Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > sci.physics > #567401 > unrolled thread

Does space time attract space time?

Back to article view | Back to sci.physics

Contents

  Does space time attract space time? 7 <7@enemygadgets.com> - 2016-04-02 08:39 +0000
    Re: Does space time attract space time? Double-A <double-a3@hush.com> - 2016-04-02 13:58 -0700
      Re: Does space time attract space time? 7 <7@enemygadgets.com> - 2016-04-02 21:41 +0000
      Re: Does space time attract space time? Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2016-04-05 14:13 -0500
        dUh (say that noTthaTguY <abu.kuanysh05@gmail.com> - 2016-04-06 08:06 -0700
          Re: dUh (say that noTthaTguY <abu.kuanysh05@gmail.com> - 2016-04-06 15:42 -0700
        Re: Does space time attract space time? 7 <7@enemygadgets.com> - 2016-04-06 22:49 +0000
    Re: Does space time attract space time? pcardinale@volcanomail.com - 2016-04-05 11:50 -0700
      Re: Does space time attract space time? 7 <7@enemygadgets.com> - 2016-04-06 22:39 +0000
      Re: Does space time attract space time? "nuny@bid.nes" <Alien8752@gmail.com> - 2016-04-06 23:44 -0700
    Re: Does space time attract space time? Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2016-04-05 14:12 -0500
      Re: Does space time attract space time? noTthaTguY <abu.kuanysh05@gmail.com> - 2016-04-06 08:04 -0700
    Re: Does space time attract space time? "Y.Porat" <y.y.porat@gmail.com> - 2016-04-07 00:31 -0700
      Re: Does space time attract space time? Double-A <double-a3@hush.com> - 2016-04-07 12:53 -0700

#567401 — Does space time attract space time?

Does space time attract space time?
-----------------------------------

LIGO says space time is static. So when it shakes,
it can be detected billions of light years away.

For this to work, space time itself must be
connected in such a way that it is static
and not flowing.

For that to be true, a bit of space time
must have a weak pull against another bit
of space time.

So however much space time there is out there,
it must assemble into a sphere that doesn't
flow anywhere.

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#567555

On Saturday, April 2, 2016 at 1:39:38 AM UTC-7, 7 wrote:
> Does space time attract space time?
> -----------------------------------
> 
> LIGO says space time is static. So when it shakes,
> it can be detected billions of light years away.
> 
> For this to work, space time itself must be
> connected in such a way that it is static
> and not flowing.
> 
> For that to be true, a bit of space time
> must have a weak pull against another bit
> of space time.
> 
> So however much space time there is out there,
> it must assemble into a sphere that doesn't
> flow anywhere.


If gravitational waves exist in spacetime, in must mean that spacetime contains energy in its structure.  Since E=mc^2, it must attract itself!

Double-A

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#567561

Double-A wrote:

> On Saturday, April 2, 2016 at 1:39:38 AM UTC-7, 7 wrote:
>> Does space time attract space time?
>> -----------------------------------
>> 
>> LIGO says space time is static. So when it shakes,
>> it can be detected billions of light years away.
>> 
>> For this to work, space time itself must be
>> connected in such a way that it is static
>> and not flowing.
>> 
>> For that to be true, a bit of space time
>> must have a weak pull against another bit
>> of space time.
>> 
>> So however much space time there is out there,
>> it must assemble into a sphere that doesn't
>> flow anywhere.
> 
> 
> If gravitational waves exist in spacetime, in must mean that spacetime
> contains energy in its structure.  Since E=mc^2, it must attract itself!
> 
> Double-A

Then, what is so amazing is the amount of energy space time can store.
99.99% of black hole material - in order for it to be stable
near a black hole, and for it to also carry radiating energy
billions of miles from merging black holes.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#568092

On 4/2/16 3:58 PM, Double-A wrote:
> If gravitational waves exist in spacetime, in must mean that spacetime contains energy in its structure.

   No -- spacetime is a manifold, not a "thing" with structure.

   General relativity says that spacetime is dynamic. LIGO detected
   ripples in spacetime (gravitational waves) as predicted by general
   relativity.


-- 

sci.physics is an unmoderated newsgroup dedicated
to the discussion of physics, news from the physics
community, and physics-related social issues.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#568286 — dUh (say that

this is simply n+1 abstraction with only restricted properties,
because time is simply not spatially clarevoyant
on any matter of interest;
it is awareness, or consciousness

>    No -- spacetime is a manifold, not a "thing" with structure.
> 
>    General relativity says that spacetime is dynamic. LIGO detected
>    ripples in spacetime (gravitational waves) as predicted by general
>    relativity.
> 
> 
> -- 
> 
> sci.physics is an unmoderated newsgroup dedicated
> to the discussion of physics, news from the physics
> community, and physics-related social issues.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#568417 — Re: dUh (say that

no time, just a static space ... statuesque

> because time is simply not spatially clarevoyant
> on any matter of interest;
> it is awareness, or consciousness
> 
> >    No -- spacetime is a manifold, not a "thing" with structure.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#568419

Sam Wormley wrote:

> On 4/2/16 3:58 PM, Double-A wrote:
>> If gravitational waves exist in spacetime, in must mean that spacetime
>> contains energy in its structure.
> 
>    No -- spacetime is a manifold, not a "thing" with structure.

What a fscking troll!!

You are confused between mathematical abstractions 
and real world where it is applied.

 
>    General relativity says that spacetime is dynamic. LIGO detected
>    ripples in spacetime (gravitational waves) as predicted by general
>    relativity.

Doh! What a fscking double whammy troll!!!!

The kualite of the Sam Worming glow ball wamming
fscker is stunning today!

So troll, what you mean is what double A wrote, which is that
space time contains energy in its physical structure
to transport ripples in spacetime thing
How else does it transport energy carrying ripples troll?

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#568083

The question is nonsense.  Spacetime is a manifold, not a physical thing.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#568414

pcardinale@volcanomail.com wrote:

> The question is nonsense.  Spacetime is a manifold, not a physical thing.

A manifold is an abstraction just like formula for straight line
is y=mx+c. A real straight line such as ruler edge really does
exist as much as space time really exists because we live in it now.

So back to square one for your manifold then.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#568493

On Tuesday, April 5, 2016 at 11:50:49 AM UTC-7, pcard...@volcanomail.com wrote:
> The question is nonsense.  Spacetime is a manifold

  You mean "spacetime can be represented with a manifold".

> not a physical thing.

  That depends on what you mean by "physical" and "thing".


  Mark L. Fergerson

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#568090

On 4/2/16 3:39 AM, 7 wrote:
> LIGO says space time is static.


   No it doesn't --

   General relativity says that spacetime is dynamic. LIGO detected
   ripples in spacetime (gravitational waves) as predicted by general
   relativity.


-- 

sci.physics is an unmoderated newsgroup dedicated
to the discussion of physics, news from the physics
community, and physics-related social issues.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#568284

Minkowski made all sorts of hairy contributions to a)
numbertheory and b)
physics ... wish I could actially recall one of them, but
timennspacenn on my ... four letters,
not "word

>    General relativity says that spacetime is dynamic. LIGO detected
>    ripples in spacetime (gravitational waves) as predicted by general
>    relativity.
> 
> 
> -- 
> 
> sci.physics is an unmoderated newsgroup dedicated
> to the discussion of physics, news from the physics
> community, and physics-related social issues.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#568508

On Saturday, April 2, 2016 at 11:39:38 AM UTC+3, 7 wrote:
> Does space time attract space time?
> -----------------------------------
> 
> LIGO says space time is static. So when it shakes,
> it can be detected billions of light years away.
> 
> For this to work, space time itself must be
> connected in such a way that it is static
> and not flowing.
> 
> For that to be true, a bit of space time
> must have a weak pull against another bit
> of space time.
> 
> So however much space time there is out there,
> it must assemble into a sphere that doesn't
> flow anywhere.

=======================
you don t think 
nothing can attract nothing   
you have some logic mistake 
vacuum is by definition  nothing 
2
had there not been some complete emtiness

 -NO MOTION-WHATSOEVER - COULD BE DONE !!
ARE YOU ABLE TO UNDERSTAND BY YOURSELF WHY I CLAIM THAT ??

if not ask !!

Y.Porat
================================================

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#568657

On Thursday, April 7, 2016 at 12:31:30 AM UTC-7, Y.Porat wrote:
> On Saturday, April 2, 2016 at 11:39:38 AM UTC+3, 7 wrote:
> > Does space time attract space time?
> > -----------------------------------
> > 
> > LIGO says space time is static. So when it shakes,
> > it can be detected billions of light years away.
> > 
> > For this to work, space time itself must be
> > connected in such a way that it is static
> > and not flowing.
> > 
> > For that to be true, a bit of space time
> > must have a weak pull against another bit
> > of space time.
> > 
> > So however much space time there is out there,
> > it must assemble into a sphere that doesn't
> > flow anywhere.
> 
> =======================
> you don t think 
> nothing can attract nothing   
> you have some logic mistake 
> vacuum is by definition  nothing 
> 2
> had there not been some complete emtiness
> 
>  -NO MOTION-WHATSOEVER - COULD BE DONE !!
> ARE YOU ABLE TO UNDERSTAND BY YOURSELF WHY I CLAIM THAT ??
> 
> if not ask !!
> 
> Y.Porat
> ================================================


Aether is something.

Double-A

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

Back to top | Article view | sci.physics

csiph-web