Implies we could recreate higher dimensional space locally in a high energy collider.
So why it was 3 dimensions in the first place?
Time flows at a steady pace. It's only humans who THINK that Time can be controlled by Black Holes and gravitational lensing, etc.
Humans can detect matter/energy being pulled into BHs
but it seems to go so slowly, as though Time had stood still. But it is ONLY an illusion and Time itself has not stopped or slowed while the BH is attracting & consuming.
I have always said that Time can ONLY go forward - never stops, pauses or reverses. It can't.No need for time. It is simply explained by knots and braids in EM waves
I regret that I've never taken enough physics and math to understand space time as well as I'd like. A question I have is whether the reason that we can't travel in negative time is that we cannot travel in negative space. If negative space exists, we are unable to enter it.- Pooua
Why are space and time linked? I think that's something to do with the Lorentz transform; it's geometrical. What does it mean that space is warped? Does it mean a gradient in some field? A field of what? If warping space also warps time, is time actually part of space, or merely adhering to it?
entropy (a measure of disorder) never decreases in a closed system such as the universe.
In NEO, the ISS doesn't fall to Earth due to its distance from the grav pull
entropy (a measure of disorder) never decreases in a closed system such as the universe.
Entropy can decrease according to statistical mechanics. The probability of a general and persistent decrease is diminishingly small but never non-zero.
If the universe is expanding then the probability of even a brief fall in entropy is significantly lower than for a non-expanding universe.
Local falls in entropy are not only possible but inevitable.
The statement that 'entropy always rises in a closed system' is false. The actual conjecture is 'entropy always rises or stays the same in a closed system' and even this can only possibly refer to the average which, for an infinite time scale, is also false.
What does it mean that space is warped? Does it mean a gradient in some field? A field of what? If warping space also warps time, is time actually part of space, or merely adhering to it?I don't think it's a gradient in some field, only in the density of spacetime, or the vacuum density. Essentially the vacuum takes on a different index of refraction, causing curved light paths in spacetime. Spacetime isn't curved, it's only the path of light passing into a medium of different refractive index.
How can we know, then, how "old" the universe is?That would be what they call proper time, that is the time measured by an observer undergoing the actual acceleration or deceleration. For an observer positioned outside the universe and not under acceleration the universe would appear to be younger. But I guess we won't be meeting that observer in this life.
And..if it's an OPEN (even just a little bit) system
Whydening GyreAnd..if it's an OPEN (even just a little bit) system
If you have a spatial extension of 1 cubic light year today and 10 cubic light years way down the track then the heat concentrated in the smaller region 'leaks' into the bigger later extension even if the change in volume is entirely due to the expansion of spacetime.
Although the universe may be closed to the outside, it is not closed to the later expanded size it becomes. It is *like* putting one container, the original universe, into a bigger container, the later universe. The smaller universe is not closed but 'open' to the larger universe.
So revel in the screechy gawkers and hawkers mess - it is humanity's friend, and more..it is required.
We'd be no where without it.
A phenomena is real if it is a robust trait of the universe, e.g. spacetime and entropy are both real.
but it is the kind of robust 'substance' of gravity you ask for.
those that take space-time as "a curved thing" are speaking philosophy
I have always wondered, though, why is the Second Law what it is? What part of the universe explains why it moves toward greater entropy, or whether any other kind of universe could exist where things move toward less entropy.
Noumenon, et al. I think the bigger problem is that we have no good definition of what a 'thing' is in a physics of field theories. Everything's a field, when it comes down to it....
@noumenon
Why do you call physics "the Description"?
I hope this does not catch on.
believing that everything is made of actual strings in 10 actual dimensions,...... rather than understanding that this is merely a means for consistently formulating an ability to make observational predictions
Why "merely"?
Theory is a _very powerful_ means to make predictions.
[I continue to be troll rated by some cowards pack of screen-names.....[either a paraplegic or Phys.Org associated,...
Could someone parse that delusion into English???
Without concepts we would still crawling around in the forest. Why deny the reality of concepts like "electron" ?
"Space-time is not involved in any dynamics".
That is news for those who study dynamics of quantum fields, such as what low energy gravity approximates.
The terms "a 'realist'" and "interpretation" are philosophical terms, ideas that have nothing to do with observations and nature.
"Please give your "characterizations" a rest."
As long as the comments aren't about science, it is a communal service. You should never assume that a reader know what is science and what isn't.
...are components of the Description, and not of the 'independent Reality'."
There you go again. Since they are robust phenomena that happens whether or not we observe them or how we describe them, they are independent and real.
I see that a lot of philosophers, who routinely mistake the image [theory] for the real thing. =D
this site should exist primarily to discuss the results of science and not its philosophical underpinnings. The forum format itself is entirely unsuited to such discussions which inevitably result in misunderstandings and then name calling.
...this site should exist primarily to discuss the results of science and not its philosophical underpinningsnou stated
... But, given the history of QM for example as mentioned aboveWell nou, this i disagree with (your comment)
... metaphysicsmetaphysics is philo, and it is subjective as demonstrated by Hume, Wittgenstein, Ayer and Carnap
it is appropriate to point this out as well, imoWHY is it important to point out the opinion of a subjective belief on a science site?
I'll start on the name callings (or characterizations) if you please. As I think I have illustrated with the hellp of Nuomenon, philosophy isn't testable and so isn't a tool that science uses
If you object to the substance of a post that I made, then articulate that objection on that topici did exactly that, and i even quoted it to you
Your post is even further disruptiveness...and your inclusion of philo is never disruptive?
and yet are ubiquitous and necessary as guides to further scientific researchbut this isn't true, is it?
I'm not interested in discussing the validity of philosophy to science in sweeping generalities. [...] If you object to the substance of a post that I made, then articulate that objection on that topic.
i did exactly that, and i even quoted it to you
philo isn't a "necessary guide to further scientific research"
Interpretations of QM for example, which are de facto Philosophy of Physics are independent of experiment, in that they all rely on the same experimental results,...and yet are ubiquitous and necessary as guides to further scientific research.
I never said that@nou
,...and yet are ubiquitous and necessary as guides to further scientific researchso, by definition, you did state philo is "necessary as guides to further scientific research", which is the same thing as saying it's a "necessary guide to further scientific research"
"Interpretations of QM for example, which are de facto Philosophy of Physics are independent of experiment, in that they all rely on the same experimental results,...and yet are ubiquitous and necessary as guides to further scientific research"
Only interpretations that give rise to predictions different from QM, and thus are not merely philosophy, are useful in research.
@Nou- Pissypants1
"merely a means for consistently formulating an ability to make observational predictions"
Why "merely"? Theory is a _very powerful_ means to make predictions.
Without concepts we would still crawling around in the forest.
Why deny the reality of concepts like "electron" ?
Hidden variable theory is not philosophy but physics.
REALITY: There exists an effective mechanistically explicable/comprehensible 'energy-space' Universal system of REAL dynamical process/features which, at fundamental level, is independent of current cosmological human analytical/theoretical interpretations patently based UN-real philosophical abstractions and concepts which are built into and pervade our conventional thinking/understanding 'exercises/communications' efforts (refer to my above examples: Big Bang "everything from nothing" hypotheses; "point" concept; "spooky action at a distance" and "uncertainty/superposition" interpretations).
IF there develops a valid quantum theory of gravitation, that IS COMPATIBLE with the GRT GEOMETRIC formulation of gravity,.... then it may answer further questions.... IOW,... a background independent theory. - Noumenon
[…]
… unsupported putative condition of 'background independence', which was invented by a minority of physicists that wanted to come up with a condition that separated their naive attempts to replace GR from modern theories like string theory.
If you can't understand physics, why do you make (erroneous) claims instead of asking questions? You come over as the arrogant oaf all philosophers [..]
And no wonder, since 400 years we now have a Science of Philosophy theory, which as I noted, predicts philosophy is useless and that especially their arrogant 'Philosophy of Science' is a worthless concept. There is only one way of knowing things, and now we know this.
Hidden variable theory is not philosophy but physics.
Non-local hidden variable theories [ARE] indeed philosophy of physics, as they are considered interpretations of QM, since they are subject to the same experimental results as any other interpretation […] local hidden variable theories have been experimentally refuted, which is a fact of [experimental] physics.
Indeed. A fact of _physics_ . Not a fact of philosophy. This was my point.
Hidden variable theory is not philosophy but physics.
Non-local hidden variable theories [ARE] indeed philosophy of physics, as they are considered interpretations of QM, since they are subject to the same experimental results as any other interpretation […] local hidden variable theories have been experimentally refuted, which is a fact of [experimental] physics.
Indeed. A fact of _physics_ . Not a fact of philosophy. This was my point.
It was not your point, because it is necessary to make the distinction between local and non-local hidden variable theories in order to substantiate whether it is new physics or interpretation (philosophy of physics).
Of course I meant local hidden variables.
Well, in Noum's case I'm not so sure "cogito" is. Just sayin'.Is 'Cogito ergo sum' a fact?
"cogito" and "sum" are facts.
Hidden variable theory is not philosophy but physics. - Phys1
Non-local hidden variable theories are indeed philosophy of physics, as they are considered interpretations of QM, […] local hidden variable theories have been experimentally refuted, which is a fact of [experimental] physics.
Indeed. A fact of _physics_ . Not a fact of philosophy. This was my point.
It was not your point, because it is necessary to make the distinction between local and non-local hidden variable theories in order to substantiate whether it is new physics or interpretation (philosophy of physics).
Of course I meant local hidden variables.
Local hidden theories are not a fact of experimental physics, that they have been refuted is a fact of experimental physics.
Exactly as I said. Your point being?
My opinion about philosophy is that it _can_ generate new science.
Unfortunately it mostly produces confusion and shelves full of unreadable and boring books.
@obamasocks: I suggest you look up time dilation, e. g. wikipedia(..)- slash
Note that the two effects can combine; e. g. the astronauts on the ISS experience both the gravitational effect of time dilation and the effect of moving at high speed....
Also note that the ISS isn't very high above earth, and the gravitational pull isn't significantly reduced. It doesn't fall down, because it moves so fast that its centripetal force counters gravition: (...) No time dilation involved.
@Noumenon
"The meaning underlying physics" is debated by philosophy but not established by it, although philosophy can contribute. It is established by the physics itself. I have seen so many paradoxes resulting from overinterpretation
.. Philosopher [Bergson] Helped Ensure There Was No Nobel for Relativity. Henri Bergson, a French philosopher was first who realized correctly, that the general relativity would lead into static unmovable [...] Bergson has claimed that his theory of time or duration was explaining and correcting some misconceptions that the ordinary people had about time. ...
"Loop quantum gravity theory is a MAJOR alternative".
[…] It is an alternative among mathematicians that dabble in science
I am here for the interesting science and interesting comments. Why you are here is a mystery.
Expect criticism if you make unsupported - as you say, derailing - comments.
"Loop quantum gravity theory is a MAJOR alternative".
Now you are getting desperate. It is an alternative among mathematicians that dabble in science, it isn't an alternative that theoretical physicists humor much.
I'd say the main problem with background independence is that it doesn't seem to hook up with the real world which is dependent upon the 3+1 dimensionality of spacetime
I wonder about spaces embedded in other spaces of higher (or lower) dimensionality. For instance, relations among points in a two space might mimic a three space, and perhaps it is even possible to map a 3 space into a one space. But could you map a space of dimension n into a space of dimension n+x, where x is any integer?
@Noumenon
So space is 3N dimensional where N=10^80 or so?
I don't buy that.
If you equate space to the quantum vacuum then this is the consequence I guess.
The point being that thus far physics is not making statements about a supposed substantive or ontological nature to space-time,..... that the spaces made use of have to do with the mathematical formulation,.... as in Hilbert space referenced or Riemann manifolds.When it is stated that space-time supports or carries a causal structure, and that holds true for any effective field theory (mathematical formulation), it is both substantive and ontological, since it may be inferred or deduced that space-time, even when "empty," is connected to itself in some way that preserves the order of the coordinates of choice (for any and all choices). The proofs are mathematical – as concrete and certain as it gets for something as abstract and meaningless as empty space-time [following and extending the logic that space without time is meaningless... ].
When it is stated that space-time supports or carries a causal structure, and that holds true for any effective field theory (mathematical formulation), it is both substantive and ontological, since it may be inferred or deduced that space-time, even when "empty," is connected to itself in some way that preserves the order of the coordinates of choice
There are other generalizations of the Pythagorean Theorem that apply [....] to angular relations of other than 90 degrees opposite the "diagonal".
d² = x² + y² + z² - c²t²I wouldn't compare it to the Cosine Rule, personally. It's pretty much Pythagoras' Theorem for our spacetime. The negative index of the final term is dictated by the geometry of time with respect to space, and that geometry is non-Euclidean due to the non-circular relation of time to space.
This looks superficially like the Cosine Rule but with an extra dimension. I wonder whether one can get from the Cosine Rule applied to spacetime to the precise expression above? There are other generalizations of the Pythagorean Theorem that apply to higher dimensions of Euclidean space and to angular relations of other than 90 degrees opposite the "diagonal".
n order to substantiate an ontology for space-time, there needs to be an empirically justified dynamical theory for space-time, independent of kinematics.
I would have to say that it seems that they are not independent of the background, i.e. not independent of the existence and furthermore the geometry of x, y, z, and t. Furthermore, these are the transforms of SRT, and since SRT is GRT with zero spacetime curvature, they are also integral to GRT, meaning that relativity is not background independent.
I'm sure it's perfectly OK to postulate a space where the dimensions are not normal to each other, our spacetime doesn't appear to behave like that.
"Background independence just means that the structure of space-time is emergent from the theory itself, ... that the theory is not "embedded" within a separately postulated background in which physics occurs." GR is manifestly a background independent theory, because it that is the point of it.Well, according to this article the dimensionality of spacetime is not emergent, and spacetime is the background of GRT. Furthermore all the GRT I know of uses 4-tensors. And the use of 4-tensors is dictated by the background of 4 dimensional spacetime.
I'm not speaking philosophyYou're speaking philosophy.
It is a common mistake to conflate the mathematical structure of a theory with a 'realist' interpretation which leads to mathematical-idealism, rather than an understanding of what the original theory was actually meant to say... you're speaking philosophy. You can't NOT speak philosophy because you can't tell the difference between it and anything else.
I will elaborate this point. Again, I mean by "dynamics" as would be expected of a ontologically substantive spacetime-Philosophy.
IMO, in order to substantiate an ontology for space-time, there needs to be-philosophy.
but I would say that rather than that implying a substantive and ontological nature to space-time, … it is rather a constraint-philosophy.
That is philosophy of physicsThere is no philosophy of physics. Physicists do not use philosophy in doing their work. And so the phrase is a dishonest one.
Background independence just means that the structure of space-time is emergent from the theory itself [GR], ... that the theory is not "embedded" within a separately postulated background in which physics occurs….
Well, according to this article the dimensionality of spacetime is not emergent, and spacetime is the background of GRT. Furthermore all the GRT I know of uses 4-tensors. And the use of 4-tensors is dictated by the background of 4 dimensional spacetime.
I will just post another reference, because I already addressed what "background independence" means wrt a theory.Sorry, you were wrong and more references won't fix it. If you don't understand it well enough to discuss it then the conversation is over.
Concerning dimensionality,… The choice of dimensionality doesn't change the fact that GR is 'background independent'. GR could be extended to more dimensions, as in Kaluza–Klein theory.Now you're changing the subject.
I will just post another reference, because I already addressed what "background independence" means wrt a theory.
Sorry, you were wrong and more references won't fix it. If you don't understand it well enough to discuss it then the conversation is over.
It is common knowledge actually, that GR is background-independent.You haven't answered my assertion that GRT is composed of 4-tensors, which imply that the background of GRT is spacetime. And you can't. Not even by handwaving at Kaluza-Klein. This type of handwaving is exactly the sort of logic game I was talking about.
I thought it would take a least a little longer before you degenerated into accusations and insults,Noting that you're using logical fallacies in your arguments is not insulting, but
but I knew you would eventually without provocationis.
No insults, no logic games, no hesaidshesaid, none of that crap....thus 'painting' him as the 'aggressor'...even though it is you making aggressive 'certainty' and 'I'm correct' assertions while dismissing his perfectly polite/correct on-topic and on-science explanations! Then you go and break your own 'condition' by making exactly the insults etc you 'expected' from him; then use that as excuse to 'end' the exchange. Not good look. Drop that tactic, mate.:)
You haven't answered my assertion that GRT is composed of 4-tensors, which imply that the background of GRT is spacetime.
if upvoting your posts with your sockpuppets wasn't.
The arrogance in the assumption that space is 3 dimensional is appalling. In fact, dimensionality could range from zero to infinite, the question here (as many have already alluded to) is why we perceive in 3 dimensions.Conservation of energy is sufficient to show it; otherwise energy could disappear into dimensions we could not perceive.
A TOE is beyond our reach and will forever remain so, this is just how it is. You can never prove with 100% probability that our perception of reality and reality itself are in accord. Even if our models were spot on, if our picture of reality were true, we'd never be able to prove it certainly.Considering refrigerators, jet aircraft, and the computer you typed this on, I'd have to say that our theories seem to work pretty well despite the fact we can't, in philosophical terms, "prove" them.
The choice is more to do with the usefulness and compatibility with the given scope of problems being addressed.....-Philosophy.
than anything to do with the ontology or substantive nature of space-time-Philosophy.
It is common knowledge actually, that GR is background-independent. It is clearly you who does not understand this-Philosophy.
I thought it would take a least a little longer before you degenerated into accusations and insults-It seems to be the only way to get your nose out of your navel.
Neither. If there were extra dimensions, then energy could flow into them; it doesn't. Therefore there aren't. QED. Proof by contradiction.Conservation of energy is sufficient to show it; otherwise energy could disappear into dimensions we could not perceive.
I'm not stating that these dimensions are in a separate space. The energy you speak of is within the space I'm referring to. Why would there be energy loss? You trolling here or lacking comprehension?
I'll leave you be in your misunderstandings. You've provided me with the proof I need to disengage from any serious conversation with you. Best of luck to you. Have fun on your trolling adventures. The 11 dimensional world calls upon me. I've leaked enough of my energy on you. ;)This is instant ignore material.
"Background independence just means that the structure of space-time is emergent from the theory itself, ... that the theory is not "embedded" within a separately postulated background in which physics occurs."
And now we come to the tall tale that shows you don't understand background independence, theories and testing.
[…] It is an alternative among mathematicians that dabble in science - torbjorn
Funny, because 'as we all know', string theory is only pursued by physicists (sarcasm). Wait, didn't Witten win the Fields medal? At present, …string theory is mathematical philosophy, it is mathematical idealism. - Noumenon
So? Not all math is useful (LQG math may be among that set), that doesn't mean useful math is not part of science. String theory is popular among physicists as physics because it has a dynamics,
I posted multiple references.None of which proved you were right.
Neither. If there were extra dimensions, then energy could flow into them; it doesn't. Therefore there aren't. QED. Proof by contradiction.Conservation of energy is sufficient to show it; otherwise energy could disappear into dimensions we could not perceive.
I'm not stating that these dimensions are in a separate space. The energy you speak of is within the space I'm referring to. Why would there be energy loss? You trolling here or lacking comprehension?
Steelwolf 1.7 /5 (11) 10 hours ago
The Universe started when Space met Time
Correct.[contd]
The usual algebraic form of the Lorentz transform is:
x' = x - vt/γ
Should be x' = (x - vt)/γ.
Your definition of γ is unusual, but why not.Mmmmm, did I put tau instead of gamma? Quite possibly- I originally learned what I know of SRT using tau; gamma is "new math" to me.
I posted multiple references.
None of which proved you were right.
Well yes they do.Unsubstantiated claim since you do not discuss it, you just post a reference without any support. Typical philo-sophistry.
I posted multiple references.
None of which proved you were right.
Well yes they do. They confirm that I am right as they are independent sources. The phrase "background independence" is a conditions for theories. It has meaning in physics. It is not even a matter of opinion whether GR is a background independent theory,..... IT IS as a matter of fact.
Unsubstantiated claim since you do not discuss it, you just post a reference without any support. Typical philo-sophistry.
And you still haven't addressed why we use 4-tensors in GRT if it's background independent.
You've established politeness conditions for discussing with me and then promptly preceded to break those conditions.^ sophistry
You've established politeness conditions for discussing with me and then promptly preceded to break those conditions.^ sophistry
Unfortunately it is not possible to have a discussion with you, as you tend to degenerate into naming calling and ad hominems.
Oh, and just in case anyone missed it, Noum now claims that since everyone is so unfair as to downvote his posts for sophistry, lawyering, and insults it's OK if he makes a sockpuppet and upvotes himself.
Multiply the number of names you accuse by the number of comments voted on and my maths say that comes out to about 10 hours, if all you are referring to were done today.
I think the more parsimonious hypothesis is that your ego is so inflated that you honestly believe that there could only be one person disagreeing with you, so everyone that votes you down must be the same person.
Grow up. You never manage a "2" because your comments are rubbish and most people can see that.
You never manage a "2" because your comments are rubbish and most people can see that.
@Ira,... I have never initiated a sock war at phys.org. The "frankherbert" clown, maybe the same person now, used to mass troll rate me as well. Didn't like "right-wingers".That's a good theory, except for one thing. He voted you down, so you thought you were more important than his vote. Same with others, your refusing to accept your down votes is what started the puppet voting wars.
So, you object to my countering this behavior while Phys.Org does nothing or is behind itCher, I don't object, if that is how you want to spend your time. I vote once me. I always make one vote for the comment I read, if I like the person, and disagree with them, I vote them a 5 because I like them. Same with the 1 votes.
Your stuffs ain't worth reading because it is just torturing words and never going anywhere, so I don't read them, they are not entertaining and I don't vote them.
Wrt, the frankherbert you don't know what you're talking about.Cher, I do know exactly what I am talking about.
If you look objectivelyI don't have a dog in this fight Cher. I look and see what I see, non more, and non less.
but never actually post about science.Sometimes there is more there than you can see because you are too busy seeing how you are faring.
It is not my concern if you, UncleIra, know this.Then why you are working so hard on me about it?
The point is to fraudulently establish an "impression" of the value of ones posts irrespective of actual substantive content.The point is to get a rise out of you. And it's working. Yeah Cher, like I said, there is a lot to see there if you weren't looking at your self so hard.
opens that sock-drawer has never made a counter point about anything I have ever postedThat's life on the interweb, suck it up Cher, it is what it is.
Your stuffs ain't worth reading because it is just torturing words and never going anywhere, so I don't read them, they are not entertaining and I don't vote them.
never going anywhere? And of what value is such an subjective opinion from one who does not display any knowledge in the particular topic, GR, QM? Any coward can hide under their desk a 1-rate, or post "subjective characterizations" of another poster. This is why the rating system is used by frauds.
That's what I said. Have you ever settled one of your "debates"? Non, not that I ever saw. Like I said, you torture language, wiggle with words, twist and tangle, and never get to the end.Your stuffs ain't worth reading because it is just torturing words and never going anywhere, so I don't read them, they are not entertaining and I don't vote them.
never going anywher?
And of what value is such an subjective opinion from one who does not display any knowledge in the particular topic, GR, QM?I don't place a value on my opinions. But they all come with the double your money back guarantee, if you are unsatisfied.
This is why the rating system is used by frauds.Cher, it is not the voting for the next Nobel Prize. They are silly karma points on the comment section of an interweb newsletter that is read by a lot kinds of peoples. Some smart, some stupid, some interesting and more than just some that have mental conditions.
What do you know of frankherbert and his attacks on me which was several years ago?Well let's see what I know about this, eh?
I wonder if UncleIra cares about his 5's he gets by posting nothing about science, that he gives Stumpy and Vietvet the 5'finger job no matter what non-science is postedNot a wit do I care.
It would not take much time as I can automate thisThat's the point I was trying to make, thanks for the assist..
Will you care about it then?Non Cher. Not a wit, give it go and see how much I care. What does it mean to me?
If the rating system went away would you have anymore reason to be here?
You can see from the 1st link that you even provided that I was massively troll rated, skippy?Yeah Cher, the first linkum was the end of the puppet voting war. But the bottom link is where you got going,,,,, Hard to whine about the voting puppets when your tally is up in the 4's, eh?
I did not start that ,.... I just did not let him get away with it.Yeah, you did Cher. It all started with you not like the down votes from one or two posters, you decided that for any justice in the world you have to null their votes because they are not worth having a vote. Your puppets started the puppet wars.
Do you understand this difference, skippy,.... to defy the troll what they want?I understand it is a silly thing to worry about. You just got mad because they did not let your "justice votes" go unchallenged.
Do you post on science here, skippy?Yeah, everyday. Mostly on the Abnormal Psychology lately.
Mostly on the Abnormal Psychology lately.This got a nasty chuckle from me.
The entire bunch are advocates for human torture, witness the 5 Star votes a couple of weeks ago when Schneibo & gang gave "chileastro" 5 Star votes after "chileastro" advocated wires be hooked up to my nether regions & voltage be applied.Bizarre, man.
witness the 5 Star votes a couple of weeks ago when Schneibo & gang gave "chileastro" 5 Star votes after "chileastro" advocated wires be hooked up to my nether regions & voltage be applied.Bizarre, man.
Ira, Stumpo, the usual suspects were all there as well putting up their pro-torture 5 Star votes.@ Nounamen-Skippy. It's the interweb Cher. Some of the language is a little ruff sometimes, but even though I do not use the bad language, I know it is the interweb and if any of it was so ruff it ruined my day, I am would just fine another place to go. I sure would not spend 6 or 5 years hanging out where I felt so abused, thinking that one more whiny complaint would be the one that will make it all go away.
Meanwhile, right on topic and right on cue, this gem:
The entire bunch are advocates for human torture, witness the 5 Star votes a couple of weeks ago when Schneibo & gang gave "chileastro" 5 Star votes after "chileastro" advocated wires be hooked up to my nether regions & voltage be applied.
Bizarre, man...............You think so? Okay then, prove you never made such a 5 Star vote?
Okay then, prove you never made such a 5 Star vote?I don't deal with 8-year-olds who haven't learned logic yet.
Da Schneib4 /5 (1) 39 minutes ago
I don't deal with 8-year-olds who haven't learned logic yet.
Benni3 /5 (2) 2 hours ago
The entire bunch are advocates for human torture, witness the 5 Star votes a couple of weeks ago when Schneibo & gang gave "chileastro" 5 Star votes after "chileastro" advocated wires be hooked up to my nether regions & voltage be applied.
I wonder if UncleIra cares about his 5's he gets by posting nothing about science, that he gives Stumpy and Vietvet the 5'finger job no matter what non-science is posted. Should I take Ira's points away and mass troll rate him-skippy?
They only need to become familiar with the technical jargon (which in this case physicists use as shorthand for the math and data they are all familiar with), and intersperse it with their own notoriously undefinable jargon.Very good point, let's all be perfectly clear then, shall we?
There is no philosophy of physics.How is that remark not your philosophy? Reminds me of that Rush lyric, "if you choose not to decide, you still have made a choice." Knowledge of the definition of logic is not a requisite for demonstrating it. But it sure helps.
- Ira (the pretend Cajun)Multiply the number of names you accuse by the number of comments voted on and my maths say that comes out to about 10 hours, if all you are referring to were done today.
A while back Nounamen-Skippy had dozens of voting puppets, he got so tired of making up new names to remember, he would just the same name over and over with a number on him.
Like Puppet1, Puppet2... Don't take my word for it, ask anybody who has been here more than two years. All the time saying he wished they would take the voting buttons down. He had more socks than Obama-socks-Skippy.
Because they cannot discuss a subject with facts,... I have never actually had a physics nor philosophy of physics debate with 'the Stumpy, Ira, and Otto cartoon' show,... not once.- Noumenon
- AGreatWhopperDa Schneib4 /5 (1) 39 minutes ago
I don't deal with 8-year-olds who haven't learned logic yet.
FWIW, looking at the times and watching some conversations, I think it's pretty likely that obummersucker is cantthink. Of course, beyond those three, antirational has to take the prize for pure puerile. He comes up with things I haven't heard since I was 8.
- TechnoCreedI wonder if UncleIra cares about his 5's he gets by posting nothing about science, that he gives Stumpy and Vietvet the 5'finger job no matter what non-science is posted...
It can be understandable that, for some irrational reasons, a person is unable to express compassion towards another. What is less understandable and defendable, is when those irrational reasons turn to indecent reasoning.
Vietvet is no longer active on Physorg. Would it be possible to have a minimal amount of respect.
- ProtoplasmixThey only need to become familiar with the technical jargon (which in this case physicists use as shorthand for the math and data they are all familiar with), and intersperse it with their own notoriously undefinable jargon.Very good point, let's all be perfectly clear then, shall we?
"To proceed further along these lines, we need to make ourselves familiar with more terminology and notations." See http://arxiv.org/abs/1411.1836There is no philosophy of physics.How is that remark not your philosophy? Reminds me of that Rush lyric, "if you choose not to decide, you still have made a choice." Knowledge of the definition of logic is not a requisite for demonstrating it. But it sure helps.
I always hear about gravity in terms of planets and objects creating "depressions" in the fabric of space, but space is three-dimensional... why doesn't the explanation of gravity seem to take this into account?- willieaames25
I wonder if UncleIra cares about his 5's he gets by posting nothing about science, that he gives Stumpy and Vietvet the 5'finger job no matter what non-science is posted. Should I take Ira's points away and mass troll rate him-skippy?
It can be understandable that, for some irrational reasons, a person is unable to express compassion towards another. [...]
Vietvet is no longer active on Physorg. Would it be possible to have a minimal amount of respect.
There is no philosophy of physics - Torbjorn.
How is that remark not your philosophy? Reminds me of that Rush lyric, "if you choose not to decide, you still have made a choice." Knowledge of the definition of logic is not a requisite for demonstrating it. But it sure helps.
Benni 1.5 / 5 (13) 10 hours ago
If the rating system were dumped, most of the people who presently post here & use it would be gone overnight.............case in point, my leading quote for this post.
I have a recurring dream where I'm in a bar and overhear someone saying something that identifies them as one of the regular trolls, like benni, and I follow them out into a dark alley and beat some respect into their empty heads.
....and here you are Schneib, chief the complainer about "trolls". You want credibility, give chileastro a 1, I dare you. Not one word in his post about the subject matter or anything else about science, only his threats to physically confront & commit acts of violence against those with whom you in the Rant Brigade disagree.
Oh, I get it Schneib, you intend to take the high road instead & just not vote on his post? You're silence is your consent.
Remember Schneib, rate posters on science content? Let's see if you can practice the narrative.
.and here you are Schneib, chief the complainer about "trolls". You want credibility, give chileastro a 1, I dare you. Not one word in his post about the subject matter or anything else about science, only his threats to physically confront & commit acts of violence against those with whom you in the Rant Brigade disagree.
chileastro
March 29, 2016, 9:46 am 4 Benni <1> Da Schneib <5> jim_xanara<5> antigoresockpuppet<5>
So Schneib, let's do this math: Four votes....... 1+5+5+5=16/4=4
.......and you want the forum to believe the drivel you just posted right above this, that you're here for the science? But consenting to violence against Posters with whom you disagree. So tell us, what really does this make you?
I always hear about gravity in terms of planets and objects creating "depressions" in the fabric of space, but space is three-dimensional... why doesn't the explanation of gravity seem to take this into account?
routinely attempt to derail discussions into one of antiphilosophy@Nou
I'm am routinely down rated for posting substantive physicswhen you include philo as part of the substantive physics (like above) then it is the prerogative of the rater to give you a one as philo isn't "substantive physics"
Ira are routinely 5ira has a nose for trolls, & the rating structure is entirely dependent on the user, not your specific criteria, therefore this is just whining
can not articulate specific objections with scientific knowledgeeverything i've stated has been valid, articulate and either provable or validated, sometimes in your own words (See above)
subjective "characterizations"in NiteSkyGerl's defense, if the characterization can be substantiated, like above, then it isn't subjective and it falls in the realm of psychological science (science being the keyword)
the site is better off with you telling Benni or compose, WHY they are wrong rathsr than empty soap-opera drama. Speak about physics, debate himyou know, i can partially agree with this... but there is a serious problem with your reasoning:
You are not posting actual counter points to anything that I have statedwrong: if you're bringing in a point at any time and you post it, like what i noted above in my first comment, then it opens the door to conversation of your post which is relevant to the thread
Nou, posting crap is more irritating than posting nothingif you're posting any philo anything, and NiteSkyGerl is concentrating on "substantive physics", then the sudden introduction of anything philo is like a speed bump (or a brick wall to some) and becomes a serious detriment to comprehension, which is my argument to you on more than one occasion
- TechnoCreed
Would you care to elaborate on the cause for Vietvet's absence from this website? I don't recall anything nice about Vietvet's posts. He doesn't seem to have anything nice or uplifting to say in terms of any kind of a feeling of "fellowship" for all who post in this forum. He also seems to gravitate toward the nastiest people who post on Physorg as his "comrades". And he seems like a very mean person even in spite of his health issues...or maybe because of it
the site is better off with you telling Benni or compose, WHY they are wrong rathsr than empty soap-opera drama. Speak about physics, debate him.
... specific objection or counter point to something I actually stated?@Nou
Can you not read my post with objectivitystopped there... and yes, i can
... juat more subjective characterizationsi can validate my claims with evidence from the site and your own posts, especially the benji post
and do not refer to any actual thing I posted hereyes, it does: and it is quoted as well as argued in the post
Anybody who has been here for more than a month or so knows beyond a shadow of any doubt that ALL of the SMARTER Skippys have tried to debate, argue or discuss the physics and science with Zephir-Skippy AND Bennie-Skippy. Hundreds of times over the years.........and Scheibo's advocacy vote for bodily beatings upon those with dissenting (scientific) points of view proves this? How?
I will continue to post whatever form of argument that I see fit,.... whether that is philosophical, or facts of physics, or political ideology@Nou
has lead you to miss the factnope
You are on ignore for not reading the above posts to see this, and ignoring my comments about physics1- read them
Btw, NiteSkyGerl is a guy. You haven't figured this out yetRule 37 from the /b/ro's... learn it, live it, know it
If it were not for persecution by the close-minded Science Establishment my theories would be recognized as revolutionary explanations of every question in science.- Ensign Flandery
...- TechnoC
o_s you come here and question the point of view of others; it is normal, it challenges your views of the world and it is all right, Physorg allows different point of views to be expressed and it gives this place some purpose. But please just appreciate that your point of view is just one of 7 billion and that is the beauty of it; it also defines our identity. I will not have a prolonged debate on this; it is not that I spent too much time on you, but I hate wasting too much time Physorg and did it already.
...- TechnoCreed
Sadly two individual cannot look at one and the other and give a proper assessment of the other because this assessment is tainted by the relationship they entertain. Look at it this way; people are attracted by their similarities and repelled by their differences and that is especially true in the virtual world where we cannot see the person behind the character. We can analyse the psychology of the other but do not have any means to appreciate their real life struggles.
tbc
@Noumenon
" site is better off with you telling Benni or compose, WHY they are wrong"
That would be futile. This site is better off by ignoring them completely.
Who ever gave these crackpots the idea that logic is a matter of personal style? Computer CPUs used to be called ALUs, for arithmetic and logical unit. Logic is like addition, subtraction, multiplication and division. Symbolic logic is no more negotiable than the sum of 2+2.- john berry_hobbes
WHY don't we listen to those poor persecuted types like obamarocks and numbnuts? It would be like having someone balance your checkbook that had a different definition of how basic math sums worked. You are entitled to your own opinions, not your own facts. But, logic challenged, you don't even know what a fact is. It's not alternative, it's dysfunctional. You probably think color blindness is actually an alternative interpretation of the state of affairs. It is, but it's pathological. It's broken. It's like your logic. It's not alternative, it's wrong.
Damn PO to hell for feeding your demons.
1) Space-time is the set of all measurements you can make with rulers and clocks. Not a thing, not a stuff, just a set of measurements.Spacetime is the place where energy lives.
@Noumenon
" site is better off with you telling Benni or compose, WHY they are wrong"
That would be futile. This site is better off by ignoring them completely.
I have always said that Time can ONLY go forward - never stops, pauses or reverses.Time expands in 2 directions just like all other dimensions in spacetime. On average the U is going nowhere in space or time unless it is being influenced by another U in a multiverse. Objects going in forward time we call matter, backwards in time antimatter. For each particle of matter created there is a corresponding particle of antimatter. For each positive charge created there is a corresponding negative charge. Some even say the total energy of the U is 0. Else where would it come from if the U is really all there is? Actually it's like a giant swap shop.
you're characterizing my posts generally as being of philosophy@Nou
the list of preeminent physicistsa preeminent physicists spouting philo doesn't mean it's anything but support for a subjective opinion - period
you failed to understand thatnope. still didn't fail to understand, and this is addressed in the post above yours
I WILL continue postingand so long as you do, then be prepared for the backlash of downrating and STFU about the downrating when it does happen, like above
The fact that Stumpy posts objection to thisit aint nice to lie in print
If warping space also warps time, is time actually part of space, or merely adhering to it?Time is a change of configuration of space. So if you're going to warp space it takes time. If you're going to warp time then the time to change the configuration would change but all you can observe is the change in configuration so you would never detect it since all you can detect is the change of configuration.
So if you're going to warp space it takes time. If you're going to warp time then the time to change the configuration would change but all you can observe is the change in configuration so you would never detect it since all you can detect is the change of configuration.Sorry if I'm starting to repeat myself. Pushing 80 real hard. :)
GR takes an operational approach, which means defining coordinate-time and coordinate-space to be represented as some physical system,... not taken as a "thing unto itself".Space-time is the dimensions where the substance exists. The actual substance is the vacuum pressure which would seem to be what he actually used in the field equations.
It is a kinematical theory as opposed to a dynamic one,... IN THE SENSE that the field equations only equate proportionally the metric tensor [as expressed in the contracted Riemann tensor], to mass-energy,..... but does not say WHY, ....which is what one would expect for a dynamical theory that took space-time as a substance.
What does it mean that space is warped? Does it mean a gradient in some field? A field of what?In this context I think it would be the vacuum pressure. In the case of an e/m field I think you would be talking about the energy stored in a non-random distribution of virtual particle-antiparticle pairs. The energy stored in configuration, actually.
In the case of an e/m field I think you would be talking about the energy stored in a non-random distribution of virtual particle-antiparticle pairs.An interesting consequence of this is that as the U continues to cool the e/m fields will decrease in intensity as the energy of the virtual particle-antiparticle pairs decreases.
- Seeker2I have always said that Time can ONLY go forward - never stops, pauses or reverses.Time expands in 2 directions just like all other dimensions in spacetime. On average the U is going nowhere in space or time unless it is being influenced by another U in a multiverse. Objects going in forward time we call matter, backwards in time antimatter. For each particle of matter created there is a corresponding particle of antimatter. For each positive charge created there is a corresponding negative charge. Some even say the total energy of the U is 0. Else where would it come from if the U is really all there is? Actually it's like a giant swap shop.
In the case of an e/m field I think you would be talking about the energy stored in a non-random distrib(..)An interesting consequence of this is that as the U continues to cool the e/m fields will decrease in intensity as
GR takes an operational approach, which means defining coordinate-time and coordinate-space to be represented as some physical system,... not taken as a "thing unto itself".[...] The actual substance is the vacuum pressure which would seem to be what he actually used in the field equations.
- seeker2So if you're going to warp space it takes time. If you're going to warp time then the time to change the configuration would change but all you can observe is the change in configuration so you would never detect it since all you can detect is the change of configuration.Sorry if I'm starting to repeat myself. Pushing 80 real hard. :)
The displacement of space by the material object doesn't actually make the space that is being displaced "sink down", ...Yes - the space that is displaced is expelled from the region around the material object. So what's left around the material object has less total vacuum pressure than it had before displacement. So vacuum energy flows from regions without material objects into those with material objects like black holes. Material objects just get caught up in the flow - which we call gravity. You'd think in an expanding U matter would be blown apart. Instead it all gets collected - eventually into one great black hole. That would seem like a catastrophe for the universe but matter only makes up maybe 5% of the energy budget of the U so it will hardly even notice - or care. It just sucks up all the material stuff like it's wants to clean up the mess and take out the trash. :(
You cannot BUILD ANYTHING out of your concept of Time as a Dimension.I can build an ordered set of object configurations. Time as a dimension is the actual count of the number of these configurations. Or at least some attempt to make this count.
The "pressure" in the stress-energy tensor [which is called pressure because it is the flux of momentum across a surface element, for each component],... is generalized,.. so is not intended to refer to specific sources.I'm seeing the stress-energy tensor as a gradient in the vacuum energy. But you're not going to get it right without adding in the actual zero-point vacuum energy, or so it would seem.
Einstein added an extra term called the cosmological constant. This term is on the opposite side of the stress-energy tensor. There are issues with renormalization, but vacuum energy may be able to be associated with this term,.... but there are issues as I mentioned above....
https://en.wikipe...astrophe
As repeatably stated above,.... I am not interesting in debating the general validity of philosophy of physics with neophytesWell then why do you use your formal philosophy in your discussions with us, if you don't expect us to understand it?
Why do you continue to want to talk about the validity of philosophy here? Take that off-topic nonesense and your metaphysical "gravity substance" somewhere elseYou use formal philosophy constantly but for you its on-topic whereas arguments against its use are not?
- seeker2The displacement of space by the material object doesn't actually make the space that is being displaced "sink down", ...Yes - the space that is displaced is expelled from the region around the material object. So what's left around the material object has less total vacuum pressure than it had before displacement. So vacuum energy flows from regions without material objects into those with material objects like black holes.
Material objects just get caught up in the flow - which we call gravity. You'd think in an expanding U matter would be blown apart. Instead it all gets collected - eventually into one great black hole. That would seem like a catastrophe for the universe but matter only makes up maybe 5% of the energy budget of the U so it will hardly even notice - or care. It just sucks up all the material stuff like it's wants to clean up the mess and take out the trash. :(
- seeker2You cannot BUILD ANYTHING out of your concept of Time as a Dimension.I can build an ordered set of object configurations. Time as a dimension is the actual count of the number of these configurations. Or at least some attempt to make this count.
As repeatably stated above,.... I am not interesting in debating the general validity of philosophy of physics with neophytes
Well then why do you use your formal philosophy in your discussions with us, if you don't expect us to understand it?
@ Obama's-Skippy. You stole all that from the Really-Skippy didn't you?- Ira
That is correct, but vacuum energy can't penetrate very far into the material object if there is an atmospheric envelope surrounding the object...such as the one above Earth.Vacuum energy penetrates atoms of the atmosphere just like everything else. Per https://www.physi...y.74297/ atoms are 99.999999999999% empty space.
@Seeker, you're awfully close, but you've slipped up in one area: you can see your slip clearly if you study the Einstein Field Equations.I've been looking at that but I'm no genius like Einstein. Point being you have to include the zero point energy of the vacuum.
- seeker2And I can count. The 3d dimensions of each object as well as the number of these objects.
I can build ...
- seeker2That is correct, but vacuum energy can't penetrate very far into the material object if there is an atmospheric envelope surrounding the object...such as the one above Earth.Vacuum energy penetrates atoms of the atmosphere just like everything else. Per https://www.physi...y.74297/ atoms are 99.999999999999% empty space.
- seeker2- seeker2And I can count. The 3d dimensions of each object as well as the number of these objects.
I can build ...
The 3D dimensions are proven and observable. No problem.Right. The number of changes of configuration in 3D dimension observables is also proven and observable.
...these particles and antiparticles may interact with others before disappearing(..)"Yes as a matter of fact I'm thinking a non-random distribution of these particles (caused by a non-random distribution of the Higgs field) leads to e/m forces.
are all ubiquitous physics terms, most of which concerns the mathematical formulation of GRRIGHT. And 'ontological' and 'metaphysical' are NOT. They are worthless philo terms which have no place in science discussions.
I have demonstrated knowlege of physics above-But you still don't know that physicists don't do their work with words, do you?
I said that V.E. can't penetrate VERY FAR INTO the material object IF there is an atmospheric envelope surrounding the object.If it penetrates at all into the material object it must penetrate 99.999999999999% of the way. Else what else in the object would limit its 99.999999999999% penetration? How could the V.E. limit the penetration of itself?. Maybe it just comes in small chunks but I don't think so.
I guess they only interact if they want to, right? This is akin to your astute observation that photons aren't affected by gravity unless the gravity is strong enough to affect them.
It also doesn't say these P and anti-P DO INTERACT, but only MAY interact. Another Non-Absolute statement
I would just assume do so with my dog than anyone in this thread, and indeed have not done so here. Some of the formal terminology that I posted above (contracted Riemann tensor,, commutator, covariant, component of the description, concepts, background independent, cotangent, etc),... are all ubiquitous physics terms, most of which concerns the mathematical formulation of GR.
RIGHT. And 'ontological' and 'metaphysical' are NOT. They are worthless philo terms which have no place in science discussions.
But you still don't know that physicists don't do their work with words, do you?
- ottoI guess they only interact if they want to, right? This is akin to your astute observation that photons aren't affected by gravity unless the gravity is strong enough to affect them.
It also doesn't say these P and anti-P DO INTERACT, but only MAY interact. Another Non-Absolute statement
In order to gauge the real nature of your postings, just imagine an entire room full of people laughing at you.
- seeker2...these particles and antiparticles may interact with others before disappearing(..)"Yes as a matter of fact I'm thinking a non-random distribution of these particles (caused by a non-random distribution of the Higgs field) leads to e/m forces.
Do you post anything other than unsubstantiated characterizations and accusations? I know the math of GR and QM, do you? What Phys.Org article has math in it? This is a comment section about science, not a science journal in which to do scienceRight. So why are you using it as an excuse to attempt to do science with words?
They are if they are used in the derogatory sense, as I have done above?? You refer to them as legitimate 'things' whether or not use them in a derogatory way.
IMO, in order to substantiate an ontology for space-time, there needs to be an empirically justified dynamical theory for space-time, independent of kinematicsYou refer to ontology as something real and useful, correct?
Very interesting concept. Taken altogether, even without REAL OBSERVATION, virtual interactions are regarded as FACT, and not merely one aspect of an unproven TheoryAn accurate model of pussytards mental functionings;
...whether it is possible that the purported BIG BANG was a response to super king-sized particle(s) and antiparticles mutually annihilating each otherParticles of course sink into black holes while antiparticles float away as I see it. But if the zero point vacuum energy drops below the energy density of antiparticles, antiparticles also begin to sink, perhaps into antiparticle black holes. Meanwhile particle black holes sink even deeper into the vacuum energy. The minimum energy configuration comes when everything sinks into the same black hole. Annihilation would then release all energy going into the creation of real particle/antiparticle pairs. That should provide enough energy to restart the big bang and maybe even restore the original zero point vacuum energy. Just a thought.
- OttoVery interesting concept. Taken altogether, even without REAL OBSERVATION, virtual interactions are regarded as FACT, and not merely one aspect of an unproven TheoryAn accurate model of pussytards mental functionings;
https://www.youtu...WyfceJ58
- seeker2...whether it is possible that the purported BIG BANG was a response to super king-sized particle(s) and antiparticles mutually annihilating each otherParticles of course sink into black holes while antiparticles float away as I see it. But if the zero point vacuum energy drops below the energy density of antiparticles, antiparticles also begin to sink, perhaps into antiparticle black holes. Meanwhile particle black holes sink even deeper into the vacuum energy. The minimum energy configuration comes when everything sinks into the same black hole. Annihilation would then release all energy going into the creation of real particle/antiparticle pairs. That should provide enough energy to restart the big bang and maybe even restore the original zero point vacuum energy. Just a thought.
...whether it is possible that the purported BIG BANG...Somehow, I don't think we're on the same page. I was referring to super particles created as result of BigBang with no BHs at the time...or stars as yet.Yes I'm not into anything purported.
- seeker2I've heard of primordial black holes supposedly created at the big bang before any stars. But other than that no super particles.
Somehow, I don't think we're on the same page. I was referring to super particles created as result of BigBang with no BHs at the time...or stars as yet.
- seeker2I've heard of primordial black holes supposedly created at the big bang before any stars. But other than that no super particles.
Somehow, I don't think we're on the same page. I was referring to super particles created as result of BigBang with no BHs at the time...or stars as yet.
Do you post anything other than unsubstantiated characterizations and accusations? I know the math of GR and QM, do you? What Phys.Org article has math in it? This is a comment section about science, not a science journal in which to do science
Right. So why are you using it as an excuse to attempt to do science with words?
IMO, in order to substantiate an ontology for space-time, there needs to be an empirically justified dynamical theory for space-time, independent of kinematics
You refer to ontology as something real and useful, correct?
Since they are robust phenomena that happens whether or not we observe them or how we describe them, they are independent and real - Torbjorn
A Positive + can't derive from a Negative - UNLESS there was Something Else present in the Nothing to assistDoes seem rather unlikely that we're the most intelligent beings in the universe!
OK, numbnuts, you filthy little beast, I'll have at you. You want to bring Kant into physics? Great. I'll go a few rounds and teach you a thing or two.
You've disgraced the name.
So, nou, any remaining shred of credibility you had as a poster has evaporated.
STFU, get the hell off the site, and don't come back.
Noumenon 1.2 /5 (12) 3 hours ago
OK, numbnuts, you filthy little beast, I'll have at you. You want to bring Kant into physics? Great. I'll go a few rounds and teach you a thing or two.
You've disgraced the name.
A) And yet you continue to say nothing but "subjective characterizations", devoid of actual substance B) wouldn't a debate about Kant conflict with your entire premise of sock-puppet troll rating me irrespective of content, in the first place? C) what makes you think I would engage someone of your adolescent mentality, even had you demonstrated knowledge of anything, .....which you haven't.
"There is no way to remove the observer — us — from our perception of the world, which is created through our sensory processing and through the way we think and reason. (..) - Stephen Hawking- Noumenon
Spacetime is a component of phenomenal reality, but it is an epistemic condition for experience and observation to be possible, (..)mind-dependent description. This is why Einstein had to make use of a "operational" or "instrumentalist" definition of time and space in STR/GRT,.... (as representations as physical systems, a clock and rod,... and not "things unto themselves").
"There is no way to remove the observer — us — from our perception of the world, which is created through our sensory processing and through the way we think and reason. Our perception — and hence the observations upon which our theories are based — is not direct, but rather is shaped by a kind of lens, the interpretive structure of our brains." - Stephen Hawking- Noumenon
- seeker2A Positive + can't derive from a Negative - UNLESS there was Something Else present in the Nothing to assistDoes seem rather unlikely that we're the most intelligent beings in the universe!
@Obama_Socks,.... yes exactly. Within the context of science and my comments above, it just means 'what can be said of Reality independent of observation'-Noumenon attempts to discuss formal philosophical mysticism with a kumquat; ie someone who might actually believe he knows what he is talking about.
Here we go-Otto the Goat@Obama_Socks,.... yes exactly. Within the context of science and my comments above, it just means 'what can be said of Reality independent of observation'
Ie someone who believes she sees 900ft tall glassy headed Martians in NASA photos.
Yes; that's Λ, the cosmological constant. It's right there in the EFE.@Seeker, you're awfully close, but you've slipped up in one area: you can see your slip clearly if you study the Einstein Field Equations.I've been looking at that but I'm no genius like Einstein. Point being you have to include the zero point energy of the vacuum.
@Seeker:Kudos!Yes; that's Λ, the cosmological constant. It's right there in the EFE.@Seeker, you're awfully close, but you've slipped up in one area: you can see your slip clearly if you study the Einstein Field Equations.I've been looking at that but I'm no genius like Einstein. Point being you have to include the zero point energy of the vacuum.
Like asking "why am I here?" - it is not possible for you to be anywhere else.Actually in the quantum world nobody knows exactly where here is or what time it is. In the macro world we can estimate where we are or what time it is with some probability. Not sure if there's really any difference though.
SkyAbove
May 3, 2016