Discrete spacetime vs. continuous spacetime in Relativity

Dear Yousuf Khan:

On Thursday, June 19, 2014 9:56:38 PM UTC-7, Yousuf Khan wrote:
On 17/06/2014 7:20 PM, dlzc wrote:
On Tuesday, June 17, 2014 12:58:53 PM UTC-7, Yousuf Khan wrote:

BTW, why do you keep deleting sci.physics from
newsgroups list?

No choice. Google.Groups lets me post to only
one newsgroup.

I don't use Google Groups anymore, but last time
I used it, it had a "reply to all" feature. Has it
been removed?

Yes, for quite some time, since their first "improvement".

David A. Smith

On 20/06/2014 10:46 AM, dlzc wrote:
Dear Yousuf Khan:

On Thursday, June 19, 2014 9:56:38 PM UTC-7, Yousuf Khan wrote:
On 17/06/2014 7:20 PM, dlzc wrote:
On Tuesday, June 17, 2014 12:58:53 PM UTC-7, Yousuf Khan wrote:

BTW, why do you keep deleting sci.physics from
newsgroups list?

No choice. Google.Groups lets me post to only
one newsgroup.

I don't use Google Groups anymore, but last time
I used it, it had a "reply to all" feature. Has it
been removed?

Yes, for quite some time, since their first "improvement".

Have you tried this? Though not free, can be had for as low as $2.95/month.

Newsgroups - Get an account today!
http://www.usenet-access.com/default...ewsreadersinfo

Yousuf Khan

Dear Yousuf Khan:

On Friday, June 20, 2014 4:22:35 PM UTC-7, Yousuf Khan wrote:
On 20/06/2014 10:46 AM, dlzc wrote:

I don't use Google Groups anymore, but last time
I used it, it had a "reply to all" feature. Has it
been removed?

Yes, for quite some time, since their first
"improvement".

Have you tried this? Though not free, can be had for
as low as $2.95/month.

I can get the newsgroups for free, but it requires that I put stuff on hard drives at work.

I can just not reply to you, if you cannot stand it.

David A. Smith

On 20/06/2014 9:42 PM, dlzc wrote:
I can get the newsgroups for free, but it requires that I put stuff on hard drives at work.

I can just not reply to you, if you cannot stand it.

That's upto you.

Yousuf Khan

On Friday, June 13, 2014 7:24:59 AM UTC-7, Yousuf Khan wrote:
Now, Relativity never mentions what the microscopic form of spacetime

is, but most Relativity purists think of it as one continuous fabric,

extending down to infinity. Quantum Mechanics also doesn't mention the

form of spacetime, though it considers everything else to be in the form

of wave-particles, it has nothing to say about spacetime itself.



But both Relativity and QM should be able to work equally well with

discrete spacetime, as well as they do with continuous spacetime. I look

at an analogy, the laws of Thermodynamics were discovered before the

discovery of atoms. When atoms were discovered, you could describe the

motion of gas and liquids by looking at it microscopically, but you

didn't need to look at it microscopically, as the Thermodynamics and

Fluid Mechanics already existed at a higher level, macroscopically.

Possibly Relativity is the same way, it's a high-level macroscopic view

of spacetime, and that there is a microscopic view that exists below

that, which we don't normally need to consider.



Another thing that I think proves spacetime is discrete is that for

there to be a "fabric" of spacetime, there needs to be "atoms" of

spacetime. Fabrics don't move, stretch, compress, wave, or flutter,

etc., if they weren't made of many microscopic pieces. That was the same

argument the ancient Greeks used to prove that matter was made from

atoms, many millennia before atoms were actually discovered.



Yousuf Khan

Contributor mpc755 offered us a flow of aether, of which ordinary matter displaced, and which photons as ordinary and entangled wavy-particles get to propagate at a zero loss of energy, perhaps because the individual wavy-particle doesn't actually have to move other than along with the aether flow.

Photon entanglements tends to suggest that the individual photon quanta isn't moving through space and time as we so often interpret. Instead, photon propagation has little or perhaps nothing whatsoever to do with individual photon velocity, although wavy-particle photons are only what we interpret as having moved.

On 23/06/2014 5:33 AM, Brad Guth wrote:
Contributor mpc755 offered us a flow of aether, of which ordinary
matter displaced, and which photons as ordinary and entangled
wavy-particles get to propagate at a zero loss of energy, perhaps
because the individual wavy-particle doesn't actually have to move
other than along with the aether flow.

Matter isn't fundamental to the universe, but energy is. Matter is
energy that is confined to an area that can't move away as fast as the
speed of light. All other energy travels away at the speed of light.
Energy is nomadic, while matter is energy that is locally bound.

Photon entanglements tends to suggest that the individual photon
quanta isn't moving through space and time as we so often interpret.
Instead, photon propagation has little or perhaps nothing whatsoever
to do with individual photon velocity, although wavy-particle photons
are only what we interpret as having moved.

Photons are traveling with flow of time. That's why they don't feel any
time, because they are always bound to the same particles of time,
moving past particles of space.

Yousuf Khan