swansont Posted September 5, 2016 Posted September 5, 2016 Some things are already clear . 1 . Space - time ..is not ..nothing and 2. Space- time is influential AS A MEDIUM You keep insisting on this, but keep avoiding the part where you provide evidence. In all instances of sound waves, the sound is traveling through some substance that we can divide up and package. We can separate air into its constituent elements, compress it and bottle it. If sound went through a solid we can cut that solid into parts. Water waves go though water, which we can bottle and pour. Seismic waves go through rock, and I can break off a chunk of that. So here's the challenge: do any of these things with spacetime.
Mike Smith Cosmos Posted September 5, 2016 Posted September 5, 2016 (edited) You keep insisting on this, but keep avoiding the part where you provide evidence. In all instances of sound waves, the sound is traveling through some substance that we can divide up and package. We can separate air into its constituent elements, compress it and bottle it. If sound went through a solid we can cut that solid into parts. Water waves go though water, which we can bottle and pour. Seismic waves go through rock, and I can break off a chunk of that. So here's the challenge: do any of these things with spacetime. .Yes , but that is what I am saying " space time is NOT NOTHING . I can't say I am totally clear what it is .? Except that it exists , and has a characteristic . Hence , you can apply all these maths rules to it . You can produce a manifold , out of it , you can put some mathmatical fibres ,in a bundle , around the middle of a cylindrical ' whatever . You can do some maths manipulation , and you can ' see ' the waves , or feel the waves , or detect the waves . You can do all sorts of Riccii Tensors all over it . Provided there is an 'It ' to do it on . The ' it ' is the thing that EXISTS ( that the New Scientist writer was saying ) . Reality is , what exists , and what it does . ( Easy , just , he said . ) So what it is ( even if we can't see it in our minds eye ) EXISTS as 4 dimensional space time . It's all around us , right up to the edge of the universe . After that is Nothing . (Well there might be something else , but that's another story ! ) If you had tried the exact same mathmatical procedure on ' NOTHING ' you would detect nothing , nothing would ' do ' or 'does ' because there is nothing to ' do' or 'does ' Quote "...........So, job done reality explained? Not so fast, says Westerhoff. You need to be absolutely clear about the sense of the word reality otherwise the discussion is going to be all over the place. For a start, do only physical objects like earth or atoms count towards reality or things like minds and consciousness, too? Although the scope of our definition determines the complexity of the puzzle, physics should still supply the solution, says philosopher Tim Maudlin of New York University. Physics is about just two questions, he says: -- .- WHAT EXISTS ? and . - WHAT DOES IT DO ? ." Unquote So what EXISTS is 4 Dimentional space time , , what it DOES is all those maths with manifolds , bundles, fibres and cylinders exposed to Ricci Tensors The difference between that and nothing is surely , like trying to do all that maths on NOTHING , over in the corner of the room ? Is it not ? Mike Edited September 5, 2016 by Mike Smith Cosmos
swansont Posted September 5, 2016 Posted September 5, 2016 Doing math on it just shows that it's math.
Mike Smith Cosmos Posted September 5, 2016 Posted September 5, 2016 (edited) Doing math on it just shows that it's math..I am assuming that somewhere in all this maths , that there will be a tie into some measured and proved relationship to something tangible . Eg a set of data turned into a formula ( say dy/dt , etc as to how a variable is observed as to how it actually behaves with respect to time. ) and so on , and so on , dx/dt, dz/dt . Going ever more deeper into the actual behaviour of reality , with all its curves fibres, cylinders and manifolds ( I personally can only guess at what the relationships are tied in to , to get this link with reality. ) IF that is true ( and it's not just UNATTATCHED maths namely it has no tangible link into reality ). Then I can see why it's possible to understand to a limited extent , how maths is able to model and develop an understanding of what is going on in :- SPACE-TIME and its waves . Based on suitable mathmatical models . If on the other hand the current model is based on a lot of speculation , with no observable data ( to provide the formula ) then the whole thing " could just be based on a mathematical speculation . And is very unreliable as a mechanism for understanding what the Universe is composed of . If as another alternative ( which I have grave fears , may be near to what is happening .) That theoreticians are using their maths to build up model upon model ( BASED ON NO STARTING POINT OBSERVATION ) . That they are bringing to bear all sorts of mathmatical operations, transformation, maths systems that would make me wince. And somewhere along the way say ( " hey that looks like a model of a sun and planet , or an atom , or a particle or a string ! ") and construct a model on maths itself ! I worry that we took a wrong turn! If however that is not the case , and it is all built on rigorous observations , then all is well. I do wonder however , how you observe ' space ' and ' time ' as they are both a bit vacuous , slippery , and not easily observed , measured , or pinned down easily . You can see and observe how things move in space , but because of its transparency , one could find it difficult to work out which invisible thing affects the invisible space-time . As the New Scientist says What is it that exists and how does it work ? Or word for word ......--- WHAT EXISTS ? and . - WHAT DOES IT DO ....-------this -( SPACE-TIME ) I think the . - WHAT DOES IT DO ? Is easier to capture by observation ..................... WHAT EXISTS ? Is the tricky one ( this one I would say " the space -time Medium " ) Namely space-time itself is the medium ( but it's not nothing) . Mike Edited September 5, 2016 by Mike Smith Cosmos
imatfaal Posted September 6, 2016 Posted September 6, 2016 ! Moderator Note Mike Smith Cosmos Sorry but this thread has run its course - 39 pages ago it was clear that your objection was based on incredulity heightened by a lack of real understanding; the most recent posts continue this trend. We have reached an impasse - you merely re-iterate your position adorned with differing misunderstood quotes and guesswork; you seem to dismiss all answers that are not based on your rationale as speculation or without foundation; and you continue to ask vague and unrelated questions to distract from the fact that you just don't like the present understanding of this topic. I am locking this thread. You may continue to ask simple self contained questions about any topic - but please try to avoid these spralling threads that go nowhere and merely evidence a failure to grasp and accept modern science. Do not respond to this moderation other than through the reporting system 1
Recommended Posts