Naked Science Forum
General Discussion & Feedback => Just Chat! => Topic started by: Black hole on 16/10/2021 00:23:15
-
In a world where education is important it is important to be precise in defining definitions precisely as to not confuse the reader .
In a recent thread a debate occurred over what is space-time versus what is space ?
''In physics, spacetime is any mathematical model which fuses the three dimensions of space and the one dimension of time into a single four-dimensional manifold. Spacetime diagrams can be used to visualize relativistic effects, such as why different observers perceive differently where and when events occur. Wikipedia''
''noun
1.
a continuous area or expanse which is free, available, or unoccupied.
"a table took up much of the space"
2.the dimensions of height, depth, and width within which all things exist and move.
"the work gives the sense of a journey in space and time"
Firstly I suggest we consider ''a continuous area or expanse which is free, available, or unoccupied.
"a table took up much of the space" which is physically described incorrectly . Space is occupied by matter !
How do we describe space in this instant that is more precise ?
-
Space is occupied by matter !
Unless it's empty.
-
Space is occupied by matter !
Unless it's empty.
Where is there any empty unoccupied space in our visual universe ?
All space within visual boundaries is occupied by some form of matter , whether it atomic matter , field matter, EMR or CMBR matter ! To define space as unoccupied and empty is not a precise definition within our visual limits .
Why have that definition at all ? Why not use the term room for defining this context? Have you the room for a settee for example ? I don't think in physics we should have a diversity of definitions . Space should have one meaning !
-
Where is there any empty unoccupied space in our visual universe ?
Between the few hydrogen atoms in outer space, for one.
field matter
Fields, EMR and CMBR aren't made of matter.
-
Where is there any empty unoccupied space in our visual universe ?
Between the few hydrogen atoms in outer space, for one.
field matter
Fields, EMR and CMBR aren't made of matter.
That is not true , between the dispersed hydrogen atoms is space that is occupied by quantum fields . Matter is much more than just particles ! A field can push a field because it has materialistic properties and physicality .
Einsteins space-time curvature is an earlier effort of explaining the HIggs field .
''Peter Ware Higgs CH FRS FRSE HonFInstP is a British theoretical physicist, Emeritus Professor in the University of Edinburgh, and Nobel Prize laureate for his work on the mass of subatomic particles. Wikipedia
Born: 29 May 1929 (age 92 years), Newcastle upon''
An English Professor whom understood Einsteins space-time curvature and realised that any curvature reference was relative and dependent in there being an energy field that occupied our visual universe . This field of course independent of space . Before Higgs and Einstein was the ether theory , both Einstein and HIggs attempted to advance this theory .
The definition of space that is relative to a table space needs deleting and that would leave the second definition that explains dimensions , which is xyz , not space !
In reflection of this , both definitions are incorrect and need deleting .
-
That is not true , between the dispersed hydrogen atoms is space that is occupied by quantum fields
It's still not matter.
A field can push a field because it has materialistic properties and physicality .
Citation needed.
-
Citation needed.
No citation needed , just try to push two bar magnets together with the same signed poles facing each other !
The magnetic field space gains density , each identical signed poles exerting field compression on each others field .
Anyway this is a literature thread , why can't we just define space by a single definition and define that space is independent of matter but can be occupied by matter ?
Very simple to understand and factual ?
-
why can't we just define space by a single definition and define that space is independent of matter but can be occupied by matter ?
That sounds rather like the conventional definition to me.
-
why can't we just define space by a single definition and define that space is independent of matter but can be occupied by matter ?
That sounds rather like the conventional definition to me.
Thank you , yes that is the basic physics of what is space , space having zero physicality .
You mentioned matter and replied that CBMR , EMR and quantum fields are not matter . After explaining the magnet don't you think that quantum fields do demonstrate materialistic properties ? Obviously a bar magnet can push a bar magnet without actually touching ! To me this demonstrates the possibility of field solidity ?
''In classical physics and general chemistry, matter is any substance that has mass and takes ... A definition of "matter" more fine-scale than the atoms and molecules ...''
I consider in defining matter to be precise we should define matter as any substance that occupies space ?
I've edited and took off a part the definition did not equired .
-
You mentioned matter and replied that CBMR , EMR and quantum fields are not matter .
They're not.
After explaining the magnet don't you think that quantum fields do demonstrate materialistic properties ?
Fields still aren't matter.
To me this demonstrates the possibility of field solidity ?
Fields aren't solid.
I consider in defining matter to be precise we should define matter as any substance that occupies space that has materialistic properties ?
How about we just use the one that already exists?
-
You mentioned matter and replied that CBMR , EMR and quantum fields are not matter .
They're not.
After explaining the magnet don't you think that quantum fields do demonstrate materialistic properties ?
Fields still aren't matter.
To me this demonstrates the possibility of field solidity ?
Fields aren't solid.
I consider in defining matter to be precise we should define matter as any substance that occupies space that has materialistic properties ?
How about we just use the one that already exists?
How about using great English language as opposed to incorrect explanations that can create diversity in the information a reader is trying to gain ?
I never said fields were a solid , I said don't you think that the bar magnets example shows the possibility of field solidity ?
You are thinking this is in the context that you can easily slide an object into the field space rather than considering the relativity between the two magnets .
Relative to magnet 1 and magnet 2 the field space has solidity and physicality or the magnet would not overcome the inertia of the earth and move. There is some considerable density between the two fields in pushing a magnet this way relatively .
-
incorrect explanations
What are these "incorrect explanations" you speak of?
I never said fields were a solid , I said don't you think that the bar magnets example shows the possibility of field solidity ?
No, because fields don't exhibit solidity. The word you are probably looking for is tangibility.
-
No, because fields don't exhibit solidity. The word you are probably looking for is tangibility.
The word is relativity !
The compressed magnetic field between two like wise signed poles being squeezed together is dense enough to overcome the earths inertia . Relatively it takes another object with solidity to move something . Relatively there is solidity between the two magnets exerting force .
-
inertia .
You would do well to review the definition of that word. Or learn some physics.
-
An English Professor whom understood Einsteins space-time curvature
If you are going to talk about precise English, learn the difference between "who" and "whom" and that possessives in English use an apostrophe.
-
And don't accuse Peter Higgs of being an English professor. His chair is at the University of Edinburgh. The ability to read what you have written and reproduce it correctly is essential if you are going to pretend to be a scientist.
-
inertia .
You would do well to review the definition of that word. Or learn some physics.
An objects resistance to move or change direction ?
Why would I need to look up such a basic subject ?
-
And don't accuse Peter Higgs of being an English professor. His chair is at the University of Edinburgh. The ability to read what you have written and reproduce it correctly is essential if you are going to pretend to be a scientist.
I live in Britain , I am not selective with Scotland , Wales or Ireland . English enough for me thanks all the same !
-
An objects resistance to move or change direction ?
Why would I need to look up such a basic subject ?
Because the way you used it in your sentence was nonsensical. The Earth's inertia doesn't have anything to do with magnetic fields.
-
An objects resistance to move or change direction ?
Why would I need to look up such a basic subject ?
Because the way you used it in your sentence was nonsensical. The Earth's inertia doesn't have anything to do with magnetic fields.
I didn't suggest it was in my wording !
The weight of the object because of gravitational force is the inertia that is overcome by the ''solidity'' of the magnetic field .
You may also want to consider Plasma physics and magnetic bottling !
-
The weight of the object because of gravitational force is the inertia that is overcome by the ''solidity'' of the magnetic field .
Yet more drivel. Please learn some elementary physics and don't waste your life constructing near-sentences with words you don't understand. Science is interesting and so is football, but shouting "offside" or "inertia" at random won't make you any friends.
-
I am not selective with Scotland , Wales or Ireland . English enough for me
it is important to be precise in defining definitions precisely as to not confuse the reader .
Pick one.