JohnSSM

Its fuzzy cuz i cant get over this hurdle..."empty space-time can still have energy or mass"...my lil brain keeps tellin me that it wouldnt be empty if it "had" energy or mass....is is so hard to understand that confusion? ha

IS the manifold in minkowski space where the equations account for time in 3d space? the fourth dimension is why we need a manifold at all?

Yep...I do agree with that...this is a long and graduating study... Gotcha...thats what I thought euclidean space was till i started reading about it...ha This little gif helped me move forward with understanding Minkowski space and the manifold light cone... http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Lorentz_transform_of_world_line.gif Lorentz transformations occur in Minkowski space and gallilean transformations happen in euclidean space? http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Galilean_transform_of_world_line.gif Comparing those 2 diagrams was an eye opener... I doubt ill have years to study this stuff to get it like yall got it...let me stay and ask questions anyway...and anytime I make a statement, just pretend its a question... The properties of the can could become its values in any sense you wanted to express...my point is spacetime without energy or mass would have nothing to give it properties to define any values...alas...we can forget the tin can...ha... I should go back in this topic and find quotes from yall saying the opposite of what youre saying now...if someone suggested that space-time had vacuum energy, my thoery would still be alive...so maybe it is...the gluon field...its all about the gluon field... Id also like to add that space-time really seem to be defined best by a polar coordinate system...the poles are essentially the lightcones in minkowski space...seems totally apparent... Did anyone see my depiction of an object moving through minkowski space? https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=1523336581288210&set=a.1399707273651142.1073741829.100008356482793&type=1&theater Can anyone see it without a facebook account?

I do agree...and the equation needs terms doesnt it? But it was never space-time equals 0 or 1...its been mass and energy...i have mentioned space-time being empty...but is there anyway to define space-time values without regarding matter and energy? If there is zero mass and zero energy, I would say that space-time is empty of mass and energy, and to give it any value at that point seems strange...but i am still grasping...

Im still trying hard to take in Minkowski space.. Still trying to grasp what vectors, scalars and tensors are...im pretty lost on the subject right now I dont really understand Euclidean space either...

IS it ever possible to give E and m zero values? Like actually 0? Would that just represent no space time as opposed to empty space time? This whole time, ive been talking about empty space... What im hearing is, even when there is no mass or energy put into spacetime from an outside source...ie...spacetime with NO added mass or energy...it still has energy which can be considered mass and create gravity...

IS it fair to think of gravity waves like areas of accelerating or decelerating gravity which propagate into space?

So, the gluon field could be the energy source for space-time...just as I thought In that case, what energy is causing the gravitational waves...?

If space-time is only a set of coordinates, its not really like a can at all...and it makes little obvious sense to say that space-time is anything...I was pretty sure it was just an illusion created by the properties of mass...gravity? motion? not real...im comfy with that now and shall not let it go until i find more info... But to try to understand, are yall saying that the energy it takes to support the field of spacetime, with or without mass within it, can be considered a source of gravity within that space-time that creates no curves? So, empty space does have an energy value, and that energy value effects the geometry of empty space-time? and you could consider that energy value to be relative to a mass value without having mass? IS that how you get empty space with an energy value1 that equates to a mass value1 and creates gravity in empty space?

A billion times... I aint talking bout QM...i was talking bout GR And when it finally sinks in that space-time is only "there" because the properties of mass define it with geometry, in no medium other than motion and time with no form...then yall try to tell me it can be empty.. IF space-time has vacuum energy, i should really know...cuz thats all it takes to revive my space foam thoery... Consider a fisher price bubble blowing kit...there is no bubble before you blow...

when you say energy, you dont have to say momentum...ive been doing it all along...all you need is mass and energy...and if they are equal, then all you need is one or the other to cover all gravitational influences... I assumed these things could create gravity... I find it strange that you asked me what volume my massless space is...why would space have a volume if there were no mass or energy? Wouldnt you need to successfully merge GR and QFT to talk about them relating to each other? Are there particle/anti-particle pairs in GR? I do not think so Energy equals half of the product of momentum times the plank constant? Man, can you give me the terms involved here? And what terms or form does the resulting energy have? joules? I know that momentum is mass times velocity, but if mass is in grams and velocity is in meters per second,...does that make the final terms for momentum? gram meters per second? gm/s?

Oh yeah? Diffeomorphism says different...he told me to say hello General convariance seems to agree with me.. what is hv? I dont know what h nor v stand for...

Just started in on Quantum Field Theory and after thinking about GR in terms of waves and curves, now theyre going to turn it into particles? What is the quanta for space-time? You have no clue what empty means? Youll never stop playing this game... "containing nothing; not filled or occupied." So...if youre referring to spacetime as empty, it cannot contain anything...not even energy... Whats the density with no mass? lemme guess....1

Nice...but real quick, Empty space has how much mass in it? anyone? after awhile, arguing questions like this is ridiculous...

Empty doesnt mean a zero value to you in most realms? If i say a gas can is empty what Im telling you is that there is no gas...a can of beans being empty means no beans...space-time being empty means no mass...And if space-time gets its values from anything other than the properties of mass, then GR is blown for me... imagining space-time without mass is like imagining mass without space-time...its hard to imagine mass without any volume... I cant believe yall let the fellow in the "Infinity Hypothetis" blog start out by saying... Empty space has a value of 1 now mass has a value of 1... In empty space, we give mass a value of 1? Its not empty space anymore if we change the value of mass to 1...

I have no idea how that applies to this conversation...Im just trying to find the logic of giving something which is empty, a value which is based on whats inside it... Like, an empty can of beans is said to have no beans...you dont claim to give it bean values because the can is made of something...and in the point of spacetime, there is no can as far as I know...there are only beans which create the shape of the can...no beans? no shape? no value, no can... I get that...but gravitational waves are created by the properties of mass...IF we have empty space, where would gravitational waves come from? space-time having its own energy blows my understanding of GR away...

Ill put those on the front of my reading list... When I suggested earlier in this topic that spacetime did have it's "own" energy, i was arm-twisted into seeing it as "nothing" or at least as nothing that might influence GR beyond just being geometrically defined only by the properties of mass...and thats where i felt I took a real turn in understanding GR... one step backwards, two steps backwards? ha! Ill get some forward motion soon

I use an equals sign...is this not math? IF spacetime is empty then mass value = 0 if mass value=0 then spacetime value=0 So, Empty spacetime = 0

I dunno about that...even a test particle will ripple the surface...i think! With EMFs, it seems that they are only present when something with magnetic properties exists... With the Gluon field, it seems it is always there even when nothing is pertubing it...they say it has "vacuum energy"... This is a chicken/egg question, in a way...does spacetime exist before there is mass to influence it? To me, the answer seems to be no...if space-time is defined by the energy-momentum tensor...without it being present, there would be no curved lines...but i also say there would be no lines...no reason to create lines in empty-space... Earlier in this topic, I believe Mordred or Strange gave me examples of GR in empty space...But even if GR can be used to predict what empty space might be like, we can never encounter empty space...a truly empty universe simply doesnt exist...with no mass, there is no spacetime...or so my login says at this point... I am putting off knowing questions and answers like this because there is way too much stuff with actuality and grit to be studied for me...but my current reason keeps pulling me in this direction...

After giving the topic a re-read, my doubts lay in the very first line and following lines...Because I have been taking a stance that an empty universe possesses no value, you cant just give it a value of 496 or 1, in my opinion...and zero wont work for the rest of these equations you branch from e=mc2 using the logic that there is a value at all to plug into the equation when considering an empty universe...If the mass value were 1, the universe would no longer be empty, so how could its empty value be the same as its value with mass? IF mass is 1, space is no longer empty and has a value of 1...when mass is zero, accordingly, due to the equivalence law, the value of an empty universe would be zero... GR gets it's terms from mass and equates them into a resulting curvature of space...Maybe we should be looking to solve GR with no mass values and see what we come up with...I think someone allready did but i dont have a reference...Ill go looking for it... Alas...in layman's terms, I think it is "poopy" to give values of 1 at "empty"...empty means zero in layman's terms...space-time could have any potential without mass and it doesnt need mass to have potential, in layman's terms... In layman's terms, it seems like youre saying these equations make sense if you redefine zero to have a value...well..im a layman and you cant do that! "An empty universe possesses a potential value of 1. Because there would be nothing but itself to compare to, its mass value could also be defined as 1. Mass is another way in which we define potential energy. The potential energy of that mass could also be considered 1, because once again, it would only be comparable to itself in that singular state, and mass is the equivalence of energy as Einstein proved in e=mc^2." Potential energy exists for mass...its a property of mass...and you ask, what is the potential energy of energy at value zero and call it 1... "In physics, potential energy is the energy that an object has due to its position in a force field or that a system has due to the configuration of its parts" Potential energy is the energy that an object has...youre saying that the empty universe is an object... ""An empty universe possesses a potential value of 1." Did you mean potential energy value of 1? or "undefined" potential value?

I get it...whoa...I get it!

Yes..I meant that the flat pond is like space-time with no gravitational field...And precisely because space-time is only local geometry that I claim there is no surface of water when it is still...the only surface we ever see is rippled,,,it doesnt even exist as flat...which is why I claim or view that space-time is only induced by the effects of gravity... I should have been calling it the energy-momentum tensor all along...in my descriptive I only say things like "energy has a vector"...I was referring to the energy momentum tensor...In my amateur mind, it is vectors that come together to define tensors...

Nice...and now you mention quantum foam...I think we've thunk similar thoughts...

"+C/-C = -1. There is an offset between the natural forces of expansion and gravity which creates a natural torque energy or rotary motion" I dont wanna add an fluff to your theory, but that sounds like the eternal yin-yang to me...I used it for my theory...but i made a model for a yin yang in 3 dimensions with a sphere within a sphere...and instead of rotating, they actually compresses into and back out of one another...

The only mechanism I can guess to answer is GR...