There is a way to view space as filled with vacuum energy fluctuations
but this is not inconsistent with space existing without matter or
energy. Space may also be viewed as the structure which is filled up
or not with matter or energy like a pool is filled with water. One does
have to study Physics with all the math and stuff to fully appreciate this.

Space can be and usually is viewed as dimensions independent of matter
and energy. But there is a probability that there will be an energy
fluctuation at a given spatial-time coordinates. This probability is
not the same thing as matter or energy however.

When you say that space "can be and is usually viewed as dimensions independent of matter and energy" are you saying it "can be viewed" as being a subjective viewpoint (imagined) or are you actually saying that space IS in fact, or can in fact exist independent of matter and energy?

I am starting with algebra.

God, I hate math.

from the Wiki on "Spacetime"

In physics, spacetime (or space–time, space time) is any mathematical model that combines space and time into a single continuum. Spacetime is usually interpreted with space as being three-dimensional and time playing the role of a fourth dimension that is of a different sort from the spatial dimensions. According to certain Euclidean space perceptions, the universe has three dimensions of space and one dimension of time. By combining space and time into a single manifold, physicists have significantly simplified a large number of physical theories, as well as described in a more uniform way the workings of the universe at both the supergalactic and subatomic levels.

In classical mechanics, the use of Euclidean space instead of spacetime is appropriate, as time is treated as universal and constant, being independent of the state of motion of an observer. In relativistic contexts, however, time cannot be separated from the three dimensions of space, because the observed rate at which time passes for an object depends on the object's velocity relative to the observer and also on the strength of intense gravitational fields, which can slow the passage of time....

etc. etc.

Matter or Energy may or may not exist at any point in Spacetime
just as any event may occur or not occur at a specific point in
space at a given time. This is why they are independent. In
general relativity, mass or energy affects the curvature of
spacetime coordinate system but that does not mean that spacetime
does not exist without matter or energy. They just affect the
curvature of the 4-space if present.

Yeah - people seriously study for years to acquire a decent understanding of these concepts and how they apply to our experience. Special relativity is covered in a typical
undergraduate curriculum. General relativity is often the subject
of a yearlong course in graduate school in Physics.

I have read this thread in it's entirety twice.

To the OP, you have demonstrated considerable characteristics of bias and an unwillingness to accept explanations that borders on troll like.

Time and time again, not just on this forum, we see amateur theologists, physicists and forum writers try to distill scientific arguments into unanswerable questions.

The reason for the criticisms is often because of flaws in our own language. A perfect example is always those that say "time would not exist if we did not invent the word time". A ridiculous statement.

I have seen this approach used several times in your responses usually when you have been given adequate explanations which you then try to destroy the language of.

"What is the exact definition of the word observer?" etc.

But if we step outside the boundaries of science for a minute I will paraphrase a famous philosopher who once said -

"Eventually we just have to accept that this is not elaborate set up and the reality we experience is actually reality. It is not a game, not a simulation and not an ethereal concept. This is it."

You can continue to torment yourself and others by questioning absolutely every aspect of every scientific theory that has ever come to pass but the truth is 99% of it is true and that which is not will be refined, adjusted and tested until we get as close as possible to the truth.

My two pence worth. There is nothing worse than arguing with somebody that comes back at you with the juvenile concept of "we just don't KNOW for certain."

Actually. We pretty much do.

Hey zen_pro

The definition or use of the word "observer" is extremely important in this context. If there is no agreement on this, then the whole conversation (about observer created reality) is pretty much pointless. I did not come here to argue semantics.

Yes, I agree that THIS IS "REALITY."

THIS IS IT.

What else would it be? It is what we say it is, after all.

If we say it is reality, then that is certainly what it is. Very simple. After all, it is us and only us who decide what things are.



I'm thinking that if scientists 'knew it all' and knew it for certain, there wouldn't be so many different "theories" "models," etc.... but oh well..

You seem to think that I have something against science. You exaggerate. (And I don't torment myself.) Perhaps others feel I torment them, I don't know.

If the questions are never asked, I don't get answers. So I ask. So shoot me.

As far as science is concerned, they have a lot of the answers but you can't say that they have them all and be "certain" about that. That does not ring as true at all.

As far as "reality" being a game.... that is a matter of personal opinion.

I had an X-husband who would always proclaim loudly: "THIS IS NOT A GAME!'

Yeh, it pretty much is.

As far as the true nature of light is concerned, the above seems to suggest that it does not travel.

Now PLEASE, all you science buffs, don't get all annoyed like you usually do about these questions.

From our point of view, that is, from where we are; that is how we measure light speed. We depend on our clocks and our calendars etc. which are based on how our planet(s) move etc.

But is the above true of a photon or not?

If there is "no path," and if there is "no time or distance" for the photon, then what is going on? How can that be called travel, except in relation to human observers on this planet?

I do realize that "travel" is relative to a frame of reference of something. Most things move. Nothing is stationary.

If time for a photon does not exist, if distance does not exist, how can you say that the true nature of light is that it travels or that it is moving? Isn't "travel" relative to us, the observer and time keeper here on this planet in this solar system?

Even if an alien planet has a different system of measurement of time and measures light speed with different things according to their own solar system, aren't they just doing the same thing? Measuring according to their system of references?

We all know we are moving within this space time continuum. We can see and feel the effects of movement and travel. But a photon does not.

*shrug*

I rest my case.

So you can't answer the question??
I thought it was pretty clear.

I've been told that there is no such thing as a dumb question.

I'm not joking around here, I'm simply asking a question!

Someone please just answer this one question:



...Is the above true of a photon or not?

A yes or no answer would be fine. IS THAT SO DIFFICULT?

I realize that nobody reading this thread is interested in this or my point of view but I think it is very interesting.

I will go now. BYE

We actually can observe time and it's relativity through the use of several tools and not all clocks are of an atomic nature so that quote you have above is genuinely incorrect.

The photon light clock is one example, see Elegant Universe (Brian Greene)pages 37-41. This is achieved because the speed of light is constant.

No doubt you will have ridiculous semantics with which to argue with Greene but he covers that quite eloquently in the first two paragraphs anything you might say.

The reason I rest my case is because it has become impossible to give you any answer without finding a flaw in it. At no point have you sat back during 6 pages of discussion and thought "actually, someone else may be correct and I should look into that or give weight to their opinions."

Therefore this discussion has become a zero sum game whereby you seek only to "win" the argument. You don't seek knowledge, you are seeking discord.

Don't reply until you have read those pages on the observation, measurement and calculation of time.

You can't actually "observe time" I don't care what book says so.
With tools you can observe the passage of time but what you are observing is movement.

You sound like a Bible thumper telling me to read your book.

Oh well I should have known better than to post anything like this on this forum. My bad.

Yes you should have known better than post ridiculous unsubstantiated comments on a forum filled with people with clearly greater faculties than yourself.

FYI We can observe time even if you are not intelligent enough to understand why. If a set event conducted at the speed of light which remains constant is thus affected for a different outcome then it means that time has indeed been observed and the changes recorded. The proof lies in the variable outcomes which would remain constant if time had not been altered in some way. See Relativity.

If you don't understand a concept then you should not debate, take your one theory that you have (and cling to like a juvenile zealot) and go back to the drawing board.

Goodbye.

Well I guess you can call that "observing time" if you want but that is not really what you are doing because time is not a "thing." You are observing changes. If you want to call that "observing time" I guess you can.

You may not like my way of looking at things, but it seems to me that you guys do better at telling me how stupid and uneducated I am than actually responding to what I post.

I did start this thread, and like it or not I will post if I want. So goodbye to you but don't tell me not to post until I read your book.
You sound like some of the Christians on here who keep telling me to read the Bible.



You are the one who is clinging to something like a zealot.

P,S.

I am reading the pages of the book you suggested and I will get back to you about that.

I read the pages you suggested and I am also reading a book by Julian Barbour called "The End of Time."

Concerning your pages, the first thing I would point out is the very first paragraph.

"It is difficult to give an abstract definition of time ---- attempts to do so often wind up invoking the word "time" itself, or else go through linguistic contortions simply to avoid doing so. Rather than proceeding down such a path, we can take a pragmatic viewpoint and define time to be that which is measured by clocks. Of course this shifts the burden of definition to the word "clock": here we can somewhat loosely think of a clock as a device that undergoes perfectly regular cycles of motion. We will measure time by counting the number of cycles our clock goes through. .."

I read the entire thing, but this first paragraph says it all.

Light clock, atomic clock or regular clock, it is still all about motion.

Time in this book has been defined as "that which is measured by clocks."

Boil that down and you have... "THAT."

Without the clocks ... what do you have?

"That."

The remainder of the pages was all about motion and relativity, speed of light etc. blah blah blah.

You probably think I have never given this kind of stuff any thought at all. You are wrong.

If you define "time" as "that" (which is measured by clocks)I have to say that it has more to do with motion and clocks than any thing called "time."

Yeh Yeh, you will probably just say that I'm stupid, uneducated, and not intelligent enough to understand anything scientific.

I just wish there was someone here who could actually have a discussion without posturing in that way.

When I attempt to discuss ideas about religion and spirituality on the general religion forum they tell me to "go read the Bible" and they tell me that "I can't possibly understand because I am not "born again" or "spirit filled" or some other such nonsense..

Déjà vu!

I come on to the Science and Philosophy Forum I mostly get the same kind of reaction.

"I can't possibly understand because I don't have a degree in physics or I am just not intelligent enough."

In comparing the two, they seem similar. I can't talk about ideas to either group without being disrespected. They take up a position and defend it as if they feel I am there to destroy what they believe or think they know. They just make statements, call it true, and tell me I'm stupid and incapable of understanding anything and that I should read a book or get an education.

Apparently there is no forum for me in this mingle.

Ah JB,

Don't make such a rash decision. Kick back, relax, stop looking to be offended, and employ the principle of charity when reading another's opinion; give the benefit of doubt. People are people, all of the differences in personality aside. You need not judge yourself according to what others say, if what they say is untrue or off-base in some way or another.

On an aside, I think what underlies all of this, from any given perspective, is something pure and simple... truth. Understanding how truth 'works', is a basic fundamental key.

Regarding this thread, and in particular, some recurring patterns of communication breakdown. It is always helpful, irrevocably so on my view, to know not only what it would take for another's claims to be true, but also what it would take for one's own claims to be. By default alone, if this is known then meaning is had.

That might be true, but if they (and you) are not willing to simply and calmly address the actual questions or challenges presented without puffing up about how much more educated they believe they are, and if they are not the slightest bit willing to bend just a little in an attempt to see things from my perspective, or try to understand what i mean, it can't happen.

To insist that I spend five or ten years learning math and physics before they will lower themselves to even talking to me about my perspective of time and space seems like a cop out to me.

With all that they (and you) portend to know about this subject they should be able to hold their own in any kind of discussion or debate and wipe the floor with me once and for all without being so condescending and disrespectful.

If they think they are above all of that and don't want to waste their time, that's fine. But I have yet to see a really good argument or answer from anyone. All I have seen so far is statements that they claim are true and the claim that I am "just not intelligent enough to understand" their simple 4th grade examples and explanations.

Why is it so difficult for some scientists to admit that 'time' (as a thing or entity existing in space) just does not exist? That's all that I am saying! It's very simple, its not hard to understand.

In Zen_Pro's example above, his book redefines "time" as "that."

"That which we measure with clocks."

And yet he still insists they can "see" time. Really? How?

All they are seeing are clocks. Motion, movement, change, entropy.

Even a sun dial, is motion of a shadow as the sun moves across the sky.

I'd be glad to go over s1ow's rejoinder with you(the one you initially thought was sarcastic).

What would it take to make the statement "We can see time" true?