The first detection of gravitational waves! (Synopsis)

It is clear that he measured a vibration on earth, but I find it a little strange that he knows straight away and exactly that it are 2 black holes with clearly defined masses such and such, and all this from a 1st observation.

Doesn’t he need some kind of reference vibration with a visual confirmation, for instance the merger of two neutron stars along with a visual observation of the event?

Also keeping in mind that the signal might be skewed considering the fact that the waves can be coming from any possible point in space (xyz); thinking here of the Doppler effect, were we moving into the vibration, away from it or did it came from the side?

Or is this all negligible?

Paul Dekous:
They calculated lots of models with different masses, orbits, ...
And the one with this masses fits very well.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/startswithabang/2016/02/11/the-first-detect…

And with two detectors 10 ms light travel time appart you are able to calculate a direction.

If these graphs are showing a ringdown phase, as I understand it, that occurs when the BHs have merged. Does this mean the merger was detected in the short period of operation, or is it possible the ringdown was the result of two separate GWs interfering (null point of wave cancellation)?

Is this event actually 60 sextillion miles away?

And that's only measuring where it was, not where it is now.
:}

Or is it 6 Sextillion? Think about it, if something happening is happening that far away and the "vibrations" are felt here on earth. Well the think about all the other events that send waves this way. That is pretty awesome to think about.

Certainly gives "String Theory" something more to crow about.

My comment @#3 - that equals a lot of interference.

Throw a wormhole in here & there & most theories will be screwed . . . .

Ethan, was that a Les Paul OR a Les Paul style guitar from years ago?
I can't recall but do think about vibrations and how guitar pickups like Humbuckers OR Burstbuckers pickups are just like this LIGO universal pickup.

Hi there,

How come we have no video of the entire earth spinning?

@Jeamy Lee:

I might be in a skeptical mood this week, but I'm not 100% convinced by "A tremendous amount of theoretical modeling went into understanding this."

Taking into account that Earth and Galaxy are rotating and traveling at 22 km/s relative to the CMB; that space bends and curves Space Time, so the signal could be coming from any direction; also space is expanding and stretched making it difficult to tell just how much the signal has been deformed.

There are a lot of variables to come to this specific conclusion after a 1st registration, we also don't know the distance of where it came from, there is no reference frame. It could be weaker or stronger, just like dropping a stone in a puddle where the rings get larger over time. IMO you need at least a series of detections to come a serious conclusion.

the most striking thing to me in all this, is precision. According to the NSF press conference.. the signal detected is on the order of proton length in a 4km tunnel. A length of a proton!!!! And it's only one signal that lasted for 5-7ms ...

so to me.. this is just incredible.. incredible that we can measure a difference of a proton length in a 4km man made object... and that we are confident that that 5ms discrepency wasn't a signal polution or something else other than BH mergers...

On a similar note... what I don't understand is how will this usher a new age in astronomy? What can we effectively "observe" that we couldn't before? Anything about early universe seems too far away and too faint to get anything tangible.

p.s. upon review.. not a proton length difference. but FRACTION of a proton length difference.. even smaller.

About the reduction of mass of the final black hole as compared to the two contributing black holes: This possibility must have been recognized before, but it's the first time I've heard about it, as opposed to energy being lost in orbital decay.

Was all of that mass lost before the black holes merged, after, or was it throughout the whole process?

If people are worried about information paradox as it relates to the immensely slow rate of Hawking Radiation from a black hole (what was it, one photon lost in a trillion years?), how does it relate to losing 3 solar masses worth of energy in 20 milliseconds?

@ Adam

hawking radiation and this loss of mass are caused by two very different things. The loss of mass in colision is caused by pure E=mc^2 ... think about two extremely dense objects colliding.. both traveling at about 0.5 c.. talk about fusion on mega scale. so some of the matter just got converted to energy and probably blown away to space

So if I understand correctly, these waves are not part of the em spectrum, they are a separate phenomenon?

@17
yes, these are waves in fabric of spacetime, not EM.

@Paul Dekous and others: Instead of making unsupported assertions and wild guesses, why don't you actually try reading the publications (https://www.ligo.caltech.edu/page/detection-companion-papers)? I know, that's probably much more effort than ass-hattery, but who knows, you might actually learn something.

The discovery paper (http://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevLett.116.061102) describes the signals and the analysis fairly well. In a separate paper (https://dcc.ligo.org/LIGO-P1500218/main/public) they describe in much greater detail how they extract the parameters of the binary system from the data.

There are several points which address the naive and mispaced skepticism in these comments.

1) The signal amplitude (that is, the dimensionless strain) depends only on the distance to the source (and it falls like 1/D, rather than 1/D^2), not on the object masses.

2) The frequency leading up to the inspiral is just twice the orbital frequency, and depends on the two masses. There is a power-law relation which connects the product and sum of the masses.

3) The rate of inspiral, and hence how the frequency changes during the signal, also depends on the two masses, but in a different way. Combined with (2), this allows extraction of both masses individually.

4) The frequency _after_ the merger (the "ringdown" frequency) depends only on the final mass, and is an independent measurement from (2) and (3).

5) The peak frequency at the end of the inspiral tells you directly how far apart the two objects were. Combine that distance with the masses from (2) and (3), and even an ingornantly skeptical ass-hat can compute the densities of the two objects, and compare that density with, for example, stars, planets, or neutron stars. I leave it as an exercise for the reader to do that trivial calculation for the case of 30 solar masses and a minimum separation of about 350 km, and to report what kinds of objects might have that density.

6) The specific relationships for (2), (3) and (4), along with the detailed shape of the waveform, also depend on the black hole spins, and how they align with the orbit. Those details allow information about the spins to be extracted by comparing the measured waveform to computed templates.

@1: While skepticism is certainly admirable in scientific endeavor, sometimes there comes a time to accept (provisionally, of course pending further evidence) that a result has been demonstrated. Your insistence on actually "seeing" the source of the waves is misplaced in this case. Consider what we mean by "seeing". Surely we aren't going to limit ourselves to only those phenomena that the accident of human evolution allows our bodies to detect without external apparatus, are we? Surely, we would count as "seeing" a phenomenon any case where theory indicates that the phenomenon exists, theory allows us to determine the specific properties of this phenomenon, and we can assemble a system that will undergo some change if it turns out that theory was correct and the phenomenon does exist.

In reality, what we normally call seeing is just an example of this paradigm. We theorize that electromagnetic radiation exists. We determine from that theory the properties of that radiation. We don't set up the system to detect it, though, since our bodies contain that system already, but the point is the same. The eye is merely a system for detecting that type of electromagnetic radiation we call visible light.

Suppose there is an alien race that cannot detect EM radiation, but somehow can detect chemical changes. Suppose that an individual from this race puts forth a theory that there is a type of radiation in the universe that is not ordinarily detectable by that species. He then further theorizes that this radiation should cause a certain chemical change in a substance he refers to as a photoreceptor. He then proceeds to synthesize this photoreceptor in his chemistry lab and observes it to see if it undergoes the predicted change. Lo and behold, it actually changes exactly as predicted. Is he not justified in saying that he has seen what we would call visible light?

Back to our reality, we are in much the same position as my hypothetical alien. We have a theory that tells us that there is a type of radiation called gravitational waves. It allows us to calculate what the properties of these waves must be. It allows us to predict ahead of time that if we build a certain system (LIGO), that this system will undergo certain changes if it interacts with these gravitational waves. We observe the predicted change in our system. How are we not justified in saying that we've seen gravitational waves, or at the very least accepting this statement provisionally pending further observation?

@19 - 20: You aren't taking into account the Doppler effect, rotation of the Earth and circumference of the wave from it's point of origin, they could be off by 180° ( ( ((O)) ) ), also gravitational lensing and absorption of the signal along the way. Are GW's also a particle? IMO a too big claim from a first detection.

@ 19 "ass-hattery"?
Michael, are you picking up some of wowzer's cheap cliche bad habits?
And you do realize you spelled ignorantly (ingornantly ) incorrectly don't you?

So please may I suggest letting people be a bit skeptical and question things. Afterall, we are all prone to mistakes and respectfully challenging each other's points with out quips and jabs to demean their charichter should in the end help lead us all to a better understanding of the universe and our place within in it correct?

Was a short gamma ray burst associated with this merger?

@23 "Was a short gamma ray burst associated with this merger?"
That's a VERY good Question..
Ethan?

@23 Rick:

Yes, the Fermi Gamma-ray Burst Monitor (GBM) recorded one 0.4s after the gravitational wave signal, but this could be 'serendipity'.

http://gammaray.nsstc.nasa.gov/gbm/publications/preprints/gbm_ligo_prep…

@Ragtag #22: There's a difference betwween informed, intelligent skepticism (see, for example, Greg Laden's blog on this topic) and anti-intellectualism steeped in either blind or willful ignorance.

@Michael Kelsey #26:

"… blind or willful ignorance"

On the contrary. I would like to have more information. Taking into account how much energy does the vibration loses, considering Dark Matter which is 5/6 of all the matter in the universe, is there any dimming of the signal?

There are a lot of variables. Also the pre-merger circular motion between the colliding objects. Such an activity is fairly flat and an offset of a couple of degrees and the signal can be totally different, it seems that it has to be almost perfectly inline with our position in Space to generate such a signal … are there vortices involved that dissipate energy?

What effect has the expansion of space on the wave? How does the dimple we make in Space Time affect the incoming wave, does it stretches it out, or is there an like in-zooming microscopic effect where it concentrates the signal?

@Paul #27

if you are driven by knowledge, then at least half of the questions you ask are answered if you just type those questions in google and start reading.

you posed several questions in #27 that would need several papers of research to be read through and then served you the info. why would anyone do that work instead of you? i.e. how grav waves might interact with DM and how much energy they would loose.. you can search for yourself in googl.. what effect does expansion have.. same thing.. etc.

But another thing comes to mind.. most of these questions have no bearing on what was detected... a signal was detected that matches our best models to what ought to happen and how when two black holes merge.. identical signal was detected in second detector 7ms later.. again in line with what grav. wave would be. enviromental sensors at both locations didn't detect any earth based disturbance in any spectra shape or form...

so what is it? a glitch in both systems at the exact delay that a grav wave would do.. and unknown systematic.. in principal.. possible.. altough highly unlikely.. with more detectors we'll have more samples... but here is the thing.. until such a time as to have a valid explanation (if not grav waves) what caused those signals..they did detect it.

@Sinisa #28:

• I have no problem to acknowledge that they possibly detected Gravity Waves. I just find it remarkable that they can pinpoint the origin of the signal to one specific kind of event while there are so many variables. Those variables related to the questions I raised. I'm not asking anyone here to answer to those, I've only used them to motivate my skepticism.

• "enviromental sensors at both locations didn’t detect any earth based disturbance in any spectra shape or form"

That doesn't exclude that the signal still could be coming from Earth, it does narrow it down.

• BTW even cosmic rays can disturb measurements as mentioned in these papers from the Nautilus detector: http://www.roma1.infn.it/rog/cosmici/ And since the Fermi Gamma-ray Burst Monitor detected a Gamma ray burst at roughly the same time …

Anyway for confirmation of the Higgs Boson it takes a massive amount of data, and here only a single collision is sufficient. I think after one collision it is normal to be skeptical regarding the presentation of the data and the claim of having recorded the merger of two black holes … it all smells a bit too ambitious.

@ Mike #26 "Greg Laden’s blog on this topic"
Ugg, I think I got banned from that goofy looking dudes site a couple years ago because of my reasoned fact backed skepticism of his "love affair" with "Climate Scare".

But yes, I understand what you mean.

@Paul #30

in response to Higgs... now you are mixing two very different things. Higgs was a particle detection involving colisions. This was not particle detection and and doesn't involve any particle colisions.
These are interferometers.. setup to cancel the beams.. if you see the light, it means something moved.. Cosmic rays.. yes... but would not make a signal such as grav. wave. Again.. one could come up with all sorts of things that can screw one interferometer to detect a false positive.. but there needs to be one heck of a coinsidence to make two unconnected detectors half a state away to detect an exactly same thing. Particles.. or huge trucks moving around don't cover that..

@Sinisa #31

If there is a Gamma-ray burst the two detectors can be hit by similar CR showers at roughly the same time (0.4s) like for the LIGO antennae. Here's an other paper about this kind of noise:

http://arxiv.org/pdf/gr-qc/0509058v1.pdf

Notes about Noise in Gravitational Wave Antennas Created by Cosmic Rays

"In all three effects considered above the mechanical action on the mirror produces a step-like displacement. This type of response is similar to the one predicted for the shape of gravitational wave bursts created in the process of supernova explosion predicted. The predicted rate of these bursts is approximately two orders higher than the rate of neutron star merger events."

What effect would be seen if this had occurred at the center of our galaxy? Or 50 light years away?

Paul - People who knew how to do the calculations (I don't, do you?) felt that a certain type of binary black hole event would provide a good opportunity for detection. They calculated the signal that would be expected, then detected precisely that signal. That is all that is being claimed. You appear to be troubled by the fact that whatever they detected was possibly caused by something other than the postulated event. As far as I have seen so far, you have no data to offer favoring one or another alternative explanation, just a bad feeling about the whole thing. Good news: All you need to do is relax, grab a cup of coffee, keep reading, and in one, six, twelve, maybe twenty-four months your doubts will be assuaged or vindicated!

Yo Dekons! Your questions are really good and worthwhile. You should write to the team involved. The only question I thought of was....wasn't it about a month ago that the 'eerie silence' story came out. What was going on that one month there's an unexpected eerie silence and the next there's an immediate detection.
Was it that the detector for the eerie silence was different or wrong? But if that's the case, it must have been realized at the time. Why break the story if it's BS? Or if there's another explanation what is it?

i.e. how grav waves might interact with DM and how much energy they would loose..

The answer to which is "effectively none," BTW. The universe is basically transparent to gravitational radiation. (Try lecture 10 here; I haven't gotten that far yet, though).

@Paul Dekos #30: If you are "not asking anyone here to answer to those," then presumably you're not interested in gaining knoweldge, but merely attempting to formulate an argument from ignorance.

Despite your "not asking," I did, in fact, answer your questions, and pointed you to the _actual_ _publications_ where you could get all of the detail you need, and more. If you can't deal with it, that doesn't make the result incorrect, it merely means that you don't understand it.

So gravitational waves change distances (space) which lasers can detect. But what about time (speed of light)? They don't effect time or it cancels out somehow? (Because otherwise measurement would be impossible.)

@Frank #39: Not a bad question. What the waves do is affect the metric, both space and time. If you have the wherewithal to go through the detailed math, you'll discover that the effect on the time coordinate is the same in the two arms of the interferometer at a given phase, while the effect on the two spatial coordinates is opposed (stretch-squeeze). So your second guess ("it cancels out somehow") is closer to correct.

@Michael Kelsey #38:

I prefer to follow up Patrick Dennis' advice @#35 and just sit back and relax for the next signal to show up, and see if my "doubts will be assuaged or vindicated". I've got the time.

@Paul Dekous #41: But not the time to do the research? Figures.

@Michael Kelsey #42:

But not the time to do the research?

Unfortunately I do not have the ability to collide Black holes in nature to create an other signal for comparison.

Besides that, the paper Fermi GBM I linked to already had this to say:

"Given the detection of GW150914 as a GW event from a stellar mass black hole binary system, then with all but the most pessimistic predictions, the detection of the weaker GW signals from neutron star binary systems is expected no later than 2019, when LIGO/Virgo reach full sensitivity."

So all I can do is be patient just like them.

@Paul Dekous #43: "Unfortunately I do not have the ability to collide Black holes in nature to create an other signal for comparison." Nor to read the published papers, eh? Clearly you must already know more than the physicists who did the research, reviewed the papers, and made the decision to publish them.

@Michael Kelsey #44:

One can read as many papers as one wish, but at the end of the day one also needs to collect data, which is the plural of datum (=a piece of information). ATM we only have only one event recorded. That is one swing of the pendulum, if that's good enough for you for a confirmation than fine, but I would like to see some more proof. Now can we all relax until the detector reaches its full sensitivity and more data is collected.

Extract from
https://cosmosmagazine.com/physical-sciences/how-does-ligo-look-gravita…

The only shortcoming of the current LIGO system is that we only have two detectors and will be unable to triangulate any signal. That means we won’t know where it’s coming from.

Let's hope some funding becomes available to increase the directional capabilities of LIGO in the near future, then that will be an awesome tool !

@Paul Dekous #45: Again damonstrating that you aren't reading the actual work, but just making guesses from popular simplifications.

The data (a group noun, for which the singular verb is appropriate) is not "one swing of the pendulum." It is a highly bandwidth digitized frequency spectrum, covering a substantial range of frequencies and amplitudes from two physically independent and decoupled apparatus, and spanning a finite period of time (250 ms).

The initial frequency, rate of change of frequency rise, frequency at peak amplitude, frequency after the peak, the peak amplitude itself, the rate of change of amplitude, are _all_ separate measurements, and features of your misunderstood "one swing of the pendulum."

The overlap between the two independent waveform measurments, and the combination of time shift and phase inversion required for that overlap are three more separate measurements, and features of your misunderstood "one swing of the pendulum."

If you don't understand data analysis procedures, you aren't really competent to draw conclusions about the data analysis process.

If you are unwilling to even read and understand the data analysis procedures, you're not only not competent to draw conclusions, you are deliberately disingenous in your earlier assertion that you would "would like to have more information."

@PJ #46: Virgo is in the process of an upgrade right now (with funding); it's supposed to turn back on in about six months.

The other European interferometer, GEO 600, was a "demonstrator" experiment, smaller even than initial LIGO, and doesn't really have the sensitivity to contribute to the expected NS-BH and BH-BH merger signals.

The Inidian LIGO, which is proposed to basically take the left over hardware from before the LIGO upgrade, may turn out to be a nonstarter. There's significant opposition to large projects in India (given their history of colonialism and industrial accidents, I can't really blame them!).

I don't know enough about the Japanese detector (other than reading Wikipedia) to have a strong opinion, but with only 3 km arms, I'm not sure it has the sensitivity reach to cover aLiGO's volume of space.

After study some of your blog posts on your own website today, and that I really
like your way of blogging. I added it to my bookmark website list
and will be checking back soon
http://www.happierbook.com/gravitational-waves-ligo/

Thanks, Michael, LIGO/VIRGO seem to be the main contenders for now. Should open the gates for quality data.

@ Michael Kelsey #47:

It is admirable how you demonstrate your knowledge and that you have read many of the papers, here in the comment section.

On the other hand it is a pity that you keep on insisting that I don’t read any of the papers, while in fact I have linked in a previous post to a paper that suggests that Cosmic Rays could cause for a disturbance of the mirror (Coulomb force) that generates a similar signal as the one recorded, sure there are others papers that say they can/would notice the difference … and I also posted a quote from an other paper where the Fermi Gamma-ray Burst Monitor mentioned that it has recorded almost simultaneously a peak … is it normal that colliding Black Holes would send out Gamma-rays …

Regarding ‘swing of the pendulum’ that is figural speaking the origin of the signal, and in the same way it is possible to have measured one swung in many many many different ways, but at the end of the day it is still only one single recorded event. Considering air-pressure/density, the local strength of Gravity and even a possible push along the way, that Pendulum can possibly swing in many different ways … therefor we need more events = more data.

@Paul Dekous #51: Okay, let's take your concerns one by one.

1) A single cosmic ray of relatively high energy (say, tens of GeV) could cause a recoil of one of the mirrors in LIGO which would produce some sort of "signal." But what would that signal look like? The CR is an impulse force, so it will cause the mirror to oscillate at one of its natural frequencies, damping down to zero amplitude. This is fairly simple physics, the same physics which you see and hear if you tap a glass with a fork. What you _won't_ get is a "chirp" signal, rising in both frequency and amplitude.

2) Two physically independent detectors, separated by 3000 km, both recorded identical chirp signals with a 7 ms time offset between them. Could a single cosmic ray do that? Putting aside the fact that each signal individual is entirely inconsistent with cosmic-ray recoil, very high energy cosmics do produce air showers, with thousands of separate lower energy cosmics all coincident within a few milliseconds. The largest energy cosmic ray ever observed, at ~3 x 10^20 eV, had a Moliere radius of a few hundred meters, far smaller than the 3000 km you'd need to hit both LIGO facilities simultaneously.

3) Yes, the Fermi GBM saw a trigger within a few hundred ms of the GW150914 signal. But the GBM gets many triggers which turn out not to be real, and follow up searches with the full Fermi LAT showed _NO_ events of any kind in a huge (many hours) window, either before or after GW150914.

4) Bare black holes would not put out any kind of gamma rays or other EM signal at all. To get such a signal, the black holes would need to both have accretion disks, and the interaction of those two disks during the merger (which wouldn't affect the gravitation radiation at all) could produce x-rays and gamma rays. So the existence or lack thereof of a gamma-ray counterpart doesn't tell us anything (if you're being insistently skeptical) about the GW signal itself.

@Michael Kelsey #52: Thanks.

1)The paper talked about: the mirror produces a step-like displacement (either of the mirror’s center of mass or of its surface)

2)The Fermi Gamma-ray Burst Monitor (GBM) 'saw a trigger' at ~the same time. If it's a burst than it is not just one Cosmic ray but an whole bunch/stream of particles that can hit a large surface area on Earth and/or brush by; and all those particle cascade into a wave of showers.

It aren't only High-energy CR's that turn into showers, all CR's shower down. These particles could be hitting Earth in the form of waves, like hail that's first lightly to conclude with a more intense last peak … this can happen in a couple of steps within a fraction of a second. Chirp-wise???

From the GRB Wiki-page: The light curves of gamma-ray bursts are extremely diverse and complex. No two gamma-ray burst light curves are identical, with large variation observed in almost every property: the duration of observable emission can vary from milliseconds to tens of minutes, there can be a single peak or several individual subpulses, and individual peaks can be symmetric or with fast brightening and very slow fading.

3) "The localization region for GW150904 was outside the LAT field of view at the time of the gravitational wave signal.
https://arxiver.wordpress.com/2016/02/16/fermi-lat-observations-of-the-…

4) So if the detected GRB was no coincidence and is related to the LIGO observation than it wasn't a Black hole merger. If it was unrelated than chances are that it was a BH collision.

----

Anyways you are probably right about all these points … I'll give you the benefit of the (my) doubt on all of them, and see what the next results LIGO will give us. Seems like I'm less skeptical this week.

@Paul Dekous #53: Thanks for the followup

1) "Step-like" and "impulse" are different ways to say pretty much the same thing: whack something with a hammer, it's a step-like or impluse force (0 to X without a smooth ramping up).

2/3/4) The GBM/LAT discrepancy isn't as clear cut as I thought it was. I went and read both Fermi papers together. On the one hand, your note that GW150914 was outside the LAT FOV isn't entirely relevtant -- a GBM signal notes where the LAT should look the next time it comes around, as all but the shortest GRBs last long enough for that. However, the GBM energy ranges only goes up to a few MeV, while the LAT doesn't turn on until about 100 MeV. The energy peak from an accretion disk event should be early, with both intensity and energy falling off at late times. So if the GBM really did see some accretion disk collision/shock-wave whatever, it may not have been energetic enough for the LAT.

Also, note that LIGO already has multiple candidates in hand (as has been publicised this week). GW150914 was just the strongest and most clearcut, so it got the discovery paper. The others are there, waiting to be written up :-)

Shouldn't it be "... Up to.10ms..." ? Why would they expect the wave going straight from detector to detector ?

Hey emperor... You are naked!

1.3 billion lighyears ago... The story began, And so said the weavers(bicep2 and ligo)... emperor we found this fabric and we will fabricate a beatiful robe of it for you ooooooh majesty you will look beautiful and all people will adore you (and make us rich with grants and tenure and honor oh yeah) imagine how the wind will riple trough your fabricated clothes....

Oooooh whispers lawrence krauss in social media, aaaaaaaaaaah shouts neil degrasse tyson on tv....

The emperor is naked i say.

Space and time are not a fabric, they are not a material, they are not objects in the universe that you can touch and move and change.

There are no hours or y-axes in the universe to grab and hold or throw away.

Gravitational waves claim to move spacetime in the universe, but there is no spacetime in the universe (atleast not in the material sense).

Space and time are ideas in our brains to designate and measure and locate objects and change in relation to other objects and changes in the universe.

Space and time are nothing in the material sense.

Therefore gravitational waves move nothing folks, you see if nothing moves, nothing happens, and if nothing happens, then there is.... No wave.....

Therefore gravitational waves do not exist and were not detected.

Whatever they detected it was not gravitational waves, what then ? Anything else ranging from a natural material cause inside or outside earth, to a more artificial computer or design flaw in the research setup.

Post my previous comment, please.

I want to see my comment peer reviewed by the science community, point out the errors, if there are any.

"Hey emperor… You are naked!"

Nope, apart from a very unlikely chance, everyone reading this is fully clothed.

"1.3 billion lighyears ago… The story began,"

13.7, did you mean?

"The emperor is naked i say."

Yeah, well you're mad and stupid, so I really don't know what else to do about what you say other than to voice my scorn over your claims.

Wow #58

You know the fairy tale better than me, but you dont know me i am not mad and stupid, care to skip the fun part and have a real response ?

Space and time are ideas in our brains to designate and measure and locate objects

You are confusing geometric and numerical concepts. For instance, there exists no global coordinate system on the 2-sphere (S²) that maps S² smoothly and one-to-one into R² (it fails at the the poles).

Although (a)LIGO measured the phenomenon in a coordinate system (G—le "LIGO-E1300950-x0"), the phenomenon is geometric. I'm not even going to bother addressing the possibility that you're complaining about the nature of the observables, because you immediately contradict yourself:

Whatever they detected it was not gravitational waves, what then ? Anything else ranging from a natural material cause inside or outside earth, to a more artificial computer or design flaw in the research setup.

A "natural material cause inside or outside earth"? What do you think a binary black hole merger is? Supernatural and immaterial? If you're going to get incensed about space and time, what's with the "inside" and "outside" business? I'm guessing that it's not a reference to topology.

Then again, the use of "our brains" suggests that you have more basic philosophical issues to sort out. How is it that these disembodied entities aren't constantly causing all sorts of comical mishaps as a result of different instantiations of these concepts?

"care to skip the fun part and have a real response ?"

That was a real response. Sorry you didn't like it, but there you go.

If you want a better one, try not being a nutter and educate yourself a bit, then try asking again.

Here's something presented visually, which you and your ilk may find easier to parse, to p.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jhQdYvz0VwQ

Narad #60

"Gravitational waves are distortions or 'ripples' in the fabric of space-time caused by some of the most violent and energetic processes in the Universe."

https://www.ligo.caltech.edu/page/what-are-gw

"First of all, space-time is not a fabric. Space and time are not tangible 'things' in the same way that water and air are. It is incorrect to think of them as a 'medium' at all. No physicist or astronomer versed in these issues considers space-time to be a truly physical medium, however, that is the way in which our minds prefer to conceptualize this concept, and has done so since the 19th century. Back then physicists talked of an ether. Today we know that ethers of the kind that behave like a physical medium are simply not present." […] "So, the question about what happens to space-time when a particle moves through it at near the speed of light is answered by saying that this is the wrong question to ask. Just because the brain can construct a question doesn't mean that the question has a physical answer!"

https://einstein.stanford.edu/content/relativity/q909.html

So ligo claims a physical cause that has an effect on a something that only exist in the mind, that is impossible, a contradiction, and that is the reason i conclude that gravitational waves do not exist, so what ever they detected it was caused by change(s) and interactions of object(s) that truly exist in space, and not fictionary black holes that gravitationally wave imaginary spacetime.

(The inside outside thing has to do with a cause from within earth or outside earth somewhere in the universe the other one has to do with human error)

"So ligo claims a physical cause that has an effect on a something that only exist in the mind,"

No it doesn't. It claims an effect on actual physically present things.

Please stop living in your insane fantasy land and visit the world of the sane and real.

Ever feel sad, to p?

That's an effect on the mind. I guess it can't be real, hmm?

#65 wow

Sadness is abstract and so is the mind.

You are basicly saying that spacetime is alive has conscience and intelligence and abstractly feels emotional because of a supposed unproven physical change of objects in the universe.

You say matter moves abstracts where is your proof spacetime is a being ?

So ligo claims a physical cause that has an effect on a something that only exist in the mind, that is impossible

Leaving aside the glaring issue that this is trivially false (see, e.g., John Lilly), you are more than welcome to test out the notion that spacetime "only exist in the mind" using the time-honored technique of defenestration.

"#65 wow

Sadness is abstract and so is the mind."

So it doesn't happen?

You can MEDICATE for depression. You can cause depression by manipulating the electronic or chemical potentials in the brain and altering the brain chemistry.

ALL physical real things.

You can CAUSE them too by the same methods.

And measure it with physical devices as a physical process that actually takes place.

The problem is your brain just doesn't damn well work, and part of that not working is the complete lack of knowing it's not capavle of working.

#67 narad

Well you are welcome to provide the mechanism that shows that change of objects in the universe change an abstract idea that has no pysical existence in the universe, in the case of the claim of ligo.

Very easy to prove spacetime is not material because its an abstract derived from abstracts time and space wich themselves are abstracts of distance etc. wich is an abstract too all the way back to the first abstract derived from change of objects, that are observed and processed by the human mind.

"Well you are welcome to provide the mechanism that shows that change of objects in the universe change an abstract idea that has no pysical existence in the universe,"

Since that isn't the claim, he doesn't have to.

There is a difference in space and/or time between two events, if there is no difference in either, you have one event, not two. Therefore spacetime exists between any two events.

YOU, however, have to show that these features you insist have no actual existence have no physical existence in the universe.

Or, if you refuse to accept reality or even support of your idiotic fantasies, piss off to the dump thread for people who will not engage their brain in conversation here:

http://scienceblogs.com/startswithabang/2012/09/23/weekend-diversion-yo…

or get blocked.

Free up threads for discussion rather than the raving conspiracies of a madman unable and unwilling to listen.

That madman would be you, FYI.

#69 this is nothing but a continuation of your previous argument wich has no power unless you prove spacetime to be a human being.

#71 i gave a quote directly from the ligo team, and it simply boils down to this that they claim to have build a machine that detects black holes (unproven) that explode and hit a ghost, to me that is black magic, not science.

Well you've done bugger all but proclaim that spacetime isn't physically there (despite space being "physically there" by your insane ranting). So OF COURSE the response is going to be nothing new.

Want something new? Try something new yourself.

Try sanity. Just for the giggles, if nothing else.

#73 wow

Well in addition to my previous point (that still stands)

You could read this paper http://www.ptep-online.com/index_files/2006/PP-05-10.PDF on the history of the black holes and why they not exist.

Because that is the other part of the story, there is no proof that blackholes exist so they can not colide and produce a gravitational wave whatever that might mean in the eyes of the ligo team.

So we have imaginary blackholes and imaginary space time and unproven gravitational waves in between, and we have a physical detector with a signal of god knows what source.

And the relation made by the ligo team between their machine/signal and all the abstract and imaginary unproven theoretical wrong mathmatical stuff, is simply assumption, words but no substance, they provide no proof for it, one make a computermodel that predicts aliens kissing stars emitting waves and then when my machine detects such a wave we say ooooh must be true.

"Well in addition to my previous point (that still stands)"

No it doesn't, it was never valid in the first place. you can't merely proclaim it's imaginary and then insist that it is still valid.

"on the history of the black holes and why they not exist."

They do exist. That's one way you can have a history of them. Things that don't exist don't have a history.

"Because that is the other part of the story, there is no proof that blackholes exist"

There is. Just ones that you, and that conspiracy nut whose rantings you just linked to, refuse to accept as evidence.

You're just a frigging moron blowhard.

Like the idiot who wrote that PDF. Failes immediately: claims that something going less than the escape velocity will get out to less than infinity then fall back, then on a body with an escape velocity higher than the speed of light, light, that fucking idiot claims without a flinch, will reach infinity...

That's right: what they just two sentences earlier claimed wouldn't happen...

From

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Stephen_J._Crothers

I'm neither a mathematician nor a physicist. More accurately, I'm a gardener and home handyman who does science in his spare time.
—Stephen J. Crothers[1]

Stephen J. Crothers (born 1957) is a handyman/gardener and part-time amateur scientist who claims that black holes do not exist, and are neither predicted by nor compatible with General Relativity.[2] His body of work consists primarily of vanity-published articles that he posts at either viXra or his own personal website,[3][4] thus steering clear of the peer review process. He has also been a frequent guest speaker at the annual EU conferences held by the Electric Universe crowd.[5][6][7]

Crothers is currently listed as a staff member at the Alpha Institute for Advanced Studies;[8] a minuscule (in size and influence) group of misfits and malcontents headed by "free energy" crank Myron W. Evans.[9]

#75 wow

By imaginary i mean it has no physical existence that it still can exist as an abstract in the mind is not rejected by my, so my point still stands.

They do exist ? Show me one.

Cant you give direct quote with reference ? To the sentence in the paper ? What you write is not what the paper says, so you dont understand, or you misread, or you are a liar.

#76 i know his credentials and they are irrelevant, address the content of the paper, rather then attacking the person with rational wiki.

Space has no physical existence. It's the lack of something physical between two things. Just because it's not physical doesn't mean it's not real. No matter how crazy you are.

"that it still can exist as an abstract in the mind is not rejected by my, so my point still stands."

No it doesn't. And is a nonsequitur besides.

"What you write is not what the paper says,"

Yes it is. And it's NOT a "paper", it's a blogpost written for a crank site pretending to be a science journal.

"#76 i know his credentials and they are irrelevant,"

No they aren't. The complete lack of any expertise is HIGHLY RELEVANT.

"address the content of the paper"

I did.

#78 wow

I know that space really is a lack of anything physical, that is what i am writing all the time, so you finally agree, but the idea is not derived from space, it comes from objects and changes that truly exist, there is no way to define space by itself, other than by using abstracts derived from objects and changes, and it is improper to say that something exists in nothing, because somethings exist in itself and not outside itself and can only interact with other somethings and can not interact with a nothing, that is the whole point with the ligo team they claim an interaction of unproven blackholes that produce a wave that interacts with the nothing (fabric of spacetime) wich is impossible.

I prefer to call it a paper, and you failed to produce a direct quote -word for word- with reference to the paper, you failed to provide proof for your claim that the paper says what you wrote, merely stating your opinion that you did holds no water.

Real expertise is measured by content not by titles, presenting a truth is another thing than having the name to have expertise, the absence of a title is no excuse to reject the content as a lie without pointing out the error.

And no you did not correctly address the content of the paper as i mentioned above.

thanks for your sharing

You know nothing. If its a lack of anything, it has no physical existence.

Therefore space doesn't exist.

Which is as ridiculous as your asinine claims about spacetime and black holes and all the other moronic statements you've made.

"but the idea is not derived from space, it comes from objects and changes that truly exist, "

But doesn't EXIST as an object.

spacetime is derived from objects that truly exist.

If you REALLY don't want to get it, fuck off to the dump thread you retard.

Here it is again, goldfishbrain:

http://scienceblogs.com/startswithabang/2012/09/23/weekend-diversion-yo…

#80 wow

"You know nothing. If its a lack of anything, it has no physical existence."

indeed i am writing that all the time.

"Therefore space doesn’t exist." true

"Which is as ridiculous as your asinine claims about spacetime and black holes and all the other moronic statements you’ve made."

opinion has no power prove it.

“but the idea is not derived from space, it comes from objects and changes that truly exist, ”

"But doesn’t EXIST as an object."

true i am writing that all the time, for example: the abstract space between body earth and body sun has an abstract distance of x abstract kilometers, does it make space material ? Ofcourse not.

"spacetime is derived from objects that truly exist."

No spacetime is an abstract derived from the abstracts space and time wich themselves are derived from other abstracts.

So show me how matter can ripple the nothing called fabric of spacetime, to me that is magic not science, and completely false.

s.a. topp,

Whether you know it or not, what you are really arguing is that the theory of General Relativity is incorrect. While you may be right, it's quite unlikely, and you have failed to present any real evidence that you are correct. What you have instead presented is an argument from incredulity. Basically, your entire argument boils down to "I can't see how spacetime can be real or how it can be deformed by matter, so therefore spacetime is not real."

Sure, the mathematics of GR is an abstract construct. However, that does not mean that what it is describing is not real. GR is a very good scientific theory. What that means is that it makes predictions that can be tested. Those predictions have in all cases been borne out by actual observations. For instance, GR predicts that there is a correction to the clocks that must be made by the satellites that are used in GPS systems in order for them to work accurately. Last I checked, GPS systems work pretty well using the correction that is predicted by GR. That lends support to the validity of GR. That's also only one example. The prediction that two mirrors will move relative to one another under certain circumstances is another one made by GR, and is in fact the original subject of this post. GR predicted the motion, and it predicted the magnitude of that motion. It did so where no other theory or hypothesis would have made the same prediction. GR may well not be the full story, but isn't it reasonable to believe that GR has something right when it was the only theory that made the correct prediction?

You may not understand or like what GR has to say. Too bad. GR has the evidence in its favor; other possible competing theories do not. If I'm wrong, go ahead and use your ideas to make your own predictions and let's see if you're right.

"While you may be right"

He isn't by any method.

#83 sean t

Well science came to me via the media with their claim, and to me this claim is magic not science, so now i come to science with my response, so we have exchange of ideas on the matter, for the benefit of all.

They claim that blackholes ripple the fabric of spacetime, but where is the proof, why should i believe them without proof, can they play pastor with me for free, i dont think so.

We have three things in the claim: blackholes, gravitational waves, and fabric of spacetime.

The source of the GW is collison of black hole
So where is the proof for blackholes and their collison other than theories and math, where is the physical emperical verifiable falsifiable proof that confirms the theory and math of black holes and their collison in the first place because if there is none there is no way to link the detection of a any wave to it wether it was theorised and calculated or not

And then what does the wave consist of what is the matter and how is it changing and where is the proof for that ?

And lastly it is not that i can not believe that spacetime is real and i might be expressing myself in the wrong way by saying "therefore does not exist" but what i really mean the physical existence of spacetime is not proven to exist and will not be proven because it is only real in an abstract form with no real physical objects behind it, spacetime is only real in an abstract form, and what spacetime really is is emptyness nothing zero nada, as i quoted earlier from stanford, and now i can say, no it is impossible to change(ripple) a nothing, and that leads to the conclusion that the claim is false and the detected wave must have another explanation than this.

Wether gps needs GR or not, or that gps problem can be solved without it, that doesnt mean that it if it works for one thing it is also true for other problems, or that GR is true in all its parts or partially.

And the fact that they only have one theory that matched the signal doesnt make it true or mean there is no other explanation possible.

To me the whole claim is based on assumption or an allusion to magic not science.

#84 because you said so, that has no power, prove it.

what i really mean the physical existence of spacetime is not proven to exist and will not be proven because it is only real in an abstract form with no real physical objects behind it, spacetime is only real in an abstract form, and what spacetime really is is emptyness nothing zero nada

Once again, you're perfectly free to test this out by leaping from a window. You seem to have planted yourself at a convergence of scientific ignorance and airheaded philosophy that is referred to in some quarters as "Bad Fazzm."

Or "Woomancer".

Lots of sciency-sounding words, no actual science (or even rational thought) in them, just a lot of words strung together and insisting it's valid theorising when it's just shit pulled from to p's ass.

"and to me this claim is magic not science, "

did you bother to look up "Argument from Personal Incredulity"?

s.a., I realize I'm probably wasting my time, but I'll give it one more shot. You've pretty much missed the whole point of my post. The things you are complaining about as being "magic not science" are simply consequences of the theory of General Relativity. If GR is true, those things must also be true. If GR is untrue, then there's no reason to believe any of it. Now, how do we establish the truth of GR? Like any scientific theory, it cannot be proven, at least in the same sense as a mathematical theorem can. Science doesn't work that way. Science is inherently inductive, not deductive. What we can do is lend support for a theory such as GR by making observations. To qualify as a scientific theory, any idea must make predictions. The more unexpected and bold those predictions are the better. If we make observations based on those predictions and the predictions turn out to be correct, that lends support for the theory.

Let's look at the track record for GR. Prior to GR, it was noted the the planet Mercury did not move as expected. Without getting into too much detail, the closest point of approach to the sun of its orbit moved around the sun a bit after each revolution. Some of this could be accounted for by the presence of the other known planets. However, not all could. This remained an anomaly and astronomers searched for a hypothetical planet closer to the sun than Mercury to account for this. The explanation finally came from GR, which predicted Mercury's orbit perfectly.

GR also predicts that light will be deflected when it passes near a large mass. Newton's gravitation also predicts this, but GR predicts that the magnitude of the effect would be larger. Comparison of the apparent position of stars during a solar eclipse with their position at night showed that GR made the correct prediction.

GR also predicts that if light travels upwards, the frequency of the light will be lowered. This is a completely unexpected prediction based on pre-GR physics. Based on your ideas, you would have no reason to believe that this would happen. Again, measurements have confirmed this prediction of GR.

GR also predicts that the passage of time for different observers would be different depending on their local gravitational field and their motion. If all this warping of spacetime talk is not real, then you would expect that if you took a very accurate pair of clocks, left one in a lab and put the other on an airplane and flew it around the world and back to the lab, that the clocks would read the same time. That is not what happens in the actual real world, though. This experiment actually has been performed, and the clock that travelled showed less time passage than the clock that remained in the lab.

All these, predictions (and this is not an exhaustive list) give credence to the notion that GR is a valid theory. Given that, it certainly is reasonable to believe that other predictions of GR, such as gravity waves and black holes are also valid. Since gravity waves were predicted to have a certain effect on the LIGO equipment and that effect was actually observed, by what rational basis can we reject the idea that gravity waves were actually detected?

All your "argument' boils down to is a lot of unfounded assumptions and personal incredulity. You claim that space cannot ripple because space is "nothing". How do you know that? You are making an assumption, and one which the evidence indicates in not warranted. Lose that assumption and look at the evidence instead. Otherwise, keep that assumption and make some testable predictions based on it. Go ahead and test those predictions and see if your assumption works better than GR. I know which way I'm betting.

#86, #87: have look for yourself at scientists full of "scientific ignorance and airheaded philosophy","Lots of sciency-sounding words, no actual science (or even rational thought)" https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XYohZRivNhI

#88 i am sure you did.

#89 i gave it some time, looking it up on the internet, and yes einstein invented(fabricated) the fabric of spacetime, so my criticism of the ligo claim also hits einsteins theories, so two flies in one hit this one might educate you: http://www.einsteinerrs.com/gravity.html

nothing that you 3 provided did really answer my criticism to be wrong.

and you know dead fish go with the flow, live fish go up stream, its easy to be lazy and believe all that science says without any research of your own and ridicule others from there who commit time to find the truth of the matter i feel sorry for you

#89

have to add that the frontpage -as i just have discovered to my amazement- of the link i gave you is having a piece wich is discussing the ligo claims and has nearly the same criticism as i have, so i am not alone, and i am sure i can find more of this if look for it.

Nope, it doesn't. Which is part of why you can only go "nearly the same".

#91 my previous was not approved as of yet, so how can you discuss it then? must be magic.

@#90 s.a.top
It is easy to find writings which agree with your own thoughts, but that does not necessarily mean what you think is correct because of this common belief. Get your information & test it for its truth first. If it stands up to scrutiny, then it may well be correct; otherwise you have just led yourself astray.
:)

You're still wrong to p. And still a fucking lunatic.

All you're doing is finding other idiotic and untrained lunatics who say something similar to you.

And if it said nearly the same you'd be claiming it said the same thing.

#93 pj

it is not always that easy, but i agree a majority or common view does not make it true, and the reason i wrote the comment was because i was encouraged by the piece and it is more pointed to the discussion here than the previous link in the comment that still is not published and awaiting moderation.

And a different view from the popular doesn't make it true either. Proclaiming you're right JUST BECAUSE YOU'RE NUTS is just proving you're nuts.

And when the popular view is infomed by people who've actually done the work to see, your UNINFORMED bullshit is just plain wrong.

Now fuck off and play where you won't be shitting on the eyeballs of people here to learn something or discuss rationally.

"So show me how matter can ripple the nothing called fabric of spacetime"

It changes the spacetime.

Just like eating an apple chages the apple despite "eating" being "a nothing called eating".

Retard.

PS Please prove that spacetime is nothing.

#98 wow

Take paper and pen.

Remember paper represents your brain, and the ink on the paper a thought.

Now draw space.... 3 axes xyz.
Now draw time one axis t.
There is your spacetime represented by ink.

Now draw earth on scale with a diameter of 1 mm at the proper location in space on 01-january-2000, and now draw earth on its proper location on 01-january-1995.

If you did not spot the two obvious problems by now, continue with drawing the ligo collison of two blackholes with correct size and spacetime parameters xyzt, did you wake up? No? continue by drawing the ligo test systems at the proper place in spacetime, now ripple the paper from the blackhole to earth, does it land? lol

You can not combine space and time in 4 axis because you can not have 2 earths in reality, you can ripple your reference frame spacetime (remember ink/thought) all day but it wont touch or change reality one bit

Both space and time are nonexistent in the universe(all physical objects and their change) outside the universe is nothing, both time and space are ideas of the mind to order what we experience of the universe it has no physical existence, and no black hole(unproven) can physically ripple it in any shape or form ever.

I observe that it is wrong to use the #number to refer to comments because of moderation of comments.

Both space and time are nonexistent in the universe(all physical objects and their change) outside the universe is nothing, both time and space are ideas of the mind to order what we experience of the universe it has no physical existence, and no black hole(unproven) can physically ripple it in any shape or form ever.

Counting the number of things wrong in that statement would be an interesting textbook exercise.

It's a good way to prove how you can get to infinity.
The loon is just an arsehole spouting crap.

"Remember paper represents your brain, and the ink on the paper a thought."

Unlike yours, possibly, my brain is not made of wood pulp. And thoughts aren't made of a coloured suspension of oils and pigments.

Therefore you must be using an analogy.

Analogies are required to be analogous before they can be used as illustration. Yours is not.

Wow,

Fine, i will stop "wasting" your precious rotation around the center of earth spiraling behind the sun.

Dean,

You Are Just one of the many that are quick to count "errors", but not counting the truths, or in what way this could be true.

Define space for me, even a space between two characters in text makes my point clear, space is nothing there is nothing, add time to it, time is an idea derived from motion of objects, but time unlike motion does not exist physically as an object in the universe, now lets have fun and add an idea to space lets give it 3 axles xyz does it make space physical? No, lets now add two objects earth and moon what is the distance? Between them x times the diameter of the moon, pretty physical, but whats between them, uh nothing, so how we call t
That nothing, uhuh space, aaaaah space is nothing, now lets explode some black holes and ripple space did you feel it no i felt nothing, right because indeed space is nothing, now add time to space, wow earth stands still it cant move anymore we have a major breakdown time is locking motion of objects in space, why because earth can not be in two places in the same time its impossible, also earth can not move trough the barrier of past and present,earth is in the now, now call me insane but you can not violate the laws of nature, and you can not ripple the idea of spacetime with blackholes collisons, by the way blackholes do not exist until proven.

I observe that it is wrong to use the #number to refer to comments because of moderation of comments.

I.e., you're not very good at this "deduction" thing.

"Fine, i will stop “wasting” "

Stop wasting EVERYONE'S time, retard.

"Dean,

You Are Just one of the many that are quick to count “errors”"

Well, errors SHOULD be pointed out ,FFS. Stop whining. You are wrong. You haven't a clue. Get over it.

"Define space for me,"
Fuck off.
" even a space between two characters in text makes my point clear,"

Nope it doesn't, unless by "clear" you mean "clearly clueless".

Wow, lol you cant let it go isnt it? Hehe

He only announced he saw error, without pointing them out.

Now wow, i wont repeat your words but let me point out that that verb indicates motion of matter, that really can not be a proper explanation of a nothing like space, and please keep the conversation going your input is very valuable to show on what level science is.

Space is nothing.

Universe is all matter

Time is an idea derived from change of matter, for example rotation of earth, making day and night in combination with sunlight, or from the diameter of matter for example de distance between sun and pluto is so and so many TIMES the size of mars.

Thats it wow free of charge.

What? It;s your sorry ass that can't let it go.

You're utterly wrong. Nothing simpler about it.

Every single claim you've made is nothing more than "I don't understand, therefore everyone mus tbe wrong!".

All that means is you're a fucking moron.

Wow, your rethoric is almost equally empty as space.

Blackholes are not proven to exist.
Gravitational waves are not proven to exist
Ripples in the fabric of space and time are per definition impossible because this fabric has no place in physical reality by wich i mean the universe(=all matter) it only exist as an idea on paper.
Therefore the ligo claim is a scam, and all about the money and not about truth of the matter.

That's still you being wrong there. "I don't understand" isn't "it's wrong" you fuckwit.

Wow

What you are doing is nothing more than throwing insults and you have not much variation in that. its boring boy.

Here google this to see real science at work: Lawrence Krauss and Neil deGrasse Tyson "Existence of Nothing!"

Science and you their reliogious follower are in bad shape and very unconvincing for more reasons i can count on my fingers.

The only explanation of spacetime i got from you until now is that spacetime is a human being or an apple.

You're doing nothing that doesn't deserve insults.

You're sure as fuck not listening to anyone explain how you're wrong, so what the fuck is the problem, shitforbrains?

Tell you what, I'll meet you half way.

You stop being a moron, and I'll stop calling you one.

Deal?

Define space for me

What kind? Do you "believe in" "the existence" of sets?

Space is nothing.

Universe is all matter

What kind of matter is light made of?

Narad Photons

Narad Photons

Um, yes, but they're, y'know, massless. How do they turn into "matter"? Is heat "matter"? Can you define matter? I should certainly hope so if you're willing to burble up comments such as "Universe is all matter."

And how much of that matter is empty space?

to p is a clueless moron who only understand that they must be right, even when they're not.

Narad

i knew this was coming hehe, a photon is a particle-wave duality according to science, so its a something, and not only that i can observe them too with my naked eye in large quantities, for example when i look at the sun, your eyes are constantly bombarded with photons, without those you would not be able to see or read my comment.

So it's EXACTLY like

"Space and time are ideas in our brains to designate and measure and locate objects and change in relation to other objects and changes in the universe.
...
No spacetime is an abstract derived from the abstracts space and time wich themselves are derived from other abstracts."

But with matter and energy, both abstracts, replacing space and time.

And therefore photons being a "super-abstract" by your own insane and ridiculous definitions, equivalent to spacetime.

Wow

Actually no you are wrong lol

photons are particles and spacetime is not a particle that you can observe in the universe with your naked eye, but if you want to believe your own stupidity i have a bridge to sell you.

"Actually no you are wrong lol"

Wrong.

"photons are particles"

You said they were matter-energy. Not particles. And if they're particles, how come they interfere with each other?

How do you know you see light with your naked eye? All you KNOW is that you can see the sun. Seems like you believe the common wisdom as a convenience.

Wow

Yes photons are particles waving into your face, dont twist my words lol, now how do i know that is see light with my naked eye because i experience it hehe, i even know how many photons are needed to see light.

Now that we established a well known fact that photons are something and particles with a wave, and thus are part of the universe, and not part of space wich is nothing.

We can conclude that this distraction does not change the fact that the ligo claim is pure nonsense and that my friend wow is what matters :-)

We can conclude that this distraction does not change the fact that the ligo claim is pure nonsense

There must be a version of Newton's First Law of Motion that says "Once a science denying crank has a wrong idea or misunderstanding in his head it will remain there despite external applications of logic and reason."

" We can conclude that this distraction does not change the fact that the ligo claim is pure nonsense"

Ah, so pointing out how wrong you are in your claims aside from your asinine one about LIGO which is entirely based off your RIDICULOUS retarded claims we are discussing is "this distraction".

Right.

So again, why the fuck, shitforbrains, is anything you say worth anything other than ridicule, scorn and derision, and your personality worth anything more than insults?

Retard.

"Yes photons are particles waving into your face, "

How do you know? This can't be an abstract waving into your eyes, because you claim not to believe in waves in things that don't really exist as matter.

And matter as you define it DOES NOT INTERFERE WITH ITSELF. It doesn't destroy matter of the same type in some places and add to the matter in others.

Unless you buy into the same reasoning that shows spacetime can indeed wave and be distorted and seen by LIGO, which you refuse to accept, therefore can't appeal to.

"dont twist my words lol,"

I didn't you lying sack of pointless pigshit:

#118: "when i look at the sun, your eyes are constantly bombarded with photons"

Dean:

A cranial/anal inversion will remain a cranial/anal inversion until acted upon by an internal force. (classical crank law)

Or their arse is liberally kicked. (specially relative crank law)

Wow,

How do i know, i know because you are a human being and on earth so you are in the same stuation as me, photons are particles with a wave, i defined the universe as matter also in the words objects and change, that includes all transformations of objects, your failure to understand both me and science is showing, you dont even know what you are saying.

Whats up with the sun? Yes the sun emits photons yes they hit YOUR eyes they enter them, are taken in by molecules and the chemical reaction follows do you see the light now? wow.

well, as useless an "argument" as every single other piece of crap you've shat out your piehole.

Fuck off you ridiculous arsehole.

Spacetime exists. LIGO detected its distortion and that proves it.

It's far more valid than your "proof" of how light exists.

And why do you claim that light only exists if it hits human eyes and is detected there???

"i defined the universe as matter also in the words objects and change"

And energy and waves and particles and photons and space between them and time for those changes to happen and to allow movement to take place.

You defined the universe as "all matter".

THEN you had to REDEFINE it as all those other things.

But never did you understand any of it. Or that you even had to redefine it.

Because you're a fucking idiot.

Spacetime exists because the universe has spacetime to exist in. If there were no spacetime, there'd be no universe. And spacetime can distort in waves.

Something you don't want to understand.

Because, as we all know, you're a fucking loon.

As a human, even if barely, you exist in spacetime. Therefore it exists.

Do you exist in three dimensions of space only or do you exist in a volume of space and time, retard?

If you don't exist in time, then how do you know time passed, since you were here for none of it?

If you DO exist in time, then you just proved spacetime exists.

If you don't agree that time is a dimension therefore you don't exist in it, do you have no height then, because height is merely one dimension of 3d space? If so, how can you type since the height of the keys can't depress to signal an actuation? How can you type at a computer when you can't sit in front of it to see what appears on the screen? How can you read when there's no width to scribe characters beside each other to denote a message?

If you do exist in all three dimensions, why is it ONLY those three and not four of spacetime?

If visiion proves photons exist and are particles, why was it known to be a wave and not a particle for hundreds of years?

Were nobody able to see photons then? If so, what changed so we could see photons today? What does a photon look like? And how to you see them? Do you have to shine a light on them?

What is energy if it's not material? If it is material, why do you call it differently from matter?

If matter waves, what does that mean?

What about energy?

What happens when some physical thing waves to the energy? And is that change a physical change, a real change, or is it a mythical abstract change, in which case, why does i exist when spacetime doesn't as far as you "know"?

How do you know the sun emits photons, how do you know that your eye picked up photons from the sun, how do you know photons made chemical changes in your eyes, how do you know that these photons are particles when all you claim to know is they are emitted from the sun and cause chemical changes in your eyes?

How do you know that this happens to you?

Why do you claim that you know why photons are light because I'm a human on planet earth?

If light are particles, explain how a single particle can go through two slits at the same time in the two-slit experiment.

Explain what waves are.

What are the photons physically doing when you claim they wave into your eyes? What does their "waving" entail and why do they do that to get into your eyes? Do they have to? Or is it optional?

Does the waving of photons make the chemical change or does the existence of the photon make a chemical change, in which case, how does it manage that and where does it go after the change? Is it still in the chemicals or is it destroyed or is it somewhere else?

And how do you know?

Do other things waving cause chemical changes? If so, what and how do they do it? What happens to the waving, or is it optional for them to wave, in which case isn't it optional for photons too? If not, why are they different if they're both particles?

How does the existence of another human being prove photons are particles?

Wow,

Still waiting for the proof that black holes exist...

Which one of the claims you've made did THAT prove, then? If you didn't mean to prove one of your claims, then which of MY questions did it answer????

You apparently don't HAVE proof photons even exist as real things, else you'd have said it. You don't have proof how you know they're particles or they wave or anything you've claimed.

If you have no proof of your claims you accepted and proclaim as real, why the hell do you demand proof black holes exist?

Oh BTW, Cygnus X1.

I know black holes exist because you're a human who is made from the results of a massive star collapsing to a black hole and ejecting most of its mass into the galaxy.

If that's not proof, then why the hell did you use it yourself?

How do you know that the earth is round? How do you know time exists? Please provide proof that the universe is not created with a fake history.

Prove photons come from the sun.

Prove photons wave.

Prove that sight is caused by photons making chemical changes, and how this causes sight when it's not sight when a solar PV cell is changed by light.

Prove that natter is the only real thing that exist and that the universe is all and only made up of matter.

Where's your proof space exists and time exists but they don't exist together.

Where's the proof photons are the matter that makes up light.

Where's your proof that LIGO's measurements are caused by something else. And what IS that something else.

Where's the proof that space is an abstract.

Where's your proof that abstracts can't change and that change be real, measured by real things and have a cause commensurate with that abstract thing you claim abstract and not real.

#131 The only distortion ligo detected was in their system and that system is physical while spacetime is nonphysical.

#132 i wrote that you can not see without light, that is a different thing

#133 no because the universe is all matter, objects and change a photon is also an object or particle part of the universe not part of space because space is nothing and time is just an idea to to describe an order of change, but the change is independent.

And no spacetime is not the base for the existence of the universe its the other way around without a physical universe we have nothing to base the ideas of space and time on, because even the idea of nothing exists because of the existence of something.

#134 i exist in myself among other objects in the universe i dont owe my existence to space wich is a nothing and i dont exist in the nothing i exist in the someting namely myself not outside myself.

#135 space has no dimensions or time, since space is a nothing it has no form no existence no duration or change

I exist in myself, and if you want to describe my existence in the universe with the idea of time you could use the idea of birthdate or age wich is nothing but an idea based on change of objects in the universe, but the change of objects is not subject to any time whether it is the chinese or the european calender or the hebrew or the babylonian or the aztec or the islamic one.

#136 height is just an idea of how many times another object fits in this distance, we have standardised the meter, but we could use any distance of or on or in an object and its change, for that idea it doesnt change reality one bit. I tell you some thing s.a. top is one s.a.top length high.

Prove photons exist.

"#131 The only distortion ligo detected was in their system and that system is physical while spacetime is nonphysical."

Prove

1) it's in their system alone
2) the physical system wasn't caused by spacetime warping
3) that spacetime is not physical

Are you claiming photons can't be real because your eye detects a distortion in its system and that your eye is physical while photons are nonphysical?

If not, how?

Wol

Spamming this comment section has no value in establishing truth.

"#133 no because the universe is all matter, objects and change a photon is also an object "

1) Prove the universe is all matter, objects and change a photon
2) Prove a photon is also an object

"#132 i wrote that you can not see without light, that is a different thing"

You can see it's dark. Which is defined as not light.

And how do you know that light is photons if all you're really saying is that you can't see without light, since that doesn't say that light is made of photons?

You claimed the proof photons were particles was because I'm a human and I can see the light from the sun.

Except I can't SEE the light, I can see the sun, I can see what is lit. You still haven't proven photons are real.

"#135 space has no dimensions or time"

Then you have no volume???

Please prove space has no dimensions or time.

"#135 space has no dimensions or time"

Then why didn't all your posts come at the same instant if there was no time?

Please prove space has no time.

"#134 i exist in myself among other objects in the universe"

Yourself is an abstract thing. When you cut your hair, you lose part of "myself" to the barber's floor, but you don't claim you're now in multiple places, therefore it can't be defined by your physical constituents, therefore it MUST be abstract.

And since abstract things, you claim, don't exist, you don't either.

So how did you post anything?

Please prove you exist.

"#136 height is just an idea of how many times another object fits in this distance,"

If there's no such thing as distance, how can things fit in it?

Please prove this claim.

"Spamming this comment section has no value in establishing truth."

Please prove this claim.

Refusing to answer questions of proof of your claims is invaluable in establishing that you have no proof, and, therefore, by your own measure, have nothing real to claim.

"you could use the idea of birthdate or age wich is nothing but an idea based on change of objects in the universe"

Please prove that it is only a change in objects in the universe and is real when LIGO is measuring a change in objects in the universe and is not real.

"and time is just an idea to to describe an order of change, but the change is independent."

Please provide proof of this claim.

"I tell you some thing s.a. top is one s.a.top length high."

But you change in height.

And how do you fit in one of those when there's no space really there?

A thousand questions and no answers that actual make the claim of proof they are supposed to manage.

#164 wow

Because we know it, it is basic science unlike the pseudo scientific confirmation bias claims of liego and you.

If height doesn't exist, how can there be a height of you?

"#164 wow

Because we know it, "

No, that's not proof. HOW do you know it?

"it is basic science"

Then you should know the proof.

Where is it?

Or do you not know the proof? In which case, why do you need proof of spacetime to accept that as "basic science" and "We just know"?

#173 wow

I fit pretty well in myself, without the existence of the idea height, to compare me to others and describe a physical difference between me and them.

"the pseudo scientific confirmation bias claims of liego and you."

Please describe the evidence that led you to that claim and how that differs from your insistence that light is photons and photons are particles and they really exist "because we just know".

"I fit pretty well in myself,"

How? There's no such thing as height, you claim?

"without the existence of the idea height, to compare me to others and describe a physical difference between me and them."

But you didn't claim that was a description only, you claimed it told you about how things fit in other things.

Please prove that your earlier claim was incorrect and this is actually true, or the obverse.

How can height exist as a description if there's no such real thing as a height dimension?

What is the height of a photon?

What about depth? Does depth also not exist, in which case, how can you reach out???

What other things about science need no proof other than "We just know"?

Who decides that and what metrics define when it's deserved?

If you cant prove photons exist, and so far you haven't, does that mean every claim you've made about sight is also wrong?

If not, why? And under what circumstances, if any, does that not apply as a required proof, and who (and how) decided it.

If height is only so people can relate your height to others, why is it not real?

And what happened before you were born, therefore not available to be compared with others? Did height not exist?

Where's your proof that height is nonexistent?

Since you've not been able to prove any of your claims or answer any of your questions, your claims are pseudoscience confirmation bias, correct? If not, why and who decided under what circumstances and requirements?

How high is, say, Everest, and why is it that height?

If it's relative to sea level, then isn't YOUR height relative to sea level? So doesn't it change if you lie down?

So does that mean your volume decreases massively when you lie down?

If not, then what is it that isn't changing when you lie down?

And if it is changing, why is it still useful when comparing you to other things. Because to be a USEFUL comparison, you need something fairly invariant, which your maximum extent above sea level is not.

If your longest linear dimension is a useful metric, why isn't that your height? If it IS your height, then what's Everest's height, again?

What's the height to the sun?

What's the height to the star nearest to us at right angles to the sun, going eastward?

What's the height to the pole star at equinox, when that star is at right angles to the sun, but to the north?

If they don't exist, why do they have numbers you can refer to?

If they DO exist, then how do they exist if space doesn't have three dimensions?

If it takes 93 million miles to travel to the sun, what does that mean, exactly? Does it mean you have to move 93 million miles to get there in some space coordinate?

If so, can it be done without taking time also?

If it can't, then why isn't it also a CERTAIN TIME away?

And if so, isn't time just another coordinate through space you must travel to get somewhere, just like all the others?

And if that's the case, then why isn't spacetime real, when all it is is the distance in linear separation along the timeline, just as the distance in space is separating us from the sun?

If it isn't, please provide your explanation of what it IS, and how you know this.

What is described by half-life of an unstable particle? Is it the period of time it takes for half of a sample to decay?

So why do pions traveling very fast have a longer half-life?

Please explain.

i knew this was coming hehe, a photon is a particle-wave duality according to science

It still doesn't have any mass. Define "matter."

If pions have a longer half life because time goes slower, then how long does it take pions to get to the sun, as measured by the numbers that decay on the way there, since this would be a way to measure the pion's path through time?

How long would it be if they travelled at 99.9999% of the speed of light?

But since they took 8 minutes, or thereabouts, to travel the 93 million miles to the sun, and we already know how fast they went, how far must it have been to get there the way the near-light-speed pions got there?

If it is a different (shorter? longer? please be ready to provide the proof of your answer) to our 93 million miles, hasn't the space been warped to a different value by the route the pions took, therefore "distance" or "height to the sun", is NOT a useful measure of how many things you can fit in it, in contradiction to your earlier claims of its sole purpose?

If the distance and time between two things can change based on how things move, then why can't that change be real when measured by LIGO, and can't be caused by black holes merging?

If it takes 8 minutes for the light from the sun to be seen by you, where is the sun now? If that isn't where you see it, then where did the light come from if that's not where the sun is?

How about the gravitation of the sun? Does that come from the same direction as the light did? Or does that come from where the sun is NOW? Or is it different to either of those?

How do you know?

If the light and the gravity come from the same place, they must be traveling the same speed, and therefore gravity takes 8 minutes to travel from the sun to us and cause earth to move under its influence.

But to an observer off to one side of us were to record what was going on, what would THEIR account be? The same as our view of where the sun was 8 minutes ago, where the sun is now, or some other value?

And if it's not where the sun is now, and not where we think the sun is, hasn't that changes the gravitational force on that observer?

What does that change, given we know from GPS that gravitational fields change the rate of passage of time?

Does that not mean that the situation this alien sees is changed not merely by the location of each body, but also the gravitational effect on time that they observed between them and either body?

And since these changes are quite cyclical, are these changes not going to vary in an oscillatory manner, as if it were a wave?

And if so, could they not measure these changes?

So in what way would this not be what LIGO did?

#195 narad

After looking more precisely at the word, i see that the word matter does not include photons in the current understanding of the word, so the word does not fit with what i intended to express, so instead of using the word matter i will use "physical things and change" it doesnt change the fact that photons are physical things unlike space and time.

"so instead of using the word matter i will use “physical things and change”"

But change isn't a physical thing.

And please show proof photons are a physical thing, as they are supposed to be electric and magnetic fields that vary.

Is gravity a physical thing? Or is it just a change? If it's just a change, what causes it?

How do you know?

So Narad's question becomes:

Space is nothing.

Universe is all physical things and change

What kind of physical thing is light made of?

So what kind of physical thing IS light made of?

If you didn't know what matter was, why did you claim you knew that the universe was all matter?

Not to mention all the scores of questions and answers you have avoided to date.

How does change happen if there are only physical things? Is change a physical thing?

If change is caused by physical things, then what is the physical thing that causes gravity?

What is the physical thing causing time?

What is the physical thing causing space?

What is the physical thing that causes light (and if that's a physical thing, what causes that?)

If changes aren't caused by physical things, then what does?

If gravity is a physical thing, what is it?

If gravity is a cause, wouldn't a candidate for causing gravity be spacetime warping? If not, how do you know it's not tenable?

If gravity could be caused by spacetime warping, doesn't that make spacetime a physical thing?

And if it doesn't, then we've lost the cause for gravity.

Wow,

You are free to travel to the sun and test the gravity there, is gravity traveling? Interesting, explain what gravity is and how it travels? lol
Gravity to me is a mechanism or a combination of mechanisms that moves me to earth with a speed of 9.8 m/s²

"You are free to travel to the sun and test the gravity there"

Your permission is neither required nor sufficient.

"Interesting, explain what gravity is and how it travels? lol"

So it travels by lol????

Or are you not answering?

Is that because you can't?

"Gravity to me is a mechanism "

So is that part of the universe? Doesn't that now mean the universe is physical things, changes and mechanisms?

"that moves me to earth with a speed of 9.8 m/s²"

So you're falling toward the centre of the earth at an accelerating rate since you were born some years in the past.

Lets say you're 12 years old. Likely an overestimate, but lets lowball this.

3x10^7 seconds a year, 4x10^8 seconds in 12 years.

s=at*t/2
a=9.8. Lets call it 10.
t=4x10^9.

s=4x10^19m from your original position at the earth's surface.

Given the earth is only 6x10^6 m across, this provides some problems.

Are you bouncing?

So are photons are a mechanism now?

Since I hadn't claimed interest in the gravitation at the sun, why are you telling me I can go measure it?

Can you answer the question I did ask?

If it takes 8 minutes for the light from the sun to be seen by you, where is the sun now? If that isn’t where you see it, then where did the light come from if that’s not where the sun is?

How about the gravitation of the sun? Does that come from the same direction as the light did? Or does that come from where the sun is NOW? Or is it different to either of those?

How do you know?

If the light and the gravity come from the same place, they must be traveling the same speed, and therefore gravity takes 8 minutes to travel from the sun to us and cause earth to move under its influence.

But to an observer off to one side of us were to record what was going on, what would THEIR account be? The same as our view of where the sun was 8 minutes ago, where the sun is now, or some other value?

And if it’s not where the sun is now, and not where we think the sun is, hasn’t that changes the gravitational force on that observer?

What does that change, given we know from GPS that gravitational fields change the rate of passage of time?

Does that not mean that the situation this alien sees is changed not merely by the location of each body, but also the gravitational effect on time that they observed between them and either body?

And since these changes are quite cyclical, are these changes not going to vary in an oscillatory manner, as if it were a wave?

And if so, could they not measure these changes?

So in what way would this not be what LIGO did?

"Gravity to me is a mechanism or a combination of mechanisms that moves me to earth with a speed of 9.8 m/s²"

So what stops the sun falling to earth at 9.8m^2?

What causes Jupiter not to fall to earth?

What causes the stars and the distant galaxies from falling to earth?

What causes jupiter to orbit the sun, when gravity is only what keeps you falling to the earth?

WHY do you fall to the earth at that rate?

Is it a physical thing, or is it caused by a physical thing?

If it's not caused by a physical thing, can any cause be similarly uncaused by physical things?

In which case, what are they?

#209 wow,

"If gravity could be caused by spacetime warping, doesn’t that make spacetime a physical thing?"

no, it would make the nothing and the idea of time almighty, but since space is a nothing and time an idea, it is impossible, we need earth for our gravity and we need an atmoshpere too, imagine being surrounded by nothing, no sun = freezing, no airpressure = harmful expansion of the body, no earth = weightlessness breaking down the body, no air = no breath means death, no water same story. space gives me nothing, by the way if space is something what is its gravity then why am i not moved from earth in to space since space is infinitely big, second problem if space is someting how can light arrive in 8.3 minutes it would blocked by space.

Sorry, there was NOTHING about proof in there.

"it is impossible" is not proof it is impossible.

"we need earth for our gravity and we need an atmoshpere too,"

Why? Astronauts in ISS need neither.

This also doesn't prove anything you are supposed to be proving. NOBODY ASKED what life on earth needs.

"imagine being surrounded by nothing, no sun = freezing"

ISS.

Moon.

Mercury.

So, wrong.

"no airpressure = harmful expansion of the body"

This doesn't prove anything other than your fragile body isn't meant to live in space. You're supposed to be proving spacetime warping can't be the cause of gravity.

"no air = no breath means death"

Your body would still exist. Therefore this is merely change, not a real thing.

"space gives me nothing"

Who cares?

"if space is something what is its gravity "

If space is nothing, why is there gravity?

"if space is someting how can light arrive in 8.3 minutes it would blocked by space."

If windows are something, how can light arrive in 8.3 minutes it would be blocked by windows.

If space is nothing, how can light pass through it?

If classical composers give you nothing, do they not exist?

If someone passes by and doesn't put a penny in your cap, do they not exist?

If Putin gave you nothing, does the president of Russia not exist?

If Jupiter gives you nothing, does it not exist?

"but since space is a nothing and time an idea,"

Please define nothing.

After all cause is a nothing. And time a nothing.

Please prove time is an idea.

Please explain what you mean by "an idea". Before minds existed in the universe,was there no time???

And why is an idea a thing but not a nothing?

instead of using the word matter i will use “physical things and change” it doesnt change the fact that photons are physical things unlike space and time

To use your own phrase, why, then, does "light arrive in 8.3 minutes" from the Sun? You see to be unable to so much as decide whether you believe in the luminiferous ether or not.

If space has to have a gravity to be a thing, what causes the gravity of things??

wow,

"WHY do you fall to the earth at that rate?"

because there exists one or more mechanism(s)

"Is it a physical thing, or is it caused by a physical thing?"

it is not caused by a nothing or an idea so time and space are excluded, so it must have natural(physical) cause, or a supernatural cause in the absence of a physical mechanism.

"If it’s not caused by a physical thing, can any cause be similarly uncaused by physical things?"

that made no sense to me.

In which case, what are they?

see above.

What do you mean when you claim "no, it would make the nothing and the idea of time almighty,"?

"“WHY do you fall to the earth at that rate?”

because there exists one or more mechanism(s)"

So what is this mechanism?

"it is not caused by a nothing "

I didn't ask what it was not caused by. I asked

“Is it a physical thing, or is it caused by a physical thing?”

Is it a physical thing, or is it caused by a physical thing?

"or an idea so time and space are excluded,"

But how do you know?

"so it must have natural(physical) cause,"

Which is what?

"or a supernatural cause in the absence of a physical mechanism"

But by definition it can't be supernatural, since it is a cause in nature.

So it must have a physical mechanism.

What is it?

"“If it’s not caused by a physical thing, can any cause be similarly uncaused by physical things?”

that made no sense to me"

Don't blame me.

If it's not caused by a physical thing, what other things also don't need to be caused by a physical thing'?

Which word did you not understand?

Unless you're going to say gravity doesn't exist after all.

^ Moreover, since when is gravity not "a physical thing"? You've already had the precession of the perihelion of Mercury (et al.) pointed out to you.

"In which case, what are they?"

Gravity? Well, that's supposed to be what YOU know.

What ARE they?

When you claim supernatural causes, what is a supernatural cause and why would it exist?

And what makes it different from spacetime so that even supernatural causes could exist but not spacetime?

So we're now up to the following contents of the universe:

physical things
changes
mechanisms
ideas
but no spacetime, ever.

Why does it feel like to pee here is going to proclaim undying devotion to the pope any minute...?

What things are caused by mechanisms, and how does that differ from ideas and physical things?

Ooh, forgot.

the universe contains:

physical things
changes
mechanisms
ideas

AND SUPERNATURAL CAUSES

but no spacetime, ever.

narad #227

my definition of space is pretty clear it is a nothing.

"my definition of space is pretty clear it is a nothing"

But that doesn't define it. You're just saying nothing.

What IS "a nothing" and why does it have things like size?

Are you saying this nothing exists???

Time is a nothing. There is no thing that is time.

But you call it an idea.

But an idea itself is a nothing. There is no thing that is an idea.

And there's nothing that says that a nothing can't cause something.

If there is, please provide the proof.

And saying "Nothing can produce something", because that's just saying it, not proving it.

Space is something because LIGO measured its warping.

So we now have

The universe contains

physical things
changes
mechanisms
ideas

AND SUPERNATURAL CAUSES

AND a nothing.

Oh, and that should have been a fanatical devotion to the pope.

If space is a nothing, how can things be separated by it?

How can a nothing be inside an atom? If it isn't, why isn't the atom solid?

And if nothing is inside an atom, why does it weigh anything?

#243 wow

dont twist my words lol, i said in the absence of.

physical things and change are the universe yes mechanisms fit under the category change, ideas and space are not physical.

wow,

why would you attribute a mechanism to nothing that is contradictory.

things are at a distance from eachother by their existence relative to each other.

can you point me to an image that accurately shows the shape and size of an atom ?

"why would you attribute a mechanism to nothing that is contradictory."

Why do you ask?

"things are at a distance from eachother by their existence relative to each other."

But if nothing separates them, then they must not be separated.

"can you point me to an image that accurately shows the shape and size of an atom ?"

No.

But why does that matter? I can't show you a picture accurately showing the size of the earth, so the earth doesn't exist???

And where are MY answers?

And if nothing is inside an atom, why does it weigh anything?

How can a nothing be inside an atom? If it isn’t, why isn’t the atom solid?

If space is a nothing, how can things be separated by it?

What IS “a nothing” and why does it have things like size?

"dont twist my words lol, i said in the absence of."

"in the absence of." makes no sense.

Are you saying you made no sense?

I didn't twist your words. I asked if you words meant what they said or whether, as has has happened several times now, you used the wrong words.

Apparently you don't know.

Or you are now copping to making no sense.

Which is it?

And we still haven't been told what physical thing light is made of.

What IS the physical thing light is made of?

And what is the mechanism of gravity? And why is that different from an idea, a nothing and a cause?

Here, this should explain your problem here, to pee:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hkodTydUR0E

I believe this speaks for everyone here.

Maybe he means we now have:

In the absence of knowing what a mechaism is,

The universe contains

physical things
changes
mechanisms
ideas

AND SUPERNATURAL CAUSES

AND a nothing.

But never any spacetime.

"yes mechanisms fit under the category change, ideas and space are not physical."

Then why did you call it a mechanism?

So what is the cause of the change called gravity?

Is it a physical thing or nonphysical? If the former, what is it, and if the latter, what else can be caused by a nonphysical thing?

So far none of my queries have been answered, the closest being answering a question never asked.

Where are my answers?

You claim to know better than the experts, and they can answer my queries. They, however, accept that LIGO has really detected spacetime warping from gravitational waves and have no problem with spacetime being something that can warp and wave.

If you do know different, then you must know more than they do.

However, to date, you've not known anything more than a seven year old could manage, and even then only one of those from the special needs class.

Worse, you haven't yet explained why you're not half a light year away from earth.

Especially since you claim space gives you nothing and you'll die. I presume because it won't give you internet connection.

wow, you are spamming, did you really think i was going to respond to all your spam? lol no way.

you absolutely twisted my words i gave 1 impossiblity and then a possible natural explanation and in the absence of the natural cause/mechanism there could be a supernatural cause but not as a part of the physical universe.

to wich you responded "now we have a universe with [...] "words in capitals" kiss the pope liar

still waiting for empty atoms image and proof for blackholes...

atoms are said to consist of quarks that have some kind of combined motion so you better give me an image of quarks how they really look before you say they are empty .

Oops, sorry, orders of magnitude out.

500 light years away.

I don't think even 4G gets out that far... And the roaming charges you'd accumulate would be ruinous.

no scientist in the world can explain gravity what it is and how it works only describe its effect moving us to earth 9.8 m / s ²

"wow, you are spamming"

No, I have a lot of questions. Complaining abut their number is no where NEAR answering any of them.

Moreover, so what?

"did you really think i was going to respond to all your spam"

No, I really thought you'd be able to answer all my queries. Are you saying you can't answer any of them now?

"you absolutely twisted my words"

I absolutely did not.

You explicitly said that there could be a supernatural cause of gravity. But never a spacetime warp cause.

Exactly as I said.

"i gave 1 impossiblity "

You never said it was impossible. Why now? Why only one? What other things that are impossible have you claimed?

"and then a possible natural explanation "

No you didn't. Nowhere did you give one.

"to wich you responded “now we have a universe with […] “words in capitals” kiss the pope liar"

On which planet 400 or more light years away did you hallucinate that????

"still waiting for empty atoms image and proof for blackholes…"

Still waiting for my answers.

And I already gave proof for black holes.

Cygnus X1.

"atoms are said to consist of quarks"

And you said what?

"so you better give me an image of quarks "

Why?

"no scientist in the world can explain gravity what it is"

Yes they can.

"only describe its effect moving us to earth 9.8 m / s ²"

No, they don't describe gravity as moving us to earth at 9.8m/s^2.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravity

Is how they describe it.

#273 indeed i simply meant to say the cause could be physical i did not offer the mechanism, and i can not because i simply dont know one, but one thing i know fabric of spacetime cannot can not account for it because it does not exist.

#274 truth is not dictated by your opinion lol i know myself what you did there, you are full of it.

So in short, you don't know what gravity is, but you also don't know what scientists say it is, but you know what they say it is isn't what it is.

That while they cannot explain what it is or how it exists or what it does, they ALSO explain it as a warp of spacetime and that is impossible, because they don't know what gravity is or have ever explained how it happens, such as "It's a warp in spacetime", which would be an explanation of gravity, but they don't and can't explain gravity, thereore that explanation is wrong.

Am I getting your "thought" right here?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hkodTydUR0E

"#273 indeed i simply meant to say the cause could be physical "

But you're saying you know what causes it.

So what causes it?

"i did not offer the mechanism"

So when you said you gave a physical cause, you did not offer the physical cause?

How unreasoned.

"and i can not because i simply dont know one"

And so when you said you gave one, you knew you could not have given one?

"but one thing i know fabric of spacetime cannot can not account for it because it does not exist."

How do you know that?

"#274 truth is not dictated by your opinion lol "

It also isnt dictated by "lol".

Instead of saying what it isn't, why don't you say what it is?

"i know myself what you did there,"

Nope, all indications show this is not the case.

"you are full of it."

yes, I'm full of questions.

All of them completely unanswerable by you, who will claim to have answered then when caught unable to get out any other way from failing, admit you never could have answered them, despite your protestations you'd answered them.

I have to ask, though, what is the relevance of my questioning to any answering of them?

And what did any of that have to do with #274???

more hallucination from the next spiral arm of the galaxy?

So, you don't know what causes gravity, you don't know why it isn't spacetime, you don't know why it cannot exist nor why it can't be a cause of gravity.

Not even after posts up to #214,which was a breadcrumb trail to the truth that even a dead stoat would have been able to track.

no wow, they dont say much more then me its a phenomenom they say and then they come with their einstein story wich is false because spacetime does not exist as i have sbowed you many times.

wow you are going in circles bye bye.

"no wow, they dont say much more then me "

No, they do. I gave you a link to a VERY small section of what they say. And though they may not total to many more words, they actually answer things, unlike the plethora of words you vomited up/

"its a phenomenom they say "

Yes, and a huge amount more.

Sheesh !

"and then they come with their einstein story wich is ..."

...an explanation of gravity you say they haven't got, despite you knowing they have it and have said it and that it has a lot more to say on gravity than you've said, never mind what you claimed they said.

"wich is false because spacetime does not exist "

But that's merely your claim.

you've not proved it does not exist, nor that whatever you mean by it (you've used the "wrong words" "defence" several times before, remember) makes it impossible as an explanation for the cause of gravity.

"as i have sbowed you many times."

You haven't shown anything.

Merely claims from your own inability to think.

Yeah, I know PJ.

How WEIRD that retard is, huh?

Couldn't answer any of the questions, eventually admits he couldn't and didn't answer the questions even he had claimed he had answered, and when too many questions he couldn't answer (and I'm merely using "he" as a denotive of a sentient (at least semi or pseudo sentient anyway) being, as it is better than "it" for suchlike) appeared and wouldn't be dropped that it became blatantly obvious that they were unable to hold up their "theory" to any form of inspection, claimed they were "off" and that things were "going in circles", which will not stop them from continuing to post the claptrap, but will be used to pretend that the questions aren't there.

Like I said, what a weird batshit insane loon they were.

Unfortunately the flounce won't last. No more than three hours I guess.

Feel free to ask more questions if you're willing to bear the nonresponsive claims back.

I wonder if they'll ever get a picture of gravity to see if it really exists..?

Narad, sorry for posting so many questions yours got rolled off.

To Pee wasn't answering them, though, and I had to ask so many questions they couldn't even convince themselves they can get away with not answering any.

Despite the answers not answering any of the ones attempted either. But that was inevitable.

When it flounces back, feel free to bat it about for a bit yourself. See what technique you can come up with to get a straight answer out of to pee.

Maybe keep on about photons. There was still no answer to that.

Just "Oh, it's matter" without mass? And "I meant physical things", what thing?

Didn't want to answer them last time,but maybe post-flounce they'll try to answer them in a half-assed way to pretend they're "really trying to explain".

WTF?

Really.. WTF?

REALLY!! WTF?

REALLY REALLY REALLY!!!! WTF?

Really.... No Really.. WTF?

Can anyone answer me here in one sentence WTF..,. (What The Frick) Or better WTFF (What the Fridley Frick) happened here in this thread?

For Frick Sake....... Someone has TOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO Much time on thier hands... LOL

LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLLOLOLOLOLOLOLLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLLOLOLOLOLOLOLLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLLOLOLOLOLOLOLLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLLOLOLOLOLOLOLLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLLOLOLOLOLOLOLLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLLOLOLOLOLOLOLLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLLOLOLOLOLOLOL
I Know you are but what am I?

If space has to have a gravity to be a thing, what causes the gravity of things??"

The Word Of God.

"What things are caused by mechanisms, and how does that differ from ideas and physical things?"

They are really one in the same. Is Bill Gates Inseparable from Windows... Steve Jobs From Apple?

"But you change in height."
No Not Really, you only change in experience.

Great Thread going here. I am off ALL WEEK LONG SO I WILL POST A BAZILLION TIMES AS WELL.. Just For shits and Giggles..
LOL

instead of using the word matter i will use “physical things and change” it doesnt change the fact that photons are physical things unlike space and time

To use your own phrase, why, then, does “light arrive in 8.3 minutes” from the Sun? You see to be unable to so much as decide whether you believe in the luminiferous ether or not.

narad #227

my definition of space is pretty clear it is a nothing.

I'm missing the part where this isn't a non sequitur.

"If space has to have a gravity to be a thing, what causes the gravity of things??”

The Word Of God."

Really?

Proof plz.

You could have read it and found out, teabaggie, instead of spamming the thread with how dumb you are. Even if that IS amusing to watch.

LIGO did not detect gravitatonal waves or black holes:

Crothers, S.J., A CRITICAL ANALYSIS OF LIGO'S RECENT DETECTION OF GRAVITATIONAL WAVES CAUSED BY MERGING BLACK HOLES, Hadronic Journal, Vol. 39, 2016,
http://viXra.org/abs/1603.0127

SJC, the best description of your work history to date is that it is rubbish. That's a better assessment than you deserve.

If you think you have a legitimate objection publish someplace where work is reviewed, not a "we'll take any crap we can get" site.

Dean where are your own personal works a.k.a papers that prove your point and disprove the work of mr c. ?

Bye bye dean.

LOL

Well, he would say, but you just said "bye bye".

Vixra is an exellent place to publish your critical review of a critical review by mr c. of liego lies

Yeah, because they'll publish any old crap, no need to bother putting any more effort into being credible or thorough than Crothers did.

Vixra is an exellent place to publish your critical review

I stand by my assessment of Vixra, but I do realize that they would, in all likelihood, take your writings, poor spelling and all.

I can judge the quality of the "statistics" papers there - horrible. Based on what scientists say about the physics articles, I feel confident in concluding the same (lack of) quality applies to them. As an example ( a paper I just looked up) here is the abstract for a paper (from your preferred site) of a paper in physics dealing with something called the "Inverse Derivative". (No changes, just a copy and paste).

The Newton's second law and third law has proven to be wrong, his
mistake is the derivative operation the limitation resulting. Therefore new derivative
the computation method desiderate the creation, this is the Inverse Derivative
algorithm. The Inverse Derivative is a kind of extension of the derivative
computation, it is based on the derivative calculated generated, using most of the
derivative formulas to converted adjusted. In the field of physics and mechanical
engineering, Inverse Derivative may be a large number of employed, to replace
original derivative computation method. Will produce the enormous and profound
influence.

The body of the paper is worse - the math goes off the rails immediately.

Sorry - vixra is one of the many homes for kooks, nothing else.

Crothers, S.J., A CRITICAL ANALYSIS OF LIGO’S RECENT DETECTION OF GRAVITATIONAL WAVES CAUSED BY MERGING BLACK HOLES, Hadronic Journal

Heh.

As an example ( a paper I just looked up) here is the abstract for a paper (from your preferred site) of a paper in physics dealing with something called the “Inverse Derivative”. (No changes, just a copy and paste).

I'm not going to bother looking at the content, but I could actually edit that abstract into something presentable.

The point of such gibberish isn't mainly to hide the bad reasoning behind atrocious spelling "blamed" on not being a native speaker. It's so that when you convert to something that appeared to come from a working hominid brain, you have had to change the words, and every single change can invalidate whatever evidence you give against the changed text.