What is space made of?

[quantum_wave]

Your impressions of the current state of our knowledge has lead you to some conclusions that overstep the bounds of theory. To discuss the topics of matter/energy, time/space, and gravity/inertial from the perspective that there are relationships between them is scientific. To say that these relationships are understood by science to the degree that we can move them from theory to reality is the overstep.

There are several co-joined properties in the universe.

Matter / Energy
Time / Space
Gravity / Inertia


These are realities not theories.

In regard to matter/energy, there is clearly an equivalence. And co-joined is a good way to express that equivalence. We agree that far. But we don't know what causes mass. We have theories but there is insufficient evidence to call them reality.

When a object or particle is given energy it must move.

I would agree with that at the particle level and would say that when a particle exists, it is composed of energy and the nature of the energy contained in particles gives the particle duality, i.e. wave/particle characteristics at the particle level. If you combine particles into objects, then the object is internally expressing the frequency of the particles but the object itself, the classical object, can be at rest. The motion of an object is relative to other objects.

In order for time to elapse a distance must be traveled.

This is true for the wave/particle nature of particles and if you mean that there must be movement at the particle level then it is true. But an object can be at rest relative to other objects and time will still pass.

For mass to exert gravitational force it must resist the change in the universe's state of motion, accerlation.

This is an overstep from theory to what you have concluded to be reality. We not only don't know what causes mass, we don't know what causes gravity. We quite clearly know the effect of gravity and General Relativity has it described to a great degree of accuracy. But it is still theory and not fact. The coupling of space and time assumes a start point from zero volume at t = 0, or at least that is the common conception of what is implied by GR. Your reference to the universe's state of motion refers to the expansion, assumes zero volume at t = 0, and not only gives no explanation for pre-conditions, it is implied that there we no pre-conditions, i.e. it implies that the energy came from nowhere. Cleary that is just theory and there are alternative theories that accomodate pre-conditions.

Existence is litteraly defined as energy (in any form) in motion. If a particle ceases to move it will not exist. Everything in the universe is in motion. The theory of General Relativity couldn't have gotten it more right. Even down to the quantum level the theory of strings works because it suggest a relative vibrational momentum to directional momentum. This is how I suppose why String Theory supposes 7 additional dimensions because of the ineraction of relative motions on beyond the quantum level.

The entire paragraph gets mixed reviews from the standpoint of theory vs. reality. There is no argument with the energy and motion part. But when you give GR the status of fact and not theory, and then ignore the incompatibility between General Relativity and the quantum realm buy advancing string theory as the answer, you are overstepping the standards of the scientific method.

 

[thinking]

“ Originally Posted by thinking
actually I would replace time with movement , since it would be more accurate

since the essence of time is based on the movement of object(s) and interactions

no getting around that , no matter the angle of criticism

Time would be a separation of moments (or movements).

how so ?

 

[thinking]

“ “ Originally Posted by thinking
actually I would replace time with movement , since it would be more accurate

since the essence of time is based on the movement of object(s) and interactions

no getting around that , no matter the angle of criticism ”

“ Originally Posted by Crunchy Cat
Time would be a separation of moments (or movements).

how so ?

the separation between objects is based on the objects themselves and therefore time is irrelevant

time has no meaning here , to the objects themselves

 

[Crunchy Cat]

I didn't say objects. I said moments. Without time everything would happen at once.

 

[Saquist]

Your impressions of the current state of our knowledge has lead you to some conclusions that overstep the bounds of theory.

To discuss the topics of matter/energy, time/space, and gravity/inertial from the perspective that there are relationships between them is scientific.

To say that these relationships are understood by science to the degree that we can move them from theory to reality is the overstep.

I understand what you mean but there are aspects that are self explanatory.

In regard to matter/energy, there is clearly an equivalence. And co-joined is a good way to express that equivalence. We agree that far. But we don't know what causes mass.

I'd disagree. A lack of energy causes mass. The question is why.
That too I believe is self explanatory.

We have theories but there is insufficient evidence to call them reality.I would agree with that at the particle level and would say that when a particle exists, it is composed of energy and the nature of the energy contained in particles gives the particle duality, i.e. wave/particle characteristics at the particle level.

I understand that concept but for some reason I believe it wrong.
I don't think light is a particle no matter how much we think it behaves like one. Light is energy and they behave in two different fashions.

Before when I thought that the neutrino could be a massless particle and traveled faster than light I though perhaps this particles mass may be dimensionaly offset but after they discovered that neutrinos change flavor over time it meant they did have mass because they experience time.

If you combine particles into objects, then the object is internally expressing the frequency of the particles but the object itself, the classical object, can be at rest.

I don't think you understood what I meant.
You're talking about movement on a quantum level. I'm not. He asked "what is space". I think we'll evantually describe what space is on the quantum level but not yet. I'm looking into M thoery.

The motion of an object is relative to other objects.This is true for the wave/particle nature of particles and if you mean that there must be movement at the particle level then it is true.

Now you're following me.
General Relativity. It's not just a comparison of macroscopic movement it describes everything! Everything in this universe is about differences in motion, speed and distance as compared to something else. THIS is the reason why quantum mechanics appears chaotic. A computer merely deals with on an off the same as stop and start. Imagine there being no stop. Only relative position as concerns everything else but absolutely everything is in motion. Imagine how many variables that would produce and how many end products, it would even defy causality.

But an object can be at rest relative to other objects and time will still pass.This is an overstep from theory to what you have concluded to be reality.

That's because Macroscopicly nothing is at rest. Everything is relative to something else. But there is one final relativity, Universal constancy which is motion.

When two objects are traveling at the same speed they will travel at the same "TIME" aswell. They are traveling the same distance in the same amount of time. AND they are experiencing the same TIME for the Distance that they travel. It's a reciprocal equation and it works every time.

We not only don't know what causes mass, we don't know what causes gravity.

That's the brillance of it all quantum wave. Mass isn't caused, it merely is. To describe what caused mass in the first place we'd have to go back to the begining of the universe (assuming there was a begining.)

But I'll entertain it anyway.
Mass: weight in a gravitational field.
And the question is what causes gravity. Kinda the same question. The answer is: The lack of motion causes Mass and thus causes gravity. I'm not saying I know it all. But I've been thinking about this for about a year or two and it seems litterally motion is the reason for everything that exist...which is crazy when you think about it. General Relativity is really describing just about everything...it's amazing.

We quite clearly know the effect of gravity and General Relativity has it described to a great degree of accuracy. But it is still theory and not fact.

I know. I'm not sure why at this point but I accept it. Perhapse the Unified Force Theory will correct all that, who knows.

The coupling of space and time assumes a start point from zero volume at t = 0, or at least that is the common conception of what is implied by GR. Your reference to the universe's state of motion refers to the expansion, assumes zero volume at t = 0, and not only gives no explanation for pre-conditions, it is implied that there we no pre-conditions, i.e. it implies that the energy came from nowhere.

Or infinity, however you want to put it. We have a lot of words for it.
You're pretty smart. You've thought about this too, perhaps.

You see I have no choice to believe this. Previously I believed the Big Bang theory was propper and logical. It seemed like simply ballistics. However the universe isn't slowing down and that is precondition for an explosion in fact just the opposite the universe is expanding at an accelerated rate , so we're back to motion again. The Big Bang Theory has been disproven as default.

The Universe wasn't set in motion by an explosion. We can't give that theory credence any more. What we though we saw was not reality and that was the entire basis of the theory or the cause. Now that we know that netrino's are not massless we know space is filled with them and as some have speculated the universe should have collapsed. the visible matter/ darkmatter ratio vs energy is far too imbalanced to assume that an explosion got us started or is even keeping us going.

Cleary that is just theory and there are alternative theories that accomodate pre-conditions.The entire paragraph gets mixed reviews from the standpoint of theory vs. reality. There is no argument with the energy and motion part. But when you give GR the status of fact and not theory, and then ignore the incompatibility between General Relativity and the quantum realm buy advancing string theory as the answer, you are overstepping the standards of the scientific method.

You're RIGHT. I can't assume String Theory or the Theory "Formly Known as String Theory is" right. I can tell you that since it includes motion that it is a likely cannidate because it does fit many of the concepts. I won't wave the flag of String or M Theory but General Relativity does describe how this universe works, by means of motion and we know the quantum level works on motion as well. It's the only link between the quantum world and the macroscopic world.

That is what we should be exploring.

 

[thinking]

I didn't say objects. I said moments. Without time everything would happen at once.

I disagree

what your assuming is that ALL objects have the same momentive energy as ALL other objects , hence everything would happen at once , they don't

for instance

if you ride a bicycle from point A to B and I drive a 500hp Mustang full throttle from the same point A to B

does the crossing of the line from point A to B happen at once for bicycle and the Mustang ?

I think not

therefore this thinking that without time things would happen at once is false

 

[StrangerInAStrangeLand]

WTH is momentive energy???

Your "argument" assumes what you're trying to prove.

 

[Crunchy Cat]

what your assuming is that ALL objects have the same momentive energy as ALL other objects , hence everything would happen at once , they don't

This whole statement didn't make any sense.

if you ride a bicycle from point A to B and I drive a 500hp Mustang full throttle from the same point A to B

does the crossing of the line from point A to B happen at once for bicycle and the Mustang ?

I think not

Your line of thought shows that what I originally stated was not understood. Let's examine your example across 100 moments in time (say from t=0 to t=100). I start riding my bicycle at [point=a, t=0] and you start driving your mustang at [point=a, t=0]. I finish riding my bicycle at [point=b, t=100] where you finish driving your mustang at [point=b, t=20]. You clearly reach point B before I do and let's say from t=20 to t=100 you spend your time drinking a soda.

The important thing to note is that we shared exactly 100 moments in time. If time were removed for those those 100 moments then they would happen all at once. You would be starting at point A, finishing at point B, and drinking your soda all at the same time.

therefore this thinking that without time things would happen at once is false

You didn't demonstrate that.

 

[gluon]

I disagree

what your assuming is that ALL objects have the same momentive energy as ALL other objects , hence everything would happen at once , they don't

for instance

if you ride a bicycle from point A to B and I drive a 500hp Mustang full throttle from the same point A to B

does the crossing of the line from point A to B happen at once for bicycle and the Mustang ?

I think not

therefore this thinking that without time things would happen at once is false

thinking=Bishadi?

The writing skills are almost 99.9% to within accuracy.

 

[munty13]

This whole statement didn't make any sense.



Your line of thought shows that what I originally stated was not understood. Let's examine your example across 100 moments in time (say from t=0 to t=100). I start riding my bicycle at [point=a, t=0] and you start driving your mustang at [point=a, t=0]. I finish riding my bicycle at [point=b, t=100] where you finish driving your mustang at [point=b, t=20]. You clearly reach point B before I do and let's say from t=20 to t=100 you spend your time drinking a soda.

The important thing to note is that we shared exactly 100 moments in time. If time were removed for those those 100 moments then they would happen all at once. You would be starting at point A, finishing at point B, and drinking your soda all at the same time.

Hi Crunchy Cat. I couldn't help overhear what you are saying. Perhaps you areboth, as observers, not sharing 100 moments in time. It reinforces the idea that time is something tangible in space. What would happen if it was determined that both observers experienced 100 moments as indivuals? Maybe, the 100 moments would then reveal itself as strictly being a personal experience for each observer.

The 100 moments of each observer would only ever become a shared experience in the eyes of a third observer who was watching everything. I think you have identified the role of a third observer as being that of four dimensional space.

 

[gluon]

Relativistically-speaking, time is broken up in into future and past, because of an absolute local now, which belongs to the observers interpretation of reality.The ''now'' however, actually lives alongside all of history, both future and past; in relativity, there is no such thing as a present time, and only events which could be seen as all frozen in time. This means that when big bang happened, a big crunch soon followed!

 

[Crunchy Cat]

Hi Crunchy Cat. I couldn't help overhear what you are saying. Perhaps you areboth, as observers, not sharing 100 moments in time.

That's more than a perhaps. We wouldn't be. Relativity would throw things off by a fraction of a fraction. I would have 100 moments and he would have 99.99999999999999... mainly because his mustang gave him a high acceleration field and that slows time. The point of course was that if we collapse time, all those moments occur at once.

It reinforces the idea that time is something tangible in space.

As far as we know, it's not only tangible but it's part of space (which is why relativity refers to it as space-time).

What would happen if it was determined that both observers experienced 100 moments as indivuals? Maybe, the 100 moments would then reveal itself as strictly being a personal experience for each observer.

It would mean reality is working .

The 100 moments of each observer would only ever become a shared experience in the eyes of a third observer who was watching everything. I think you have identified the role of a third observer as being that of four dimensional space.

Sorta, ... but certainly close enough.

 

[thinking]

“

Originally Posted by thinking
if you ride a bicycle from point A to B and I drive a 500hp Mustang full throttle from the same point A to B

does the crossing of the line from point A to B happen at once for bicycle and the Mustang ?

I think not ”

Your line of thought shows that what I originally stated was not understood. Let's examine your example across 100 moments in time (say from t=0 to t=100). I start riding my bicycle at [point=a, t=0] and you start driving your mustang at [point=a, t=0]. I finish riding my bicycle at [point=b, t=100] where you finish driving your mustang at [point=b, t=20]. You clearly reach point B before I do and let's say from t=20 to t=100 you spend your time drinking a soda.

so you agree that the Mustang gets from point A to B faster than the bicycle

good

The important thing to note is that we shared exactly 100 moments in time. If time were removed for those those 100 moments then they would happen all at once. You would be starting at point A, finishing at point B, and drinking your soda all at the same time.

say though there are no moments in time

does it matter towards the out come

 

[Crunchy Cat]

“



so you agree that the Mustang gets from point A to B faster than the bicycle

good



say though there are no moments in time

does it matter towards the out come

If there are no moments in time then it means that all past, present, and future exists at once and the separation of moments is an illusion.

 

[thinking]

Originally Posted by thinking

so you agree that the Mustang gets from point A to B faster than the bicycle

good

say though there are no moments in time

does it matter towards the out come

If there are no moments in time then it means that all past, present, and future exists at once and the separation of moments is an illusion.

yet the Mustang reaches the end point before bicycle

my point is that whether we measure what object gets too a point sooner than another has nothing to do with time

but has all to do with the properties of the objects themselves

for instance ;

could the introduction of time alone towards the bicycle able the bicycle to move as fast as the Mustang ?

 

[Crunchy Cat]

yet the Mustang reaches the end point before bicycle

my point is that whether we measure what object gets too a point sooner than another has nothing to do with time

It sounds like you just stated that whether or not a human performs a distance measurment has nothing to do with time. Did you mean that or something else? Perhaps whether or not an object traverses a distance has nothing to do with time?

but has all to do with the properties of the objects themselves

for instance ;

could the introduction of time alone towards the bicycle able the bicycle to move as fast as the Mustang ?

Time is already introduced for both... so a better question might be would the subtraction of time from the bicycle enable it to reach point B before the mustang? The answer is yes. Take time away from the bicycle and it's entire past, present, and future has already happened every time the Mustang traverses to a new moment between point A and B.

 

[thinking]

“

Originally Posted by thinking
yet the Mustang reaches the end point before bicycle

my point is that whether we measure what object gets too a point sooner than another has nothing to do with time

It sounds like you just stated that whether or not a human performs a distance measurment has nothing to do with time.

yes

 

[thinking]

Time is already introduced for both...

yes

but what is the end consequence of the race if time is not introduced ?

nothing

so a better question might be would the subtraction of time from the bicycle enable it to reach point B before the mustang? The answer is yes.

actually no

your assuming that time has some sort of influence on any physical object , time doesn't

why though ?

because time is the measurement of an objects movement(s) ONLY

Take time away from the bicycle and it's entire past, present, and future has already happened every time the Mustang traverses to a new moment between point A and B.

this is erroneous

your thinking in terms of mathematical movement ( which has nothing to do with the essence of the motivation of movement towards the objects in the first place ) , rather than the physical dynamical movement of objects

 

[eddie23]

Time is an illusion.
Created by humans for humans to keep track ot their lives and the things in it.

 

[thinking]

Time is an illusion.
Created by humans for humans to keep track ot their lives and the things in it.

exactly

but to add

also to try to understand the movement of things

time wasn't meant to be a physical influence on anything