2no, posted 03-21-2008 8:40 AM 2ice_baked_taters has not replied

  
cavediver
Member (Idle past 3643 days)
Posts: 4129
From: UK
Joined: 06-16-2005


Message 208 of 327 (461018)
03-21-2008 8:20 AM
Reply to: Message 207 by 2ice_baked_taters
03-21-2008 3:08 AM


I apologize in advance if I appear difficult.
compared to some here, you seem a breeze...
how can we say we understand a 4 dimensional structure or that it definitively exists? Why is it assumed that time is tied to theoretical space? I do not see spacetime to be any different than footpound. My understanding is that "time" is a construct. So is space.
The answer to this is very simple - Special Relativity. When you hear about just how mind-blowingly revolutionary relativity was to the physicists of a century ago, this is not just bluster. And your objections were raised then in abundance. 103 years later, interested laymen such as yourself are just catching up with those original objectioners. Of course, 103 years of evidence demonstrating Special Relativity to be the most successful physical theory ever discovered has effectively removed any objections from the scientific world. So it's time for the laymen to play catch-up...
Time it would seem, is an emergent property of mass/energy/gravity
Speed affecting mass/energy/gravity affects time but speed is relative. Mass is not. Mass is mass. You cannot alter time to affect mass. Time is actually not affected. Time is a construct property of mass/energy. Rate of mass interaction,motion "Time" is a function of the quantity of mass. More mass alters it's state. All processes slow down. I do not see space as having anything to do with time or mass.
Lots of important words here, but it's all meaningless as you have not defined any of your terms. What do you mean by "time", "space", "energy", "mass", "gravity"? Or even "state", "function", "affect", "slow down". Not one of these terms in rigorous, and each could refer to several different specifically defined concepts in physics. This is not science.
Read the abstract of Hawking's latest paper. Every one of those bizarre words has a precise meaning, and represents a specific piece of the relevant mathematics. Unfortunately, the only way of understanding this is to put in the required many years of study.
Any suggestions of things to read that might help?
The trouble is too many books try to go too deep, as everyone wants to know what is at the forefront of phsyics, not what is 100 years old. This is why we have other members of EvC making idiots of themselves, by trying to talk knowledgably about difficult concepts such as entanglement, string theory, the no-boundary proposal, while having no clue about "basic" relativity and quantum mechanics. I would pick up something like Nigel Calder's Einstein's Universe, or similar. Forget about all the books on string theory, M-theory, branes, and all that bollocks. It is pointless trying to learn about this without a grasp of the fundementals. And believe me, 100 year old relativity and quantum mechanics is far more mind-blowing than any of the more modern stuff.
I wish I had the time to learn the math involved but I fear I might spend the rest of my life as others have.
Unfortunately, that is the only way to really understand any of this. The designer of the Space Shuttle can give you a good overview of how the whole thing fits together and works, but how many hours of his explanations do you think it will take before you are ready to design its replacement yourself?
Space expanding as a construct I accept.
This is the problem. Physics is NOTHING to do with what YOU accept. Unless you are willing tio leave behind every preconception you have ever had about the physical world, you will learn nothing. You can decide that your own beliefs and conceptions are as or more valid than the entire community of physicists working in the fields of relativity, particle physics, cosmology, etc - and I'll snigger a bit about one more moron at EvC and won't lose any sleep. Or you can leave behind those misconceptions and allow yourself to be blown away by just how damn bizarre and amazing this reality really is...
I should say, sorry for sounding harsh, but I'm not actually sorry
Edited by cavediver, : No reason given.
Edited by cavediver, : No reason given.
Edited by cavediver, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 207 by 2ice_baked_taters, posted 03-21-2008 3:08 AM 2ice_baked_taters has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 210 by 2ice_baked_taters, posted 03-21-2008 12:14 PM cavediver has replied
 Message 212 by johnfolton, posted 03-21-2008 1:08 PM cavediver has replied

  
lyx2no
Member (Idle past 4716 days)
Posts: 1277
From: A vast, undifferentiated plane.
Joined: 02-28-2008


Message 209 of 327 (461021)
03-21-2008 8:40 AM
Reply to: Message 207 by 2ice_baked_taters
03-21-2008 3:08 AM


Be it on My Head
Any suggestions of things to read that might help?
With a sincere heart and true faith, I abjure, curse,
and hate the above mentioned error...
And deserve whatever I get.

Kindly
******
Ever eat a pine tree? What are you, stupid?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 207 by 2ice_baked_taters, posted 03-21-2008 3:08 AM 2ice_baked_taters has not replied

  
2ice_baked_taters
Member (Idle past 5851 days)
Posts: 566
From: Boulder Junction WI.
Joined: 02-16-2006


Message 210 of 327 (461031)
03-21-2008 12:14 PM
Reply to: Message 208 by cavediver
03-21-2008 8:20 AM


"I would pick up something like Nigel Calder's Einstein's Universe, or similar."
Thank you
Physics is NOTHING to do with what YOU accept.
Of course it does. It is why any new idea is rejected. How many theories were there by very competent people before one guy came buy and said, hey this all describes the same thing...string theory.
Even the best people get lost in the math. They lose track of what they are actually representing with the math. The physical world is what it is. How we choose to look at it does determine what we see.
I have not seen anything that claims time factually exists independent of mass.
If that would be case, places of less density, "intergalactic space"
Will experience time more rapidly in relation to dense areas.
The more mass, the more in the past in relation to less mass. How is where you are in space relevant?
Do you believe there exists a massless anything? Or rather that we have yet to measure it's minute mass?
Do you believe there is a fundamental anything? I doubt it.
These are fantasies many physicists and mathematicians have had.
Everything is made of something. As I suspect space is. "Empty" space does not exist. Empty is the issue. Space exists.
I suppose I should shut up and seek your suggested reading material.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 208 by cavediver, posted 03-21-2008 8:20 AM cavediver has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 211 by cavediver, posted 03-21-2008 12:47 PM 2ice_baked_taters has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024