It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Good thing physics does not rely on how somebody feels about it.
Speak for yourself! *floats away*
originally posted by: elysiumfire
Remember, Einstein did away with the idea of the 'ether' and replaced it with 'spacetime', but this too, was disingenuous, as the 'time' part of 'space-time' does not exist in reality, it is but an abstraction of mathematics. It works because the abstract measurement of time, for instance, the second, has an observable measurable beginning and an observable measurable end. The distance between the observed beginning and the observed end is called 'duration'. Duration is the measurement of 'events', and an event can be anything from photon emission from an electron, to the motion of a degree of an arc of the entire observable matter universe. We derive 'time' from the observation of the duration of events.
Thus, the second is the distance between the observed measurable oscillation rate of the caesium atom. One oscillation of this atom has a length of duration, and is determines the length of a second. So you see, time has no existential reality of its own, time is something we impose on reality by measuring observable lengths of duration.
Space, the first part of Einstein's spacetime, has no interactive properties.
With this statement I am disavowing acceptance that space can be warped by mass. Don't get me wrong, 'something' is indeed being warped by mass, but it is not space, it is not time, nor is it spacetime, it is gravity itself.
Clearly, I cannot accept Verlinde's theory.
...it (time) is essential and embedded into the observable physics of the world. This is exactly Einstein's point: time is what clocks measure. He meant this literally: the physics of clocks shows what the meaning of time is. Instead of demoting time it amplifies its essential importance.
That was proven false experimentally by LIGO.
Warping of spacetime is what gravitational lens experiments measure.
Your objections have no clear relations to Verlinde's theory.
So a construct that cannot be real allows for gravity? These are your words.
Elysiumfire...but I have already argued that 'space' does not interact with anything, and time does not exist except as a mathematical abstraction. What I am positing is that gravity happens in space, not to it.
Time relates to motion not just a clock...
...so without time nothing can move so not realistic conditions for the development of life.
1 a —used as a function word to indicate inclusion, location, or position within limits
b : into 1
1 : in proximity to : near
originally posted by: RP2SticksOfDynamite
If that were to be true, who or what is projecting the hologram and where did they come from? Not convinced!
originally posted by: elysiumfire
That was proven false experimentally by LIGO.
No, it was not. LIGO detected two examples of gravitational waves. They did not prove that space has no interactive properties. I am not saying gravity does not exist, I am positing that it arises out of the motion of different masses around each other. If space truly had interactive properties, it would alter physics drastically.
Warping of spacetime is what gravitational lens experiments measure.
The warping of spacetime by mass is the current model that supports current observations. What I am positing is that in logical terms, space has no interactive properties, and time does not exist. So, although the model works to support observations, it is something 'other' to account for the bending of light, and that there is no warping of either space, or time, or spacetime...that is my conjecture. Spacetime warping as depicted is a useful analogy, but not entirely accurate in my mind, but until a better model comes along and is proven, it is the basis from which I draw my thoughts.
Yes they do have clear relations, because I draw the conclusion that spacetime is not real, but merely an abstraction to give understanding to an event...i.e., the bending of a photon's path. What I am positing is that gravity happens in space, not to it.
Tell me, what part of gravity has been reconciled with the other forces of physics? We know there is an attraction between masses of objects, we have called it gravity, but we do not know how it arises.
originally posted by: Willtell
Furthermore, saying reality is a hologram is non-sequatur. Its like saying reality is hot…or reality is cold. In other words who can say reality is any one thing and be valid.
If you stop the earth's and the moon's motion, you immediately stop all effects that their motion about one another induce
You cannot stretch that which has no interactive properties...space does not interact with anything.