Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 63 (9057 total)
98 online now:
dwise1, jar, PaulK, Percy (Admin), Stile, Tangle, Tanypteryx (7 members, 91 visitors)
Newest Member: drlove
Post Volume: Total: 889,778 Year: 890/6,534 Month: 890/682 Week: 125/445 Day: 18/22 Hour: 5/3


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   What is "the fabric" of space-time?
john6zx
Member (Idle past 3933 days)
Posts: 66
Joined: 01-27-2007


Message 241 of 327 (462615)
04-05-2008 9:13 PM
Reply to: Message 230 by johnfolton
03-30-2008 12:47 PM


Re: The fabric of the universe made up of strings?
johnfolton wrote:
String theory is based on the idea that the smallest known subatomic particles, such as electrons, are not really pointlike objects when viewed close up, but rather very small extended bits of "string."

String theory is based on the existence of extra physical spatial dimensions. Show me any scientific reference or any personal perception that leads you to believe that spatial dimensions are real physical things.


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

  
john6zx
Member (Idle past 3933 days)
Posts: 66
Joined: 01-27-2007


Message 242 of 327 (462616)
04-05-2008 9:23 PM
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?

What if something has no definite location but merely the capacity to be or become in a specific location?

Edit to add: it appears this should have been directed to someone else as I mistakenly hit the wrong reply button. Nevertheless, besides john, it would be interesting to see how you answer these questions. John seems to be claiming time and space are mere human descriptions and not physical things. Is that your view, and if so.....?

You tell me. Do you have any reference or personal experience that shows that space and time are physical things?

You will need to define the terms physical and object and find out for yourself if a thing can exist without a location.


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

Replies to this message:
 Message 243 by randman, posted 04-08-2008 4:59 PM john6zx has responded

  
randman 
Suspended Member (Idle past 4012 days)
Posts: 6367
Joined: 05-26-2005


Message 243 of 327 (462754)
04-08-2008 4:59 PM
Reply to: Message 242 by john6zx
04-05-2008 9:23 PM


Re: the gravity of general relativity
I agree with you or partly. Time and space are more descriptions of distance between physical things from our perspective. However, they are in one sense physical in that they are a reference to physical relationships and so have a location from one perspective. I wouldn't call either absolute and not even sure time itself can accurately be given a specific quanta or point....there is no point in time.....it is always a varied "space" of time that depends on perspective.....in other words, it's not point-like. Moreover, I do believe the fabric of space-time is essentially non-physical and informational.

Edited by randman, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 242 by john6zx, posted 04-05-2008 9:23 PM john6zx has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 245 by john6zx, posted 04-27-2008 4:28 PM randman has not yet responded
 Message 305 by john6zx, posted 07-08-2008 7:05 PM randman has not yet responded

  
john6zx
Member (Idle past 3933 days)
Posts: 66
Joined: 01-27-2007


Message 244 of 327 (464622)
04-27-2008 4:17 PM
Reply to: Message 217 by Organicmachination
03-27-2008 10:45 PM


Re: Fabric of Space-Time
Organicmachination, we can both agree that space and time exist for us. I say that space and time are concepts, you disagree, so in what way do you think that space or time exist? Do you think that they are physical things? They exist, but in what way?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 217 by Organicmachination, posted 03-27-2008 10:45 PM Organicmachination has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 247 by IamJoseph, posted 05-06-2008 4:05 AM john6zx has responded

  
john6zx
Member (Idle past 3933 days)
Posts: 66
Joined: 01-27-2007


Message 245 of 327 (464623)
04-27-2008 4:28 PM
Reply to: Message 243 by randman
04-08-2008 4:59 PM


Re: the gravity of general relativity
randman wrote:
I agree with you or partly. Time and space are more descriptions of distance between physical things from our perspective. However, they are in one sense physical in that they are a reference to physical relationships and so have a location from one perspective. I wouldn't call either absolute and not even sure time itself can accurately be given a specific quanta or point....there is no point in time.....it is always a varied "space" of time that depends on perspective.....in other words, it's not point-like. Moreover, I do believe the fabric of space-time is essentially non-physical and informational.

Objects are physical. There is distance between these objects. Is there also a physical thing existing between these objects? I think that the first question we need to ask is, Is space a physical thing or not? In what way does space exist for you?

I say space is a consideration and nothing more. My basic definition of space is:
The term space is used to describe that area of nothing between objects. That area between you and what you are observing, that is space. Space is caused by looking out from a point. The concept of space comes about from the idea that one perceives through something when looking out from our point of view. There are objects that exist other than where we are viewing from, and by looking out to these items we create the idea of space.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 243 by randman, posted 04-08-2008 4:59 PM randman has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 246 by Modulous, posted 04-28-2008 9:15 AM john6zx has responded

  
Modulous
Member (Idle past 1217 days)
Posts: 7789
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 246 of 327 (464689)
04-28-2008 9:15 AM
Reply to: Message 245 by john6zx
04-27-2008 4:28 PM


Re: the gravity of general relativity
The concept of space comes about from the idea that one perceives through something when looking out from our point of view.

Well before I make a comment on this I should also note that you prefix this with:

I say space is a consideration and nothing more. My basic definition of space is...

Well it's nice that you have your own view of space, but since this is a science thread on a debate forum I feel compelled to ask:

Why does light bend as it travels near objects in such a manner as to act in exactly the same way as if gravity had warped space? There seems to be very strong evidence that gravity influences the shape of space - but your conception of space seems to imply that it is constant and flat. The question, in simple terms then, is how do you account for the evidence that would indicate to the contrary of your position?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 245 by john6zx, posted 04-27-2008 4:28 PM john6zx has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 248 by IamJoseph, posted 05-06-2008 4:32 AM Modulous has responded
 Message 252 by john6zx, posted 06-28-2008 1:16 AM Modulous has not yet responded

  
IamJoseph
Member (Idle past 2781 days)
Posts: 2822
Joined: 06-30-2007


Message 247 of 327 (465388)
05-06-2008 4:05 AM
Reply to: Message 244 by john6zx
04-27-2008 4:17 PM


Re: Fabric of Space-Time
Ultimately, nothing can be physical. As energy [non-physical, or nearing it] gives mass [physical], it is also seen that behind matter lies particles, which are matter's smaller components, and behind it still, would be a force.

Now what is a force? Is it the assembly of base particles in a certain formation - or is there something which is non-physical here? Lets examine one force, such as gravity. In the beginning, Newton saw this force as being emitted by a mass, such as the sun, and he posited his equations on specific, definitive and constant equations which are embedded therein. Here, Newton gave a premise of the sun actually emitting its forcefields, like tentacles, keeping the planets in its vicinity and stablised.

But this was incorrect. The formulae were right, but its underlying reasoning incorrect. It was corrected by Einstein's Relativity equations, which showed that the force of gravity is nothing more than the springing and swaying motions created on a matrix bed of space, when an object is placed on it. He equated this to the ripples seen in a lake when a stone is thrown in, and a mattress which makes similar waves when a body is placed upon it. The bouncing movements are the force, its equations being based on the exertion factor between two masses in the same matrix. Basically, this is a reflex action, and is alligned with things finding their own levels.

To take this further, there must be an independent and precedent criteria within the universe, and of the forces representing impressions and counter responsa. This must be the case, because without the impressions and responsa from mass inputs - one must ask, what is the independent status quo before it was effected; what are the responsa and deflections returning or defelcting away - from? Here, we arrive at a situation where the forces themselves represent effects unto the independent status quo. It is akin to a glass of water half filled, as the starting point [status quo], and the levels go up and down when impacted upon, creating waves.

The waves become the force fields, and these in turn effect other areas [ripple effect], all being a process of an in-built trait to return to the status quo position and also become subject to outside influences impacting on it: this is a display of a returning to a pre-set position. Here, the play of returning and being deflected, is what becomes the measurements of the force of gravity. We find here, that the gravity would destroy all existence, but for the outside planets which create certain waves, which are forces, and this becomes the force of gravity. There is a dual and inter-reliant interaction occuring here. But behind all this there is no physicality, matter being the result of forces. The deeper factor here is, the status quo is precedent of the later gravitaional results, and the enigmatic factor is, it appears both were anticipatory for the universe and life. If we track down the making of a car, where do we stop: at the instruction manual, the attributes of the material used, the energy of the fuel, the person driving the car, or a thought?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 244 by john6zx, posted 04-27-2008 4:17 PM john6zx has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 253 by john6zx, posted 06-28-2008 2:05 AM IamJoseph has responded

  
IamJoseph
Member (Idle past 2781 days)
Posts: 2822
Joined: 06-30-2007


Message 248 of 327 (465390)
05-06-2008 4:32 AM
Reply to: Message 246 by Modulous
04-28-2008 9:15 AM


Re: the gravity of general relativity
Are you saying here, that light actually bends, or that the observer's position is changed owing to the space bed movements - and thus he ses the light differently? We find that light, represented as an image of a rod, appears bent when emersed in water - is this an actuality, or the subjective impression?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 246 by Modulous, posted 04-28-2008 9:15 AM Modulous has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 249 by Modulous, posted 05-06-2008 5:48 AM IamJoseph has responded

  
Modulous
Member (Idle past 1217 days)
Posts: 7789
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 249 of 327 (465391)
05-06-2008 5:48 AM
Reply to: Message 248 by IamJoseph
05-06-2008 4:32 AM


Re: the gravity of general relativity
Are you saying here, that light actually bends

Depends what you mean by 'actually'. I guess in 'actuality' spacetime is bent, and light is just following the bent path which gives the impression of the light wave being 'bent'.

or that the observer's position is changed owing to the space bed movements

The observer's position isn't changed. Some of the intervening space has been warped by gravity...at least according to relativity. I was asking if a better explanation could be offered that didn't include warping of spacetime due to gravity.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 248 by IamJoseph, posted 05-06-2008 4:32 AM IamJoseph has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 250 by IamJoseph, posted 05-06-2008 6:20 AM Modulous has responded
 Message 254 by john6zx, posted 06-28-2008 2:08 AM Modulous has not yet responded

  
IamJoseph
Member (Idle past 2781 days)
Posts: 2822
Joined: 06-30-2007


Message 250 of 327 (465392)
05-06-2008 6:20 AM
Reply to: Message 249 by Modulous
05-06-2008 5:48 AM


Re: the gravity of general relativity
quote:
light is just following the bent path which gives the impression of the light wave being 'bent'.

or that the observer's position is changed owing to the space bed movements


Your statement agrees that the subject is changed, whatever be the reason. Light can be obstructed by an opaque material, but I have not encountered a bending of light.

quote:

The observer's position isn't changed. Some of the intervening space has been warped by gravity...at least according to relativity.


Same dif.

quote:

I was asking if a better explanation could be offered that didn't include warping of spacetime due to gravity.


I speculated, there must be a pre-set status quo, else the to and fro actions which cause the waves would not occur. To further this premise, one must consider where the force stands with no space dedris impacting, and indeed if even a force would exist in this case. Here, that all things seek their own level, does not answer this question, because this applies to a levelling of a higher and lower level.

A stream of water heads for the sea - but this is driven by terrain and impacting forces. In space, to determine the force of gravity in its pristine form, one must eliminate all debris in space. IOW, would there be gravity in space without space bodies? This says a force is the result of material, mass movements of components in space [matter thus precedes forces], and that these forces would not exist w/o those impacting physical bodies.

Further, to result in specific, repeatable and consistant equations, there would have to be a pre-set determination in place, one which takes into account the properties of matter - because the matter and the forces are not only inter-active, but by their equations appear intergrated and recipient to each other. I see this eventually alligning with complexites not being resultant by random actions.

Edited by IamJoseph, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 249 by Modulous, posted 05-06-2008 5:48 AM Modulous has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 251 by Modulous, posted 05-06-2008 10:56 AM IamJoseph has not yet responded

  
Modulous
Member (Idle past 1217 days)
Posts: 7789
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 251 of 327 (465404)
05-06-2008 10:56 AM
Reply to: Message 250 by IamJoseph
05-06-2008 6:20 AM


Re: the gravity of general relativity
Your statement agrees that the subject is changed, whatever be the reason.

I don't think the subject aka the observer has changed at all, in any sense that matters for noticing that the gravity of the sun bends the light from distant stars. If by 'subject' you mean 'medium' then yes, mass seems to 'change' or warp it.

I speculated, there must be a pre-set status quo, else the to and fro actions which cause the waves would not occur.

I assume you refer to some kind of 'aether'? You should probably go back to Message 8 to begin reading the discussion as to how this fits in with modern physics.

A stream of water heads for the sea - but this is driven by terrain and impacting forces.

To be pedantic it is driven by gravity, but its exact path is determined by also by geographical considerations.

In space, to determine the force of gravity in its pristine form, one must eliminate all debris in space.

I'm not sure you are barking up the right tree here, and I don't think your experiment is technically possible. I'm not sure there is some kind of Platonic Gravity that we can track down. Do you need to determine the force gravity in a massless universe? In modern physics it kind of sounds like you just want to calculate the shape of a universe with no mass in it - it might be interesting, but what would this tell us about gravity or why light bends as it passes near objects of high mass (such as the sun).

IOW, would there be gravity in space without space bodies?

This could be a philosophical question. As a scientific question, I'm not sure what the answer would be - and I assume by 'space bodies' you refer to anything that has mass, including WIMPS, should the promising new discoveries be verified. I think the answer would be 'no' but that would only be on the assumption we were talking about bog-standard gravity which is a force that occurs for some reason between two masses. Do you have a better reason than the curvature of space proposed by Einstein? That was the original question I asked...


This message is a reply to:
 Message 250 by IamJoseph, posted 05-06-2008 6:20 AM IamJoseph has not yet responded

  
john6zx
Member (Idle past 3933 days)
Posts: 66
Joined: 01-27-2007


Message 252 of 327 (473274)
06-28-2008 1:16 AM
Reply to: Message 246 by Modulous
04-28-2008 9:15 AM


Re: the gravity of general relativity
john6zx wrote:

I say space is a consideration and nothing more. My basic definition of space is:
The term space is used to describe that area of nothing between objects. That area between you and what you are observing, that is space. Space is caused by looking out from a point. The concept of space comes about from the idea that one perceives through something when looking out from our point of view. There are objects that exist other than where we are viewing from, and by looking out to these items we create the idea of space.

Modulous responded with:

Well it's nice that you have your own view of space, but since this is a science thread on a debate forum I feel compelled to ask:

Why does light bend as it travels near objects in such a manner as to act in exactly the same way as if gravity had warped space? There seems to be very strong evidence that gravity influences the shape of space - but your conception of space seems to imply that it is constant and flat. The question, in simple terms then, is how do you account for the evidence that would indicate to the contrary of your position?

Yes this is a science thread. So if something exists in the physical universe it is going to be made of some form of energy. Everything is made of energy. That energy will be condensed and form what we call matter or it will not be as condensed and be in the form as a wavelength. Either way it is a form of energy.

So, if you say space is a real physical thing then it will be made of some form of energy. As far as light bending near gravity because of space being bent. That would mean that space has a physical structure that is influenced by gravity and that space is a thing that can be influenced by a force. A force can exert it's energy against space. Gravity is pulling on what when it comes to space? What is the force of gravity "grabbing" hold of when it bends space? And what is space bending in? A material of the universe cannot exist in any universe without something in which to exist. If space is a thing that can be influenced by a force, then space is a thing that can be moved off course, or just moved. This thing you call space was existing in one location and a force moved it. So, as Newton's 1st law of motion states "A physical body will remain at rest, or continue to move at a constant velocity along a straight path, unless an external net force acts upon it."

So gravity is the external force, what is the physical body of space made of? You have to realize that your idea of space means that space is a thing that can change location. Change location in what? Space of course, what a contradiction, so if an object can bend or change direction due to an external force, then that thing is an object, and objects exist in an area that is called space. Look at my definition of space and rethink your concept of space. If space is a THING that can bend, then tell me what this thing is made of?

As far as you saying that my concept of space is that space is constant and flat. NO! I did not say that. Space as far as I am Concerned has no shape because it is not a thing? Space is the area between objects, we as humans gave that area a name..... SPACE.

What type of physical, observational data do you have that space is being bent? Einstein never showed physical proof, so that whole spacetime thing is not proven beyond a reasonable doubt. What science do you have that proves what you are saying?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 246 by Modulous, posted 04-28-2008 9:15 AM Modulous has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 257 by cavediver, posted 06-28-2008 7:57 AM john6zx has responded
 Message 259 by Son Goku, posted 06-28-2008 9:33 AM john6zx has responded

  
john6zx
Member (Idle past 3933 days)
Posts: 66
Joined: 01-27-2007


Message 253 of 327 (473283)
06-28-2008 2:05 AM
Reply to: Message 247 by IamJoseph
05-06-2008 4:05 AM


Re: Fabric of Space-Time
IamJoseph said:

Ultimately, nothing can be physical. As energy [non-physical, or nearing it] gives mass [physical], it is also seen that behind matter lies particles, which are matter's smaller components, and behind it still, would be a force.

So what is it? non-physical OR nearing it?

We have those things we all call physical, so what is it? nothing or something? These physical things are undeniable. They are real for us. So what do you mean nothing is physical? What are you saying about force? Force is not a thing, a physical thing. Force is an influence that tends to change the state of rest a body and its uniform motion. Force is an action that acts on physical things. So force is NOT found as the irreducible part of matter. Force is what moves matter.

Now what is a force? Is it the assembly of base particles in a certain formation - or is there something which is non-physical here? Lets examine one force, such as gravity. In the beginning, Newton saw this force as being emitted by a mass, such as the sun, and he posited his equations on specific, definitive and constant equations which are embedded therein. Here, Newton gave a premise of the sun actually emitting its forcefields, like tentacles, keeping the planets in its vicinity and stablised.

But this was incorrect. The formulae were right, but its underlying reasoning incorrect. It was corrected by Einstein's Relativity equations, which showed that the force of gravity is nothing more than the springing and swaying motions created on a matrix bed of space, when an object is placed on it. He equated this to the ripples seen in a lake when a stone is thrown in, and a mattress which makes similar waves when a body is placed upon it. The bouncing movements are the force, its equations being based on the exertion factor between two masses in the same matrix. Basically, this is a reflex action, and is alligned with things finding their own levels.

A matrix bed of space? What is that exactly? An object is placed on this thing? What is this thing?

Look! When you drop something in your enviroment right now, like a pen, what Force is moving it?

The waves become the force fields, and these in turn effect other areas [ripple effect], all being a process of an in-built trait to return to the status quo position and also become subject to outside influences impacting on it: this is a display of a returning to a pre-set position. Here, the play of returning and being deflected, is what becomes the measurements of the force of gravity. We find here, that the gravity would destroy all existence, but for the outside planets which create certain waves, which are forces, and this becomes the force of gravity. There is a dual and inter-reliant interaction occuring here. But behind all this there is no physicality, matter being the result of forces. The deeper factor here is, the status quo is precedent of the later gravitaional results, and the enigmatic factor is, it appears both were anticipatory for the universe and life. If we track down the making of a car, where do we stop: at the instruction manual, the attributes of the material used, the energy of the fuel, the person driving the car, or a thought?

According to what science? Look up wave and electromagnetic wave and find out how and what makes waves.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 247 by IamJoseph, posted 05-06-2008 4:05 AM IamJoseph has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 255 by IamJoseph, posted 06-28-2008 5:35 AM john6zx has responded
 Message 258 by cavediver, posted 06-28-2008 8:21 AM john6zx has responded

  
john6zx
Member (Idle past 3933 days)
Posts: 66
Joined: 01-27-2007


Message 254 of 327 (473284)
06-28-2008 2:08 AM
Reply to: Message 249 by Modulous
05-06-2008 5:48 AM


Re: the gravity of general relativity
Depends what you mean by 'actually'. I guess in 'actuality' spacetime is bent, and light is just following the bent path which gives the impression of the light wave being 'bent'.

Again, spacetime is made of what?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 249 by Modulous, posted 05-06-2008 5:48 AM Modulous has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 256 by IamJoseph, posted 06-28-2008 5:40 AM john6zx has responded

  
IamJoseph
Member (Idle past 2781 days)
Posts: 2822
Joined: 06-30-2007


Message 255 of 327 (473299)
06-28-2008 5:35 AM
Reply to: Message 253 by john6zx
06-28-2008 2:05 AM


Re: Fabric of Space-Time
quote:
So what is it? non-physical OR nearing it?

This concerns views of the unknown, and IMHO, based on the universe being finite, everything came from nothing. Physicality is a denser cluster, whereby matter is a clumping of atoms more densely, as in iron and wood - the densest is the later, accumulated, more compressed stage. At one primal stage, all matter would have been gaseous, and before that a force, preceded by a program or some form of directive or directional inclination - namely the program had to be at least precedent or even pre-ordained. Physicality [matter] is a result or effect.

A sublimity would have occured, namely when a state is bypassed, as with a solid leaping over the liquid state and going directly to gas, whereby the solid 'sublimed' [towards non-corporeal or spirituality] - only this occurs in the reverse mode. Here, any action of any kind, would require some form of a triggering device, as in an external impact. And since a finite realm had no other parts preceding it, it could not have emerged from other things - excepting only a program, which acts like a thought or will to an action. So all physicality, by the reverse mode, had to once been non-existent or nothingness. I see no other way in a finite realm.

quote:

We have those things we all call physical, so what is it? nothing or something? These physical things are undeniable. They are real for us. So what do you mean nothing is physical? What are you saying about force? Force is not a thing, a physical thing.

Its about what physicality was before it emerged as being physical, not how it is now.

quote:

A matrix bed of space? What is that exactly? An object is placed on this thing? What is this thing?


Just as we require a floor to stand on, all the universe contents need a floor to contain it - else they would just clump into one mould and not be able to maintain seperate and differing parts. The universe operates on awesome enginnering works, same as does our bodies, and thus the space would have emerged before anything else, and this is what I mean by a matrix bed. If all works are seen as containing complex and critical engineering at the foundation, then a floor of sorts would have to be factored in, and it is.

quote:

Look! When you drop something in your enviroment right now, like a pen, what Force is moving it?


This is not by a subject force alone, because the enVironment itself is intergrated with the subject and the object. The intergration factor rules.

quote:

According to what science? Look up wave and electromagnetic wave and find out how and what makes waves.


I did that, but this refers to a later point, namely waves are he first line of balancing of levels, as from positive to negative, hot to cold, heavy to lighter, etc. I am not sure if the waves represent an effect or is the primal instigator, because the wave criteria is selective, purposeful and responsive to differing end results. IOW, if the waves were constant, then all results would be the same - but the results are not the same. So it appears the waves are responding to some other criteria, and impact differently on different elements, producing a vast menu of products and forces. The waves act as the strings of a puppeteer, enabling a puppet to act in different ways - but there is a reciprocity factor here: the puppet is receptive to the wave.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 253 by john6zx, posted 06-28-2008 2:05 AM john6zx has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 261 by john6zx, posted 06-29-2008 2:23 AM IamJoseph has responded

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2022