[charles1948]

When you come right down to it, doesn't the Universe actually consist of bits of "stuff" with gaps in between them?

In modern Science, we call the stuff "Matter".  And the gaps "Space".

These words "Matter" and "Space" sound profound and impressive.   More so than "Stuff" and "Gaps" would.

[Bored chemist]

These words "Matter" and "Space" sound profound and impressive.   More so than "Stuff" and "Gaps" would.

And Talanum1 isn't actually saying anything "profound", so words like "stuff" are more appropriate.

[puppypower]

It makes more sense that space-time events stem from matter interacting with space-time. For example, the mass/matter of the earth, defines the curvature profile of space-time around and within the earth.This is defined by General Relativity. Changes in space-time is a product or result of the mass and distance between the mass.  It is not space-time magically materializing the matter. We never see the earth reappear somewhere else in the solar system due to interference in the space-time grid. The matter and mass keeps space-time in place. The expansion of the universe is based on mass spreading out the space-time profile.

The topic premise, however, is actually consistent with how physics often treats space-time and mass when it comes to Special Relativity; SR. Einstein presented SR with three equations, one each for mass, time and distance. Time and distance affects; space-time, can be directly observed such as through changes in wavelength and frequency of emitted photons. However, mass and relativistic mass cannot be measured, directly, from distant sources. These have to be inferred, indirectly, from energy and photons, which give us space-time readings. This practical limitation for inferring distant mass and relativistic mass creates the impression mass is derived and therefore  induced by space-time.  This approach has conceptual problems, but it is done anyway due to the necessity of the situation.

This limitation and practical solution to defining the mass and matter of the universe, from observed energy, has led some to assume one can ignore mass and therefore the real universal energy balance, that needs mass, in favor of space-time and relative reference. This has led to other conceptual problems.

Mass needs to come first, but this is impossible to do, in terms of a universal procedure, since we cannot directly measure mass and relativistic mass beyond a certain distance.  In the case of the earth, we can measure and estimate the mass by the material compositions and we can also confirm that space-time has conformed as defined by GR. The mass of the moon and objects that are further out, needs to be indirectly inferred based on the earth's mass. Beyond the solar system mass is too far out and it needs to be inferred by GR affects in space-time, with changes in space-time; photons, where we need to start.

Don't confuse applied science, with pure science, since applied science makes use of pure science, but in ways nature did not directly create. This approach can be useful for making synthetic things with free market value, but this is not pure or natural and can lead to conceptual problems, if you assume synthetic is natural.

Let me give you an example, I can make diamonds in the lab in a short period of time using a hot press and a catalyst. This is a common way to make synthetic diamonds. This is not how nature does it even though it uses pure chemistry steps consistent the laws of chemistry. In nature we assume it is done with a natural hot press caused by the earth crust, that takes millions of years instead of an afternoon.

Since I can make hot press diamonds in the lab, in a short time, using an applied extrapolation of pure chemistry, does that means natural diamonds are made quickly and therefore have lower value than the inflated prices? De Beers Diamond Supply will disagree and may send in the goons to clear your head. Theory is not fact, but rather is an educated guess, which can be supported through applied science and lab work that be reproduced, such as for mass production of consistent consumer products. This does not prove natural since plastic bags can reproduced with experiments and they are not natural but applied theory.

[Petrochemicals]

I would have thought that the Creation of unstable radioactive elements in the heart of stars that leave blackholes in their wake is a better proof. Conservation of energy and all. The fusion of lighter elements needs to be explained in this case. I would look to gravity, under gravitational ENERGY (note its not force) atoms that have a positive potential to regional gravity can be fused, these  can be fused further under heavier local gravity to atoms that degrade in lighter gravity. Regardless of the theory, the point is why the black hole? Why the super massive black hole? why the dark matter/energy?

There is alot of energy in an atom, that is as far as we have got, far more that the gravitational force of a star, far more than the fusion of hydrogen. This is why I think your theory is imperfect.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_chromodynamics_binding_energy

[Bored chemist]

The fusion of lighter elements needs to be explained in this case.

Are you aware of the Sun?

these  can be fused further under heavier local gravity to atoms that degrade in lighter gravity.

Got any evidence?

This whole tread starts of with a false promise to prove something, and goes generally downhill from there.

[puppypower]

The fusion of lighter elements needs to be explained in this case.

Are you aware of the Sun?

these  can be fused further under heavier local gravity to atoms that degrade in lighter gravity.

Got any evidence?

This whole tread starts of with a false promise to prove something, and goes generally downhill from there.

The irony is this topic is consistent with the way main stream physics has to deal with the universal  data. This data is primarily based on energy emissions, which are composed of wavelength and frequency; distance and time or space-time. The matter of the universe has to be inferred from the energy emissions connected to only distance and time. In a conceptual sense, matter is made; has to be inferred, from observations of space-time events. This is the wave model of the universe with matter and black holes, nodal and node of an interference grid.

Let me go back to a simple thought example I have done before. Say we have a train moving toward the station, and a man sitting and waiting for the train at the station. If we only use visual evidence it is possible for the man to pretend he is moving with relative velocity V, with the train, since to the eyes motion is relative.

In this case, the assumption that man is moving, although consistent with the eyes and the space-time nature of relative motion, it will cause the real energy balance to get messed up, since a moving train has way more kinetic energy for the same relative velocity. The eyes cannot see this, and since everything is derived from the eye relative data, this absolute energy is not something you can see, but would need to infer.

Say we added another sense, beyond the eyes, that is more appropriate for ascertaining absolute motion, such as the sense of touch; ability to feel motion through motion sensors in the body.  A train in motion will not be traveling over an ideal rail system on an absolute flat plane. Instead the imperfections in movement in lateral and vertical directions, will allow us to feel accelerations as the train sways as it travels. The man does not feel this. This extra sense of touch, for mass and inertia, would not allow the visually induced assumption of relative motion, except as a hypothetical example.  In the case of physics, the hypothetical is presented as the real, since all we have are our eyes and this is what that exclusive eye data says. 

In terms of the universe the visual only approach has led to conflicting observations that appear to contain more energy, than inferred from the original relative reference assumption. We have had to add dark energy and dark matter, neither of which has even been seen in the lab. This are needed  for more energy, due to competing visual evidence.

If you look at a concepts like center of gravity, which is mass centric, the universe should have a center of gravity for  all the matter of the universe. This may be a moving target. There should be a center of gravity or center to the universe. But gravity is something that is more easily felt by the body.  But visual evidence, only, does not allow for any center of the universe since mass is tertiary  behind distance and time. The sense of sight, creates a house of mirrors with no center. This is real to the mind, since it is derived from the majority of the data which is only visual data. 

[Bored chemist]

Got any evidence?

The fusion of lighter elements needs to be explained in this case.

Are you aware of the Sun?

these  can be fused further under heavier local gravity to atoms that degrade in lighter gravity.

Got any evidence?

This whole tread starts of with a false promise to prove something, and goes generally downhill from there.

The irony is this topic is consistent with the way main stream physics has to deal with the universal  data. This data is primarily based on energy emissions, which are composed of wavelength and frequency; distance and time or space-time. The matter of the universe has to be inferred from the energy emissions connected to only distance and time. In a conceptual sense, matter is made; has to be inferred, from observations of space-time events. This is the wave model of the universe with matter and black holes, nodal and node of an interference grid.

Let me go back to a simple thought example I have done before. Say we have a train moving toward the station, and a man sitting and waiting for the train at the station. If we only use visual evidence it is possible for the man to pretend he is moving with relative velocity V, with the train, since to the eyes motion is relative.

In this case, the assumption that man is moving, although consistent with the eyes and the space-time nature of relative motion, it will cause the real energy balance to get messed up, since a moving train has way more kinetic energy for the same relative velocity. The eyes cannot see this, and since everything is derived from the eye relative data, this absolute energy is not something you can see, but would need to infer.

Say we added another sense, beyond the eyes, that is more appropriate for ascertaining absolute motion, such as the sense of touch; ability to feel motion through motion sensors in the body.  A train in motion will not be traveling over an ideal rail system on an absolute flat plane. Instead the imperfections in movement in lateral and vertical directions, will allow us to feel accelerations as the train sways as it travels. The man does not feel this. This extra sense of touch, for mass and inertia, would not allow the visually induced assumption of relative motion, except as a hypothetical example.  In the case of physics, the hypothetical is presented as the real, since all we have are our eyes and this is what that exclusive eye data says. 

In terms of the universe the visual only approach has led to conflicting observations that appear to contain more energy, than inferred from the original relative reference assumption. We have had to add dark energy and dark matter, neither of which has even been seen in the lab. This are needed  for more energy, due to competing visual evidence.

If you look at a concepts like center of gravity, which is mass centric, the universe should have a center of gravity for  all the matter of the universe. This may be a moving target. There should be a center of gravity or center to the universe. But gravity is something that is more easily felt by the body.  But visual evidence, only, does not allow for any center of the universe since mass is tertiary  behind distance and time. The sense of sight, creates a house of mirrors with no center. This is real to the mind, since it is derived from the majority of the data which is only visual data. 

So, that's a "No", then.

[talanum1 (OP)]

If matter is not made of spacetime, you sit with the problem of how matter communicates with spacetime to warp it. As it is, it is just spacetime communicating with spacetime.

[Bored chemist]

If matter is not made of spacetime, you sit with the problem of how matter communicates with spacetime to warp it.

Not really.
The Earth is not made of Mars, but the two are able to communicate.

Why do you post such twaddle?
Do you enjoy getting laughed at?

[talanum1 (OP)]

The Earth is not made of Mars, but the two are able to communicate.

They are both made of spacetime events.

Do you have a mechanism whereby matter and spacetime communicates? You don't even know what matter is.

My model explains this.

[Bored chemist]

They are both made of spacetime events.

Yes, they are both made of stuff.
That's so obvious that I don't see why you keep repeating it (or using the phrase "spacetime events" rather than the word "stuff").
It's as if you are trying to be obscure.

My model explains this.

LOL
You don't seem to understand what an explanation is any better than you understand a definition.
https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=79201.msg598973#msg598973

[Kryptid]

They are both made of spacetime events.

Can you demonstrate this with scientific evidence?

Do you have a mechanism whereby matter and spacetime communicates?

Gravity.

You don't even know what matter is.

From Dictionary.com: "(in physics) that which occupies space and possesses rest mass, especially as distinct from energy."

[Petrochemicals]

The Earth is not made of Mars, but the two are able to communicate.

They are both made of spacetime events.

Do you have a mechanism whereby matter and spacetime communicates? You don't even know what matter is.

My model explains this.

Nope it doesn't, it could be communication by strings.

[talanum1 (OP)]

There is alot of energy in an atom, that is as far as we have got, far more that the gravitational force of a star, far more than the fusion of hydrogen. This is why I think your theory is imperfect.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_chromodynamics_binding_energy

I see nothing at the quote that excludes my model.

[talanum1 (OP)]

Do you have a mechanism whereby matter and spacetime communicates?

Gravity.

Quote from: talanum1 on 11/01/2021 15:39:07
You don't even know what matter is.

From Dictionary.com: "(in physics) that which occupies space and possesses rest mass, especially as distinct from energy."

"Gravity" is just a name, I'm asking if you have the actual cogs and gears of how it happens.

You don't know what matter is made of.

[Kryptid]

I'm asking if you have the actual cogs and gears of how it happens.

It's not like you have it either.

You don't know what matter is made of.

Subatomic particles.

[talanum1 (OP)]

Subatomic particles.

What are the subatomic particles made of?

It's not like you have it either.

I don't need to: it is conceivable that space communicates with space by just touching.

[Bored chemist]

space communicates with space

Why would it need to?
Is it sending Xmas cards?

[Petrochemicals]

There is alot of energy in an atom, that is as far as we have got, far more that the gravitational force of a star, far more than the fusion of hydrogen. This is why I think your theory is imperfect.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_chromodynamics_binding_energy

I see nothing at the quote that excludes my model.

Because the amount of energy in an atom is far greater than the spacetime events of positive and negative attraction you postulation creates

[Kryptid]

What are the subatomic particles made of?

In the case of protons, they are made of quarks. In the case of truly fundamental particles, such as quarks and neutrinos, they aren't made of anything smaller (as we can best tell, experimentally).

I don't need to: it is conceivable that space communicates with space by just touching.

Something being conceivable does not make it true. In science, you need experiments or observations that allow you to potentially falsify assertions. Have you done those experiments?