Empty Evidence

[studiot]

 

I need to know only is there less empty space than once thought but if there is any empty space at all.

 

 

Perhaps you are looking at things from the wrong end of the telescope?

 

'is' is the word of nightmares.

 

what is energy?

What is matter?

What is space, empty or otherwise?

 

I have noticed that those who keep demanding to know 'what is .... ?' drive themselves to distraction since this question usually has no answer in Science.

 

I prefer to use the view that Science 'offers the following model', given the particular entities or quantities. We can then compare this model with observations and amend it if necessary, without struggling with answering the philosophical question 'what is (empty) space?', thereby retaining our sanity.

 

And yes, I know I've used the word is many times in my post.

Edited July 4, 2014 by studiot

[Strange]

I started this post to see if anyone could prove to me as best as they can that there exists even a minute amount of empty space in all the universe. The article you had me read shows how there is most likely matter where there once was thought to be empty space.

 

The average density of dark matter is very low. Between the particles of dark matter is an awful lot of empty space.

[Mordred]

. If someone can prove to me that there is even a little bit of empty space in all the universe than I would appreciate that

 

 

Ok lets take the average energy density of the universe, I've worked out a rough calculation at one time by taking the total energy of the universe (including the cosmological constant) and dividing by the total volume. This value worked out to roughly 6.0 *10^-10 joules per m³. Though this was done a few years ago. I needed it for the redshift and expansion article I have under my site (see signature)

Wiki however has a correlation to the number of particles including dark matter per cubic meter.

 

"Estimates put the average energy density of the Universe at the equivalent of 5.9 protons per cubic meter, including dark energy, dark matter, and baryonic matter (ordinary matter composed of atoms). The atoms account for only 4.6% of the total energy density, or a density of one proton per four cubic meters"

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

 

so roughly 6 protons per m³ sounds like a whole lot of empty to me lol.

 

now as far as the first value goes there is an easier way to check the average energy density. We know that the total energy density is extremely close to the critical density, (extremely flat universe) so for a close estimate the critical density serves as a cross check. Critical density is given by

 

[latex]\rho_{crit} = \frac{3H^2}{8\pi G}[/latex] taking 70 km/s/Mpc for H_o will give a mass density of roughly 10^-26 kg/m³

 

 

energy density= [latex]\rho{crit}* c^2[/latex] =9.0*10^-10 joules/m³

 

 

there is your proof that there is a whole lot of empty space out there between particles

here is an article explaining the critical density and universe geometry

http://cosmology101.wikidot.com/universe-geometry page 2 for distance measures is

http://cosmology101.wikidot.com/geometry-flrw-metric/

 

or if you prefer here is a nice pdf slide

http://star-www.st-and.ac.uk/~hz4/cos/cosLec3to8.pdf see page 13 for a confirmation of my calculation (though if you truly want to understand the mathematics of that slide that site under my signature has numerous cosmology teaching aids, including a free textbook By Liddle (though older its still an excellent resource)

here is two other articles with similar values

http://wmap.gsfc.nasa.gov/universe/uni_matter.html

http://statistics.roma2.infn.it/~morselli/debernardis01.pdf

 

by the way the geometry ie flat compared to the critical density is an extremely studied area in cosmology. The total density is a crucial value in how we measure the universe

 

also if there is more total energy-mass density than the critical density expansion will approach zero then start to collapse

Edited July 5, 2014 by Mordred

[Mitch Bass]

"Studlot" in response to your last post in which included quote from one of my posts,,,indicative that what you were writing was directed to me,,,,to what you wrote , I write the following: "Studlot" you wrote in your last post "'is' is the word of nightmares." For you this is perhaps true....not for me. You and I have different thoughts as your next sentence reveals: We can then compare this model with observations and amend it if necessary, without struggling with answering the philosophical question 'what is (empty) space?', thereby retaining our sanity. When I read this, these words which you wrote it is clear to me that you think the human intellect is not able to define certain aspects of objective reality. You make it out as if me trying to understand objective reality is a "philosophical" pursuit. This would only be the case if no human mind had the potential to explain objective reality. It is as if you are pessimistic in terms of the power the at least your mind, if not all minds, of being able to penetrate the illusion of what seems to be but is not and bring into existence a knowledge of reality....reality is what is...illusion is what appears to be but is not...because of my physical (not philosophical) observations, I am optimistic in thinking that it will be soon that my question will be answered...what you wrote about the essence of my question is very wrong....I am not asking about what IS empty space....I am asking is it possible that the universe IS utterly void of voids...is it possible that whatever or however anyone thinks of empty space....regardless... is it possible that "empty space" is something that this universe does not contain....

 

"Mordred"...in response to what you wrote in your last post...I greatly appreciate the amount of energy and measure of words and thought that must have gone into what you wrote to try to deliver me from a state of being uncertain as to the existence of empty space. You wrote that there IS empty space and then you listed the reasons why you felt so certain that empty space exists. I have read and absorbed the evidence you have presented that gives you full confidence in terms of being able to say with near certainty there IS empty space. Unfortunately, I am finding that your evidence has flaws in terms of being able to nearly certainly prove that empty space exists. I will explain my lack of confidence about what you have written being able to support the notion that there is empty space as soon as I figure out the words to express why it is that I think your supportive evidence is seriously flawed. I will use at least as much thought and energy as you did to help me understand your thinking and if your mind is open to considering that there are some potential problems with using what you have written as proof for empty space...then...you will perhaps, for better or for worse,,,,a gift or a curse...have again the same lack of certainty about knowing not only about whether empty space does or does not exist....but perhaps you will find yourself less confident about a number of other concepts...if the moderator would like,,,if I am going too far into uncharted territory...please let me instead of locking this post...the one known as "Mordred" and the person known as "Mitch Bass" have been recently communicating in the form of "messaging" through the use of the tools this forum provides if two people decide to communicate one to one. So, instead of locking down the post...warn me like a bouncer would warn a person at a bar that is no longer sticking to the program...whoever the moderator is for this forum, please know if you tell me that its starting to sound like I am writing things that go too much against common thought in terms of what the scientific community conceives of as reality, I would have no problem with taking my communication with Mordred outside of this post and only to be continued through our one to one personal correspondence.

"Strange" what you wrote in terms of your certainty about there being empty space but it seems to me that your certainty is supported by the grand assumptions you wrote about it concerning which I will point out when I have about twenty minutes to explain the very specific reasons I am certain has misguided you into not knowing that your assumptions are assumptions....I accept that you are a critical thinker and your not one to make assumptions and have no knowledge that you are stating as fact what fits your theory and not the other way around...

Edited July 5, 2014 by Mitch Bass

[Strange]

"Strange" what you wrote in terms of your certainty about there being empty space but it seems to me that your certainty is supported by the grand assumptions you wrote about it concerning which I will point out when I have about twenty minutes to explain the very specific reasons I am certain has misguided you into not knowing that your assumptions are assumptions....I accept that you are a critical thinker and your not one to make assumptions and have no knowledge that you are stating as fact what fits your theory and not the other way around...

 

I made no assumptions, grand or otherwise, and have no theory, so I have no idea what you are talking about.

 

I was simply stating the facts (as currently understood). The density of dark matter is very low; it would appear as a near vacuum if we could detect it directly. Therefore there is a significant space between the particles of dark matter - more than there is between the molecules in the atmosphere, for example.

 

So I don't see how you think this supports a hypothesis that there is no empty space: there is a lot of empty space between air molecules and even more between dark matter particles. Unless by "empty space" you mean a large volume of space with no contents. In which case, you are right: all of space is pervaded by photons, neutrinos, dark matter, low levels of interstellar/intergalactic medium, virtual particles, etc. But between all these is ... empty space.

Edited July 5, 2014 by Strange

[studiot]

 

"Studlot" in response to your last post in which included quote from one of my posts,,,indicative that what you were writing was directed to me,,,,to what you wrote , I write the following: "Studlot" you wrote in your last post "'is' is the word of nightmares." For you this is perhaps true....not for me. You and I have different thoughts as your next sentence reveals: We can then compare this model with observations and amend it if necessary, without struggling with answering the philosophical question 'what is (empty) space?', thereby retaining our sanity. When I read this, these words which you wrote it is clear to me that you think the human intellect is not able to define certain aspects of objective reality. You make it out as if me trying to understand objective reality is a "philosophical" pursuit. This would only be the case if no human mind had the potential to explain objective reality. It is as if you are pessimistic in terms of the power the at least your mind, if not all minds, of being able to penetrate the illusion of what seems to be but is not and bring into existence a knowledge of reality....reality is what is...illusion is what appears to be but is not...because of my physical (not philosophical) observations, I am optimistic in thinking that it will be soon that my question will be answered...what you wrote about the essence of my question is very wrong....I am not asking about what IS empty space....I am asking is it possible that the universe IS utterly void of voids...is it possible that whatever or however anyone thinks of empty space....regardless... is it possible that "empty space" is something that this universe does not contain....

 

I am sorry that I was not able to write my point in a way that could be understood, for you have, unfortunately, completely misunderstood it.

 

I take full responsibility. I have neither wish not intention to discuss the capacity of the human mind.

 

Yes I think 'what is...?' questions are generally classified as within the province of philosophy by this Science Forums. There have been many precedents for this.

There is a perfectly respectable philosophy section at SF.

But your thread is in the Physics section, so you are expecting a Physics answer.

 

The point I am trying to make is that before you can discuss whether space is empty or occupied you need to specify what you mean by space.

This is not an idle observation since it begs the question "is there a entity called space, separate from the entities within it?". This is most definitely a philosophical question since I am asking "Does the region defined by our coordinate axes have an existence of its own and, if so, is it continuous or granular. Is it isotropic, homogeneous and what are its other properties, as distinct from the properties of anything it contains.?"

Edited July 5, 2014 by studiot

[Mordred]

 

 

"Mordred"...in response to what you wrote in your last post...I greatly appreciate the amount of energy and measure of words and thought that must have gone into what you wrote to try to deliver me from a state of being uncertain as to the existence of empty space. You wrote that there IS empty space and then you listed the reasons why you felt so certain that empty space exists. I have read and absorbed the evidence you have presented that gives you full confidence in terms of being able to say with near certainty there IS empty space. Unfortunately, I am finding that your evidence has flaws in terms of being able to nearly certainly prove that empty space exists. I will explain my lack of confidence about what you have written being able to support the notion that there is empty space as soon as I figure out the words to express why it is that I think your supportive evidence is seriously flawed. I will use at least as much thought and energy as you did to help me understand your thinking and if your mind is open to considering that there are some potential problems with using what you have written as proof for empty space...then...you will perhaps, for better or for worse,,,,a gift or a curse...have again the same lack of certainty about knowing not only about whether empty space does or does not exist....but perhaps you will find yourself less confident about a number of other concepts..

 

my confidence comes from numerous calculations, there is several ways you can calculate the total energy density of the universe. As well as calculate the % of every possible particle contributor in cosmology. I merely showed you the easiest method of determining the average density.

 

To completely show you how to perform the above using the ideal gas laws would take me 10 to 15 pages of posts, and yes I have performed the calculations myself. The ideal gas laws in cosmology applications has been a lengthy study for me (over a year on understanding the thermodynamic history of our universe) to break it down in a short explanation you can take the average temperature of our universe at any period of time where only the temperature is known. Using the ideal gas laws you can further confirm the critical density and how each particle contributes to the overall temperature.

Now do do this we need to consider the ideal gas laws in thermodynamics or specifically thermal equilibrium. (however you can also correlate the particles not in thermal equilibrium)

 

[latex]PV=nRT[/latex] The relation forms used with bosons however is Bose-Einstein statistics or distribution

now to explain this is further detail. Bosons become indistinquishable from one another where N is the number of particles and V is the volume and nq is the quantum concentration, for which the interparticle distance is equal to the thermal de Broglie wavelength

[latex]q=\frac{N}{V}+\ge+n_q[/latex]

the number of particles of the Bose_Eintein statistics is

[latex]n_i(\varepsilon_i) = \frac{g_i}{e^{(\varepsilon_i-\mu)/kT}-1}[/latex]

for fermions you use the fermi-dirac statistics

[latex]\bar{n}_i = \frac{1}{e^{(\epsilon _i-\mu) / k T} 1}[/latex]

 

the De-Broglie wavelength is

[latex]\frac{V}{N\Lambda^3} \le 1 \[/latex]

 

these articles will show you how those equations are used to not only calculate the number of each particle species, the energy density of each particle, their pressure and temperature contribution and their effective equation of state. This methodology is also used to help determine and understand big bang nucleosynthesis, as well as confirming or gathering evidence for GUT theories (though you need a huge understanding of particle physics in the latter two cases.)

 

http://arxiv.org/pdf/hep-th/0503203.pdf "Particle Physics and Inflationary Cosmology" by Andrei Linde (this one is older may be a bit out of date)

for up to date use the one below. chapter 4 covers how to use the Bose_Einstein/Fermi_Dirac distibutions

http://www.wiese.itp.unibe.ch/lectures/universe.pdf:" Particle Physics of the Early universe" by Uwe-Jens Wiese Thermodynamics, Big bang Nucleosynthesis (chapters 3,4,5)

http://arxiv.org/pdf/0802.3688.pdf Lecture Notes on CMB Theory: From Nucleosynthesis to Recombination

 

http://arxiv.org/pdf/hep-ph/0004188v1.pdf ASTROPHYSICS AND COSMOLOGY (this particular paper shows the Einstein field equation method to derive the critical density and the matter and energy content of the universe. see section 2.1.2 page 3

however this paper shows another method using Gibbb's law

http://arxiv.org/pdf/0708.2962v3.pdf

using the above methods we arrive at the energy budget of the universe and you can either trust me and every scientist that has used the above methods to arrive at the the Cosmic inventory or you can try to show that we are wrong. However as I mentioned before this would take a substantial amount of math and observational support. You would need to convince us that a huge body of evidence is in error.

http://arxiv.org/pdf/astro-ph/0406095v2.pdf "The Cosmic energy inventory"

 

Although the last paper may make you think that the universe is full of stuff and is therefore there can be no empty space, you must also realize that the volume of the universe is incredibly huge and the average density of that volume is as I posted above. volume of the observable universe is roughly 3.8*10⁸⁰ m³

 

(you can then easily realize that the energy-density of any one contributor is also extremely low) Stars and planets etc is only an extremely small % of the total. The articles above show the % of each contributor.

 

Its all well and good to have a theory you wish to prove, however one always needs to understand why physicists have faith in the models and understandings that are already present. (for one thing cosmology has been studied to a very high precision with every dataset available.) The accuracy of the LCDM model is such a high degree that we can perform a highly complex simulation and recreate what we see today (you will find if you look at the mathematics involved that it matches up with the above as well)

 

http://www.cfa.harva...du/news/2014-10

http://www.illustris-project.org/

 

here is the technical paper

http://arxiv.org/ftp...5/1405.1418.pdf

 

keep in mind those images you see is a representation of a huge chunk of space in a small image by comparison also they chose to start the simulation at a point where observations and physics are well understood (have to test the program first lol, they are now working on increasing the timeline of the simulation)

Edited July 5, 2014 by Mordred

[Bignose]

Mitch, if this is all leading up to some grand idea of yours, why don't you cut the coyness and just go and post it in the Speculations section already? 'Empty' is a relative term. Especially with the existence of virtual particles that pop and out of space.

 

So, if you have some grand idea about the emptiness or lack thereof in space, why don't you post it and show us what predictions it makes and how closely those agree with what is known today?

[Mitch Bass]

Mitch, if this is all leading up to some grand idea of yours, why don't you cut the coyness and just go and post it in the Speculations section already? 'Empty' is a relative term. Especially with the existence of virtual particles that pop and out of space.

So, if you have some grand idea about the emptiness or lack thereof in space, why don't you post it and show us what predictions it makes and how closely those agree with what is known today?

 

I am adding this paragraph after I have written the rest of what I have written in this post...I have copied it and actually would like to paste it in the speculations center, where is it by the way....in answering the question of Bignose....I went off topic in terms of the aim to do this....however....if possible....if the moderator would allow for it...I would like this one part of this entire post to not be cut out....many people who have already contributed to this post might have a the same question that Bignose has...After this post I am going to read every hyperlink I have not read that Mordred listed and then ask him the questions I already have about the science that relates to this post and the questions I might have with the links I have yet to read. I will ask Mordred this so far....from all the facts you have given you are, I am certainly guessing to be true, you are suggesting that although there is less empty space in the universe than previously thought, there is from all data, definitely a great amount of empty space? Any further comments about your links and your writings will come in this post as soon as I do the best I can to understand the information you written about and linked me to. Once again to moderator...please do not, at least as of yet, lock this post entirely....I am learning a great deal from people like Mordred concerning this subject and I have no desire to do anything but include the actual, proven physics around this subject. Before I finish the edit to this post, Mordred, when I attempt to follow http://arxiv.org/ftp...5/1405.1418.pdf, I get a response that indicates "not found...try the front page...I did this and ended up at arXiv.org and I imagine within this table of contents, exists the paper you wanted me to read. Can you tell me, more specifically, which amongst the ones listed I should go to.

 

 

 

 

This being said: to answer the question that Bignose expressed:

 

 

Excellent question. You asked me why don't I post about my grand theory about the emptiness or lack thereof in space... show what predictions it makes and how closely those agree with what with what is known today." First: the question I am asking almost but not quite what your wrote...this being said...the difference is critical. I am not asking, as you put it...about the emptiness or lack thereof in space.......well...you know what...when I think about it...maybe you really are not off at all....I was asking is it possible that empty space does not exist anywhere in the universe.

 

My "grand" theory about why I am nearly confident that there is no empty space....you are asking me to post in the speculation section and include in this what predictions it makes and how closely those agree what is known today.....you've asked me an excellent question and I am guessing at least one answer is to ask you and anybody reading this a question....what about the reality that my "grand" theory is not based on the ability for it to predict future occurences....my theory is based on activity I have seen in a set up situation in which I have observed every type of movement, .every type of activity, that I have been exposed to, been made aware of...i'm not make sure if this makes sense as a question...I apologize for that....

 

I guess what it comes down to is that although I have seen all known activity in this "working model" of which I speak, and this working model has no empty space...

 

 

Well maybe I should just write about what that working model is. I could do that. Easily. The working model is something anyone could easily recreate in about four minutes. With...well...let me ask everyone I question and I hope for honest answers. Let me first say I am aware of the following as many of might be:

 

One of the greatest questions in all of science, at least in physics is trying to be answered by combining (unifying) the fourth thought to exist forces that control all movement in the universe. STRONG FORCE, WEAK FORCE, ELECTROMAGNETISM, GRAVITY....I know there have mathematical success in doing just this...and in the end it is stated that in the beginning all these forces were most likely "born" from one....but here's the thing....as far as I know...and please anyone....correct me if I am wrong....no one....not anyone at all...has been really...I mean really been able to explain how any of these four forces work. Attempts have been made...there are some people who have long, drawn out theories as to exactly how say for example, GRAVITY, works....what it is and why it does why it does and has the effect on the universe it has. These theories sometimes for example include such concepts of how MASS bends, warps, causes "space" sometimes "space/time" in such a way that well...certain things do what they do...I have become studied every theory about all the four forces and it seems to me in the end....that the real validity of existence of these four forces is based on their ability to predict and explain activity, Ultimately though I have come across a theory for any of these four forces that made it clear to me exactly, exactly, what these four forces are and how they work.

 

And so what you might be asking? What's the problem. The theories predict accurately and so....why question their existence.

 

Good artists copy, great artists steal, Steve Jobs was quoted as saying although (I forget the original artist who he was quoting)....I would add to that...and the best artist create.

 

Steve Jobs also said no one one really knows why when a pencil is let go it moves to the ground. Some would say...that Steve was an idiot. Obviously gravity is the answer. Some might to him if he was alive...is it possible that you don't believe in gravity....could you be that dumb....I've done a lot of research on how Steve thinks and I am guessing he would respond in the same way...I am not saying that gravity does not exist....but...if you can't explain exactly what it is and what it does and how it works is there another possibility for why when I drop a pencil it moves to the ground.

 

To tell you the truth, there is very possibly a theory about gravity that I have read that explained what gravity is, how it works and why it does what it does....and although I was not confident that this theory was proof if gravity...perhaps I just wasn't able to comprehend certain aspects of the theory that actually did claim to do what it claims to do which is (and I apologize for the repetition) explain exactly what gravity is and how it works and why it does what it does.

 

So...the "grand" theory I have is not about proving there is no empty space. My "grand" theory contains as a postulate that there is no "empty space" In my working model there is no "empty space" and my working model has one other postulate and three variables. My theory does not contain anything about any of the above four mentioned forces. Yet my theory is based on fact that my working displays, as I said, every type of motion...from the so call activity of the "virtual particles" that pop in and out of existence and working model displays activity that precisely resembles the moon moving around the Earth and the Earth around the Sun.

 

So, ultimately, what I am saying to everyone reading this is: If I were to explain all activity in all the universe with two very simple postulates and three very simple variables.....would I be immediately considered a "crack pot". I ask this because in a forum similar to this...many years ago....wrote in my first post about how I can explain the universe with two postulates and there variables and....almost as soon as I was done writing....I got a message that said "You are banned permanently from this site. Reason: Crack pot.

 

I am claiming that I have discovered a possible answer to one of the greatest, perhaps the greatest mysteries, in modern sciences.....what is the reason for all activity in the universe.

 

One of Albert Einstein's noble prize winning papers was based on the activity he noticed when looking at the tea leaves in his cup of tea.

 

What if by something you had noticed caused you to come up with the theory to explain all motion. A solution to the puzzles as to why all things move as they do. Do you know enough about this forum to know whether or not, if the theory was thought to be valid, your theory would be safe in the sense that it would not be "stolen", copied and claimed by another to be their creation instead of yours?

 

 

 

 

 

Excellent question. You asked me why don't I post about my grand theory about the emptiness or lack thereof in space... show what predictions it makes and how closely those agree with what with what is known today." First: the question I am asking almost but not quite what your wrote...this being said...the difference is critical. I am not asking, as you put it...about the emptiness or lack thereof in space.......well...you know what...when I think about it...maybe you really are not off at all....I was asking is it possible that empty space does not exist anywhere in the universe.

 

My "grand" theory about why I am nearly confident that there is no empty space....you are asking me to post in the speculation section and include in this what predictions it makes and how closely those agree what is known today.....you've asked me an excellent question and I am guessing at least one answer is to ask you and anybody reading this a question....what about the reality that my "grand" theory is not based on the ability for it to predict future occurences....my theory is based on activity I have seen in a set up situation in which I have observed every type of movement, .every type of activity, that I have been exposed to, been made aware of...i'm not make sure if this makes sense as a question...I apologize for that....

 

I guess what it comes down to is that although I have seen all known activity in this "working model" of which I speak, and this working model has no empty space...

 

 

Well maybe I should just write about what that working model is. I could do that. Easily. The working model is something anyone could easily recreate in about four minutes. With...well...let me ask everyone I question and I hope for honest answers. Let me first say I am aware of the following as many of might be:

 

One of the greatest questions in all of science, at least in physics is trying to be answered by combining (unifying) the fourth thought to exist forces that control all movement in the universe. STRONG FORCE, WEAK FORCE, ELECTROMAGNETISM, GRAVITY....I know there have mathematical success in doing just this...and in the end it is stated that in the beginning all these forces were most likely "born" from one....but here's the thing....as far as I know...and please anyone....correct me if I am wrong....no one....not anyone at all...has been really...I mean really been able to explain how any of these four forces work. Attempts have been made...there are some people who have long, drawn out theories as to exactly how say for example, GRAVITY, works....what it is and why it does why it does and has the effect on the universe it has. These theories sometimes for example include such concepts of how MASS bends, warps, causes "space" sometimes "space/time" in such a way that well...certain things do what they do...I have become studied every theory about all the four forces and it seems to me in the end....that the real validity of existence of these four forces is based on their ability to predict and explain activity, Ultimately though I have come across a theory for any of these four forces that made it clear to me exactly, exactly, what these four forces are and how they work.

 

And so what you might be asking? What's the problem. The theories predict accurately and so....why question their existence.

 

Good artists copy, great artists steal, Steve Jobs was quoted as saying although (I forget the original artist who he was quoting)....I would add to that...and the best artist create.

 

Steve Jobs also said no one one really knows why when a pencil is let go it moves to the ground. Some would say...that Steve was an idiot. Obviously gravity is the answer. Some might to him if he was alive...is it possible that you don't believe in gravity....could you be that dumb....I've done a lot of research on how Steve thinks and I am guessing he would respond in the same way...I am not saying that gravity does not exist....but...if you can't explain exactly what it is and what it does and how it works is there another possibility for why when I drop a pencil it moves to the ground.

 

To tell you the truth, there is very possibly a theory about gravity that I have read that explained what gravity is, how it works and why it does what it does....and although I was not confident that this theory was proof if gravity...perhaps I just wasn't able to comprehend certain aspects of the theory that actually did claim to do what it claims to do which is (and I apologize for the repetition) explain exactly what gravity is and how it works and why it does what it does.

 

So...the "grand" theory I have is not about proving there is no empty space. My "grand" theory contains as a postulate that there is no "empty space" In my working model there is no "empty space" and my working model has one other postulate and three variables. My theory does not contain anything about any of the above four mentioned forces. Yet my theory is based on fact that my working displays, as I said, every type of motion...from the so call activity of the "virtual particles" that pop in and out of existence and working model displays activity that precisely resembles the moon moving around the Earth and the Earth around the Sun.

 

So, ultimately, what I am saying to everyone reading this is: If I were to explain all activity in all the universe with two very simple postulates and three very simple variables.....would I be immediately considered a "crack pot". I ask this because in a forum similar to this...many years ago....wrote in my first post about how I can explain the universe with two postulates and there variables and....almost as soon as I was done writing....I got a message that said "You are banned permanently from this site. Reason: Crack pot.

 

I am claiming that I have discovered a possible answer to one of the greatest, perhaps the greatest mysteries, in modern sciences.....what is the reason for all activity in the universe.

 

One of Albert Einstein's noble prize winning papers was based on the activity he noticed when looking at the tea leaves in his cup of tea.

 

What if by something you had noticed caused you to come up with the theory to explain all motion. A solution to the puzzles as to why all things move as they do. Do you know enough about this forum to know whether or not, if the theory was thought to be valid, your theory would be safe in the sense that it would not be "stolen", copied and claimed by another to be their creation instead of yours? And, if you felt it could be "stolen" how would you go about indicating to the world in a way in which you would not have to worry about this happening.

 

Keep in mind...I have no degree in science....or anything like that...I am a complete unknown...if I am told that a theory such as mine should first be published in a "publication" of some sort for peer review...than I will ask....how would I even go about doing this....where would I start....who would I talk to.....where would I send it? Would I be taken seriously by anyone?

 

 

 

 

Edited July 7, 2014 by Mitch Bass

[swansont]

 

So, ultimately, what I am saying to everyone reading this is: If I were to explain all activity in all the universe with two very simple postulates and three very simple variables.....would I be immediately considered a "crack pot". I ask this because in a forum similar to this...many years ago....wrote in my first post about how I can explain the universe with two postulates and there variables and....almost as soon as I was done writing....I got a message that said "You are banned permanently from this site. Reason: Crack pot.

 

 

We don't ban people for being crackpots here. When we ban someone it's for not following the rules. Being wrong isn't against the rules. But there are other rules of which crackpots (and others) run afoul, and that's what dooms them. Not providing a way to test one's idea and/or not responding to legitimate inquiry, and the resulting soapboxing (along with a degradation of civility), is a common pathway to thread closure, and sometimes/eventually ex-membership. Repeated hijacking to pimp the idea is another.

 

However, it seems nigh on impossible that three variables could possibly explain "all activity in the universe" for the simple reason that we have measured more than three independent actions of what we can observe. Six degrees of freedom, plus time, and other variables like mass and charge. But go ahead and post it, as long as you're prepared to be challenged. If you abdicate your responsibility to defend it, it will be locked.

[LaurieAG]

 

No, that's not quite it. Dark matter is matter we can detect only via gravitational effects.

 

That's interesting as I came across the following on the Wikipedia Fictitious Force page.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ficticious_Force#Gravity_as_a_fictitious_force

 

 

 

Gravity as a fictitious force

The notion of "fictitious force" comes up in general relativity.^[15][16] All fictitious forces are proportional to the mass of the object upon which they act, which is also true forgravity.^[17] This led Albert Einstein to wonder whether gravity was a fictitious force as well. He noted that a freefalling observer in a closed box would not be able to detect the force of gravity; hence, freefalling reference frames are equivalent to an inertial reference frame (the equivalence principle). Following up on this insight, Einstein was able to formulate a theory with gravity as a fictitious force; attributing the apparent acceleration of gravity to the curvature of spacetime. This idea underlies Einstein's theory of general relativity.

[Mordred]

to answer your question, yes there is a lot of empty space,

 

 

 

you are suggesting that although there is less empty space in the universe than previously thought, there is from all data, definitely a great amount of empty space? Any further comments about your links and your writings will come in this post as soon as I do the best I can to understand the information you written about and linked me to.

http://arxiv.org/ftp...5/1405.1418.pdf, I get a response that indicates "not found...try the front page...I did this and ended up at arXiv.org and I imagine within this table of contents, exists the paper you wanted me to read. Can you tell me, more specifically, which amongst the ones listed I should go to.

 

 

 

here is the link

 

http://arxiv.org/abs/1405.1418 its the technical document covering the simulation.

 

as far as the amount of empty space is concerned Yes there is lots of empty space, I've shown how you can calculate the amount from the critical density. The number of particle correlation to the critical density 9.0 *10^-10 joules per m³ shown it the previous post works out to an average of 6 protons per m³. When you consider how small a proton is and how much volume a m³ has. That's a lot of unused volume per cubic meter, Now multiply that number by the volume of the observable universe. = a whole lot of empty volume.

 

post 28 has the calculations, post 32 covers how to do similar calculations from the temperature at a given time period. the first two articles of post 32 covers how to use those equations in post 32

 

now lets assume for a second that you double the average energy-density so instead of 9.0 Joules per m³ you have 18 joules per m³ you now have a non critically dense universe. The universe would no longer expand, it would contract and collapse.

 

in your case where you wish to fill all of empty space it would collapse even faster.

 

[latex]\Omega=\frac{P_{total}}{P_{crit}}[/latex]

 

[latex]\Omega[/latex] =density

 

[latex]\rho_{crit} = \frac{3c^2H^2}{8\pi G}[/latex]

 

the critical density is the boundary value between universe models that expand forever (open models) and those that recollapse (closed models)

 

now if your universe energy density is greater than the critical density the universe will collapse the equation used is the FLRW metric

in my example k=+1 a positive curvature universe in your case it would be greater than +1, the universe today according to the best datasets WMAP and PLANCK the universe is k=0 flat.

 

see the last two equations in the 4d section on this article, for some reason I can never get these two equations to latex on this site, believe me its fustrating, as I have no problem doing the latex for those two equations on other sites.)

http://cosmology101.wikidot.com/geometry-flrw-metric/

 

page 1 of that article is

http://cosmology101.wikidot.com/universe-geometry

 

see where your going to have a problem with stating that there is no empty space? I'm going by your descriptive as you haven't shown any mathematics as of yet

 

this is one of the problems with personal theories, seems like everyone tries to solve the mysteries of the universe, however they rarely take the time to understand what the current theories state or why they state what they do. Its akin to having your 13 year old kid telling his/her parents how to live. (for some reason teenagers always have all the answers lol)(no offense to any teenagers reading this thread, I just had a lengthy discussion with one of my grandchildren). I hope you do take the time to use the articles I posted, one of them is a full length textbook, that includes the particle physics aspects.

Edited July 8, 2014 by Mordred

[swansont]

 

That's interesting as I came across the following on the Wikipedia Fictitious Force page.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ficticious_Force#Gravity_as_a_fictitious_force

 

 

 

Regardless, there are still gravitational effects, and dark matter can be detected via those effects.

[Bignose]

I am adding this paragraph after I have written the rest of what I have written in this post...I have copied it and actually would like to paste it in the speculations center, where is it by the way....

Speculation is another subforum here. http://www.scienceforums.net/forum/29-speculations/

 

It is there specifically to post ideas that are not currently mainstream physics. It is a crucible, all ideas posts there get a lot of arrows and slings thrown at them. But, if you take those as constructive criticism instead of personal attacks (which are not allowed and any mod will remove), they only help make your idea stronger. And really, some criticism from an anonymous internet forum is 1/1000th the criticism you would receive if you presenting a paper at conference or submitting it to a journal. In short, it is good practice.

 

As swansont posted, it is not against the rules to have a non-mainstream idea. Heck, all of science at some point was non-mainstream. Just be prepared to support any statements you make with objective clear-cut evidence. If you can do as you claim, then let's see it.

[Mitch Bass]

 

We don't ban people for being crackpots here. When we ban someone it's for not following the rules. Being wrong isn't against the rules. But there are other rules of which crackpots (and others) run afoul, and that's what dooms them. Not providing a way to test one's idea and/or not responding to legitimate inquiry, and the resulting soapboxing (along with a degradation of civility), is a common pathway to thread closure, and sometimes/eventually ex-membership. Repeated hijacking to pimp the idea is another.

 

However, it seems nigh on impossible that three variables could possibly explain "all activity in the universe" for the simple reason that we have measured more than three independent actions of what we can observe. Six degrees of freedom, plus time, and other variables like mass and charge. But go ahead and post it, as long as you're prepared to be challenged. If you abdicate your responsibility to defend it, it will be locked.

With a sigh of relief and a feeling of gratitude, Moderator. Swansot, I am exhilarated to learnt how this forum gives much more room for a person to at least indicate that they have a chance to an express what might be a considered a radical idea. You are the Moderator and in being so, you perhaps know the answer to the following question: let me propose a "thought experiment" that involves a hypothetical situation (very hypothetical considering the person I will be using in this imaginary scenario is no longer living) what if Albert Einstein (I am NOT comparing myself to him should anyone thing I have an inflated ego) what if Albert Einstein were to write his theory of relativity in this forum first before anywhere else. Would his theory become "belong" to this forum?

 

Also, I would very much like to know what it is you are indicating by the "six degrees of freedom"? I am intrigued because when the word "freedom" is brought into play play my mind moves in the direction of thoughts that include such things as "free will versus determinism". I am guessing these freedoms are not related to human activity....although maybe they are...please help me to get at least a glimpse of an understanding as to what it is you are referring concerning these "six degrees" As always, with any question I ask when it comes to just about anything to anyone, I always am aware that there is "google" and "Bing", it's not that I am to lazy to do this, and sometimes I consider perhaps I am asking questions for which the answers might be obvious to most; my relative ignorance is not sot something I am ashamed or proud of.... but people, especially for example the person in this forum known as Mordred(thank you Mordred ) have given me spectacular written information and links to more information that goes far beyond the what I myself would know how to discover utilizing any search engine I am aware of.

 

 

 

I was about to hit "post" but before I did I read it over and realized something. Before you wrote about the six degrees of freeedom, you stated that there are more than three independent actions. So are the six degrees of freedom considered one of these "independent actions" (WARNING the following is a possible indication of massive ignorance indication) Mitch Bass says, almost timidly...I umm kind of don't know what you mean by an "independent action",

to answer your question, yes there is a lot of empty space,

 

 

 

here is the link

 

http://arxiv.org/abs/1405.1418 its the technical document covering the simulation.

 

as far as the amount of empty space is concerned Yes there is lots of empty space, I've shown how you can calculate the amount from the critical density. The number of particle correlation to the critical density 9.0 *10^-10 joules per m³ shown it the previous post works out to an average of 6 protons per m³. When you consider how small a proton is and how much volume a m³ has. That's a lot of unused volume per cubic meter, Now multiply that number by the volume of the observable universe. = a whole lot of empty volume.

 

post 28 has the calculations, post 32 covers how to do similar calculations from the temperature at a given time period. the first two articles of post 32 covers how to use those equations in post 32

 

now lets assume for a second that you double the average energy-density so instead of 9.0 Joules per m³ you have 18 joules per m³ you now have a non critically dense universe. The universe would no longer expand, it would contract and collapse.

 

in your case where you wish to fill all of empty space it would collapse even faster.

 

[latex]\Omega=\frac{P_{total}}{P_{crit}}[/latex]

 

[latex]\Omega[/latex] =density

 

[latex]\rho_{crit} = \frac{3c^2H^2}{8\pi G}[/latex]

 

the critical density is the boundary value between universe models that expand forever (open models) and those that recollapse (closed models)

 

now if your universe energy density is greater than the critical density the universe will collapse the equation used is the FLRW metric

in my example k=+1 a positive curvature universe in your case it would be greater than +1, the universe today according to the best datasets WMAP and PLANCK the universe is k=0 flat.

 

see the last two equations in the 4d section on this article, for some reason I can never get these two equations to latex on this site, believe me its fustrating, as I have no problem doing the latex for those two equations on other sites.)

http://cosmology101.wikidot.com/geometry-flrw-metric/

 

page 1 of that article is

http://cosmology101.wikidot.com/universe-geometry

 

see where your going to have a problem with stating that there is no empty space? I'm going by your descriptive as you haven't shown any mathematics as of yet

 

this is one of the problems with personal theories, seems like everyone tries to solve the mysteries of the universe, however they rarely take the time to understand what the current theories state or why they state what they do. Its akin to having your 13 year old kid telling his/her parents how to live. (for some reason teenagers always have all the answers lol)(no offense to any teenagers reading this thread, I just had a lengthy discussion with one of my grandchildren). I hope you do take the time to use the articles I posted, one of them is a full length textbook, that includes the particle physics aspects.

Mordred, you wrote that you hope I will use the articles you posted,,,I can say without a doubt I will and have and will continue to doing...I especially appreciate the fact that you have given me a link to a full length text book on particle physics. I do appreciate it, that being said, I know you had the best of intentions about guiding me to the book, if you look at the author, however, you will then know that I was the one who wrote it (if attempts at humor are not accepted in this forum...please let me know). seriously, though, this text book, I am guessing , it is fairly up to date and I look forwards to absorbing the massive amount of knowledge such a text book is most likely to explain. At the speed it takes me to absorb scientific information such as most likely will be presented, I regret to say that, as far as responding in this post about what it says, it could take me at least ten to fifteen maybe even up to twenty minutes to read react and respond to this t book (again, if attempts at humor are not allowed....especially ones such as these which might not even be thought of as anything resembling humor...hmm....can someone tell me in which part of this forum I could start, in a serious way, a post that I will call MORE THAN A SENSE...at first refer to how people speaking if having "a sense of humor" and then ask: is it possible to have more than a sense of humor but rather an understanding....

[swansont]

Six degrees of freedom refer to motion. A particle can move in any of three orthogonal directions, and can rotate about each axis. None of these can be described in terms of the other.

[Mordred]

Glad to hear you plan on reading the articles, there is no doubt that there is a lot of material to absorb and it will take a considerable amount of time. The Liddle textbook is a bit out of date though not too bad. Its one of the reasons that Liddle is allowing it for free distribution. It is still very handy however, as it does still teach one the basics of cosmology as well as particle physics