Why are we able to see the Moon?

Quote from: FallacyAlert on March 30, 2015, 04:17:59 AM

Quote from: JRoweSkeptic on March 30, 2015, 04:14:49 AM

Quote from: FallacyAlert on March 30, 2015, 03:59:33 AM

Quote from: JRoweSkeptic on March 30, 2015, 03:50:20 AM

fallacyalert, stop saying space is composed of particles. i have criticized you for this before. space is not composed of particles or atoms or any such thing, as i have explicitly and repeatedly stated, and as even round earthers agree.
every conclusion you draw from such a bs assumption is utterly irrelevant. have you finished being an idiot?
"Space could just simply exist as separate, multiple points," is nonsense as space is not composed of particles, space is composed of one entity. this is the crucial fact every single one of you are ignoring. that one entity exists in every location in space.

i'm not sure why you're talking about vacuums, we're discussing space as in the four dimensional undercurrent to everything, not 'outer space'.
none of you are providing anything other than assertion. why are you expecting the thing by which we measure acceleration (space, and so distance) to behave in the same way as the things within it? that's absurd.

Space does not need to be comprised of particles for the multiple location thing to be proven wrong. Even if space is 'one entity', as you say, then it cannot have infinite acceleration because it is one single thing occupying every available point of space that it can fill, so it cannot be accelerating because there is nowhere for it to move to.

For this one thing that exists in every location in space to be infinitely accelerating is wrong according to your previous point anyway, because then again, it would be reaching those defined points of distance 'a' and 'b' before the recording has even started, which doesn't work as part of a proper test.

you are still thinking in terms of matter. for matter to exist in more than one location, the fundamental atom (or rather, planck length part of an atom) would need to be in two locations. this is because matter is made up of particles, and those particles are what is relevant.
space, as one entity not composed of trillions of planck lengths, themselves all entities, is different. space is space.

it doesn't matter if you measure from a to b or b to a. by definition, space is at both those points. it's not a matter of testing, it's a matter of fundamental fact. space is at every single point in space. that's so simple it's a tautology. when you're not thinking in terms of particles, it is in multiple places at once.

why is it so hard to understand that higher dimensional things don't behave as we'd expect in lower dimensions? that's a pretty basic part of science.

Okay, that was pretty hard to read, but I'll roll with it.

So, space is one, higher-dimensional entity that occupies all of space. So, how is it infinitely accelerating? If this big entity occupies all of space, then it should still not have any area in which to accelerate.

this is advanced, it's not going to be easy to understand. everything requires a little thought to learn.
space exists in more than one place at any one time. as it is not in more than one place, it is one entity that exists in multiple points in space instantaneously. we simply apply the calculations i have given multiple times to deduce the speed (and by a similar process, the acceleration) is infinite.
it is accelerating within itself, not beyond itself. don't try to visualize, higher dimensional things are impossible to visualize. trust simple math.

"Higher dimensional things are impossible to visualise"?

Say I draw 3 lines on one sheet of paper, to represent these 'distances'. Line 2 and 3 are double the distance apart that 1 and 2 are.

Now, let's do this 'test' again - start the clock and you'll see that it takes zero time for the distance to be covered, because the points are already there. Then, the second distance - exactly the same principle, the distance is covered in zero time, because the points have already been placed. The piece of paper is one entity, the acceleration is infinite in the paper as well because an infinite number of points can be placed within this sheet of paper to also represent infinite acceleration.

Whoo, just visualised it. I must be a higher-dimensional being

Quote from: JRoweSkeptic on March 30, 2015, 05:09:41 AM

Quote from: FallacyAlert on March 30, 2015, 04:17:59 AM

Quote from: JRoweSkeptic on March 30, 2015, 04:14:49 AM

Quote from: FallacyAlert on March 30, 2015, 03:59:33 AM

Quote from: JRoweSkeptic on March 30, 2015, 03:50:20 AM

fallacyalert, stop saying space is composed of particles. i have criticized you for this before. space is not composed of particles or atoms or any such thing, as i have explicitly and repeatedly stated, and as even round earthers agree.
every conclusion you draw from such a bs assumption is utterly irrelevant. have you finished being an idiot?
"Space could just simply exist as separate, multiple points," is nonsense as space is not composed of particles, space is composed of one entity. this is the crucial fact every single one of you are ignoring. that one entity exists in every location in space.

i'm not sure why you're talking about vacuums, we're discussing space as in the four dimensional undercurrent to everything, not 'outer space'.
none of you are providing anything other than assertion. why are you expecting the thing by which we measure acceleration (space, and so distance) to behave in the same way as the things within it? that's absurd.

Space does not need to be comprised of particles for the multiple location thing to be proven wrong. Even if space is 'one entity', as you say, then it cannot have infinite acceleration because it is one single thing occupying every available point of space that it can fill, so it cannot be accelerating because there is nowhere for it to move to.

For this one thing that exists in every location in space to be infinitely accelerating is wrong according to your previous point anyway, because then again, it would be reaching those defined points of distance 'a' and 'b' before the recording has even started, which doesn't work as part of a proper test.

you are still thinking in terms of matter. for matter to exist in more than one location, the fundamental atom (or rather, planck length part of an atom) would need to be in two locations. this is because matter is made up of particles, and those particles are what is relevant.
space, as one entity not composed of trillions of planck lengths, themselves all entities, is different. space is space.

it doesn't matter if you measure from a to b or b to a. by definition, space is at both those points. it's not a matter of testing, it's a matter of fundamental fact. space is at every single point in space. that's so simple it's a tautology. when you're not thinking in terms of particles, it is in multiple places at once.

why is it so hard to understand that higher dimensional things don't behave as we'd expect in lower dimensions? that's a pretty basic part of science.

Okay, that was pretty hard to read, but I'll roll with it.

So, space is one, higher-dimensional entity that occupies all of space. So, how is it infinitely accelerating? If this big entity occupies all of space, then it should still not have any area in which to accelerate.

this is advanced, it's not going to be easy to understand. everything requires a little thought to learn.
space exists in more than one place at any one time. as it is not in more than one place, it is one entity that exists in multiple points in space instantaneously. we simply apply the calculations i have given multiple times to deduce the speed (and by a similar process, the acceleration) is infinite.
it is accelerating within itself, not beyond itself. don't try to visualize, higher dimensional things are impossible to visualize. trust simple math.

"Higher dimensional things are impossible to visualise"?

Say I draw 3 lines on one sheet of paper, to represent these 'distances'. Line 2 and 3 are double the distance apart that 1 and 2 are.

Now, let's do this 'test' again - start the clock and you'll see that it takes zero time for the distance to be covered, because the points are already there. Then, the second distance - exactly the same principle, the distance is covered in zero time, because the points have already been placed. The piece of paper is one entity, the acceleration is infinite in the paper as well because an infinite number of points can be placed within this sheet of paper to also represent infinite acceleration.

Whoo, just visualised it. I must be a higher-dimensional being

no, you have completely failed to visualize it because you are ignoring everything i am saying. space is not made out of atoms or molecules like paper, did you forget that? with paper, the lines are completely different things, because paper is not one entity, paper is billions of atoms. are you seriously trying to forget that?
space, however, is just one thing.

why is it so hard to understand that the means by which we measure distance will, when examined in terms of that distance, behave oddly?

Quote from: FallacyAlert on March 31, 2015, 01:02:23 AM

Quote from: JRoweSkeptic on March 30, 2015, 05:09:41 AM

Quote from: FallacyAlert on March 30, 2015, 04:17:59 AM

Quote from: JRoweSkeptic on March 30, 2015, 04:14:49 AM

Quote from: FallacyAlert on March 30, 2015, 03:59:33 AM

Quote from: JRoweSkeptic on March 30, 2015, 03:50:20 AM

fallacyalert, stop saying space is composed of particles. i have criticized you for this before. space is not composed of particles or atoms or any such thing, as i have explicitly and repeatedly stated, and as even round earthers agree.
every conclusion you draw from such a bs assumption is utterly irrelevant. have you finished being an idiot?
"Space could just simply exist as separate, multiple points," is nonsense as space is not composed of particles, space is composed of one entity. this is the crucial fact every single one of you are ignoring. that one entity exists in every location in space.

i'm not sure why you're talking about vacuums, we're discussing space as in the four dimensional undercurrent to everything, not 'outer space'.
none of you are providing anything other than assertion. why are you expecting the thing by which we measure acceleration (space, and so distance) to behave in the same way as the things within it? that's absurd.

Space does not need to be comprised of particles for the multiple location thing to be proven wrong. Even if space is 'one entity', as you say, then it cannot have infinite acceleration because it is one single thing occupying every available point of space that it can fill, so it cannot be accelerating because there is nowhere for it to move to.

For this one thing that exists in every location in space to be infinitely accelerating is wrong according to your previous point anyway, because then again, it would be reaching those defined points of distance 'a' and 'b' before the recording has even started, which doesn't work as part of a proper test.

you are still thinking in terms of matter. for matter to exist in more than one location, the fundamental atom (or rather, planck length part of an atom) would need to be in two locations. this is because matter is made up of particles, and those particles are what is relevant.
space, as one entity not composed of trillions of planck lengths, themselves all entities, is different. space is space.

it doesn't matter if you measure from a to b or b to a. by definition, space is at both those points. it's not a matter of testing, it's a matter of fundamental fact. space is at every single point in space. that's so simple it's a tautology. when you're not thinking in terms of particles, it is in multiple places at once.

why is it so hard to understand that higher dimensional things don't behave as we'd expect in lower dimensions? that's a pretty basic part of science.

Okay, that was pretty hard to read, but I'll roll with it.

So, space is one, higher-dimensional entity that occupies all of space. So, how is it infinitely accelerating? If this big entity occupies all of space, then it should still not have any area in which to accelerate.

this is advanced, it's not going to be easy to understand. everything requires a little thought to learn.
space exists in more than one place at any one time. as it is not in more than one place, it is one entity that exists in multiple points in space instantaneously. we simply apply the calculations i have given multiple times to deduce the speed (and by a similar process, the acceleration) is infinite.
it is accelerating within itself, not beyond itself. don't try to visualize, higher dimensional things are impossible to visualize. trust simple math.

"Higher dimensional things are impossible to visualise"?

Say I draw 3 lines on one sheet of paper, to represent these 'distances'. Line 2 and 3 are double the distance apart that 1 and 2 are.

Now, let's do this 'test' again - start the clock and you'll see that it takes zero time for the distance to be covered, because the points are already there. Then, the second distance - exactly the same principle, the distance is covered in zero time, because the points have already been placed. The piece of paper is one entity, the acceleration is infinite in the paper as well because an infinite number of points can be placed within this sheet of paper to also represent infinite acceleration.

Whoo, just visualised it. I must be a higher-dimensional being

no, you have completely failed to visualize it because you are ignoring everything i am saying. space is not made out of atoms or molecules like paper, did you forget that? with paper, the lines are completely different things, because paper is not one entity, paper is billions of atoms. are you seriously trying to forget that?
space, however, is just one thing.

why is it so hard to understand that the means by which we measure distance will, when examined in terms of that distance, behave oddly?

"HOW TO WIN A DISCUSSION BY A JROWE WAY OF ARGUMENTING"

Step 1: post a simple analogy refering some material object to explain how non-material thing can be thicker/thinner. Also, this analogy isn't analogy, because it has nothing to do with your first idea.
Step 2: listen someone saying that your analogy is invalid.
Step 3: say to him that it's not invalid if he just can't visualize it.
Step 4:
Step 5: PROFIT

Quote from: FallacyAlert on March 31, 2015, 01:02:23 AM

Quote from: JRoweSkeptic on March 30, 2015, 05:09:41 AM

Quote from: FallacyAlert on March 30, 2015, 04:17:59 AM

Quote from: JRoweSkeptic on March 30, 2015, 04:14:49 AM

Quote from: FallacyAlert on March 30, 2015, 03:59:33 AM

Quote from: JRoweSkeptic on March 30, 2015, 03:50:20 AM

fallacyalert, stop saying space is composed of particles. i have criticized you for this before. space is not composed of particles or atoms or any such thing, as i have explicitly and repeatedly stated, and as even round earthers agree.
every conclusion you draw from such a bs assumption is utterly irrelevant. have you finished being an idiot?
"Space could just simply exist as separate, multiple points," is nonsense as space is not composed of particles, space is composed of one entity. this is the crucial fact every single one of you are ignoring. that one entity exists in every location in space.

i'm not sure why you're talking about vacuums, we're discussing space as in the four dimensional undercurrent to everything, not 'outer space'.
none of you are providing anything other than assertion. why are you expecting the thing by which we measure acceleration (space, and so distance) to behave in the same way as the things within it? that's absurd.

Space does not need to be comprised of particles for the multiple location thing to be proven wrong. Even if space is 'one entity', as you say, then it cannot have infinite acceleration because it is one single thing occupying every available point of space that it can fill, so it cannot be accelerating because there is nowhere for it to move to.

For this one thing that exists in every location in space to be infinitely accelerating is wrong according to your previous point anyway, because then again, it would be reaching those defined points of distance 'a' and 'b' before the recording has even started, which doesn't work as part of a proper test.

you are still thinking in terms of matter. for matter to exist in more than one location, the fundamental atom (or rather, planck length part of an atom) would need to be in two locations. this is because matter is made up of particles, and those particles are what is relevant.
space, as one entity not composed of trillions of planck lengths, themselves all entities, is different. space is space.

it doesn't matter if you measure from a to b or b to a. by definition, space is at both those points. it's not a matter of testing, it's a matter of fundamental fact. space is at every single point in space. that's so simple it's a tautology. when you're not thinking in terms of particles, it is in multiple places at once.

why is it so hard to understand that higher dimensional things don't behave as we'd expect in lower dimensions? that's a pretty basic part of science.

Okay, that was pretty hard to read, but I'll roll with it.

So, space is one, higher-dimensional entity that occupies all of space. So, how is it infinitely accelerating? If this big entity occupies all of space, then it should still not have any area in which to accelerate.

this is advanced, it's not going to be easy to understand. everything requires a little thought to learn.
space exists in more than one place at any one time. as it is not in more than one place, it is one entity that exists in multiple points in space instantaneously. we simply apply the calculations i have given multiple times to deduce the speed (and by a similar process, the acceleration) is infinite.
it is accelerating within itself, not beyond itself. don't try to visualize, higher dimensional things are impossible to visualize. trust simple math.

"Higher dimensional things are impossible to visualise"?

Say I draw 3 lines on one sheet of paper, to represent these 'distances'. Line 2 and 3 are double the distance apart that 1 and 2 are.

Now, let's do this 'test' again - start the clock and you'll see that it takes zero time for the distance to be covered, because the points are already there. Then, the second distance - exactly the same principle, the distance is covered in zero time, because the points have already been placed. The piece of paper is one entity, the acceleration is infinite in the paper as well because an infinite number of points can be placed within this sheet of paper to also represent infinite acceleration.

Whoo, just visualised it. I must be a higher-dimensional being

no, you have completely failed to visualize it because you are ignoring everything i am saying. space is not made out of atoms or molecules like paper, did you forget that? with paper, the lines are completely different things, because paper is not one entity, paper is billions of atoms. are you seriously trying to forget that?
space, however, is just one thing.

why is it so hard to understand that the means by which we measure distance will, when examined in terms of that distance, behave oddly?

Wow. I'm astounded. I might actually be a flat earther now. Sorry for ever disbelieving.

There's just one more thing I'm a little confused about. How the hell was "space", as this single entity , formed  as one thing when every single other thing that we know of is made of individual atoms. Are you seriously trying to say that our Earth was made by someone in a higher dimension, and that because we're in a lower dimension, we have things that are made up of atoms and molecules rather than being one entity?

Y'know, space in this situation kind of reminds me of "God". JRowe's now worshipping "The Lord our space".

Quote from: JRoweSkeptic on March 31, 2015, 02:42:25 AM

Quote from: FallacyAlert on March 31, 2015, 01:02:23 AM

Quote from: JRoweSkeptic on March 30, 2015, 05:09:41 AM

Quote from: FallacyAlert on March 30, 2015, 04:17:59 AM

Quote from: JRoweSkeptic on March 30, 2015, 04:14:49 AM

Quote from: FallacyAlert on March 30, 2015, 03:59:33 AM

Quote from: JRoweSkeptic on March 30, 2015, 03:50:20 AM

fallacyalert, stop saying space is composed of particles. i have criticized you for this before. space is not composed of particles or atoms or any such thing, as i have explicitly and repeatedly stated, and as even round earthers agree.
every conclusion you draw from such a bs assumption is utterly irrelevant. have you finished being an idiot?
"Space could just simply exist as separate, multiple points," is nonsense as space is not composed of particles, space is composed of one entity. this is the crucial fact every single one of you are ignoring. that one entity exists in every location in space.

i'm not sure why you're talking about vacuums, we're discussing space as in the four dimensional undercurrent to everything, not 'outer space'.
none of you are providing anything other than assertion. why are you expecting the thing by which we measure acceleration (space, and so distance) to behave in the same way as the things within it? that's absurd.

Space does not need to be comprised of particles for the multiple location thing to be proven wrong. Even if space is 'one entity', as you say, then it cannot have infinite acceleration because it is one single thing occupying every available point of space that it can fill, so it cannot be accelerating because there is nowhere for it to move to.

For this one thing that exists in every location in space to be infinitely accelerating is wrong according to your previous point anyway, because then again, it would be reaching those defined points of distance 'a' and 'b' before the recording has even started, which doesn't work as part of a proper test.

you are still thinking in terms of matter. for matter to exist in more than one location, the fundamental atom (or rather, planck length part of an atom) would need to be in two locations. this is because matter is made up of particles, and those particles are what is relevant.
space, as one entity not composed of trillions of planck lengths, themselves all entities, is different. space is space.

it doesn't matter if you measure from a to b or b to a. by definition, space is at both those points. it's not a matter of testing, it's a matter of fundamental fact. space is at every single point in space. that's so simple it's a tautology. when you're not thinking in terms of particles, it is in multiple places at once.

why is it so hard to understand that higher dimensional things don't behave as we'd expect in lower dimensions? that's a pretty basic part of science.

Okay, that was pretty hard to read, but I'll roll with it.

So, space is one, higher-dimensional entity that occupies all of space. So, how is it infinitely accelerating? If this big entity occupies all of space, then it should still not have any area in which to accelerate.

this is advanced, it's not going to be easy to understand. everything requires a little thought to learn.
space exists in more than one place at any one time. as it is not in more than one place, it is one entity that exists in multiple points in space instantaneously. we simply apply the calculations i have given multiple times to deduce the speed (and by a similar process, the acceleration) is infinite.
it is accelerating within itself, not beyond itself. don't try to visualize, higher dimensional things are impossible to visualize. trust simple math.

"Higher dimensional things are impossible to visualise"?

Say I draw 3 lines on one sheet of paper, to represent these 'distances'. Line 2 and 3 are double the distance apart that 1 and 2 are.

Now, let's do this 'test' again - start the clock and you'll see that it takes zero time for the distance to be covered, because the points are already there. Then, the second distance - exactly the same principle, the distance is covered in zero time, because the points have already been placed. The piece of paper is one entity, the acceleration is infinite in the paper as well because an infinite number of points can be placed within this sheet of paper to also represent infinite acceleration.

Whoo, just visualised it. I must be a higher-dimensional being

no, you have completely failed to visualize it because you are ignoring everything i am saying. space is not made out of atoms or molecules like paper, did you forget that? with paper, the lines are completely different things, because paper is not one entity, paper is billions of atoms. are you seriously trying to forget that?
space, however, is just one thing.

why is it so hard to understand that the means by which we measure distance will, when examined in terms of that distance, behave oddly?

Wow. I'm astounded. I might actually be a flat earther now. Sorry for ever disbelieving.

There's just one more thing I'm a little confused about. How the hell was "space", as this single entity , formed  as one thing when every single other thing that we know of is made of individual atoms. Are you seriously trying to say that our Earth was made by someone in a higher dimension, and that because we're in a lower dimension, we have things that are made up of atoms and molecules rather than being one entity?

Y'know, space in this situation kind of reminds me of "God". JRowe's now worshipping "The Lord our space".

space is not matter, atoms compose matter.
i have no idea what the rest of that is meant to mean. i've said none of that. please try to actually read.

Quote from: FallacyAlert on March 31, 2015, 01:46:09 PM

Quote from: JRoweSkeptic on March 31, 2015, 02:42:25 AM

Quote from: FallacyAlert on March 31, 2015, 01:02:23 AM

Quote from: JRoweSkeptic on March 30, 2015, 05:09:41 AM

Quote from: FallacyAlert on March 30, 2015, 04:17:59 AM

Quote from: JRoweSkeptic on March 30, 2015, 04:14:49 AM

Quote from: FallacyAlert on March 30, 2015, 03:59:33 AM

Quote from: JRoweSkeptic on March 30, 2015, 03:50:20 AM

fallacyalert, stop saying space is composed of particles. i have criticized you for this before. space is not composed of particles or atoms or any such thing, as i have explicitly and repeatedly stated, and as even round earthers agree.
every conclusion you draw from such a bs assumption is utterly irrelevant. have you finished being an idiot?
"Space could just simply exist as separate, multiple points," is nonsense as space is not composed of particles, space is composed of one entity. this is the crucial fact every single one of you are ignoring. that one entity exists in every location in space.

i'm not sure why you're talking about vacuums, we're discussing space as in the four dimensional undercurrent to everything, not 'outer space'.
none of you are providing anything other than assertion. why are you expecting the thing by which we measure acceleration (space, and so distance) to behave in the same way as the things within it? that's absurd.

Space does not need to be comprised of particles for the multiple location thing to be proven wrong. Even if space is 'one entity', as you say, then it cannot have infinite acceleration because it is one single thing occupying every available point of space that it can fill, so it cannot be accelerating because there is nowhere for it to move to.

For this one thing that exists in every location in space to be infinitely accelerating is wrong according to your previous point anyway, because then again, it would be reaching those defined points of distance 'a' and 'b' before the recording has even started, which doesn't work as part of a proper test.

you are still thinking in terms of matter. for matter to exist in more than one location, the fundamental atom (or rather, planck length part of an atom) would need to be in two locations. this is because matter is made up of particles, and those particles are what is relevant.
space, as one entity not composed of trillions of planck lengths, themselves all entities, is different. space is space.

it doesn't matter if you measure from a to b or b to a. by definition, space is at both those points. it's not a matter of testing, it's a matter of fundamental fact. space is at every single point in space. that's so simple it's a tautology. when you're not thinking in terms of particles, it is in multiple places at once.

why is it so hard to understand that higher dimensional things don't behave as we'd expect in lower dimensions? that's a pretty basic part of science.

Okay, that was pretty hard to read, but I'll roll with it.

So, space is one, higher-dimensional entity that occupies all of space. So, how is it infinitely accelerating? If this big entity occupies all of space, then it should still not have any area in which to accelerate.

this is advanced, it's not going to be easy to understand. everything requires a little thought to learn.
space exists in more than one place at any one time. as it is not in more than one place, it is one entity that exists in multiple points in space instantaneously. we simply apply the calculations i have given multiple times to deduce the speed (and by a similar process, the acceleration) is infinite.
it is accelerating within itself, not beyond itself. don't try to visualize, higher dimensional things are impossible to visualize. trust simple math.

"Higher dimensional things are impossible to visualise"?

Say I draw 3 lines on one sheet of paper, to represent these 'distances'. Line 2 and 3 are double the distance apart that 1 and 2 are.

Now, let's do this 'test' again - start the clock and you'll see that it takes zero time for the distance to be covered, because the points are already there. Then, the second distance - exactly the same principle, the distance is covered in zero time, because the points have already been placed. The piece of paper is one entity, the acceleration is infinite in the paper as well because an infinite number of points can be placed within this sheet of paper to also represent infinite acceleration.

Whoo, just visualised it. I must be a higher-dimensional being

no, you have completely failed to visualize it because you are ignoring everything i am saying. space is not made out of atoms or molecules like paper, did you forget that? with paper, the lines are completely different things, because paper is not one entity, paper is billions of atoms. are you seriously trying to forget that?
space, however, is just one thing.

why is it so hard to understand that the means by which we measure distance will, when examined in terms of that distance, behave oddly?

Wow. I'm astounded. I might actually be a flat earther now. Sorry for ever disbelieving.

There's just one more thing I'm a little confused about. How the hell was "space", as this single entity , formed  as one thing when every single other thing that we know of is made of individual atoms. Are you seriously trying to say that our Earth was made by someone in a higher dimension, and that because we're in a lower dimension, we have things that are made up of atoms and molecules rather than being one entity?

Y'know, space in this situation kind of reminds me of "God". JRowe's now worshipping "The Lord our space".

space is not matter, atoms compose matter.
i have no idea what the rest of that is meant to mean. i've said none of that. please try to actually read.

You never said the other stuff?

why is it so hard to understand that higher dimensional things don't behave as we'd expect in lower dimensions? that's a pretty basic part of science.

Or this?

no, you have completely failed to visualize it because you are ignoring everything i am saying. space is not made out of atoms or molecules like paper, did you forget that? with paper, the lines are completely different things, because paper is not one entity, paper is billions of atoms. are you seriously trying to forget that?
space, however, is just one thing.

why is it so hard to understand that the means by which we measure distance will, when examined in terms of that distance, behave oddly?

You literally said in those quotes that space was a higher dimensional entity, and that the paper is made of billions of atoms.

i've said none of that.

Sure you haven't.

Quote from: FallacyAlert on March 31, 2015, 01:46:09 PM

Quote from: JRoweSkeptic on March 31, 2015, 02:42:25 AM

Quote from: FallacyAlert on March 31, 2015, 01:02:23 AM

Quote from: JRoweSkeptic on March 30, 2015, 05:09:41 AM

Quote from: FallacyAlert on March 30, 2015, 04:17:59 AM

Quote from: JRoweSkeptic on March 30, 2015, 04:14:49 AM

Quote from: FallacyAlert on March 30, 2015, 03:59:33 AM

Quote from: JRoweSkeptic on March 30, 2015, 03:50:20 AM

fallacyalert, stop saying space is composed of particles. i have criticized you for this before. space is not composed of particles or atoms or any such thing, as i have explicitly and repeatedly stated, and as even round earthers agree.
every conclusion you draw from such a bs assumption is utterly irrelevant. have you finished being an idiot?
"Space could just simply exist as separate, multiple points," is nonsense as space is not composed of particles, space is composed of one entity. this is the crucial fact every single one of you are ignoring. that one entity exists in every location in space.

i'm not sure why you're talking about vacuums, we're discussing space as in the four dimensional undercurrent to everything, not 'outer space'.
none of you are providing anything other than assertion. why are you expecting the thing by which we measure acceleration (space, and so distance) to behave in the same way as the things within it? that's absurd.

Space does not need to be comprised of particles for the multiple location thing to be proven wrong. Even if space is 'one entity', as you say, then it cannot have infinite acceleration because it is one single thing occupying every available point of space that it can fill, so it cannot be accelerating because there is nowhere for it to move to.

For this one thing that exists in every location in space to be infinitely accelerating is wrong according to your previous point anyway, because then again, it would be reaching those defined points of distance 'a' and 'b' before the recording has even started, which doesn't work as part of a proper test.

you are still thinking in terms of matter. for matter to exist in more than one location, the fundamental atom (or rather, planck length part of an atom) would need to be in two locations. this is because matter is made up of particles, and those particles are what is relevant.
space, as one entity not composed of trillions of planck lengths, themselves all entities, is different. space is space.

it doesn't matter if you measure from a to b or b to a. by definition, space is at both those points. it's not a matter of testing, it's a matter of fundamental fact. space is at every single point in space. that's so simple it's a tautology. when you're not thinking in terms of particles, it is in multiple places at once.

why is it so hard to understand that higher dimensional things don't behave as we'd expect in lower dimensions? that's a pretty basic part of science.

Okay, that was pretty hard to read, but I'll roll with it.

So, space is one, higher-dimensional entity that occupies all of space. So, how is it infinitely accelerating? If this big entity occupies all of space, then it should still not have any area in which to accelerate.

this is advanced, it's not going to be easy to understand. everything requires a little thought to learn.
space exists in more than one place at any one time. as it is not in more than one place, it is one entity that exists in multiple points in space instantaneously. we simply apply the calculations i have given multiple times to deduce the speed (and by a similar process, the acceleration) is infinite.
it is accelerating within itself, not beyond itself. don't try to visualize, higher dimensional things are impossible to visualize. trust simple math.

"Higher dimensional things are impossible to visualise"?

Say I draw 3 lines on one sheet of paper, to represent these 'distances'. Line 2 and 3 are double the distance apart that 1 and 2 are.

Now, let's do this 'test' again - start the clock and you'll see that it takes zero time for the distance to be covered, because the points are already there. Then, the second distance - exactly the same principle, the distance is covered in zero time, because the points have already been placed. The piece of paper is one entity, the acceleration is infinite in the paper as well because an infinite number of points can be placed within this sheet of paper to also represent infinite acceleration.

Whoo, just visualised it. I must be a higher-dimensional being

no, you have completely failed to visualize it because you are ignoring everything i am saying. space is not made out of atoms or molecules like paper, did you forget that? with paper, the lines are completely different things, because paper is not one entity, paper is billions of atoms. are you seriously trying to forget that?
space, however, is just one thing.

why is it so hard to understand that the means by which we measure distance will, when examined in terms of that distance, behave oddly?

Wow. I'm astounded. I might actually be a flat earther now. Sorry for ever disbelieving.

There's just one more thing I'm a little confused about. How the hell was "space", as this single entity , formed  as one thing when every single other thing that we know of is made of individual atoms. Are you seriously trying to say that our Earth was made by someone in a higher dimension, and that because we're in a lower dimension, we have things that are made up of atoms and molecules rather than being one entity?

Y'know, space in this situation kind of reminds me of "God". JRowe's now worshipping "The Lord our space".

space is not matter, atoms compose matter.
i have no idea what the rest of that is meant to mean. i've said none of that. please try to actually read.

Exactly. That's why space can't be thicker or thinner.
And - matter isn't composed of atoms, matter is just a particle with energy.

Quote from: JRoweSkeptic on March 31, 2015, 01:51:09 PM

Quote from: FallacyAlert on March 31, 2015, 01:46:09 PM

Quote from: JRoweSkeptic on March 31, 2015, 02:42:25 AM

Quote from: FallacyAlert on March 31, 2015, 01:02:23 AM

Quote from: JRoweSkeptic on March 30, 2015, 05:09:41 AM

Quote from: FallacyAlert on March 30, 2015, 04:17:59 AM

Quote from: JRoweSkeptic on March 30, 2015, 04:14:49 AM

Quote from: FallacyAlert on March 30, 2015, 03:59:33 AM

Quote from: JRoweSkeptic on March 30, 2015, 03:50:20 AM

fallacyalert, stop saying space is composed of particles. i have criticized you for this before. space is not composed of particles or atoms or any such thing, as i have explicitly and repeatedly stated, and as even round earthers agree.
every conclusion you draw from such a bs assumption is utterly irrelevant. have you finished being an idiot?
"Space could just simply exist as separate, multiple points," is nonsense as space is not composed of particles, space is composed of one entity. this is the crucial fact every single one of you are ignoring. that one entity exists in every location in space.

i'm not sure why you're talking about vacuums, we're discussing space as in the four dimensional undercurrent to everything, not 'outer space'.
none of you are providing anything other than assertion. why are you expecting the thing by which we measure acceleration (space, and so distance) to behave in the same way as the things within it? that's absurd.

Space does not need to be comprised of particles for the multiple location thing to be proven wrong. Even if space is 'one entity', as you say, then it cannot have infinite acceleration because it is one single thing occupying every available point of space that it can fill, so it cannot be accelerating because there is nowhere for it to move to.

For this one thing that exists in every location in space to be infinitely accelerating is wrong according to your previous point anyway, because then again, it would be reaching those defined points of distance 'a' and 'b' before the recording has even started, which doesn't work as part of a proper test.

you are still thinking in terms of matter. for matter to exist in more than one location, the fundamental atom (or rather, planck length part of an atom) would need to be in two locations. this is because matter is made up of particles, and those particles are what is relevant.
space, as one entity not composed of trillions of planck lengths, themselves all entities, is different. space is space.

it doesn't matter if you measure from a to b or b to a. by definition, space is at both those points. it's not a matter of testing, it's a matter of fundamental fact. space is at every single point in space. that's so simple it's a tautology. when you're not thinking in terms of particles, it is in multiple places at once.

why is it so hard to understand that higher dimensional things don't behave as we'd expect in lower dimensions? that's a pretty basic part of science.

Okay, that was pretty hard to read, but I'll roll with it.

So, space is one, higher-dimensional entity that occupies all of space. So, how is it infinitely accelerating? If this big entity occupies all of space, then it should still not have any area in which to accelerate.

this is advanced, it's not going to be easy to understand. everything requires a little thought to learn.
space exists in more than one place at any one time. as it is not in more than one place, it is one entity that exists in multiple points in space instantaneously. we simply apply the calculations i have given multiple times to deduce the speed (and by a similar process, the acceleration) is infinite.
it is accelerating within itself, not beyond itself. don't try to visualize, higher dimensional things are impossible to visualize. trust simple math.

"Higher dimensional things are impossible to visualise"?

Say I draw 3 lines on one sheet of paper, to represent these 'distances'. Line 2 and 3 are double the distance apart that 1 and 2 are.

Now, let's do this 'test' again - start the clock and you'll see that it takes zero time for the distance to be covered, because the points are already there. Then, the second distance - exactly the same principle, the distance is covered in zero time, because the points have already been placed. The piece of paper is one entity, the acceleration is infinite in the paper as well because an infinite number of points can be placed within this sheet of paper to also represent infinite acceleration.

Whoo, just visualised it. I must be a higher-dimensional being

no, you have completely failed to visualize it because you are ignoring everything i am saying. space is not made out of atoms or molecules like paper, did you forget that? with paper, the lines are completely different things, because paper is not one entity, paper is billions of atoms. are you seriously trying to forget that?
space, however, is just one thing.

why is it so hard to understand that the means by which we measure distance will, when examined in terms of that distance, behave oddly?

Wow. I'm astounded. I might actually be a flat earther now. Sorry for ever disbelieving.

There's just one more thing I'm a little confused about. How the hell was "space", as this single entity , formed  as one thing when every single other thing that we know of is made of individual atoms. Are you seriously trying to say that our Earth was made by someone in a higher dimension, and that because we're in a lower dimension, we have things that are made up of atoms and molecules rather than being one entity?

Y'know, space in this situation kind of reminds me of "God". JRowe's now worshipping "The Lord our space".

space is not matter, atoms compose matter.
i have no idea what the rest of that is meant to mean. i've said none of that. please try to actually read.

You never said the other stuff?

Quote from: JRoweSkeptic on March 30, 2015, 04:14:49 AM

why is it so hard to understand that higher dimensional things don't behave as we'd expect in lower dimensions? that's a pretty basic part of science.

Or this?

Quote from: JRoweSkeptic on March 31, 2015, 02:42:25 AM

no, you have completely failed to visualize it because you are ignoring everything i am saying. space is not made out of atoms or molecules like paper, did you forget that? with paper, the lines are completely different things, because paper is not one entity, paper is billions of atoms. are you seriously trying to forget that?
space, however, is just one thing.

why is it so hard to understand that the means by which we measure distance will, when examined in terms of that distance, behave oddly?

You literally said in those quotes that space was a higher dimensional entity, and that the paper is made of billions of atoms.

Quote from: JRoweSkeptic on March 31, 2015, 01:51:09 PM

i've said none of that.

Sure you haven't.

space is something that exists in more than three dimensions, as it itself defines those three dimensions. i don't see what's so hard to understand about that. i'm trying to work out how the hell you started referring to it as 'someone'.

Quote from: JRoweSkeptic on March 31, 2015, 01:51:09 PM

Quote from: FallacyAlert on March 31, 2015, 01:46:09 PM

Quote from: JRoweSkeptic on March 31, 2015, 02:42:25 AM

Quote from: FallacyAlert on March 31, 2015, 01:02:23 AM

Quote from: JRoweSkeptic on March 30, 2015, 05:09:41 AM

Quote from: FallacyAlert on March 30, 2015, 04:17:59 AM

Quote from: JRoweSkeptic on March 30, 2015, 04:14:49 AM

Quote from: FallacyAlert on March 30, 2015, 03:59:33 AM

Quote from: JRoweSkeptic on March 30, 2015, 03:50:20 AM

fallacyalert, stop saying space is composed of particles. i have criticized you for this before. space is not composed of particles or atoms or any such thing, as i have explicitly and repeatedly stated, and as even round earthers agree.
every conclusion you draw from such a bs assumption is utterly irrelevant. have you finished being an idiot?
"Space could just simply exist as separate, multiple points," is nonsense as space is not composed of particles, space is composed of one entity. this is the crucial fact every single one of you are ignoring. that one entity exists in every location in space.

i'm not sure why you're talking about vacuums, we're discussing space as in the four dimensional undercurrent to everything, not 'outer space'.
none of you are providing anything other than assertion. why are you expecting the thing by which we measure acceleration (space, and so distance) to behave in the same way as the things within it? that's absurd.

Space does not need to be comprised of particles for the multiple location thing to be proven wrong. Even if space is 'one entity', as you say, then it cannot have infinite acceleration because it is one single thing occupying every available point of space that it can fill, so it cannot be accelerating because there is nowhere for it to move to.

For this one thing that exists in every location in space to be infinitely accelerating is wrong according to your previous point anyway, because then again, it would be reaching those defined points of distance 'a' and 'b' before the recording has even started, which doesn't work as part of a proper test.

you are still thinking in terms of matter. for matter to exist in more than one location, the fundamental atom (or rather, planck length part of an atom) would need to be in two locations. this is because matter is made up of particles, and those particles are what is relevant.
space, as one entity not composed of trillions of planck lengths, themselves all entities, is different. space is space.

it doesn't matter if you measure from a to b or b to a. by definition, space is at both those points. it's not a matter of testing, it's a matter of fundamental fact. space is at every single point in space. that's so simple it's a tautology. when you're not thinking in terms of particles, it is in multiple places at once.

why is it so hard to understand that higher dimensional things don't behave as we'd expect in lower dimensions? that's a pretty basic part of science.

Okay, that was pretty hard to read, but I'll roll with it.

So, space is one, higher-dimensional entity that occupies all of space. So, how is it infinitely accelerating? If this big entity occupies all of space, then it should still not have any area in which to accelerate.

this is advanced, it's not going to be easy to understand. everything requires a little thought to learn.
space exists in more than one place at any one time. as it is not in more than one place, it is one entity that exists in multiple points in space instantaneously. we simply apply the calculations i have given multiple times to deduce the speed (and by a similar process, the acceleration) is infinite.
it is accelerating within itself, not beyond itself. don't try to visualize, higher dimensional things are impossible to visualize. trust simple math.

"Higher dimensional things are impossible to visualise"?

Say I draw 3 lines on one sheet of paper, to represent these 'distances'. Line 2 and 3 are double the distance apart that 1 and 2 are.

Now, let's do this 'test' again - start the clock and you'll see that it takes zero time for the distance to be covered, because the points are already there. Then, the second distance - exactly the same principle, the distance is covered in zero time, because the points have already been placed. The piece of paper is one entity, the acceleration is infinite in the paper as well because an infinite number of points can be placed within this sheet of paper to also represent infinite acceleration.

Whoo, just visualised it. I must be a higher-dimensional being

no, you have completely failed to visualize it because you are ignoring everything i am saying. space is not made out of atoms or molecules like paper, did you forget that? with paper, the lines are completely different things, because paper is not one entity, paper is billions of atoms. are you seriously trying to forget that?
space, however, is just one thing.

why is it so hard to understand that the means by which we measure distance will, when examined in terms of that distance, behave oddly?

Wow. I'm astounded. I might actually be a flat earther now. Sorry for ever disbelieving.

There's just one more thing I'm a little confused about. How the hell was "space", as this single entity , formed  as one thing when every single other thing that we know of is made of individual atoms. Are you seriously trying to say that our Earth was made by someone in a higher dimension, and that because we're in a lower dimension, we have things that are made up of atoms and molecules rather than being one entity?

Y'know, space in this situation kind of reminds me of "God". JRowe's now worshipping "The Lord our space".

space is not matter, atoms compose matter.
i have no idea what the rest of that is meant to mean. i've said none of that. please try to actually read.

Exactly. That's why space can't be thicker or thinner.
And - matter isn't composed of atoms, matter is just a particle with energy.

matter isn't composed of atoms? are you serious?
oh, so it's just particles. particles obviously aren't made of atoms... what are you smoking?

you're not providing evidence for your repeated assertion "that's why space can't be thicker or thinner." i am explaining my model. if you have a problem with it, provide more than assertion, otherwise you're just whinging like usual.

matter isn't composed of atoms? are you serious?
oh, so it's just particles. particles obviously aren't made of atoms... what are you smoking?

you're not providing evidence for your repeated assertion "that's why space can't be thicker or thinner." i am explaining my model. if you have a problem with it, provide more than assertion, otherwise you're just whinging like usual.

By "particles" he means quarks like protons, neutrons, and electrons.

Quote from: JRoweSkeptic on April 01, 2015, 07:08:29 AM

matter isn't composed of atoms? are you serious?
oh, so it's just particles. particles obviously aren't made of atoms... what are you smoking?

you're not providing evidence for your repeated assertion "that's why space can't be thicker or thinner." i am explaining my model. if you have a problem with it, provide more than assertion, otherwise you're just whinging like usual.

By "particles" he means quarks like protons, neutrons, and electrons.

they're hadrons, not quarks.
replace 'atom' with 'quark' then, what i've said still makes sense, i was just trying to explain in simpler terms without sounding like a posh duck. i was assuming the reader would be able to think.

Quote from: LogicalKiller on April 01, 2015, 03:45:51 AM

Quote from: JRoweSkeptic on March 31, 2015, 01:51:09 PM

Quote from: FallacyAlert on March 31, 2015, 01:46:09 PM

Quote from: JRoweSkeptic on March 31, 2015, 02:42:25 AM

Quote from: FallacyAlert on March 31, 2015, 01:02:23 AM

Quote from: JRoweSkeptic on March 30, 2015, 05:09:41 AM

Quote from: FallacyAlert on March 30, 2015, 04:17:59 AM

Quote from: JRoweSkeptic on March 30, 2015, 04:14:49 AM

Quote from: FallacyAlert on March 30, 2015, 03:59:33 AM

Quote from: JRoweSkeptic on March 30, 2015, 03:50:20 AM

fallacyalert, stop saying space is composed of particles. i have criticized you for this before. space is not composed of particles or atoms or any such thing, as i have explicitly and repeatedly stated, and as even round earthers agree.
every conclusion you draw from such a bs assumption is utterly irrelevant. have you finished being an idiot?
"Space could just simply exist as separate, multiple points," is nonsense as space is not composed of particles, space is composed of one entity. this is the crucial fact every single one of you are ignoring. that one entity exists in every location in space.

i'm not sure why you're talking about vacuums, we're discussing space as in the four dimensional undercurrent to everything, not 'outer space'.
none of you are providing anything other than assertion. why are you expecting the thing by which we measure acceleration (space, and so distance) to behave in the same way as the things within it? that's absurd.

Space does not need to be comprised of particles for the multiple location thing to be proven wrong. Even if space is 'one entity', as you say, then it cannot have infinite acceleration because it is one single thing occupying every available point of space that it can fill, so it cannot be accelerating because there is nowhere for it to move to.

For this one thing that exists in every location in space to be infinitely accelerating is wrong according to your previous point anyway, because then again, it would be reaching those defined points of distance 'a' and 'b' before the recording has even started, which doesn't work as part of a proper test.

you are still thinking in terms of matter. for matter to exist in more than one location, the fundamental atom (or rather, planck length part of an atom) would need to be in two locations. this is because matter is made up of particles, and those particles are what is relevant.
space, as one entity not composed of trillions of planck lengths, themselves all entities, is different. space is space.

it doesn't matter if you measure from a to b or b to a. by definition, space is at both those points. it's not a matter of testing, it's a matter of fundamental fact. space is at every single point in space. that's so simple it's a tautology. when you're not thinking in terms of particles, it is in multiple places at once.

why is it so hard to understand that higher dimensional things don't behave as we'd expect in lower dimensions? that's a pretty basic part of science.

Okay, that was pretty hard to read, but I'll roll with it.

So, space is one, higher-dimensional entity that occupies all of space. So, how is it infinitely accelerating? If this big entity occupies all of space, then it should still not have any area in which to accelerate.

this is advanced, it's not going to be easy to understand. everything requires a little thought to learn.
space exists in more than one place at any one time. as it is not in more than one place, it is one entity that exists in multiple points in space instantaneously. we simply apply the calculations i have given multiple times to deduce the speed (and by a similar process, the acceleration) is infinite.
it is accelerating within itself, not beyond itself. don't try to visualize, higher dimensional things are impossible to visualize. trust simple math.

"Higher dimensional things are impossible to visualise"?

Say I draw 3 lines on one sheet of paper, to represent these 'distances'. Line 2 and 3 are double the distance apart that 1 and 2 are.

Now, let's do this 'test' again - start the clock and you'll see that it takes zero time for the distance to be covered, because the points are already there. Then, the second distance - exactly the same principle, the distance is covered in zero time, because the points have already been placed. The piece of paper is one entity, the acceleration is infinite in the paper as well because an infinite number of points can be placed within this sheet of paper to also represent infinite acceleration.

Whoo, just visualised it. I must be a higher-dimensional being

no, you have completely failed to visualize it because you are ignoring everything i am saying. space is not made out of atoms or molecules like paper, did you forget that? with paper, the lines are completely different things, because paper is not one entity, paper is billions of atoms. are you seriously trying to forget that?
space, however, is just one thing.

why is it so hard to understand that the means by which we measure distance will, when examined in terms of that distance, behave oddly?

Wow. I'm astounded. I might actually be a flat earther now. Sorry for ever disbelieving.

There's just one more thing I'm a little confused about. How the hell was "space", as this single entity , formed  as one thing when every single other thing that we know of is made of individual atoms. Are you seriously trying to say that our Earth was made by someone in a higher dimension, and that because we're in a lower dimension, we have things that are made up of atoms and molecules rather than being one entity?

Y'know, space in this situation kind of reminds me of "God". JRowe's now worshipping "The Lord our space".

space is not matter, atoms compose matter.
i have no idea what the rest of that is meant to mean. i've said none of that. please try to actually read.

Exactly. That's why space can't be thicker or thinner.
And - matter isn't composed of atoms, matter is just a particle with energy.

matter isn't composed of atoms? are you serious?
oh, so it's just particles. particles obviously aren't made of atoms... what are you smoking?

you're not providing evidence for your repeated assertion "that's why space can't be thicker or thinner." i am explaining my model. if you have a problem with it, provide more than assertion, otherwise you're just whinging like usual.

Are photons atoms? No. Are photons matter? Hell yeah. Are free protons atoms? No. Are free photons matter? Hell yeah. And so on, you physical dilletante.

Matter is defined as anything with mass and volume. So it's not just exclusively atoms.

Matter is defined as anything with mass and volume. So it's not just exclusively atoms.

Photons are also matter and they do not have mass.

Matter is defined as anything with mass and volume. So it's not just exclusively atoms.

atoms and subatomic elements. it doesn't matter, space is not composed of any of them.

Quote from: Misero on April 01, 2015, 10:27:44 AM

Matter is defined as anything with mass and volume. So it's not just exclusively atoms.

atoms and subatomic elements. it doesn't matter, space is not composed of any of them.

They are called subatomic particles, not elements.

Quote from: JRoweSkeptic on April 01, 2015, 11:46:09 AM

Quote from: Misero on April 01, 2015, 10:27:44 AM

Matter is defined as anything with mass and volume. So it's not just exclusively atoms.

atoms and subatomic elements. it doesn't matter, space is not composed of any of them.

They are called subatomic particles, not elements.

word choice is not the important thing right now.

My problem with this is(among hundreds of others) that how can something with no mass exert forces on things with mass? And don't ramble about higher-dimensional stuff, you have no proof.

My problem with this is(among hundreds of others) that how can something with no mass exert forces on things with mass? And don't ramble about higher-dimensional stuff, you have no proof.

we exist in space, don't we? how could we not affected by its movements?

in addition, force is mass times acceleration: and acceleration is basically a meaningless concept when it comes to space, because the dimensions of space are required to understand acceleration. you rely on that formula if you're trying to say force can be imparted by mass, but it's just not relevant here. (it can actually be shown that the dimension of space has infinite acceleration, but i don't want to go down that road again).

Explain why acceleration is meaningless in space.

Explain why acceleration is meaningless in space.

Remove this post, if we stop responding to him, he'll stop trolling and doing ad-hoc aether.

Quote from: sokarul on April 02, 2015, 09:28:33 AM

Explain why acceleration is meaningless in space.

Remove this post, if we stop responding to him, he'll stop trolling and doing ad-hoc aether.

What, exactly, is it you want from this forum?

Explain why acceleration is meaningless in space.

it's not meaningless in space, it's meaningless for space. acceleration is the rate of change of speed, speed is the rate of change of distance, and how can you say that space, the means by which we define distance, does or does not move through that distance? it's an inherently absurd statement.

My problem with this is(among hundreds of others) that how can something with no mass exert forces on things with mass?

Photons do that quite well somehow.

You see, sokarul? Responding to JRowe is feeding a troll. Stop doing this, seriously.

Quote from: sokarul on April 02, 2015, 09:28:33 AM

Explain why acceleration is meaningless in space.

it's not meaningless in space, it's meaningless for space. acceleration is the rate of change of speed, speed is the rate of change of distance, and how can you say that space, the means by which we define distance, does or does not move through that distance? it's an inherently absurd statement.

It is better to say acceleration is the change in velocity. Velocity is the change in distance over time or a change in direction.
I see now. Yes acceleration would be meaningless for space in your model. But you can't make this claim and then use the same space as something else with different properties.

Quote from: JRoweSkeptic on April 02, 2015, 09:42:07 AM

Quote from: sokarul on April 02, 2015, 09:28:33 AM

Explain why acceleration is meaningless in space.

it's not meaningless in space, it's meaningless for space. acceleration is the rate of change of speed, speed is the rate of change of distance, and how can you say that space, the means by which we define distance, does or does not move through that distance? it's an inherently absurd statement.

It is better to say acceleration is the change in velocity. Velocity is the change in distance over time or a change in direction.
I see now. Yes acceleration would be meaningless for space in your model. But you can't make this claim and then use the same space as something else with different properties.

when do i use space as something else with a different property?

My original question is yet to be answered. How do we see the moon, if the sun acts like a spotlight pointed at the earth?

My original question is yet to be answered. How do we see the moon, if the sun acts like a spotlight pointed at the earth?

has been answered, pay attention. the moon provides its own light. you don't just get to disregard the answer given to you multiple times because you feel like clinging to your fantasy.

Fantasy? You're the one who decides NASA photos cannot be trusted, but fairy photos can. You're the guy who believes space itself is rubbing against the moon to make it white-hot.