Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 65 (9077 total)
99 online now:
ringo, Tanypteryx (2 members, 97 visitors)
Newest Member: Contrarian
Post Volume: Total: 894,031 Year: 5,143/6,534 Month: 563/794 Week: 54/135 Day: 6/25 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   What is "the fabric" of space-time?
lyx2no
Member (Idle past 3987 days)
Posts: 1277
From: A vast, undifferentiated plane.
Joined: 02-28-2008


Message 113 of 327 (459162)
03-04-2008 12:14 PM
Reply to: Message 8 by cavediver
02-25-2008 2:59 PM


Definition please.
These munmps would then induce a bump in the space-time layer.

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 postings

cavediver:

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.”?

And

Are 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.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 8 by cavediver, posted 02-25-2008 2:59 PM cavediver has taken no action

  
lyx2no
Member (Idle past 3987 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

  
lyx2no
Member (Idle past 3987 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 taken no action

  
lyx2no
Member (Idle past 3987 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 taken no action

  
lyx2no
Member (Idle past 3987 days)
Posts: 1277
From: A vast, undifferentiated plane.
Joined: 02-28-2008


Message 218 of 327 (461830)
03-28-2008 1:36 AM
Reply to: Message 216 by john6zx
03-27-2008 10:21 PM


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 them

Science 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.

Round and round they go.

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.


Kindly

∞∞∞∞

When 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.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 216 by john6zx, posted 03-27-2008 10:21 PM john6zx has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 220 by john6zx, posted 03-29-2008 1:50 AM lyx2no has taken no action

  
lyx2no
Member (Idle past 3987 days)
Posts: 1277
From: A vast, undifferentiated plane.
Joined: 02-28-2008


Message 225 of 327 (462023)
03-29-2008 1:30 PM
Reply to: Message 224 by cavediver
03-29-2008 12:24 PM


Thank-you cavediver
You just saved me a suspension.


Kindly

∞∞∞∞

When 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.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 224 by cavediver, posted 03-29-2008 12:24 PM cavediver has taken no action

  
lyx2no
Member (Idle past 3987 days)
Posts: 1277
From: A vast, undifferentiated plane.
Joined: 02-28-2008


Message 283 of 327 (473566)
06-30-2008 6:01 PM
Reply to: Message 282 by onifre
06-30-2008 5:10 PM


Very ?????
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.

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.


Kindly

∞∞∞∞∞∞∞

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


This message is a reply to:
 Message 282 by onifre, posted 06-30-2008 5:10 PM onifre has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 286 by onifre, posted 06-30-2008 11:32 PM lyx2no has replied

  
lyx2no
Member (Idle past 3987 days)
Posts: 1277
From: A vast, undifferentiated plane.
Joined: 02-28-2008


Message 287 of 327 (473586)
07-01-2008 12:17 AM
Reply to: Message 286 by onifre
06-30-2008 11:32 PM


Re: Very ?????
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.


Kindly

∞∞∞∞∞∞∞

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


This message is a reply to:
 Message 286 by onifre, posted 06-30-2008 11:32 PM onifre has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 288 by onifre, posted 07-01-2008 8:24 AM lyx2no has replied

  
lyx2no
Member (Idle past 3987 days)
Posts: 1277
From: A vast, undifferentiated plane.
Joined: 02-28-2008


Message 290 of 327 (473674)
07-01-2008 7:06 PM
Reply to: Message 288 by onifre
07-01-2008 8:24 AM


Re: Very ?????
Question 1: The greater red-shifts are due to the curvature of spacetime, correct?

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.

Question 2: Thats just the illusion that we are the center, from any other galaxies observational reference it would seem like they are the center, correct?

It is more delusion than illusion, caused by conceit.


Kindly

∞∞∞∞∞∞∞

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


This message is a reply to:
 Message 288 by onifre, posted 07-01-2008 8:24 AM onifre has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 291 by onifre, posted 07-02-2008 12:15 PM lyx2no has replied
 Message 292 by BMG, posted 07-02-2008 12:54 PM lyx2no has replied

  
lyx2no
Member (Idle past 3987 days)
Posts: 1277
From: A vast, undifferentiated plane.
Joined: 02-28-2008


Message 293 of 327 (473729)
07-02-2008 1:16 PM
Reply to: Message 291 by onifre
07-02-2008 12:15 PM


Re: Very ?????
Is it the bouncing that creates the energy and therefore the wavelength?

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.

I think this is the answer to what I just asked, but I just want to make sure that i've understood you properly.

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.


Kindly

∞∞∞∞∞∞∞

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


This message is a reply to:
 Message 291 by onifre, posted 07-02-2008 12:15 PM onifre has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 296 by onifre, posted 07-02-2008 4:07 PM lyx2no has taken no action

  
lyx2no
Member (Idle past 3987 days)
Posts: 1277
From: A vast, undifferentiated plane.
Joined: 02-28-2008


Message 294 of 327 (473743)
07-02-2008 3:43 PM
Reply to: Message 292 by BMG
07-02-2008 12:54 PM


Re: Very ?????
I can't wrap my head around this. How can something that travels through space at c not be traveling through space?

The lorentz contraction of space is given by, L = Lo √(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 • Lo = 0 = L. Length is reduced to zero. How long would it take to go zero distance?


Kindly

∞∞∞∞∞∞∞

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


This message is a reply to:
 Message 292 by BMG, posted 07-02-2008 12:54 PM BMG has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 297 by BMG, posted 07-03-2008 5:01 AM lyx2no has replied

  
lyx2no
Member (Idle past 3987 days)
Posts: 1277
From: A vast, undifferentiated plane.
Joined: 02-28-2008


Message 299 of 327 (473834)
07-03-2008 8:32 AM
Reply to: Message 297 by BMG
07-03-2008 5:01 AM


Re: Very ?????
…and the amount is based upon the Lorentz Contraction formula?

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.


Kindly

∞∞∞∞∞∞∞

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


This message is a reply to:
 Message 297 by BMG, posted 07-03-2008 5:01 AM BMG has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 301 by BMG, posted 07-03-2008 11:28 AM lyx2no has taken no action

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.1
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2022