Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 84 (8914 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 06-27-2019 2:41 AM
20 online now:
AZPaul3, dwise1, Minnemooseus (Adminnemooseus) (3 members, 17 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: 4petdinos
Upcoming Birthdays: ooh-child
Post Volume:
Total: 854,844 Year: 9,880/19,786 Month: 2,302/2,119 Week: 338/724 Day: 1/62 Hour: 1/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
RewPrev1
...
1718192021
22
Author Topic:   What is "the fabric" of space-time?
john6zx
Member (Idle past 2994 days)
Posts: 66
Joined: 01-27-2007


Message 316 of 327 (475152)
07-13-2008 6:01 PM
Reply to: Message 313 by Son Goku
07-13-2008 8:55 AM


Re: the gravity of general relativity
Posted by Son Goku:

You do not need to know everything to know something. Given what energy actually is, it is a trivial deduction that matter is not made of it, regardless of one's knowledge of the actual constituents of matter.
Matter is not made of energy, just as it is not made of angular momentum. Both are properties of matter.

Science has a viewpoint on what matter is made of. Physics and chemistry students learn what matter is made of. There are many references that explain the structure of matter. There is an answer, it is not a mystery, so please just find out what science has agreed on about the structure of all matter in this universe.

I have come to the conclusion that matter is made of energy from what science has observed though testing and experiments. Your conclusion that matter IS NOT made from energy is by all means a valid viewpoint on this subject at this moment. I would just like to hear what you think matter is made of. What is your conclusion on the structure of matter?

Maybe I am wrong in my conclusion that matter is made of energy. This form is a designed to discuss such topics and for everyone involved to gain a better understanding of the physical world around them. You have stated what matter IS NOT made of, so now I would like to hear from you on what you think matter IS made of.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 313 by Son Goku, posted 07-13-2008 8:55 AM Son Goku has not yet responded

    
Straggler
Member
Posts: 10285
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 317 of 327 (475156)
07-13-2008 6:08 PM
Reply to: Message 315 by john6zx
07-13-2008 5:35 PM


Re: the gravity of general relativity
I am not saying that we have the ability to gather energy and make matter, I am saying that matter is a condensed form of energy.

Regardless of whether or not we have the technology to actually do so in practise, what you seem to be saying is that it is in principle possible to condense any form of energy into matter?

If so this is just wrong.

Can we agree that this universe is made up of matter and energy?

Time and space? Fields? What are black holes in your view?

Please just research MATTER on the web or in your books and tell me what you find

I don't find any mention of matter being a "condensed form of energy". My guess is that this misapprehension of the equivalance principle and resulting interpretation is uniquely your own.
Can you provide a source for this specific assertion of yours? Namely that "matter is a condensed form of energy".


This message is a reply to:
 Message 315 by john6zx, posted 07-13-2008 5:35 PM john6zx has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 321 by john6zx, posted 07-13-2008 7:11 PM Straggler has responded

  
onifre
Member (Idle past 1124 days)
Posts: 4854
From: Dark Side of the Moon
Joined: 02-20-2008


Message 318 of 327 (475157)
07-13-2008 6:14 PM
Reply to: Message 306 by john6zx
07-13-2008 3:33 AM


Re: Very ?????
Is this a quote from a movie or something? I am curious as to why anyone would say this.

This is a quote from the person pictured in my avatar.


All great truths begin as blasphemies

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


This message is a reply to:
 Message 306 by john6zx, posted 07-13-2008 3:33 AM john6zx has not yet responded

    
john6zx
Member (Idle past 2994 days)
Posts: 66
Joined: 01-27-2007


Message 319 of 327 (475163)
07-13-2008 6:33 PM
Reply to: Message 279 by onifre
06-30-2008 11:59 AM


Re: the gravity of general relativity
Posted by onifre:

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, here’s the answer used for high school physics classes,

I went to the web site and I am very familiar with this demonstration. This demonstration involves a force that we call gravity. The whole point of the demonstration is to show that massive objects warp this thing called space-time, and gravity is not the cause of the planets orbits. Yet the mass that is placed in the center of the latex sheet moves in a downward direction toward the floor because of gravity, not a warping of a thing called space-time. This demonstration shows the effects of gravity, that’s it.

This type of demonstration does not explain what space-time is, it does not explain what this fabric of space-time is made of. This demonstration does not explain how this fabric came to be. It does not explain what this fabric is located in. The demo is used to explain the orbits of the planets is not due to gravity, so what is it that causes my pencil to move toward the floor when I let go of it? Warped space-time?

Is this really scientific proof of the existance of space-time? No direct observation of this Great fabric in the sky, just a heavy ball in some elastic material. I could go on about this and how unscientific it is, but all I need to point out is that I have been saying that space is not a physical thing, and this website that you offered up is supposed to give proof that space is a real physical thing.

Please explain where this demo proves beyond a reasonable doubt that space is a physical thing?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 279 by onifre, posted 06-30-2008 11:59 AM onifre has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 320 by Straggler, posted 07-13-2008 6:47 PM john6zx has responded
 Message 322 by onifre, posted 07-13-2008 7:27 PM john6zx has not yet responded

    
Straggler
Member
Posts: 10285
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 320 of 327 (475164)
07-13-2008 6:47 PM
Reply to: Message 319 by john6zx
07-13-2008 6:33 PM


Re: the gravity of general relativity
The whole point of the demonstration is to show that massive objects warp this thing called space-time, and gravity is not the cause of the planets orbits

No No No. The demo is a model of how the force of gravity can be considered in terms of spacetime curvature.

Nobody is saying that gravity does not exist. Gravity is the effect of spacetime curvature. GR provides a geometric explanation of what actually underlies the force of gravity.

Is this really scientific proof of the existance of space-time?

No it is a classroom model used for explanatory purposes. In the same way I can model the solar system with a bowling ball, an orange and some grapes nobody is claiming this is "proof" of the structure of the solar system!!!

Please explain where this demo proves beyond a reasonable doubt that space is a physical thing?

The demo proves nothing and is not intended to prove anything.
Evidence for GR comes in the form of gravitational lensing, GPS satellite time differences etc. etc. etc.

Predicted calculated results that have been experimentally verified. Repeatedly.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 319 by john6zx, posted 07-13-2008 6:33 PM john6zx has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 324 by john6zx, posted 07-13-2008 8:16 PM Straggler has responded

  
john6zx
Member (Idle past 2994 days)
Posts: 66
Joined: 01-27-2007


Message 321 of 327 (475165)
07-13-2008 7:11 PM
Reply to: Message 317 by Straggler
07-13-2008 6:08 PM


Re: the gravity of general relativity
Posted by Straggler:

I don't find any mention of matter being a "condensed form of energy". My guess is that this misapprehension of the equivalance principle and resulting interpretation is uniquely your own.
Can you provide a source for this specific assertion of yours? Namely that "matter is a condensed form of energy".

Here is one web site of many that talks about the relationship between matter and energy.

http://www.physicalgeography.net/fundamentals/6a.html

Here is a quote from that web site.

Energy is defined simply by scientists as the capacity for doing work. Matter is the material (atoms and molecules) that constructs things on the Earth and in the Universe. Albert Einstein suggested early in this century that energy and matter are related to each other at the atomic level. Einstein theorized that it should be possible to convert matter into energy. From Einstein's theories, scientists were able to harness the energy of matter beginning in the 1940s through nuclear fission. The most spectacular example of this process is a nuclear explosion from an atomic bomb. A more peaceful example of our use of this fact of nature is the production of electricity from controlled fission reactions in nuclear reactors. Einstein also suggested that it should be possible to transform energy into matter.
Energy and matter are also associated to each other at much larger scales of nature. Later on in this chapter, we will examine how solar radiation provides the energy to create the matter that makes up organisms. Organisms then use some of this matter to power their metabolism.

I am sure that this one refernce is not going to convince you of my view on this. This will keep the discussion going in a specific direction.

That direction being, What are atoms made of? What are electrons? What is matter really made of?

You have not mentioned what you think matter is made of, but I think by the time we boil this whole subject down we will have our answer.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 317 by Straggler, posted 07-13-2008 6:08 PM Straggler has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 323 by Straggler, posted 07-13-2008 7:36 PM john6zx has not yet responded

    
onifre
Member (Idle past 1124 days)
Posts: 4854
From: Dark Side of the Moon
Joined: 02-20-2008


Message 322 of 327 (475166)
07-13-2008 7:27 PM
Reply to: Message 319 by john6zx
07-13-2008 6:33 PM


Re: the gravity of general relativity
Seems like even the high school demo went over your head as well. No matter. The only point of the demo was to give you a starting point to answering your own question about space-time yourself. If it can be warped then it IS a 'thing', from there you can begin to understand what that 'thing' is.

This type of demonstration does not explain what space-time is, it does not explain what this fabric of space-time is made of. This demonstration does not explain how this fabric came to be. It does not explain what this fabric is located in.

Correct, but, it does show you that space-time is there and ojects with mass affect it. The demo establishes space-time as a physical thing...that was the only point I was trying to make.

Is this really scientific proof of the existance of space-time?

Yes, however, if you are looking for what its made up of then you have not understood what space-time actually is.

I could go on about this and how unscientific it is, but all I need to point out is that I have been saying that space is not a physical thing, and this website that you offered up is supposed to give proof that space is a real physical thing.

Ok then if space-time is not a physical thing, why does a planet cause it to distort?

Wouldn't there be NO effect on something thats not physically there?

Edited by onifre, : spelling


All great truths begin as blasphemies

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


This message is a reply to:
 Message 319 by john6zx, posted 07-13-2008 6:33 PM john6zx has not yet responded

    
Straggler
Member
Posts: 10285
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 323 of 327 (475168)
07-13-2008 7:36 PM
Reply to: Message 321 by john6zx
07-13-2008 7:11 PM


Fundamental Particles
Here is one web site of many that talks about the relationship between matter and energy.

In other words the assertion that "matter is a condensed form of energy" is not supported at all and is in fact an interpretation borne of your misapprehension of the equivalence principle.

I am familiar with the equivalence principle. I have no doubt that there is a relationship between energy and matter.
However nowhere will you find that your assertion "matter is a condensed form of energy" is a valid conclusion of the equivalence principle.

You are just wrong with regard to this.

What are atoms made of?

Protons, neutrons and electrons. To the best of our knowledge neutrons and protons are themselves comprised of quarks which are fundamental particles.

What are electrons?

Negatively charged fundamental particles.

What is matter really made of?

Fundamental particles and the various quantised force carrier 'particles' associated with the 4 fundamental forces.

It may be the case that various fundamental particles can be derived from multidimensional strings 'vibrating' at different 'frequencies'. Or there may be another basis for the various properties of the different fundamental particles. Time will tell.

You have not mentioned what you think matter is made of, but I think by the time we boil this whole subject down we will have our answer.

Matter is not made of energy. Energy is a property of matter. We need to get past this erroneous assertion of yours before any progress can be made.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 321 by john6zx, posted 07-13-2008 7:11 PM john6zx has not yet responded

  
john6zx
Member (Idle past 2994 days)
Posts: 66
Joined: 01-27-2007


Message 324 of 327 (475171)
07-13-2008 8:16 PM
Reply to: Message 320 by Straggler
07-13-2008 6:47 PM


Re: the gravity of general relativity
No No No. The demo is a model of how the force of gravity can be considered in terms of spacetime curvature.

Nobody is saying that gravity does not exist. Gravity is the effect of spacetime curvature. GR provides a geometric explanation of what actually underlies the force of gravity.

Which is it? Is gravity a force? Or some geometric curvature of space-time? Do you really believe that there is a thing that exists out in space that is being warped by objects. In order for this whole idea of space-time to make any logical sense there would have to be some evidence that this fabric actually exists. There is none. So why is it even taken seriously? Has the whole essence of scientific research been reduced to beliefs and unquestioning acceptance of what we are told is true?

There is no direct evidence in the existance of this space-time fabric.

No it is a classroom model used for explanatory purposes. In the same way I can model the solar system with a bowling ball, an orange and some grapes nobody is claiming this is "proof" of the structure of the solar system!!!

Making a model of the solar system is taking those things that are observable (the planets and the sun) and replacing them with other objects so as to show the relationship of where these objects are located and their relative sizes to each other. You are taking what is already a know physical object and replacing it with a different known physical object for the purposes of demonstration.

Now when it comes to this space-time fabric being represented as an elastic sheet, how does that elastic sheet compare to the real space-time fabric? What is similar between them? Their shape? The fact that the elastic sheet has to be secured at the edges in order to support the mass?

If you want to make a great demo of this space-time thing, then take that elastic sheet and stretch it out and then pass a mass over the sheet and show that the presence of mass can warp this sheet without even coming in contact with it. That would be a start in the right direction in showing some evidence of this fabric that exists in outer space.

In the all of the demos of this space fabric, the mass is placed on the elastic sheet by a human, and gravity pulls it down.

This whole belief that there is some cosmic fabric that exists in space is bordering on an almost religious belief. Where is the hard cold science that provides any shred of evidence in the physical existance of this cosmic fabric?

The demo proves nothing and is not intended to prove anything.
Evidence for GR comes in the form of gravitational lensing, GPS satellite time differences etc. etc. etc.

Predicted calculated results that have been experimentally verified. Repeatedly.

What was even your point in bringing this demo up in the first place? What has it done for this discussion? What were you trying to add to this subject?

Look, I am not trying come across as someone who is antagonistic toward you, I have just heard so many people discuss this cosmic fabric as though it is a real thing and I am in the wrong for not not believing in this Great fabric in the sky.

Evidence for GR comes in the form of gravitational lensing, GPS satellite time differences etc. etc. etc.

Evidence for GR? I have been asking for evidence that space is a physical thing, and this is what you are giving as evidence.

We can discuss GR at a latter time, but lets get back to the basic question. Is there any evidence that space is a physical thing.

The concept of space is what holds all of your statements and demos of space-time and the such together. If space is not a real physical thing where does that leave GR and SR? So there must be some direct evidence in the idea that space is a real physical thing.

Once it has been established that space is a real physical thing and not just an assumption, then we can discuss all of those things that are supposed to be made from it.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 320 by Straggler, posted 07-13-2008 6:47 PM Straggler has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 325 by Dr Adequate, posted 07-13-2008 8:43 PM john6zx has not yet responded
 Message 326 by Straggler, posted 07-13-2008 8:44 PM john6zx has not yet responded
 Message 327 by johnfolton, posted 07-14-2008 3:04 AM john6zx has not yet responded

    
Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 16097
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 325 of 327 (475174)
07-13-2008 8:43 PM
Reply to: Message 324 by john6zx
07-13-2008 8:16 PM


Re: the gravity of general relativity
This whole belief that there is some cosmic fabric that exists in space is bordering on an almost religious belief. Where is the hard cold science that provides any shred of evidence in the physical existance of this cosmic fabric?

That would be all the evidence for G.R. That's kinda what makes it different from a "religious belief".

Is there any other aspect of the bleedin' obvious that you need explaining to you?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 324 by john6zx, posted 07-13-2008 8:16 PM john6zx has not yet responded

  
Straggler
Member
Posts: 10285
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 326 of 327 (475175)
07-13-2008 8:44 PM
Reply to: Message 324 by john6zx
07-13-2008 8:16 PM


GR - One of the Most Verified Theories in Science
Which is it? Is gravity a force? Or some geometric curvature of space-time?

Gravity is a force borne from spacetime curvature.
GR is the theory of gravity as spacetime curvature.

As you are such a wiki fan - from Wiki

General relativity or the general theory of relativity is the geometric theory of gravitation published by Albert Einstein in 1916. It is the state-of-the art description of gravity in modern physics. It unifies special relativity and Newton's law of universal gravitation, and describes gravity as a property of the geometry of space and time, or spacetime

John writes

In order for this whole idea of space-time to make any logical sense there would have to be some evidence that this fabric actually exists. There is none. So why is it even taken seriously?

The whole GPS satellite system relies on the curvature of spacetime and the calculations that are derived from this view of spacetime as a curved "fabric".

There is no direct evidence in the existance of this space-time fabric.

As someone who is so fond of Wiki I would suggest that you look up General Realtivity and the verification of it in terms of the numerous observed effects of spacetime curvature. It has been repeatedly experimentally verified. From as far back as 1915 but most famously in 1919.

From Wiki

Similarly, a 1919 expedition led by Eddington confirmed general relativity's prediction for the deflection of starlight by the Sun,[7] making Einstein instantly famous.[8] Yet the theory entered the mainstream of theoretical physics and astrophysics only with the developments between approximately 1960 and 1975, now known as the Golden age of general relativity. Physicists began to understand the concept of a black hole, and to identify these objects' astrophysical manifestation as quasars.[9] Ever more precise solar system tests confirmed the theory's predictive power,[10] and relativistic cosmology, too, became amenable to direct observational tests.[11]

John says

If space is not a real physical thing where does that leave GR and SR? So there must be some direct evidence in the idea that space is a real physical thing.

Spacetime can hardly curve if it is not a physical thing now can it?
If space is not physical how can it curve?
If it does not curve how do you explain the extremely accurate and repeatable predictions of GR that are used by every sat nav system in the world?
Your alterantive theory will need to at least match the predictive power of GR.

Good luck.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 324 by john6zx, posted 07-13-2008 8:16 PM john6zx has not yet responded

  
johnfolton 
Suspended Member (Idle past 3764 days)
Posts: 2024
Joined: 12-04-2005


Message 327 of 327 (475209)
07-14-2008 3:04 AM
Reply to: Message 324 by john6zx
07-13-2008 8:16 PM


Re: the gravity of general relativity
In the all of the demos of this space fabric, the mass is placed on the elastic sheet by a human, and gravity pulls it down.

The Word says the earth hangeth upon nothing. Is the bible's saying without nothing gravity would cease to exists because upon nothing he hangeth the earth?

Is there a dimension of nothing being generated within the atom that is the strong nucleur force responsible for containing the vasts amounts of energy within the atom. Is the strong nucleur force within the atom causing the weak force we call gravity? How is nothing not responsible for this weak force outside of the atom pulling inward on the fabric of spacetime?

Space curving inward appears nothing is being generated within the atom multiplied by all the atoms of the earth are pulling in on the fabric of spacetime.

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.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 324 by john6zx, posted 07-13-2008 8:16 PM john6zx has not yet responded

  
RewPrev1
...
1718192021
22
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019