The Fabric of Space

[Godfree]

Einstein claims space is a fabric , a matrix or web ,
makes no sense to me ,
and there is a big problem with the idea ,
What would stop a black hole getting hold of a corner of this fabric ,
and sucking in the entire thing , what would stop this happening ,
the power of a black hole seems to be the most powerful thing ,
in the universe , is the fabric somehow not effected by gravity ,,??
does the fabric have no strength , and will tear when you pull on it ,
if so how does the fabric have the strength to move objects ,
like a train on a track Einstein claims the fabric is curved ,
around things like black holes , and the things follow the fabric ,,
so as usual Einstein is able to get away with such claims ,
because everybody is too scared to challenge the high and mighty ,Einstein ,
well I for one think Einsteins days are numbered ,
it will only be a matter of time , not space time , just time ,
before Einsteins mistakes are found and corrected

[chaz wyman]

Einstein claims space is a fabric , a matrix or web ,
makes no sense to me ,
and there is a big problem with the idea ,

No, there is a problem with your brain.
Maybe you can disprove him? Just like you can disprove anything you don't like the idea of?

What would stop a black hole getting hold of a corner of this fabric ,
and sucking in the entire thing , what would stop this happening ,
the power of a black hole seems to be the most powerful thing ,
in the universe , is the fabric somehow not effected by gravity ,,??

You are reasoning too literally. Space is not the sort of curtain to pull down when you have had too much to drink

does the fabric have no strength , and will tear when you pull on it ,

Try another slug of whisky and try again (hic)!

if so how does the fabric have the strength to move objects ,
like a train on a track Einstein claims the fabric is curved ,
around things like black holes , and the things follow the fabric ,,
so as usual Einstein is able to get away with such claims ,
because everybody is too scared to challenge the high and mighty ,Einstein ,
well I for one think Einsteins days are numbered ,

He's already dead; like god.

it will only be a matter of time , not space time , just time ,
before Einsteins mistakes are found and corrected

Space is not cloth - it is an analogy you idiot. It does not get less likely to be true just because you have a limited imagination.

[Bernard]

Black holes? What are they? They are still very much theoretical as far as I can see. Recent apparent evidence of black holes that show huge gas jets are explicable as being from events when gravitation reaches extremes. That this involves the disappearance of matter altogether is not convincing to me. I don't think we know enough about matter to regard this as a truth. We have gone a tremendous way in observing subatomic particles, but we may be only dipping a stick a few inches into an ocean which is endlessly deep.

Einstein made some great observations that were relevant and verified to be true again and again. They won't ever be proved untrue, but may lose their relevance - which I am guessing is what you are really saying.

[Godfree]

Black holes? What are they? They are still very much theoretical as far as I can see. Recent apparent evidence of black holes that show huge gas jets are explicable as being from events when gravitation reaches extremes. That this involves the disappearance of matter altogether is not convincing to me. I don't think we know enough about matter to regard this as a truth. We have gone a tremendous way in observing subatomic particles, but we may be only dipping a stick a few inches into an ocean which is endlessly deep.

Einstein made some great observations that were relevant and verified to be true again and again. They won't ever be proved untrue, but may lose their relevance - which I am guessing is what you are really saying.

One of the claimed proofs for this curved space , was to see light bending around a star or planet , but light has mass and will bend from the gravity ,
we can actually see things that are behind a star , because as the image passes by the star , it's gravity bends the light back towards the star ,
re-focusing it on the other side , I don't challenge the effect or result ,
I challenge what is causing it ,gravity appears to be able to achieve this ,
why do we then need to invent another explanation ,
if it aint broke why fix it,
I have many problems with Einsteins work ,
I would like to get his earlier work , before Hubble talked him into this moment of creation ,and heres another twist in this tale ,
I see this moment of creation as an attempt to give religion hope ,
but if god existed before the bb,
then time and space did not begin with the bb,
cos god was there witnessing time and space ,
so is the bbt claiming no god ,,??? I would like to think so ,
but have always assumed they thought it was like creation ,
that it suggested science agreed that there was a moment of creation,
and religion will take that as evidence god is real ,,!!!

[chaz wyman]

Black holes? What are they? They are still very much theoretical as far as I can see. Recent apparent evidence of black holes that show huge gas jets are explicable as being from events when gravitation reaches extremes. That this involves the disappearance of matter altogether is not convincing to me. I don't think we know enough about matter to regard this as a truth. We have gone a tremendous way in observing subatomic particles, but we may be only dipping a stick a few inches into an ocean which is endlessly deep.

Einstein made some great observations that were relevant and verified to be true again and again. They won't ever be proved untrue, but may lose their relevance - which I am guessing is what you are really saying.

One of the claimed proofs for this curved space , was to see light bending around a star or planet , but light has mass and will bend from the gravity ,
we can actually see things that are behind a star , because as the image passes by the star , it's gravity bends the light back towards the star ,
re-focusing it on the other side , I don't challenge the effect or result ,
I challenge what is causing it ,gravity appears to be able to achieve this ,
why do we then need to invent another explanation ,
if it aint broke why fix it,

There is no "other explanation".
You just don't understand the solution that is offered.
Eddington demonstrated what Einstein showed with Maths.
If I thought you understood 4% of what Einstein was on about I might think that you having a problem with it was meaningful. You don't - so your objection is invalid.


I have many problems with Einsteins work ,
I would like to get his earlier work , before Hubble talked him into this moment of creation ,and heres another twist in this tale ,
I see this moment of creation as an attempt to give religion hope ,
but if god existed before the bb,
then time and space did not begin with the bb,
cos god was there witnessing time and space ,
so is the bbt claiming no god ,,??? I would like to think so ,
but have always assumed they thought it was like creation ,
that it suggested science agreed that there was a moment of creation,
and religion will take that as evidence god is real ,,!!!

Your conception of "GOD" is even more childish than most Christians. That is why your proof is without merit.

[Godfree]

Einstein is certainly a major part of modern thinking in regards to how the universe works ,
but I see many contradictions in the current model of how it all happened ,
matter is supposed to have spat out at in some cases many times the speed of light , then for some reason yet to be explained , slowed right down formed galaxies and stars etc and is now speeding up again,
and that this process is creating the universe as it goes ,
like there was nothing there until our wee bit of space farted ,
and there was never nothing , thats impossible , godfrees law ,
so the current model is incomplete and riddled with flaws ,
the observational data suggest we are looking at galaxies that existed before the bb ,
but these things will take a long time to verify ,
like I knew nutrinos went faster than light from a doco last century ,
and they are still trying to prove it , to Chaz's satisfaction today ,
so if Einsteins model of the bb made sense , I would support it ,,,!!!

[chaz wyman]

Einstein is certainly a major part of modern thinking in regards to how the universe works ,
but I see many contradictions in the current model of how it all happened ,
matter is supposed to have spat out at in some cases many times the speed of light , then for some reason yet to be explained , slowed right down formed galaxies and stars etc and is now speeding up again,
and that this process is creating the universe as it goes ,
like there was nothing there until our wee bit of space farted ,
and there was never nothing , thats impossible , godfrees law ,
so the current model is incomplete and riddled with flaws ,
the observational data suggest we are looking at galaxies that existed before the bb ,
but these things will take a long time to verify ,
like I knew nutrinos went faster than light from a doco last century ,
and they are still trying to prove it , to Chaz's satisfaction today ,
so if Einsteins model of the bb made sense , I would support it ,,,!!!

I don't think the world of science is holding its breath waiting for you r get on board.

[Godfree]

Einstein is certainly a major part of modern thinking in regards to how the universe works ,
but I see many contradictions in the current model of how it all happened ,
matter is supposed to have spat out at in some cases many times the speed of light , then for some reason yet to be explained , slowed right down formed galaxies and stars etc and is now speeding up again,
and that this process is creating the universe as it goes ,
like there was nothing there until our wee bit of space farted ,
and there was never nothing , thats impossible , godfrees law ,
so the current model is incomplete and riddled with flaws ,
the observational data suggest we are looking at galaxies that existed before the bb ,
but these things will take a long time to verify ,
like I knew nutrinos went faster than light from a doco last century ,
and they are still trying to prove it , to Chaz's satisfaction today ,
so if Einsteins model of the bb made sense , I would support it ,,,!!!

I don't think the world of science is holding its breath waiting for you r get on board.

Well Chaz I tend to agree with some of the "world of science"
at risk of pointing out the obvious when I say , the observational data ,
duh , thats science Chaz , when the world of science sorts it's shit out ,
and drops these incorrect theories about time and space having a beginning,
then people like me will stop being insulted by the stupidity ,
of their claims ,
Curved space time ,, theory of Relativity , while I see these as the most emphatic claim reality is an individual experience ,
I think these go on to claim it as real not just a perception or distortion of reality , Reality doesn't change , just our perception of it ,,!!!

[Cerveny]

I am afraid there is no doubt the Einstein’s TR is useless :( In the opposite case we have had quantized gravity, explained “dark mass” and avoided the singularities in the real world (after the appropriate extensive effort lasting for eighty years)…

[chaz wyman]

Einstein is certainly a major part of modern thinking in regards to how the universe works ,
but I see many contradictions in the current model of how it all happened ,
matter is supposed to have spat out at in some cases many times the speed of light , then for some reason yet to be explained , slowed right down formed galaxies and stars etc and is now speeding up again,
and that this process is creating the universe as it goes ,
like there was nothing there until our wee bit of space farted ,
and there was never nothing , thats impossible , godfrees law ,
so the current model is incomplete and riddled with flaws ,
the observational data suggest we are looking at galaxies that existed before the bb ,
but these things will take a long time to verify ,
like I knew nutrinos went faster than light from a doco last century ,
and they are still trying to prove it , to Chaz's satisfaction today ,
so if Einsteins model of the bb made sense , I would support it ,,,!!!

I don't think the world of science is holding its breath waiting for you r get on board.

Well Chaz I tend to agree with some of the "world of science"
at risk of pointing out the obvious when I say , the observational data ,

Well Duh - you can observe the TR in action. Which kinda supports Einstein.
I think it is time to sort YOUR shit out.


duh , thats science Chaz , when the world of science sorts it's shit out ,
and drops these incorrect theories about time and space having a beginning,
then people like me will stop being insulted by the stupidity ,
of their claims ,

You are just fucked up by your atheism, this has nothing to do with the facts.


Curved space time ,, theory of Relativity , while I see these as the most emphatic claim reality is an individual experience ,
I think these go on to claim it as real not just a perception or distortion of reality , Reality doesn't change , just our perception of it ,,!!!

[Godfree]

I am afraid there is no doubt the Einstein’s TR is useless In the opposite case we have had quantized gravity, explained “dark mass” and avoided the singularities in the real world (after the appropriate extensive effort lasting for eighty years)…

So Einstein is right "some of the time",,???
I thought dark matter/mass was very much a theory still ,
that they attribute x amount of mass to dark mass ,
cos they can't think of another place to put it ,
I think space has almost no mass , just the occasional atom here and there ,
I think the missing mass is in the black holes ,
as much as they like to think they can calculate how much mass is in a black hole , I tend to think these are approximations ,
and when your talking the mass of a super massive black hole ,
we could easily be out a few million suns worth ,
and with there being billions of galaxies/black holes ,
it isn't hard to imagine they just might be creating something that doesn't exist , like it's not like the first time ,,,!!!!!

[Cerveny]

If we put off the emotions we are able to coldly think about the most unreliable pillar of TR:
How the limit of movement of the mass can be physically related with the pure electro-magnetic (permittivity, permeability) properties of the physical space?
The obscure base :(

[John]

If we put off the emotions we are able to coldly think about the most unreliable pillar of TR:
How the limit of movement of the mass can be physically related with the pure electro-magnetic (permittivity, permeability) properties of the physical space?
The obscure base

Why are you proposing this in a philosophy forum rather than a physics forum? In fact, if your ideas stand up to scrutiny why aren't you publishing this in an appropriate scientific journal?

[Godfree]

If we put off the emotions we are able to coldly think about the most unreliable pillar of TR:
How the limit of movement of the mass can be physically related with the pure electro-magnetic (permittivity, permeability) properties of the physical space?
The obscure base

Why are you proposing this in a philosophy forum rather than a physics forum? In fact, if your ideas stand up to scrutiny why aren't you publishing this in an appropriate scientific journal?

I think expressing such lofty ideas is fine , but we need to convert to ,
plain English , to express it in a manner that most of the readers would get ,
I keep thinking people get my posts ,,Chaz is a good example of how little people do actually get ,
I would be guessing what a permeable electromagnetic property was ,
but in regards the mass of space ,
there doesn't seem to be much gravity being generated in space ,
so surely that would agree it has very little mass ,
I think the assumption that they know how much matter is supposed to be where , is a bit crazy really ,
I make some pretty outrages claims but to claim to know how much matter there is in the universe , I don't buy that ,
for starters you would have to be assuming the universe was finite and I don't ,
I have a similar problem with the TR ,,
if the universe is infinite , there are an infinite number of perspectives ,
if the universe is infinite ,
time did not begin with our wee bang ,
there was somebody half way to infinity watching it all , and timing it ,
I think we would have to update the theory ,
godfrees amendment ,
"In an infinite universe we are less relative/relevant "
if the number of perspectives goes on forever ,
then our perspective is less important in the grand scheme of things ,
time did not begin with our wee bang ,
if the rest of the universe is sitting there watching our bang ,,!!!

[chaz wyman]

If we put off the emotions we are able to coldly think about the most unreliable pillar of TR:
How the limit of movement of the mass can be physically related with the pure electro-magnetic (permittivity, permeability) properties of the physical space?
The obscure base

Why are you proposing this in a philosophy forum rather than a physics forum? In fact, if your ideas stand up to scrutiny why aren't you publishing this in an appropriate scientific journal?

I think expressing such lofty ideas is fine , but we need to convert to ,
plain English , to express it in a manner that most of the readers would get ,
I keep thinking people get my posts ,,Chaz is a good example of how little people do actually get ,

I think you might have to consider that it is more often the observer whose lack of understanding causes him to misunderstand what is going on; whilst those he accuses of 'not getting it', are way a head of him.

I would be guessing what a permeable electromagnetic property was ,
but in regards the mass of space ,
there doesn't seem to be much gravity being generated in space ,

Duh!

so surely that would agree it has very little mass ,

Duh. That would all depend of which of the three things above you are now referring to by the word "IT".

I think the assumption that they know how much matter is supposed to be where , is a bit crazy really ,

That would all depend on who you mean by "they".

I make some pretty outrages claims but to claim to know how much matter there is in the universe , I don't buy that ,
for starters you would have to be assuming the universe was finite and I don't ,

They have their means.

I have a similar problem with the TR ,,
if the universe is infinite , there are an infinite number of perspectives ,
if the universe is infinite ,
time did not begin with our wee bang ,

That is because you do not understand expansion. It means that there is no space beyond the universe of matter.
Even when the universe was dense matter it filled all the space available. It is also because you do no understand the idea of infinity.


there was somebody half way to infinity watching it all , and timing it ,

QED; you don't get it. There is no half way to infinity. That's meaningless.


I think we would have to update the theory ,
godfrees amendment ,
"In an infinite universe we are less relative/relevant "

In Godfree's universe, godfree becomes irrelevant.

if the number of perspectives goes on forever ,
then our perspective is less important in the grand scheme of things ,
time did not begin with our wee bang ,
if the rest of the universe is sitting there watching our bang ,,!!!