- Thank you received: 0
Absolute emptiness
21 years 3 months ago #6429
by wisp
Replied by wisp on topic Reply from Kevin Harkess
quote:
[Jan] Q1: How is it possible that a single electron in the absolute emptiness of space generates a magnetic field while it is travelling through space.
Your question is very profound. It is not possible for an electron to generate a magnetic field in absolute empty space, something has to be there. It is that old fashioned thing called the ether.
Although Einstein effectively killed off the ether with his special relativity, there is much concern that his theory maybe wrong and that the ether may exist.
If your question were - how does the ether create a magnetic field as an electron moves through it?
Then science would move forward and come up with some answers.
Wisp
[Jan] Q1: How is it possible that a single electron in the absolute emptiness of space generates a magnetic field while it is travelling through space.
Your question is very profound. It is not possible for an electron to generate a magnetic field in absolute empty space, something has to be there. It is that old fashioned thing called the ether.
Although Einstein effectively killed off the ether with his special relativity, there is much concern that his theory maybe wrong and that the ether may exist.
If your question were - how does the ether create a magnetic field as an electron moves through it?
Then science would move forward and come up with some answers.
Wisp
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.
21 years 3 months ago #6175
by Jan
Replied by Jan on topic Reply from Jan Vink
<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote><font size=2 face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>Your question is very profound. It is not possible for an electron to generate a magnetic field in absolute empty space, something has to be there. It is that old fashioned thing called the ether.
<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size=2 id=quote>
The whole concept of "nothingness" does not really make things easier to understand. "Nothingness" cannot be defined, since it is in a state of non-existence, it is absolutely boundless, the true zero.Therefore, objects like electrons exist in "nothing" according to the empty space paradigm, but "nothing" cannot interact with objects, and this would leave electrons completely static. Moreover, the existence of magnetic fields is nullified by "nothing", since electrons have no reason to do anything in empty space. Hence, it is easier for the mind to assume a lowest form of "contents", something that has never been born and cannot die, something that cannot be created nor destroyed, it simply exists, boundless, truly eternal, where "time" has no meaning, nor "shape" and "size", it is a "flux" that brings to life protons, electrons, quarks and gravitons, which are all manifestation of local "flux" changes. This "flux" does not have the mechanical properties of fluids as we no them, so concepts of "density" and "viscosity" have no clear meaning. Anyway, it is perhaps easier for our saturated minds to except this truly boundless and eternal "contents", which gives rise to all the objects and phenomena we measure. We already named this "flux" as "space-time" or "ether", so at the end of the day we all agree that "nothingness" does not exist and space cannot be empty.
<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size=2 id=quote>
The whole concept of "nothingness" does not really make things easier to understand. "Nothingness" cannot be defined, since it is in a state of non-existence, it is absolutely boundless, the true zero.Therefore, objects like electrons exist in "nothing" according to the empty space paradigm, but "nothing" cannot interact with objects, and this would leave electrons completely static. Moreover, the existence of magnetic fields is nullified by "nothing", since electrons have no reason to do anything in empty space. Hence, it is easier for the mind to assume a lowest form of "contents", something that has never been born and cannot die, something that cannot be created nor destroyed, it simply exists, boundless, truly eternal, where "time" has no meaning, nor "shape" and "size", it is a "flux" that brings to life protons, electrons, quarks and gravitons, which are all manifestation of local "flux" changes. This "flux" does not have the mechanical properties of fluids as we no them, so concepts of "density" and "viscosity" have no clear meaning. Anyway, it is perhaps easier for our saturated minds to except this truly boundless and eternal "contents", which gives rise to all the objects and phenomena we measure. We already named this "flux" as "space-time" or "ether", so at the end of the day we all agree that "nothingness" does not exist and space cannot be empty.
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.
21 years 3 months ago #6293
by Mac
Replied by Mac on topic Reply from Dan McCoin
Jeremy,
Three things:
1 - Space is not an empty void without properties. You have permability for example. "Nothingness" cannot have properties.
2 - Einstien stated "Gentlemen we have not proven an aether does not exist, we have only jproven that we don't need one to do our computations."
3 - A finite universe does not require an egg shell boundry. An egg shell boundry leave the question what is beyond the edge. Consider instead that the boundry is defined by the absence of time or space, the absence of dimension.
The universe is finite but there is no void beyond the boundry.
It is also difficult to envision the inverse square law of gravity in an infinite universe. Assuming as I do in UniKEF and I believe MM does in a pushing gravity concept. If the universe was infinite then the cones of sources volume would be infinite at any seperation of m1 and m2 and infinite sources of gravity would not have an inverse square function.
Knowing to believe only half of what
you hear is a sign of intelligence.
Knowing which half to believe can make
you a genius.
Three things:
1 - Space is not an empty void without properties. You have permability for example. "Nothingness" cannot have properties.
2 - Einstien stated "Gentlemen we have not proven an aether does not exist, we have only jproven that we don't need one to do our computations."
3 - A finite universe does not require an egg shell boundry. An egg shell boundry leave the question what is beyond the edge. Consider instead that the boundry is defined by the absence of time or space, the absence of dimension.
The universe is finite but there is no void beyond the boundry.
It is also difficult to envision the inverse square law of gravity in an infinite universe. Assuming as I do in UniKEF and I believe MM does in a pushing gravity concept. If the universe was infinite then the cones of sources volume would be infinite at any seperation of m1 and m2 and infinite sources of gravity would not have an inverse square function.
Knowing to believe only half of what
you hear is a sign of intelligence.
Knowing which half to believe can make
you a genius.
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.
21 years 3 months ago #6294
by Jan
Replied by Jan on topic Reply from Jan Vink
<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote><font size=2 face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>
[Mac]: 2 - Einstien stated "Gentlemen we have not proven an aether does not exist, we have only jproven that we don't need one to do our computations."
<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size=2 id=quote>
What about when we "zoom in" enough? We may eventually detect a "presence" that simply does not like to be ignored?
[Mac]: 2 - Einstien stated "Gentlemen we have not proven an aether does not exist, we have only jproven that we don't need one to do our computations."
<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size=2 id=quote>
What about when we "zoom in" enough? We may eventually detect a "presence" that simply does not like to be ignored?
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.
21 years 3 months ago #6177
by wisp
Replied by wisp on topic Reply from Kevin Harkess
The very idea that a pair of separated particles cannot interact if they exist in "nothingness" is the key to understanding the nature of matter itself.
If instead, you consider matter as being a hole in ether space, then things make more sense. This is like a photographic negative of what we perceive - matter is caused by emptiness existing in full space.
My home page www.kevin.harkess.btinternet.co.uk gives details of my theory on this - wisp unification theory - particles of nothingness. Its free and it started by considering how forces propergate through emptiness; they can't. So we must have our understanding about matter and space wrong. Matter must be empty and space must be full. An empty space in the ether causes fractal patterns to form and from this matter-fractal shapes arise.
wisp
If instead, you consider matter as being a hole in ether space, then things make more sense. This is like a photographic negative of what we perceive - matter is caused by emptiness existing in full space.
My home page www.kevin.harkess.btinternet.co.uk gives details of my theory on this - wisp unification theory - particles of nothingness. Its free and it started by considering how forces propergate through emptiness; they can't. So we must have our understanding about matter and space wrong. Matter must be empty and space must be full. An empty space in the ether causes fractal patterns to form and from this matter-fractal shapes arise.
wisp
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.
- PoPpAScience
- Offline
- New Member
Less
More
- Thank you received: 0
21 years 3 months ago #6575
by PoPpAScience
Replied by PoPpAScience on topic Reply from
Gentleman, I get butterflies in my belly when I read all you have written here. The more I read in all the sites I go to, the more my "PoPpA" theory is proven. The only problem is my theory goes beyond anything people are working on today, and thus ignored when I write it down. If I had the math education some have here, I would have a better chance to show it.
I have been working on the concept of something from nothing sense I was 7 years old. I finally figured it out 10 years ago, in one of those eureka moments, at the age of 37. One of those moments when time stands still and all you ever studied falls into place. You know it is one of those special moments just like the ancients talk about, because it is breath taking.
This is a great site to talk about my theory, please give me a chance to discuss it with you all. Instead of writing my whole theory here, let me carry on with what you all are discussing here. But please give me a chance, I have very little writing experience.
I believe that there was only "Nothing", before there was "Everything". I see that "Everything" seems to come from something, so common sense says that the very first thing had to come from "Nothing". Something from "Nothing" , is a "Paradox". "Paradox" means something unexplainable, something from "Nothing" is also unexplainable. So, "Nothing" is a "Paradox".
All a "Paradox" needs to be "Everything", is "Potential". Now common sense says once again that the "Paradox" has to have "Potential", because after all, "here we are!" So, in the beginning there was a; "Paradox of Potential". There is only one thing that this "Potential" needed, to bring a "Paradox" into "Everything", and that is; the formula "V = 4 / 3(pi)(-r)^3". With this formula, the "Paradox of Potential" can fall inward, into infinity. This could be called reverse "Big Bang".
Now, what may cause a "Paradox of Potential" to fall inward upon itself you may ask? The most logical thing is "AWARE". The most important thing I see in the "Universe", is "AWARE". So, common sense says to me, that in the beginning a "Paradox of Potential popped Aware". Or, as I like to call it, "PoPpA". "PoPpA" coming from "Nothing" can only be aware of itself, and thus goes inward, seeking. Seeking what you may ask? "What", is the seeking, I answer.
All we see today is "PoPpA" "Evoluting" into "Being".
I will go further later if I am not laughed away. Thanks for letting me post here.
PoPpAScience.
I have been working on the concept of something from nothing sense I was 7 years old. I finally figured it out 10 years ago, in one of those eureka moments, at the age of 37. One of those moments when time stands still and all you ever studied falls into place. You know it is one of those special moments just like the ancients talk about, because it is breath taking.
This is a great site to talk about my theory, please give me a chance to discuss it with you all. Instead of writing my whole theory here, let me carry on with what you all are discussing here. But please give me a chance, I have very little writing experience.
I believe that there was only "Nothing", before there was "Everything". I see that "Everything" seems to come from something, so common sense says that the very first thing had to come from "Nothing". Something from "Nothing" , is a "Paradox". "Paradox" means something unexplainable, something from "Nothing" is also unexplainable. So, "Nothing" is a "Paradox".
All a "Paradox" needs to be "Everything", is "Potential". Now common sense says once again that the "Paradox" has to have "Potential", because after all, "here we are!" So, in the beginning there was a; "Paradox of Potential". There is only one thing that this "Potential" needed, to bring a "Paradox" into "Everything", and that is; the formula "V = 4 / 3(pi)(-r)^3". With this formula, the "Paradox of Potential" can fall inward, into infinity. This could be called reverse "Big Bang".
Now, what may cause a "Paradox of Potential" to fall inward upon itself you may ask? The most logical thing is "AWARE". The most important thing I see in the "Universe", is "AWARE". So, common sense says to me, that in the beginning a "Paradox of Potential popped Aware". Or, as I like to call it, "PoPpA". "PoPpA" coming from "Nothing" can only be aware of itself, and thus goes inward, seeking. Seeking what you may ask? "What", is the seeking, I answer.
All we see today is "PoPpA" "Evoluting" into "Being".
I will go further later if I am not laughed away. Thanks for letting me post here.
PoPpAScience.
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.
Time to create page: 0.256 seconds