What is "spacetime" really?

[Doctordick]

"As a longtime career psychologist I must say that I seldom come across

 

such flagrant "condescending arrogance egocentrically assuming

 

superiority prior to argument.

But I have already read your arguments; I didn't intend to insult you, I merely informed you of the impression you had made on me. :)

good grief! I had looked forward to a critique of your take on how

 

epistemology addresses ontology... if it does, and to what extent...

 

but my motivation for actual dialogue with you has somehow diminished

 

to near zero.

And that is really the central issue here isn't it? :eek2:

 

Have fun -- Dick

[Michael Mooney]

Dick:

And that is really the central issue here isn't it

 

"That":

MM: I had looked forward to a critique of your take on how

 

epistemology addresses ontology... if it does, and to what extent...

 

but my motivation for actual dialogue with you has somehow diminished

 

to near zero.

Is this the "central issue here?"

Your obvious arrogance and condescending superiority without substantial argument is what turned me away from respectful dialogue with you. (Respect must be mutual for "dialogue"... if you know the meaning of the word.)

 

I thought the central issue here was science in its pure form as unbiased investigation of what is true about the world/cosmos. Not how one arrogant individual can ignore the substance of scientific debate to forward his egocentric bias and delusion of superiority.

 

How about addressing the points I raised in my reply to you rather than such an obvious dodge. Maybe you don't have the "intellectual capacity" to actually engage in specific scientific debate on a point to point basis.

 

Do you understand radical honesty? (Not the famous version but simply putting honesty before the protocol of personal feelings?) Tell me what you think you know in specific contradiction to what Ihave presented, and I will, as I always do, reply in kind. This is dialogue. Otherwiae your insults are only a reflection upon your own delusional egocentric "superiority."

That would be $100 for the session if you were my client.

(No obscene finger available in the list of emoticons available!)

Michael

[Essay]

Not how one arrogant individual can ignore the substance of scientific debate to forward his egocentric bias and delusion of superiority.

...not the best laugh of my day, but this did give me the smile of irony, or is that the smell of irony....

===

 

...anyway....

Michael, I think I understand what you're saying here--that we need to transcend materialism to understand reality better than science alone can show us.

 

In post #253 you said, "Science is still under the hypnosis of materialism."

& "The "light" of consciousaness is omnipresent and available to everyone who will do whatever discipline works for them to transcend the instrumentation of the human mind/brain/sensory-perceptive organism."

 

By definition, science only values materialistic limits, so it is appropriate that science remain under the "hypnosis" of materialism. Maybe someday the definitions of "material" will change--as we come to understand other dimensions--or whatever, but until then....

 

I think inquiries such as Arkain101 posted may be a better course to follow if you want to transcend materialism.

 

http://hypography.com/forums/philosophy-of-science/17037-what-is-spacetime-really-26.html#post255006

"I suggest beginning by considering that meaning resides in a spectrum. That it has a limit to how far it can be broken down and simplified. That beyond this limit of the spectrum meaning has reduced to the point it is lost. And On the opposite end of the spectrum a limit to how complex it can be made before no noticeable change of meaning can occur." -arkain101- post #256

===

 

I also think we need to transcend materialism to more fully appreciate how this illusion that we call reality is created as a manifestation of other dimensions, but I fail to see how your definition of spacetime as simply 'emptyness-now' transcends anything.

Isn't that the basic starting point of materialism--billiard balls hurtling through a void?

 

But enough of philosophy....

===

 

Aren't you also saying that the laws of physics ARE the same for all observers, regardless of frame of reference?

 

~ :)

[Michael Mooney]

Still waiting for a rebuttal to my post #272 above.

Then, of course, there remains the ontological questions, "Without clocks, what is time?... and "without measuring rods, what is distance/space?"

 

So, if the Earth and its human population are not the central reality of the universe, does anyone here seriously believe that the cosmos would cease to exist without some form of perception/observation of it? Same principle (subjective idealism) as contending that there is no actual/objective distance between objects, as "its all relative" to point of view.

 

Epistemologically, how we know what we know as "well known and established distances" between sun and planets, for instance, is through triangulation/parallax as measured by satellites equipped with extremely sensitive and well focused radar (and/or infrared detectors, etc.)

There is your answer, Modest, and 272 gives the specific results.

Michael

[arkain101]

Relativity of simultaneity: Two events, simultaneous for some observer, may not be simultaneous for another observer if the observers are in relative motion.

In cosmic perspective, transcending local observer perspective, "it" is always *now*... THE PRESENT SIMULTANEOUSLY EVERYWHERE.

 

This perspective is a well known mental conception. It does not require any unusual training to acquire.

 

We can imagine a present moment existing all over the place. But in reality, events are seperated by distance and time. We can't mentally predict events that are to occur. Thus the certainty of anything, any event occurs when it reaches an observer and gives that observer a NOW moment. So the notion of seeing reality in this trancended view offers no accurate method of measuring or predicting events and informatin.

 

There are two sides to this present moment coin. The mental conception, and the mental perception.

 

One is strictly imaginitive, by taking the understanding of incoming events that create a now, and expanding it outwardly.

 

The other is percieved incoming information that delivers a present moment from past present moment.

 

Even the present (as in location) can be the past, and the future relative to an observer and context of investigation/discussion. A location can be labeled at various positions on a time line and always with respect to the relative observation of the observer.

 

But the present in real time only occurs at the center of the region of interest, and beyond this center is both equivelently the observered future, and past.

[Michael Mooney]

arkain,

My comments in context in bold... (Easiest for me.)

 

This perspective is a well known mental conception. It does not require any unusual training to acquire.

No claim intended for originality. "The Power of Now" is *now* popular reading. Not that I am invoking Tolle's enlightenment here as scientific evidence. The gap between the two worlds of discourse is immense, with no hope of rapid coalescence.

 

Sorry, something came up. Avocado go.

Michael

[modest]

Actually, this is no longer considered a consequence of general relativity. It is rather a consequence of conservation of energy. (Once one realizes that the energy on a photon is related to it's frequency, the fall in that frequency as it proceeds to a higher gravitational potential becomes an issue of “conservation of energy” and must be a consequence of any internally consistent theory of gravity).

 

Playing devil's advocate with myself, you could also say the energy of an electron must be conserved with gravitational potential thus changing the Bohr radius and actually emitting different frequency photons at different gravitational potentials. In this way, you could say the frequency of the photon doesn't actually change from place to place.

 

But, both explanations can't be right, and I believe neither can successfully derive gravitational lensing or light deflection (at least, I've seen as much said by smarter folks than I).

 

Contents of Einstein's Theory of Relativity versus Classical Mechanics (chapter 1.5 through 1.8ish)

 

~modest

[Michael Mooney]

arkain,

To continue my reply where I left off yesterday...

You wrote:

We can imagine a present moment existing all over the place. But in reality, events are seperated by distance and time. We can't mentally predict events that are to occur. Thus the certainty of anything, any event occurs when it reaches an observer and gives that observer a NOW moment. So the notion of seeing reality in this trancended view offers no accurate method of measuring or predicting events and informatin.

 

You put the ongoing present (what is now happening in the category of not-real or imaginary while you say "But in reality events are seperated by distance and time."

 

I beg to differ. What is happening now is reality while what has already happened, "events separated by ...time" is no longer present and real.

While it is true that when we see a supernova explode, it is not now, as we see it, still exploding. Whatever its phase by the time we see it, it remains "now" there and here and everywhere at the same time. This is about the ontology of the perpetual present as contasted with the human convention, time... not put forth as better predictor of events.

 

You continue... (my comments in context in bold):

There are two sides to this present moment coin. The mental conception, and the mental perception.

There is also the objective reality of the cosmos and any/all parts of it, which is independent of human mental functions... ontologically speaking. The epistemology of what we can know about it through our perceptive and cognitive functions is another matter best addressed in the "empiricism" branch of "the scientific method."

 

One is strictly imaginitive, by taking the understanding of incoming events that create a now, and expanding it outwardly.

Ontologically... it is now everywhere, even though it takes time (lightspeed traveling distances) to see information/images from afar. This actually true, not "imaginative."

 

The other is percieved incoming information that delivers a present moment from past present moment.

Ditto the above. There *is* no "past present moment." Past is not present nor is future, tho we do obviously see, here, now what has already happened there, then, in the past, and I take this to be your menaing.

 

Even the present (as in location) can be the past, and the future relative to an observer and context of investigation/discussion. A location can be labeled at various positions on a time line and always with respect to the relative observation of the observer.

 

The present is not a location. Here and there are locations. The "now" part of "here, now" is the present and the "here" part is the location.

 

But the present in real time only occurs at the center of the region of interest, and beyond this center is both equivelently the observered future, and past.

The present in real time occurs everywhere simultaneously, ongoing, always. Distant locations can not, of course *be seen* as they *are now* because of the delay, (elapsed time) of light carrying the image. Neither future or past is available for present viewing... notwithstanding review of videos, the content of which is not presently still happening... and future can only be imaginined, not directly seen.

 

Michael

[arkain101]

But the present in real time only occurs at the center of the region of interest, and beyond this center is both equivelently the observered future, and past.

The present in real time occurs everywhere simultaneously, ongoing, always. Distant locations can not, of course *be seen* as they *are now* because of the delay, (elapsed time) of light carrying the image. Neither future or past is available for present viewing... notwithstanding review of videos, the content of which is not presently still happening... and future can only be imaginined, not directly seen..

 

Of course it "does". But it is impossible to physically measure everywhere simultaneously. My point is that when it comes down to what a person can physically accomplish by observation and measurements, an observer is restricted to a center point, and distance from this point is also equivelent to time. The further you go outwards from this observer, the less the observer can make a accurate prediction of the "Actual" state of a particular distant object.

 

This is why I said the everywhere simultaneously, ongoing, always now is imaginative. You can not put the conception to use anywhere other than your mind. You can not see what is Actually happening simultaneously everywhere. Infact, the only place a present moment can exist in the material ontological realm is at the atomic scale is in the smallest indivisible part of the universe itself that is the producer of the meaning of a moment, the maker of moments. This is where the lowest amount of delay occurs amongst/between separated locations. These bubbles of present events if you will, I agree can and are happening anywhere and everywhere simultaniously, but that is only if you comprehend them to be seen as a unified and connected compound function. Where as scientifically speaking, they are entirely separate and are not influenced by one another by any means simulatneously.

 

I understand what you are saying, but I can not comprehend a use for the concept of imagining the present now existing everywhere other than for a personal subjective experience that one makes of it as he wants.

 

 

I drew up the spectrum that I was talking about earlier. What the heck, I will post it up. I am still coming to terms with the theoretical view myself, so I can't explain it into to much detail.

 

But here is where to begin for starters.

 

1) Completely exclude the concept of size from your mind. No zooming in, no zooming out. Size is a mental phenomina produced by the act of compounding individual things. It is not ontological (if that is the right use of that word, still learning).

2)Let go of any bias towards micro or macroscopic as being emperical or preferred any more or less than any perspective. See only meaning at hand.

3)Do not connect any object/thing/location in the universe together, and see only a sort of singularity of meaning. For example, there is ONE kind of fundamental state, but it exists trillions of times over, each state is entirely a seperate universe from each other state.

[Michael Mooney]

If there are any unbiased scientists here, lurking or active, I am asking for an explanation/rebuttal of how exactly my arguments in posts #272 and #276 are wrong.

 

Here they are again for easy review. Post 272:

Ok... I'm offline for days at a time. Hardly one to expect prompt replies all the time.

Meanwhile here is a little philosophy of science relevant to the claim that distances between celestial objects depends totally on the point of observation.

 

By means of triangulation or parallax using satellites and radar we (the scientific community) know for a fact that the sun is, on average exactly 92.58 million miles from earth, being, at perhelion 91million miles and at aphelion 94.5 million miles from earth.

 

We know that lightspeed is constant at 670 616 629 mph and that nothing can travel faster than lightspeed (unless you "believe in" the inflationary model of expanding space after the "bang"... which is fantasy.) So, when you do the math (oooh, scary!) it turns out to be exactly 8.317 light-minutes sun to earth. (Light minutes or years are, of course measures of distance, so the above in light minutes equals the above in miles. "Elementary, my dear Watson."

 

So, any claim that anything, even light, can travel from earth to sun in less than a minute is totally bogus. And any *real* website on science has the actual objective distances listed (averages and max/min breakdown as above) for distances from sun to all planets and some objects beyond our solar system.

This claim that such distances all depend on variation in speed/vector of point of observation is a bogus fixation on the dogma that "It's all relative."

Post #276:

.... Then, of course, there remains the ontological questions, "Without clocks, what is time?... and "without measuring rods, what is distance/space?"

 

So, if the Earth and its human population are not the central reality of the universe, does anyone here seriously believe that the cosmos would cease to exist without some form of perception/observation of it? Same principle (subjective idealism) as contending that there is no actual/objective distance between objects, as "its all relative" to point of view.

 

Epistemologically, how we know what we know as "well known and established distances" between sun and planets, for instance, is through triangulation/parallax as measured by satellites equipped with extremely sensitive and well focused radar (and/or infrared detectors, etc.)

There is your answer, Modest, and 272 gives the specific results.

 

I know that I am on the moderators' "s-list", and received an "infraction" warning for my "obscene finger" aside to Doctordick. I explained (to Craig) that it was a "tongue-in-cheek" whim on my part, but there was no such emoticon available to put it in context. (I will, of course comply with required protocol, tho there is no way to express very dry, laconic humor not intended as actually hostile or malicious.)

Also that the essence of my reply to Dd was best stated in the comment (post #274:

I thought the central issue here was science in its pure form as unbiased investigation of what is true about the world/cosmos

 

I will, of course, leave the forum if this stonewalling approach persists. But in the interest of science, I welcome any explanation in answer to the points made in the two posts transcribed above.

Michael

[watcher]

So, any claim that anything, even light, can travel from earth to sun in less than a minute is totally bogus.

 

while light has aberration, gravity hasn't.

gravity waves travel faster than light waves therefore.

 

And any *real* website on science has the actual objective distances listed (averages and max/min breakdown as above) for distances from sun to all planets and some objects beyond our solar system.

 

This claim that such distances all depend on variation in speed/vector of point of observation is a bogus fixation on the dogma that "It's all relative."

 

Michael

 

yes but this "objective distances" is shown to be relative to motion and not bogus.

how would you explain away lorentz transformation, a bogus ? even light itself suffers the doppler's efect. it not a simple optical illusion because there is math relation between motion and spacetime behavior/property.

an objective space is an illusion brought about by relative slow motions. there is no other way to explain it. or if you hate the word illusion, the meaning would be motion determines the objectivity of space. varying motions translates to different distances between objects, the objective distance is always the average distance. the variations of distance change is not perceptible at low motions.

 

when a spinning object accelerates to c, the space interval constant would get evertything closer to the object. making distances nearer to one another. this is to compensate the internal clock (its frequency) that runs faster as it approaches c. (f =1/t). the summation of all the motions in the universe from blackholes to electron gives us our spacetime interval and our apparently fixed distances between objects. this is the mechanical slop of our universe.

 

it is true that in our given spacetime, distances are fixed. but the other implication of this is that there are more things fundamental that space and time. meaning their are not absolutes. they are local phenomenon.

[watcher]

.... Then, of course, there remains the ontological questions, "Without clocks, what is time?... and "without measuring rods, what is distance/space?"

 

in QED, vibrating strings are fundamental .

we always think of wave as something that propagates in spacetime.

but if waves are fundamental, i think it is not ridiculous to think the other way around.

the propagation of waves create out spacetime.

 

So, if the Earth and its human population are not the central reality of the universe, does anyone here seriously believe that the cosmos would cease to exist without some form of perception/observation of it? Same principle (subjective idealism) as contending that there is no actual/objective distance between objects, as "its all relative" to point of view.

 

our perception, whose organ are also made of spinning electrons , resonates with the entire universe that are made with this same electrons. so it is only natural that our perception would match the spacetime interval of our universe. iow, we perceived a "regulated fixed distances".

 

but of course any motions with higher frequency that is outside the spectra of our sense perception frequency we cannot perceive. as if they do not exist. although, it should have effect us (our local spacetime realm) in some way.

 

so when one is in lightspeed, and experience differently from the rest of slow moving objects, the point of view it must experiencing is not a local change of POV but a change on another spacetime realm, (so called higher dimensional POV). where the ""ruling" frequency is higher than the usual local frequency of our spacetime.

[Michael Mooney]

Watcher,

I've just time to address one statement in your previous post. You stated as if it were a fact:

while light has aberration, gravity hasn't.

gravity waves travel faster than light waves therefore.

 

The speed of propagation of gravity is an ongoing hot debate.

Here are a couple of excerpts from Wiki on the subject:

------------------

 

"Tidal gravitational field is associated with the curvature of space-time. (Objection!M.M.) General relativity predicts that gravitational radiation should exist and propagate as a wave at the speed of light.

 

Kopeikin and Fomalont (9/02) concluded that the speed of gravity is between 0.8 and 1.2 times the speed of light, which would be fully consistent with the theoretical prediction of general relativity that the speed of gravity is exactly the same as the speed of light"

----------------------

 

Then there is the Tom Van Flanders contradictory position, as follows:

 

----------

"The Speed of Gravity What the Experiments Say"

[as published in Physics Letters A 250:1-11 (1998)]

 

"Abstract. Standard experimental techniques exist to determine the propagation speed of forces. When we apply these techniques to gravity, they all yield propagation speeds too great to measure, substantially faster than lightspeed. This is because gravity, in contrast to light, has no detectable aberration or propagation delay for its action..."

--------------------

 

The most convincing result I know of for speed-of-light propagation of gravitation is from the Homanns' Sirius Research Group near Edmonton Canada. For the past two decades they have had a telescope fixed on Sirius A and B, 8.6 light years away. They discovered that when Sirius B, Sirius A's extremely massive binary partner, a white dwarf, passed in front of 'A' in alignment with Earth in '89, as it does every 50 years, Earth's spin rate slowed down a full second per day for several weeks before the alignment and then speeded up a full second a day for several weeks after the alignment.

 

This is clearly the gravitational effect of this alignment on Earth (from 8.6 light years away!) and it is perfectly synchronized with the visible alignment. Theerfore, change in gravitational force is conveyed at lightspeed... though the force is constant (changes notwithstanding... like sunlight) ... among all masses... i.e., no gaps between "waves" as they arrive.

 

The above is "plain talk" about what "we know" (science knows) about the propagation speed of gravity, and how we know it, and it is the best empirical, directly observed evidence yet for its propagation at lightspeed.

 

No "time, presently" ;) to address the rest of your posts.

 

Michael

[Michael Mooney]

Continuing my reply... to your last post first... (My reply in bold to avoid quote box limitation/inconvenience.)

in QED, vibrating strings are fundamental .

 

Vibrating strings are metaphysical imaginings. They depend on esoteric math (for "internal logical integrity) in an eleven dimensional metaphysical construct without empirical referents (the "strings" themselves) and only hypothetical reference.we always think of wave as something that propagates in spacetime.

 

"We" who? Have you even considered the possibility that "spacetime" might be an invention of the human mind, a mere metaphore for how gravity works and how cosmos expands?... as per the essential challenge I am presenting in this thread?

 

but if waves are fundamental, i think it is not ridiculous to think the other way around.

the propagation of waves create out spacetime.

 

And what do you imagine this "spacetime" to be as an existing reality/fabric/dimension which can curve, expand, etc.?

 

our perception, whose organ are also made of spinning electrons , resonates with the entire universe that are made with this same electrons. so it is only natural that our perception would match the spacetime interval of our universe. iow, we perceived a "regulated fixed distances".

 

In other words, force fields effect each other. We "see" when photons emitted from a source stimulate our rods and cones and send signals via the optic nerve to our visual cortex. OK so far? Not that we can "see" "the entire universe." I find your thinking "fuzzy" (out of focus) in the above sentences. Then you throw in "the spacetime interval of our universe" as a given..... If "spacetime" is a "given", how can you even hear an argument against its existence as a real... "entity"?... malleable whatever?

 

but of course any motions with higher frequency that is outside the spectra of our sense perception frequency we cannot perceive. as if they do not exist. although, it should have effect us (our local spacetime realm) in some way.

 

We all know that the vast majority of the electromagnetic spectrum is out of our range of visual perception. Can we have a little respect for each other's scientific maturity here? Yes, the whole range as above "effects us" in many ways, but why keep hammering on "spacetime" as an ontologically reality established, as if ignoring everything I've said in this thread about it?

 

so when one is in lightspeed, and experience differently from the rest of slow moving objects, the point of view it must experiencing is not a local change of POV but a change on another spacetime realm, (so called higher dimensional POV). where the ""ruling" frequency is higher than the usual local frequency of our spacetime.

 

"One" (presumably having mass) can never be "in lightspeed." If this "one" is a photon traveling at lightspoeed, it will not "have" a perspective, as made popular in various relativity related thought experiments. These are metaphysical mindgames, made popular by Einstein, but not proven axioms of science (an obvious oxymoron) to be parroted on all science forums as established knowledge. BTW, I think you off the deep end with your perspective on how such a "one in lightspeed" would be in a "ruling frequency" over lower "local frequency... spacetime"... again asserting the latter as an established reality. (Not so.)

Enough for now. Maybe back to your previous post later. (Maybe not.)

 

Michael

[Michael Mooney]

Watcher,

Continuing in reply to your previous post:

 

You wrote:

yes but this "objective distances" is shown to be relative to motion and not bogus.

how would you explain away lorentz transformation, a bogus ? even light itself suffers the doppler's efect. it not a simple optical illusion because there is math relation between motion and spacetime behavior/property.

 

"Is shown"... no room for argument if you think "objective distance" is, in *fact* relative to motion. I have elaborated at great length on the record and lists of "objective distances" between objects in our solar system, including the max., min. and average distances between sun and all planets and how science gained this knowledge... the epistemology of how we know what we know... as all those "objective distances." I have never claimed that distances are static. Obviously orbits are not perfect circles around the sun. But they are definitely not created by observing them. This is subjective idealism, the basis of the major fallacy of relative points of view creating what is viewed... distances, in this case.

 

You continued:

when a spinning object accelerates to c, the space interval constant would get evertything closer to the object. making distances nearer to one another. this is to compensate the internal clock (its frequency) that runs faster as it approaches c. (f =1/t). the summation of all the motions in the universe from blackholes to electron gives us our spacetime interval and our apparently fixed distances between objects. this is the mechanical slop of our universe.

 

it is true that in our given spacetime, distances are fixed. but the other implication of this is that there are more things fundamental that space and time. meaning their are not absolutes. they are local phenomenon.

 

No material object, having mass can accelerate to lightspeed. It's mass would then, by the math, become "infinite"... which is not possible.

"...

the space interval constant would get evertything closer to the object. making distances nearer to one another.

"...

makes no sense to me at all. When any two objects travel toward each other, or in the general direction of each other, they get closer to each other. Basic common sense. I find absolutely no sense in what you wrote above.

"The internal clock" is a mental game, not an ontological reality. The starting point in communication here would require a mutual recognition of the difference.

BTW, clocks run more slowly, not faster as they accelerate toward lightspeed. The rest of the paragraph was nonsense to me as well.

 

No distances are "fixed", as I detailed above. It is just that observation is not what makes them change. It is movement of the objects themselves.

 

We could say that there are no "absolutes" (plural.)... Logically, two absolutes would then become relative to each other... no longer absolute. Respecting the meaning of words then, if any, there must be one "absolute." Science could call it The Universe" in the sense of "all there is as a whole."

Mystics and psychologists specializing in the transpersonal field or consciousness studies in the broadest sense will include consciousness in this absolute, in the sense transcending a hard core mechanistic or materialistic universe.

 

That'll do for now.

Michael

[HydrogenBond]

If we had just empty space, we would have space without time. The concept of time does not apply. In empty space, we still have distance but not time. To add time to space, we would need have a place where there is matter and/or energy to be our normalized reference to define space-time. Then we can extrapolate from there. Without matter or energy, there is no reference to begin defining space-time.

 

Energy quanta are defined via their distinct increments of distance and time called wavelength and frequency. If you add energy to empty space, you are adding integrated quanta of distance and time, and are turning space into space-time. If we had a planet, the energy within the gravitational field is turning empty space into space-time, with the energy potential defining space-time. Both gravity and EM are long range forces, allowing energy to occupy empty space turning space into space-time. But space-time only goes as far as the energy has been able to travel.

[Michael Mooney]

Bump.

"I will, of course, leave the forum if this stonewalling approach persists. But in the interest of science, I welcome any explanation in answer to the points made in the two posts transcribed above."

Looks like the above is just what the moderators had in mind... stonewalling until I give up.

I thought I answered the "distances" challenge quite clearly, and no one will touch the "subjective idealism" component of distance variation with observer perspective. I also reviewed my understanding and criticism of SR and GR above with no reply.

 

Anyone on the "speed of gravity" reply above?

How about "things" traveling faster than light... traversing the well established distance sun to earth in less than a minute. Is this crackpot science or what?

 

What is time without clocks? What does curvature of space add to our understanding of how gravity works? Ontologically, what is space anyway, besides the no-thing-ness in which things exist.

 

Going, going... I get it... "good riddance."

 

Michael