Space and matter

[electricman6913]

I was wondering since space and time are more dence around massive objects, does matter create space and or time.

[Baby Astronaut]

It'd not only be interesting if yes, but it'd also turn the science establishment on its head.

 

Therefore, I really hope you're right.

 

I wouldn't know either way

[ajb]

Define space-time density please.

[stones1]

It's more logical to think that it just compresses it.

[Tom Vose]

I was wondering since space and time are more dence around massive objects, does matter create space and or time.

 

 

Not everyone knows this, but spacetime is a physical fabric, in fact, if you removed all the matter and energy from the observable vacuum, the vacuum itself would dissappear. This means that spacetime is matter is energy!

 

I speak the truth, this is why the spacetime fabric itself is more dense with matter, or dense itself because it has a desnity of energy, as where we might see spacetime void of matter, but not energy.

 

Spacetime cannot exist without energy, and with enough large concentration of energy, means that there is an inverse relationship with the density of the vacuum.

[iNow]

Not everyone knows this, but spacetime is a physical fabric, in fact, if you removed all the matter and energy from the observable vacuum, the vacuum itself would dissappear. This means that spacetime is matter is energy!

Tom - Please back this up with a source or a citation, or some calculations perhaps. This doesn't seem correct, and I'd like to read more about it.

 

 

I speak the truth, this is why the spacetime fabric itself is more dense with matter, or dense itself because it has a desnity of energy, as where we might see spacetime void of matter, but not energy.

Again, asserting the truth of your own comments isn't really useful to us who are trying to understand your point and learn more about the reality around us. Please share a source or two which support your statements.

 

 

Spacetime cannot exist without energy, and with enough large concentration of energy, means that there is an inverse relationship with the density of the vacuum.

 

Same as above. I'd like to validate that you're not just pulling stuff out of your hiney and expecting us to accept it as fact.

[Tom Vose]

Oh for Crizo's, i sware, this is relativity at its finest.

 

Once Einstein said, ''Before relativity, we thought that if you removed all of the matter and energy from the vacuum, spacetime would reside. We now know, that spacetime would also follow.''

 

I have no need to make this up. I am probably a more serious scientist of these facts than anyone here, if they don't know it already.

[iNow]

I have no need to make this up. I am probably a more serious scientist of these facts than anyone here, if they don't know it already.

 

Then it really should not be difficult for you to act like a serious scientist and supply references in support of your claims. So, I ask again, can you please offer me supporting information so that I can better understand?

[Tom Vose]

I am serious with my words, not that i would ever derail any situation here. Only those who are in doubt of relativity could ever doubt me.

 

Oh give it up. I am sick of people giving me chores.

 

Here is one for you lot, go to ''ask an astrophysicist,'' and find out for yourself.

[iNow]

Since you've chosen to be so indignant, I'll take that to mean you have no idea what you're talking about, nor can you support anything you say. Thanks for showing everyone how unworthy your quote unquote contributions to these threads really are.

[Klaynos]

Tom, citations please.

[Tom Vose]

Don't patronize me. I can't possibly citate everything i ever come to mention. Some things are just general knowledge to me.

 

Let's try and go about this another way shall we?

 

Do you deny that spacetime is physical?

[Sayonara]

Don't patronize me. I can't possibly citate everything i ever come to mention. Some things are just general knowledge to me.

 

Let's try and go about this another way shall we?

 

Do you deny that spacetime is physical?

You don't need to cite sources for everything you say, but if you are a "serious scientist" then you ought to already be in the habit of referencing for claims of flat fact, particularly extraordinary claims (as in, extraordinary to everyone else, not to you), or those which radically affect the discussion.

 

Persistently making unsupported claims and throwing a hissy fit when you are asked for sources is a breach of the rules on two counts, and if you really have a lot to contribute to this forum then it would be a shame for you to tot up infraction points and be automatically banned for something so simple and easily-fixed as a repeated failure to provide references.

[Reaper]

I am serious with my words, not that i would ever derail any situation here. Only those who are in doubt of relativity could ever doubt me.

 

Oh give it up. I am sick of people giving me chores.

 

Here is one for you lot, go to ''ask an astrophysicist,'' and find out for yourself.

 

I've got one for you too:

 

 

Its called "take a hint", just in case you've never did so before...

[Klaynos]

Do you deny that spacetime is physical?

 

Define "physical". Just so I know we're all reading from the same page.

[Tom Vose]

Klaynos, i will get to you in a minute. After some extensive searching, i have found a PhD physicist who knows this truth i speak of, in his 1985 book, ''Parallel Universes,'' a Dr Fred Alan Wolf informs the reader that spacetime and matter and energy are codependant according to the laws of relativity, and this backs my claim up 100% and does radically effect the conversation currently being made here.

 

Define "physical". Just so I know we're all reading from the same page.

 

Physical as being tangible: made from physical matter, made from solid material with texture.

 

You don't need to cite sources for everything you say, but if you are a "serious scientist" then you ought to already be in the habit of referencing for claims of flat fact, particularly extraordinary claims (as in, extraordinary to everyone else, not to you), or those which radically affect the discussion.

 

Persistently making unsupported claims and throwing a hissy fit when you are asked for sources is a breach of the rules on two counts, and if you really have a lot to contribute to this forum then it would be a shame for you to tot up infraction points and be automatically banned for something so simple and easily-fixed as a repeated failure to provide references.

 

Now i have found a source after looking for one on request, and ok -- maybe not automatically on request, but nonetheless, it has been done now, will you retract my infraction please?

[insane_alien]

infarctions don't get retracted, you just need to wait until it expires. this is to point out people who repeatedly breach the rules they agreed to follow on registering with us. get enough infarction points and you get banned. as i recall from when i signed up this is all explained in the forum rules

 

link

[Tom Vose]

ok.