5
   

does space and time have substance ?

 
 
Leonard
 
  1  
Reply Thu 22 Apr, 2010 03:20 pm
@north,
north;151671 wrote:
does space have substance in the absence of plasma and/or matter?


Actual baryonic matter only makes up 5% of the universe's mass, but it depends what you mean by substance.
north
 
  1  
Reply Thu 22 Apr, 2010 04:33 pm
@Leonard,
Leonard;155303 wrote:
Actual baryonic matter only makes up 5% of the universe's mass, but it depends what you mean by substance.


meaning does space in and of its self , by its very nature have a substance , something to grab onto

a form of energy or matter of which space is compossed
prothero
 
  1  
Reply Thu 22 Apr, 2010 10:27 pm
@north,
north;155332 wrote:
meaning does space in and of its self , by its very nature have a substance , something to grab onto

a form of energy or matter of which space is compossed

No, nothing exists independent of the process which creates it and in relationship to the whole.
There is no meaning to empty space and no meaning to time without process (change). The march of time and Cartesian space are both mental constructs (models) which do not correspond to reality.
0 Replies
 
TuringEquivalent
 
  1  
Reply Thu 22 Apr, 2010 11:48 pm
@north,
north;151671 wrote:
can time change movement in and of its self of any object?

and does space have substance in the absence of plasma and/or matter ?

I say no to both questions


It is false to say time changes. Things changes in time, but time do not change in time.

Space-time is a 4 dimensional differentiable space-time manifold in relativity, and the state of minimum energy in quantum mechanics. Both theory demands that space-time be something with specific properties.
north
 
  1  
Reply Fri 23 Apr, 2010 01:32 pm
@TuringEquivalent,
TuringEquivalent;155548 wrote:
It is false to say time changes. Things changes in time, but time do not change in time.


then is the basis for things changing in time is ?

Quote:
Space-time is a 4 dimensional differentiable space-time manifold in relativity, and the state of minimum energy in quantum mechanics. Both theory demands that space-time be something with specific properties.


mathematical properties only

and what physical properties do either space and time have , specifically ?
TuringEquivalent
 
  1  
Reply Fri 23 Apr, 2010 03:48 pm
@north,
You make no sense at all in your reply. Events changes in time. Eg: My plane is in locate x at 3:00 am, and it follows a trajectory to location y at 4:00 am. x, and y are different. The change of event with respect to time is non-zero.
( y-x)/( 4:00-3:00) is not equal to 0.


I don` t know if you have problems reading, but space-time do have physical properties in the sense that you can do experiments, and test the prediction for the theory. In Quantum mechanics, empty space is modeled by a quantum oscillator Quantum harmonic oscillator - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Energy function is E( n) =( h/2pi) w( n+ ( 1/2) ). The lowest energy is n=0, which is E(0)= ( h/2 pi) w( 1/2). This also what is called zero point energy.

For general relativity, see the quote from wikipedia:

Spacetime - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Quote:
In general relativity, it is assumed that spacetime is curved by the presence of matter (energy), this curvature being represented by the Riemann tensor. In special relativity, the Riemann tensor is identically zero, and so this concept of "non-curvedness" is sometimes expressed by the statement Minkowski spacetime is flat.


It saids here that space-time curved by the presence of matter. According to some people, if something has properties, then it exist. Well, space-time must exist, since it has properties of being curved in the presence of matter.


Also from Wikipedia:

Cosmological constant - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Quote:
where R and g pertain to the structure of spacetime, T pertains to matter and energy (thought of as affecting that structure), and G and c are conversion factors that arise from using traditional units of measurement. When Λ is zero, this reduces to the original field equation of general relativity. When T is zero, the field equation describes empty space (the vacuum).
The cosmological constant has the same effect as an intrinsic energy density of the vacuum, ρvac (and an associated pressure). In this context it is commonly defined with a proportionality factor of 8π: Λ = 8πρvac, where unit conventions of general relativity are used (otherwise factors of G and c would also appear). It is common to quote values of energy density directly, though still using the name "cosmological constant".


It saids here that if the cosmological constant is non-zero, and the stress -mass tensor T is zero, the modified Einstein field equation describes empty space with energy density, p( rho). This means that in an empty universe with no matter, and energy, there is still space-time, and there is a non-zero energy density associated with the space-time. Space-time surely exist, because how else would there be a non-zero energy density?
north
 
  1  
Reply Fri 23 Apr, 2010 04:43 pm
@TuringEquivalent,
Quote:
In general relativity, it is assumed that spacetime is curved by the presence of matter (energy), this curvature being represented by the Riemann tensor. In special relativity, the Riemann tensor is identically zero, and so this concept of "non-curvedness" is sometimes expressed by the statement Minkowski spacetime is flat.
Quote:

It saids here that space-time curved by the presence of matter. According to some people, if something has properties, then it exist. Well, space-time must exist, since it has properties of being curved in the presence of matter.



yet they give NO definition as to the properties that space and time would have , do they
TuringEquivalent
 
  1  
Reply Fri 23 Apr, 2010 05:59 pm
@north,
north;155831 wrote:



yet they give NO definition as to the properties that space and time would have , do they


What the hell does that mean?
north
 
  1  
Reply Wed 28 Apr, 2010 08:54 pm
@TuringEquivalent,
Quote:
Originally Posted by north http://www.philosophyforum.com/images/PHBlue/buttons/viewpost.gif


yet they give NO definition as to the properties that space and time would have , do they



TuringEquivalent;155858 wrote:
What the hell does that mean?


they say that both space and time have substance and they see a consequence of this , as the reason

where is the evidence that both space and time have actual substance though ?
TuringEquivalent
 
  1  
Reply Thu 29 Apr, 2010 10:51 am
@north,
north;157734 wrote:
Quote:
Originally Posted by north http://www.philosophyforum.com/images/PHBlue/buttons/viewpost.gif


yet they give NO definition as to the properties that space and time would have , do they







they say that both space and time have substance and they see a consequence of this , as the reason

where is the evidence that both space and time have actual substance though ?


You are wrong on two things:

1. There are no space, or time, separately. There is only one space-time.

2. You cannot give definitions to things. Things either exist, or they don` t exist. They have properties, and you can describe those properties, but there are no definitions.
north
 
  1  
Reply Tue 4 May, 2010 08:32 pm
@TuringEquivalent,
TuringEquivalent;157987 wrote:
You are wrong on two things:

Quote:
1. There are no space, or time, separately. There is only one space-time.


yes there is a seperation of space and time

space is the room which an object needs to exist

time is the measurement of the movement of things , within a said space

time needs space but space doesn't need time



Quote:
2. You cannot give definitions to things. Things either exist, or they don` t exist. They have properties, and you can describe those properties, but there are no definitions.


a tree is a tree is a tree
Uplifter
 
  1  
Reply Wed 5 May, 2010 12:21 am
@north,
north;160192 wrote:
time needs space but space doesn't need time




I believe this is a debatable argument.
prothero
 
  1  
Reply Wed 5 May, 2010 09:56 am
@Uplifter,
Uplifter;160231 wrote:
I believe this is a debatable argument.
I believe so too as its known as the space time continuum. Time is mysteriously missing in many of the equations of modern physics. There is evidence however that even as powerful as modern science is much is still missing, incomplete and not known.

Space of course is not empty as virtual particles dart in and out of existence in a frenzy of quantum foam. Space is full of "dark energy" estimates are that most of the energy of the universe is in the "vacuum" between galaxies. We can measure these vast amount of "dark energy" with satellite data but none of our equations account for it. A very large mismatch between data and theory in this case. No know theory can account for the quantity of dark energy measured by satellite data. At least space has "substance" and "time" is yet to be accounted for.
Uplifter
 
  1  
Reply Wed 5 May, 2010 10:05 am
@prothero,
prothero;160412 wrote:
I believe so too as its known as the space time continuum. Time is mysteriously missing in many of the equations of modern physics. There is evidence however that even as powerful as modern science is much is still missing, incomplete and not known.

Space of course is not empty as virtual particles dart in and out of existence in a frenzy of quantum foam. Space is full of "dark energy" estimates are that most of the energy of the universe is in the "vacuum" between galaxies. We can measure these vast amount of "dark energy" with satellite data but none of our equations account for it. A very large mismatch between data and theory in this case. No know theory can account for the quantity of dark energy measured by satellite data. At least space has "substance" and "time" is yet to be accounted for.


Very interesting.
Dark energy will indeed be difficult to explain. Our theory of it is based on repeatable observations of the red shifts of distant galaxies accelerating away from us. In order to account for this acceleration, we need to 'add' something else. That is dark energy.
Time is also enigmatic. We know that it is not constant, even on an personal level. It just depends on how fast you are moving.
0 Replies
 
HexHammer
 
  1  
Reply Wed 5 May, 2010 12:09 pm
@north,
north;151671 wrote:
can time change movement in and of its self of any object?

and does space have substance in the absence of plasma and/or matter ?

I say no to both questions
I have to agree, as I don't belive time to exist, though I do belive space are filled with tiny bits of various particles.
Uplifter
 
  1  
Reply Mon 10 May, 2010 04:00 am
@HexHammer,
HexHammer;160480 wrote:
I have to agree, as I don't belive time to exist, though I do belive space are filled with tiny bits of various particles.

Time definately exists. You only have to raise the question of how do you measure these "tiny bits of various particles" speeds.
north
 
  1  
Reply Sun 16 May, 2010 07:04 pm
@Uplifter,
Quote:
Originally Posted by HexHammer http://www.philosophyforum.com/images/PHBlue/buttons/viewpost.gif
I have to agree, as I don't belive time to exist, though I do belive space are filled with tiny bits of various particles.


Uplifter;162332 wrote:
Time definately exists. You only have to raise the question of how do you measure these "tiny bits of various particles" speeds.


AND thats where time fails

time is based on the measure of " tiny bits of various particles "

not on time , in and of its self , but on the particles movements

hence speed
Uplifter
 
  1  
Reply Mon 17 May, 2010 12:56 am
@north,
north;165093 wrote:
Quote:
Originally Posted by HexHammer http://www.philosophyforum.com/images/PHBlue/buttons/viewpost.gif
I have to agree, as I don't belive time to exist, though I do belive space are filled with tiny bits of various particles.




AND thats where time fails

time is based on the measure of " tiny bits of various particles "

not on time , in and of its self , but on the particles movements

hence speed


Does "distance" exist?
Does "depth" exist?
Does "volume" exist?
etc...
I believe time to be a measurement of the environment and as such is quantifiable.
Bracewell
 
  1  
Reply Tue 4 Jan, 2011 05:52 pm
Some points that need clarification.

A sequence of events on this planet would happen at a slower pace if the same events occurred at a place closer to the Sun. And this would apply to all events - chemical , electrical , atomic, etc. However, the clock that measured the time interval of the events would have to remain on Earth. Is this true or false?

All matter is dynamic and the rate at which events happen within this matter is subject to the same rules as stated above. Is this true or false?

If the above is true then is it not reasonable to assume that both time and speed might affect the timing of events within matter and therefore the structure and perhaps its position?



0 Replies
 
HexHammer
 
  1  
Reply Wed 5 Jan, 2011 11:56 am
@north,
north wrote:

can time change movement in and of its self of any object?

and does space have substance in the absence of plasma and/or matter ?

I say no to both questions
Sometimes you strike me as utterly skitzo.
 

Related Topics

How can we be sure? - Discussion by Raishu-tensho
Proof of nonexistence of free will - Discussion by litewave
morals and ethics, how are they different? - Question by existential potential
Destroy My Belief System, Please! - Discussion by Thomas
Star Wars in Philosophy. - Discussion by Logicus
Existence of Everything. - Discussion by Logicus
Is it better to be feared or loved? - Discussion by Black King
 
Copyright © 2021 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.05 seconds on 12/03/2021 at 01:52:15