rigney

Appreciate your input and wish I could conjecture, but being only a layman; I'm lost. But, is there something prevalent in my madness that makes sense?

Yes, somehow I didn't ask the question properly. But, is it Gods fault or natures; that we have to eat each other to exist? Someone please respond to this question!!

A bit tougher, but I would ask: What door would you take to freedom as compared to the one you suggest for me?

Without trying to be controversial, I don't believe there is such a thing as "space fabric". One has to remember that our universe is moving outward at a constant rate of speed? After thirteen+ billions of years, other than vectorial differences; "each bit" of matter has a pretty good idea where it is going. My understanding of ether is that, it is simply space itself, "and static". Not moving as the universe does, but allowing matter, regardless of configuration; to move unbstructed. I see "space fabric" as magnetism in rotational variables that has, over the millenia brought the universe into consort.

Unless two photons are superimposed, wouldn't they have different time frames?

If relativity is correct, as to space and time being curved, wouldn't it be impossible to find two time frames that did agree?

Did GOD or nature decide that there would be "food chains" among all living creatures? And can science save us from this ignorance? Hope this is a better explanation.

If I give you my definition of Einsteins "fabric of space", which is somewhat off subjest, it will make you laugh. Just not too hard though. But I believe ether, space; or what ever it's called, has been here forever. I also believe our universe is "Cyclic". From the first moment of conception, birth, creation etc. I believe it has been moving outward at a constant speed? Debatable? Yes. And the "I believes" are hopefully to keep me out of trouble since I profess nothing factually. Anyway, after a few million years or so, this extended plasma began to coalesce into what we consider matter. But the universe didn't slow down in speed, but continued on its merry way. After a billion years or so this matter began to concentrate into huge balls due to magnetism and gravity. Just keep in mind, my: "I Thinks", not facts.If you would like to go farther into my dream world, just ask. If not, let's conclude this thread.

Maybe a bit of mis-communication on my part, but I believe the words, ether and space are interchangable, not something in space, like; dust, atoms or photons. Personally not knowing, I refer to it as a; "continuum of un-real estate". Can't get much more of an ignorant meaning than that. The MM thing? It was done over a hundred years ago in a sterile, but ground based lab. Today we see many anomalies that were overlooked back then. If the Higgs boson is found to be the backbone of our universe, you'll not have to beat me up to change my mind. 'Till then, I'll believe that space is a physical entity, not simply a vacuum. My pity goes out to those who somehow are convinced they have no fallacies.

Don't believe I referred to it as "aether", but ether, not that it matters. But space itself, I believe it is there whether we like it or not. Science may eventually convince me that it isn't a physical thing, but where there is ambiguity;I have my doubts. The Higgs boson, if it is found?, may shed some light on my ignorance.

I get in a lot of trouble by asking, but have there been tests done to substantiate these assertions as fact? My ideas are only brainstorms, so they are only questions. But you have to remember, we have only been going into space for the past 50 or so years. Maybe we missed something???

Question is, have we ever brought a container(s) of uncontaminated ether back from space? Is it a pressure, vacuum or neutral? If we take the cylinder under water and release the contents, will it make a bubble or not? I know there are many contaminates in inter- stellar space that can not be ruled out. If the container is heated, will there be a pressure, due to expansion? If it is cooled to -200F or so, will there be a vacuum created due to shrinkage? These are only layman questions, but have they been tried, and if so do you know the results?Thanks I found the following interesting. http://discovermagazine.com/1992/mar/vacuummatters9

With no background in science, especially physics, I'm not trying to be controversial or a smart a--; just inquisitive? But I do believe "ether" is a physical part of our universe not remotely understood at this time. Have we ever brought back a bucket of the stuff to be analyzed? (uncontaminated cylinders, not vacuumed or pressurized, that is). Almost every test I find has to do with photons and other exotic particles racing through it, not space itself. Can anyone lead me to any physical tests that have been done?

But what?

I gave you a reasonable experment to conduct, but you; like the T Man didn't think it worth while. But a volume of what?, do you propose, lets everything else occupy it? Isn't that statement in itself little more than an assertive ambiguity?

In this case, if you are relating relevence as facts, forget it. Neither you nor I or anyone else can explain or refute this issue. I believe from what I have read, that space is a physical entity. Can I prove it? No! No more than your ability to disprove it. Atmosphere? Without space, the (ether); there would be no atmosphere for us to exist. I was using it as an example, not a comparison. And whether you accept my ideas or not, I'm convinced that space itself is a complete and necessary entity of our universe. http://www.theofficenet.com/~rad/Space.htm

doG, I've only been on this science kick a couple of years now and honestly, am not too swift at it. Actually things get more bewildering as I dig deeper. Last night I was thinking of an experiment that may shed some light on my ignorance. Likely it has been done hundreds of times of which I am unaware. But perhaps someone on the forum is familiar with it? A glass sphere 1' in diameter is designed to withstand an external pressure of 10 atmospheres., or a vacuum of -10 atmospheres. It is then evacuated to -9.99 atmospheres and placed in a visible water colume. How far down must it sink before imploding? And when it does implode, will the gas bubble being released represent the size of the sphere, or the .1 atmosphere of gas in the sphere? The following link has many explanations and formulae. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pressure

I wasn't trying to equate it as a game, just common sense. Suppose at fifty miles into the stratosphere, you could actually stick a fully extended paper bag from a window of your space craft. Would it continue to expand, be squashed or remain stolid?

No assertions, bald or otherwise were intended; just simple physics. If you blow a paper bag up whether at sea level or fifty miles into the blue, it will expand to some measure? Now, "inhale" from the bag and it will collapse back to its original state. Simple mechanics. A cylinder is no different. You may perhaps have to expend a bit more energy to vacuum it out to (implode)it as a bubble might do, but the cylinder will eventually cave in. Universal ether being what it is, will instantly move in to replace any lost space. Can you refute the statement? If so, please explain; since at eighty years I'm a sucker for enlightment.

Is there not space inside a chamber during evacuation, and until implosion?

I only asked a question about the physical change of pressure or vacuum on the container, not whether it would implode or explode.

No, I believe it's a matter of semantics. Pressure is pressure and vacuum is vacuum regardless of where the experiment is taking place. Atmospheric or barometric pressure is calculated to give you the varying degrees of vacuum or pressure we live in here on earth or in atmospheric flight. Outside that zone nothing changes, other than the scale used to calculate such change. I ask, would a container pressurized to 1 ccm here on earth, show the same reading when arriving on the moon?

Don't know! Please define crackpot, end to end? I read just about everything to be found on the internet. Not saying everything is truth. but some of these quotes are from papers written by very distinguished scientists and physicists. Should I disregard their years of research and dedication as "crackpottery"?

After looking at a few essays I found that some scientists and physicists actually do rely on the word "something" from time to time. The following link about the dynamics of physical ether was interesting. http://www.softcom.net/users/greebo/phys1.htm