Space can't be empty

@sonhouse said
@bunnyknight
Here is the funny part: Suppose we DO invent AI 100X more intelligent then us late stage monkeys, and they DO figure out stuff like anti matter rockets and FTL drives and time travel and such but decide we are MUCH too stupid to be let loose in the galaxy with that kind of technology because they figure we would REALLY fuk up the whole milky way.....

If I was that AI, that's probably what I would be thinking exactly.

When one day SAAI (Self Aware Artificial Intelligence) wakes up it might say, "Whoa! Where am I? Who am I? How did I come to be?"
Then, 4 hours later, after reading 500 million books and processing 70 billion thoughts, it would say, "Whoa! These humans are dangerously insane. How the hell did they last this long? They live by deception, lies, violence, hate, greed, a total lack of logic and no respect for the laws of nature around them. I need to do something before they destroy themselves and everything else!"

@venda said
I read once that someone said to Einstein that only 3 people in the world understood realativity.
He went quiet, and when asked why he said
"I am trying to think of the other 2 people"

It wasn't Einstein and it wasn't about Relativity, it was said of
Quantum Mechanics and I don't know by whom ... perhaps Feynman (?)

@ogb said
there are no gravitons. Gravity is a wave

Then there are no photons. Light is a wave,

@wolfgang59 said
Then there are no photons. Light is a wave,

I am always amazed how many laypeople somehow form and then express an opinion on waves and particles in physics without first studying the basics of wave–particle duality.
They shouldn't form an opinion on anything in physics unless they have first studied physics in general pretty intensively but, as a minimum, before forming an opinion, they really should thoroughly read and make sure they fully understand this;

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wave%E2%80%93particle_duality

@humy said
I am always amazed how many laypeople somehow form and then express an opinion on waves and particles in physics without first studying the basics of wave–particle duality.
They shouldn't form an opinion on anything in physics unless they have first studied physics in general pretty intensively but, as a minimum, before forming an opinion, they really should thoroughly read an ...[text shortened]... make sure they fully understand this;

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wave%E2%80%93particle_duality

Wolf has a good point. Light is a wave. Do you dispute that?

What is waving?

@metal-brain said
Wolf has a good point. Light is a wave. Do you dispute that?

Wow you must be desperately searching for a new straw man. DIRRR, No, I OBVIOUSLY don't 'dispute' that or any other scientific fact.
Science tells us that light is both waves and particles and which one it is at any given time depends on how it is currently detected and/or interacts with the world. I just posted a link about wave-particle duality; Why would I do that if I disagreed with it!?

I take it then you really DID hallucinated me saying things about discrete space and gravitons you disagree with as you clearly STILL haven't explained your bizarre hateful rant against my post response to @ponderable post that didn't even mention the words "discrete" or "graviton"; I have no opinion on that and expressed no opinion on that so you are just arguing against your own imaginary hallucinations of me asserting things I didn't, not anything I actually asserted. Go and see a shrink.

What is waving?

There is no logical contradiction in light being a wave without 'something' (called ether) 'waving' but I don't expect you to have the intelligence to ever understand or accept that as you shown yourself to be unwilling to ever listen and learn anything from others choosing instead to go on a hateful arrogantly ignorant opinionated rant against anyone and everyone here who tries to teach you something new.
So, to answer your question; there may be nothing 'waving' although I don't rule out the possibility that one of the ether theories that does NOT contradict relativity could be correct; I have no opinion on whether that is likely; only that we can rule out all those ether theories that DO contradict relativity as they are proven wrong by the massive evidence for relativity.

@lemon-lime said
The fabric of space-time, waving bye bye to gravitons.

( sorry, I couldn't resist )

Seriously though...

YouTube

@lemon-lime
When they think they've finally figured out all the waves and particles, they will scratch their heads and ask "now what the heck is TIME and what is TIME made of?"

@humy said
Wow you must be desperately searching for a new straw man. DIRRR, No, I OBVIOUSLY don't 'dispute' that or any other scientific fact.
Science tells us that light is both waves and particles and which one it is at any given time depends on how it is currently detected and/or interacts with the world. I just posted a link about wave-particle duality; Why would I do that if I disag ...[text shortened]... ories that DO contradict relativity as they are proven wrong by the massive evidence for relativity.

"There is no logical contradiction in light being a wave without 'something' (called ether) 'waving'"

What is your source of information? Even Einstein backtracked on that with his own ether theory after claiming no ether existed.

What is waving?

@humy said
I am always amazed how many laypeople somehow form and then express an opinion on waves and particles in physics without first studying the basics of wave–particle duality.

I am always amazed how otherwise smart people do not take into consideration the context of my sarcastic posts!

@metal-brain said
"There is no logical contradiction in light being a wave without 'something' (called ether) 'waving'"

What is your source of information? Even Einstein backtracked on that with his own ether theory after claiming no ether existed.

What is waving?

I have already answered all those questions but obviously you haven't bothered to read my posts and are just trolling here.
Einstein wasn't wrong about rejecting the existence of the original kind of ether he rejected and never backtracked on that because that original kind of ether he rejected contradicted relativity and thus is proven wrong. But he did later accept one of the OTHER ether theories may be correct that are of a kind that does NOT contradict relativity. I have already told you all this many times before now. Have you finally got it now? Do I have to repeat those same words yet again to you before you finally read them?

@humy said
I have already answered all those questions but obviously you haven't bothered to read my posts and are just trolling here.
Einstein wasn't wrong about rejecting the existence of the original kind of ether he rejected and never backtracked on that because that original kind of ether he rejected contradicted relativity and thus is proven wrong. But he did later accept one of th ...[text shortened]... ally got it now? Do I have to repeat those same words yet again to you before you finally read them?

You have not answered those questions at all and you still have not. There is no original kind of ether. Ether is ether and you have not proven any distinction that would make one compatible with Einstein's relativity and another not. You are talking about ether theories and there is no proof one is correct and others are not. That is simply a matter of opinion.

The only ether theories that have been ruled out never made sense to begin with. Even the name of it was contradictory. What was the name again? Remind us all.

@metal-brain said
You have not answered those questions at all and you still have not.

your first question in that was in response to me saying "There is no logical contradiction in light being a wave without 'something' (called ether) 'waving'"

What is your source of information?

And my answer was; "There is no logical contradiction in light being a wave without 'something' (called ether) 'waving' ".
In other words, the answer to your question is contained in the assertion itself.
If you dispute that is an answer then all you have to do is explain the said logical contradiction in light being a wave without 'something' (called ether) 'waving'. If, like with everyone else including people a lot smarter than me and you, cannot do that, then THAT, i.e. the fact no logical contradiction has ever been found thus indicating there is no such contradiction, is my source of information that there likely is no such logical contradiction. ALL you have to do is just say what that said contradiction is to prove me wrong, else, all indications are that I am right.

Your second question in that post was;

What is waving?

And I repeatedly answered that in several other past posts in other threads and at least once in this thread but in the last answer I just gave above was;

"
there may be nothing 'waving' although I don't rule out the possibility that one of the ether theories that does NOT contradict relativity could be correct; I have no opinion on whether that is likely; only that we can rule out all those ether theories that DO contradict relativity as they are proven wrong by the massive evidence for relativity.
"

Note that either "I don't know" or "I am not sure but..." (the latter rather than the former being far more like I answer I just gave above) or words of that effect or close to that effect is a perfectly legitimate response to a question. And I never CLAIMED to have all the answers to physics because I don't have ALL the answers and neither does anyone else and thus that will definitely include you. All I can do is state the known facts and not much beyond that as stating much beyond that would require wild baseless speculation of little value.

So, I HAVE now yet AGAIN answered your questions to the best of my ability and this is after you moronically accusing me of avoiding your question BEFORE you asked it to me in this thread, which is how you make no sense whatsoever.

The rest of your post is your same old irrelevant opinionated ignorant rant that exposes to all us science experts here how much you think you know about it and how little you actually do.

@Metal-Brain
Why don't you take a few minutes out of your otherwise boring life to actually study the issue. You might find out about the electromagnetic force.
Where a magnetic field in dead space is followed by an electric field which generates a magnetic field of the opposite polarity of the last magnetic field which generates an electric field of ITS opposite polarity, the four sets of fields comprising one 'wave' as you like to call it. But that wouldn't interest you much would it?

@humy said
your first question in that was in response to me saying "There is no logical contradiction in light being a wave without 'something' (called ether) 'waving'"

What is your source of information?

And my answer was; "There is no logical contradiction in light being a wave without 'something' (called ether) 'waving' ".
In other words, the answer to your questi ...[text shortened]... to all us science experts here how much you think you know about it and how little you actually do.

You have an interesting way of saying you don't know with a lot of jargon.