Peron Posted February 5, 2009 Posted February 5, 2009 (edited) Let me start by saying, something cannot and never exsist in nothing. Planets, stars, Galaxies, cannot float around in empty space. Therefore Space isnt empty, it has to be built out of something, some particale has to be keeping all this we see toghter. Right? or wrong? I call this the Real Universe, the universe composed of this particale. With in this real universe, our tiny matter cloud sits, expanding possibly into empty space. :-) I call it Tender Blue Edited February 5, 2009 by Peron
Klaynos Posted February 5, 2009 Posted February 5, 2009 So... What we need here is mathematical predictions and evidence... What effect would this have that we could test for?
cameron marical Posted February 10, 2009 Posted February 10, 2009 i agree, with mathmaticall proof of this existance or at least a possibility of its esence along with maybe some tests i think you could come up with your own theory of on this. id beleive it, so long as it showed possible scientific evidence of its existance.
Daecon Posted February 10, 2009 Posted February 10, 2009 Um... "empty" space is already made of stuff. Quantum foam.
Martin Posted February 10, 2009 Posted February 10, 2009 Hi Peron, Models of the universe are the focus of the science of cosmology. Cosmology is a mathematical science. Meaning that it uses mathematical models, constructs them, tests them, fits them to data. There is a standard model which is great! You should learn about it! It has two basic equations. You adjust a halfdozen numbers and it goes (reconstructs the growth of the universe---tells you its age, its expansion rate at various times in its history) and gives a good fit to millions of datapoints. This sets the bar fairly high. If you want to describe a competing model, it can't just be words. It has to have an underlying mathematical definition. AND AS KLAYNOS reminded you, it has to make predictions about observations, it has to fit observational data. My advice would be to start by understanding something about the existing model. I have links to good places to start, in my signature, small print at the end of this post. I'd recommend the article by "Charley", and after that the Einstein Online pages. 2
boxhead Posted February 10, 2009 Posted February 10, 2009 Either is an age old concept and you are not telling anything different I hope. Nothing is empty except nothing.
Tangointhenight Posted February 10, 2009 Posted February 10, 2009 So... What we need here is mathematical predictions and evidence... What effect would this have that we could test for? "PHILOSOPHY AND YOUR RANDOM THOUGHTS ARE NOT SCIENCE DO NOT POST THEM AS SUCH " Unless its backed by logic :eyebrow::eyebrow: Merged post follows: Consecutive posts mergedA few years ago I began work on a hypotheses/theory what ever you wanna call it. I have been a relativist for sometime, but when I began work on trying to explain everything, I saw that by theories did not fit with the standard cosmological models. I had evidence that didn't fit with the standard model. Then I drop my following with the mainstream scientists, and began a independent study of the universe. The first two months I dedicated in observing the universe, the trying to explain what I saw. Then I formed by theory around the observations. The theory was simple, in space there is nothing, how can matter exist in this empty vacuum. Of course don't forget I tossed aside the standard thinking. But my theory failed, I saw that it wouldn't work. So I ask my mathematician friend to help me, he did, and the numbers didn't line up with what we where observing. So I abandoned, the ideas I had. Actually I didn't revisit them for about two years. Then I was browsing through forums and found what PERON was saying, He called it Tender Blue. I contacted him, and asked him to tell me more. He did, he told me I was doing it all wrong that I needed to start from the particle level instead of observing space. So I did, looking at how atoms and subatomic particle's function. Contacted my mathematical friend again, and asked him to build me a model of how a particle could exist, building the atom, and the rest of matter. We found that the numbers did fit, and that a medium in space could exist.
Baby Astronaut Posted February 10, 2009 Posted February 10, 2009 .....he told me I was doing it all wrong that I needed to start from the particle level instead of observing space.So I did, looking at how atoms and subatomic particle's function. Contacted my mathematical friend again, and asked him to build me a model of how a particle could exist, building the atom, and the rest of matter. We found that the numbers did fit, and that a medium in space could exist. So publish it. Or share it with others.
johnbrandy Posted February 11, 2009 Posted February 11, 2009 The universe is not a mathematical construct. No doubt, mathematical principle and concepts can and have been derived from astronomical observation, and electronic monitoring of certain objects, and elements in the universe. Therefore mathematical "explanations" of the universe are inherently flawed. I did not say that there are not mathematical interpretation of certain phenomenon. I did not suggest it is not possible to predict certain events in the universe. What I am indication is the impossibility of adequately characterizing the exact properties of space, and most of the 'known' universe based upon the mere faction we presume to know; and often subject to radical revision. Specifically, I question the rational for the belief that space must, of necessity harbor any thing in particular; particles, atoms, or whatever. Besides, space is not the same as nothing; in your sense. Einstein suggested, as a result of gravitational influence, that space has a geometry. Therefore space is not a distinct fact, but an interaction; a function dependent upon certain influences. Perhaps this explanation does not explain space itself. Space, in the ordinary sense, is merely that with objects occupy. Wheres lies the question? It lies with the domain of syntax, grammar, and word sense. This casual definition does not exclude planetary bodies, or the universe at large. I believe we a "sawing the air," and posing question without foundation, and probable worthy of philosophy, not science.
ajb Posted February 11, 2009 Posted February 11, 2009 The universe is not a mathematical construct. Yet theoretical cosmology is....
allien Posted February 11, 2009 Posted February 11, 2009 Then I was browsing through forums and found what PERON was saying, He called it Tender Blue. I contacted him, and asked him to tell me more. He did, he told me I was doing it all wrong that I needed to start from the particle level instead of observing space. I think, This is the rihgt way, first micro cosmos than macro cosmos. I started the relation between nucleons and quarks. After that I worked smaller and bigger particles. My tender blue is (minimum part of) neutrino (single couple of positrino and electrino).
elas Posted February 13, 2009 Posted February 13, 2009 He did, he told me I was doing it all wrong that I needed to start from the particle level instead of observing space. On the 28 Dec I became involved in a debate with some academics on why Fluorine (9Fl) is the most corrosive of elements while Neon (10Ne) is inert. But one retired academic insisted on discussing gravity. As part of the gravity debate, I pointed out that if gravitons exist (I think they do), then observed gravity is only possible if the number of gravitons in infinity is both infinite and constant. After 11/2 hours of debate no one had broken down my propositions on either subject. On the basis of that discussion I would recommend that you start with the graviton, but do not expect to much; my attempts to do so on forums have met with rejection and silence but, at least for the present I have a few professionals who are providing the constructive criticism needed to improve presentation. Always keep in mind the words of Isaac Newton who started the debate; "the universe is a thing of great simplicity" and "perhaps the universe is corpuscular in nature". Any solution that is neither 'simple' nor 'corpuscular' should be seriously challenged.
ajb Posted February 13, 2009 Posted February 13, 2009 Why do I think this tread is going to get moved to speculations? I am quite happy to talk about gravitons, provided we do some "real physics" and not just wild speculations with no justification.
Sayonara Posted February 13, 2009 Posted February 13, 2009 "PHILOSOPHY AND YOUR RANDOM THOUGHTS ARE NOT SCIENCE DO NOT POST THEM AS SUCH "Unless its backed by logic Philosophy and random thoughts, backed up by logic, are still not "science" unfortunately. The method is more stringently specified than that.
Daecon Posted February 13, 2009 Posted February 13, 2009 What's the quantum foam theorized to be composed of? Is it string?
Klaynos Posted February 14, 2009 Posted February 14, 2009 The universe is not a mathematical construct. I'd quite like you to prove that statement... I'm not sure if it is or isn't but it does seem very much like it might be to me...
Daecon Posted February 14, 2009 Posted February 14, 2009 Mathematically it behaves like a holographic construct. Or something. I'm not entirely sure exactly. But what would the holographic image be imprinted ON? I'm fairly certain the Universe can be completely explained in terms of mathematics, otherwise the Universe wouldn't be able to work "itself" out when stuff happens. As such, if the Universe and a mathematical representation of the Universe are indistinguishable, how can we be sure there's really a difference?
Royston Posted February 14, 2009 Posted February 14, 2009 (edited) What's the quantum foam theorized to be composed of? Virtual particles, if you're really that interested (and akin to the Friedmann equations, and cosmology being an extension of fluid dynamics) as a starting point, look up bubble mechanics, and apply quantum theory, this is a very specialized field BTW. Way above my head, e.g relativistic fluid dynamics is uber hard in itself, i.e I simply wouldn't go there until I have a solid grounding in the subjects...i.e relativity, and fluid dynamics. Is it string? There are string models of quantum foam, yes, if that's what you meant. Edited February 14, 2009 by Snail
boxhead Posted February 16, 2009 Posted February 16, 2009 This is no new thought it is there for thousands of years. People speculate and create theories around that. May be we dont have any model for universe that we can say is perfect till date. I hope it is not going to be discovered soon atleast. Mathematical models alone can not explain universe, there are thousands of probabilities about different models that can not be proved mathematically but seems perfect to common understanding. so...
Sovereign Posted February 16, 2009 Posted February 16, 2009 Let me start by saying, something cannot and never exsist in nothing. Of course something cannot exist in nothing, since there is nothing there for it to exist in. Objects aren't made of space(nothingness) they are separated by it.
thief Posted February 26, 2009 Posted February 26, 2009 Thief here... Just questions.... Is it not true...that a some extent...numbers fail? Are there not equations for which there is standing bounty for the solutions? The universe, is often described as expanding from one point. If that be true...then how can that point be 'singular'? If the singularity is truly singular...then there can be no secondary point. Without the secondary...no height, no width, no length, no time. Without dimensions....no calculations. The void is not truly a void, if there is geometry. Last night I watched a science program aimed about extreme cold. Without heat...matter takes a new scheme of things. Does the singularity have any thermal 'dimension' in accepted constructs?
Peron Posted April 8, 2009 Author Posted April 8, 2009 So... What we need here is mathematical predictions and evidence... What effect would this have that we could test for? i agree, with mathmaticall proof of this existance or at least a possibility of its esence along with maybe some tests i think you could come up with your own theory of on this. id beleive it, so long as it showed possible scientific evidence of its existance. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planck%27s_constant Empty space is full of energy one gram would be enough to vaparize the Earths oceans in a second. Whoa. Hope that never happens. Tender Blue, explains why there is so much energy in space. Without atoms there would be no energy. We would not exist. So, we can't just be floating around in empty space. Empty space, is just that, it's empty! So space cannot be empty it has to have a structure just like everything else. Just like our atoms, this particale which is everywhere, keeps everything toghter. And this particale has enough energy to power the entire planet with clean electrical power for billions of years. This could be sub-space, but not the sub-space in the movies, the reason i call it subspace, is because of how small it is. Anyway we float around like bugs in water, in this particale. He he, The particale is the structure of space. And for tests, we need to study quentum tunneling and then we will find that space in fact is made of this particale.
Sayonara Posted April 8, 2009 Posted April 8, 2009 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planck%27s_constant Empty space is full of energy one gram would be enough to vaparize the Earths oceans in a second. What, a gram of energy or a gram of empty space?
Peron Posted April 9, 2009 Author Posted April 9, 2009 What, a gram of energy or a gram of empty space? Yeah that is confusing. But ever wonder where the photon gets it's energy to quentum tunnel? The space particale! Well, it's complete and utter bull unless someone tests for it. But the Planck's Constant proves space is made out of a particale. There is more stuff, but I cant find it right now.
mooeypoo Posted April 9, 2009 Posted April 9, 2009 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gram The gram (often gramme in British English), (Greek/Latin root grámma); symbol g, is a unit of mass. Originally defined as "the absolute weight of a volume of pure water equal to the cube of the hundredth part of a metre, and at the temperature of melting ice"[1] (later 4 °C), a gram is now defined as one one-thousandth of the SI base unit, the kilogram, or 1×10-3 kg, which itself is defined as being equal to the mass of a physical prototype preserved by the International Bureau of Weights and Measures. Gram is a unit that describes mass. Empty space has no mass. Energy has no mass either. The use of the term in this context is meaningless.
Recommended Posts