Phi for All

You took the brain/sponge analogy too far.

This seems like a specific definition of empty space being applied to ALL space. It's unworkable as a scientific definition. It seems like you're purposely choosing an unworkable definition to show that your observation has merit, which is just a semantics trick. I, for one, wish you would stop wasting brain power and other intellectual resources to discuss these word games. There are many interesting things to ponder about the universe, and this isn't even close to being one of them. This isn't even interesting nit-picking, and we LOVE nit-picking! Because your reasoning in this regard is terrible.

Of course he's right. "Nothing can change" is probably the most untrue sentence ever uttered. The whole universe is based on change, try studying some chemistry.

! Moderator Note At the heart of the matter is your lack of physics knowledge, so how can you possibly judge whether an explanation (NOT an answer, science isn't looking for answers) is sound or not? How many times have the members posted something along the lines of "physics doesn't work like that"? Your threads are pages and pages of misunderstandings that could easily be cleared up IF you could put yourself in "learning mode" instead of "I don't understand so it must be wrong" mode. It's pretty insulting for you to be questioning the sound reasoning of people who studied this extensively, especially when they're taking their time to help. Doubly especially when basic concepts are met with "Please explain". I think everyone here is more interested in discussing science than they are teaching it, especially in this shambolic style where concepts continue to be misunderstood. It's great that you're interested, and you're obviously very smart, but how effective do you think this learning style is, where you guess at what you don't understand, and make judgements based on that lack of knowledge and understanding? It seems to generate a lot of questions (which are good) but not a lot of understanding. ! Moderator Note You ask for explanations but you reject them because you don't understand the underlying, basic physics principles at work. This Catch-22 is hampering your progress, I think. Do you feel as though you're learning anything here? Are you any closer in either supporting or rejecting your idea? You don't have to answer a modnote, but I want you to think about these questions. We're all just interested in discussing the best supported scientific explanations for various phenomena in a meaningful way, and I don't think that's happening here.

I was pointing out that assuming the BB was the "beginning of the universe" was incorrect. I think it's likely the universe is cyclic, but we can't assume it. We observe expansion, but what mechanism does the universe use to contract back?

Also, the BB wasn't necessarily the beginning of the universe. The BB theory describes only the development from an earlier very hot and very dense state. It's possible the universe has always existed.

! Moderator Note Two threads on the same story merged.

It seems to be a fairly well reviewed introductory treatment of the subject, so the prerequisite should be just some basic knowledge of maths and physics. Most books like this are light on the maths involved and focus on a verbal explanation that might resonate with the reader. If you have above average mathematic skills, you might enjoy a more technical textbook.

"Perhaps we can communicate with the aliens if they are aware of the EM spectrum." "We can develop the technology to capture what we need from space along the way to another system" "We can figure out new ways to communicate with alien cultures." "Aliens probably think differently." It's been a long time since I spoke any Hydrox. It's an older form of Oreo, where the middle is stressed before either end is considered.

You first need to define "stimulation" and "stimulants". Is caffeine a stimulant? It doesn't stimulate anything, really, it suppresses another substance that makes us drowsy. That's like swallowing saliva to make a parched throat feel better and claiming you're "hydrating". I also wouldn't put alcohol and cannabis in the same "stimulant" category with meth or cocaine. Passed-out drinkers/smokers don't seem as 'stimulated" as the folks who've been up for two days. I've never looked at "stimulation" as part of being intelligent. The opposite seems true, that someone who lacks knowledge and creativity would be more likely to crave something more interesting than the crickets in their heads. Wouldn't a truly intelligent person be more interested in exploring what their truly intelligent mind is capable of soberly investigating? Most people I know who partake in <insert substance of choice here> do it because they want a break from intelligent pursuits. They call it getting crazy for a reason. If there is any correlation, that's where I'd search for it. It's not about the stimulation, it's about throwing a blanket over the monkeys in your head.

So no evidence to satisfy normal healthy skepticism, and circular arguments that have no falsifiability, which we just have to take your word for, since you speak for your god(s). Physics that can be changed at will, rendering any "science" that might be discussed worthless. There is literally nothing meaningful we could discuss under these conditions. This is primarily a discussion forum, and you're here to teach/preach/soapbox your perspective. It's just not what we do here. Sorry. "Now if you were God, would you let a guy like that go around describing you? I'd have some kind of a run off I think if it were that fella." --George Carlin

Is any of this demostrable? Is there a way to support your assertions with scientific evidence? People have long claimed to have spoken to god(s), but it can never be repeated or tested. Why is that, I wonder? Perhaps you can ask your god.

Strange pointed out the problems with your definition of "become". Also, "not possible" is the same as impossible, meaning it can't EVER happen. Yet we KNOW change occurs, we see things changing by the normal, mainstream definition of the word ALL THE TIME (especially since the most fundamental change is time itself - something may not physically change in a nanosecond, except it does become a nanosecond older -- which is change!). All around us, things are changing in many ways. A tree can take the carbon away from a CO2 molecule to leave oxygen. The CO2 is transformed, the tree gets bigger, the O2 is converted to a breathable form. Change, change, change. I would encourage you to do some detailed, mainstream study to see what others have already determined on the subject. They'll use terms and definitions that most who study these things use, so discoveries and experiments are testable and repeatable by everyone. It will certainly make discussion more useful and meaningful to you.

Perhaps that's because you define space as "an area that is unoccupied or empty". An object occupying an unoccupyable region is troubling indeed. One of the greatest contributions of formal science study is precise definitions for sharing information as an ongoing part of the methodology. Everyone knows what the words mean, and it doesn't take pages just to explain what you're talking about. I encourage you to use mainstream terminology whenever you can, and ask rather than guessing or making it up.

Again, a very unhelpful definition. Different is NOT equal to contradictory.

The goalposts you just moved now need a bigger volume to occupy.

If a square is turning and friction wears away the corners so it's now circular, why wouldn't you say the square "became" a circle? If you put bread in a toaster and heat it, it "becomes" toast. The toast is a subset of bread (all toast is bread, not all bread is toast). The square with the corners worn off into a circle is no longer a square, but you could classify it with "objects that started out square". If you painted it green when it used to be red, it could be "things which became green". But none of this is really interesting. Change is inevitable, as we observe with spacetime constantly, and as we observe with evolution. Evolution is literally changes over time. When something "becomes" something else, it can retain parts of it's original state (toasted bread), it can be completely different (square is now a circle), or it can be essentially unchanged (knowledge can change your perspective, helping you "become aware" without changing anything else about you).

So empty space is a certain volume that doesn't have anything in it. But an object inside the volume doesn't have to have the same volume. The density of matter can vary within that space.

That's a poor definition. Space can't have anything in it? Of what use is that definition? Where would I use it? Where do I encounter space that has nothing in it?

What do you put in a toaster?

I think they're also watching his wealth potential swell to match his head. The next presidency will either plug the ethics loopholes in the job or exploit them even more now that Trump has stretched them out like a petite angora sweater.

I have to say, having a single party in charge of practically everything (which always made me uneasy) has broken up the log jams at the state level in Colorado. Like the US House, dems in CO have been passing bills on infrastructure, healthcare, environment, and many other issues while the Republicans (just like in DC) complain they aren't getting anything done (after spending years stalling on these very issues). But I actually hope Hickenlooper gets smacked down for his lack of progressive agenda. He's on about jobs being more important to the average person than social concerns. I think he's just promoting a different set of big businesses over voter representation.

! Moderator Note Then please stop it. If you want to blog, do so elsewhere. Others are taking their time to discuss What is Pain?

If you give me half a liter of your nothing, will it decrease in size?

! Moderator Note Rule 2.2: Plagiarism/copyright violation is unacceptable. Paraphrasing is acceptable, but direct copying and passing others' work off as your own thoughts is not. Furthermore, changing what others have written for the purpose of misquotation is equally unacceptable. ! Moderator Note This was pointed out to you, so you had a chance to avoid the warning point I'm giving you now. We don't copy anyone else's work here without giving a citation for the work THEY did. You should care about ethics, since it guides how information is used (which is what really matters).