https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MTY1Kje0yLg

This one is especially for you, uyiiredia of space does not curve.

Gravity is hoax.

wiegraf:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MTY1Kje0yLg
This one is especially for you, uyiiredia of space does not curve.

So a professor demonstrates 'space curving' using a cloth on a trampoline

UyiIredia:


So a professor demonstrates 'space curving' using a cloth on a trampoline

tell me your own idea

johnydon22:
tell me your own idea

Not an idea but a fact. Space is nothing or emptiness. All physical things from the subatomic to the galactic exist within that context.

UyiIredia:


So a professor demonstrates 'space curving' using a cloth on a trampoline

I don't think he's a prof, but yes.....

UyiIredia:


Not an idea but a fact. Space is nothing or emptiness. All physical things from the subatomic to the galactic exist within that context.

That is no scientific fact, at all

Not even sure it holds philosophically. Do you understand what true nothingness entails?

wiegraf:


I don't think he's a prof, but yes.....

This is idiotic. Space is not a material. All the professor showed was that a stretched cloth curves when masses are applied on it.

Dawdy:
Gravity is hoax.

Low energy reply

Fake reply

wiegraf:


That is no scientific fact, at all

Not even sure it holds philosophically. Do you understand what true nothingness entails?

It is actually. Because it is apparent that all objects (invisible or visible) exist in a context that is immaterial. This is best seen in the case of our solar system with numerous pictures of planets hanging in a vast, dark emptiness.

Note that I said space is nothing or emptiness. This is different from true nothingness where nothing exists at all (no matter, no God, absolutely nothing).

Again, all objects exist in an emptiness that is not physical in any sense.

UyiIredia:


This is idiotic. Space is not a material. All the professor showed was that a stretched cloth curves when masses are applied on it.

It has material properties, like dimensions.

The force carrying particles aren't 'materials' either, but they have material properties as well, despite the fact you can have multiple of them occupying the same space...

What is your problem here? Is it lack of imagination?

Oya, explain why relativity accurately predicts and explains things like gravitational lensing and Mercury's orbit?

UyiIredia:


It is actually. Because it is apparent that all objects (invisible or visible) exist in a context that is immaterial. This is best seen in the case of our solar system with numerous pictures of planets hanging in a vast, dark emptiness.
.

So, because you can't see anything there, that means it is empty?

Great thinking there...

UyiIredia:
Note that I said space is nothing or emptiness. This is different from true nothingness where nothing exists at all (no matter, no God, absolutely nothing).

Again, all objects exist in an emptiness that is not physical in any sense.

That 'emptiness' has properties that have physical effects...

wiegraf:


It has material properties, like dimensions.

That doesn't make it material. Otherwise you would be able to ascribe other material properties to it like momentum, energy, length etc. Unlike matter, the dimensions of space are not and cannot be limited to a given area (which BTW is defined by a region in space).

wiegraf:

The force carrying particles aren't 'materials' either, but they have material properties as well, despite the fact you can have multiple of them occupying the same space as well..

They are. Photons are the force carrying particles for the electromagnetic force. Humans see photons at the frequencies in the visible spectrum.

wiegraf:

What is your problem here? Is it lack of imagination?

I'm not the one with the problem. You are.

wiegraf:

Oya, explain why relativity accurately predicts and explains things like gravitational lensing and Mercury's orbit?

Good maths and guesswork. That doesn't make Einstein's posit less silly. Newton ascribed gravity as an attractive force that is sufficient to explain the occurrences you stated.

UyiIredia:


Not an idea but a fact. Space is nothing or emptiness. All physical things from the subatomic to the galactic exist within that context.

Lol speaking with so much confidence does not in fact validate an idea as fact - anyway moving on..

now what makes objects float in this emptiness? under what physical laws makes this possible and using that term explain gravitational attraction, orbits and cosmic expansion

again emptiness is not exactly same as nothing....

wiegraf:


It has material properties, like dimensions.

The force carrying particles aren't 'materials' either, but they have material properties as well, despite the fact you can have multiple of them occupying the same space...

What is your problem here? Is it lack of imagination?

Oya, explain why relativity accurately predicts and explains things like gravitational lensing and Mercury's orbit?

i think you guys are misrepresenting the very concept of material, that something is unseen doesnt make it immaterial..

wiegraf:


So, because you can't see anything there, that means it is empty?

Great thinking there...

Did I not also mention that this applies to invisible objects? How stupid could you be? I used that example as visual evidence.

wiegraf:

That 'emptiness' has properties that have physical effects...

State the physical properties of the 'emptiness'. Apart from dimensions. Any matter has several physical properties. The same should be true of space if it is material as you claim.

johnydon22:


i think you guys are misrepresenting the very concept of material, that something is unseen doesnt make it immaterial..

Which is why I mentioned invisible objects in the comment he quoted. I am not misrepresenting anything. It is those who claim space curves or is material that are misrepresenting an immaterial entity as a material one.

UyiIredia:


Which is why I mentioned invisible objects in the comment he quoted. I am not misrepresenting anything. It is those who claim space curves or is material that are misrepresenting an immaterial entity as a material one.

visualizing gravity as an attractive force or a curvature of space-time arent really any distant from each other cus attractive bodies are achievable in a curvable space as the video wiegraf posted showed. so Einstein's position does not refute Newton's postulation but rather validates it

things like blackholes, gravitational ripples are only possible in a space that curves which means that there is an underlining quality that is space more than just the emptiness the impression reveals in a physical sense.

i am still waiting for your explanation of orbits in an empty space

johnydon22:


Lol speaking with so much confidence does not in fact validate an idea as fact - anyway moving on..

You are fond of handwaving away points without making credible refutations. If you think space is material, falsify my claim that space is nothing by stating physical properties of space. Any material entity has several physical properties.

johnydon22:

now what makes objects float in this emptiness? under what physical laws makes this possible and using that term explain gravitational attraction, orbits and cosmic expansion

That is the mystery isn't it? How come the universe (stars, planets, comets etc) is suspended in infinite space without anything below to support it?

johnydon22:

again emptiness is not exactly same as nothing....

It depends on the definition one uses. Some definitions of emptiness mean nothing. I just used the word 'emptiness' to reinforce my point that space is nothing (is not a physical thing). If you claim space (or nothing) is material, which is illogical BTW you better tell me its material properties.

Edit. See below.

johnydon22:

visualizing gravity as an attractive force or a curvature of space-time arent really any distant from each other cus attractive bodies are achievable in a curvable space as the video wiegraf posted showed. so Einstein's position does not refute Newton's postulation but rather validates it

Matter curves, we see that. Even for invisible matter we see it curves by its effect on visible matter eg when air blows a feather etc. That video is just one more example of matter curving not space-time curving. We need to clarify terms at this point. Define what you mean by space. For me, by space I mean nothing.

johnydon22:

things like blackholes, gravitational ripples are only possible in a space that curves which means that there is an underlining quality that is space more than just the emptiness the impression reveals in a physical sense.

I don't accept that space curves. So I can't accept that. You'll need to define what you mean by space, and substantiate that definition. You also use circular logic here. You insist that certain things can't occur without space curving then use that to support the notion that space is more than just emptiness, which is bound to be the case if you think space curves. Note the logic: some things can't occur without space curving therefore space is more than just emptiness.

johnydon22:

i am still waiting for your explanation of orbits in an empty space

Planetary orbits are attributed to gravity. The suspension of the universe in space is a mystery. Clearly, some force holds it in space and presumably permeates all of space.

UyiIredia:


You are fond of handwaving away points without making credible refutations. If you think space is material, falsify my claim that space is nothing by stating physical properties of space. Any material entity has several physical properties.

isn't that what you did on wiegrafs post, making a confident claim that somehow you think to be credible just because you said it. There is no refutation to be tendered here, throughout antiquity the Philosophy of space has always boggled the human mind, many have brought their ideas of what space is or likely is and these arguments have persisted through time.

it was once conceived to possess aethers, waterlike cosmic materials that make objects float in space, some has imagined a static independent plain just like Newton whereas many have added a geometrical property to space known as Dimension which modern physics adds a fourth dimension [time] - spacetime continuum.

theories are devised to explain observed facts and throughout the history of space philosophy the main idea that more sufficiently explains the relationship of matter and space is the conception of space as a geometrical plane in which matter interferes with the geometrical structure..


this well more sufficiently explains orbits, gravitation or relativity more than any space model - i am not here to make confident remarks as you claiming validity, i am here to have a sound discussion aimed at establishing what is most likely right not to fight or claim to be right.

That is the mystery isn't it? How come the universe (stars, planets, comets etc) is suspended in infinite space without anything below to support it?

that more so is the observation that brings up the philosophical position of space being something right from ancient times, so we could say that the displacement of spacetime geometrical structure solves this problem as modern physics has established.

you would imagine a cosmos with empty space and stars within and then begin to wonder what holds these objects - or you could imagine a cosmos with space that actively interacts with the objects within [mass] to produce result [gravity] - these are varying ideas and i wont waste time to argue correctness cus it will still fall back to subjectivity of ideas.

It depends on the definition one uses. Some definitions of emptiness mean nothing. I just used the word 'emptiness' to reinforce my point that space is nothing (is not a physical thing). If you claim space (or nothing) is material, which is illogical BTW you better tell me its material properties.

exactly the point, emptiness doesn't really mean not physical..

UyiIredia:


Matter curves, we see that. Even for invisible matter we see it curves by its effect on visible matter eg when air blows a feather etc. That video is just one more example of matter curving not space-time curving.

quick question - will it be correct to assert that since matter curves nothing else can even it possess a geometrical structure.

- and please the video was used as a demonstration to mimick the relationship between space and matter, just like an analogy - habba

We need to clarify terms at this point. Define what you mean by space. For me, by space I mean nothing.

then wiegraf must understand that this is where the problem lies - subjective definition of the subject being debated.

space, as physics goes is a plain with geometrical points on which matter exist within - so the property of space as a geometrical structure [points] makes it a curvable plain going by this definition.

well i am going to drop here and not say no more since obviously the debate is based on subjective definitions which surely will not bring forth any result.

I don't accept that space curves. So I can't accept that. You'll need to define what you mean by space, and substantiate that definition. You also use circular logic here. You insist that certain things can't occur without space curving then use that to support the notion that space is more than just emptiness, which is bound to be the case if you think space curves. Note the logic: some things can't occur without space curving therefore space is more than just emptiness.

since you dont accept physical phenomenons like gravitational ripples and blackholes simply because it contradicts your idea of space - i cannot help you then, though it makes a curious thought how then you accept orbits and even mass.

and then give me one example of cosmological events that dont curve spacetime

Planetary orbits are attributed to gravity.

explain gravity that's the problem - under what physical interactions is gravity birthed

The suspension of the universe in space is a mystery. Clearly, some force holds it in space and presumably permeates all of space.

some force - here we go, driving back to the point.. is this force a property of space or independent of space - can space exist without this force or is this force a kind of innate property of the emptiness.

just a mention of this 'force' drives space to be far from nothing after all which then is consonant with your arguments here - or by soem force are we going back to the days of the aethers?

UyiIredia:


Did I not also mention that this applies to invisible objects? How stupid could you be? I used that example as visual evidence.

Ser genius, that using that example is particularly asinine should be self evident.

It's like stating that because a blind man can't see anything, that means it's empty all around him. See??

UyiIredia:

State the physical properties of the 'emptiness'. Apart from dimensions. Any matter has several physical properties. The same should be true of space if it is material as you claim.

Where did I say that it was filled with matter??

I'm careful to use material in quotes for a reason. Or would bosons qualify as matter to you?

I said space has properties that has physical effects. These effects include the aforementioned gravitational lensing, effects on time and matter. Heck, gravity itself is an effect in a sense.

And if you want direct proof of the agent responsible for warping space, do you know gravitational waves were recently spotted?

cc. teempakguy queed here is something interesting going on now - lets have fun again in this science section

wiegraf:


Ser genius, that using that example is particularly asinine should be self evident.

It's like stating that because a blind man can't see anything, that means it's empty all around him. See??



Where did I say that it was filled with matter??

I'm careful to use material in quotes for a reason. Or would bosons qualify as matter to you?

I said space has properties that has physical effects. These effects include the aforementioned gravitational lensing, effects on time and matter. Heck, gravity itself is an effect in a sense.

And if you want direct proof of the agent responsible for warping space, do you know gravitational waves were recently spotted?

Gravity is an effect not an uncaused value as Uyil would have us believe - well let's wait for his own idea on the causality of gravity ..

again i would suggest you both try not to turn this into something personal by using insutive words and persoanl remarks - we may all be wrong still

UyiIredia:


That doesn't make it material. Otherwise you would be able to ascribe other material properties to it like momentum, energy, length etc. Unlike matter, the dimensions of space are not and cannot be limited to a given area (which BTW is defined by a region in space).

Once again, space has properties. Gravity, or its curvature, is one of such properties.

What in the world do you mean by the bolded?

And because an object has dimensions, that means its container cannot posses dimensions?

UyiIredia:

They are. Photons are the force carrying particles for the electromagnetic force. Humans see photons at the frequencies in the visible spectrum.

Wow. So because you can see photons, that makes them real, lol.

What about the other particles that can be detected via other means but are not on the visual spectrum, like that Higgs Boson that was recently observed, it doesn't exist? It didn't exist before it was detected??

UyiIredia:

Good maths and guesswork. That doesn't make Einstein's posit less silly. Newton ascribed gravity as an attractive force that is sufficient to explain the occurrences you stated.

Kayi...

He also said was instantaneous, this has already been proven false.

It also doesn't account for various other effects, effects I am tired of listing.

Now, you've been provided with evidence after evidence after evidence, and your reply is to hand wave it away because you can't see it.

Nice going

johnydon22:
isn't that what you did on wiegrafs post, making a confident claim that somehow you think to be credible just because you said it. There is no refutation to be tendered here, throughout antiquity the Philosophy of space has always boggled the human mind, many have brought their ideas of what space is or likely is and these arguments have persisted through time.

I proffered the evidence that all objects visible or otherwise exist in a context lacking material properties. I also asked that my claim that space is nothing be falsified by stating the physical properties of space. So there is a basis to my claim. I'm aware of the philosophy of space and the fact that illogical arguments like those of Leibniz's have been brought.

johnydon22:

it was once conceived to possess aethers, waterlike cosmic materials that make objects float in space, some has imagined a static independent plain just like Newton whereas many have added a geometrical property to space known as Dimension which modern physics adds a fourth dimension [time] - spacetime continuum.

Aethers are material existing in space. They aren't space itself.

johnydon22:

theories are devised to explain observed facts and throughout the history of space philosophy the main idea that more sufficiently explains the relationship of matter and space is the conception of space as a geometrical plane in which matter interferes with the geometrical structure..

Note that space is conceptualised as a geometrical plane. It has not actually been shown to be a geometrical plane itself. Besides, what would the geometrical plane exist in if not space. Geometries by definition occupy regions of space like matter.

johnydon22:

this well more sufficiently explains orbits, gravitation or relativity more than any space model - i am not here to make confident remarks as you seeking claiming validity, i am here to have a sound discussion aimed at establishing what is most likely right not to fight or claim to be right.

And you are not making confident remarks? More handwaving and hypocrisy.

johnydon22:

that more so is the observation that brings up the philosophical position of space being something right from ancient times, so we could say that the displacement of spacetime geometrical structure solves this problem as modern physics has established.

The only way space is something is that it has being (in other words, it exists). Other than that it is not material. Geometries like mass exist in space, they are extended in space and are a demonstrable fundamental property of various objects.

Since you claim space-time has geometrical structure that mean space-time occupies a finite area, it is movable (you can't curve without moving) and it is divisible. Can you forward actual observations showing such?

johnydon22:

you would imagine a cosmos with empty space and stars within and then begin to wonder what holds these objects - or you could imagine a cosmos with space that actively interacts with the objects within [mass] to produce result [gravity] - these are varying ideas and i wont waste time to argue correctness cus it will still fall back to subjectivity of ideas.

Obviously nothing physical holds these objects.

johnydon22:

exactly the point, emptiness doesn't really mean not physical..

Once again you fail to show physical properties of space.

johnydon22:
quick question - will it be correct to assert that since matter curves nothing else can even it possess a geometrical structure.

Anything that has a geometrical structure is material and can curve. I regard geometry as a fundamental property of matter which is verified by the fact that length is a fundamental unit in physics.

johnydon22:

- and please the video was used as a demonstration to mimick the relationship between space and matter, just like an analogy - habba

Well it is a poor analogy because it is matter that has geometry not space. Note that an infinite geometry makes no sense. Geometries are always finite because they occupy specified areas IN space.

johnydon22:

then wiegraf must understand that this is where the problem lies - subjective definition of the subject being debated.

But there are such things as facts. They are not subjective.

johnydon22:

space, as physics goes is a plain with geometrical points on which matter exist within - so the property of space as a geometrical structure [points] makes it a curvable plain going by this definition.

This is wrong. Planes are 2-dimensional. Space is 3-dimensional. Planes have a fixed are, space does not. In fact, your definition is not what Wikipedia uses. Go to their page on space and confirm.

johnydon22:

well i am going to drop here and not say no more since obviously the debate is based on subjective definitions which surely will not bring forth any result.

Definitions should be as objective as possible. There is still room for debate.

johnydon22:

since you dont accept physical phenomenons like gravitational ripples and blackholes simply because it contradicts your idea of space - i cannot help you then, though it makes a curious thought how then you accept orbits and even mass.

I did not say I don't accept those physical phenomena it is the explanation using space curvature that I don't accept.

johnydon22:

and then give me one example of cosmological events that dont curve spacetime

How can anything curve space if it is nothing?

johnydon22:

explain gravity that's the problem - under what physical interactions is gravity birthed

Why should I explain gravity? Gravity is a fundamental force existing between objects. In the context of physical laws it requires no explanation. It just exists. If I asked you to explain space what would be your reply?

johnydon22:

some force - here we go, driving back to the point.. is this force a property of space or independent of space - can space exist without this force or is this force a kind of innate property of the emptiness.

This involves speculation which I do not have to give. As an atheist, you should be well aware of the fact that one cannot, nor does one have to answer every question.

johnydon22:

just a mention of this 'force' drives space to be far from nothing after all which then is consonant with your arguments here - or by soem force are we going back to the days of the aethers?

See above. But then if force is something, what is it?

johnydon22:
Gravity is an effect not an uncaused value as Uyil would have us believe - well let's wait for his own idea on the causality of gravity ..

again i would suggest you both try not to turn this into something personal by using insutive words and persoanl remarks - we may all be wrong still

wiegraf here, the ban bot is doing its thing, so I'm going to limit the amount of links in this post.

No be today me and am don start dis talk

https://www.nairaland.com/1420738/how-prove-atheist-god-exists/14

https://www.nairaland.com/1325844/used-respect-deism....until-met-deists/1

And others...

To save you the trouble involved in reading through all that, here's an answer to the bolded

uyi:

God (conscious, intelligent energy) perforce effected our universe. What you call space I call God. Luckily for me, you've stated space is something.

And

uyi:

Good. Space-time is intelligent. To help you, note that only intelligent dudes talk about it.

To be fair, he's come a long way from claiming consciousness was imbued in us by god via telekinesis

uyi:

To the first question: God is consciousness itself and He imputed it to humans by telekinesis.

And other such highlights.

Goot times! Though methinks I've spent a little too much time here, but meh

wiegraf:


Ser genius, that using that example is particularly asinine should be self evident.

It's like stating that because a blind man can't see anything, that means it's empty all around him. See??

Again what was my statement about invisible objects? Are you going to claim invisible objects don't exist in space? Or that the Earth doesn't exist in space?

wiegraf:

Where did I say that it was filled with matter??

You don't have to state it.

wiegraf:

I'm careful to use material in quotes for a reason. Or would bosons qualify as matter to you?

What reason? And yes bosons are material. Photons are bosons. We see them, they exist in space, they are material and have material properties readily described.

wiegraf:

I said space has properties that has physical effects. These effects include the aforementioned gravitational lensing, effects on time and matter. Heck, gravity itself is an effect in a sense.

That something has physical effects doesn't make it physical. Emotions have physical effects on the body, they aren't physical. To show that something is physical you have to show that it has physical properties.

wiegraf:

And if you want direct proof of the agent responsible for warping space, do you know gravitational waves were recently spotted?

You don't even know your science. Gravitational waves are ripples in space-time moving at lightspeed. Ripples are a type of warp. How then can you say gravitational waves cause a warp in space when they are a warp in space? Didn't Einstein even define gravity as a warp (or curve) in space-time caused by mass?