0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Quote from: Thebox''However, anything that doesn't do time can't exist at all, so any region of empty space would simply cease to be anything and the rest of space would instantly close up to fill the void.''TB, buddy! Please do all of us a favor. When you post a quote like that please state whom you're quoting. Thanks.
''However, anything that doesn't do time can't exist at all, so any region of empty space would simply cease to be anything and the rest of space would instantly close up to fill the void.''
Quote from: David Cooper''However, anything that doesn't do time can't exist at all, so any region of empty space would simply cease to be anything and the rest of space would instantly close up to fill the void.''space is already filling the void why would it collapse?
space exists whether or not I and you exist, space is infinite and can never be destroyed.
Release has many nuclear weapons as you like and after the explosions the space will remain there unaltered in dimensions with the exception of a big crater displacing the ground.
My theory of everything is not ambitious I know everything and the real why's.
He did actually state who he was quoting - he took a little chunk out of one of my posts on another thread and quoted it here as shown below (note that the replies following at are directed to him and not to you):-
Quote from: TheboxSorry F.I.F.YWhat does "F.I.F.Y" mean?
Sorry F.I.F.Y
Quote from: David CooperHe did actually state who he was quoting - he took a little chunk out of one of my posts on another thread and quoted it here as shown below (note that the replies following at are directed to him and not to you):-Well, I'll be a son of a gun! I swear to you that I did a search using those terms and found nothing in this entire thread that matched. I swear that I feel like I'm in the twilight zone!
... I swear that I feel like I'm in the twilight zone!
I don't accept that as a fact. As a fact that's only from a particular frame of reference and Einstein showed us using general relativity that there are no absolute (aka right/correct) frames of reference so the Earth's frame is just as good as any.
Be careful with that - Einstein's assertion is not logically sound. There are no identifiable absolute frames, but that does not rule out there being an absolute frame that can't be identified.
Quote from: David CooperBe careful with that - Einstein's assertion is not logically sound. There are no identifiable absolute frames, but that does not rule out there being an absolute frame that can't be identified.Sorry my friend but I disagree. Einstein's assertion was most certainly logically sound, for certain. It's you're assertion that is not logically sound. It's quite illogical to claim that there's an absolute frame that can't be identified. It's one of the basic tenants of physics that you can only speak about that which can be observed for it to have any reality. That's why we say that virtual particles aren't "real."
Like I said you can not observe space-time which contradicts Einstein's own idea about initial reference frames in space.
Quote from: TheboxLike I said you can not observe space-time which contradicts Einstein's own idea about initial reference frames in space.If you weren't so ignorant about physics then you'd know the problem with that assertion and why its so wrong. We've lost patience with you since you clearly have no wish to learn the correct physics and only want to go around claiming how wrong everyone including Einstein is. So we're not wasting our time with you anymore.
Quote from: David CooperBe careful with that - Einstein's assertion is not logically sound. There are no identifiable absolute frames, but that does not rule out there being an absolute frame that can't be identified.Sorry my friend but I disagree. Einstein's assertion was most certainly logically sound, for certain.
It's your assertion that is not logically sound. It's quite illogical to claim that there's an absolute frame that can't be identified.
It's one of the basic tenants of physics that you can only speak about that which can be observed for it to have any reality. That's why we say that virtual particles aren't "real."