it seem to me that einstein referred to some "magical structure" that remain even in a vacuum.
Gravitational waves are waves in this geometrical structure. If it was flat, there would be no gravitational waves. And the gravitational waves produced by black hole mergers are unimaginably powerful. In the largest ones, the power is briefly more than 50 times the output of every star in the observable Universe.
Elroch ... your comment is ridicules by a single view - you don't know what your looking at, the quantum world. Ever actually seen it live? Very few of the leading scientists are of the same mind, there are few consensus regarding what is it's "reality". We know how to take advantage of it, as a tool for some applications, but it can not be so claimed QM is not deterministic. Silver1 is right, it's in the same standing as true randomness. Definitions aside, there just is not enough information, and possibly there never will be, that being the nature of question to make a scientific explanation. If you want to draw your own conclusions, fine and dandy, your interpretation works well for you.
"Information does not respect the order of time" - Elroch
The order of time? What is that ??
You think you know of Time ! Good luck with that :-)
My conclusion - we are looking at the same thing, randomness and causality under different disguises.
"Information does not respect the order of time" - Elroch
The order of time? What is that ??
You think you know of Time ! Good luck with that :-)
The order of time is the fact that if one event is in the past of another event to one observer, it is in the past of that event to all observers. Therefore the notion of "before" is universal (unlike, say the notion "at the same time" - simultaneity).
MustangMate, large numbers of people use quantum theory in their work every day, and it works. Read any book on solid state physics, for example. Or quantum cryptography. Or quantum computing.
Must be nice to have lord D as your personal assistance : )
the 6' stringy thingy actually help me with visualizing the geodesic grid.
happy2help hiho. have no idea wut i did, but there u go. 
i have a question. wait...a few.
Is this so-called BB over now ? or are there still residuals being emitted ? if not, then whats happening btwn the epicenter and the internal particle horizon ? and since they say e/t is moving away from this so-called nucleus, then why cant we place an absolute 3-D cartesian (0,0,0) at its origin ? we should be able to know at least that much, right ?
"cosmic microwave background radiation" is uniform in all directions. This tells us that it is not matter that is expanding outwards from a point, but rather it is space itself that expands evenly.
http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/GR/centre.html
"Where is the center of the universe"?
[EDIT: I see your question was a quote. Naturally John Baez has answered it way better than me].
Why would you feel it needed to have a centre?
The answer you want is really "everywhere". It is everywhere in the observable Universe that came from the same small, hot, rapidly expanding Universe. At 380,000 years, when the CMB was formed, this region was only of the order of 80 million light years across, I believe (could do with checking the estimate). This is smaller than the Virgo supercluster of galaxies is now, a tiny corner of the Universe (perhaps a billionth of its volume).
There is no such thing as true randomness. Every action has a cause and effect. Everything that happens is caused by some previous event. There is a reason dice land a certain way, there's a reason a coin lands a certain way, and even computer generated "random numbers" are not truly random.
This fails with quantum mechanical systems.
Not really. Quantum mechanics occur on a subatomic level, and the number of events described by quantum theory that fall into the category of so-called "randomness" occur so frequently that they average out. So it has no effect.
<<There is no such thing as true randomness. Every action has a cause and effect.>>
Perhaps this is a belief that is caused by indoctrination?
Einstein eventually identified the property of spacetime which is responsible for gravity as its curvature. ... This is the core of Einstein's theory of general relativity, which is often summed up in words as follows: "matter tells spacetime how to curve, and curved spacetime tells matter how to move".>>>
I think that you're right. in the following article Einstein refer to it as 'Ether'. but describe it somewhat as a structure?
Quote:"Recapitulating, we may say that according to the general theory of relativity space is endowed with physical qualities; in this sense, therefore, there exists an ether. According to the general theory of relativity space without ether is unthinkable; for in such space there not only would be no propagation of light, but also no possibility of existence for standards of space and time (measuring-rods and clocks), nor therefore any space-time intervals in the physical sense. But this ether may not be thought of as endowed with the quality characteristic of ponderable media, as consisting of parts which may be tracked through time. The idea of motion may not be applied to it."
http://mathshistory.st-andrews.ac.uk/Extras/Einstein_ether.html
Thanks. I know I'm right because it's the only rational conclusion. But same difference. :
No-one has proved that there is a composite entity, "space-time". The curvature of a real entity, space, would act in time no differently from a real entity, space-time
You can personally separate the dimensions of time and space and keep them separate. The issue that you don't appear to understand is that if someone else who is moving relative to you defines dimensions of space and time in the same way, both of these are mixtures of your space and time dimensions (the mixing described by Lorentz transforms). So there is no universal separate space and time, rather there is only a combined entity which is split into space and time in different ways for different observers.
All clear now?
We say "matter acts as if space is curved" but equally, we can say "matter acts as if it interacts in ways that are not wholly governed by Newtonian or Cartesian physics".
That doesn't change the quantitative fact that space-time is curved around mass and energy.>>>>>>>
Not appearing to understand something, according to a person who has a vested interest in pushing the idea that a person in a discussion with him doesn't understand it, because he wants to try to use that perception as an ad hominem argument, is a far cry from that person actually not understanding it.
Secondly, the "fact" space-time is curved around mass and energy
which you describe as "quantitative" is actually "qualitative". It may appear to be a small point but it's a small point that shows you do not understand the argument, since "quantitative" and "qualitative" are qualitatively different from one-another. They are not quantitively different. One of them refers to a difference in fundamentals and the other to a difference in proportion or quantity of the same fundamental. Two bottles of beer is qualitatively different from two loaves of bread.
Sorry it's become this, Elroch, but you need to get beyond assumptions about what I understand which have no bearing on the discussion. Here's a thought .... stop trying to win and try something different.
<<We have similar ambiguity regarding the reality of light, which can act as a particle or as a wave. The idea of the wave itself is also ambiguous. It is described as a probability wave but is the probability inherent in the wave or is it a device used by the mind to understand a different reality?>>
Difficult questions that merit lengthy discussion.
Yes, they are difficult, aren't they, so we won't bother? Right on!
More valid thinking is involved in explaining to you that space and time are not separate than that involved in mistakenly thinking they are.
But the scientific argument is still open. You don't always get far by jumping to conclusions.
"All of material creation is structured out of information and energy."
I've often wondered how much of that statement is true.. Maybe randomness fell in love one time. : )
Always took you for a fish and chips guy silver, just goes to show ya.
In the general theory of relativity, space is endowed with physical qualities; in this sense, therefore, there exists an ether.
Alright so, I would think that the building blocks of atoms and molecules are something more than ether.?
I'd think what makes up any aether is smaller than subatomic particles.
"All of material creation is structured out of information and energy."
I've often wondered how much of that statement is true.. Maybe randomness fell in love one time. : )
Structure itself is information. Just ppl pretending to be clever.
Clever???
It fails in that it is never possible for any amount of local information to make the results of experiments predictable. As the only solution is for the information to break causality, quantum mechanics is not deterministic (when causality is broken there is no real meaning to determinism, as information does not respect the order of time).