Absolute emptiness

riff-raff-alunas
Offline
New Member

21 years 1 month ago #6184 by riff-raff-alunas

Replied by riff-raff-alunas on topic Reply from victoras nerkeliunas

OOPS

reply - PoPpA yeah, your right,

that moment when time stands still, the rest of
the world is not relevent- your mind & thoughts
are the only things that exist, THATS NOT AN
ANEURISM!! or an out-of-body experience (OBE)
thats the classic EPIPHANY

maybe, your supposto keep the theory close to your heart,
and not publish it too much...ya know how 'they'managed
to twist/warp/hedonize the unleashing of atomic energy-
...say wot

then theres' N.Tesla, among others... be careful partner

enjoy the journey

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

Jan
Offline
Elite Member

21 years 1 month ago #6185 by Jan

Replied by Jan on topic Reply from Jan Vink

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>
[Mac]: ANS: No. "Nothing" requires the absence of time and space. Without time and space no material thing can exist and you then have nothing.
<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote>

Quite a statement you give here. Shouldn't we need to know whether space-time is embedded in something or not? If that is not the case, then your argument becomes more plausible, however, like so many have said, space-time is still a mathematical concept.

What is it you mean by material things? Can every substance/particle be regarded as some mysterious "blob" of matter? What is this blob in the first place? So the material world as we understand is also very difficult to grasp, at least for me it is. Perhaps we should not view matter as "blobs" roaming in space, because we are ultimately fascinated by what the inside of such blob looks like. I would rather see matter as a special local state of some continuous substance that cannot be dicretised.

Anyway, to claim that without space-time we have nothing still does not explain why my lonely electron generates a magnetic field while it is traveling through space. <img src=icon_smile_sad.gif border=0 align=middle>

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

Mac
Offline
Platinum Member

21 years 1 month ago #6434 by Mac

Replied by Mac on topic Reply from Dan McCoin

Jan,

ANS: I'm trying to converse in the language being used. I don't personally agree with some of my own statements here but that becomes another issue. That is I don't link time-space as Relativity does and I don't see them "embedded" in something. They are the most basic something or origin of existance.

Actually I see time as an illusion created by energy. Energy flow causes change. Change is viewed as events and we catalog all simultaneous events as a "Dynamic Present". This yields the illusion of "Past", "Present" and allows the mind to envision a "Future".

No two observers have a "Dynamic Present" that is exactly alike. Each observer has his own unique perception of reality. That is your reality is actually comprised of a culmination of "Past" events.

In relation to another observer your reality (Dynamic Present) is comprised of both "Past" and "Future" events relative to the other observers view. In that regard any time you walk across the room you simultaneously enter the "Past" and "Future" relative to your original ordinate point.

In this view time is not a tangiable enity or a 4th dimension. It is an illusion of energy flow (entrophy) of the universe. that is why time travel will never happen. You would have to reverse the flow of entrophy; including the expansion of the universe and supernova, etc., throughout the universe to truely reverse time.

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>Anyway, to claim that without space-time we have nothing still does not explain why my lonely electron generates a magnetic field while it is traveling through space.<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote>

The electron is not lonely. It is encompassed in or by space which ISN'T "Nothing", it has properties and it is those properties that allow (or cause) the electrons reaction to motion just as magnets passing a coil cause electron motion.

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.

Jeremy
Offline
Elite Member

21 years 1 month ago #6186 by Jeremy

Replied by Jeremy on topic Reply from

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>
I would have to say there is far more evidence that the universe is finite than that it is infinite. Neither have been proven but finite may be proven and infinite can never be proven. Is it not the rule in science that if a theory can not be tested and proven right or wrong then it is not a valid theory. Prove "Infinity"
<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote>

First of all, Occam's razor allows me the beginning assumption of infinite 3D cartesian geometry. It is not MY burden to prove the universe infinite or cartesian but yours and the other cosmologists to show otherwise. And by the way, I know of no way to prove that the universe is finite either. If you find a boundary at 10^12 light years where everything is empty beyond then how do you know that at 10^40 light years matter might be hanging out there? We must also be considerate of the fact that what is true may not be provable. The fact that one cannot make a practical measurement of infinity does not mean that it does not exist.

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>
So all we have to do is arbitrarily discount Newton and substitue an arbitrary limit on gravity, then we can still claim the universe is the unproven and unproveable "Infinite"? Not very scientific. Have we ever detected such a limit on gravity?
<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote>

Who is arbitrarily discounting Newton? The finite range of gravity is a direct consequence of applying Newton's principles to an infinite universe. This limit on the range of gravity is what Tom uses in the MM to explain the linear rotation rate of galaxies. In any case it is reasonable to assume that gravity peters out eventually, one cannot punch a number into an equation and expect the result to be valid for any value of distance that one might put in. Nature always shows that we must add extra factors when we push the limits. I consider it "not very scientific" to look at rotation rates of galaxies and derive invisible matter that no one can demonstrate to exist.

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>
No. "Nothing" requires the absence of time and space. Without time and space no material thing can exist and you then have nothing.
<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote>

This seems to me to be equivalent to my defining it as a lack of substance. Space has a figure/ground relationship with the matter in it. One can't be defined except in relation to the other. If there is no space there is therefore also no matter and no time also. Fair enough.

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

wisp
Offline
Senior Member

21 years 1 month ago #6296 by wisp

Replied by wisp on topic Reply from Kevin Harkess

quote:
_____________________________________________________________________
Anyway, to claim that without space-time we have nothing still does not explain why my lonely electron generates a magnetic field while it is traveling through space.
_____________________________________________________________________

Think of nothing or emptiness as being a hole in the ether. Then all of space is full of something, which is held together by nuclear forces. Then nothing does not control space or time, it is just a hole. Then this holes disturbes the ether and it creates a shpherical pattern. The pattern moves through the ether pushing it apart (causing quantum waves). The lonley electron is not a perfect spherical shape, it is asymmetrical and has a twist. As it moves its shape rotates (magnetic field).
So it is not lonely, it interacts with the ether, and if it meets another electron the two rotating patterns interact.

wisp

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

Mac
Offline
Platinum Member

21 years 1 month ago #6514 by Mac

Replied by Mac on topic Reply from Dan McCoin

Jeremy,

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>First of all, Occam's razor allows me the beginning assumption of infinite 3D cartesian geometry. It is not MY burden to prove the universe infinite or cartesian but yours and the other cosmologists to show otherwise.<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote>

ANS: We have a disagreement here already. By what authority do you presume that we have a burden of proof vs you having a burden of proof. Such a burden would only exist if there was a general consensus that the universe is infinite. I know of no such consensus.
Occam's Razor it seems would dictate just the opposite. Finite is far more simple than Infinite. Infinite is unresolved and unresolvable.

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>And by the way, I know of no way to prove that the universe is finite either. If you find a boundary at 10^12 light years where everything is empty beyond then how do you know that at 10^40 light years matter might be hanging out there?<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote>

AND:This statement makes it clear you still do not understand my definition of "Nothingness" or the signifigance of the lack of time and space (not time-space).

"If you find a boundary at 10^12 light years where everything is empty beyond..."

ANS: There is no beyond the finite boundry formed by the loss of time and space. As bizzar as the concept might seem it is as though the "surface (which is mobius and hence only one sided) is a point of singularity.

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>We must also be considerate of the fact that what is true may not be provable. The fact that one cannot make a practical measurement of infinity does not mean that it does not exist.<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote>

ANS: I would have to agree with this position; except I don't agree with the conclusion that infinite can be applied to anything physical and the universe and its dimensions are physical.

quote:

So all we have to do is arbitrarily discount Newton and substitue an arbitrary limit on gravity, then we can still claim the universe is the unproven and unproveable "Infinite"? Not very scientific. Have we ever detected such a limit on gravity?

Who is arbitrarily discounting Newton? The finite range of gravity is a direct consequence of applying Newton's principles to an infinite universe. This limit on the range of gravity is what Tom uses in the MM to explain the linear rotation rate of galaxies. In any case it is reasonable to assume that gravity peters out eventually, one cannot punch a number into an equation and expect the result to be valid for any value of distance that one might put in. Nature always shows that we must add extra factors when we push the limits. I consider it "not very scientific" to look at rotation rates of galaxies and derive invisible matter that no one can demonstrate to exist.

ANS: I am not subscribing to the above theory regarding rotating galaxies but only want to ask why you find preposing "Infinite" universes (which can NEVER be shown to exist) more plausible than material that HAS NOT YET been shown to exist?

quote:

No. "Nothing" requires the absence of time and space. Without time and space no material thing can exist and you then have nothing.

This seems to me to be equivalent to my defining it as a lack of substance. Space has a figure/ground relationship with the matter in it. One can't be defined except in relation to the other. If there is no space there is therefore also no matter and no time also. Fair enough.

Hey progress. We actually agree on something.<img src=icon_smile_big.gif border=0 align=middle>

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.

Time to create page: 0.358 seconds