What did Einstein mean by space-time being interwoven?

Status
Not open for further replies.
can you explain what Einstein meant by an interwoven ''fabric'' or is this also just something ''pop science'' misinterpreted ?
Sounds like pop science, I don't think Einstein ever mentioned an interwoven fabric for space.
In general relativity I personally know of two possible '''fabrics''

1. A speculative Higgs field

2. The Earths magnetic field
The Higgs field and the Magnetic field don't have anything to do with General Relativity.
 
Interesting, please supply a citation that indicates the expansion of space requires work.
Don't you mean the metric expansion of space ? You are asking for a citation for common physics knowledge that is obvious physics ? A metric expansion requires displacement of measured point , i.e motion . Motion requires work !
 
Don't you mean the metric expansion of space ? You are asking for a citation for common physics knowledge that is obvious physics ? A metric expansion requires displacement of measured point , i.e motion . Motion requires work !
Nope. Work requires a force applied through a distance: W=F x d . So motion at constant speed requires no work, as it requires there to be no net force acting along the direction of travel.

Jimmy. :D
 
Nope. Work requires a force applied through a distance: W=F x d . So motion at constant speed requires no work, as it requires there to be no net force acting along the direction of travel.

Jimmy. :D
Are you saying the initial big bang that started the metric expansion applied no initial +ve force ? Did you actually think before your posted about the physics and work involved ? Motion at any speed requires work to be done , an object in motion will remain in motion and a constant velocity if the work being done is constant or past tense , was constant . If you was to travel into space at 60 mph and switched off your propulsion , you would continue to travel at 60 mph .
 
Don't you mean the metric expansion of space ? You are asking for a citation for common physics knowledge that is obvious physics ? A metric expansion requires displacement of measured point , i.e motion . Motion requires work !
Yes, I am asking for a citation that indicates the expansion of space requires work.
 
Motion at any speed requires work to be done , an object in motion will remain in motion and a constant velocity if the work being done is constant or past tense , was constant . If you was to travel into space at 60 mph and switched off your propulsion , you would continue to travel at 60 mph .
That is motion through space, which is not what is being discussed here.
 
Yo all , I am trying to learn some Einstein stuff yeah and I am on space-time . I have read that space and energy are an interwoven fabric , did the dude mean space and space-time energy are indistinguishable because they both transparent or wah ?
Maybe you are confusing Minkowski with Einstein.
From Wikipedia:
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.

— Hermann Minkowski, 1908, 1909[7]
 
Yes, I am asking for a citation that indicates the expansion of space requires work.
Well pal obviously there isn't going be anything specific that says the metric expansion of space requires work because it is assumed there must be work done . The Big Bang for example is work , but it isn't written pal , think we just all know work is required without needing to be explained too .
 
Are you saying the initial big bang that started the metric expansion applied no initial +ve force ? Did you actually think before your posted about the physics and work involved ? Motion at any speed requires work to be done , an object in motion will remain in motion and a constant velocity if the work being done is constant or past tense , was constant . If you was to travel into space at 60 mph and switched off your propulsion , you would continue to travel at 60 mph .
So "yes, repeat, no", eh Jimmy? :D
 
Yo bro, just to return to your initial question:
did the dude mean space and space-time energy are indistinguishable because they both transparent or wah ?
The dude Einstein definitely never implied or said , "space and space-time energy are indistinguishable".
 
Well pal obviously there isn't going be anything specific that says the metric expansion of space requires work because it is assumed there must be work done . The Big Bang for example is work , but it isn't written pal , think we just all know work is required without needing to be explained too .
OK bro, you can't find any support for your conjecture, got it.
 
That is motion through space, which is not what is being discussed here.
Wa ? The distant bodies that are receding away from us that have been observed red-shifted are in motion ! Of course it is motion we are discussing here , not your pop science notions that the space itself is some sort of fabric and expanding . FYI pal between the distant bodies in intergalactic space you can set your vector as {x^n} relatively . The expansion of x is motion based and Hubble totally disagrees with your pop science delusions .
 
Yo bro, just to return to your initial question:

The dude Einstein definitely never implied or said , "space and space-time energy are indistinguishable".
Well bro , he should of for sure because that is true in observation with the slight exception of gravitational lensing .
 
Wa ? The distant bodies that are receding away from us that have been observed red-shifted are in motion !
Dude, they're not moving thru space, yo?
Of course it is motion we are discussing here , not your pop science notions that the space itself is some sort of fabric and expanding . FYI pal between the distant bodies in intergalactic space you can set your vector as {x^n} relatively . The expansion of x is motion based and Hubble totally disagrees with your pop science delusions .
You got the pop science confusion, pal.
 
Well bro , he should of for sure because that is true in observation with the slight exception of gravitational lensing .
Sorry pal, that's a big "nope". Maybe you could define your rather strange term "space-time energy" and we could figure out where you went off the rails.
 
Dude, they're not moving thru space, yo?

You got the pop science confusion, pal.
According to Hubble observation of the visual matter , the distant bodies are moving through space into more space and we are measuring a metric expansion of the distance between bodies . Additionally I have just dug this out so readers can see the indistinguishable (earths magnetic field) space-time energy in action versus the indistinguishable Sun energy (space-time energy ).

 
Sorry pal, that's a big "nope". Maybe you could define your rather strange term "space-time energy" and we could figure out where you went off the rails.
My strange term is an Einstein term and he told us that space-time energy was interwoven with space , meaning indistinguishable . Spatial fields , space-time energy are transparent , they allow light to pass through . The light that passes through is also transparent and indistinguishable from space and spatial fields .
This is what Einstein was telling us if you didn't understand him bro . I feel I know Albert well !
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top