Does space bend In a pure vacuum ?

Discussion in 'Pseudoscience' started by river, Dec 15, 2019.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. river

    Messages:
    14,403
    Really pad , really ?
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    25,468
    While you are never going to recognise or answer honestly, why do you think you are banned from the sciences?
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. river

    Messages:
    14,403
    pad you would have been given a warning years ago on your verible conduct long ago if I had any say .

    And if you continued , further two warning would have been given with suspension .

    If that doesn't cause you to change , banned perminately .
     
    Last edited: May 12, 2020
    paddoboy likes this.
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. river

    Messages:
    14,403
    Anyway

    From my post#448


    Since spacetime is effected by matter , then spacetime must have physical properties , qualities .

    Show me that I am wrong . That spacetime must have physical qualities . Because it is affected by matter .
     
  8. Write4U Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    14,228
    Are you asking what exactly it is that bends when spacetime has no physical properties?

    Does a vacuum have geometrical properties that are capable of distortion? How can this be proved?
     
  9. river

    Messages:
    14,403
    No

    No .

    A true vacuum has no space .
     
  10. Write4U Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    14,228
    I agree. Does space have no vacuum. If so, what is it that permits gravity?
    I thought that is what you are asking, no? I'd like to know.
     
  11. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    25,468
    Why? Have you any reference to that claim? [No as usual I bet]
    If we actually get down to the nitty gritty then, spacetime is a 4 dimensional framework, and is bent/curved/twisted/lensed by matter...all observationally verified by the way. And of course, as usual, I have given a longer version on what spacetime is, but again as usual, you are oblivious to any fact that puts your delusions at risk.
    Science has shown you to be wrong ad-nauseum, over many a long year. I don't need to do that as the forum already recognises that fact, and is the reason you are banned from the sciences.
    Plus of course the onus is on you to invalidate all those gravitationally lensed photos I have shown you, and invalidate the finding of GP-B, and the findings of aLIGO/VIRGO.

    And river old chap, there is plenty of detailed observational and experimental evidence at http://www.sciforums.com/threads/flashback-einstein-was-right-space-and-time-bend.163108/
     
  12. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    25,468
    Nonsense.
    Let's check out the definition of a vacuum, scientifically speaking......
    https://www.britannica.com/science/vacuum-physics
    "Vacuum, space in which there is no matter or in which the pressure is so low that any particles in the space do not affect any processes being carried on there. It is a condition well below normal atmospheric pressure and is measured in units of pressure (the pascal). A vacuum can be created by removing air from a space using a vacuum pump or by reducing the pressure using a fast flow of fluid, as in Bernoulli’s principle".

    The closest thing we can get to any vacuum, intergalactic space I would think. Even though if we could get a region with no particles whatsoever, space would still exist, as would time, the reverse side of the coin. Space and time, or spacetime as it is known evolved at t+10-43 seconds. One cannot exist without the other...no space, no time, no time, no space.

    We can speculate if you like about a probable quantum foam that existed before the BB, or before space and time [as we know them] came into existence. But I prefer to do that in the sciences, rather then where river can start his usual trolling.
     
  13. Write4U Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    14,228
    Can we ask if the expression "do not affect any processes" is incorrect or is meant to exclude gravity?
    Can Gravity exist in a vacuum?, is the question, IMO. If so , what in a vacuum allows for gravity to be influential?
     
  14. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    25,468
    Obviously the closest we can get to what we class as a pure vacuum, is intergalactic space. Spacetime for all intents and purposes would be flat. Just as WMAP, MAXIMA and other experiments have shown that the universe/space/time is very nearly flat to within small tolerances, over very large scales.
     
  15. river

    Messages:
    14,403

    Highlighted

    There is no such thing as a pure vacuum .

    All space has something in it .

    To your last statement ; spacetime whether it is " flat " or not , is irrelevant .

    Spacetime has No real physical existence .

    Therefore , Spacetime , has no material cause and effect and therefore no affect ( in no particular order ) on anything , zero .
     
    Last edited: May 17, 2020
  16. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    25,468
    Yep river, you get a point for that...note also that is why I said " Obviously the closest we can get to what we class as a pure vacuum, is intergalactic space."
    So one must ask, is your comprehension of the English language at fault? Or do you suffer from the psychotic delusion of just wanting to hear/see yourself type/talk?

    You need to read the whole gist of what I am saying river, and to who I was replying......
    Comprehend river? [fingers crossed]
    What do you call that which [thankfully] is separating you and me now river? Or what do you call the expanse between the M31 and Milky Way river?
    Alternatively, what do you call the period separating the instant light leaves M31 and arrives on Earth 2.5 million years later river?
    Actually, therefor Spacetime is defined as the multi dimensional framework, of three spacial dimensions and one of time, against which we locate all events withing space and time. It actually came about due to the fact that "c" is invariant. Spacetime gives us a description of reality that is common for all observers in the universe, regardless of their different frames of references and their relative motions. Intervals of space and time considered separately are not the same for all observers.

    Now river while you proudly wear your disability of "being able to think for yourself" and while you obviously are not influenced in anyway by what the educated expert professionals say, you also need to be aware that sometimes in your vain attempt at keeping an open mind, your brains actually fall out [eg: accepting as fact that Alien species conducted an atomic war on Mars] and that it also more probably is an example of extreme psychotic delusions, in rejecting what the professional experts, with all their technologically advanced equipment and associated learning are saying.
    When you change your attitude [I won't hold my breath] and decide to learn some science, rather then automatically and stupidly oppose it, you may start making some sense and earning some respect.
    In the meantime, we'll leave you to grovel in your ignorance.
     
  17. river

    Messages:
    14,403
    Spacetime has no Real Physical Properties .
     
  18. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    25,468
    Sure it has.It bends/warps/curves/twists and even waves in the presence of matter/energy. And guess what? We see such topological defects as gravity!

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  19. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    25,468
    OH! and of course it also expands river [space]!! And is actually accelerating in that expansion rate as we speak.
     
  20. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    25,468
    With regard to my previous post......
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minkowski_space
    "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,
     
  21. river

    Messages:
    14,403
    Which is wrong .

    Old thinking .
     
  22. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    25,468
    Old thinking, new thinking, both surpass stupid thinking. Think about it.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!


    Minkowski's phrasing simply re-enforces Einstein's SR and the later all encompassing GR, which are both still overwhelmingly evidenced and supported today.
    Want to try again river?
     
  23. river

    Messages:
    14,403
    No not really .

    Old thinking , is old thinking .
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page