koti

Whenever I decide to see a doctor it goes away. Its like its got a mind of its own.

So that's what I have on the inside of my wrist.

You cannot grip spacetime. However, you can use grep to display contents of a file on a linux box. Heres the wiki on frequency: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frequency

Its fake: https://www.snopes.com/did-trump-tweet-president-dow-joans/

Again like your previous post which I commented on, I’m barely able to relate as you’re all over the place. You need some basic knowledge/rigour to be able to ask viable questions not to mention providing conclusions or answers. Information is not „carried by spacetime” its like saying butter is carried by my Saab - it makes no sense in a coherent discussion because theres just so much more to that statement. The rest I cant relate to, please try to learn to ask useful questions instead of providing useless answers.

As far as Im aware, this is where physisists experience a romance with philosophy. Especially the ones dealing with strings, quantum gravity or other attempts at GUT’s.

Information does not have mass, it is not made of matter so trying to disect it in context of matter/mass just doesn’t make sense to me. As for spacetime, as far as I am aware it is uniform everywhere, at least at this point in time. GR’s spacetime applies to everything we know/see in the universe on the large scale, I don’t see the distinction of local/global spacetime.

I think we might be trying to say the same thing here. This is exactly the reason I mentioned „information being a human concept” which is not well put. After giving it some thought, I think that we can’t distinguish between information types, data is data and doesnt matter what system it comes from.

But that would mean that the amount of information is infinite in any system regardless of its size (assuming time is infinite) A single particle would be bearing an infinite amount of information just by the fact that time flows and that would be sloppy imo. So either time is finite or the information type which you refer to is for lack of better word „virtual” Does that make sense?

There are too many contradictions in your post for me to understand it. It seems you are mixing up direction in space with the time arrow. Spacetime according to GR is inseperable but time and space are different concepts and direction applies very differently to them. Plus I fail to see how this applies to information in the OP.

Yes, it does sound a lot more right that information is a property of a system. My definition is unfortunate, while writing it I was thinking about different kinds of information (like a piece of information in a fictitious movie for example) but it doesn’t seem right, well spotted. Entropy in simple words is measure of disorder of a system so it does apply to more than just black holes ofcourse. In fact it applies to every aspect of the universe. Entropy in context of black holes is especially interesting thats why I mentioned it...how information/entropy behaves in black holes is one of the keys to understanding the big bang.

This is escalating into something needlesly weird. I made a 78 break back in the day when I could SEE the cue ball well enough to hit it where I want.

I would say yes and yes. This might suggest that information has some kind of physicsl form but it doesn’t. Concept of information in the context of entropy is used in a specific way trying to explain what happens inside the event horizon of a black hole. I don’t think it changes anything though, information might not be accessible anymore in specific situations, Hawking reffers to it as information being destroyed but it does not mean it is a physical entity.

Trying to sweep the semantics as far away from the OP question as possible, one could argue that information cannot exist without a carrier like a electromagnetic wave or brain or computer chip or piece of paper to exist in but this does not mean that information itself is matter or physical entity like in the OP. Information is a human term and is used to describe the data which we gather in our brains or other carriers. The information which I have gathered in my own brain tells me that it is not a physical entity but a theoretical construct used by humans and other species to communicate, consisting of tools like language for example, we wouldn't call language a physical entity so I don't see a point in calling information a physical entity.

Whadda you know dimreepr... +1.

You guys crack me up, You know very well that there is no such thing as a perfect light absorbing dog Edit: Here's a near perfect light absorbing material though.

The above might do as a definition of reflected light from the surface of the car but isn’t „reflection” sufficient?

I think this is faulty logic Eise. Technically, in the context that we are speaking here, cars that we see are light because they reflect light therefore we see them. If they wouldn't reflect light we wouldn't see them. It's crude and simple and I'm sure I don't need to explain this but that's really all there is to it.

Welcome Orzeszku There are quite a few experts here who specialize in your areas of interest so you definitely came to the right place. Your English sounds very good btw.

If I may, I will add to your post that gravity is the curvature of space-time so when dealing with describing reality with GR which works well in large scales (when it doesn't work well in small scales the issue still seems to be there even or especially in QFT's) there seems to be an issue with gravity being a force. The other day I had a conversation with #Mordred and I "complained" that gravity is referred to as a force and he seemed to share my disappointment. Science is ofcourse still open to detecting a graviton but until that happens I wish that gravity would be referred to as curvature which is a property of space-time and not a force - it might be confusing especially to laypeople like myself or jajrussel.

It was just my attempt at a joke but please don’t mind it as someone recently commented that my sarcasm could be sold to governments as a weapon of mass destruction. #jajrussel - Inertial mass, matter and energy are all the same thing. Sounds weird but its very true.

Try not to worry about that instead read MigL's posts. As for the Planck units mentioned, it is accepted that space is quantized meaning it consists of small portions which cannot be divided - this is referred to as Planck length.

Thanks for pointing out the distinction between relativistic and inertial mass, I forgot to mention this as I was trying to keep relativity out until jajrusell felt comfortable with the basics of mass/matter/energy/gravity. jajrussel & tub - the above post by MigL is very well put, listen to what he's saying and if something is unclear don't hesitate to ask. MigL loves to spend Saturdays on explaining BH physics and relativity to people on the internet

Your bullet analogy is accurate. In fact, mass and energy are equivalent as Einstein’s famous E=mc^2 equation tells us. Say you would like a certain force of the bullet to act on a wall, you can choose between increasing the mass of the bullet or increasing its velocity - both will have exactly the same effect on the wall, from the wall view point the damage will be the same. What happens when a bullet reaches relativistic velocities is not really interesting from the wall view point...obviously the wall will receive a lot more energy if the bullet hits it at a higher velocity so it will receive more damage. What is really interesting is that a bullet traveling at a near light speed will change its mass (not weight) it will also experience length contraction (it will change its size) and time will flow slower for the fast bullet than for an observer which is stationary relative to the bullet.

I might be wrong but I think jayjrussel might be confused as to a single source of gravity.