Expansion of space-time

[modest]

Pyrotex answers that in this post:

 

http://hypography.com/forums/philoso...tml#post188284

 

-modest

No scientific facts or any exact details found on the link that you said would answer my question. Did this actually answer what space and time are for you? Can anybody give a reference that states how space or time can be real physical things? Anybody?

 

No - it doesn't have any scientific facts, does it. But, that's the point. It wouldn't. Besides being the funniest post I've ever read, it is also the most appropriate answer to the question of that thread - was there nothing before the universe?. Pyrotex is pointing out (in the subtext) that it's not really a question you can answer seriously and scientifically. Your question is equally philosophical. You can compare 'time' to things and you can make human metaphors for 'space'. That falls outside the purview of 'physics and mathematics' on this site. You can also use time and space to make theories that give good scientific predictions. That's what this area is for.

 

Lets cut to the chase here. You tell me of a standard scientific reference that states time or space is a real physical thing. Any reference, including the book that you think I should read.

 

You obviously didn't listen to what Freeztar and I said. You have hijacked HydrogenBond's thread. If you want to see a more serious answer to this question that I've already written you can go here:

http://hypography.com/forums/astronomy-cosmology/12885-cosmology-needs-radical-transformation-10.html#post201048

 

And, please, listen to Freeztar above.

 

-modest

[freeztar]

What are the scientific definitions of space that state space or time are physical things. The terms space and time are used liberally in many science books. You tell me what the scientific definitions of space and time are

 

I'd be happy to explain this to you, but that is not the topic of the thread.

While it is natural for discussions to drift off-topic at times, the issue I take here is that you have used several unrelated threads for your soapbox to stand on and question the physical reality of time and space.

 

Your questions are perfectly valid, but should be posted in a new thread, titled something like "The Physical Reality of space and time". You may choose to create this thread in the physics forum, but if the thread does not adhere to a discussion of physics, then it may be moved elsewhere at a moderator's discretion.

 

From the Hypography rules:

"Avoid cross-posting--that is, posting highly similar posts in multiple threads. The majority of our members actually read most threads, and this is impolitely forcing them to read something they've probably already read. It's OK to reply in existing threads with a post containing "I discuss a related, but different idea in *this thread*", and provide a link, but it should be in the context of contributing to the thread in which you are posting."

 

Please take some time to review the site rules.

 

The thread starts here, show your references that state space or time are physical things.

 

Again, this needs its own thread. If you need help on how to make one or have any other questions, feel free to contact me or any other moderator or administrator.

[InfiniteNow]

Steve 9 is just a forum troll. Try not to feed the trolls. :eek_big:

[steve 9]

Steve 9 is just a forum troll. Try not to feed the trolls. :eek_big:

 

 

 

You have to realize that those who state that time and space are physical things have never been able to show any scientific evidence of this. That includes you InfineNow. They will just avoid the question or try to discredit me. You can show everyone what kind of troll I am by giving evidence of space or time being physical things. It has been stated on this thread that space-time was created at the big bang. I have posed the question if anyone can provide evidence that space-time or space and time are real physical things. No one has yet provided any reference or evidence that states space or time are physical things.

 

Read the rules of the forum.

 

1. In general, back up your claims by using links or references.

 

2. If you make strange claims, please provide proof or at least backup of some kind. If you fail to do so, or the backup you provide is not deemed adequate, the moderators may move your post to the Strange Claims forum.

 

 

My claim is that space and time are not physical things. This is backed up by any scientific reference book and lack of any observational data. This is true.

 

I have stated my claim and provided the proof that backs this up. So I will ask again, can anyone who believes that space or time are real physical things please provide some adequate proof. Simple as that.

 

I do not see what all the fuss is about. Space and time are fundamental to physics, so I am sure that this would be an easy task for anyone with some basic knowledge of physics.

[InfiniteNow]

Yep. Then you'll go tell them to open a dictionary, as if that's somehow the end all, be all of scientifc work and understanding. :eek_big:

[steve 9]

No - it doesn't have any scientific facts, does it. But, that's the point. It wouldn't.

 

 

I asked for some evidence or facts that space or time are real physical things and you provide me with a link that you admit has no scientific facts. So what is your point?

 

 

Besides being the funniest post I've ever read, it is also the most appropriate answer to the question of that thread - was there nothing before the universe?. Pyrotex is pointing out (in the subtext) that it's not really a question you can answer seriously and scientifically.

 

 

So, you still have not shown how space or time are real physical things.

 

You must have some data that you are working with that leads you to believe that space and time are physical things. What is it?

 

Yes, my question can be answered. Look in any science reference book. The terms space and time are fundamental to physics, there are references that state seriously and scientifically what space and time are according to physics.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Your question is equally philosophical. You can compare 'time' to things and you can make human metaphors for 'space'. That falls outside the purview of 'physics and mathematics' on this site. You can also use time and space to make theories that give good scientific predictions. That's what this area is for.

 

 

My questions are purely scientific. It was stated on this thread that space time was created. I asked for the ingredients, what makes space-time a physical thing. This question is on the right thread and does not need to be moved.

 

 

 

You obviously didn't listen to what Freeztar and I said. You have hijacked HydrogenBond's thread. If you want to see a more serious answer to this question that I've already written you can go here:

http://hypography.com/forums/astronomy-cosmology/12885-cosmology-needs-radical-transformation-10.html#post201048

 

And, please, listen to Freeztar above.

 

-modest

 

I went to your link. Here it is with my comments.

 

 

Originally Posted by Natural

“Like I said before, the act of bending is to apply energy to something causing it to change it's structure. But you have to have a physical structure first.

It always gets me laughing when I hear someone referring to "the fabric of space".

 

I agree. The belief in this fabric without any scientific data that claims that this fabric is a real physical substance is strange.

 

 

 

This is what Modest wrote in response to the above quote:

 

“For many hundreds of years this has been proven in many different ways. Would you have 2 stars separated by the vacuum of space NOT be connected? You would suggest that space devoid of baryonic matter is nothing?”

 

Show the evidence that this has been proven. Two stars are two objects just like the computer monitor in front of you and a car parked down the street. There is space between them but they are not connected by this thing called space. The idea that space connects things is not backed up by scientific tests or observation.

 

“In the 1600's it was first understood that light was a wave that propagates through something (they named æther). Theories of light before Einstein, before Max Planck, and before the industrial revolution understood this.”

 

That is correct, but since then this is not the case. Look in any reference book under aether.

 

 

“Also in the 1600's an apple fell either on or very near Isaac Newton's head. He realized that something connected the apple to the earth called gravity. Theories of gravity (either quantum, relativistic, or newtonian) demonstrate a connection between two masses through the vacuum of space.”

 

There was a vacuum of space when the apple fell?

 

 

 

 

 

 

“In the 1900's quantum mechanics describes the zero point energy present at every point in space. Indeed, there is an enormous amount of vacuum energy when all matter or other energy is absent. This is a result of quantum fields present in all of space time. The direct result of this can be seen in the casimir effect.”

 

Look up the term energy. You say that vacuum energy is present when mass or other energy is absent. Energy is energy. Energy by any other name is still energy.

 

 

 

“All four fundamental forces rely on spacetime being connected everywhere - not just gravity - and not just general relativity. Understand that when you speculate the absence of 'the fabric of spacetime' in space you are not at odds with relativity; you are at odds with physics. ‘

 

modest

 

 

Physics reference books or observations do not state that the fabric of space-time is a real physical thing. Stating that space-time is a real physical fabric is at odds with standard physics.

 

So you still have not shown how space or time are physical things. You must have some data that you are working from that leads you to believe that space and time are physical things. What is it?

[TheFaithfulStone]

Why do you believe space and time are physical things?

 

Because if I transverse the space between my head and my desk in a short enough time it hurts me physically.

 

Normally I do this while reading your "posts."

 

TFS

[steve 9]

Because if I transverse the space between my head and my desk in a short enough time it hurts me physically.

 

Normally I do this while reading your "posts."

 

TFS

 

 

Is this your scientific evidence that space and time are real?

 

Since this discussion will cover the topic of time, you will have to go to the philosophy of science under "What is time". There we can continue the discussion.

[Moontanman]

Doesn't the fact that gravity can distort or warp space time imply it is a real thing? BTW, I am not trying to be a troll, I am ignorant in this area and I am honestly seeking enlightenment.

[LaurieAG]

Doesn't the fact that gravity can distort or warp space time imply it is a real thing?

 

Hi Moontanman,

 

Heat also distorts light paths in many ways from the water 'mirage' seen on bitumin roads on hot days to the distortion created by the flame of a bunsen burner or even the flames of a camp fire.

 

I say this because Einsteins original calculations were not released due to WWI so he reworked them and presented another set of calcs that came to within 50% of the experimental observations. I am led to believe that the latest observations are 75% of his calculations so things aren't a certainty yet.

[Moontanman]

Hi Moontanman,

 

Heat also distorts light paths in many ways from the water 'mirage' seen on bitumin roads on hot days to the distortion created by the flame of a bunsen burner or even the flames of a camp fire.

 

I say this because Einsteins original calculations were not released due to WWI so he reworked them and presented another set of calcs that came to within 50% of the experimental observations. I am led to believe that the latest observations are 75% of his calculations so things aren't a certainty yet.

 

 

The heat distortion you are refering to is actually hot or distorted air that bends light. This would indicate that gravity distorts space/time which then bends the light. Gravity distorts light with out any intervening air. This would indicate that space time is at least as real as air.

[LaurieAG]

The heat distortion you are refering to is actually hot or distorted air that bends light. This would indicate that gravity distorts space/time which then bends the light. Gravity distorts light with out any intervening air. This would indicate that space time is at least as real as air.

 

Hi Moontanman,

 

The sun ejects a continuous physical stream of particles from its surface of which a part is plasma, you may have seen pictures of these loops above the surface of the sun.

 

This would indicate that heated air and the heated physical elements surrounding the sun are at least as real as each other, it says nothing about space time until we can have a theory that produces relatively exact figures (at least with a better accuracy than at present).

[Moontanman]

Hi Moontanman,

 

The sun ejects a continuous physical stream of particles from its surface of which a part is plasma, you may have seen pictures of these loops above the surface of the sun.

 

This would indicate that heated air and the heated physical elements surrounding the sun are at least as real as each other, it says nothing about space time until we can have a theory that produces relatively exact figures (at least with a better accuracy than at present).

 

I thought of that a short while after I had posted my earlier reply. (of course!) While I'm pretty sure the plasma ejected by the sun is far too rarified to bend the light from the Sun I can find no references to this effect or lack there of so I will, like you, have to wait until the data is in. I am sure the effect is touted as being the result of the bending of space time but you do add doubt that should be eliminated before a conclusion is drawn.

[LaurieAG]

II am sure the effect is touted as being the result of the bending of space time but you do add doubt that should be eliminated before a conclusion is drawn.

 

Hi Moontanman,

 

Thanks, it could even be a combination of both (or even another factor entirely) that causes the difference between the observations and the theory.

[freeztar]

it could even be a combination of both (or even another factor entirely) that causes the difference between the observations and the theory.

 

What difference are you referring to Laurie?

[clapstyx]

I was wondering if anyone could point me in the direction of the evidence that the universe is not contracting at the speed of light. Theoretically if it was contracting and light is the fastest detectable thing we can find we would be oblitrated before we saw it coming..probably even before most of the population contemplated the possibility and had a chance to co-align all thinking in defence of the sitaution. Lets be fair most people would say "why bother thinking about it because there is no way you could ever have the potential of coming up with a resolve to a challenge of that enormity" So if you consider that to be the outer boundary of possibility then what is the degree of greatest resolve that we are able to resolve if we reach the peak point of our absolute potentiality. Is resolving an instigated breakdown to the symbiotic matrix of the planet of lesser or greater difficulty and so probability? You might say "Well Clapstyx thats all well and good but what does that have to do with a space time debate". So the answer I suppose is if a problem is hurtling at you at the speed of light how long does it take to resolve and how long actually is there to resolve it before it resolves you. I am one of these people who believes the universe cant collapse because there is too much matter and that time is just one continuous momentmore spherical in nature than linear so space time really is just a made up scientific phrase to in exactly refer to a situation.

[freeztar]

I was wondering if anyone could point me in the direction of the evidence that the universe is not contracting at the speed of light.

 

If the universe were contracting, then observations of distant stars would be blue shifted. This is not the case.