Harrylin, I love your avatar, and you are hands-down the most helpful member on this forum :) That is *exactly* what I was wondering about, and you hit the nail square on its head. I was confused by the prescriptions of space-time as described by GR, but am calmed by the fact that its...
180 degrees is natural? What? It's logical and deductive, as you say, a result of a self-supporting framework of the definition of a 2-dimensional triangle.
I covered it at the bottom of the 2nd page, in my response to Dale.
Right, unless anyone has anything else to add, I suppose the mature option would be to agree to disagree. (and for me to go back to the books, so I could make some independent conclusions with a measure of confidence rather than asking all of you to help me out, which you have, in your own way...
Oh for god's sake, I already covered this, I said 'Eucledian' because I did not know of Riemannian space - the precise descriptor is the 'space' part of spacetime (as we observe it in reality).
Well hold on a minute there, that's not exactly true, is it? When has Quantum Mechanics been proven to have holes in its theory? And what of the Theory of Gravity, Big Bang/Higgs Boson stuff aside?
It makes for a convinient explanation, and a good one too, but I'm wondering if it's more of a band-aid than a model of reality. Insofar that all the effects it describes indeed exist, and I don't dispute them, but the actual description of space-time has already been proven to break-down at the...
You are quite right with regards to Euclidean space, however..
It has nothing to do with 'natural' vs 'unnatural' - persons who advocate the wholesale discarding of what's 'natural' only replace one biased framework for another - it has to do with a logical, tangible understanding of what space...
Ok, and this is where the rubber hits the road - how can it have properties, 'information' and still be space? Surely that means that it's not space at all, but some sort of 'zone' (if you like)? And then, if it does have said properties, in what 'space' does it exist in? A higher dimension of...
Aha! But once again, is it the particles themselves that are affected by said field when they dilate/contract as outlined on the generally accepted model of space-time curvature? Or does it have to do with actual space-time curving? If so, that's fine if there are fields or no fields - space is...
Now we're getting somewhere - that's fine, I think, but we are not talking about empty space having non-eucledian geomtries, we are talking about empty space actually contracting or dilating, as though it was physical, and objective.
You know this is why nobody talks to you people. I ask one simple question, I get a dozen questions about triangles in return. We can all revise our expectations of what's natural and what isn't in our free time - for now, let's focus - it's Monday and I don't want to waste my time anymore than...