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: 889,777 Year: 889/6,534 Month: 889/682 Week: 124/445 Day: 17/22 Hour: 4/3


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   What is "the fabric" of space-time?
BMG
Member (Idle past 3275 days)
Posts: 356
From: Southwestern U.S.
Joined: 03-16-2006


Message 301 of 327 (473873)
07-03-2008 11:28 AM
Reply to: Message 299 by lyx2no
07-03-2008 8:32 AM


Re: Very ?????
The amount is based on the behavior of the Universe and we can calculate it with the Lorentz's formula , but yes.

Yes, my wording was a bit loose and reckless.

Ok, let's see; the Lorentz Contraction formula is used to comprehend the results of the Michelson-Morley experiment, which was conducted to measure the once-believed "ether" that existed in the universe. The LC formula is used to measure the effects of time dilation, and length contraction. In additon, motion, time, length, and even simultaneity, are relative to the frame of reference.

Lastly, movement affects location (latitude, longitude, and altitude) which affects time. Does this sound right? Am I missing an important piece of the puzzle? I feel like I have an incoherent collection of facts that will not herd together.

abe: Thank you greatly for the help you have provided. :) I feel indebted to all that have helped me.

Edited by Infixion, : No reason given.

Edited by Infixion, : Spelling

Edited by Infixion, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 299 by lyx2no, posted 07-03-2008 8:32 AM lyx2no has not yet responded

  
BMG
Member (Idle past 3275 days)
Posts: 356
From: Southwestern U.S.
Joined: 03-16-2006


Message 302 of 327 (473875)
07-03-2008 11:31 AM
Reply to: Message 300 by New Cat's Eye
07-03-2008 9:19 AM


Re: Very ?????
I've seen arguments against the twin paradox that go something like: according to relativity, its all based on your frame of reference. So, to the twin on the spaceship, the earth is moving away at 99% SoL and the twin on earth should be the one that is younger, not the one on the spaceship. But we know that the spaceship is the one moving because it is the one that is experiencing the acceleration.

Yes, the physics professor in the video provided by onifre goes over this. This is great. Thanks for your help. :)


This message is a reply to:
 Message 300 by New Cat's Eye, posted 07-03-2008 9:19 AM New Cat's Eye has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 303 by New Cat's Eye, posted 07-03-2008 1:19 PM BMG has not yet responded

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 303 of 327 (473895)
07-03-2008 1:19 PM
Reply to: Message 302 by BMG
07-03-2008 11:31 AM


Re: Very ?????
Yes, the physics professor in the video provided by onifre goes over this. This is great. Thanks for your help.

I didn't watch the video because I'm at work. That'd draw more attenion than me just typing and reading :cool:

You're more than welcome for the help. I'm just paying it forward anyways :D

and you should do the same.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 302 by BMG, posted 07-03-2008 11:31 AM BMG has not yet responded

  
onifre
Member (Idle past 2063 days)
Posts: 4854
From: Dark Side of the Moon
Joined: 02-20-2008


Message 304 of 327 (473944)
07-03-2008 8:31 PM
Reply to: Message 298 by BMG
07-03-2008 6:16 AM


Re: Very ?????
Regarding the twin paradox, the twin that leaves earth at .99% the SOL and travels for six months only to make a return trip of six months will have aged roughly one year, while the twin left on the earth will have aged roughly 7.1 years?

Yes

And the only evidence that the twin leaving earth was actually moving was the acceleration they experienced?

Yes

Otherwise, there would have been no way of knowing which one was moving and which wasn't?

Yes

It really all starts to make sense when you understand relativity and what it implies. Until you hit quantum physics and then im fuck'n lost again...till next semester hopefully :)


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 298 by BMG, posted 07-03-2008 6:16 AM BMG has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 306 by john6zx, posted 07-13-2008 3:33 AM onifre has responded

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


Message 305 of 327 (474486)
07-08-2008 7:05 PM
Reply to: Message 243 by randman
04-08-2008 4:59 PM


Re: the gravity of general relativity
Quote by randman.
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.

The terms NEAR and FAR are references to physical relationships, so does that make NEAR and FAR physical things?

If you know of any science reference that states that space or time are physical things please include it in this discussion. If not, I still would like to discuss this particular topic and see if we can figure out true nature of space and time from what we can perceive from the world around us.

Quote from randman.

I do believe the fabric of space-time is essentially non-physical and informational.

I would like to remind you that this is a personal belief and not science, but I would like to hear more from you on this. I would like to know what you mean by FABRIC of space-time, and what you mean by essentially non-physical and informational.


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

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


Message 306 of 327 (475028)
07-13-2008 3:33 AM
Reply to: Message 304 by onifre
07-03-2008 8:31 PM


Re: Very ?????
Quote by onifre.
I smoke pot. If this bothers anyone, I suggest you look around at the world in which we live and shut your mouth.

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


This message is a reply to:
 Message 304 by onifre, posted 07-03-2008 8:31 PM onifre has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 318 by onifre, posted 07-13-2008 6:14 PM john6zx has not yet responded

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


Message 307 of 327 (475031)
07-13-2008 4:10 AM
Reply to: Message 259 by Son Goku
06-28-2008 9:33 AM


Re: the gravity of general relativity
john6zx wrote:
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.

Son Goku responded with:

I just wanted to say that this is not true. Things are not made of energy. Energy is the ability to do work. It is a quantity an object can posses. Mass, the resistance to motion, is another quantity possessed by matter. Relativity states that these two quantities are the related. However nothing says that everything is made of energy.

You have brought up a very interesting comment about the true nature of what things are, what is energy and what is matter. I can only hope that you are willing to pursue this topic to the end. You may be right in saying that things are not made of energy. I would really like to explore this further.

I am going to see if I can take this whole concept that I have about everything is made of energy and see how it fits with the established data of the physical sciences.

I will first start by emphasizing that I stated that if something exists in the physical universe it is going to be made out of energy.

Now I consider light, or any form of electromagnetic energy to be a something and a form of energy. Would you agree?

I know that this does not seem to cover every aspect of all that exists in this universe. I just want to take one step at a time.

Right now, for the benefit of having a real communication on this subject, I would like to establish that we are on the same page, we are talking from basically the same point of view.

I just want to find out from you if you consider electromagnetic waves to be a thing that can exist in this universe (they are a something). And if you consider these electromagnetic waves to be a form of energy?

If you do not agree please explain, I am here to find out more and adjust my ideas if I find that I am in error.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 259 by Son Goku, posted 06-28-2008 9:33 AM Son Goku has not yet responded

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


Message 308 of 327 (475034)
07-13-2008 4:42 AM
Reply to: Message 270 by cavediver
06-29-2008 7:08 AM


Re: the gravity of general relativity
Posted by cavediver:
If anyone else is so stupid as to think that they can debate advanced science topics using everyday dictionary definitions, please think twice before posting...

I have asked you if you have any evidence that space is a physical thing. I have stated that there is no scientific evidence or definition that states that space is in any way a physical thing.

From your reply I gather that you do have much faith in dictionaries and their truthfulness. So you think that I am stupid for using an everyday dictionary when debating science, (you call our debate on space advance science, but in actuality, space is a very basic concept when it comes to physics)

So, grab your advance science reference and show me that I am wrong. Show me your advance scientific reference that states space is a physical thing.

You say I show no interest in learning, yet I have read many reference books and dictionaries, this is an example of someone who is willing to learn. You say that I am stupid when I base my conclusions of space on scientific references, are you suggesting that dictionaries and scientific references are also ignorant?

You want to show the whole form I am stupid, then just show some evidence that space is a physical thing. Prove me wrong. I say space is not a physical thing, so the burden of proof that space IS a physical thing lies with you. You need to prove your point and stop avoiding the issue by calling those who disagree with you stupid. Show some science behind your claim. Debate me with evidence and science not name calling, come on and just put this issue to rest with undeniable evidence.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 270 by cavediver, posted 06-29-2008 7:08 AM cavediver has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 309 by cavediver, posted 07-13-2008 5:35 AM john6zx has not yet responded

  
cavediver
Member (Idle past 2756 days)
Posts: 4129
From: UK
Joined: 06-16-2005


Message 309 of 327 (475037)
07-13-2008 5:35 AM
Reply to: Message 308 by john6zx
07-13-2008 4:42 AM


Re: the gravity of general relativity
You want to show the whole form I am stupid

Not really, when you have done such an admirable job yourself.

There is no point describing the evidence to you because there is no one simple experiment to demonstrate this to you - it is a body of work and observation built over the past 100 years. I have already mentioned gravitational lensing, which is probably the most direct evidence, but you have obviously failed to look this up - again showing your complete disinterest or inability to study.

I'll tell you what - you're right, I've been wrong all this time. Space isn't physical - it is simply a place where physical things can be. You win. Also, dictionaries are the perfect learning place for scientific concepts and theories - you were right and I was wrong. I concede the debate 100% to you.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 308 by john6zx, posted 07-13-2008 4:42 AM john6zx has not yet responded

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


Message 310 of 327 (475040)
07-13-2008 6:05 AM
Reply to: Message 272 by Son Goku
06-29-2008 10:25 AM


Re: the gravity of general relativity
Question posed to Son Goku on page 19 #272.

"O.K. So what are physical things made of?"

Son Goku response:

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.

I bring this up because I said earlier that everything that is something in this universe is made of energy. Son Goku said that I was incorrect in this statement. Now Son Goku says that he does not know what physical things are made of. Son Goku knows that I am wrong when it comes to the physical universe being made of energy yet Son Goku does not know what physical things are made of.

I have made my statement that everything in this universe is made of energy based on scientific references and established facts.

Son Goku says that he does not know what physical things are made of despite the whole internet that is filled with data on the topic of physical and matter. Science does have a viewpoint on what physical things are made of.

jonh6zx posted:
"Matter is the condensation of energy. The more energy condenses, the less space it occupies and the more solid it becomes. Energy becomes matter if condensed. Matter becomes energy if dispersed."

Son Goku response:

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.

I really did not want to jump the gun on this topic, I already posted an earlier question that was a better starting point in deciding if everything that exists in this universe is made of energy or not. (I asked you if you considered electromagnetic waves to be a something and if you thought that these waves were made of energy.)
But I could not let your statements go unanswered, so here I go.

You say that you cannot condense energy into matter. Look up MASS-ENERGY EQUIVALANCE on wikipedia, google, dictionary.com. In fact what you should do in order to get a better understanding of what matter is and what makes things physical is to go on the above mentioned web sites and research the following terms:

MATTER.
ELEMENTARY PARTICLES.
ELECTRONS.
ATOMS.
MOLECULES.

and any related topics. Then you will see that physical things are made of something, something that is basic to all things in this universe.

john6zx posted:
"Matter becomes energy if dispersed."

Son Goku response:

Again, there is no process where extremely disperse matter becomes energy. Name one, if you don't think this is the case.

"The atom bomb. Read about MASS-ENERGY EQUIVALANCE."

Posted by john6zx:
"Tell me what you think matter is made of."

Son Goku response:

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

I am not asking you for a SATISFACTORY answer, science has described what matter is made of, it is already an established fact. I was asking what you thought matter was made of since you seem to have an opinion on the subject.

Here is the funny thing, You have stated that you do not know what physical things are made of, yet you know it is not energy. Please just do some research on the topic of MATTER and all related subjects. Just to get a better understanding.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 272 by Son Goku, posted 06-29-2008 10:25 AM Son Goku has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 311 by cavediver, posted 07-13-2008 6:41 AM john6zx has not yet responded
 Message 312 by Straggler, posted 07-13-2008 7:58 AM john6zx has responded
 Message 313 by Son Goku, posted 07-13-2008 8:55 AM john6zx has responded

  
cavediver
Member (Idle past 2756 days)
Posts: 4129
From: UK
Joined: 06-16-2005


Message 311 of 327 (475046)
07-13-2008 6:41 AM
Reply to: Message 310 by john6zx
07-13-2008 6:05 AM


Re: the gravity of general relativity
Yes John, you tell Son Goku. There's no better way to look intelligent than to tell a practising Theoretical Physicist to look up physics topics on Wikipedia :laugh: :laugh: :laugh:

Edited by cavediver, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 310 by john6zx, posted 07-13-2008 6:05 AM john6zx has not yet responded

  
Straggler
Member (Idle past 81 days)
Posts: 10332
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 312 of 327 (475056)
07-13-2008 7:58 AM
Reply to: Message 310 by john6zx
07-13-2008 6:05 AM


Re: the gravity of general relativity
You seem to be saying that by trapping and condenscing pure energy in the absence of any matter new matter will be created..........

According to you pure energy, of whatever form, can be condensed to form a lump of uranium, for example?

Is this what you are saying?
If so do you have any examples of this sort of thing actually occurring?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 310 by john6zx, posted 07-13-2008 6:05 AM john6zx has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 315 by john6zx, posted 07-13-2008 5:35 PM Straggler has responded

  
Son Goku
Member (Idle past 19 days)
Posts: 1181
From: Ireland
Joined: 07-16-2005


Message 313 of 327 (475068)
07-13-2008 8:55 AM
Reply to: Message 310 by john6zx
07-13-2008 6:05 AM


Re: the gravity of general relativity
Son Goku knows that I am wrong when it comes to the physical universe being made of energy yet Son Goku does not know what physical things are made of.

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.

You say that you cannot condense energy into matter. Look up MASS-ENERGY EQUIVALANCE on wikipedia, google, dictionary.com.

Mass-Energy equivalence relates two properties of matter to each other. It still does not give a process where energy condenses and becomes matter. Where would every other property come from then? For instance charge.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 310 by john6zx, posted 07-13-2008 6:05 AM john6zx has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 314 by tesla, posted 07-13-2008 5:28 PM Son Goku has not yet responded
 Message 316 by john6zx, posted 07-13-2008 6:01 PM Son Goku has not yet responded

  
tesla
Member (Idle past 706 days)
Posts: 1199
Joined: 12-22-2007


Message 314 of 327 (475150)
07-13-2008 5:28 PM
Reply to: Message 313 by Son Goku
07-13-2008 8:55 AM


Re: the gravity of general relativity
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.

energy is a generic term. matter is "potential energy" which is just energy in a conservative state.

there is nothing "real" outside of energy. no such thing as an "empty" space.

all space is filled with some form of energy, be it radiation, gravity and gravitational echo fields, or light, or more unknowns particles.

energy is very difficult to have a specific definition because of its super generic use.

the best way to understand energy, is that energy "is" in all things, either maintaining, enhancing , or waiting in a conserved state. nothing that is "real" exists without energy. that is "true reality".

we interpret energy by what we can see of it, with the best tools available to our senses. but our understanding of energy is probably very very small given the size of the universe and its workings both seen and unseen, which have a specific way of working. science is attempting to understand energy and its forms, uses, and reasons. but because of limitations and greed, we understand today a lot less than i believe we would if we did not have the greed factor.

money is the goal of science today, and unless its use-able knowledge that can be implemented or obtain funds; then it is not researched. i would like to say mankind would live long enough to try to discover and understand the purposes of all energies in their various forms, both conserved, or flowing freely, that by understanding there purposes, we could come to understand our own placement and reason in the wheel of all things.

however, i do not have any expectations, that our people, governments or scientists care for any knowledge that does not have the direct consequence of profit.

Edited by tesla, : No reason given.


keep your mind from this way of enquiry, for never will you show that not-being is
~parmenides

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

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


Message 315 of 327 (475151)
07-13-2008 5:35 PM
Reply to: Message 312 by Straggler
07-13-2008 7:58 AM


Re: the gravity of general relativity
Posted by Straggler:
You seem to be saying that by trapping and condenscing pure energy in the absence of any matter new matter will be created..........

I am saying that matter is made of energy. It is energy that is condensed. Matter is a form of energy.

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.

If you do not think that matter is made of energy, then what do you think all matter is made of.... smaller bits of matter maybe?

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

Please just research MATTER on the web or in your books and tell me what you find. When matter is reduced to the irreducible what is left? What is it that matter is made of.... tiny bits of more matter?

You have to realize that even if matter is made from tiny bits of more matter, those tiny bits would have to be condensed to form the objects that we see today. So either way something is being condensed to form matter. So is matter made from condensed matter, condensed energy, or something else?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 312 by Straggler, posted 07-13-2008 7:58 AM Straggler has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 317 by Straggler, posted 07-13-2008 6:08 PM john6zx 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