Jump to content
Science Forums

What is "spacetime" really?


Michael Mooney

Recommended Posts

Non-Euclidean space makes something out of nothing.

What "curves" besides the trajectories of masses and light as effected by the pull of gravity?

The curved trajectory of light as distorted from straight by gravity does not mean that the light is really going in a straight line and "space itself" is curved by gravity. A fundamental but false assumption of non-Euclidean space and the basis for reified "spacetime."

The assumption under which "curved space" was *invented* is that gravity requires a medium of some sort through which to propagate. When "aether" was discarded, the equally creative fabric "spacetime" was invented.

Objects have shape. Space is empty volume, except where it is occupied by objects. Space does not "have shape."

 

And, yup, it "takes time" for everything to happen... a vital part of velocity too as distance traveled per whatever units of time. Yet the present tense is perpetually ongoing... everywhere.

 

But every time we say that a car is speeding up from 50 to 60 miles an hour the time factor itself is not a thing that speeds up or slows down. The car does that. ("Time dilation" is a reification of "time" based on clocks running faster or slower under different conditions. )

 

Oh... btw... the distance between sun and planets varies with the irregularities of their orbits, but any website on the solar system will give the same "objective" distances... They do not vary with various relative observer perspectives, velocities, etc. The claim that these distance vary with observer relativity is just plain nonsense.

You are a broken record. Over, over, over, over, over, over, over, over, over, over, ...

Oh I missed one, over. :drummer:

Funny, you also do this as sideway stab as well. I was speaking in the context of Mathematics.

Euclidean and Non-Euclidean Geometries are "two sides of the same coin". Plain and

simple. The 5th Postulate in or out. Parallel lines or not.

Non-Euclidean is the more "general" approach (can include Euclidean when k = 0).

I am beginning to think your diatribe is a reification. If you repeat it enough time, it

becomes so.... ??? :D

Not to me or anyone else. :D

 

maddog

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You are a broken record. Over, over, over, over, over, over, over, over, over, over, ...
Quite true.

 

A record repeating a groove ruins even the best of Bach or Monteverdi. When it happens with such lame arguments, I say it's time to close the thread....:drummer:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So, some questions were asked, hopefully looking for closure, and then the thread was closed before I could answer.

Two replies... first to Boerseun's list of questions:

 

Michael, up to this point, you're basically saying that "space" is merely a reference frame in which stuff exist. Right?

Yes, but the phrase "reference frame" is a relativity phrase, and space as I see it is empty volume with no "frame" but what an observer designates a a defined space.

 

As far as I can gather, you're saying that "space" is the xyz reference frame in which everything exist, and is not affected by mass distribution, velocity of individual observers, etc. Right?

Right, but as above it extends infinitely with no boundary.

As far as I can gather, there is no "border" or "limit" or "edge" of any kind to your "space", which is merely a coordination framework imposed on an infinite and eternal empty vacuum - right?

 

Right, as above. Any proposed "boundary to space" would require an explanation of what the boundary is, in the real universe and then consider what lies beyond the supposed boundary if not more... infinitely more space.

 

Y

ou're saying that space itself is nothing, space can't be bent or warped or be affected in any way by the happenings of anything contained within it? Right?

 

Right.... being simply the emptiness or "volume" in which all phenomena with such properties exist.

 

A few simple yes/no answer will suffice - I just want to make sure we're on the same page, here.

 

I hope my brief comments of clarification are acceptable.

 

One more reply to Freezetar's questions then I'll be done if everyone else is.

 

Michael

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Me:

Oh... btw... the distance between sun and planets varies with the irregularities of their orbits, but any website on the solar system will give the same "objective" distances... They do not vary with various relative observer perspectives, velocities, etc. The claim that these distance vary with observer relativity is just plain nonsense.

Freezetar:

How can you go from a position that claims to understand relativity and does not denounce it...to this?

 

Your claim only makes sense for someone stationed on Earth. The star traveler flying at near light speed towards our solar system sees it quite differently. If you claim that they do not have the distances "correct", then you must be honest with yourself and admit that you (nor the textbooks) have it "correct".

 

Reference Pyrotex's humorous post (somewhere way back in the spacetime thread) acknowledging the distances from sun to planets as well established distances... and then the "alien spaceship" approaching our system at nearly lightspeed with telescope trained on earth/sun. (A very close paraphrase): Yes, the distance sun to earth is still 93 million miles or 8.3 light minutes, so they will need to use the relativity equations to transform their information and correct for their velocity and the time it takes the images to reach them.

I have no problem that. The actual distance between earth and planets remains as listed in all science sources. If extreme relative frames of reference want to know those actual distances, they must use the correctice tool of relativity to account for information distortion due to lightspeed and velocity of observers.

 

I like your absolute now idea, but coupling this with absolute space and claiming that there is no variance is...ummm...completely and ridiculously wrong. This has been proven!

 

Maybe my above clarifies that. ? I don't use the phrase "absolute space" as it seems to reify "it" into being "something" rather than the empty space/volume in which "things" exist... and have "actual distances between them" that doesn't change every time another observer looks at two objects from another different frame of reference.

 

As others have stated, it's a bit antiquated and does not account for accurately observed effects.

Clarified above?

If your position was something like:

 

"Something, or some property of light, creates the bending we see and attribute to "spacetime", but I do not think space can bend"

 

...then you might fare better than you are now. It seems you wish to do away with the "bending" as well as "spacetime". Why throw out the baby with the bathwater?

 

I think that gravity bends light just like it bends the trajectory of objects with mass. So, no "bent space" is required. I've mentioned several times my favorite experiment with light captured in a box of mirrors in this regard. Its "momentum" as it bounces off the walls gives the box added static inertia exactly as if it added mass to the box. How is a mystery to me, but it opens the possibility that gravity acts on light as if it had mass... somehow. (Modest's assertion that laser guns have recoil when they fire would verify the same (trapped light) principle. Light may be mass-less... It *must be" to travel at lightspeed according to the equations... but it is not "nothing" and whatever it is is attracted by mass/gravity.

 

Hope this answers your inquiries... and that this "loose ends" thread is allowed.

Michael

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The purpose of closing this thread was that of letting annoyance calm down, not that of shooing it into a new thread.

 

I reckon this thread could possibly continue whenever it should become feasible to settle differences that are due, essentially, to misconceptions. Should this ever come to pass, it will include the post Dick was in the middle of working on and the two in the cork that attempted to come bobbing back up. Fair enough?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...