What is "the fabric" of space-time?

quote:

---

Is energy a physical thing or not? Yes/No?

---

All universe content is physical [as opposed to what?!], including percieved nothingness or what we cannot yet see. Everything is basically from the same source, thus the quest to find the smallest denominator particle and a unifying force.Energy is an effect of drag and density levels, and not a seperate, non-universal product. If the question was, what is behind all physicality, even behind quark realms, I would say a program, and one which is responsible for all results. Its not the fire or a bullet from a gun which is the end point; ultimately it is a program which produced the gun, the bullet and the fire. Physicality is a lumping or denser formation of the same particles which make up energy and all other stuff.

quote:

---

What is a sublimity?

---

This is an extra-ordinary leaping, and can apply however it is contexted.Edited by IamJoseph, : No reason given.

Who knows? Depends on what you want. I could give an answer about particles being Poincaré irreps, e.t.c. However that's tangential to the thread. That is incorrect. You cannot "condense" energy and make it become matter. Show me a process where you take some "ability to do work" and condense it to make matter. If matter was only made of energy where would electric charge come from? In no theory in physics is matter made of energy. Again, there is no process where extremely disperse matter becomes energy. Name one, if you don't think this is the case. Which expresses how much energy a given amount of mass (the resistence to motion) is equivalent to. Not that matter is made of energy. True, but the same could be said of electric charge, color charge, momentum, spin, e.t.c. It doesn't mean matter is made of energy. There are several answers one could give, which may or may not be satisfactory. That doesn't change the fact that matter isn't made of energy.

Since we don't need any more nonsense posing as English than we already have I'm slowing you down for now. Suspension will follow.Edited by AdminNosy, : No reason given.

What with this reply SG just submitted, and his recent reply to randman, it seems that SG's keen resolve and determined patience are starting to show the very first signs of cracks. Reminds me of someone else, much further along the road to complete dispair Edited by cavediver, : No reason given.Edited by cavediver, : No reason given.

There was a point brought up earlier in this thread that I am still confused about. Cave diver I would appreciate any help you can give me in raping my mind around this. Mainly that as we look farther out into space we are seeing light cones from more and more distant objects. These objects all have a more distinct red shift than closer light cones. Now the explanation I have heard is that these objects, having more space in between them move farther and faster relative to us. Being that space has a repulsive force in the manner of dark energy. All this makes sense except for the part that we are seeing light cones that are from an earlier time in the age of the universe. So wouldn't we have an older universe moving faster than today? Ex: older more distant objects move very fast away, newer, closer objects moving not so fast. Is this due to the effect of space itself stretching the frequency emitted from the objects? Any help would be appreciated thanks.

think that should be *wrapping* Yes, this is definitely one way to think of it. It is not that we are seeing the distant galaxies and quasars moving away at velocities that they were moving away from us at that time, which would be the case if this were simply a Doppler effect. The Universe has been expanding as the photons have been travelling towards us through the billions of years, and this expansion is the reason for the red-shift.There is actually a far far simpler explanation, which I may as well mention as you brought up "light-cones", despite it requiring more insight into space-time physics. As you may know, photons actually have no "length", as the proper distance between the emission and absorption of a photon is zero (think of infinite length contraction), and there is no time between emission and absorption (think of infinite time dilation.) So how does the red-shift arise in this context? It is simply a result of the light-cone at emission pointing in a different direction to the light cone at absorption. The photon allows us to overlap the light cones (despite being separated in our minds by billions of years and billions of light-years) and take a measurement of the difference between them.Edited by cavediver, : No reason given.

That only happens if you become Republican

---

All great truths begin as blasphemiesI smoke pot. If this bothers anyone, I suggest you look around at the world in which we live and shut your mouth.

Actualy I like to make up lymerics to help me remember, so raping kinda fits that and my spelling is terrible.Thank you for the explenation, that makes more sense. I tried to think of it the same way a laser gyroscope works just over much larger scales.

The problem is that you are not understanding the explanations given to you by people who have been involved in cosmology for years, your understanding of the subject is then limited to your layman interpretations and definitions. What is being explained therefore passes you by. You repeateing your questions just further shows that you are unwilling to learn properly.I'll ask you the simple question of : Can spacetime be warped?You don't even need to search, heres the answer used for highschool physics classes,Classroom Activity: Warped Space-Time ModelIf you get the answer to that, and by 'get' I mean fully comprehend, you may also get a better understanding of what is meant by 'physical' in relation to spacetime...hope that helped.

---

All great truths begin as blasphemiesI smoke pot. If this bothers anyone, I suggest you look around at the world in which we live and shut your mouth.

Is the speed at which we observe distant galaxies moving at, since it is said that further galaxies are moving away at greater velocities, due to spacetimes curvature and our obsevational point?IOW, is the space between galaxies expanding at the same rate?I hope my question makes sense...

---

All great truths begin as blasphemiesI smoke pot. If this bothers anyone, I suggest you look around at the world in which we live and shut your mouth.

Take a rubber band and draw 7 dots on it, equally spaced apart. The middle one represents our galaxy while the others represent other galaxies. When you stretch out the rubber band, the dots that are farther from the middle one move farther and faster away from the dots that are closer to the middle one even though the rubber band is stretching by the same amount across all the dots.The distance and speeds are compounded by the space between our galaxy and the nearest one and the distance between the nearest one and the farther ones.Make sense? Yes.

Yes, and the rubber band analogy was the same as I was shown last semester, they just never further explained it during the lecture since it was off topic to the lecture. It just now made more sense since you further explained how spacetimes'curvature makes it seem faster from our POV. Its an Euclidean geometric sphere that our Universe resembles...thats simpler now to understand.The rubber band analogy then is almost like the infinity question of whats greater?,1,2,3,4,5,6...
or
2,4,6,8,10...its all equal. Cool. Yeah I figured as much I just didn't know if the speed had any relation to the total mass of a galaxy.Thanks again.

---

All great truths begin as blasphemiesI smoke pot. If this bothers anyone, I suggest you look around at the world in which we live and shut your mouth.

I'm uncertain as to what you mean by this, but it seems you may be reading too much into a mechanical analogy. Can you expound upon it?Edited by lyx2no, : Punctuation.

---

KindlyEveryone deserves a neatly dug grave. It is the timing that's in dispute.

I read this and was pathetically optimistic that I would be able to understand. As "particle" travelling at the speed of light this makes sense in terms of my understanding of SR. So far so good. That is the question I am asking. So again I am optimistic regarding my comprehension. I am lost
How do we take a measurment of the difference between light cones?
I can envisage the emission light cone. Ditto the absorption light cone. I can even imagine the merging of the two to form two cones base to base.But I am utterly lost as to how this relates to the red shift?
Can you explain further?

Ok, let's say I have a light source - that wavelength/frequency of the light is measured relative to the time axis of my own light-cone. Relative to a light-cone that is tipped over somewhat, the light will appear to have a longer wavelength, lower frequency, and hence red-shift, because the ticks of a clock measured in the first light cone, will tick more slowly when measured against the time axis of the second light cone (and vice-versa). Cosmological curvature is what causes the two light cones to be tipped wrt each other, and the photon joining the two light cones is what enables us to compare their relative tipping.Edited by cavediver, : No reason given.