-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Gravitational Waves. oh really?
- Thread starter Jonathan Ainsley Bain
- Start date
Thief
Rogue Theologian
I want some.....
Ouroboros
Coincidentia oppositorum
Ether was a bit different than Higgs field, energy, and quarks. Boson interactions are constantly there. Like the Higgs boson, it's required for gravity. It's what gives particles mass, if I understand that part of QM right.
And I bet "you guys" still believe in .... Newtonian classical physics.....
Last edited:
Ouroboros
Coincidentia oppositorum
There's been Casimir effect experiments performed, so vacuum energy isn't speculative, if I understand it right. Also, it's quite certain from observation that dark energy is out there, whatever it is.
--edit
Besides, this thread is about the confirmation of gravitational waves, i.e. experiment that shows that it exists, so it's not theoretical in the sense of bunch of guesswork, but something real and the scientific theory (another kind of theoretical, i.e. supported) is correct. Theoretical physics is usually supported by a lot of math, and not always by actual observations (someone say string theory), but sometimes it is confirmed in experiments, like this one.
Last edited:
Ouroboros
Coincidentia oppositorum
??? It's huge gravity there. The gravitational pull is enormous. I'm not sure I follow. Gravity is in question because of the space between two black holes?
I've heard it said that the only reason we don't call spacetime "aether" is simple aversion to the word. Hypothetically, it's a perfectly functional term for spacetime, as long as the older scientific definition is disregarded. Coincidentally, you could also twist the ideas of the Classical Elements: Earth, Water, Air, Fire; to referencing the four states of matter: respectively, solid, liquid, gas, plasma. Of course, those four states are not elements in the modern sense, they're the forms that elements can take depending on the amount of heat present. So equating the Classical Elements to the four states of matter would ultimately be a misnomer.
Much as I'd love to use the term, as modern scientists do not call spacetime "aether", neither do I.
But rest assured, spacetime isn't just emptiness, it's an actual thing.
Thief
Rogue Theologian
I like the post for the most part.....but..
time does not exist .....and space is empty
you do realize...Albert spoke of his concept as a 'fabric'.....
just because most laymen have trouble with large numbers
I'm not a mathematician....but...
I have his book
Show your math.
It's been repeatedly demonstrated to you that this statement is false.
Which is relevant to the topic at hand... how?
Thief
Rogue Theologian
time is a quotient....on a chalkboard.
one number divided by another.
a cognitive device created by Man to serve Man.
a measurement...for movement.
not a force or a substance
denial is futile
In other words, you believe that artificial satelites, stars, color, GPS, among several other readily verifiable things, don't exist?
Because all these things require Time to be a very real "thing" in order to function or be studied.
You do realize that declaring the denials of your argument as "futile" merely exposes the argument's weakness?
I asked you to show your math. No math was shown. Therefore, I can assume that no math was involved in this evaluation, and that your argument is just baseless philosophizing.
Last edited:
Thief
Rogue Theologian
no really....time does not exist.
not a force or a substance.
only a means of measurement.
a cognitive device made by Man to serve Man
You young whippersnappers will know better once you've experienced more of it.
And then you'll realize there just isn't enuf.
Last edited:
Because "fabric" is an apt metaphor for the "field" that is space-time in the theory of relativity. Space-time is filled with objects and energy and forces and other fields (such as the Higgs field) that interact with each other, and the fabric of space-time itself. Einstein certainly did not argue that space and/or time does not exist, he argued that they are integrally related to each other in a way that does not make intuitive sense based on our experience, which suggests that space and time are not connected.
Thief
Rogue Theologian
the measurements are related.
you can measure distance
you can measure movement.
the quotient is right there
Thief
Rogue Theologian
who you calling whippersnapper...you old ..............
and where's @MysticSang'ha when you need an authority on snapping whips?
The fact that we can mathematically describe a measure of time from measures of distance and motion does not make time something that humans created, or imply that it doesn't exist except for our use. Space-time pre-exists humans, and is independent of humans. Our experience of time is not mathematical, although math can be used to describe time.
I's snap'n whips before she's born or even a gleam in her daddy's eye!
(I just has no pay'n customers.)
Last edited:
Thief
Rogue Theologian
movement is real enough.
we humans started measuring everything shortly after we invented numbers.
counting our days....because we die...
Of course movement is "real enough," just as time is "real enough," as both have been made into concepts because we experience them, and used these concepts even before the advent of numbers. Movement in space = Time.
I think human ancestors, long before numbers were invented (and just as most/all other sentient creatures likewise are observed doing today), measured things without counting: relative size, speed, quantity, the passage of time with the rhythm of music and song, the pacing of distance based on how far a person can walk in a day, and so on...because if they didn't measure things, they would not survive to the next day. Counting and finding quotients and suchlike are not necessary to living, although they do allow us to understand things about the universe that we wouldn't understand without counting and doing math. Doing the careful measurements and doing the math allows us to understand that space and time are not really separate things, as we see them in our personal experience, but are a single thing: space-time; and the fact that the sun seems to rise each day, and the cycle of the year repeats itself is because masses move through curved space-time, which we can describe using mathematical formulae.
That we die, we knew long before we knew how to count how many days one lives, and being able to count and do math has not significantly changed that situation--although now we understand more about how and why. We now know that space is not empty and time does exist, because space-time is a fabric and mass and energy exists everywhere within that fabric, and we exist within that fabric, too.
And you now reveal just how flimsy that argument truly is, since instead of addressing any of my counter-arguments, you merely repeat the argument with no new substance.
And yet I have a hard time believing that you truly think GPS and artificial satellites don't exist. Is that actually true?
Last edited: