JohnLesser

 

A simple question, not a simple answer; 30 pages of debate is kind of a clue.

Why teach our children ''santa clause'' is real?

A simple answer

 

You may be right, but why so certain? What's the evidence?

Messed up quote!

Whats the evidence

 

You may be right, but why so certain? What's the evidence?

Screw christian charity and missions to africa and building wells and the salvation army and all those good people who believe in Gods.

Just kill them all and the world will be a better place.

Take away religion and do you not think humanity would still continue in world aid?

Would the world be a better place without religion? A 100% yes is my answer.

Beyond the event horizon of a singularity, all mass experiences isotropic force from the singularity. The affected mass has its own gravitation inertia holding the mass in its own orbit. The singularity then ripping apart the affected mass from the opposing force of the inertia orbit.

Okay, there is a similar question but not precisely mine. Imagine a stationary observer a and two objects x & y going away in opposite directions at .25 c.

A sees time slowed on x and y. X sees time slowed on a and y. Y sees time slowed on a and x. ???

How can they all see time slowed on the other?

Like in experiment they compare the measured time elapsed on their return to (A).

Taking a step back, do you have a link to this idea?

By negative , what negative are you on about? negative charge, negative velocity ,

 

 

Literally

yes, you are defending nothing without dimension, where a spacial volume is made up of nothing.

 

 

Can you box that up and send it to me?

Can I send a box of thought to you? Here it is, the words I sent.

You are being argumentative over nothing, dimensions are something although within those dimensions, space ''itself'' is nothing but dimensional space.

What are concepts made of?

There is of course an easy answer to this , the Universe is always silent unless there is hearing to hear it.

Something made of nothing is a contradiction.

Dimensions are something made of nothing when discussing space also, do you think dimensions are not something?

You are relating something to things of matter only.

Which is contradictory.

There is no contradiction in that post, do you personally think empty space is a myth?

 

 

Yes, to some extent, which is completely consistent with space not being a thing, especially one that restricts my movement.

I never suggested space is a thing of physicality, but it is ''something'' of nothing , having dimensions but no physical body.

Your yes answer confirming I and your relative observation of ''free'' space.

How can empty space be a myth when we can imagine taking away everything we observe except the space?

 

 

No, I have never observed space. The only way to personally observe it is to bounce a photon off of it. Can you bounce a photon off of space?

 

Indirect observation methods involve similar procedures.

You don't need your eyes to observe space, do you have the ability to move freely?

Photons can't bounce off nothing.

If "things" have properties other than dimensions, then space is not a "thing"

If "things" have properties other than dimensions, then space is not a "thing"

Something,anything, its seems you are in disagreement over definition rather than the observation. Do you not observe space ?

 

 

So a physical object is not three-dimensional?

It's actually four dimensional , why would you think I said it was not?

 

 

 

I probably would, too. But it's obviously not a property unique to space.

An unique property of space, not to space.

 

 

I think that might be a language problem. My guess is, he meant "the only property of space is dimensions" which, although oddly phrased, I think I would agree with.

Well quite clearly you understood so the problem with understanding is not how I worded it.

 

 

I think that might be a language problem. My guess is, he meant "the only property of space is dimensions" which, although oddly phrased, I think I would agree with.

Thank you for your agreement, "the only property of space is dimensions"

 

That's just a name, though. How much do you have when you have zero?

I do not believe there could ever be 0 space, how can you think that space is nothing when the unique property of space is dimensions?

I think space is made of 0.

You are ''playing'' with time dilation but did not know it was a part of relativity then later on said along the lines of relativity works with high speeds and not a surface confirming you knew about time dilation was relativity to begin with.

"According to some" - that's rather nebulous. Who, exactly? Nobody in this thread, AFAICT. Space is permeated by fields, but the repeated observation here is that space is not a thing, and so saying what it's made of is nonsensical.

My apologies I have been 'mislead' and was arguing fields occupy space. Fyi you are also incorrect, space is something, it is space.

I don't know what being the "result" of space even means.

Meaning space is a field according to some, I believe space is made of nothing.

Yes.

ok, I assume though this could be the result of ''energy'' fields rather than of space?

The effects of this process have been observed.

Intriguing, so these pairs appear then disappear?

You realise you contradicted your self?

Not at all, dimensions are observed unless you mean something else?