What is Space made of?

[geordief]

22 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

Your clock doesn't measure my time, how could it?

I thought it did when account was taken of relative movement and gravitational effects....(we are  saying the same thing in different ways?)

Edited August 4, 2018 by geordief

[dimreepr]

9 minutes ago, geordief said:

I thought it did when account was taken of relative movement and gravitational effects....(we are  saying the same thing in different ways?)

Does your clock know my relative movement and how high I travel? Besides what post did I reply to?

Edited August 4, 2018 by dimreepr

[geordief]

5 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

Does your clock know my relative movement and how high I travel? Besides what post did I reply to?

Not directly but the "operator" of the clock could add that info ,could he or she not? (and  thus synchronize the two clocks)

 

Not sure what your "what post did I reply to?" is getting at.... but no I don't think you replied to any of my posts in this thread. I did "cut across" your conversation with Taingorz though.

[dimreepr]

3 minutes ago, geordief said:

Not directly but the "operator" of the clock could add that info ,could he or she not? (and  thus synchronize the two clocks)

Briefly as in "one two three, mark" but thereafter the ticks are different.

6 minutes ago, geordief said:

Not sure what your "what post did I reply to?" is getting at.... but no I don't think you replied to any of my posts in this thread.

Nope.

6 minutes ago, geordief said:

I did "cut across" your conversation with Taingorz though.

Bingo... 

[geordief]

1 minute ago, dimreepr said:

Briefly as in "one two three, mark" but thereafter the ticks are different.

 

Yes I see.

[Taingorz]

well, can someone explain what "time" is? without a circular answer that is.

[dimreepr]

28 minutes ago, Taingorz said:

well, can someone explain what "time" is? without a circular answer that is.

Nope, not really.

[Taingorz]

57 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

Nope, not really.

That's what I  mean. And in the meantime  it is used in all of physics! Now isn't that strange?

Edited August 4, 2018 by Taingorz

[taeto]

1 hour ago, Taingorz said:

well, can someone explain what "time" is? without a circular answer that is.

We can explain what a second is to you. If you are holding in your hand, while managing not to shake it very much, a caesium 133 atom which you observe being in its ground state, and you count 9 192 631 770 periods of the radiation corresponding to the transition between the two hyperfine levels of this ground state, then you have just experienced one second of time passed. Moreover, anybody or anything that stayed fixed in space with respect to you during the entire counting process has experienced exactly one second as well. Now just as you can measure the distance between different things using a meter stick, you can measure the time passed between different events using this device, which is commonly called a "clock".   

Edited August 4, 2018 by taeto

[Taingorz]

53 minutes ago, taeto said:

We can explain what a second is to you. If you are holding in your hand, while managing not to shake it very much, a caesium 133 atom which you observe being in its ground state, and you count 9 192 631 770 periods of the radiation corresponding to the transition between the two hyperfine levels of this ground state, then you have just experienced one second of time passed. Moreover, anybody or anything that stayed fixed in space with respect to you during the entire counting process has experienced exactly one second as well. Now just as you can measure the distance between different things using a meter stick, you can measure the time passed between different events using this device, which is commonly called a "clock".   

But that is circular! pffffffffffffffffff

[taeto]

58 minutes ago, Taingorz said:

But that is circular! pffffffffffffffffff

Explain what you mean by "circular", please.

[Taingorz]

2 minutes ago, taeto said:

Explain what you mean by "circular", please.

Really? Please do you mean that you really don't know what circular is???????

[taeto]

1 minute ago, Taingorz said:

Really? Please do you mean that you really don't know what circular is???????

I know what it means, But I am getting pretty convinced that you do not. That is why I ask.

[Itoero]

1 hour ago, Taingorz said:

But that is circular! pffffffffffffffffff

What does it matter we can't explain what time is? Logic dictates we will be able in the future.

 

[Taingorz]

29 minutes ago, taeto said:

I know what it means, But I am getting pretty convinced that you do not. That is why I ask.

You think I do not? well, why do you think that?

19 minutes ago, Itoero said:

What does it matter we can't explain what time is? Logic dictates we will be able in the future.

 

What does it matter????????????????????? Gee! 'scientists use 'time' all the time (pun intended) , while at the same time they have no clue what it actually is! And you really think it doesn't matter? Ah well.....

[taeto]

blockquote widget

45 minutes ago, Taingorz said:

You think I do not? well, why do you think that?

An obvious reason might be: when I show you a definition that is not circular, you immediately complain that it is circular. That tells me quite a bit.

[Itoero]

39 minutes ago, Taingorz said:

59 minutes ago, Itoero said:

 

What does it matter????????????????????? Gee! 'scientists use 'time' all the time (pun intended) , while at the same time they have no clue what it actually is! And you really think it doesn't matter? Ah well.....

Science is full of things we have no clue what it really is. Why do we have to know what time is, to use it?

[studiot]

The OP very clearly started this thread to discuss space.

This attempt to hijack it to discuss time has been reported at the original hijack.

[Taingorz]

3 minutes ago, studiot said:

The OP very clearly started this thread to discuss space.

This attempt to hijack it to discuss time has been reported at the original hijack.

Well, sorry it wasn't my intent.

13 minutes ago, Itoero said:

Science is full of things we have no clue what it really is. Why do we have to know what time is, to use it?

Nevermind. But I do agree 'science' is full of things that is not understood. Not a good state of affairs now is it?

[taeto]

4 minutes ago, Taingorz said:

Nevermind. But I do agree 'science' is full of things that is not understood. Not a good state of affairs now is it?

You happen to possess the historical reference for a time when the state of affairs of science was "good", meaning that everything was already understood?

 

[Taingorz]

'Science' never really understood anything at all. 'science' was designed to be a control tool, once the religions didn't work

as well as they once did. 'science' has nothing to do with finding any 'truth'. 

26 minutes ago, taeto said:

blockquote widget

An obvious reason might be: when I show you a definition that is not circular, you immediately complain that it is circular. That tells me quite a bit.

But is IS circular.

[beecee]

5 hours ago, Taingorz said:

well, can someone explain what "time" is? without a circular answer that is.

 

3 hours ago, taeto said:

We can explain what a second is to you. If you are holding in your hand, while managing not to shake it very much, a caesium 133 atom which you observe being in its ground state, and you count 9 192 631 770 periods of the radiation corresponding to the transition between the two hyperfine levels of this ground state, then you have just experienced one second of time passed. Moreover, anybody or anything that stayed fixed in space with respect to you during the entire counting process has experienced exactly one second as well. Now just as you can measure the distance between different things using a meter stick, you can measure the time passed between different events using this device, which is commonly called a "clock".   

 

2 hours ago, Taingorz said:

But that is circular! pffffffffffffffffff

Circular?  I see it as a reasonable answer.

What I find as particularly illogical and showing signs of an agenda is the following....

Quote

 

well space time really can't exist but I will leave that for now,

And experiments agree? That remains to be seen then.Because it is never about the experiments but about

the interpretation of the experiments of course.

 

Just a little logical thinking can show space can not curve. You don't need higher math or experiments.

 

"Spacetime really exists and has been shown to exist with many observations including the Lense Thirring effect, gravitational lensing, and in more recent times gravitational waves. 

The views of space and time which I wish to lay before you have sprung from the soil of experimental physics, and therein lies their strength. They are radical. Henceforth space by itself, and time by itself, are doomed to fade away into mere shadows, and only a kind of union of the two will preserve an independent reality".

 Hermann Minkowski:

 

 

[taeto]

4 minutes ago, Taingorz said:

But is IS circular.

Okay. Teach me.

[Taingorz]

8 minutes ago, beecee said:

 

 

Circular?  I see it as a reasonable answer.

What I find as particularly illogical and showing signs of an agenda is the following....

"Spacetime really exists and has been shown to exist with many observations including the Lense Thirring effect, gravitational lensing, and in more recent times gravitational waves. 

The views of space and time which I wish to lay before you have sprung from the soil of experimental physics, and therein lies their strength. They are radical. Henceforth space by itself, and time by itself, are doomed to fade away into mere shadows, and only a kind of union of the two will preserve an independent reality".

 Hermann Minkowski:

 

 

With all due respect, but you are not saying anything here. You are just saying there has been done things that proof it.

Bit nothing concrete at all. And e.g. gravitational lensing can be very easily explained by classical physics.

[beecee]

4 minutes ago, Taingorz said:

'Science' never really understood anything at all. 'science' was designed to be a control tool, once the religions didn't work

as well as they once did. 'science' has nothing to do with finding any 'truth'. 

But is IS circular.

More nonsense. Science seeks explanations of what we observe through observations and experiments. It's wrong to say that it has nothing to do with finding truth, rather seeking truth per se, is not its objective, if this truth or reality actually even exists.

Science is based on empirical evidence: Religion is based on faith. Understand? One would then ask why you use and depend on science every single day of your life if it is based on not understanding. I mean saying that is not just circular, it is inane and obtuse to boot.  You my friend would still be swinging in the trees if it wasn't for science and the scientific methodology.