The Rainbow of Spacetime:[More evidence spacetime is real]

[dumbest man on earth]

In actual fact most of what you say is a mistake, as is obvious to most, you are driven by other factors.
Your usual "pop science"cop out also adds to the comedy of errors you make.
Let me say again, that all links and articles basically say the same thing, despite your "Hilbert Space" mention:
I revel in real science and I'm not a professional. Your posts actually reflect something entirely different to anything professional also.
On that score, your non professionalism, as reflected in your posts has been evidenced over most of my 2.5 years on this forum. [or thereabouts: I'll leave you to give us the exact figure ]
We do though obviously have a few professionals on this forum...rpenner being one, Aid another, and of course another old sparring partner of yours who also had to put up with the incoherency in your posts, Trippy,one of the mods we havn't seen for a while.

Yo do what you like my friend, it does not affect me in the least.
It's interesting to note though, that what you deem as adhoms, is just deserved criticism of the actions and meanings of your own posts.
The article itself is evidence that it supports the reality of spacetime. Add that to the other obvious facts about spacetime, and the case for its reality is strong.
On your request for evidence for your barow you are pushing, I'll leave that one as I'm sure that is obvious to most on this forum that are familiar with your antics, including the mods.

Don't be so naive. The article was presenting a quantum method of revealing spacetime for what it is. It was not concerned with the question that we are discussing on this forum now.
Obviously though, like the god, the fact that you reject the BB...or is that really you do not accept the BB? , is evident that you certainly have an agenda to misrepresent cosmology whenever you can, particularly of course when your's truly is pushing the "science barrow"
Perhaps, as usual, you took that the wrong way...I'm speaking of questions with an agenda behind them, questions that are not genuine in acquiring an answer to gain knowledge, but questions that are designed to attempt to deride and treat with scorn......much as most of our anti science cranks are apt to do.
Not really: just valid criticism of errors and stupidity in your posts.

You are the one that suddenly decides to take offence at a few
I find it rather funny [funny peculiar, not funny haha] how any level headed person could misconstrue something that has been evident since the new forum format came into vogue
I'm learning all the time, you?
But first you must have a parachute....or a mind.
And dmoe, obviously you will reply, so I'll let you have that for free, OK?

So...you have no idea what "Hilbert Space" is, and apparently fail to fully understand the actual Real Science behind the "Pop-Science" articles you "Copy/Paste"...?
Yet... you are wont to "deride and treat with scorn" any and all that exhibit True knowledge and understanding of Real Science?

 

[paddoboy]

Ignoring the nonsense and posting the relevant paper...............................
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0370269315008023
Rainbow metric from quantum gravity
As is patently obvious, all links/papers are saying the same thing, which just adds to the already overwhelming amount of evidence that spacetime is real.

Perhaps as mentioned previously, those troubled with that fact, need to define what they believe as real:
Of course something real does not need to be physical.
Oh the pain of it all! And such ignorance from those that pretend to be otherwise with their continued pretentious nonsense, claims and trolling!

 

[dumbest man on earth]

Ignoring the nonsense and posting the relevant paper...............................
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0370269315008023
Rainbow metric from quantum gravity
As is patently obvious, all links/papers are saying the same thing, which just adds to the already overwhelming amount of evidence that spacetime is real.

" Abstract - In this Letter, we describe a general mechanism for emergence of a rainbow metric from a quantum cosmological model. ... In deriving this result, we do not consider any specific theory of quantum gravity: the qualitative behaviour of high-energy particles on quantum spacetime relies only on the assumption that the quantum spacetime is described by a wave-function Ψo in a Hilbert space HG."
-And : "In this Letter, we put forward such a proposal. In Section 1, we provide a mechanism for emergence of cosmological spacetime from quantum cosmology in complete generality (we only require gravitational degree of freedom to be described in terms of a state Ψo in a Hilbert space HG, and to be “heavy” compared to the matter degrees of freedom in the Born–Oppenheimer sense)."
- Both of the ^^above in "quotes"^^ are from "Rainbow metric from quantum gravity" , by Mehdi Assanioussi, Andrea Dapor and Jerzy Lewandowski , which is available to be accessed and actually read at this Link :
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0370269315008023
So..do you suppose that it "is patently obvious" that you may just possibly be misinterpreting the content of the Linked article at Physics Letters B ?
I Posted these Two Very Relevant "quotes" from the Abstract, so that you may re-read them.
You should take note of how the Authors Clearly State the Terms : "quantum cosmological model" ; "the assumption that the quantum spacetime is described by a wave-function Ψo in a Hilbert space HG." ; "(we only require gravitational degree of freedom to be described in terms of a state Ψo in a Hilbert space HG, and to be “heavy” compared to the matter degrees of freedom in the Born–Oppenheimer sense)."

paddoboy, much could be learned by researching and trying to fully understand what the Authors are Stating with those words/terms.

Perhaps as mentioned previously, those troubled with that fact, need to define what they believe as real:
Of course something real does not need to be physical.
Oh the pain of it all! And such ignorance from those that pretend to be otherwise with their continued pretentious nonsense, claims and trolling!

paddoboy, odd the you state "And such ignorance from those that pretend to be otherwise..." when it is you that opened your Post by Stating the Claim,or possibly even Bragging of your own "such ignorance"...
To Wit :

Ignoring the nonsense and posting the relevant paper...............................

Please, paddoboy, would you be so kind as to Properly Cite True Evidence of this Alleged "continued pretentious nonsense, claims and trolling!" ?
After all, paddoboy, James R Posted the following in the Sciforums site rules : "Trolls tend to follow certain patterns of behaviour that may include : Avoiding giving answers to direct questions put to them."
- the ^^above in "quotes"^^ from : http://www.sciforums.com/threads/sciforums-site-rules.142880/

So...paddoboy, you will of course give answers to the "direct questions put to" you...will you not?

 

[paddoboy]

Of course also gravitational lensing is evidence for curved spacetime, and as a consequence, the reality of spacetime.
Light follows geodesical paths:
Gravitational lensing is an indication of curved spacetime.
Along with all the other evidence of spacetime like GP-B, the reality of such is overwhelming.

Just to add to that mountain of evidence, we also have

https://www.mpg.de/9314980/black-hole-gravitational-lens

Looking at a distant galaxy: The radio chart (left) shows the image of the blazar PKS 1830-211 distorted by the gravitational lens effect. The detail on the right is a simulation of the micro-gravitational lens effect in the gamma ray region; direct observation of the orange ring – it also represents images of the blazar – is not possible due to its small size.
""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""
And hundreds of observations of such lensing effects are evident.

Space time most certainly exists in reality: It's why we have time [which stops everything from happening together] It's why we have space [it stops everything from being together] [Not withstanding the usual philosophical argument by the usual philosophical mob on the definition of "real"]
The mistake being made by our philosophical bunch, is that they believe something needs to be physical to be real. Spacetime is certainly not a physical thing, but it is just as certainly real for the stated reasons. As real as is time, and as real as is space.

Maths is simply the language of physics: GR Gravity confirms spacetime: Gravitational lensing indicate curved and warped spacetime.
Spacetime is valid because when we change its geometry, we get variations of gravity: Spacetime is valid, because the fact that light travelling in geodesics, has shown a curvature with gravitational lensing:

This article in question, all of the articles in question, just add more to that reality.

 

[paddoboy]

Light exists as a reality, and we explain it with photons and wave duel nature.
Spacetime exists also most certainly as reality, and we explain it with gravity when mass is present. We see and feel both space and time [henceforth known as spacetime]
Although Einstein did originally reject this Minkowski idea of spacetime as real, he did quickly change his mind on the subject.......

My following often mentioned quotation by Professor Odenwald is worth raising again.......
What is a space time continuum?
In 1906, soon after Albert Einstein announced his special theory of relativity, his former college teacher in mathematics, Hermann Minkowski, developed a new scheme for thinking about space and time that emphasized its geometric qualities. In his famous quotation delivered at a public lecture on relativity, he announced that,

"The views of space and time which I wish to lay before you have sprung from the soil of experimental physics, and therein lies their strength. They are radical. henceforth, space by itself, and time by itself, are doomed to fade away into mere shadows, and only a kind of union of the two will preserve an independent reality."

This new reality was that space and time, as physical constructs, have to be combined into a new mathematical/physical entity called 'space-time', because the equations of relativity show that both the space and time coordinates of any event must get mixed together by the mathematics, in order to accurately describe what we see. Because space consists of 3 dimensions, and time is 1-dimensional, space-time must, therefore, be a 4-dimensional object. It is believed to be a 'continuum' because so far as we know, there are no missing points in space or instants in time, and both can be subdivided without any apparent limit in size or duration. So, physicists now routinely consider our world to be embedded in this 4-dimensional Space-Time continuum, and all events, places, moments in history, actions and so on are described in terms of their location in Space-Time.

Space-time does not evolve, it simply exists. When we examine a particular object from the stand point of its space-time representation, every particle is located along its world-line. This is a spaghetti-like line that stretches from the past to the future showing the spatial location of the particle at every instant in time. This world-line exists as a complete object which may be sliced here and there so that you can see where the particle is located in space at a particular instant. Once you determine the complete world line of a particle from the forces acting upon it, you have 'solved' for its complete history. This world-line does not change with time, but simply exists as a timeless object. Similarly, in general relativity, when you solve equations for the shape of space-time, this shape does not change in time, but exists as a complete timeless object. You can slice it here and there to examine what the geometry of space looks like at a particular instant. Examining consecutive slices in time will let you see whether, for example, the universe is expanding or not.
""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""

When we couple that with the observed GR facts such as time dilation, length contraction as variables, gravitational lensing observations, and culminating with the GP-B experiment, spacetime is certainly legitimately described as real...as real as any other entity like a magnetic field, or gravity, or even light.

I repeat, with some additional remarks.......
Perhaps as mentioned previously, those troubled with that fact, need to define what they believe as real:
Of course something real does not need to be physical.
Oh the pain of it all! And such ignorance from those that pretend to be otherwise with their continued pretentious nonsense, claims and trolling!
There are many reasons for this...religiously inspired overtones, due to the fact that science has pushed back into the dark corners, any need for any deity, the general anti science crank, just for the sale of it, or with an inbuilt hatred for regulated society, and those that believe they know more than our recognised professionals, yet spend their time and days on a remote sliver of cyber space, trying to convince a narrow band of mainstream [the members] as to what they believe themselves, hindered by the aforementioned reasons.
Devalue, invalidate or deride science any which way they can is their mission in life...a forlorn mission though it be.
Understandable though when one realises it's only forums such as this, that are their outlets.
A shame.

 

[paddoboy]

Paddoboy, This pointer is only and only for you..

In that GL thread you are maintaining (of course without understanding the concept) that lensing is achromatic, while refraction is chromatic....Chromatic is actually dispersion of white light into rainbow colors, so why are you taking contradictory stand ? Would you like to go ahead with achromatic nature of spacetime or you would as per your understanding of this pop science article go ahead with chromatic (rainbow) spacetime ?? You have to drop one, which one you wish to ?

Your understanding of the article, is as usual flawed: Just as was your thread that was moved to pseudoscience and the reason why your partner in crime has so many threads in cesspool. Worth considering.
But again this has all been explained to you before, yet you continue with your unsupported, unevidenced nonsense, which you refuse to back up with links or references.
You are again confused:
Light is chromatic: Gravitational Lensing as achromatic:
It's as simple as that.
https://books.google.com.au/books?id=zmibz6iX-ukC&pg=PA88&lpg=PA88&dq=gravitational lensing and chromatic and achromatic&source=bl&ots=qqzcul5FVO&sig=Sv_kBwkiJFJwNUAp-aXk74obTYk&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwj2hvHblrfKAhXIEpQKHbVMAQAQ6AEIKTAB#v=onepage&q=gravitational lensing and chromatic and achromatic&f=false


http://www.das.uchile.cl/~mhamuy/courses/AS42B/refsdal94.pdf


Now my old friend, as I have told you before, and I'll keep telling you for as long as you keep up with the intellectual dishonesty.
[1] You have nothing that is not already known.
[2]It is not a problem and can be sorted out quite accurately.
[3] If it was a problem, you would not be here.
[4] You are not convincing anyone, nor are you changing anything.
[5]The cosmology world proceeds as per normal, oblivious to your religiously driven anti science nonsense.

 

[Schmelzer]

Of course also gravitational lensing is evidence for curved spacetime, and as a consequence, the reality of spacetime.
Light follows geodesical paths:
Gravitational lensing is an indication of curved spacetime.
Along with all the other evidence of spacetime like GP-B, the reality of such is overwhelming.

Except that it all this is evidence only for the Einstein equations of GR, the mathematics, but not for its interpretation.

The ether interpretation of the GR equations does not have a four-dimensional animal named "curved spacetime" but only a three-dimensional ether which changes in time, which has inner stress. But the equations are the same as for GR, thus, no difference also in the empirical predictions for gravitational lensing or GP-B and so on. Thus, such tests cannot distinguish which of the interpretations is the better one.

 

[paddoboy]

Except that it all this is evidence only for the Einstein equations of GR, the mathematics, but not for its interpretation.

The ether interpretation of the GR equations does not have a four-dimensional animal named "curved spacetime" but only a three-dimensional ether which changes in time, which has inner stress. But the equations are the same as for GR, thus, no difference also in the empirical predictions for gravitational lensing or GP-B and so on. Thus, such tests cannot distinguish which of the interpretations is the better one.

You accused me the other day of repeated accusations: Yet you continue in at least three threads, pushing your same superfluous invalidated unevidenced ether time after time after time.
So let me repeat again, the agenda you so obviously are burdened with, leads me to treat your reasoning with the contempt it deserves.

 

[Schmelzer]

You accused me the other day of repeated accusations: Yet you continue in at least three threads, pushing your same superfluous invalidated unevidenced ether time after time after time.
So let me repeat again, the agenda you so obviously are burdened with, leads me to treat your reasoning with the contempt it deserves.

Of course, if I see the same error repeated many times, I can correct it one time and leave the repetitions of the error unanswered. But to repeat the correction of the error is nonetheless quite normal behavior, and, in fact, such a repetition will end if the error which originates it is no longer repeated.

So I think a repeated error correction is something different than a repetition of completely off-topic remarks, like your remarks about how often my papers have been cited. Given that I have never made any claims about the number of citations, there is nothing which can motivate this repetition.

You can treat my reasoning as you like, but if you make false claims, and I'm not too bored, I may correct them. You have a simple way to avoid such repetitions - not to repeat your errors. By the way, there is nothing "invalidated" in my corrections of your errors.

 

[paddoboy]

Of course, if I see the same error repeated many times, I can correct it one time and leave the repetitions of the error unanswered. But to repeat the correction of the error is nonetheless quite normal behavior, and, in fact, such a repetition will end if the error which originates it is no longer repeated.

Yes, just as normal as me reminding all forum members of your obsession and agenda with your ether baby, and the relevant facts that it lingers, uncited dying a lingering death.

So I think a repeated error correction is something different than a repetition of completely off-topic remarks, like your remarks about how often my papers have been cited. Given that I have never made any claims about the number of citations, there is nothing which can motivate this repetition.

You are rather good at fabricating nonsensical arguments to get your point across, but nonsensical it remains.

You can treat my reasoning as you like, but if you make false claims, and I'm not too bored, I may correct them. You have a simple way to avoid such repetitions - not to repeat your errors. By the way, there is nothing "invalidated" in my corrections of your errors.

What you see as false claims are driven by what I continually remind you of, and if I'm not too bored and/or lazy, I'll continue to remind the forum of your agenda. You have a simple way to avoid such repetitions: Stop spreading your boring ether hypothesis over many threads.

I may just add Schmelzer, that I certainly do not see you in the same light as a couple of other forum cranks that infest this forum with nonsense in an emotional crazed manner in some cases.
As an example of, let me raise Fred Hoyle: A great scientist who through an agenda could not see the error of his ways in continually supporting his Steady State baby, even and up till his death. A shame.
It's also a shame you are not able to recognise the similarities.

 

[dumbest man on earth]

I repeat, with some additional remarks.......
Perhaps as mentioned previously, those troubled with that fact, need to define what they believe as real:
Of course something real does not need to be physical.
Oh the pain of it all! And such ignorance from those that pretend to be otherwise with their continued pretentious nonsense, claims and trolling!
There are many reasons for this...religiously inspired overtones, due to the fact that science has pushed back into the dark corners, any need for any deity, the general anti science crank, just for the sale of it, or with an inbuilt hatred for regulated society, and those that believe they know more than our recognised professionals, yet spend their time and days on a remote sliver of cyber space, trying to convince a narrow band of mainstream [the members] as to what they believe themselves, hindered by the aforementioned reasons.
Devalue, invalidate or deride science any which way they can is their mission in life...a forlorn mission though it be.
Understandable though when one realises it's only forums such as this, that are their outlets.
A shame.

More exquisitely penned prolific prattle from the perfect paddoboy...possibly "just for the sale of it".

Since it appears that you cannot and will not engage in actual adult scientific discussion with professionals, I will leave you to your childish games - take care of yourself, and remember : narcissism is...oh heck, you already know it all...of course.

 

[paddoboy]

deleted not worth the time nor effort.

 

[Kittamaru]

This has gone on long enough...

DMOE - you have been warned REPEATEDLY about your apparent fetish for Paddoboy. Put him on ignore and be done with it, for fucks sake...

Paddoboy - do the same to DMOE. I don't care if he's claiming he's a fifteen foot tall purple striped llama, just ignore him.

Anymore, and you will likely both start being issued points in tandem for being drains on moderator time and disruptive influences to the forums.

At this point, this thread is pretty much sunk.