Rainman

I would never ridicule good science. I would, however, ridicule absurd deductions made from good science. To me, the science is good but the mathmatics is what is failing us when we are discussing infinities, both large and small.

Science seems to be saying that God must be made up of "somethings" that have a unit size of less than one "Planck length". Why? Because in physics, the Planck length, is a unit of length, equal to 1.616252(81)×10−35 meters and is the smallest distance or size about which anything can be known. Move this idea into Big Bang theory. Following scientific reasoning to date, "Pure Vacuum" or "absolutely nothing" does not exist and specifically did not exist in the Universe before or at the exact instant of the Big Bang. However science is concluding that something existed concurrently with the instant of the Big Bang...but just not Pure Vacuum and, according to physics, not matter, or energy or anything currently known. Hmmm. Something existed at the instant of the Big Bang but it is not known and probably can not be known. Then that something must be made up of some "things" less than one Planck length. It looks to me like science is in the process of measuring God.

Wow. So you believe in some of the absurdities? You believe that there can be an infinite number of photons residing at any given point in this Universe and between that infinite number of photons and the next possible infinite number of photons residing in the Universe at the next point there is no Perfect Vacuum. This whole infinite mess is all touching? and you would never think that there might be something wrong with the actually experimentations themselves that SEEM to prove this? Your concept of a universe seems to me to allow infinite "fullness" and zero motion. We seem to be living in different universes. It must be a problem with our definitions.

So, let me get this straight, you are saying that any number of photons with integer spins can coexist at the same point... which means an infinite number of photons with the same integer spin can coexist at the same point. Help me understand how this can have real meaning in this universe other than to point out that sometimes science predicts absurdities? Wouldn't that absurdity make you rethink the "proof"? It does to me. Something is fishy here. It might be in the defintions of photon, point, and co-existence. Confuses the hell out of me.

There is a big difference between two protons existing in the same space at the same "time" and at the same "instant" as far as I can figure it out. Using "time" the way science uses "time" is using time as a concept or a measurement and doesn't necessarily mean that time "exists" thus it is theoretically possible for two protons to be in the same position at the same "time" but could never happen in the real Universe. I use the word "instant" which is less mathmatical and much less precise but much more realistic. Beyond the world of mathmatics two "things" of any type can never exist in the same place at the same instant. To do so leads to absurdities and, for sure, the universe is not absurd.

A "pure vacuum" is not simply the opposite of a scientific plenum. A "pure vacuum" is absolutely nothing...if you will. Philosophically, pure vacuum would be the opposite of all things that exist. I think the concept of "pure vacuum" is a bit scary for physicists because it cannot be found using science since science can never detect all matter/energy down to infinitely small sizes. However, I think pure vacuum has to exist not only as a mere concept (like time), but as a non-detectable piece of the universe simply because without it we can not have movement. If all matter/energy is touching then we can have no movement...but we have movement....so "pure vacuum" has to exist.

Imagine the smallest unit of matter, energy, "matter/energy", or whatever, and have it move. The space it moves into must be vacant. What I am saying is that this vacant space must be a pure vacuum. There can not be any matter, energy, "matter/energy" occupying that space or no movement can occur.

There is much debate over the existence of "pure vacuum" but not over the existence of motion. How can motion of any kind exist without pure vacuum or "nothing"? Merged post follows: Consecutive posts mergedso you are siding with me?....pure vacuum is necessary for movement? inside or outside a stadium.

I'm with you on having trouble understanding using 2-d and 4-d balloons to explain a 3-d problem. Apples and oranges. 2-d balloons and 4-d explanations just don't hack it in this real world of real, existing, galaxies. For example, the 2-d balloon expands but the 2-d material it is made of doesn't. To me, its a simplistic way of explaining the "what is the universe expanding into?" question. apples and oranges.

If all existing "things", matter/energy,or whatever, are actually touching when it comes to infinitely small volumes, then how can there be movement in the Universe? It's an accepted fact that there is motion in the Universe so shouldn't we be concluding that, in infinitely small volumes of the Universe there is the pure vacuum of "nothing" that allows for this movement of everything else?