Could Everything on Earth Float Without Spacetime?

[_Anthony_]

phinds,

Thanks for quoting my post and questioning my reasoning. Once the laws of physics are redefined anything is possible but beyond that considered Thompson's raisin in pudding model of the atom, completely wrong yet it does a passable job. I interpreted the question as lay person would, "What if all the laws of physics still worked but gravity was gone?" You showed that the question makes no real sense based on the current understanding of physics.

 

[MidiMagic]

The center of the universe is back in time at the big bang. Everything in the universe today is at the edge of the expanding universe.

 

[phinds]

The center of the universe is back in time at the big bang. Everything in the universe today is at the edge of the expanding universe.

"center" is a word in English that normally refers to spatial positioning, not temporal positioning, so no, it isn't in the normal English meaning of that sentence. Yes, it is the "edge" of temporal expansion but that's not common terminology and is confusing with being explicit that you are talking about temporal coordinates, not spatial coordinates.

 

[phinds]

phinds,

Thanks for quoting my post and questioning my reasoning. Once the laws of physics are redefined anything is possible but beyond that considered Thompson's raisin in pudding model of the atom, completely wrong yet it does a passable job. I interpreted the question as lay person would, "What if all the laws of physics still worked but gravity was gone?" You showed that the question makes no real sense based on the current understanding of physics.

Yeah, we get that a lot here. Basically people never tire of asking questions that can really only be rephrased as "if the laws of physics did not apply, what would the laws of physics say about <insert nonsense of your choice>". So you are hardly alone in thinking that way, but it's good to move away from it, as you clearly are.

 

[Mister T]

If momentum and mass can exist outside of space-time then [...]

You need space and time to define momentum, and depending on the way you do it, mass too.

But I can't imagine a scenario with mass and no space or time. It just doesn't make any sense for reasons that were explained earlier in this thread.

 

[Mister T]

phinds, Once the laws of physics are redefined anything is possible but beyond that considered Thompson's raisin in pudding model of the atom, completely wrong yet it does a passable job.

But that was a model. Models can and do rewrite the laws of physics. And it's also possible, by the way, to rewrite the laws of physics without a model.

But you are doing none of that. You don't have a model. You don't have laws. Laws and models are generalizations from observations. You don't have any observations, either.

What you are doing has already been pointed out to you to be a wrong way. You are taking the laws of physics and you are imagining what they mean. You are then proposing rearrangements of those meanings.

To understand what the laws of physics mean you need to look at the observations that they are generalizations of. Physics is more about the phenomenology than the philosophy. You are attempting to focus on the latter while ignoring the former. Moreover, your attempts at focusing on the latter are failing because you are ignoring the former.

Physics is an attempt to understand how things behave. And those things are naturally-occurring phenomena, not human-invented properties like mass and momentum.

 

[DaveC426913]

... space and time are human inventions. Creations of the mind.

What makes you think that being an invention and existing are mutually exclusive?
I explained that I made no error.

Mister T, space and time were around long before mankind. Indeed, they were around for quite some time before the Solar System formed.

Let that be the end of this spiral into madness.

 

[PeterDonis]

Thread closed for moderation.

Edit: the thread will remain closed.