Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
5 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 13/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   What is "the fabric" of space-time?
cavediver
Member (Idle past 3643 days)
Posts: 4129
From: UK
Joined: 06-16-2005


Message 153 of 327 (459316)
03-05-2008 8:17 PM
Reply to: Message 147 by randman
03-05-2008 7:25 PM


Re: Local realism
What do you think he is saying when he says entanglement violates local realism, cavediver?
He's saying that entanglement seems to violate local realism. Given that very few hold to local realism, this is not even an issue worth discussing. I have spent most of this thread talking about quantum field theory, and QFT is not built on local realism, so why should I even care? Unfortunately, you seem intent on concepts that abandon locality, where-as those of us who actually work or have worked on this simply give up realism.
Zeilinger writes:
Entanglement is definitely a feature going beyond any space-time description
Yes, and this is not stating that "entanglement is a process outside time and space". The difference should be blatently obvious. He is saying that it is not a process where some sort of space-time communication is occuring, and he is entirely correct in this. You will continue to be utterly confused by this until you actually start to understand the nature of entanglement. You seem to have this bizarre idea that Zeilinger is bringing anything new to qunatum theory... he's building great experiments to demonstrate standard quantum mechanics. There is nothing surprising here to those who work woth quantum theory - nothing surprising at all. Entanglement has been around for decades longer than Zeilinger's experiments.
we are dealing with a process of something becoming within space-time from a place without any location (outside space and time).
Pseudo-scientific bullshit
Anything within space and time has location.
Wrong, as any 2nd year physics student could tell you.
you choose to just claim I am somehow misunderstanding the issue
No, I'm not claiming... I'm stating. I think anyone reading these threads can see that although I remain anonymous here, for some reason I do have some sort of clue about these subjects. And you do not. Parading around trying to claim you understand this just makes you look like an idiot.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 147 by randman, posted 03-05-2008 7:25 PM randman has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 156 by randman, posted 03-05-2008 9:05 PM cavediver has not replied
 Message 161 by Admin, posted 03-05-2008 9:47 PM cavediver has not replied

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


Message 154 of 327 (459317)
03-05-2008 8:27 PM
Reply to: Message 152 by randman
03-05-2008 8:13 PM


Re: Cavediver: determinism
But it's also the observation or measurement that gives a particle a definite position and location within space-time, right? That's why local realism is violated because it does not exist independently according to Zeilinger....is that how you read him?
I don't have to 'read' Zeilinger, this is basic quantum mechanics.
You continue:
cavediver writes:
Furthermore, QM is totally causal
Yes, I should have stressed *relativistic* QM. Given that the Universe is relativistic, non-relativistic QM is not really that relevant for my uses.
So are you saying QM breaks causality or not?
Standard QM breaks causality because it is not relativistc. It is therefore unrealistic and cannot be used in relativistic situations, not can it explain concepts such as particle creation and annihilation. That is why relativistic QM was developed, finally becoming quantum field theory.
Sure, I expect QM to break causality
That is because you have no clue. Nor any evidence whatsoever.
Since I knew quantum physicists do think local realism was violated, and that some think causality is violated which I think is correct,
No, only idiots think causality is violated.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 152 by randman, posted 03-05-2008 8:13 PM randman has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 155 by randman, posted 03-05-2008 9:00 PM cavediver has not replied

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


Message 166 of 327 (459444)
03-07-2008 1:49 PM
Reply to: Message 146 by Silent H
03-05-2008 7:20 PM


Re: the gravity of general relativity
Sorry - as Fallacycop correctly guessed, I missed this.
Feynman's path integral approach to quantum field theory is actually identical to what I've been describing, though it takes a 'little' maths to demonstrate. It deals with the behaviour of the fourier modes of the field, and the statistical flavour is that of these modes.
We could for example model vibrations of atoms in a molecule using the same type of equation for balls attached to each with a spring. As accurate as that might be, there is no real "spring" between th atoms, which are not themselves balls (or even ball-like). This is where convenience is not the same as understanding what it really occurring.
True and this is the classic picture of physics. What we are finding is that our descriptions now encapsulate not only the behaviour but the object itself. This sounds bizarre and it's the result of the nature of fundemental particles: they only have a finite and very small set of parameters. Two electrons do not just look similar - they are identical to the point of being the same object. This lies at the heart of the Pauli Exclusion Principle, and the in turn the structure of all matter. Once these few parameters have been explained, there is literally nothing else left to describe, by necessity (This property is also true of black holes, encapsulated in the famous 'no hair theorems') In your example, the atoms are sufficiently similar to be treated as identical, but we are smoothing over an enormous number of (irrelevant) parameters.
I thought that was an important distinction for him to make, because it undercuts illusions regarding what we actually know. Is it just accurate mathematical models (bean counts) or is it an actual description of the phenomena?
I would argue that we are getting close to the actual description. The mathematical models are becoming entire bodies of mathematics that we are seeing replicated in nature - it's no longer a bunch of useful mathematical methods and tools patched together to make a good model of reality. The phsyics isn't just remaining ameniable to the mathematics as we descend through the layers, it appears solely as mathematics. Why should it tie in so closely?
In my defense, my hypothetical simply paraphrased something I saw by a physicist. In his example he imagined that the sun (its mass) suddenly disappeared.
Hmmm, he was obviously no relativist Mass cannot disappear either...
Even if mass is energy in a volume, isn't there a point where energy in an area moves from something that does not exert a gravitational force (aka warps space-time) to something that does?
NO! You cannot change the mass in a volume without moving that mass out of that volume. You could annihilate every fermion in the Earth until it was just a cloud of photons, and as long as you could constrain those photons within a volume, the moon would never notice! The mass of the particles created in a particle accelerator was measurable as mass before in the energy of the power generation.
I guess I'd like you to unpack the explanation of why a pure time directional arrow would be different from one place to another. This may be a good place to literally draw me a diagram.
Take my classic space-time picture of a closed FRW universe - the globe. T=0 is the North Pole, with time flowing south. Care to suggest where the time directions of two separated particles would be parallel?
Must go - will continue later

This message is a reply to:
 Message 146 by Silent H, posted 03-05-2008 7:20 PM Silent H has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 174 by Silent H, posted 03-09-2008 5:47 PM cavediver has replied

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


Message 192 of 327 (460529)
03-16-2008 6:18 AM
Reply to: Message 191 by Silent H
03-16-2008 1:20 AM


Re: gravity and disappearing matter, (esp for cavediver, but all welcome)
Perhaps someone can tell me what I got wrong, or if he was wrong.
Neither, really. He's just being fast and loose It gets the point across, but it is an impossible situation. It's just MUCH more simple than trying to describe a realistic situation, e.g. using an extended charge through the Earth to blow it into two halves, which continue to orbit the original center. This changes the gravitational quadrupole moment, and gravitational waves are emitted which will affect the moon, not instantly, but at the retarded time as the gravitational disturbance propegates at the speed of light...
Will get back to the rest later

This message is a reply to:
 Message 191 by Silent H, posted 03-16-2008 1:20 AM Silent H 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

  
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

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


Message 211 of 327 (461034)
03-21-2008 12:47 PM
Reply to: Message 210 by 2ice_baked_taters
03-21-2008 12:14 PM


sigh
I suppose I should shut up and seek your suggested reading material.
Yep

This message is a reply to:
 Message 210 by 2ice_baked_taters, posted 03-21-2008 12:14 PM 2ice_baked_taters has not replied

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


Message 213 of 327 (461043)
03-21-2008 2:45 PM
Reply to: Message 212 by johnfolton
03-21-2008 1:08 PM


Not saying fundementals are not important but simply don't feel string theory is bollocks.
As an ex-'string theorist', neither do I feel that string theory is bollocks. But harping on about string theory, without a grasp of the fundementals IS bollocks.
I suspect fields are the direct result of strings that dark energy is increasing nothingness(space) giving rise to space time incuding new energy coming into existence.
Ahem...
Edited by cavediver, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 212 by johnfolton, posted 03-21-2008 1:08 PM johnfolton has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 230 by johnfolton, posted 03-30-2008 12:47 PM cavediver has replied

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


Message 222 of 327 (462010)
03-29-2008 10:47 AM
Reply to: Message 174 by Silent H
03-09-2008 5:47 PM


Re: the gravity of general relativity
Ok, very belated reply...
Would I be wrong in taking this as a suggestion of "math is the language of God" or more secularly "math is the language of the Universe"?
I'd possibly swing it around and say the Universe is simply how our perception sees the mathematics. It always sounds like a copout, but you really do need to get down and dirty with the fundementals to get so strong an impression. I've gained an appreciation for this view from the evidence; there was no a-priori desire for this to be the case. Even trying to provide simple examples of this is diffciult, but I guess one would be: consider distance - distance is merely a field that gives values assigned to pairs of points. So the distance say the Andromeda galaxy is away from you compared with your keyboard, is merely a case of a difference in a couple of values. There's no 'real' sense that Andromeda is way off in the Universe and the keyboard is next to you. As Morpheus so perceptively pointed out 'is that really air you are breathing?' - but this is far beyond GR and definitely for another thread if you want to explore this further.
Okay, I think I get this idea. Let me repeat to make sure. Energy can be diffuse, or compact. When compacted in a location it exhibits the properties we ascribe to mass. If that compaction is of a self-sustaining nature it is what we'd call a particle with mass?
Yes, except that even when energy is 'diffuse' it still has an associated mass.
Take my classic space-time picture of a closed FRW universe - the globe. T=0 is the North Pole, with time flowing south. Care to suggest where the time directions of two separated particles would be parallel?
If I understand your description my guess would be the south pole (parallel but opposite direction)?
Nice and I dodn't think of that! I was thinking of the equator, where they will all be pointing the same way. But north of the equator, they will all be directed somewhat away from each other, as they follow the lines of longitude, and once past the equator, they will all be directed somewhat towards each other.
As a follow on to that, why does mass create a situation where a fully time directed vector sets two masses in physical motion towards each other.
The masses in isolation experience no accelerations and simply trace out their path through time, following their purely time directed vectors. But near each other, their vectors are tipped by the space-time curvature generated by each other. To a distant observer, he sees the masses accelerate towards each other, and either collide, slingshot, or enter into orbit, but there are no 'forces' acting upon either mass. It is just that their own time-directions are being twisted by the other mass.
I guess this is to ask, why does my natural path through time always point toward the center of something else?
It doesn't - in orbit, your path winds around the centre. But either way, that is just how space-time warps in the presence of the mass.
And why am I increasingly moving toward that center, rather than uniformly moving (I'd assume that's due to the nature of a curve rather than a straight line)?
That's a good question - Back to the rubber sheet analogy, the gravitational mass creates a smooth depression, where the curvature increases as you get closer to the centre, so the time vector tips over more as you approach the centre - hence you appear to accelerate. If the depression was sharply conical, with a discontinuity where it joins flat space, you would instantly jump from zero inward velocity to some finite velocity (with momentary infinite g!!) and that inward velocity would remain constant as you fell inwards. Fortunately, space-time responds rather more smoothly to the presence of mass, which in turn gives rise to the whole of Newtonian gravitation and F=GMm/R^2 in the weak gravitational limit...

This message is a reply to:
 Message 174 by Silent H, posted 03-09-2008 5:47 PM Silent H has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 227 by Silent H, posted 03-29-2008 7:41 PM cavediver has replied

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


Message 223 of 327 (462012)
03-29-2008 11:19 AM
Reply to: Message 214 by Fabric
03-27-2008 5:43 PM


What is a derived property ?
For example space is not energy because energy is a derived property, but as stated i dont understand what it means.
As I've mentioned before: at our present level of understanding, existence is a multi-layered fabric or sheet. We call these layers, fields. One special layer dictates the overall shape of the fabric, and you can imagine the other layers conforming to this shape. This special layer also gives rise to what we think of as disatnce. Ripples and bumps in the other layers give rise to what we call photons, electrons, quarks, electromagnetic fields, etc. You yourself are a simply a particular arrangement of bumps accross these fields! As is the planet you are standing on.
What we call energy is essentially a measure of how bumpy the layers are in a particular region. Conservation of energy is simply the observation that bumpiness is conserved - i.e. if you have a certain bumpiness in a small region of the fabric, that bumpiness can be redistributed between the different layers, it can be reduced by pushing it outside that small region, it cn be increased by augmenting it from outside that region, BUT it cannot be made to "vanish" and it cannot be made to "appear". Simple, huh?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 214 by Fabric, posted 03-27-2008 5:43 PM Fabric has not replied

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


Message 224 of 327 (462017)
03-29-2008 12:24 PM
Reply to: Message 220 by john6zx
03-29-2008 1:50 AM


I learn physics from the standard books issued to students who are enrolled in a physics courses. When I want to get a better definition of a term or get a better understanding of a term I use a standard dictionary.
and have you ever actually passed a physics course? What the hell has a "standard dictionary" to do with learning physics? Your lack of knowledge exhibited here is painful evidence of the futility of trying to learn physics this way. Even specific science/physics dictionaries are only really useful up to first year undergrad level.
And space-time is most certainly phsyical, and along with the quantum fields, just about makes up the totality of existence as far as we are yet aware.
If space were physical it would have to exist in a location just like the rest of the physical things that exist in this universe do. Something that is physical is not space, it exists in a location we call space. For space to be physical it would have to occupy a location, this is fundamental observation in physics.
Hmmm, if you say so...

This message is a reply to:
 Message 220 by john6zx, posted 03-29-2008 1:50 AM john6zx has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 225 by lyx2no, posted 03-29-2008 1:30 PM cavediver has not replied

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


Message 228 of 327 (462072)
03-30-2008 8:02 AM
Reply to: Message 226 by john6zx
03-29-2008 6:46 PM


Re: Fabric of Space-Time
First of all, the concept of this space-time fabric is part of a theory and not established scientific facts. It is not a real physical thing. You are just stating what the General Theory if Relativity states, not observed phenomenon. It is one mans idea of a possible explanation for gravity.
One man plus THE REST OF THE ENTIRE SCIENTIFIC COMMUNITY... how does one get so clueless? Surely you cannot produce anything more stupid than this?
It has never been tested nor can it ever be tested.
Oh, I was wrong... much more stupid. GR has never been tested??? Have you arrived by time warp from 1915, by any chance? As I will never be tired of repeating, GR is one of the two most successful phsyical theories ever discovered. I would pick another subject to drivel on, if I were you...

This message is a reply to:
 Message 226 by john6zx, posted 03-29-2008 6:46 PM john6zx has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 240 by john6zx, posted 04-05-2008 9:06 PM cavediver has not replied

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


Message 231 of 327 (462090)
03-30-2008 1:38 PM
Reply to: Message 230 by johnfolton
03-30-2008 12:47 PM


Re: The fabric of the universe made up of strings?
If string theory is correct and matter is not pointlike "then" the present belief (the status quo fundemental belief) that matter is pointlike is bollocks.
**IF** string theory is correct and matter is not pointlike "then" the present belief (the status quo fundemental belief) that matter is pointlike is simply the low energy approximation to the deeper more fundemental theory. There is nothing bollocks about any of it
On the other hand, the article you link to is very good, and well worth reading in its entirety.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 230 by johnfolton, posted 03-30-2008 12:47 PM johnfolton has not replied

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


Message 233 of 327 (462096)
03-30-2008 5:10 PM
Reply to: Message 227 by Silent H
03-29-2008 7:41 PM


Re: the gravity of general relativity
As ever, helpful yet adding further points of inquiry. But then again that is essentially the defining characteristic of science, right?
Right
How is there not a practical reality that my keyboard is next to me and Andromeda is far away, especially with the concept of a limited speed of light?
Even without going beyond basic relativity, this 'practical reality' is seriously screwed. Along the path taken by a photon leaving a star's surface in Andromeda and entering your cornea, there is literally zero space-time distance. However, we perceive that distance to be 2.2 million light years as we are not travelling with the photon.
If you feel you have the time and interest to walk me through it I will open a thread (probably Is it Science?
Sure, that could be interesting.
Would I be correct in assuming an associated mass as if mass (equal in quantity with that energy) were spread "diffusely" over that same volume?
Yes - mass and energy are really one and the same thing - mass is simply the measure of energy in the context of generating space-time curvature.
So two bodies start by simply moving through time, but when close to one another the c length vector each follow gets turned slightly (by the warping of space-time) from pure time, to both space and time. In this way a velocity is observed to begin in both bodies. As the curvature increases the vector turns more (aka vector follows curvature), and the resulting changes in velocity are the observed acceleration.
Precisely
I realize that there are no initial forces at a distance, however isn't it true that this activity of simply "following a vector" creates real momentum, which once those bodies meet gets converted into a real force, which then perhaps accelerates one or both bodies in a way that is real?
Yes - when the bodies collide, they will be accelerated off their free-fall path, but assuming they 'bounce' (rather than disintegrate) they will immediately enter new free-fall paths.
But in the example of two bodies initially at rest, the path of acceleration is towards the center of the other, right?
If the bodies are non-rotating, yex. But if one is rotating, it will cause space-time to wrap around it, inducing a rotation to anything in its vicinity. This is known as frame-dragging and has been measured around the Earth. So here, the acceleration is directed inwards but around the body.
is it possible to create "isochronal" charts of space?
Yes, as SG has mentioned. Carter-Penrose diagrams are the primary tool of the relativist in displaying the global properties of different space-times. However, we have to use other types of chart and diagram to display some properties, such as the frame-dragging mentioned above. There are some black holes on this page. However, when you say isochronal (and SG says spatial hypersurfaces), this is not a universally agreed surface of equal time, as there is no simultaneity in relativity - different observers will argue different spatial hypersurfaces of equal time.
Also, as rate of time does change, is there a minimum change in that rate which cannot be crossed? That is to say is rate of time change quantized?
The time interval along a path between two events has a maximum, but the minimum is zero simply by taking a path at c for the entire path. Obviously some events cannot be connected with a path as they are space-like separated - e.g. now on Earth, and four minutes in the future at the Sun (the Sun is 8 light minutes away)
As for a minimum quanta of time - possibly though not necessarily, but this is a whole new (much deeper) subject.
Edited by cavediver, : No reason given.
Edited by cavediver, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 227 by Silent H, posted 03-29-2008 7:41 PM Silent H has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 234 by randman, posted 04-01-2008 12:02 AM cavediver has replied
 Message 237 by Silent H, posted 04-01-2008 7:08 PM cavediver has not replied
 Message 238 by randman, posted 04-02-2008 1:19 AM cavediver has not replied

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


Message 235 of 327 (462179)
04-01-2008 5:41 AM
Reply to: Message 234 by randman
04-01-2008 12:02 AM


Re: the gravity of general relativity
So you are defining physical as something that has a location?
Absolutely not
John seems to be claiming time and space are mere human descriptions and not physical things. Is that your view?
Absolutely not
"john" has adequately demonstrated a utter lack of any knowledge of this subject...

This message is a reply to:
 Message 234 by randman, posted 04-01-2008 12:02 AM randman 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