What Exactly Is Spacetime? Find Out Inside

originally posted by: AnarchoCapitalist
Even the clowns on Wiki admit that, "it is not possible to distinguish between LET [Lorentz Relativity] and SR by experiment."

How do you get "Lorentz Relativity" out of LET?

Googling "LET" I get "Linear energy transfer."



(You didn't link to your Wikipedia quotes.)

a reply to: Mary Rose

Lorentz Ether Theory.

Also known as LET.

Also known as Lorentz Relativity.

Also known as LR.

a reply to: AnarchoCapitalist


When I digg into things like this I have to look at nature for answers ..

Let's take the ocean for example ..

If I think of space being like the ocean , in the ocean we have matter floating around in water and we know its a partical ..

I apply that same concept to space and boom we have mater floating around in an ocean of dark mater .. That we have yet to discover.

I dono that's how I picture it anyway...

Thoughts?

a reply to: AnarchoCapitalist

Oh!



Bring back the ether.

How do you explain back holes?

originally posted by: PhoenixOD
How do you explain back holes?

There are no black holes.

There are only plasma z-pinches.

The observed concentration of energy is better explained by a plasma pinch. No hypothetical objects required.

Peratt showed how this was possible using PIC simulations and lab observations, and before that, Alfven predicted double radio sources before they were even discovered based on his experience with plasma pinches.

Oh by the way, Peratt was able to replicate galactic formations and rotational velocities without any dark matter in his PIC simulations.

No black holes, no dark matter, perfect replication of observation.

I think space-time does have properties. How else would one explain length contraction?

as a side note. that picture in OP post is wrong. You can not explain (show) gravity using gravity)))

cheers. Great thread.

originally posted by: darkorange
I think space-time does have properties. How else would one explain length contraction?

as a side note. that picture in OP post is wrong. You can not explain (show) gravity using gravity)))

cheers. Great thread.

Ah, but length contraction is a property of matter, not space.

Space does not contract.

originally posted by: AnarchoCapitalist

originally posted by: darkorange
I think space-time does have properties. How else would one explain length contraction?

as a side note. that picture in OP post is wrong. You can not explain (show) gravity using gravity)))

cheers. Great thread.

Ah, but length contraction is a property of matter, not space.

Space does not contract.

Matter is in space. Obeying its geometry layout.

originally posted by: AnarchoCapitalist
. . . PIC . . .

Particle in cell?

Science can only measure space within our galaxies gravity well. For that matter we only can measure all physics and how they work within our own suns gravity well. When you leave these areas, physics may be completely different or modified. We do not know how far out gravity effects space. In between gravity wells may indeed just be pure vacuum or something we have no clue about yet. There may not be quantum physics as we know it when you leave areas in the void under the effects associated with gravity wells.

Light should travel faster when not being effected by gravity. I am not saying it travels faster than the current speed limit but it should be at its fastest in absolute zero gravity. Dies light leaving the sun accelerate once it leaves the effects of the suns gravity? the galaxies gravity? Or is it permanently slowed by the initial drag of gravity?

We think we know how far distant galaxies are by measuring the light but if physics are different on light in between galaxies then it is possible the galaxies are much closer than we think if light accelerates once it leaves the confines of a gravity well and it may even speed up when moving inward toward center of a gravity well like the sun or center of a galaxy. Has science calculated all that in their measurements?

If light can be bent it certainly can be slowed as its the same thing is it not?

When you talk of time slowing when traveling fast are you not really just saying particles and atoms decay slower? I mean if I leave earth and travel at speed of light and come back people on earth will have aged more than I. That has to mean traveling slows the interactions of the particles and atoms that make up what I am no?

originally posted by: Mary Rose

originally posted by: AnarchoCapitalist
. . . PIC . . .

Particle in cell?

Pilot in command

a reply to: Xeven

We can measure the orbits of exoplanets and successfully predict those orbits using what we know about gravity, so it seems (from what we can tell) that gravity isn't different out there.

a reply to: Xeven

Light should travel faster when not being effected by gravity. I am not saying it travels faster than the current speed limit but it should be at its fastest in absolute zero gravity. Dies light leaving the sun accelerate once it leaves the effects of the suns gravity? the galaxies gravity? Or is it permanently slowed by the initial drag of gravity?

I dont think gravity slows down light but it does change its relative path by curving space time.

originally posted by: PhoenixOD
a reply to: Xeven

Light should travel faster when not being effected by gravity. I am not saying it travels faster than the current speed limit but it should be at its fastest in absolute zero gravity. Dies light leaving the sun accelerate once it leaves the effects of the suns gravity? the galaxies gravity? Or is it permanently slowed by the initial drag of gravity?

I dont think gravity slows down light but it does change its relative path by curving space time.

Space has no properties that can act upon matter. Any observed refraction of light in space is not caused by bending space. Most likely it is caused by self-focusing plasma effects. These effects are well known, and they are never taken into account by astrophysicists when they come up with their absurd theories of bending nothing doing something.

AnarchoCapitalist, I’m glad you brought up this subject. I’ve thought many times about doing it myself, but you’ve done it in a much more intelligent and fluid manner than I could have.

Over the years our popular literature and media have created a number of misconceptions surrounding certain areas of science. It wasn’t so much a matter of intentionally misleading the public, but more of an attempt to make some very difficult concepts more understandable for the average Joe. Unfortunately, though, these misconceptions have become so ingrained in our perception of reality that it’s nearly impossible for many of us to shake them. Discarding some of these notions is a common problem faced by many undergraduate math and physics students.

There are a couple misconceptions I read and hear all the time that I’d like to try and clear up. I believe the following are consistent with current scientific thinking:

1. The Nature of Space
Space, in and of itself, is only a geometric volume. It has no physical properties or energy to be warped, twisted, stretched, curved, etc. Statements about “curved space”, etc are misleading in that it implies space has some set of physical properties of it’s own. Space is simply the geometric volume which contains the existing energy/mass of the universe. To say that space expands only means that the volume has increased.

2. Space in Terms of General Relativity
How particles and forces influence each other are expressed mathematically as geometric relationships, describing how the particles, etc being measured occupy the volume of space. When GR uses the term “space-time curvature”, it’s describing how gravity influences the matter residing in space and not that space itself has a curvature. GR is strictly a theory of geometry and does not state that space has a fabric or substance or any other physical property. It describes how objects interact with each other by changing their geometric distribution within space-time.

Just my 2 cents. Great thread...

a reply to: AnarchoCapitalist

Space has no properties that can act upon matter.

Light is not matter as it has no rest mass.

As a kid I enjoyed those popular science magazines.

I remember very well how it was always portrayed how mass "bends space", and one example given was that of satellites which orbit Earth because of the shape of space-time, the bent/warped space-time around Earth.

This rather false idea about the "bent space" kept with me MANY years.

Truth is, a satellite stays up because it moves 'forward' following the curvature of Earth at a certain speed. (It's basically falling, but always "missing", it's falling AROUND Earth.) If a satellite or space station would not orbit at a certain speed it would simply fall straight down. I was shocked to learn that, seriously. Talk about misleading popular science literature...

originally posted by: NoRulesAllowed
Truth is, a satellite stays up because it moves 'forward' following the curvature of Earth at a certain speed. (It's basically falling, but always "missing", it's falling AROUND Earth.) ...

Yeah, but as the theory goes, the reason why the satellites are falling toward the earth is because of the way the Earth creates a dimple/bend in the fabric of space...

i.e., Earth creates a gravity well, and the satellites in orbit are falling into it (albeit, as you mentioned, their sideways momentum is allowing them to perpetually miss the Earth as they fall generally toward it).


EDIT TO ADD VIDEO:
So, as the theory goes, this video is still a valid representation of how satellites orbit the earth (the satellites being the marbles, and the Earth being the "well" in the rubber fabric):


As for what you describe about the satellites falling with sidesway momentum, thus missing the earth to acheive a stable orbit around earth, what you are describing is a thought experiment known as "Newton's Cannon":

Newton's Cannon

a reply to: Soylent Green Is People

The video is an absurdity.

Space has no properties that can act upon matter, so using a bending sheet as an analogy is simply spreading a religious belief.

NoRulesAllowed correctly identified how the orbital process works. The lack of friction in space allows an object to perpetually fall around the Earth.