Re: What exactly is the "fabric" of Spacetime?
Posted: Wed Jul 10, 2024 12:19 pm
U nailed it Jesus!
For the discussion of all things philosophical.
https://canzookia.com/
U nailed it Jesus!
So, what is 'it' that you are 'seeing' and/or 'measuring', exactly?attofishpi wrote: ↑Wed Jul 10, 2024 12:02 pmMy little take on it..Eudaimonia23 wrote: ↑Tue Jul 09, 2024 4:51 pm We have all heard of the term "the fabric" of spacetime.
I know it's not a literal textile fabric, but I'm still a little confused as to what exactly it is...
What sort of substance is it? Can you grab it and examine it?
What exactly does it consist of?
I'm not claiming to be an expert on this topic, but the idea of spacetime seems kind of sketchy...
Why can't we directly see it? If it really is some sort of thing that has a physical effect on us, shouldn't we be able to measure or see it directly?
But you say "gravitational lensing" is proof of spacetime.
Is it really proof? Does the light follow a curved path in spacetime? Or is the light itself merely being bent by the force of gravity?
Is it possible that there is no curved spacetime path at all and that, as prior mentioned, light is simply being distorted by Newtonian gravity?
Like I said, I'm not an expert. Just a humble philosopher.
Thoughts?
I think we can. Is there any point in a cartesian 3D universe where there is NOTHING? Probably but only for far less than a zeptosecond. My thought is that at each point in 3D space either an event occurs or it doesn't - when there is an event at any 3D coordinate is where a sub-atomic particle blips into existence - just around the Planck scale.Why can't we directly see it? If it really is some sort of thing that has a physical effect on us, shouldn't we be able to measure or see it directly?
What are you, and some others, 'measuring' 'it' against or in relation to, exactly?attofishpi wrote: ↑Wed Jul 10, 2024 12:02 pm (In other words - when we watch TV or listen to the radio we are measuring 'IT')
What is the, alleged, 'curved path' made out of, exactly?attofishpi wrote: ↑Wed Jul 10, 2024 12:02 pmI believe it's bent by the curved path. Light doesn't have mass...say "gravitational lensing" is proof of spacetime. Is it really proof? Does the light follow a curved path in spacetime? Or is the light itself merely being bent by the force of gravity?
Believe it or not, newtonian gravity ALSO predicts gravitational lensing - the problem is, the lensing it predicts is about 1/2 of what we actually observe, but Relativity predicts it correctly.Eudaimonia23 wrote: ↑Tue Jul 09, 2024 4:51 pmBut you say "gravitational lensing" is proof of spacetime.
Is it really proof? Does the light follow a curved path in spacetime? Or is the light itself merely being bent by the force of gravity?
Is it possible that there is no curved spacetime path at all and that, as prior mentioned, light is simply being distorted by Newtonian gravity?
Okay. This is what you 'see', and 'believe', here.
Hilarious that you would say this stupid shit to me, in the days when this was written.Age wrote: ↑Wed Jul 10, 2024 12:29 pmOkay. This is what you 'see', and 'believe', here.
But, can you and will provide any thing more than just this 'belief' of yours here.
Like, for example, do you have any actual examples you could give?
I am not sure if you noticed but I actually provided some examples of the "dunning-kreuger" effect, in the so-called, "experts" in which I was talking about and referring to.
Also, as I have alluded to, previously, I might actually be purposely coming across as some 'thing/s', just to reinforce the saying, 'Never judge a book by its cover'.
Once again, I suggest, always, ask clarifying questioning, and/or keep challenging, until actual proof, and clarity, has been fully obtained.
The, entire, Universe is just One thing only, and which is eternal, temporally, and, infinite, spatially.attofishpi wrote: ↑Wed Jul 10, 2024 12:26 pm naaw...please just explain the entire Universe to us...please..I implore you (back when this was written)
Once again, what 'we' have here is another prime example of another who makes claims, but when questioned and challenged over 'those claims' fails, absolutely, in providing absolutely any thing.Flannel Jesus wrote: ↑Wed Jul 10, 2024 12:29 pmHilarious that you would say this stupid shit to me, in the days when this was written.Age wrote: ↑Wed Jul 10, 2024 12:29 pmOkay. This is what you 'see', and 'believe', here.
But, can you and will provide any thing more than just this 'belief' of yours here.
Like, for example, do you have any actual examples you could give?
I am not sure if you noticed but I actually provided some examples of the "dunning-kreuger" effect, in the so-called, "experts" in which I was talking about and referring to.
Also, as I have alluded to, previously, I might actually be purposely coming across as some 'thing/s', just to reinforce the saying, 'Never judge a book by its cover'.
Once again, I suggest, always, ask clarifying questioning, and/or keep challenging, until actual proof, and clarity, has been fully obtained.
Why are you reacting like this? I'm obviously just agreeing with you, in the days when this was written.Age wrote: ↑Wed Jul 10, 2024 12:43 pmOnce again, what 'we' have here is another prime example of another who makes claims, but when questioned and challenged over 'those claims' fails, absolutely, in providing absolutely any thing.Flannel Jesus wrote: ↑Wed Jul 10, 2024 12:29 pmHilarious that you would say this stupid shit to me, in the days when this was written.Age wrote: ↑Wed Jul 10, 2024 12:29 pm
Okay. This is what you 'see', and 'believe', here.
But, can you and will provide any thing more than just this 'belief' of yours here.
Like, for example, do you have any actual examples you could give?
I am not sure if you noticed but I actually provided some examples of the "dunning-kreuger" effect, in the so-called, "experts" in which I was talking about and referring to.
Also, as I have alluded to, previously, I might actually be purposely coming across as some 'thing/s', just to reinforce the saying, 'Never judge a book by its cover'.
Once again, I suggest, always, ask clarifying questioning, and/or keep challenging, until actual proof, and clarity, has been fully obtained.
Other than, of course, some kind of attempt at ridicule and humiliation of 'another'.
When one cannot 'counter' 'the words' of 'another', then they, on a lot of occasions, attempt to 'attack' 'the other', instead. As can be clearly seen here, again, by 'this one'.
How am 'I' 'reacting', to you here?Flannel Jesus wrote: ↑Wed Jul 10, 2024 12:46 pmWhy are you reacting like this?Age wrote: ↑Wed Jul 10, 2024 12:43 pmOnce again, what 'we' have here is another prime example of another who makes claims, but when questioned and challenged over 'those claims' fails, absolutely, in providing absolutely any thing.Flannel Jesus wrote: ↑Wed Jul 10, 2024 12:29 pm
Hilarious that you would say this stupid shit to me, in the days when this was written.
Other than, of course, some kind of attempt at ridicule and humiliation of 'another'.
When one cannot 'counter' 'the words' of 'another', then they, on a lot of occasions, attempt to 'attack' 'the other', instead. As can be clearly seen here, again, by 'this one'.
you are 'just agreeing' with 'what', exactly?Flannel Jesus wrote: ↑Wed Jul 10, 2024 12:46 pm I'm obviously just agreeing with you, in the days when this was written.
You and I both know that in the English language, when you quote someone and say that what they said was hilarious or humorous, that's how you express agreement. Remember?Age wrote: ↑Wed Jul 10, 2024 12:54 pmHow am 'I' 'reacting', to you here?Flannel Jesus wrote: ↑Wed Jul 10, 2024 12:46 pmWhy are you reacting like this?Age wrote: ↑Wed Jul 10, 2024 12:43 pm
Once again, what 'we' have here is another prime example of another who makes claims, but when questioned and challenged over 'those claims' fails, absolutely, in providing absolutely any thing.
Other than, of course, some kind of attempt at ridicule and humiliation of 'another'.
When one cannot 'counter' 'the words' of 'another', then they, on a lot of occasions, attempt to 'attack' 'the other', instead. As can be clearly seen here, again, by 'this one'.
you are 'just agreeing' with 'what', exactly?Flannel Jesus wrote: ↑Wed Jul 10, 2024 12:46 pm I'm obviously just agreeing with you, in the days when this was written.
Special relativity is the theory that if an object is moving, its size appears to the observer to be different from its actual size... It says nothing at all about the nature of physical space...accelafine wrote: ↑Wed Jul 10, 2024 7:08 pm You could reword your question as 'what is 'special relativity' made of?' and that might put it into perspective.
He asked what 'spacetime' is made of.Cerveny wrote: ↑Wed Jul 10, 2024 9:14 pmSpecial relativity is the theory that if an object is moving, its size appears to the observer to be different from its actual size... It says nothing at all about the nature of physical space...accelafine wrote: ↑Wed Jul 10, 2024 7:08 pm You could reword your question as 'what is 'special relativity' made of?' and that might put it into perspective.