New Thought on The Universe.

[Sayonara]

How are we going to get him to try and show us a gram of energy now you have told him that?

[A Childs Mind]

The universe is not a mathematical construct.

 

thats not true our univers everything around us is one big mathimaticle equashion. ever were you look math is there . it all consits of numbers and leters

[Daecon]

Mathematics is the software that runs the Universe.

[Klaynos]

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.

 

You quote my request for mathematical predictions and evidence and yet don't seem to make any... I am puzzled by this.

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

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.

 

We know where the energy comes from. It is "borrowed" from the universe for a very short time, it is closely linked with the time-energy uncertainty principle. This has been tested numerous times...

 

Planck's Constant by itself is just a number, it proves nothing.

[Peron]

Well, no one on earth has the technology to actually see this particle I am predicting. So there really is no way to prove its existence.

 

But about the gram of space, when I said space i was talking about the particle. One gram of this particle can vapourize the earths oceans in one second.

 

The Planck's constant, the massively powerful frequency's at which space (the particle) vibrates at. The casmir effect proves its existence.

If you match the same frequency, you can couple with the particle and poof the world is destroyed.

 

And this idea explains Quantum tunnelling. Actually the first time I ever heard of Quantum tunnelling was when I was in middle school. That's when my theory took shape, and this is exactly what Quantum tunnelling is, the particle borrows like he said, from the universe, this is the universe is the particle. Then it moves through the universe like a wave. And this is exactly what we have observed.

 

Now of course you canmake better space travel with this idea. You create a superpowerful EM sheild, it has to be at a certian frequancy, then give it at least 14 exawatts of power, and poof, you could in theory quentum tunnel.

[mooeypoo]

Well, no one on earth has the technology to actually see this particle I am predicting. So there really is no way to prove its existence.

That does it, then, doesn't it?

 

You don't need to "see" it to prove its existence, there are plenty of particles that were proven by observing predicted phenomena they produce rather than observing them directly.

 

Unless you come up with some way to prove its existence (and lack thereof, don't forget your theory must be falsifiable as well), your theory is useless.

[ydoaPs]

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.

 

What lies between the particales keeping all this we see toghter?

[Klaynos]

Unless you come up with some way to prove its existence (and lack thereof, don't forget your theory must be falsifiable as well), your theory is useless.

 

Not only is it useless but it's not a theory!

[Peron]

Not only is it useless but it's not a theory!

 

One gram of the particle. When I say space, I mean the particle. Sorry for not making that clear.

 

But the theory is not useless, using this theory, I have come up with ways of instant communication, faster then light travel, and harnessing energy from the particle. Their are many more things that can be extracted from the "theory".

 

Your right it's not a theory, it's a logical explanation of the universe, and where it came from.

Of course, proof and evidence remains to be gathered, but if someone looks closer they will find what their looking for.

 

I know why their is so much hostility, you guys think I'm challenging your ideas about the universe, but I am not, I am simply pointing out what others are missing.

[mooeypoo]

One gram of the particle. When I say space, I mean the particle. Sorry for not making that clear.

If it's undetectable, how do you measure a gram of it?

 

But the theory is not useless, using this theory, I have come up with ways of instant communication, faster then light travel, and harnessing energy from the particle. Their are many more things that can be extracted from the "theory".

I can do the same by using the miraculously invisible pink unicorn, whose existence is undetectable too, as well as unfalsifiable (he just doesn't *want* to be detected, see?)

 

Without proof and a way to measure the particle itself *or* it's effects on its environment, and without falsifiability, your theory is not a theory.

 

Your right it's not a theory, it's a logical explanation of the universe, and where it came from.

And without the above, it's far from logical. You have no way of detecting it and yet you claim it must exist... how is that any form of logic?

 

Of course, proof and evidence remains to be gathered, but if someone looks closer they will find what their looking for.

Well, good luck with that.

 

You can't seriously expect anyone to put any time and money into this without convincing us that there's a reason for this particle to exist. So far, its existence is as supported as that of my miraculously invisible pink unicorn. Would you go out to gather evidence for my unicorn?

 

I know why their is so much hostility, you guys think I'm challenging your ideas about the universe, but I am not, I am simply pointing out what others are missing.

It's not hostility, it's stating the facts. You have nothing, and supplied no evidence. There's no reason why anyone would take this seriously as it stands right now.

We're not missing anything - the current theories explain the situation quite well, and they are supported by evidence, observation and mathematics. Why would we want to replace a WORKING theory with one that has no corroboration, no evidence, no way of validation, no falsifiability, and no math?

 

Science is supposed to be *improving* its theories, not take 100 steps backwards while standing on its head.

 

~moo

[Peron]

Facts??

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vacuum_energy

 

As you can see, my "idea" explains where this energy is coming from.

[Klaynos]

Facts??

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vacuum_energy

 

As you can see, my "idea" explains where this energy is coming from.

 

Would you care to show me how it predicts this mathematically? If it does not it's not as predictive as quantum mechanics and we can throw your idea out.

[mooeypoo]

Facts??

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vacuum_energy

 

As you can see, my "idea" explains where this energy is coming from.

What about the other questions that I asked, and show your theory to be bunk?

[Peron]

Would you care to show me how it predicts this mathematically? If it does not it's not as predictive as quantum mechanics and we can throw your idea out.

 

I cant predict this with match. I would, but I dont know how.

 

You asked for tests, and here is one test you can do to prove this particle exists. Take a bank of capacitors, charge the first one with electricity, then discharge the energy throughout the entire bank. If you do this in a vacuum chamber and if the system moves, then the particle does exist.

For now, the theory is its infancy. But if this test is correct then the particle exists.

 

You all seem to think that some how I believe in my own theories. I dont, no one should believe in their theories. Untill they are tested.

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

If it's undetectable, how do you measure a gram of it?

 

 

I can do the same by using the miraculously invisible pink unicorn, whose existence is undetectable too, as well as unfalsifiable (he just doesn't *want* to be detected, see?)

 

Without proof and a way to measure the particle itself *or* it's effects on its environment, and without falsifiability, your theory is not a theory.

 

 

And without the above, it's far from logical. You have no way of detecting it and yet you claim it must exist... how is that any form of logic?

 

 

Well, good luck with that.

 

You can't seriously expect anyone to put any time and money into this without convincing us that there's a reason for this particle to exist. So far, its existence is as supported as that of my miraculously invisible pink unicorn. Would you go out to gather evidence for my unicorn?

 

 

It's not hostility, it's stating the facts. You have nothing, and supplied no evidence. There's no reason why anyone would take this seriously as it stands right now.

We're not missing anything - the current theories explain the situation quite well, and they are supported by evidence, observation and mathematics. Why would we want to replace a WORKING theory with one that has no corroboration, no evidence, no way of validation, no falsifiability, and no math?

 

Science is supposed to be *improving* its theories, not take 100 steps backwards while standing on its head.

 

~moo

 

I made a estimated guess. Energy and space do not exist, these are just words to explain what we see around us.

The reason I mention Plancks constant is because the space particle has a very high vibration.

 

I understand what you are saying. I myself wont accept theories with out proof. If this idea, explanation, theory whatever it is is correct. Then new technology will sprout. All is needed is one test. As I explain above.

[mooeypoo]

I cant predict this with match. I would, but I dont know how.

Then you can't. At least not yet.

 

At the very least, you should stop beating around the bush about it. You have no mathematical basis for your theory. People who actually know their physics and their maths cannot figure a reasonable way of producing such mathematical representation for your theory, so - either come up with one, or stop saying you have one. You don't.

 

You asked for tests, and here is one test you can do to prove this particle exists. Take a bank of capacitors, charge the first one with electricity, then discharge the energy throughout the entire bank. If you do this in a vacuum chamber and if the system moves, then the particle does exist.

You are neglecting one important issue, here. Why would this particle produce the movement of the system?

 

For now, the theory is its infancy. But if this test is correct then the particle exists.

 

Peron, ten years ago (and perhaps now, still) "String Theory" was at its infancy. It had strong math, excellent predictions, but no falsifiability and no actual experimentation. That's an infant theory (though, even with string theory one could argue it is not really a theory because it lacks actual falsifiability, but the basis it has in math and predictability is so relatively strong, that this point is not clear).

 

You don't have a theory, you have a statement that is based on nothing, has flawed logic, imaginative pronouns and some fancy schmancy set up.

 

No prediction. No experimentation. No falsifiability. No "correction" of flaws of current theories. No way of adapting to current theories. No way of explaining how it is *better explaining reality* over current theories.

 

You have nothing.

 

You all seem to think that some how I believe in my own theories. I dont, no one should believe in their theories. Untill they are tested.

You seem to state them as fact. That might have something to do with it.

 

I made a estimated guess. Energy and space do not exist, these are just words to explain what we see around us.

No, you made a fancy imaginative claim.

It's not even an estimated guess, as such guess is based on estimation (duh) and you don't even have that.

 

The reason I mention Plancks constant is because the space particle has a very high vibration.

(you see how you state stuff as facts?)

How do you know?

How would you test for it?

How does that affect the surroundings?

Show a set of phenomena that are explained by this particle and its vibrations.

 

I understand what you are saying. I myself wont accept theories with out proof. If this idea, explanation, theory whatever it is is correct. Then new technology will sprout. All is needed is one test. As I explain above.

But you treat your theory as if it's a fact (see above), and you insist we should consider it without the tiniest shred of scientific evidence.

NOTHING.

 

You need much more than a test. If your system above is moving, you should be able to show that the movement was produced by this particle (where would it move? how much? why? what in this particle creates this movement?)

 

You need much much more than this test to show us that your space-particle has any sort of merit to it.

 

~moo

[Peron]

Look, the idea is a imagination. The point is, that once I read a book about space-time. Space-time at the time made no sense, so I went of trying to explain space, time, gravity.

 

My explanation have no math. they are fantasy, but my fantasy can be proven with one test. A very simple test.

 

You asked why the test would work, well let me tell you why.

 

Imagine it like this, your in a boat on water, paddling. Now instead of water, you are floating right now in this particle. And your paddling with electrons.

The electrons grab at the particale and while they flow from one capacitor to another, they pull the entire device forward. Simple test. No equations involved.

[mooeypoo]

Look, the idea is a imagination. The point is, that once I read a book about space-time. Space-time at the time made no sense, so I went of trying to explain space, time, gravity.

Then they don't belong in a science forum, Peron. Plain and simple.

My explanation have no math. they are fantasy, but my fantasy can be proven with one test. A very simple test.

 

If there's a test, there should be math, and if the math does not support the results of the test, then either the math is wrong (and it can be proven) or the test is flawed.

 

Physics and math go hand in hand. There's no one without the other. You can't have a physical concept that has no math behind it. That would make it fantasy, not science.

[Peron]

Look, im still in middle school, I dont know complex math.

[mooeypoo]

Peron, then your theory will wait until you have the means to prove it.

 

The bottom line is that you can't insist it's TRUE without having the capacity to PROVE IT TRUE.

 

*SPECIALLY* when the evidence against the theory are piling up.

[Peron]

Their were many theories that where illogical. Just look at radio astronomy.

 

Just look at Einstein's theory, he had to crawl through swamps to prove his theory.

 

The point is that evidence cannot pile up against my idea when their is no evidence for my theory. You can say whatever you want, you cant disprove it, nor can I prove it.

 

I mean, I cant set up a billion dollar experiment, like the real scientists do.

 

But their is a high probability, of this particle of existing. I mean just look around, their is enough proof for you.

[mooeypoo]

Peron, knock it off.

 

You *know* what the rules of the forum are, you're not a new member. You know that shifting the burden of proof is unacceptable. You know that theories are moot without evidence and you KNOW that refusing to acknowledge resources is against the rules. You also know that "word logic" (?) alone is insufficient for a scientific theory.

 

Either put up the math and scientific evidence, or take this fantasy to a fantasy forum.

 

We've been over this for three pages. You're either doing this on purpose, or you're not reading what others present to you.

 

~moo

[UC]

Their were many theories that where illogical. Just look at radio astronomy.

 

Just look at Einstein's theory, he had to crawl through swamps to prove his theory.

 

The point is that evidence cannot pile up against my idea when their is no evidence for my theory. You can say whatever you want, you cant disprove it, nor can I prove it.

 

I mean, I cant set up a billion dollar experiment, like the real scientists do.

 

But their is a high probability, of this particle of existing. I mean just look around, their is enough proof for you.

 

Try taking an english course while you're at it. It should read something like this:

 

There are many theories that were considered illogical such as radio astronomy.

 

Take Einstein's theories. He had to crawl through swamps to prove them.

 

The point I am trying to make is that evidence cannot pile up against my idea when there is no evidence for my theory. You can say whatever you want, but you cant disprove it, and I am a big fat smelly turd.

 

I don't have the resources to set up a billion dollar experiment, like the real scientists do.

 

But there is a high probability, of this particle existing. Just look around; there should be enough proof for you.

 

By the way, some lovely fallacies you have in there. You said earlier in the thread that there is a possible test for your idea (NOT A THEORY) Unlike other topics, such as the existence of a god, this means that we can in fact have evidence against it. You don't need to have any proof for your idea for others to point out errors and evidence to the contrary.

Edited May 18, 2009 by UC

[ydoaPs]

Look, the idea is a imagination. The point is, that once I read a book about space-time. Space-time at the time made no sense, so I went of trying to explain space, time, gravity.

 

My explanation have no math. they are fantasy, but my fantasy can be proven with one test. A very simple test.

 

You asked why the test would work, well let me tell you why.

 

Imagine it like this, your in a boat on water, paddling. Now instead of water, you are floating right now in this particle. And your paddling with electrons.

The electrons grab at the particale and while they flow from one capacitor to another, they pull the entire device forward. Simple test. No equations involved.

How much should the rig move and in what direction? Why should it move?

This "test" is useless unless these questions are answered. Are there other plausible explanations should the rig move?

 

You NEED equations for those reasons. Then there are other things.

How much should the capacitor bank be charged? How many capacitors in what configuration? Does the voltage affect the velocity of the rig? Does the rate of discharge affect it?

 

edit:

I also have some conceptual questions about your speculations. As I had previously asked? What separates these particles? Is there some distance between them? Is there another particle for time, or is this "space" particle really a spacetime particle?

Edited May 18, 2009 by ydoaPs

[Pangloss]

This thread is inconsistent with the purpose of the P&S forum as stated here:

 

http://www.scienceforums.net/forum/announcement.php?f=59&a=13

 

1. Speculations must be backed up by evidence or some sort of proof. If your speculation is untestable, or you don't give us evidence (or a prediction that is testable), your thread will be moved to the Trash Can. If you expect any scientific input, you need to provide a case that science can measure.