[Boards: 3 / a / aco / adv / an / asp / b / biz / c / cgl / ck / cm / co / d / diy / e / fa / fit / g / gd / gif / h / hc / his / hm / hr / i / ic / int / jp / k / lgbt / lit / m / mlp / mu / n / news / o / out / p / po / pol / qa / qst / r / r9k / s / s4s / sci / soc / sp / t / tg / toy / trash / trv / tv / u / v / vg / vip /vp / vr / w / wg / wsg / wsr / x / y ] [Search | Home]
Can someone explain to me how spacetime can...
If images are not shown try to refresh the page. If you like this website, please disable any AdBlock software!

You are currently reading a thread in /sci/ - Science & Math

File: 3543656365.jpg (180 KB, 475x380) Image search: [iqdb] [SauceNao] [Google]
180 KB, 475x380
Can someone explain to me how spacetime can be distorted if "distortion" means a relation between two objetcs, and spacetime is not related to any other spacial or temporal absolute in order for it to be considered or even detected as "distorted"?

And, if there is this absolute realm that allows space and time to distort themselves, wouldn't that one be our actual space and time and the fabric described by Einstein only some kind of mesh that gives matter its form?
>>
You would assume at point a and b time flow at the same speed.

But they don't. Hence a relation between two objects.
>>
>>7852350

>Can someone explain to me how spacetime can be distorted

Cause Einstein said so
>>
>>7852350
Also, abandon the notion of an absolute frame of reference. You can use relative frames of reference.
>>
>>7852350
c is assumed to be absolute, and it gives good results
>>
>>7852350
Because you can manipulate waves
>>
>>7852370
>>7852366
>>7852394.
Yes, but once you abandon the absolute, you can't say spacetime is distorted, but only that "matter in two different points act in different ways when compared to each other using speed of light as a referential point".

The idea of space and time belongs only to the realm of metaphysics once it's not a matter of experience. I can't personally accept the "spacetime" physicians talk about as the real space and time as universals, like when we talk about our past and our future...
>>
>>7852526
Spacetime is a 4d manifold in general relativity and no it isn't really like how we normally think of "past" and "future"
>>
>>7852557
I feel like I'm being constantly deceived by physicists in general who like to label and confuse their not-so-cool experiments and discoveries with these transcendental names that makes us give them some kind of clerical authority they don't have.
>>
>>7852350
A distortion can be a curvature, for example. Think about this: you live on the earth, and you perceive as flat. However, it is curved, and we can (conceptually) prove this without looking at the outside: draw a triangle like the one in the figure. Angles don't add up to 180ยบ degrees like in non-curved shapes (like a paper sheet). So, the earth is curved.

In an analogous way, we could prove that our spacetime is curved without seeing "outside" of it as this is a property related to its structure, and not to any other object.
>>
>>7852569
The names are dumb sometimes I don't think its a trap though I think it's just scientists/mathematicians being kinda dumb sometimes and not realizing how things will sound to people outside their field.

I remember trying to explain the difference between real numbers and natural numbers to someone one time and it took me a while to realize that what they were hung up on was the name, they thought the reals being called real implied the others were fake or something.
>>
File: 34535636.jpg (25 KB, 554x554) Image search: [iqdb] [SauceNao] [Google]
25 KB, 554x554
>>7852573
That's the problem. Our planet is made of matter, and we know how matter organizes itself inside a 3d space.

But space and time? There's no real curvature that can be empirically and logically explained, it's only a metaphor. What we actually see is matter acting as if it was curved, and then we create graphics and mathematical models of it as if the matter was uniform and spacetime is distorted, which is not actually true.

It's something like saying picture related is actually a 3d object, but we know it's only an illusion. There are illusions much more profound concerning human understanding about the structure of reality than this example, and giving certain names to certain things can be a very letal kind of sorcery.

>>7852583
Indeed.
>>
>>7852633
>not actually true

Of course, nothing is completely proved here, but we don't have other models. We don't have any other explanation for the perturbation seen @ LIGO except that spacetime is curved.

The fact that the object is an illusion does not mean anything. There are things that do not exist but are still studied for its interest, and that doesn't mean they're illusions.
>>
>>7852674
My point is to perfectly delimitate the difference between science (actual knowledge about the universe) and technology which seems to be confused by everyone even renowned scientists.
>>
>>7852569
>>7852583

>x y z
>we call it space
>t
>we call it time
>x y z t
>we decide to call it spacetime

>WOW TRIGGERED MUH SCIFI HYPERDRIVE HOW COULD YOU DECEIVE US WITH A NAME LIKE SPACETIME HOW DARE YOU SCIENTISTS

-(You), right now.
>>
>>7852350
The distortion isn't a relation between two objects

Spacetime is a frame of reference of sorts but since it's not "made of anything" it doesn't have any context without the presence of energy or mass.

There's literally nothing else to consider