There is NO LIMIT TO EMPTINESS / VACUUM !

[Commander]

These are MY PROPOSALS and LAWS OF COSMOS :

 

Walker's Laws of COSMOS and UNIVERSE >>>>>

 

Law 1 : There is NO LIMIT to EMPTY SPACE !

 

Explanation :

 

Limit of Space/Emptiness : It is alright to seek a limit on matter/substance but why

seek a limit on emptiness or nothingness. So space [in terms of Euclidean

dimensions] has to be unlimited. Let us take a straight line going to infinity in both

the directions. Nothing can end this process [as if something ends it what is beyond

it which has to be something else which too will get termed as space] and if what is

told as space-warping and bending of space takes place to result in an egg-shell

shaped universe, even then what is beyond this egg in the stated theoretical

direction which does not care for the enormous reputation of Einstein ?

Therefore there can be no limit to Space. Analogously as we know there is and

there could be no limit to Time too. It is endless too.

Therefore Universe is endless [even if whether Big-bang theory is true or not and

there is a limit to the amount of matter within the confines of our known universe]

and if our universe does have an egg-shaped limit there could be many more similar

Universes beyond [beyond gravity of known matter] and therefore there will be many

more Universes to fill up the remaining empty spaces.

 

PROOF : Prove me WRONG or Otherwise and Contradict what I have stated - LOGICALLY !

 

Law 2 : No one can KNOW or MEASURE what is the Inherent Speed of ANY PARTICLE on this Universe [say within myself] and HURTLING THROUGH SPACE and its RELATIVE VELOCITY with respect to any other Object/Point !

 

Explanation : There is no fixed or Reference frame in Space and any such Reference Point too is hurtling across Space in an unknown Velocity and therefore it proves the Law proposed.

 

Law 3 : Energy is only an alternate form of matter / substance and therefore LIGHT emanating from any Source and travelling through any media can not be totally independent of its surrounding or rest of the Space and exhibit INDEPENDENT CHARACTERISTICS !

 

Explanation : What is meant is Light after emanating from a source is stated to travel at a constant unchanging Speed [except effect of medium] unfettered by any other Force. Also it is said the SPEED OF LIGHT can not be exceeded. But in case some object moves at 0.75 Speed Of Light and another at 0.75 Speed of Light in the directly opposite direction the Relative Speed between them is 1.5 times the Speed of Light. This combined with Law 2 stated above about reference frame points to the possibility that such definitions about Light and its behaviour [include Particles as well] have not been correctly understood still. Certainly there is no disconnect of Light with Environment / Forces such as Gravity etc.

[Strange]

Oh dear.

Let's just get this out of the way first.

PROOF [1] : Prove me WRONG [2] or Otherwise and Contradict what I have stated [3] - LOGICALLY ! [4]

1. This is not a proof. As with the rest of your post it is an assertion.
2. In my experience, the only people who shout this are those who are totally unwilling to be proved wrong.

3. There are a number of basic errors in your argument. I have commented on a few of the more obvious ones below.
4. As your post is totally lacking in any formal logic, there is nothing to refute logically. (Including the word "therefore" does not make it a logical argument.)

So space [in terms of Euclidean dimensions] has to be unlimited.

It is very well established that space cannot be described as Euclidean. Therefore the "straight line to infinity" you refer to may not exist. Your reference to an "egg-shell shaped universe" seems to show a profound misunderstanding of modern cosmology.

Let me try an analogy: consider the surface of the Earth. It is finite in area. A "straight line" (i.e. a great circle) has a maximum length. Now extend this curved model to three dimensional space and it is possible that space is finite.

The important point is that we do not know if space is finite or infinite. And we can probably never now. Your argument does not change that.

2. No one can KNOW or MEASURE what is the Inherent Speed of ANY PARTICLE on this Universe [say within myself] and HURTLING THROUGH SPACE and its RELATIVE VELOCITY with respect to any other Object/Point !

This is at least partly correct. There is no "inherent" of absolute velocity.

However, we can, of course, measure the velocity of an object relative to another object. We do this all the time: the speedometer in your car, the velocity of a cricket ball, the speed of sound. But the only thing that can be measured is speed relative to something else.

If you claim we cannot even measure relative speed, then what are we measuring when we measure the speed of something?

But in case some object moves at 0.75 Speed Of Light and another at 0.75 Speed of Light in the directly opposite direction the Relative Speed between them is 1.5 times the Speed of Light.

Velocity does not add linearly. This has just been answered in another thread:

I suspect you mean that they are both travelling away from you (for example) at 90% the speed of light, so in your frame of reference they are separating at 180% the speed of light?

The thing is, velocity does not add linearly (even though it seems to at everyday speeds). So each object, from its own frame of reference, sees the other moving at about 99.4% the speed of light.

Actually, 99.4475138121547% according to this page: http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/relativ/einvel2.html

 

This combined with Law 2 stated above about reference frame points to the possibility that such definitions about Light and its behaviour [include Particles as well] have not been correctly understood still.

Have not been understood by you, certainly.

It is a bit much for you to be demanding "Prove me wrong" when you are ignorant of basic physics like this.

Edited December 11, 2014 by Strange

[Commander]

Oh dear.

 

Let's just get this out of the way first.

 

1. This is not a proof. As with the rest of your post it is an assertion.

2. In my experience, the only people who shout this are those who are totally unwilling to be proved wrong.

3. There are a number of basic errors in your argument. I have commented on a few of the more obvious ones below.

4. As your post is totally lacking in any formal logic, there is nothing to refute logically. (Including the word "therefore" does not make it a logical argument.)

 

 

It is very well established that space cannot be described as Euclidean. Therefore the "straight line to infinity" you refer to may not exist. Your reference to an "egg-shell shaped universe" seems to show a profound misunderstanding of modern cosmology.

 

Let me try an analogy: consider the surface of the Earth. It is finite in area. A "straight line" (i.e. a great circle) has a maximum length. Now extend this curved model to three dimensional space and it is possible that space is finite.

 

The important point is that we do not know if space is finite or infinite. And we can probably never now. Your argument does not change that.

 

 

This is at least partly correct. There is no "inherent" of absolute velocity.

 

However, we can, of course, measure the velocity of an object relative to another object. We do this all the time: the speedometer in your car, the velocity of a cricket ball, the speed of sound. But the only thing that can be measured is speed relative to something else.

 

If you claim we cannot even measure relative speed, then what are we measuring when we measure the speed of something?

 

 

Velocity does not add linearly. This has just been answered in another thread:

 

 

 

Have not been understood by you, certainly.

 

It is a bit much for you to be demanding "Prove me wrong" when you are ignorant of basic physics like this.

 

Well, thank you.

 

Every new idea will look very silly when it is proposed.

 

I will put up my reply in detail to the counter points asap

 

For example I want you to tell me where is the "Egg Shaped" lodged and what is beyond its shell etc.

 

I don't claim that I am fully aware of each and every Theories but still I do have a short-life span and must do my bit.

 

That Demand is not intended to be provocative but to highlight my dissatisfaction on the existing Beliefs while at the same time admitting my inadequacy at this point TO PROVE IT ALL MYSELF !

[imatfaal]

!

Moderator Note

Please post new ideas and notions in speculations.

[swansont]

Every new idea will look very silly when it is proposed.

 

 

 

!

Moderator Note

The way to counter that is to provide models and evidence, along with a few other tactics we hope you will adopt in a discussion like this.

[Strange]

For example I want you to tell me where is the "Egg Shaped" lodged and what is beyond its shell etc.

 

I have no idea. This appears to be a concept you have invented. If I am mistaken, please provide a reference to a reliable source describing this model.

 

The models of cosmology I am aware of do not have any "outside" so the question is meaningless.

[Unity+]

Also it is said the SPEED OF LIGHT can not be exceeded. But in case some object moves at 0.75 Speed Of Light and another at 0.75 Speed of Light in the directly opposite direction the Relative Speed between them is 1.5 times the Speed of Light.[/size]

And this matters why? I don't think its our misunderstanding of photons as it might a your misunderstanding about the interaction of particles.

 

If the two particles somehow, through any means, were able to collide at the speeds 0.75, the force exerted by each particle would not double the amount of force when hit by another particle going at the same speed in an opposite direction in comparison two when it hits a static object. Consideration of frame of reference is important, but I think you would realize that even changing the frame of reference would have a max speed of light at 2c.

 

There is NO LIMIT to EMPTY SPACE[/size]

What is empty space? Our understanding of nothingness has changed drastically with new understandings of quantum mechanics and the Theory of Relativity.

Law 2 : No one can KNOW or MEASURE what is the Inherent Speed of ANY PARTICLE on this Universe [say within myself] and HURTLING THROUGH SPACE and its RELATIVE VELOCITY with respect to any other Object/Point ![/size]

Again, frame of reference is important to take into account. Since, within our frame of reference, the objects being experimented on also exist within this frame of reference and are affected in the same way, the speed of said particle can be measured unless we discover a new phenomena that effects this. However, evidence suggests that such measurements are possible.

 

Energy is only an alternate form of matter / substance and therefore LIGHT emanating from any Source and travelling through any media can not be totally independent of its surrounding or rest of the Space and exhibit INDEPENDENT CHARACTERISTICS ![/size]

Well, scientists were able to separate the magnetic moment of a neutron from itself:

 

Edited December 11, 2014 by Unity+

[xyzt]

 

Also it is said the SPEED OF LIGHT can not be exceeded. But in case some object moves at 0.75 Speed Of Light and another at 0.75 Speed of Light in the directly opposite direction the Relative Speed between them is 1.5 times the Speed of Light.

Yes, that is called "separation speed". It can be as high as 2c. Basic stuff that you need to learn before you start making up "theories".

[Commander]

 

I have no idea. This appears to be a concept you have invented. If I am mistaken, please provide a reference to a reliable source describing this model.

 

The models of cosmology I am aware of do not have any "outside" so the question is meaningless.

 

Yes, we need to constantly question each and everything and not lose grip over REALITY and slip into a FICTIONAL and IMAGINARY understanding of IMAGINARY dimensions and get confused between INSIDE and OUTSIDE.

 

Can you tell me what the OBSERVER will perceive if he is within the confines of an Atom or an Orange or House[with A/C on] or at the Core of Earth or Sun or a Blackhole [many are impossible for the Human observer]

 

I will give a Model which will satisfy ALL THESE CONDITIONS !

Just look at the Basic Points !

 

Why should there be any LIMIT to SPACE / EMPTINESS !!

 

I challenge anyone to give me a satisfactory answer !!!

Edited December 11, 2014 by Commander

[Strange]

 

Just look at the Basic Points !

 

Your basic points are full of errors.

[Commander]

 

Your basic points are full of errors.

 

If we accept it was a Big Bang which started the Universe / Space what was outside that LARGE BLACK HOLE and what do you call that Space which was later on occupied by matter spewed out of the BIG BANG ? I call it UNLIMITED EMPTINESS !

[swansont]

I will give a Model which will satisfy ALL THESE CONDITIONS !

 

Let's have it, then. No tap-dancing around, arguing minutia. Let's have the model, and predictions that allow for it to be tested experimentally.

[Strange]

 

If we accept it was a Big Bang which started the Universe / Space what was outside that LARGE BLACK HOLE and what do you call that Space which was later on occupied by matter spewed out of the BIG BANG ? I call it UNLIMITED EMPTINESS !

 

I think you should learn a little bit about the theory you are criticising.

 

1. There was not a black hole.

2. All of space was full of matter.

3. There was no empty space.

4. Matter was not "spewed out" of the big bang.

 

(And there is no evidence that the big bang "started" the universe.)

[Mordred]

It's amazing how often posters figure they have all the answers but don't even understand the basics of a model already tested. Lol as Strange pointed out correctly you are under numerous misunderstandings in regards to Cosmology. My signature has numerous articles and textbooks that if you take the time to study them will address this lack. Here is a few recommended for starters.

Misconceptions (Useful articles to answer various Cosmology Misconceptions)

 

http://www.phinds.com/balloonanalogy/: A thorough write up on the balloon analogy used to describe expansion

http://tangentspace.info/docs/horizon.pdf:Inflation and the Cosmological Horizon by Brian Powell

http://arxiv.org/abs/1304.4446:"What we have leaned from Observational Cosmology." -A handy write up on observational cosmology in accordance with the LambdaCDM model.

http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0310808:"Expanding Confusion: common misconceptions of cosmological horizons and the superluminal expansion of the Universe" Lineweaver and Davies

http://www.mso.anu.edu.au/~charley/papers/LineweaverDavisSciAm.pdf:"Misconceptions about the Big bang" also Lineweaver and Davies

These articles require very little preknowledge or math

[Commander]

 

Let's have it, then. No tap-dancing around, arguing minutia. Let's have the model, and predictions that allow for it to be tested experimentally.

 

To start with I need support to carry out this exercise :

 

Or someone else can get it done.

 

Have a set of Gear wheels connected in sequence at 1:100 teeth ratio or 1 : 10

 

That is if the gear turns one circle the next connected gear wheel turns 100 times [make it 10 if needed]

 

Connect these Gear Wheels say 10 in number and use Reliable design and Engineering etc [i can give the graphical diagram if needed but it can be easily imagined here]

 

The point is as we add wheels in tandem one of the latest added wheel will start revolving at such a speed that its peripheral edge will attain the Speed of light or exceed it.

 

Something may give way somewhere if THERE IS ANY IMPOSSIBILITY

 

I would like to see what happens and what fails etc in order to develop further on this observation.

 

Let us use the best Material Science and Fibre Composite etc for the LIGHTEST and STRONGEST of the Wheels and Arrangement in this Exercise !

 

For those who claim to have isolated even each and every Particle this should an easy task !!

[ajb]

I think you are hinting at Ehrenfest's paradox... In fact it was this the lead Einstein to consider that space may not be Euclidean.

[Commander]

 

 

Edited December 12, 2014 by Commander

[Mordred]

My only advise is to truly study the models and the research of the past century or two that went into developing the Big bang theory. As stated my signature has several articles and textbooks to that end. Discounting over a century of research based on lack of knowledge of the subject is foolish.

Particularly with all the observational evidence supporting the model. Its akin to stating evolution is a hoax.

[ajb]

Because NOTHINGNESS adds or subtracts or divides or multiplies Nothing and therefore must be ignored and allowed to exist wherever it is !

That sound like a awful mix of mathematics and philosophy. Others here in the past have very much confused themselves by mixing 'nothing', the empty set and zero. Also that word 'exist' always gives us trouble. You will need to be much more careful here if you want to make any sense.

 

....the further Theories I will accept only IF THEY SATISFY MY ACCEPTED BELIEFS !

You have to be more open than that and take care that you do not discount things just because they are not how you first imagines. A good dose of scepticism is very good, but you have to be willing to have your preconceptions to be shown unfounded.

 

...I don't think it is necessary to have ANY MEDIUM FOR LIGHT OR GRAVITY TO TRAVEL !!

This is how modern physics views the situation.

 

 

...my Model !!

Do you have a 'toy model' yet if not the full picture?

[swansont]

 

The point is as we add wheels in tandem one of the latest added wheel will start revolving at such a speed that its peripheral edge will attain the Speed of light or exceed it.

 

Something may give way somewhere if THERE IS ANY IMPOSSIBILITY

 

I would like to see what happens and what fails etc in order to develop further on this observation.

 

Let us use the best Material Science and Fibre Composite etc for the LIGHTEST and STRONGEST of the Wheels and Arrangement in this Exercise !

 

For those who claim to have isolated even each and every Particle this should an easy task !!

 

 

No. There are no infinitely rigid physical objects. The gears would fall apart well before reaching c.

 

So is there a model coming soon, like in your next post?

[Strange]

<something about "I have only described the big bang as as science sees it">

 

No you have described your grossly innaccurate misunderstanding of the big bang theory.

[Commander]

.

.

Edited December 12, 2014 by Commander

[Phi for All]

!

Moderator Note

Commander, please don't delete your parts of this discussion. It makes it even more difficult to explain your idea.

[Commander]

!

Moderator Note

Commander, please don't delete your parts of this discussion. It makes it even more difficult to explain your idea.

 

OK TY

[O'Nero Samuel]

The vector resolution of velocities through space-time tends towards equations described by special theory of relativity as the velocity tends towards the speed of light.Trying to imagine a frame of reference travelling at or above the speed of light is unimaginable, or so to speak, mathematically incoherent. You can deceive yourself with any other type of innovative-beyound-speed-of-light space-time hypothesis, But that's all you'd be doing - deceiving yourself I mean. You wouldn't have the mathematical footings to back your hypothesis.