eh

That made no sense whatsoever.

Can you not read, or did you miss what Odenwald said below that?

You can also verify that space is a gravitational field with any cosmologist. The definitions you posted do not conflict this, nor do they conflict the fact that QM says there is no empty space. I've already gone over this drivel in another thread, and there is no reason to do so again.

Bob K

eh:

Bob K:eh:So long as you are willing to quote everyone else without challenging their conclusions by challenging and re-verifying their premises you will never understand what I am saying.

I see physics with a specific set of premises, and these premises, based entirely upon physical facts, lead me to conclusions which are different from the conclusions of other theorists, particularly, those you are quoting.

I found that the key element of the concept of time is the time-interval, the TI, and that there are two types of time-intervals, the variable time-interval, the VTI, used by Einstein, as he so stated, to formulate SR/GR, and the invariable time-interval, the ITI, which would be required for Newton’s conception of universal/absolute time, because it would provide the steady measurement of timepoints and therefore produce the observation/measurement of the steady flow of time,

I notice that you have not addressed the veracity of the Theory of Invariable Time-Intervals.

So, let me ask you directly:

1. What is time?
2. Are time-intervals important concepts for the concept of time?
3. Can time-intervals be classified as (A) variable time-intervals, as found in clocks in which their rates of operation/rates of functioning are affected by changes of velocity/gravity or as (B) invariable time-interval;s, ITIs, as found in clocks in which their rates of operation/functioning are not affected by changes of velocity/gravity, by either clocks which are motion-sensing and self-adjusting for sensed changes of motion or by clocks which are synchronized by radio signals?
4. How do VTIs in VTICs influence the formulation of SR/GR; how do ITIs in ITICs influence the formulation of SR/GR?

I envisioned a pure vacuum to be a space, a limited or unlimited volume totally devoid, empty, of matter/energy; matter/energy would thus contaminate a pure vacuum, causing it to be a partial vacuum for some theorists and a non-vacuum for me.

Space, absent the presence of matter/energy, is a pure vacuum. The volume of all of space has no limit, is unlimited, is infinite, is unbounded.

Structure, in physics, requires matter/energy. A pure vacuum has no matter/energy therefore a pure vacuum has no structure. Matter/energy = structure = no vacuum; no matter/energy = no structure = a pure vacuum.

I found that the presence of matter/energy is limited, not infinite.

This observation has been verified previously by The First Law of Thermodynamics: Matter/energy in a closed system is conserved; matter/energy cannot be destroyed, only changed in form, verified by E = mc2 and m = E/c2; the sum total of matter/energy in a closed system is a constant.

Although space is totally open because it has no physical limits, no boundaries, and has no structure, no matter/energy, is not comprised of matter/energy, matter/energy has a finite limit because it is closed, it is a closed system, there can be no more matter/energy which can be added to the matter/energy already present in space, and matter/energy already present in space cannot be taken away from itself (where would it go?), therefore, my conclusion is that the matter/energy present in space is a closed system and because matter/energy in a closed system is finite, is a finite quantity, is a finity, because the matter/energy present in all of space is a closed system, the matter/energy present in space is a finite quantity.

Let me ask you a direct question: Is the matter/energy present in space a closed system to which additional matter/energy cannot be added and from which matter/energy cannot be taken away?

Followup Question: If you claim that the matter/energy in space is not a closed system, then from where does the additional matter/energy that could be added come and to where does the matter/energy that can be taken away go?

A finite quantity cannot be infinitely extended on, or into, infinite space. If the matter/energy present in space, the total matter/energy of space which is a closed system, is not clumped together in one area of space, beyond which would be a pure vacuum, then it has to be ‘clumped’ into many areas of space, beyond which would pure vacuums, but there would not be an infinite number of these areas of space in which matter/energy would be present.

There are clumps of matter/energy suspended in space, but matter/energy is not extended infinitely into infinite space.

Gravity is a form of energy; it causes other forms of matter/energy to move. A gravitational field is therefore a form of energy, and energy field. As a form of energy/energy field, and, if not by any one else’s definition but by mine in OpPhys, a gravitational field is an energy field, comprised of matter/energy, and therefore is not space.

Bob K:eh:Here is the complete Odenwald quote:Odenwald has not shown that information is transmitted from one observer’s observation of the color of his marble, he has not shown what is the medium over which such information would travel, thus he has not shown any cause-and-effect relationship between/among things wherein information is transmitted, therefore there is no cause-and-effect wherein information is transmitted; the color of the marble selected by each observer was defined by their selection, and, once selected, the appearance of one color automatically and instantly means the other marble is of the other color.

Odenwald said this: “You, will know 'instantly' what the color of your partner's marble is, so some kind of information has traveled faster than the speed of light to FORCE your partners marble to be the opposite color.”

No information has traveled faster than light.

If Odenwald is being facetious herein he risks being taken literally and thus being condemned.

In discussions of theoreticals, it is generally a good idea to say what you mean so you eliminate, insofar as is possible, any possibilities of doubt and confusions.

Odenwald also said this: “There is clearly something else going on, but it doesn't have to be a physical process at all. It can just be the replacement of ignorance by enlightenment. These are informational qualities that have no physicality at all, and so they can 'travel' faster than light.”

In this paragraph he appears to be contradicting himself, not a good idea in discussing theoreticals.

So, you have a choice:

(A) Intelligence is transmitted faster than light:...or...

(B) There is something ‘going on’:Okay, what IS it?

eh;Now that you are attacking by means of using terms such as ‘drivel’ am I entitled to attack in turn?

Did you learn your deny/evade/obfuscate/attack tactics at the Joint Academy of Confused Knowledge, Obfuscations, and Fraudulent Facts?

I do not have any need to “...verify that space is a gravitational field with any cosmologist...” because space is not comprised of matter/energy, and, because a gravitational field is a form of mater/energy, therefore space cannot be and is not a gravitational field.

Structure requires matter/energy. Space has no structure, therefore it is not comprised of any form of matter/energy. By claiming that space is a gravitational field you are claiming that space has a structure, which, is clearly false, because space is a pure vacuum except for limited areas in which matter/energy is present.

You do not appear to understand that I AM challenging certain mysticisms of physics and I therefore do not accept certain claims, such as the concept of spacetime, which is blown apart by the concept of the invariable time-interval and its resurrection of universal/absolute time and the independence of universal/absolute time from space as facts of physics to be accounted for in theories of physics.

You do not appear to understand the fact that invariable time-intervals exist, at least intuitively, and for every VTIC being affected by changes of velocity/gravity an ITIC can be placed alongside and will continue to measure universal/absolute time.

Thus, because, once set into motion, ITICs measure the same universal/absolute time, there can be no time travel, there can be no limits to the existence/duration of space, time, or physics, no beginning of the universe, no ending of the universe, and if there were Big Bangs the matter/energy needed came from pre-existing matter/energy in pre-existing space from the time prior to the Bangs, and if there are Big Crunches, matter/energy will continue to exist/will not be destroyed in space, which itself will continue to exist, and in time, which will continue to exist, thus the universe will not be destroyed in a Crunch but will continue to exist forever, amen.

The physical falsity/non-verification that produces the silliness of statements which include phrases such as ‘the beginning of the universe’ or ‘the beginning of time’ etc. ought to be clear and obvious, since there has to be a pre-existing SOMETHING from which all other somethings follow, otherwise you would have somethings coming from nothings, which has never been observed in physics.

Mr. Sammi

Bob K said : You do not appear to understand that I AM challenging certain mysticisms of physics and I therefore do not accept certain claims, such as the concept of spacetime, which is blown apart by the concept of the invariable time-interval and its resurrection of universal/absolute time...

You are wrong again. The appearance of absolute time, will not change SR. It is an assumption which can be re-worded to be : in the absence of an absolute clock, the following mechanism will always work...

I think if you wanna work with physics, you should have a grip on the semantics.

Sammi Na Boodie ()

eh

And here you go again. Ranting on and on about what you think space is. Guess what Bob? We don't care. What you envision has nothing to do with the findings of modern science over the past 100 years. If you're going to challenge the premises of QM and GR, you better bring evidence. So far, you have done no such thing.

I have already addressed your nonsense in another thread, which you have failed to provide any support for. We aren't talking about time, since you haven't even supported your claims about space.

A perfect example is this:

Quote:

I do not have any need to “...verify that space is a gravitational field with any cosmologist...” because space is not comprised of matter/energy, and, because a gravitational field is a form of mater/energy, therefore space cannot be and is not a gravitational field.

And this has already shown to be false. Everything in the universe gravitates, and space is is just the gravitational field. And as I already pointed out, all fields posses a finite amount of energy in its ground state. Thus, no empty space.

Once again I must stress that no one is interested in hearing you rant on and on about what you think space is. Address the issues with evidence, or don't bother at all.

Bob K

Mr. Sammi

Bob K:Sammi:When you challenge the conclusions of a theory, you challenge its premises.

I have challenged the premises of SR/GR, which include the definition of time, which, for Einstein, was based upon a variable time-interval, and lead to conclusions such as the concept of spacetime and the dilation of time; no one has considered the possibility of an invariable time-interval and what it would do the SR/GR, and the concept of spacetime, and the principle of time-dilation, and the fact is that when the invariable time-interval is used for the definition of time then time does not dilute and therefore time becomes independent of space and therefore the concept of spacetime becomes invalid.

I notice in all Replies no one has addressed the Theory of Invariable Time-Intervals and what conclusions have to be made when invariable time-intervals are substituted for variable time-intervals.

Bob K

eh

eh:Bob K:eh:When you are presented with reasoned evidence for my challenges of the premises of SR/GR you deny/evade/obfuscate/attack and do not refute the reasoning.

You obviously do not understand thermodynamics and the First Law of Thermodynamics. The concept of a closed system is clearly a mystery to you. The fact that in a closed system the sum total of matter/energy is a constant and therefore a finite number because matter/energy cannot be added not taken away from a closed system is a fact you refuse to address.

The fact that structure requires matter/energy means nothing to you. The fact that matter/energy (which includes gravitational fields) and therefore structure cannot be space is beyond your ability to comprehend.

By far the most obvious sign of the weakness of your arguments lies in this simple fact: You do not address my questions.

Because you refuse to address the questions I have asked, dialogue with you is useless. And is best ended.

eh

Actually, I have yet to see you actually formulate an argument against the concept of space in GR. I honestly haven't even read your arguments about time, since we're still being held up on space.

In fact, I have addressed this numerous times, but you seem incapable of reading. The first law of thermodynamics has absolutely nothing to do with space. Energy is conserved, but energy density is not. You seem to think that a universe with a finite amount of energy expanding forever is absurd. But I have also pointed out several times that finite universes eventually collapse, and do not expand forever. Why is this so hard for you to understand?

For the thousandth time, what you define as space does not exist anywhere in our universe!

Read this carefully Bob, because I won't say it again. Everything in the universe gravitates. And so there are gravitational waves running about throughout that vast distance between galaxies. Thus space is another name for the gravitational field. From quantum mechanics we know that fields have a non zero energy ground state, and this applies to spacetime as well. You seem to think the uncertainty principle is just a problem with our ability to measure a system. This is not so.

From http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/uncer.html

....This is not a statement about the inaccuracy of measurement instruments, nor a reflection on the quality of experimental methods; it arises from the wave properties inherent in the quantum mechanical description of nature. Even with perfect instruments and technique, the uncertainty is inherent in the nature of things.

As result, the vacuum you describe as space is physically impossible in our universe. You have not been able to address this point, and it alone refutes your entire argument about space.

In actual fact, I have answered all of your relevent questions (we aren't talking about time) and provided explanations as to why your claims are wrong. But because you simply repeat yourself over and over again about what you think space should be, you have avoided any detailed discussions.

If you want to carry on with an actual discussion, you are going to have to address the point about gravity and QM. Both theories have mountains of experimental evidence, and the findings from both completely refute your claims.

Wyz_sub10

You cannot arbitrarily make such a substitution and then say it changes the picture.

I could easily say "no one has considered what evolutionary steps may have occurred if we subsitute stomachs for gullets in proto-humans."

The above statement is fair...except that I haven't demonstrated why we should consider that substitution.

This is what I haven't seen from your argument - you seem to begin with the premise that time has no real meaning and can be defined in a variety of ways. I don't think you can *begin* with the premise and build on it. You need to demonstrate *why* your measurement of time can be substituted in Einstein's theories.

And to be honest, your definition of space is not compatible with what is currently known. Again, if you want to challenge that definition you will have to do so beyond trying to do so based on what "makes sense".

Boro Nut

I'm a bit dissapointed that it seems to be the same old questions over and over again. Why doesn't anyone ask new questions like 'How heavy is time? What would happen if it fell on your head?' or 'How long does gravity take?' I'd be interested then.

Boro Nut

wally

I always thought time was invented by Mother Nature to keep everything from happening all at once.