What is "the fabric" of space-time?

Being pathologically driven to make myself look like a complete idiot I can not resist asking, if by any wild chance it's not a typo, what are “Munmps”. There certainly would be stranger things within QM that I am ignorant of than a new term of art.To later postingscavediver:Can I take it that since you’ve said it half a dozen times that “[These fields] aren’t made of anything.” is not the equivalent of “These fields are made of nothing.”?AndAre you saying that the fields are currently purely mathematical constructs describing whatever it is that underlies matter and energy as we know it, and that if we could somehow delve into that realm we may or may not find the some-“thing” that comports to these equation as quarks did in their turn, yet are still accurate descriptions of whatever it is. And to save postings.randman:You seem to be content by saying things are made of energy without having to ask what is energy. Would you be satisfied if these fields had a one word name for you to say that they were made of? I’d like to propose “munmps” if it's not already in use.Edited by lyx2no, : To save postings.

---

Kindly******Fishing for complements without bait.

Lord love a duck; read a physics primer.

---

Kindly******Scared of the dark

Because you believe that which follows your question. 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

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?

2Ice baked taters is wrong about Fermi Lab claiming space was comprised of neutrinos. They may have stated space was stuffed cheek to jowl with neutrinos, but not made of themScience doesn't try to make the idea of space more that it is; it tries to define it.Space is physical. It's what things are in. Space isn't in anything: It's space.Yes, scientists look around themselves all the time. One might even say it's their job. Actually, round and round you go. Your confusion is not ours.And while we're at it, you might want to try learning physics from a physics book rather than a dictionary.

---

KindlyWhen I was a child I’d slyly stick gum on the back of my little brothers head. Our horse, Brussels, would nip it off, usually getting a bit of skin along with it. As we grow old, fat and bald, particularly bald, the sins of my youth give me cause to giggle.

You just saved me a suspension.

---

KindlyWhen I was a child I’d slyly stick gum on the back of my little brothers head. Our horse, Brussels, would nip it off, usually getting a bit of skin along with it. As we grow old, fat and bald, particularly bald, the sins of my youth give me cause to giggle.

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.

The important points to get from this analogy are, "Why would objects farther away have proportionally greater red shift?" and,"Why do all locations seem locally to be the center?"I use the same analogy frequently; however, I generally use a spring because springs have a built in unit, the coil. If one doubles the length of the spring, one doubles the length of each individual coil regardless of where in the spring it is located. The more coils two markers were separated by the more millimeters added to their separation after one second. Every coil sees all other coils moving away from themselves, and all see it in the exact same way.If one starts with a one-thousand coil, one meter long spring and doubles its length in one second, a coil has increased its length by one millimeter in one second, Or, stated in a like form to Hubble's constant, 1 (mm/sec)/coil*.AbE: *This is tens of quadrillions of times faster than Hubble's constant {71 (km/sec)/Mps}. Note, however, that because the coil changes size whereas the megaparsec is a constant this analogy quickly fails.Edited by lyx2no, : Got ahead of myself.Edited by lyx2no, : Add info.Edited by lyx2no, : No reason given.

---

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

The cosmological red shift is caused by the expansion of the space between the signals source and the observer.A photon originating half again as far as Andromeda (1 Mps) takes, in our reference frame, 3.26 million years to get here. In that 3.26 million years the source has moved away at 71 kilometers per second. The initial proper distance is 775 lys less then the final proper distance.Now, we are measuring this photon at two different times. The first time is measured by inference, where we would expect it to be in the spectra, say the 526.96 nm emission line of neutral Fe, and the second time by measuring its current position in the spectra.Remember, also, that according to the photon no time or space was crossed. It had a certain energy, and therefore wavelength, upon emission; and hence, bounced up and down only so many times in its frame and in ours.The photon's departure wavelength was measured as # bounces/3.26”10²² meters, while the photon's arrival wavelength is measured as # bounces/(3.26”10²² + 7.31”10¹⁸) meters. The emission wavelength of the photon will appear stretched that extra bit (1 part in 4000), and its spectral position will shift that far to the red. It is more delusion than illusion, caused by conceit.

---

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

Sorry 'bout that, the bouncing up and down is my glibness shining through. Many folks imagine a light wave being an actual particle (pseudo-photon) moving up and down as if it were on a sinusoidal roller coaster. It has much more to do with cartoon mechanics than QM. The wavelength of the wave form of a particle is dependent upon its energy. You have. Sorry again, got to run.AbE: It can, in a sense, be viewed as caused by space curvature, but it's a hard row to hoe. Edited by lyx2no, : Returned.

---

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

The lorentz contraction of space is given by, L = L_o (1 - v²/c²). Look what happens when velocity approaches the speed of light, v -” c. (v/c)² = (c/c)² = 1² = 1; (1 - 1) = 0; And, 0 ” L_o = 0 = L. Length is reduced to zero. How long would it take to go zero distance?

---

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

The amount is based on the behavior of the Universe and we can calculate it with the Lorentz's formula , but yes.P.S. I'd not generally correct that bit, but I've had to put up with a few folks of late who can't grasp that the math isn't a magic formula used by atheists to change the Universe more to their own liking. And they are reading . seeking the magic symbols that will allow them to change it back.Edited by lyx2no, : Add P.S.Edited by lyx2no, : Grammar.

---

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