What Is The Material Structure of Spacetime?

a reply to: intrptr

originally posted by: ATSAlex

originally posted by: NorEaster

Any ideas concerning what this spacetime aether is made of?

Maybe I missed it, but I don't recall reading what YOU think space time is... Can you share your hypotesis? Or point to the post with your thinking, was it the cloud of neutrinos in your first post?

Not trying to be confrontational, just want to know YOUR toughts...

Thanks!

Alex

I think that it's a vector system that's useful for object location.

I don't believe in a material Aether.

a reply to: intrptr

The plane of the ecliptic is where those marbles "run" the most.

Not sure what you mean by this. The ecliptic is just the plane in which the planets of the Solar System orbit the Sun. It is a completely random orientation, and planets orbiting other stars don't share it. Neither is it the same as the orbital plane of the Galaxy.

In reality everything is 3d and at least four if you get my hyper speech.

In reality everything is at least 4D (as Proust pointed out) and quite probably anything up to 11D. Though NorEaster thinks that's crap, as he's told us twice now. Or maybe three times if you count his reply to stormcell.

So light is continuos in every direction and fills the void.

Oh, that's pretty. But you have to remember that the expansion of the universe makes photon wavelengths increase with time until they're invisible except to detectors the size of galaxies, or bigger. Also, the fact that the expansion occurs faster than light means that most of the light in the universe is invisible to any single observer no matter where she is located.

Here, I think you will find this fascinating. I did.

a reply to: Wifibrains

Thank you. As mass of a planet grows it attracts more particles to it. It is gravity we "feel" on its surface.
Love too grows and attracts others to it. Some of that evidence is truly exhibited through music.

Loving that tune…

Thanks for all the traffic and the intelligent replies. I appreciate the ideas in spite of how much I might've challenged them.

originally posted by: NorEaster

I think that it's a vector system that's useful for object location.

I don't believe in a material Aether.

Ok, making an analogy here, kind of like a ruler is used to measure the distance between 2 objects, Right? But still the ruler is made out of something, be it wood, plastic, metal, etc. What do you think space time is made of?

I was thinking in my first post that it was made up of Dark matter / Dark energy. Which is something of an unknown and unproven I suppose, but have to name it in some way.

To you, what is the space time fabric made out of? You already stated what is it used for in a way that makes sense at least to me.

Thanks!

a reply to: Astyanax

Not sure what you mean by this. The ecliptic is just the plane in which the planets of the Solar System orbit the Sun. It is a completely random orientation, and planets orbiting other stars don't share it. Neither is it the same as the orbital plane of the Galaxy.

I though you were postulating that photons run the plane of the ecliptic "like running a carpet" was the term you used.

I though this was what you meant. I think we just can't see the biggest "plane" yet. Since all sources have a center.

Lol, on that other part about denying thrice before the cock crows twice. And…

But you have to remember that the expansion of the universe makes photon wavelengths increase with time until they're invisible except to detectors the size of galaxies, or bigger.

So I understand, you mean spread out, right? Diffused? But still there as every star we see testifies no matter how deep field we look.

Also, the fact that the expansion occurs faster than light means that most of the light in the universe is invisible to any single observer no matter where she is located.

Right. we don't see light 'going by'. Relativity again?

Thanks for the link.

a reply to: intrptr

We fi grow! Same riddim.

a reply to: elysiumfire

I have to disagree, gravity cannot affect 'spacetime' because spacetime is nothing more than a mathematical construct.

I understood you to be saying so earlier. However, empirical evidence shows that spacetime does exist. I won't bore you by pointing you to the evidence — no doubt others have done so before me.

According to mainstream, collegiate physics, there is no 'electric force' as such. There is the electromagnetic force, which is responsible for what we call electromotive force. Gravity has nothing to do with either of them.

I am aware of other schools of thought, but I'm not interested in arguing about them. Anyway, the OP's question has been adequately answered — even he thinks so, and in fact he agrees with you that spacetime does not exist.

This is an interesting theory theory
Basically surmises that Mass is due to vortices created in the symmetry of the vacuum condensate of space itself.

Well over my head in terms of meaningful critique but in terms of "Material Structure"; requires the assumption that space is Quantised into bits.

Each bit is made up of other "bits" and so on ad infinitum in a hierachial fractal arrangement.

Each bit or quanta has a unique number of resonances since last impact with other quanta (providing time and therefore stable causality)

Where maximum spatial density of Quanta is reached in any locality, you get a black hole

Gravity is the averaged out density of space quanta at any given locality at time of observation.

Energy ( the geometric distortion of the symmetry ) is conserved as all energetic exchanges are interchangeable due to their origin in vortices caused due to the breakdowns in the proposed hierachial fractal arrangement.

intrptr:

As mass of a planet grows it attracts more particles to it. It is gravity we "feel" on its surface.

The only way a planet increases mass is by the bombardment of interplanetary debris, from asteroids and comets. the earth and moon share a gravitational relationship, but it is not based on the sharing of particles, but on
a stabilised dynamic between their magnetic fields, both reflect solar particles back into space which provides each object's albedo. The idea that the earth or any other planetary object attracts more particles as it grows, is a somewhat naive concept.

The earth doesn't attract particles, it is constantly bombarded by them by the sun, and by supermassive explosions from deep space, such as novae, pulsars and other strange and exotic objects.

Yes, you feel gravity, but not as gravity, but as mass. You also feel physicality, because physicality is produced by the equal and opposite reactive forces. Solidity is determined by the bond strength of an object's atoms and molecules.

Astyanax:

However, empirical evidence shows that spacetime does exist. I won't bore you by pointing you to the evidence — no doubt others have done so before me.

No worries. Here is the first line on Wiki regarding spacetime...

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.

en.wikipedia.org...

a reply to: intrptr

"like running a carpet" was the term you used.

Yes, but the metric is 4D, not 2D like your living-room carpet. It's an analogical carpet.

you mean spread out, right? Diffused?

In a way, perhaps, but what I really meant is that the Doppler effect renders the photon wavelengths longer and longer, making the light invisible except to very big detectors. What's really happening is that the photon is losing energy (only from the viewpoint of an observer, obviously, not in the frame of reference of the photon itself). It's 'fading to black'.

Right. we don't see light 'going by'. Relativity again?

No, the relativity part is the bit above, redshift due to relativistic motion away from the observer creating a Doppler Effect. No, there are parts of the universe invisible to us because they are receding from us at a velocity faster than that of light.

Have you heard of Olbers' Paradox?

a reply to: elysiumfire

That's right. But these mathematical models are attempted descriptions of reality — that is, of something that exists.

a reply to: Astyanax

No, there are parts of the universe invisible to us because they are receding from us at a velocity faster than that of light.

Thats interesting. I think its more a matter of resolution, though. Like each deep field pic we take with new instruments will reveal more of the infiniteness of the Universe. If infinite then light has had an infinite amount of time to each us and we just can't resolve (gather) it yet?

Our instruments are too low power as yet. And in the case of SETI, listening on the wrong spectrum. Considering the electromagnetic spectrum is unbounded then it follows we don't really understand much about what else lies just beyond the ends of our awareness.

We may develop ever more powerful instruments, seeing further than ever before and it will all be the same. Filled with light, gravity and particles seemingly… without any life forms. yYet since I know we are here, then they are everywhere, too.

a reply to: elysiumfire

Solidity is determined by the bond strength of an object's atoms and molecules.

Ah but what if one can bind the sweet influences of the plaiades and loose the bands of orion?

Could solidity be adjusted?

Simple. All you have to do is choose a different model.

a reply to: elysiumfire

The idea that the earth or any other planetary object attracts more particles as it grows, is a somewhat naive concept.

Really?

Then how do planets, stars and galaxies form? The same way. They rake up the cosmos. Everywhere they go. The more massive, the wider the rake.

Is that more "naive"?

a reply to: intrptr

I think its more a matter of resolution, though. Like each deep field pic we take with new instruments will reveal more of the infiniteness of the Universe. If infinite then light has had an infinite amount of time to each us and we just can't resolve (gather) it yet?

The light emanates from a point in space that is already moving away from us faster than light, and the expansion is accelerating. This means it isn't just a question of resolution, or of waiting long enough for the light to reach us — it will never reach us unless the expansion of the metric begins to slow, as some cosmological models predict it will.

Regarding the question posed by the OP, I’ll attempt somewhat of an answer and throw in my 2 cents. This question was asked in at least one previous thread entitled, What Exactly Is Spacetime? Find Out Inside , where I tried to address this question before. So, since the answer hasn’t changed and instead of reinventing the wheel, I’ll just copy/paste my reply from that thread into this one. It goes like this:

+------ Begin Copy ------+
Over the years our popular literature and media have created a number of misconceptions surrounding certain areas of science. It wasn’t so much a matter of intentionally misleading the public, but more of an attempt to make some very difficult concepts more understandable for the average Joe. Unfortunately, though, these misconceptions have become so ingrained in our perception of reality that it’s nearly impossible for many of us to shake them. Discarding some of these notions is a common problem faced by many undergraduate math and physics students.

There are a couple misconceptions I read and hear all the time that I’d like to try and clear up. I believe the following are consistent with current scientific thinking:

1. The Nature of Space
Space, in and of itself, is only a geometric volume. It has no physical properties or energy to be warped, twisted, stretched, curved, etc. Statements about “curved space”, etc are misleading in that it implies space has some set of physical properties of it’s own. Space is simply the geometric volume which contains the existing energy/mass of the universe. To say that space expands only means that the volume has increased.

2. Space in Terms of General Relativity
How particles and forces influence each other are expressed mathematically as geometric relationships, describing how the particles, etc being measured occupy the volume of space. When GR uses the term “space-time curvature”, it’s describing how gravity influences the matter residing in space and not that space itself has a curvature. Einstein did not propose the idea of spacetime as having a fabric - the media did. GR is strictly a theory of geometry and does not state that space has a fabric or substance or any other physical property. It describes how objects interact with each other by changing their geometric distribution within space-time.
+------ End Copy ------+

Although I’m sure there are individuals within the scientific community, and elsewhere, who may consider the possible existence of an ether (aether), or substance, from which spacetime is structured, the mainstream tends to disagree. It's a mathematical abstraction.

Fun thread - good question...

The [one] Singularity, engaged in infinite velocity AND angular diversity, leaves a wake. This wake is the infinite expanse, the dimension of height. It is the Singularity itself that self-contains the spatial dimension of depth.

The expanse of space as a static existence is time as all the future. This wake from the Singularity implodes from everywhere, towards everywhere, down and inward, to return to the Source, which is the Singularity (eternally engaged in infinite velocity and angular diversity).

Once space, as the expanse, which is all the future goes kinetic, this is time in the form of current.

Once the "wake material" reaches the Singularity, all the past as time, and impressions of distortions and deflections (everything finite that has time pass through it like galaxies, people, etc.), exists.

Time is space that is in the state of kinetic.
Space is time that is in the state of static.
Both are composed of the base material that is the wake of the infinite velocity and angular diversity of the Singularity.

Most important is why the one Singularity even exists at all. You wouldn't believe it if I told you.