How Can real energy 'permeate space-time', when space-time is just maths construct?

Is 'space-time' an abstract mathematical/geometrical modeling construct or not? Just answer that unambiguously yes/no first so you can start from there for the next step in your logic/answer. Thanks.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Space/time is the Universe.....
If one isn't real, neither is the other.
In fact, you could logically as I often do, refer to it as the "Space/time/Universe"
Just as real as you are unfortunately undefined.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

What are you going on about? Since the 'spacetime' is an abstract maths/geometric modeling construct, how does the universe 'know' that that is what it's supposed to comply with in reality? Get a grip and stop making non-sequitur jumps to conclusions which are NOT logically evidenced by the universal reality FIRST before your Johnny-come-lately human abstractions pretend to 'lay down the law' to that pre-existing universal reality, hey?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

No, it's not just an abstract thingy...
It's been measured, we have extracted energy from it, [Casimir effect] it also is pervaded with what we call DE/CC, it can twist, warp, curve, turn, and be set in motion in the form of gravitational radiation.
Really undefined, you seem to be sinking further and further into the mirky muddy depths of pseudo-quackery...We do have a section for that. This is for science, and realistic supported scientific ideas.

 

No no. The real PHYSICAL entity/mechanism thing is 'energy-space' (not 'spacetime') in which and from which all comes. The 'time' abstraction is from the 'energy' part, and that energy is already included as the real thing in the energy balance/content appearing/active in the Casimir setup energy-space processes. You have to drop the facile 'explanations' from abstract modeling and just concentrate on the real empirically determinable entities/mechanisms and processes of energy-space at play in any situation under study. Good luck.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

PS: Before you kneejerk on that, remember that QM effectively posits 'Vacuum-Energy' universal physical substrate in which and from which and back to which everything comes and evolve and subsides. When that 'Vacuum-Energy" QM concept is looked at via my ToE complete perspective, it effectively boils down to Energy-Space. So QM is closer to the real things than purely abstract math/geometry 'space-time' concept from Relativity model.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

You actually just disqualify yourself undefined by using made-up, sound-a- like unused scientific jargon.
Enough said.
When you are able to align with standard scientific vocabulary, we can proceed.

 

Did you read the PS to that post? It will tell you that I am much more real in my terms than you have been.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

You think so?

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Forum observational evidence says otherwise.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

What "forum observational evidence" are you on about? This is facts posted to you which you have not taken in, obviously....

So what do you say to that, paddo? Do you even understand the content thrust and import of that taken together in context so far? Please indicate you have some 'handle' on the meaning of that at least. Thanks.

 

It can't. Space-time is an abstract mathematical space in which motion does not occur. You can draw world-lines in it to represent motion through space over time, but there's no moving in or through spacetime. It's static.

One could say that energy pervades space, but IMHO that doesn't quite go far enough. In gravity works like this I gave an analogy:

Imagine it’s like some gin-clear ghostly elastic jelly, then you insert a hypodermic needle and inject more jelly to represent the mass-energy of the Earth. The surrounding jelly is pressed outwards rather than being pulled inwards.

The "jelly" represents both space and energy. It would seem that at the fundamental level, they are two aspects of the same thing.

 

I chose to write it this way because the OP fancies himself to be a philosopher who hopes one day to say something about math and/or physics. But unlike him, I phrased my thoughts fairly straightforwardly. Unfortunately, I still took more than 5 words to answer so he didn't parse the post in the way English speakers with a college reading level would. Here is the last two paragraphs shorter for an audience that adopts empiricism without the need for elaborate discussion of the epistemology at the heart of the scientific method:

... because if there is no practical test between one way of expressing an empirical accepted provisional truth and a perfect conspiracy of physical law to simulate that statement, knowledge of behavior is most parsimoniously codified as knowledge of identity. Thus space-time is as provisionally true as long as General Relativity (or a successor theory also founded on space-time) is empirically confirmed as the best generalization of related physical phenomena.
Thank you Russ_Watters, and I apologize if you thought I left important things unsaid. Do you think your position differs from the position I expressed in any significant way?

Indeed, in math or philosophical discussion, it is important to clearly say what one means and to lay out definitions and tests for distinguishing between cases so that the essence of one's thought is clearly communicated. The OP doesn't seem to be working with the same definitions as the rest of us.

This was my conclusion as well.

 

I did. Twice now. You should go back and reread my responses (particularly my first) if you are having trouble. It's amazing: it seems like because you think in long strings of gibberish, you can't understand a simple, concise answer!

 

I think we are on the same page.

 

I love the philosophy of physics, but I hate bad philosophy of physics.

Every time someone writes something down, they use abstract concepts. So any physics done by actual physical creatures will describe the universe with abstract concepts.

So unless the OP is declaring that all physics is simply fantasy, then the rhetorical point of the OP is moot.

 

But never, ever, anything specific about how any physical system operates. Which is why Farsight is a crank and he probably shouldn't be allowed to post in this section.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Double-slit_experiment#Interpretations_of_the_experiment

"Interpretations of the experiment". Interpretations with an 's'.

There can only be one correct interpretation of what occurs physically in nature and that is the particle travels through a single slit and the associated wave in the aether passes through both.

 

Do you understand the ripple created when galaxy clusters collide is a gravitational wave?

 

Do you not understand what a supersolid is? If you roll a bowling ball through a supersolid the bowling ball will roll forever through the supersolid.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bullet_Cluster

"Gravitational lensing studies of the Bullet Cluster are claimed to provide the best evidence to date for the existence of dark matter.[3][4] At a statistical significance of 8σ, it was found that the spatial offset of the center of the total mass from the center of the baryonic mass peaks cannot be explained with an alteration of the gravitational force law.[5] However, this interpretation of the gravitational lensing results is disputed, see below. Observations of other galaxy cluster collisions, such as MACS J0025.4-1222, also show significant displacement between their center of visible matter and their gravitational potential."

The offset is caused by the galaxy clusters moving through and displacing the aether.

 

If you can't show how this is the case with math, then you are merely producing fantasy.

 

All: what rpenner has said here is wrong. There's nothing wrong with General Relativity. But space-time is not something real. As I said it's static. There is no motion in it. See wikipedia. It says this:

"In physics, spacetime (also space–time, space time or space–time continuum) is any mathematical model that combines space and time into a single interwoven continuum".

It's a mathematical model. And the map is not the territory.