Big Bang and only 14 billion years?

[swansont]

Another one of those common sense things: In the realm of SOMETHING, every moving object must go through a process of Displacement and Replacement. If a baseball moves through space it is displacing SOMETHING. It simply cannot move through nothing. And as it moves, SOMETHING must replace (fill in) the space the ball previously occupied. Without the Displacement and Replacement of SOMETHING, everything would be locked into place.

 

Common sense doesn't trump reality. What is this something that moves out of the way yet does not transfer momentum in doing so? What properties does it have? How can we detect it?

 

I'm truly enjoying this chat, so don't get nasty.

 

Things will probably be less mysterious if you learn some physics, but it's your responsibility to do that. It's unfortunate of you find that truth to be nasty, but I'm not going to be held responsible for your fragile ego.

[Jiggerj]

 

Things will probably be less mysterious if you learn some physics, but it's your responsibility to do that. It's unfortunate of you find that truth to be nasty, but I'm not going to be held responsible for your fragile ego.

 

What are you going on about? I'm here to chat. That's all. If I pick up bits of information in this forum, then I'm very happy. You're the one getting all uppity. I don't have much time left on this earth (certainly not enough time to master physics), but what I really don't have time for is immaturity. So, if you've had enough of this thread, simply stop with the tantrum and stop responding. Not hard to do. Just don't click on it anymore.

 

Common sense doesn't trump reality. What is this something that moves out of the way yet does not transfer momentum in doing so? What properties does it have? How can we detect it?

 

You walk - air moves out of the way. You swim - water moves out of the way. You drill through wood - wood moves out of the way. You jackhammer - pavement moves out of the way. You shovel dirt - dirt moves out of the way.

 

You try to fly through NOTHING, and you can't. NOTHING can't move out of the way.

[DrRocket]

 

You try to fly through NOTHING, and you can't. NOTHING can't move out of the way.

 

So much for rockets and spacecraft.

 

You really do need to read a physics book. Several.

[Jiggerj]

So much for rockets and spacecraft.

 

You are implying that rockets and spacecraft are flying through nothing. They are not. There's something out there; something more than just a few hydrogen atoms per cubic meter.

 

Comet tails. If there's nothing in outerspace, what causes the loose (or warmed) debris to be thrust away from comets? If you say solar wind, then that means the supposedly empty space is filled (FLOODED) with photons. How about gamma rays? How about Dark Energy (we may not know exactly what it is, but it's definitely out there.

 

You really do need to read a physics book. Several.

 

Fine. Please point me to one proving there are places of Absolute Nothing in this realm?

 

So much for rockets and spacecraft.

 

You really do need to read a physics book. Several.

 

Since I found what I was looking for, you'll probably say this guy's a nutjob. But:

 

John Timmer

"So, empty space isn't really empty as we might understand it, but it's a lot easier to have that stuff there than having space that was closer to our traditional conception of empty."

 

http://arstechnica.com/science/news/2009/06/exploring-a-universe-where-nothing-isnt-empty.ars

 

Edited February 18, 2012 by Jiggerj

[zapatos]

You walk - air moves out of the way. You swim - water moves out of the way. You drill through wood - wood moves out of the way. You jackhammer - pavement moves out of the way. You shovel dirt - dirt moves out of the way.

 

You try to fly through NOTHING, and you can't. NOTHING can't move out of the way.

No one has made the claim there is absolutely nothing in space. You are arguing against no one.

 

I can't tell where you are going with this thread. You ask questions, people answer, you reject their answers without evidence, and don't offer alternatives. What is it you want?

 

I'm also curious about you explanation for moving through things. Presumably moving through wood is harder than moving through water, which in turn is harder than moving through air, all due to decreased density. But then at the point where we have the least density of all (empty space) you claim that suddenly movement is impossible. How does that work? If there was only one atom in a given space, could we move through it then? What suddenly happens to space when it becomes completely empty?

[swansont]

What are you going on about? I'm here to chat. That's all. If I pick up bits of information in this forum, then I'm very happy. You're the one getting all uppity. I don't have much time left on this earth (certainly not enough time to master physics), but what I really don't have time for is immaturity. So, if you've had enough of this thread, simply stop with the tantrum and stop responding. Not hard to do. Just don't click on it anymore.

 

Really? I suggested that you learn some physics in order to learn how some things are possible. I don't see how that rises to the level of "nasty", or how my response was uppity, a tantrum or immature. If you really don't have time for this, you could simply not post or respond to this particular tangent to the discussion.

 

But the simple truth remains that if you truly want these things explained to you and be to be less mysterious, you have to meet people halfway and learn some basic science.

 

You walk - air moves out of the way. You swim - water moves out of the way. You drill through wood - wood moves out of the way. You jackhammer - pavement moves out of the way. You shovel dirt - dirt moves out of the way.

 

You try to fly through NOTHING, and you can't. NOTHING can't move out of the way.

 

As you move up through the atmosphere, the air becomes continually less dense, until you reach areas where there are only an atom or two per cubic centimeter (and recall this part of the discussion referred to matter density). You seem to be claiming that something takes the place of the atmosphere. What properties does that substance have? We need to be able to run tests to confirm its existence.

 

Nothing doesn't have to move out of the way, because there is nothing to move out of the way.

[Jiggerj]

But the simple truth remains that if you truly want these things explained to you and be to be less mysterious, you have to meet people halfway and learn some basic science.

 

Young man, I am not in school. I don't need homework to chat. I am not here to follow links to the ends of the cyberworld. I am not here to be told that I need to do this or that.

 

Someone starts a thread to chat about science, and if you can't chat by using your own words, if you have nothing to offer in terms of conversation other than "You need to do this, you need to do that" then why are you here?

 

Let's try this: You are creating a documentary by which you will explain how the state of absolute nothing can exist, and how there are empty spaces in the universe. You are the narrator. Now if other physicists can explain things in simple terms for the masses, then why can't you post what you know in simple terms?

 

Hey, if you can't - that's fine. Some people just don't have that ability. If I were to be rude, I would say that you need to read a book on the art of conversation, but I am not your teacher, and you are not mine.

 

 

As you move up through the atmosphere, the air becomes continually less dense, until you reach areas where there are only an atom or two per cubic centimeter (and recall this part of the discussion referred to matter density). You seem to be claiming that something takes the place of the atmosphere. What properties does that substance have? We need to be able to run tests to confirm its existence.

 

This is great piece of conversation! It's all I'm looking for. Thank you.

 

Now, let's run that test. You are out in the deepest darkest regions of space, and you want to find out what that space is made of. With an empty 1-gallon container and special goggles that can see the few floating atoms (don't want those atoms in the container because you already know what they are), you exit the ship. That unknown part space fills the container and you put a lid on it.

 

Once back on the ship you analyze the contents of the container. What's in it? First off, NOTHING cannot flow into a container. You cannot capture a gallon-worth of NOTHING. <--It just can't happen. lol

[swansont]

Young man, I am not in school. I don't need homework to chat. I am not here to follow links to the ends of the cyberworld. I am not here to be told that I need to do this or that.

 

Someone starts a thread to chat about science, and if you can't chat by using your own words, if you have nothing to offer in terms of conversation other than "You need to do this, you need to do that" then why are you here?

 

Let's try this: You are creating a documentary by which you will explain how the state of absolute nothing can exist, and how there are empty spaces in the universe. You are the narrator. Now if other physicists can explain things in simple terms for the masses, then why can't you post what you know in simple terms?

 

Hey, if you can't - that's fine. Some people just don't have that ability. If I were to be rude, I would say that you need to read a book on the art of conversation, but I am not your teacher, and you are not mine.

 

So now it seems that your confusion is my fault. Cute. As for my ability to explain, I think my post history speaks for itself.

 

This is great piece of conversation! It's all I'm looking for. Thank you.

 

Now, let's run that test. You are out in the deepest darkest regions of space, and you want to find out what that space is made of. With an empty 1-gallon container and special goggles that can see the few floating atoms (don't want those atoms in the container because you already know what they are), you exit the ship. That unknown part space fills the container and you put a lid on it.

 

Once back on the ship you analyze the contents of the container. What's in it? First off, NOTHING cannot flow into a container. You cannot capture a gallon-worth of NOTHING. <--It just can't happen. lol

 

Let's call this material that's "not nothing" FOOF. All the gas has left in the vacuum of space and been replaced by it. What mass does the FOOF have?

 

The problem with this "logic" is that nobody else is treating nothing as a substance. It's merely the absence of material. This is like saying you have a hole, you ask how much dirt is in the hole, and you exclude zero as a possible answer.

[Jiggerj]

Let's call this material that's "not nothing" FOOF. All the gas has left in the vacuum of space and been replaced by it. What mass does the FOOF have?

 

The problem with this "logic" is that nobody else is treating nothing as a substance. It's merely the absence of material. This is like saying you have a hole, you ask how much dirt is in the hole, and you exclude zero as a possible answer.

 

Yes, yes, I am saying that even the tiniest parts of space cannot ever (never, never, never) be unoccupied. Else, that space would collapse. Even though we don't know what it is that fills that space, there is something there. That SOMETHING has to be energy, the very energy that somehow brought all the material into the Big Bang. If it is believed that Big Bang just happened without any previous accumulation of SOMETHING, then we are right back to when mainstream science once believed in Spontaneous Generation. <--- Proving that mainstream beliefs were once proven to be utterly wrong, and will undoubtedly be proven wrong again and again.

 

 

The problem with this "logic" is that nobody else is treating nothing as a substance.

 

I'm not doing that. I'm saying that a State of Absolute Nothing has never, and will never exist. So, our gallon container of nothing is actually a gallon container filled to the brim with something that we just can't detect at this time.

 

Really? I suggested that you learn some physics in order to learn how some things are possible. But the simple truth remains that if you truly want these things explained to you

 

Look, we're coming at this forum from two different directions. I just want to chat; to have others express their own thoughts. You give the impression that you are here to teach. To give lessons. To suggest other readings...

 

Imagine waking up in the morning to find your wife made a pot of coffee, but drank it all. You say, "Aw, you didn't save a cup for me?" And she says, "You really should read up on human nature."

 

Then, at the local store, you ask how much a 20 ounce coffee is. Instead of just telling you how much, the clerk hands you a ten page price list of everything in the store.

 

Before you get back in your car you notice one of your neighbors. "Looks like rain," you say, just to be friendly. With a scowl, he counters with, "You should buy a newspaper and check the weather report."

 

I don't want people doing this to me. Do you?

[swansont]

Yes, yes, I am saying that even the tiniest parts of space cannot ever (never, never, never) be unoccupied. Else, that space would collapse. Even though we don't know what it is that fills that space, there is something there. That SOMETHING has to be energy, the very energy that somehow brought all the material into the Big Bang. If it is believed that Big Bang just happened without any previous accumulation of SOMETHING, then we are right back to when mainstream science once believed in Spontaneous Generation. <--- Proving that mainstream beliefs were once proven to be utterly wrong, and will undoubtedly be proven wrong again and again.

 

 

 

I'm not doing that. I'm saying that a State of Absolute Nothing has never, and will never exist. So, our gallon container of nothing is actually a gallon container filled to the brim with something that we just can't detect at this time.

 

If we can't detect it, it means we can't interact with it at all. Not a particularly useful concept, scientifically speaking.

 

 

Look, we're coming at this forum from two different directions. I just want to chat; to have others express their own thoughts. You give the impression that you are here to teach. To give lessons. To suggest other readings...

 

This is a science forum, you posted in the Astronomy and Cosmology section, and said you have no science background. The implication is that you are here to learn from those who do have a science background. So yes, I am here to teach, at some level.

 

If your intent is to expound some personal thoughts rather than learn, we can move this to speculations, but you will be subject to the rules of that particular subforum, e.g. presenting evidence for your views. "It's there but we can't detect it" won't cut it.

 

If you just want to make stuff up and pretend that it passes as science, I'm afraid you came to the wrong place.

 

Imagine waking up in the morning to find your wife made a pot of coffee, but drank it all. You say, "Aw, you didn't save a cup for me?" And she says, "You really should read up on human nature."

 

Then, at the local store, you ask how much a 20 ounce coffee is. Instead of just telling you how much, the clerk hands you a ten page price list of everything in the store.

 

Before you get back in your car you notice one of your neighbors. "Looks like rain," you say, just to be friendly. With a scowl, he counters with, "You should buy a newspaper and check the weather report."

 

I don't want people doing this to me. Do you?

 

That's not what you are doing. You are making claims that have no basis in science, and declaring that if it doesn't make sense to you that it's wrong. You are doing the equivalent of saying it looks like snow, and have presented some "logic" to support your claim, despite the fact that it's quite warm outside. And then you talk of building a snow fort. People get to challenge that, and after they've said it's too warm but you continue your insistence on how it will snow, they might point you toward some material on the freezing point of water.

[DrRocket]

 

Since I found what I was looking for, you'll probably say this guy's a nutjob. But:

 

John Timmer

"So, empty space isn't really empty as we might understand it, but it's a lot easier to have that stuff there than having space that was closer to our traditional conception of empty."

 

http://arstechnica.c...-isnt-empty.ars

 

 

No, Timmer is not the nut job. It is the wacko interpretation of things like this that characterizes a nut job.

[Airbrush]

Yes, yes, I am saying that even the tiniest parts of space cannot ever (never, never, never) be unoccupied. Else, that space would collapse. Even though we don't know what it is that fills that space, there is something there. That SOMETHING has to be energy, the very energy that somehow brought all the material into the Big Bang. If it is believed that Big Bang just happened without any previous accumulation of SOMETHING, then we are right back to when mainstream science once believed in Spontaneous Generation. <--- Proving that mainstream beliefs were once proven to be utterly wrong, and will undoubtedly be proven wrong again and again.

 

 

 

I'm not doing that. I'm saying that a State of Absolute Nothing has never, and will never exist. So, our gallon container of nothing is actually a gallon container filled to the brim with something that we just can't detect at this time.

 

 

 

Look, we're coming at this forum from two different directions. I just want to chat; to have others express their own thoughts. You give the impression that you are here to teach. To give lessons. To suggest other readings...

 

Imagine waking up in the morning to find your wife made a pot of coffee, but drank it all. You say, "Aw, you didn't save a cup for me?" And she says, "You really should read up on human nature."

 

Then, at the local store, you ask how much a 20 ounce coffee is. Instead of just telling you how much, the clerk hands you a ten page price list of everything in the store.

 

Before you get back in your car you notice one of your neighbors. "Looks like rain," you say, just to be friendly. With a scowl, he counters with, "You should buy a newspaper and check the weather report."

 

I don't want people doing this to me. Do you?

 

Mr. Jiggerj, you should be more respectful of the moderators and experts who take their time to try to answer your questions. Swansont is right, and you are being more difficult than you can imagine. I am amazed at his patience. I am not an expert, only a novice enthusiast.

 

Nobody here has ever suggested that empty space is "nothing". You even suppose scientists believe in an "Absolute Nothing". "Nothing" is a useless, undefined concept in science discussions. Empty space is seething with virtual particles popping in and out of existence, and that ain't nothin'. The big bang popped out of what? Absolute Nothing? Nobody has ever suggested that. Empty space may be full of dark energy, and dark whatever, and that is all we can say about it until something new can be detected. Until then your argument is philosophical speculation.

Edited February 18, 2012 by Airbrush

[michel123456]

(...)

Then, at the local store, you ask how much a 20 ounce coffee is. Instead of just telling you how much, the clerk hands you a ten page price list of everything in the store.

(...)

 

I liked this one.

 

-----------------------------

edit

 

Another one of those common sense things: In the realm of SOMETHING, every moving object must go through a process of Displacement and Replacement. If a baseball moves through space it is displacing SOMETHING. It simply cannot move through nothing. And as it moves, SOMETHING must replace (fill in) the space the ball previously occupied. Without the Displacement and Replacement of SOMETHING, everything would be locked into place.

(...)

So you are an Eleatic.

 

Parmenides argued that the first principle of being was One, indivisible, and unchanging.[23] Being, he argued, by definition implies eternality, while only that which is can be thought; a thing which is, moreover, cannot be more or less, and so the rarefaction and condensation of the Melisians is impossible regarding Being; lastly, as movement requires that something exist apart from the thing moving (viz. the space into which it moves), the One or Being cannot move since this would require that "space" both exist and not exist.[24]

Edited February 18, 2012 by michel123456

[Jiggerj]

Mr. Jiggerj, you should be more respectful of the moderators and experts who take their time to try to answer your questions.

This is not a question and answer site. It's a chat forum.

 

Nobody here has ever suggested that empty space is "nothing". You even suppose scientists believe in an "Absolute Nothing".

 

Spyman, No, space is very very very empty.

 

swansont There is a tiny amount, once you get away from massive bodies, because there is the odd atom here and there.

 

swansont As you move up through the atmosphere, the air becomes continually less dense, until you reach areas where there are only an atom or two per cubic centimeter... Nothing doesn't have to move out of the way, because there is nothing to move out of the way.

 

 

 

Mr. Jiggerj, you should be more respectful of the moderators and experts who take their time to try to answer your questions.

 

Then they need to change the name of this site from scienceforums to S F Q&A. net. As for being respectful, I don't care if he's the pope. He's coming across as an arrogant know-it-all with no talent for conversation.

 

Where I work, someone mentioned to someone else about how scientists were going to smash an atom that might create a black hole. Later, that someone else (around 25 years old) asked me what an atom was.

 

All I said was, those are the microscopic things that make up bigger things. I didn't say, "Hey, you really should go back to school and do a lot of reading." It would've been just plain rude.

 

This is a science forum, The implication is that you are here to learn People get to challenge that,

 

1. Wiki: Forum: is an online discussion site where people can hold conversations in the form of posted messages.

 

"The implication is that you are here to learn" Please see 1.

 

People get to challenge that, No, that's a competition, and I've had enough.

 

You really need to read up on topics like:

 

How not to be a know-it-all.

The art of conversation.

Recognizing the difference between competition and discussion.

 

Really, you shouldn't be a staff member. Please retire.

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

You really need to read up on topics like:

 

How not to be a know-it-all.

The art of conversation.

Recognizing the difference between competition and discussion.

 

Really, you shouldn't be a staff member. Please retire.

Cut it out. Civility is part of the rules; you will not improve the behavior of others by providing worse behavior yourself.

[Phi for All]

This is not a question and answer site. It's a chat forum.

NO. It's a science discussion forum with rules, rules you agreed to when you joined. Chatting is much less formal, and we have a chat room available as an informal part of the discussion forum. This is NOT a chat forum.

 

 

Then they need to change the name of this site from scienceforums to S F Q&A. net. As for being respectful, I don't care if he's the pope. He's coming across as an arrogant know-it-all with no talent for conversation.

I can appreciate that you may be having a bad day. It must be the worst day EVER for you personally attack one of the most respected, prolific and knowledgeable members on the entire site.

 

Where I work, someone mentioned to someone else about how scientists were going to smash an atom that might create a black hole. Later, that someone else (around 25 years old) asked me what an atom was.

 

All I said was, those are the microscopic things that make up bigger things. I didn't say, "Hey, you really should go back to school and do a lot of reading." It would've been just plain rude.

That would have been rude, AT WORK. No one at your work showed up there with the express intent of learning about science. Unlike, say, HERE.

 

You really need to read up on topics like:

 

How not to be a know-it-all.

The art of conversation.

Recognizing the difference between competition and discussion.

 

Really, you shouldn't be a staff member. Please retire.

You are so far off base here that you're running into cars in the stadium parking lot. If you weren't just expressing an opinion, I'd say you owe swansont an apology.