What we now call “spacetime” is the concept of the substance of space (definitely not a fabric) and its changing, relative motion (time).
From Rational Metaphysics
One cannot have an empty space between spaces. One cannot have truly empty space.
To have a truly empty space would mean that regardless of a potential infinitely powerful microscope, there would still be zero distinction between points within the truly empty space, pure homogeneity of void. For anything to be rationally said to exist, it must have affect (Rational Existence == Affectance). Absolute emptiness infers zero affect and infers absolute zero existence.
The closeness of any affect to another is determined and defined by the directness of affect. When anything immediately affects something else, it is what we call “close” and when it must transfer its affect through a causal chain, it is said to be more “distant”. Distances are caused by the propagation of affect.
Time is the measure of relative change or affect.
As relative changing occurs through propagation of affect, distance is formed. If the changing could occur relatively more quickly, the distance would be formed as less, the causal chain of affects would be shorter. Thus time, the propagation of affect, causes distance. And direction of affect causes dimensionality.
Thus even if there were proposed a region of truly total emptiness, it is the transfer of affect across that region that determines actual distance. If the region causes a delay of any kind, it would have affect and thus by definition, not be empty. Thus with or without that proposed truly empty region, the physically formed distance would be the same.
Thus it is rational to proclaim that any proposed true emptiness not only has no affect upon objects, but also has no affect upon distance and relative lengths and therefore cannot be a valid state. There can be no absolute emptiness between anything.
Therefore space is not a fabric, implying woven existence around emptiness, but rather is formed by the propagation of affect, measured as time. It is a field of affectance wherein affecting is ever present and active to the most infinitesimal degree. It is a substance made of changing.
People have confused a lot of concepts into physics. One of those is the concepts of a “fabric of space”. There can be no “fabric”, no tiny areas of non-reality between the woven lines of reality.
Additionally, most people still think in terms of substance being inside an otherwise empty chamber. The reality is that the chamber, the dimensional space, is created by what is inside of it, affectance.
Interesting James. Here, for what it’s worth, is my twopennyworth:
Start by looking at the title: Spacetime the Substance of Change and consider Minkowski spacetime. A “block” of Minkowski spacetime is changeless. See Nasty little truth about spacetime physics. So it’s space that is the substance of change, this change results in time, and we combine space and time into a “mathematical space” called spacetime that is something abstract. You can’t move through it.
If you’re calling it a substance you shouldn’t be so uppity about it not being a fabric.
Yep. See Einstein’s Leyden Address. This is the important bit:
This space-time variability of the reciprocal relations of the standards of space and time, or, perhaps, the recognition of the fact that “empty space” in its physical relation is neither homogeneous nor isotropic, compelling us to describe its state by ten functions (the gravitation potentials gμν), has, I think, finally disposed of the view that space is physically empty.
This sounds like what I’ve said about the gap between your hands. It’s a gap. It isn’t nothing. Space isn’t nothing. You can’t see space itself but you can see that gap.
Yep, but if I were you I’d try to move towards more conventional language. The affectance sounds a bit alien. Kind of off-putting.
Agreed.
This needs work. You start with space, which has an innate property of distance. Change happens, and if it didn’t, there would be any time. But consider a motionless universe containing only two objects. They’re still separated by a distance, even though without motion you can’t observe anything, and it isn’t much of a universe. There ain’t no existence going on.
I think you need to change the emphasis here away from time causes distance. You can see the gap between your hands, the distance, and you can waggle your hands and see motion. Time is less fundamental than distance and motion.
Agreed put your hands together and there’s nothing between them. Nothing doesn’t exist.
I disagree. Electromagnetic waves propagate through space. Space sustains waves and fields. It’s a substance, though not in the usual sense of the word. And if it’s a substance it’s a fabric too. But it isn’t made of anything. Instead everything is made of it. Or should I say changes happening to it. They’re distance changes you know. The electromagnetic wave isn’t that different to a gravitational wave. See LIGO which hoped to detect changes in the length of the arms. Sadly the subtitle is RIPPLES IN THE FABRIC OF SPACE-TIME. They aren’t. They’re ripples in space, and they travel through space, not through spacetime. Even these guys have never read the original Einstein, but instead pump out an ersatz version of relativity that isn’t true to the original.
Farsight, you need to shift gears when conversing with me. You have spent a lot of time explaining simple things to stubbornly blind or simply uneducated people. Don’t become one of them yourself by such an empathetic endeavor. I am very aware of what space and time are, and even from whence they came. And in Cartesian concept, space is no more warp-able than time.
Time == the measure of relative change
Einstein said something very close to that and if he could have realized that simple statement 100 years ago, a whole lot of physics would have been cleared up really quickly. But it takes logical philosophers to guide scientists or they run a muck (as they have).
I explained why it isn’t a fabric. How is that being “uppity”?
I’ll grant you that, but then so was a globe planet. The reason I am using the term “affect” and “affectance” is largely embedded in much higher concerns than merely explaining the make of spacetime. And when you use common physics terms, as you try to do, you end up with constant pejorative deferral to someone who wrote something using that word who implied something different than what you implied… semantic argument pursues endlessly. You might as well be talking about spirits and gods.
No. You start with affect. Affect is the very essence of existence, not space. But affect must affect something that isn’t itself (else it isn’t affecting). What it affects, is merely other affects. How much it affects is what is measured as “energy”. But distance is a concept that is created via exactly how the affecting took place. The affecting isn’t being retarded by the distance. It is actually the reverse of that. The distance is being created by the directness of affecting.
You can easily imagine only two objects in a void, but you never have such a state. That distance between them cannot exist at all until there is “time” between them. By time, I mean that the affecting of one must propagate through a series of affecting before it reaches the other. You imagine that there is a void between the two objects, but as explained, a true void does not and cannot ever be the state. There is no void between the two object. The propagation of affect from one to the other is what determines the “distance” between them. The speed of affect (of light), is what actually sets that distance. That is why you have relativity.
So I should change my emphasis away from truth so as to substantiate the misconception?? Einstein should have stayed away from the idea of relative time??
That is the misconception. Believing that is no different than believing that time is a constant measure rather than a relative measure.
The concept of affect comes first because it is what defines existence. The affecting, due to not being able to happen infinitely fast, requires changing rather than merely change. Distance is a reflection of the before and after of the changing, the propagation of changing, of affect.
It is an absolute immutable fact of logic. You may disagree all you like and you will always be incorrect.
You just mentioned 2 entities of which you know nothing of their make. Of what is space made? And of what is the electromagnetic field made? You personally claim that one is the warping of the other. That isn’t entirely incorrect, but then that still leaves the question, “of what is the other made such that it can warp, twist, or expand?” Cartesian dimensions don’t bend, warp, or expand. So exactly what is that thing you are calling “space”?
Now that’s lucid. A fabric is woven threads. Threads of what? What is being woven and what is it being woven around?
That part is right. But exactly what is the “it” (and don’t say “it is nothing”)? I know my answer, but what is yours? And if you are going to say “electromagnetic field” (again), of what is that field made?
If you say it’s a substance but then you say it’s definitely not a fabric, there’s a problem. Maybe “uppity” isn’t the right word, but nevertheless it’s still something you should look at.
Don’t give me the spirits and gods. I’ve told you why you should refer to space rather than spacetime, pay attention to it. And note that I defer to no man. But set that aside and focus on the I’ll grant you that: try rephrasing what you’re saying in terms of energy and available energy. Energy is fundamental. A variation in energy density results in work. It results in “affect”. A uniform energy density doesn’t. Then you’re in an aspic frozen world where nothing happens, and existence doesn’t happen either.
Needs more work.
There’s some truth in this. For example a black hole is a region where time dilation is infinite, and thus there are no effects. Nothing happens. Hence the distance inside a black hole becomes meaningless. Ditto for time. Light doesn’t move, so we have no measure of space or time. So you might say that a black hole is one light-minute across on the outside, but that it has no measurable dimensions on the inside. Think of the early universe as being like the inside of a black hole. It’s a kind of non-existence thing. I hope you can see from this that I think you’ve got something, and that when I say it needs more work I’m not just pissing you around.
Pack it in James. Learn to take criticism on the chin. Deal with it instead of rejecting it like the other guys.
Again, distance is not some reflection of before and after. Time is a reflection of motion from A to B thence B to C. The “before” is one of those seductive words that traps you in a certain way of thinking.
Let’s agree to differ on that.
You can’t define it in terms of anything else. Things like particles are dynamical “structures in space”. They’re made of space and motion. Space isn’t made out of things. It’s fundamental, the same thing as energy. Energy density differences result in motion. No differences, no motion.
I can’t define it in terms of anything else. But when it’s curved, that’s an electromagnetic field.
It’s more like a block of ghostly elastic. It isn’t made of thread. But it stretches. Waves run through it.
Space. That’s the end of the line. Or energy if you prefer. They’re the same thing. No shit.
YOU are the one saying that I am being TOO different. Geeez… You can’t even plot a trivial little math equation and you are trying to tell me the TRUE make of the universe and how absolutely wrong I am?? {Gyahd}…
I can plot a trivial little math equation. And I can tell you where you’re wrong. But if you can’t and won’t deal with it, you’re just like the people you castigate.
Apparently, as you have demonstrated on the photon thread, you really can’t plot a simple equation even after I gave you all of the numbers.
You can preach that I’m wrong forever, but until you come up with a little logic and/or math, your words are just obfuscated rhetoric. I had given you credit some time ago for being able to actually think outside the box a bit. My mistake. You belong in the church of perverted sciencism as a loyal supporter of the crown.
“Critical thinking” means that you examine what famous people say and see if it actually makes logical sense rather than Bible-thumping chapter and verse by always referring to pictures and words that the nobility have professed for the sheeple. You probably should drop all of this sciencism and join the Mormon church so you could have plenty of friends to support your preaching efforts.
It is good that you seem to be in the class of pictorial thinkers, but your ability to actually think critically is nil. Science NEEDS critical thinkers, not patriots.
All: this is the sort of thing you get when you point out the issues in something James is talking about. You don’t get “Hmmn, interesting. I’d better take a look at that”. What you get is a floam-flecked rant and a heap of ironic abuse. Such is life.
This sounds like its correctly reasoned but does it mean that empty space can not exist? Or what does it say about the nature of space if it is not the space between things, but that actually the things between space are what cause and define space?
I’m with you brother but good luck telling that to the castrates in charge.
