What is spacetime made of?
- Thread starter Xmo1
- Start date
U-h-h-h-h . . . U-m-m-m-m-m . . . . . let me guess . . . . . 3-D space and 1-D time, plus possibly some undiscovered "D"s? . . . . Just kidding, Xmo1 . . . let's see what others say . . . .!
Somewhere in the science or pop science narrative it got messed up.
The clear answer is, it is a mathematical entity.
The curving, bending, warping etc of spacetime is something which is on paper, its not that some physical stuff is bending or so.
Now if I tell you, what exactly it is in my opinion, then I will get some points.
kx000
Valued Senior Member
Well you believe
Question is of belief in mainstream. It is not that Dr Toad understands what spacetime is, he is with it because it is part of mainstream science.
Dr_Toad, why not try and let us know your views on spacetime, one liners like above won't help.
Last edited:
kx000
Valued Senior Member
You can learn and follow, but that's the trait of non-paradise hectic.
You are a fool. Why would I waste time telling you something that you could possibly understand on your own if you had an education?
I'm not here to teach simpletons. I'm here to learn from folks that actually have good questions or responses to good questions, not to hold your fucking troll hand while you fumble with grade-school problems.
You could have used lesser words to describe what spacetime is, as per you.
Assuming that I have no education, how will you explain spacetime to me. Do you know what Einstein said about any theory... It should be easily explainable to a layman. So why not put it in words what spacetime is as per your educated understanding.
Mostly people who are supporting certain critical aspects like spacetime etc just follow, without actually knowing it.
You personally experience space and time all the time, so it's not just a mathematical model. You presumably have something in mind when you talk about "space" or "time", and so does The God, despite his insistence that it's all just maths.
James R,
Having something in mind does not qualify as something which curves or bends.
You are making spacetime appear as something more than mathematical entity, can you please give a single citation which supports this.
DaveC426913
Valued Senior Member
How about the specs for a GPS satellite?
We know that both distances and time are affected by gravity and acceleration. This is empirically observed, regardless of what model we use to describe it.
Light does not follow Cartesian straight lines in the presence of gravity. Time gets distorted in the presence of gravity or acceleration.
These things are facts, though the model we use to describe them might be the topic of hot debate.
It's not up to me or anyone else here to attempt to apply remedial education to you.
Use Google, Wiki, or heaven forfend, a fucking library!
This indirectly confirms my views that you may not be actually aware of finer aspects of spacetime, you are supporting it because it is mainstream. And it is in fashion to ridicule those who oppose or have critical views.
Good going Dr Toad, mind your steps, I just returned from 95, you will be no match if I get going and that too without using f-word.
Xmo1
Registered Senior Member
Ok. Forget about Newton and Einstein for the most part. You have a massive object: The Earth. Is it ok to use massive as an adjective to describe mass? The mass causes a curve in time and space (I'm separating spacetime for you, because you don't like it), apparently, because we can see particles (although neither time nor space (You can't see space.), moving with respect to this thing you can see, but I've got to say I don't think you know what time is either, and you call that Gravity. I call this "mathematicians creating woo-woo" to jokingly mislead their astronomer friends. Sry, I've got to go to Saturday. More on this later.
exchemist
Valued Senior Member
It can be argued that the model of mass curving spacetime is "just" a mathematical device, but it is one that reproduces what we observe.
Newton's model of mass attracting other mass by unexplained action at a distance through an inverse square law is equally "just" a device, but it mostly reproduced what we observed, until we found some scenarios in which it didn't, thereby making general relativity the superior model.
Many people seem to think Newton's model is more "physical" but that is because it uses simpler maths and we have all grown up with it since childhood. In neither model can we say what makes mass do what it is modelled as doing.
There are limits to what science can say about the world.
But there is no woo-woo or misleading. General relativity agrees with observation, unpleasant though that is for those of us who find tensor mathematics difficult.