infinite space

Time.

Another aether and flogiston man...Bravo!Have we found your 'level'.[This message has been edited by V-Bird, 03-24-2004]

quote:

---

You fail, but keep trying...

---

Why act so cruelly?
Crashfrog has concieved valid arguments, yet you bash him. Please.

---

The earth is flat.

I have to say that I concur with V-bird in this case. Space-time is an abstraction that we create in our minds from our points of view relative to things in reality. It has no substance. It has no external reality. It's a coordinate system that we use to affix references to the substantial things we experience.

That's not cruel, that's life.CF, I'll try to be kinder to you... promise.

That Sir, makes you the owner of a fine and alert mind. >doffs cap in respect<

I simply don't believe that's the view of science. Spacetime is a very real participant in interactions in the universe. It's not just an empty stage for matter and energy.

I honestly couldn't give a damn. We're well past the point where I care about your opinion of me, or on any other subject for that matter.

It is the view of every 'higher' scientist I have ever encountered.It is not 'common currency' simply because the 'common man' would have so much difficulty comprehending it, it seems odd even to someone as 'smart' as you, imagine this fact being announced to the 'great unwashed'... Scientists have a hard time as it is, this one even hurts the moderately endowed 'intellectual'.

OUCH!!![This message has been edited by V-Bird, 03-24-2004]

I believe that physicists treat it as what's called a "tensor field," and the analogy of an empty stage for the play of matter and energy I think is quite apt. See tensors defined here. As you'll read, they are simply geometric constructs. Geometric constructs have mathematical reality, but as such they are abstractions, meaning we build them up in our minds according to what and how we observe material reality behaving relative to us and itself. Basically the abstraction process is a continuous "measuring" of everything's postion and velocity relative to yourself and the rest of the universe. Measurements are observations, and observations only exist in the minds of observers.[This message has been edited by ::, 03-24-2004]

Please enlighten me v-bird. I see time as (1) an arbitrary measure of (2) a real dimension. I agree it is interpreted as abstract, yet is measurable. Dimensions of "space" eg. distance, are also real? They both may not be energy nor matter, but their "effect" is measurable?

Hi, V-Bird! I think you have me confused with someone else. Your time topic isn't one I've participated in.The style of discussion you've embarked upon is actually more appropriate for Free For All, or perhaps Coffee House. I have another identity here: AdminWe try to push non-serious discussion off to those other forums. If you'd like to engage more constructively, then please continue. Otherwise, I think we'd prefer you confine your activities to the other forums.--Percy

Admin or not, we were having a discussion about the entire space-time fallacy in the thread you linked here... the only place I think I can reply is in here.I was trying in this thread to point out that there are 2 'types' of 'outer-space' hence my first post here title 'nomenclature'.There is a huge difference between the 2, one is finite, the other is not, one is in our realm, where we can [eventually] explore, the other will NEVER be part of our domain.This may seem 'hard' to comprehend, indeed it is, but because you or others cannot see this plain fact it does not mean that it is not serious or in some way falacious.To discuss infinite space means that by its' very nature that it will be challenging to the giving tenets of thought, many will think they have a grasp of the idea, ie 'it goes on forever' but is merely a gloss, to really understand you need to 'see' that, big as the Universe is, it remains and will always be finite.This is why I posted 'nomenclature'.Your intrusion into this thread with the 'this guy's not serious' type post with links back to the 'free for all' only serves to show how hard it is to grasp.Our discussion there should have remained there, it is you that has brought the link and posted here, I have merely responded in the only place where such a link can be re-butted, where it is read.I do hope this post clears this up.I did not link one thread to another, it was you.You took the thread 'off-topic' or diverted itThis is your post in >free for all>time machine isn't it? The strong force, the weak force and gravity are not different forms of expression of EMR. The strong force binds the particles of atomic nuclei together. The weak force is responsible for radioactive decay. Gravity is an expression of mass. EMR is photons.--PercyUnless you have a 'doppleganger' that is you isn't it?

I'm no physics expert, but unless I'm mistaken spacetime is simply a fourth coordinate, time, added to the three spatial coordinates. It is indeed abstract, but it's still existential and concrete, if only because it provides a description of existence and provides a value which can be reliably used to perform calculations.Or am I totally, hopelessly confused? It's been decades since I've studied any of this.