Could SPACE be composed of the SUM TOTAL - of - ALL FIELDS including the ElectroMagnetic and Gravitational Fields , to mention a couple ?

[Mike Smith Cosmos]

Rather than thinking of space as being a stage on which the universe plays out its existence. Could not space be composed of the very stuff the universe is made of ( mainly fields ) . Can the Gold Fish not finally wake up to the fact it is NOT floating around in nothing. But rather is swimming about in water. Instead of space being nothing , can it not BE the sum total of all FIELDS . In which everything , is, moves and exists.

 

We are in a SOUP. or are in the SOUP .

 

 

Mike

 

Ps. I have a recent 'Observation or two ' to back this up !

Edited April 16, 2014 by Mike Smith Cosmos

[swansont]

How would you test this idea?

[Mike Smith Cosmos]

How would you test this idea?

The first way , I would think would be to take my first two observations that I refer to and make a comparative test of those, these apply to a) the apparent identicle movement of waves through water caused by rain drops of different sizes giving rise to identical waves spreading out at a constant speed. And B) initial breeze induced waves on an inland river , giving rise to an apparently identical speed waves induced from conception into river water . A ) is an apparent inverse square law style wave front diminishing. B) is a sort of plain wave front maintaining amplitude. . As indeed apparently equally occurs in the open ocean, reaching our shores. There even appears some form of quantum effect at the inception of the waves. . Namely a minimum level of energy is required to start a wave, then producing identical effects. If the experiments could prove these effects , then by an " equivalence principle " a good start could be made towards a proof that at least one of the fields works in space ( or rather AS SPACE ). Namely the Electro-magnetic field. (AS SPACE) .Which indeed has already been proved by Maxwell. ( in space but I am suggesting AS SPACE )

 

Mike

 

Ps. I may have to more precisely describe my observations, before the principle gets dismissed ' out of hand ' I must say I have been picking this up over a period of time. A ) with rain drops in ponds, b) with waves at sea and river .

Edited April 17, 2014 by Mike Smith Cosmos

[swansont]

We already know that things like electromagnetic waves don't act like water waves: they need no medium. Also, water waves can be explained classically. Why would investigating them shed any light on your proposed phenomenon?

[Mike Smith Cosmos]

We already know that things like electromagnetic waves don't act like water waves: they need no medium. Also, water waves can be explained classically. Why would investigating them shed any light on your proposed phenomenon?

Because I think Mamwells two equations with[ Delta B Div H Etc Etc] and all the rest of it, might be explaining SPACE as opposed to a separate independant mechanism that we say is working Within space . In other words , Maxwell inadvertently worked out the nature of SPACE with its inherent Speed of Electro Magnetism So amongst other things [ possible the most important and dominating thing ELECTRO MAGNETISM is SPACE , not something within Space .

 

Mike

 

[

 

 

You might well think this is proposperous. BUT for a long time I have thought it equally prosperous That THINGS ( Photons as THINGS ) go flying across the universe at rhe speed of Light. NO It is EFFECTS - WAVES go flying across space at the speed of light NOT THINGS.

 

Similarly with electrons, As they enter a conductor as a charge, the Electrons DO NOT travel the conductor at very fast , near speed of light. THE EFFECT DOES, the individual electron barely moves at walking speed. In fact if it is AC it goes back and forward and goes nowhere. The EFFECT is WHAT heads out very fast , near light speed.

 

Similarly with light The Photon as ' a thing ' Goes no where , very far, THE EFFECT ( WAVE EFFECT ) is what travels at the speed of light .

 

As with sea waves . The Water practically goes nowhere fast , IT is the EFFECT, THE WAVE EFFECT that travels across the ocean.

 

So SPACE is The SEA the Electro Magnetically Dominated SEA and Waves travel across it at the Speed of Light as Maxwell calculated for Electro Magnetism because thats what space is dominantly as indeed matter is dominantly CHARGE , MOVING CHARGE, MAGNETISM, MOVING MAGNTISM [ Electro Magnetism]

 

How Gravity fits into all this I am not sure, Unless it is an ORTHOGONAL issue .?

 

mike

Edited April 17, 2014 by Mike Smith Cosmos

[swansont]

Again: how do you test the idea to see if it's true?

[Mike Smith Cosmos]

Again: how do you test the idea to see if it's true?

I need to think about that !

 

Mike

[Mike Smith Cosmos]

I need to think about that !

Mike

GOT IT!

 

You measure the velocity of light / e-m waves in air, glass, water and free space .( and if possible absolute vacuum )

 

The velocity is clearly different ,demonstrated by defraction in glass via colour spectrum , diffraction in water by visual observation of fish and toes. Mirage over the horizon .

 

Ascertain the densities of glass, water ,shimmering hot air .

 

 

Draw a graph showing where it crosses the line at free space and the axis at absolute vacuum .This SHOULD show a figure comparable to the measured density of free space .

 

 

QED.

 

Mike

GOT IT!

 

You measure the velocity of light / e-m waves in air, glass, water and free space .( and if possible absolute vacuum )

The velocity is clearly different , demonstrated by defraction in glass via colour spectrum , diffraction in water by visual observation of fish and toes. Mirage over the horizon .

Ascertain the densities of glass, water ,shimmering hot air .

Draw a graph showing where it crosses the line at free space and the axis at absolute vacuum . This SHOULD show a figure comparable to the measured density of free space .

QED.

Mike

 

Of course the difference between absolute vacuum and free space as regards energy , is the Energy of free space. ,!

 

.

Edited April 20, 2014 by Mike Smith Cosmos

[ajb]

Is there a simple relationship between the density of an object and its refractive index?

 

However, you are right that Maxwell uncovered the nature of space-time, he just did not know it. But that is not to say that space-time is the electromagnetic field.

[Relative]

Rather than thinking of space as being a stage on which the universe plays out its existence. Could not space be composed of the very stuff the universe is made of ( mainly fields ) . Can the Gold Fish not finally wake up to the fact it is NOT floating around in nothing. But rather is swimming about in water. Instead of space being nothing , can it not BE the sum total of all FIELDS . In which everything , is, moves and exists.

 

We are in a SOUP. or are in the SOUP .

 

image.jpg

 

Mike

 

Ps. I have a recent 'Observation or two ' to back this up !

Sounds like me, I have said this before, so have to agree with you, the universe is full of EMR everywhere you look, magnetic fields, solar winds, If that is not soup, then pfffffff, it is a medium to me.

Your problem in testing it, in my opinion, will be because space is a constant, with the occasional fluctuation, I do not why but I am thinking the answer may lye within comets,by the tail patterns and direction of patterns,Doppler blue shift and red shift.

 

Hope that helps you, as you seem clued up to the maths.

The Doppler effect of blue and red shift clearly show that EMR is everywhere in space, and there is a change in radiation pressure by direction.

If an object was to travel at the speed of C, toward the light, it would look black, we would not see it, it would be shifted to black body radiation in my opinion.

[swansont]

GOT IT!

 

You measure the velocity of light / e-m waves in air, glass, water and free space .( and if possible absolute vacuum )

 

The velocity is clearly different ,demonstrated by defraction in glass via colour spectrum , diffraction in water by visual observation of fish and toes. Mirage over the horizon .

 

Ascertain the densities of glass, water ,shimmering hot air .

 

 

Draw a graph showing where it crosses the line at free space and the axis at absolute vacuum .This SHOULD show a figure comparable to the measured density of free space .

 

.

 

The speed of light is higher in free space than in glass. It also has the lowest density. So your graph makes no sense.

 

If an EM field made up a medium, then one might think that a stronger EM field would represent a higher index of refraction, but that's not the case.

[Relative]

 

The speed of light is higher in free space than in glass. It also has the lowest density. So your graph makes no sense.

 

If an EM field made up a medium, then one might think that a stronger EM field would represent a higher index of refraction, but that's not the case.

Not if the EMR was EMF?

[Mike Smith Cosmos]

The speed of light is higher in free space than in glass. It also has the lowest density. So your graph makes no sense.

 

If an EM field made up a medium, then one might think that a stronger EM field would represent a higher index of refraction, but that's not the case.

My graph was not meant to be literal .it was only a swish of the fingers to say, that in answer to your question " how would you go about proving it ?"

 

I am illustrating , that an investigation as to the possible correlation between the change in speed of em waves (light) in different environments. Namely. Glass, water, hot air, space, absolute vacuum.

 

Alternatively ,it might even be that space is a one off broad band wave guide for e -m waves. , covering most of the e-m spectrum .

 

Mike

Is there a simple relationship between the density of an object and its refractive index?However, you are right that Maxwell uncovered the nature of space-time, he just did not know it. But that is not to say that space-time is the electromagnetic field.

Possibly not, but there does seem to be some very clear dominance of electro, magnetic. Fields, light, atomic charge, magnetic moment, floating about , heavily in connection with space time.

I

Mike

Edited April 20, 2014 by Mike Smith Cosmos

[Relative]

My graph was not meant to be literal .it was only a swish of the fingers to say, that in answer to your question " how would you go about proving it ?"

 

I am illustrating , that an investigation as to the possible correlation between the change in speed of em waves (light) in different environments. Namely. Glass, water, hot air, space, absolute vacuum.

 

Alternatively ,it might even be that space is a one off broad band wave guide for e -m waves. , covering most of the e-m spectrum .

 

Mike

Possibly not, but there does seem to be some very clear dominance of electro, magnetic. Fields, light, atomic charge, magnetic moment, floating about , heavily in connection with space time.

I

Mike

I hate to intrude, If I was under water , and I produced a bubble around myself that expanded out to a huge distance, even kept expanding, and from a central point in the sphere, giving off isotropic radiation, my bubbles environment becomes radiation, increasing energy levels over time.

[Mike Smith Cosmos]

I hate to intrude, If I was under water , and I produced a bubble around myself that expanded out to a huge distance, even kept expanding, and from a central point in the sphere, giving off isotropic radiation, my bubbles environment becomes radiation, increasing energy levels over time.

 

I am not sure if you are painting this picture of yours as similar to the big bang.

 

If so then it is my understanding of ENERGY [ which itself is not an easy subject to comprehend in itself. ]

Then as I understand it. :- All the Energy required for the universe , was put in [ somehow] ALL IN ONE GO.at the start.

All the expansion since has merely spread the energy out , but it, in total is the same as that early amount. {no more no less. So as it is in the universe as radiation ,and any conversion of radiation into other forms of energy . The total is the same ,just spread out. NOT INCREASING.

 

mike

 

ps How this all works out with Dark Matter and Dark energy I am afraid I have lost the connection. Whether these are all included in the equation I have lost track. I can only ,at this stage think in terms of the 4% [excluding dark matter and dark energy }

 

I am not sure ...

 

 

Interesting . The wind playing on the sea, can generate huge waves given time. Look at the volume of water contained in that one wave. If you had to lift it bucket by bucket from its lowest point on the wave to the highest. A LOT OF ENERGY REQUIRED over and over.

 

.

 

So with the build up of Energy across space , building up through all the Electro- Magnetic Radiation .

 

mike

Edited April 20, 2014 by Mike Smith Cosmos

[swansont]

My graph was not meant to be literal

 

We're trying to do science here, aren't we?

[Acme]

Rather than thinking of space as being a stage on which the universe plays out its existence. Could not space be composed of the very stuff the universe is made of ( mainly fields ) . Can the Gold Fish not finally wake up to the fact it is NOT floating around in nothing. But rather is swimming about in water. Instead of space being nothing , can it not BE the sum total of all FIELDS . In which everything , is, moves and exists.

 

We are in a SOUP. or are in the SOUP .

 

Mike

 

Ps. I have a recent 'Observation or two ' to back this up !

Are you by chance conditioning your work on Sokal?

 

Transgressing the Boundaries: Towards a Transformative Hermeneutics of Quantum Gravity

...Secondly, the postmodern sciences deconstruct and transcend the Cartesian metaphysical distinctions between humankind and Nature, observer and observed, Subject and Object. Already quantum mechanics, earlier in this century, shattered the ingenuous Newtonian faith in an objective, pre-linguistic world of material objects ``out there''; no longer could we ask, as Heisenberg put it, whether ``particles exist in space and time objectively''. But Heisenberg's formulation still presupposes the objective existence of space and time as the neutral, unproblematic arena in which quantized particle-waves interact (albeit indeterministically); and it is precisely this would-be arena that quantum gravity problematizes. Just as quantum mechanics informs us that the position and momentum of a particle are brought into being only by the act of observation, so quantum gravity informs us that space and time themselves are contextual, their meaning defined only relative to the mode of observation.84 ...

source: >> http://www.physics.nyu.edu/faculty/sokal/transgress_v2/transgress_v2_singlefile.html

[Mike Smith Cosmos]

We're trying to do science here, aren't we?

Sorry, yes I scribbled that a bit hastily and got it upside down and inside out a bit. Put it down to my enthusiasm. Believe it or not , at the work bench , measurement and calculator , I can be nauseatingly thorough, believe it or not. But at this stage in my life I am a bit time conscious.

 

Mike

Are you by chance conditioning your work on Sokal?

 

 

source: >> http://www.physics.nyu.edu/faculty/sokal/transgress_v2/transgress_v2_singlefile.html

Yes no , I have not been following Sokal , but sounds right ish .

Have not seen you since my jungle trip! I need someone to get all my thorns out. And my brain has been scorched . As you can no doubt tell

 

Mike

[Relative]

 

I am not sure if you are painting this picture of yours as similar to the big bang.

If so then it is my understanding of ENERGY [ which itself is not an easy subject to comprehend in itself. ]

Then as I understand it. :- All the Energy required for the universe , was put in [ somehow] ALL IN ONE GO.at the start.

All the expansion since has merely spread the energy out , but it, in total is the same as that early amount. {no more no less. So as it is in the universe as radiation ,and any conversion of radiation into other forms of energy . The total is the same ,just spread out. NOT INCREASING.

I was not really painting the picture has the big bang, I was simply imagining myself as a Red Dwarf and the expansion of my radiation.

Considering that even if there were particles in space, a medium, that existed before I was born as a star, <lol>,

Then maybe I simply pushed all the small stuff out of the way and ate the rest as such.

Leaving only my breath, meaning EMR.

''All the Energy required for the universe , was put in [ somehow] ALL IN ONE GO''

If you are talking about the visual Universe then maybe so, the big bang.

However if you are talking about the very beginning before the Big bang, then I would have to say no.

I consider negative charged particles existed, and only needing one vibration, one sound, this caused the first ever friction, that created the first positive charged particle, which gained static attraction that caused momentum of spin.

[Kramer]

What about epsilon zero, mu zero? Impedance Z0? Where are they if not in space?
I think that the space is not empty.
I speculate that space is filled with anti-mater sub-particles in the same as mater is organised in gravitate globs.
Mater and anti mater sub-particles repulse each other.

[swansont]

I think that the space is not empty.

 

Standard physics also thinks space is not empty. So this is moot, no?

[Phi for All]

What about epsilon zero, mu zero? Impedance Z0? Where are they if not in space?

I think that the space is not empty.

I speculate that space is filled with anti-mater sub-particles in the same as mater is organised in gravitate globs.

Mater and anti mater sub-particles repulse each other.

 

 

!

Moderator Note

Let's be careful here. Hijacking one speculation with another is so uncool. Let's do everything we can to help this discussion flow smoothly, and we'll do the same when you open your thread.

[Kramer]

If it filled then with what?
Highjacked? O come on. Aren't they debate for the things of what is composed space?

[Mike Smith Cosmos]

There is a type of Polarization of Electro- Magnetic waves that is called I believe SPIRAL or CIRCULAR Polarization

 

Namely the waves are Spinning around and propagating through /in/of space spirally. To detect them , I believe , one needs a Spiral Antenna , or in the case of a captured photon , a new spinning electron. ?

 

Would this not fit in with The Electron Spin [ or with it's spin] being the source of the Photon ?

 

If this were to be the case, would this not support the idea that space is made up itself of Electro Magnetic Fields [ even if they are spinning] ?...[ Everything is spinning, has spin .Or not as the case may be ]

 

mike

Edited April 26, 2014 by Mike Smith Cosmos

[swansont]

There is a type of Polarization of Electro- Magnetic waves that is called I believe SPIRAL or CIRCULAR Polarization

 

Namely the waves are Spinning around and propagating through /in/of space spirally. To detect them , I believe , one needs a Spiral Antenna , or in the case of a captured photon , a new spinning electron. ?

 

Would this not fit in with The Electron Spin [ or with it's spin] being the source of the Photon ?

 

Yes, light can be circularly polarized. Photons are spin-1 particles. When they are absorbed, the atom's change of state must include a change (or re-shuffling) of the spin state of the electron.

 

 

If this were to be the case, would this not support the idea that space is made up itself of Electro Magnetic Fields [ even if they are spinning] ?...[ Everything is spinning, has spin .Or not as the case may be ]

What's the connection? The evidence that angular momentum is involved only occurs in the interaction between the photon and the atom. Not in the intervening space.

 

Further, an atom moving through space does not spontaneously change angular momentum — there is no interaction, and/or there is no spin in the space.