Einstein or Newton

[Daywolf]

Space isn't empty, it's full of stuff, every inch is full. If it were nothingness, then nothing could be in space. But no matter where you go in known space, there is something. It's like if I scribble with a pincel in the air, then scribble the pincel on a sheet of paper, which will show a mark? Space is like that paper, it's marked with particles. Even more than that, but the very fabric of time.

[maskedmelon]

Originally Posted by Saludeen [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Tesla. He proved Einstein wrong with simple logic. Space can't be curved because its space and you can't curve nothingness.

It's not just space though, it is space-time. Einstein described the relationship. However, space were nothing it wouldn't be space ^^

Two-thirds of the universe is composed of dark energy, which we really do not understand and string theory suggests the universe has 11 or more dimensions. We have thorough understanding of three of those and a shakier understanding of the fourth. Given that there could well be (and likely are) many other dimensions, which we are thus far unable to perceive, it would be irresponsible to assume space is empty ^^

[Daywolf]

Yeah, nothingness could be 3 inches from your face and you'd never know it. You can't put anything into it and you cant take anything out. There is just nothing there at all. You pass right through it, while at the same time you don't pass through it because it's just not there.

Time and space just can't go on forever, never enough time for it to get there. No matter the model, there must be a boundry. Even if it loops around end to end. Outside time and space has gotta be the freakiest thing, a place not bound by time and space as we know it.

[maskedmelon]

Let's assume that everything that can be was and is and will be. Each of these possibilities then are points in space time, (Nothing new up to that point) which we can be best understood as a three-dimensional sphere, or I suppose could be unlimited 3d space, though that would be redundant, unnecessary. Or perception of time is simply our movement from point to point throughout this sphere of space time.

The interesting part is that given infinite possibilities, our movements through space-time must necessarily decrease infinitely as we move 'forward' in time (through space-time). Would have to adapt this for three-dimensional space, but I think a 2-d approximation of this idea would just be something like P = (1/t), where p is position in space-time and t is elapsed time since... whatever.

[Daywolf]

"Calmly We Walk Through This April's Day"
The great globe reels in the solar fire,
Spinning the trivial and unique away.
(How all things flash! How all things flare!)
What am I now that I was then?
May memory restore again and again
The smallest color of the smallest day:
Time is the school in which we learn,
Time is the fire in which we burn.
--Delmore Schwartz

[Jimjam]

We had a Newton at our school, looked rather like her famous relative too! She was in my class for Physics (and maybe mathematics too).

[maskedmelon]

Originally Posted by Jimjam [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

We had a Newton at our school, looked rather like her famous relative too! She was in my class for Physics (and maybe mathematics too).

How were her boobs?

[Chaboo_Cleric]

Originally Posted by Nihilist_santa [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Have you ever looked into Bohm and Pribram's Holographic theory? Have any idea of its relation to simulation theory? Just curious. I find their holonomic view of the brain fascinating although a bunch of mystical bullshit has sprung up around these ideas(like people falling for Sai Baba's BS). I have seen different religious takes on the holographic theory and not just from your typical Buddhist/Hindu/Gnostic views but have read some really interesting breakdowns on this idea of the word and image in Christianity that are too in depth for here.

I have read a few things on the Holographic theory in regards to the human brain. I know originally the science behind it was based on the hologram itself and it's storing information through a beam of light. Though, I am not very knowledgeable when it comes to neurology(brain) based physics I can say the findings are very interesting. First off, the math checks out in numerous accounts, but there's plenty of room for possibilities. For me, I believe Math is the one true way to understanding most things.

I do, however, remember vaguely when I did read about the holographic theory that images were successfully transferred to the interference patterns of laser beams, which were then used as a metaphor to describe the human brain. I found that to be interesting , considering a lot of the math checked out when they started splitting cortexes and cells ( I believe?)

As far as the relationship to simulation theory. There is definitely a relationship in my opinion. Then, again I think everything has a relationship if you can find the similarities and likeness in the math that's used to describe it. Am I believer of the universe essentially being one big giant simulation? Well, I will say this. I think the universe is one giant math problem stemmed amongst billions more. Therefore, could you relate a math problem with a simulation? My answer is yes, but the question remains, how? So until, we can successfully answer that question or can fully plot the equations to prove such theories, I'll always be a skeptic.

Personally, I'm not a big fan of string theory, and I'm not very interested in Steven Hawkins (MR PR Of science) back hole theories. I think a lot the ideas are very creative , but in a matter of concrete science, it has such giant holes. We need some new theories....

[Chaboo_Cleric]

Originally Posted by maskedmelon [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

It's not just space though, it is space-time. Einstein described the relationship. However, space were nothing it wouldn't be space ^^

Two-thirds of the universe is composed of dark energy, which we really do not understand and string theory suggests the universe has 11 or more dimensions. We have thorough understanding of three of those and a shakier understanding of the fourth. Given that there could well be (and likely are) many other dimensions, which we are thus far unable to perceive, it would be irresponsible to assume space is empty ^^

Gosh.... Please don't get me started on string theory. It should of been abandoned years ago><

[Saludeen]

I'll quote his words instead so you can interpret it how you want:

"I hold that space cannot be curved, for the simple reason that it can have no properties. It might as well be said that God has properties. He has not, but only attributes and these are of our own making. Of properties we can only speak when dealing with matter filling the space. To say that in the presence of large bodies space becomes curved is equivalent to stating that something can act upon nothing. I, for one, refuse to subscribe to such a view."