Originally posted by (Q)
Mentat
This is pointless. You cannot formulate an intelligent argument. Telling people to go read this book and go read that book is not a basis for discussion - it is simply evasion.
You asked for a source. Those books are two of my sources.
What is the point of you being here when all you can say is relativity says so, quantum mechanics says so, Einstein says so, string theory says so? That merely indicates you have no idea what you're talking about.
Look, I am giving you a reference so that you know that these ideas are not just mine - which is what you asked me to do - and you aren't paying attention. It would appear to me that
you don't know what you're talking about, unless of course you have read something on Relativity, and simply disagree.
ask anyone who knows anything about General Relativity... General and Special Relativity are based on this premise (read any book on the subject
Statements like these demonstrate you have no understanding of the subject matter therefore, you should not try and refer to them in an argument.
Einstein postulated that gravity = acclerated motion. Through Special Relativity, he showed that spacetime warps, due to motion (this is over-simplification, but I don't see why I should have to explain all of Relativity to you now, (as I said before) there are plenty of books for that, and if you are too lazy to pick one up and read it, that't your problem). He thus concluded that gravity (which is the same thing as accelerated motion) is a warping of spacetime.
"Argument from authority and argument from ignorance". I'm afraid I don't understand what you mean.
They are called fallacies - and although you are unfamiliar with the types of fallacies, your usage of them is considerable.
Example?
I was actually - seriously - suggesting that you read a book on Relativity (even if just a brief outline), and understand it, before making claims that contradict it.
For someone pretending to be something they are not, I find that totally ironic and laughable.
What am I pretending to be? I have spent the time reading about Relativity and Quantum Mechanics (not to say I understand them perfectly, but I have a much better understanding than before), no one just posted all of the information/postulates of these theories to me, on some forum on the internet. It is foolish of you to ask me to explain these theories to you - in any thread - in full, as this would be impossible. I can tell you what they postulate, and you don't have to believe me; but if you ever decide to check for yourself, you'll see that I'm right (at least about the postulates of the theories, you don't have to agree with these theories if you don't want to).
I'm also stating that something which has spatial extent, which can be measured, must exist, must be "something" - isn't this the logical conclusion?
It is completely illogical. There must be reference to something in order for you to take measurements. That is what I've been trying to get into your pea brain.
Watch the insults, they are unnecessary, and can get a thread locked.
Yes, there must be a reference to something for you to measure it, but it can still be measured. If you say that the universe is expanding into a void, then the universe would be a perfectly good reference, from which to measure the spatial extent of the void (of course, the fact that it has spatial extent means that it's something, and would thus be
within the universe; a point which seems to be entirely beyond you).