They would create Gravity, and respond to everything.
What is time??
- Thread starter Shadow1
- Start date
They would create Gravity, and respond to everything.
What do you mean by the term 'they' here ? ..... Space-particles ?
Yeah.
While a discussion of space having some intrinsic substance could be a discussion appropriate to a Science folder, as the discussion begins to move into a description of "space" being comprised of some type "particle(s)" it grow dangerously close to a discussion better suited to Alternative Theories.
The way this discussion is going, so far.., it could be appropriate in either folder. It does however, based on history present a greater possibility of straying toward an Alterante Theory model.
Since this thread has been around for some time now and does have some merit in Science, though perhaps more a phylosphical approach than experimental, would it be possible to separate or move these recent posts to a thread in Alternative Theories where.., where they appear to be leading would not be out of place?
Perhaps from post #800? But I am not sure! Maybe with a thread title, "The Substance of Space"?
The way this discussion is going, so far.., it could be appropriate in either folder. It does however, based on history present a greater possibility of straying toward an Alterante Theory model.
Since this thread has been around for some time now and does have some merit in Science, though perhaps more a phylosphical approach than experimental, would it be possible to separate or move these recent posts to a thread in Alternative Theories where.., where they appear to be leading would not be out of place?
Perhaps from post #800? But I am not sure! Maybe with a thread title, "The Substance of Space"?
If we compare 'gravitational lensing' with 'rotational frame dragging' , it can be observed that ; at both the cases 'curvature of space' is caused by momentum of masses . This 'curvature of space' is confirmed by bending of light .
A static mass relative to space does not bend light , proving the fact that ; static mass does not cause 'curvature of space' . A static mass is subjected to gravity ; so it causes 'curvature of spacetime' .
Thus , it is proved that ; 'curvature of space' and 'curvature of spacetime' are different .
A static mass relative to space does not bend light , proving the fact that ; static mass does not cause 'curvature of space' . A static mass is subjected to gravity ; so it causes 'curvature of spacetime' .
Thus , it is proved that ; 'curvature of space' and 'curvature of spacetime' are different .
I don't understand. I thought that Space, and Space-time were the same thing. How do you have space with no space time in it?
When approaching the issue from the perspective of a purely mathematical model, 3-D space, 3-D space + time, and 4-D spacetime are all just different models representing aspects of our experience. In practical terms they are all referring to the same thing, just from different perspectives and at times with different limitations.
gravitational lensing is caused by the atmosphere and rotational speed or momentum , as well as size and energy given off , either by plasma and/or mechanical object ( in a ether based space ) , such as Earth ( it gives off no plasma energy ) other that its magnetoshere
of a galaxy , sun , planet etc
Last edited:
:wtf:
Simply, completely, stunningly wrong.
That's not really constructive AlexG. Why not explain what gravitational lensing is?
I wonder why it's called GRAVITATIONAL lensing then.
I wonder why it's called GRAVITATIONAL lensing then.
Light which would have passed by a star and missed us, is bent by the curvature of space such that it hits us.
Think of a glass Lense with a black dot in its center. From behind the dot light comming straight toward you is blocked. That portion that misses the dot is bent by the Lense such that it still hits you. Without the Lense it would have missed. You would have been in the shadow of the dot.
In the case of gravitational lensing the dot is a star and it is only detectable when the light from the star is itself blocked as in an eclipse. Gravitational lensing involving galaxies and galactic clusters gets a bit more complex but relies on much the same "mechanics" of curved space.
E
Elterish
Guest
Time and Again
Time only exists in the (von Neumannesque) conscious mind, where it was created (along with space) to make sense of 'reality' (the physical world?)
Time does not exist in the subconscious mind nor in 'reality', both realms are 'atemporal'.
In 'reality', everything does 'happen all at once'.
For all conscious minds time is: 'just one damn thing after another'.
I've just joined this forum, or have I been/am I 'here all the time?
Time only exists in the (von Neumannesque) conscious mind, where it was created (along with space) to make sense of 'reality' (the physical world?)
Time does not exist in the subconscious mind nor in 'reality', both realms are 'atemporal'.
In 'reality', everything does 'happen all at once'.
For all conscious minds time is: 'just one damn thing after another'.
I've just joined this forum, or have I been/am I 'here all the time?
Evidence/ argument please.
Evidence/ argument please.
Really? Then how do we manage to separate them all out into a consistent sequence?
If everything happens at the same time then I'm dead as I read this, because it's also 10,000,000 years in my "future". How am I managing to reply?
Um, I know that - I highlighted the word because River appears to have completely ignored it in his "explanation" of what it is.
Didn't you see the smiley?
Sometimes I quote a post not as a response, rather as an introduction for a clarification or elaboration. I should probably remember to state such when appropriate.
As far as smileys are concerned I am really bad at interpreting their intent. Notice that I never use them.
This is only true for Tralfamadorians AFAIK.
I did not read Elterish's comment in that way. While we are obviously limited in the order we perceive events, the fact that something several light years away happened in our past while we "see" it today, does not change the fact that when it happened there was also something happening "here", in our past which is no longer within our ability to perceive it.
I think this sort of interpretation of things lies at least in part at the heart of some of the confussion between an absolute time and relative time. We are obviously limited to an understanding of now as being represented by what we perceive now and that what we perceive now is what affects us now. This does not change the fact the we also know that events that both affect our now and are perceived by us now happened at some time in our past. And that there are many things that occurred "at the same time" in our past, that we will perceive as occurring at different time in our now.
I wonder, could I have made that more confusing? Or was the intent hidden, in the twists and turns, still understandable?