Marco Wouters Posted September 17, 2016 Posted September 17, 2016 My first time here…maybe just a stupid thought… If you put empty space inside an empty space…do you then end up with two empty spaces? Or is the one now no longer empty because of it containing the other empty space? Do they add up to more emptiness? Does emptiness absorb added emptiness without growing because you add nothing? Would that mean that all emptiness fits into nothingness since it actually can contain itself inside itself? If so then it is impossible to have an actual empty space…so emptiness should be able to expand… That’s strange since how can nothing add to something? Emptiness is a nonexistent thing; always something is? What exists outside something? Since for what we know…everything has an end so emptiness should also start somewhere…at the place where everything ends… Though…if emptiness cannot be, it would mean that the complete universe is connected by pressure…as everywhere something is… Everything touches everything through each other… Then you truly are the center of the universe and your ego is created by pressure… Your ego exists because everything seems to revolve around you…and it actually does… The complete Universe moves with each time frame…just a slight bit… Each frame shifts it’s pressure just a bit from all sides…but just slightly due to the size of it all… Average pressure and biggest deviation are negligible from frame to frame… This pressure is what formed all mass into what it is now… And the places were mass gathered is just the point which is weakest in pressure… Like water…mass would float towards that point in space… In time our Universe formed our planets and finally me… All done by pressure from the complete universe… The reason that we feel gravity is because the middle point of the earth is a bit weaker in pressure…so as all mass we move also in that direction… It is just that the mass from above pushes us down to this point in space…we are not pulled like a magnet… Just see the difference between you jumping and you taking a magnet of off a piece of metal… The two things are completely different…we do not stick to the floor… Just to add my definition of time… Time is just mass not fitting inside its coat of nothingness…
Marco Wouters Posted September 18, 2016 Author Posted September 18, 2016 I know i am a bit wierd in explaining but...if 0+0=0 then it would mean that emptiness fits inside inself... When something fits inside itself, it no longer exists since all emptiness would fit into one single piece of emptiness... this means that nothing is empty.... and if nothing is empty then we basicly are connected to everything within the universe... Moving your arm should then technically create a change throughout the complete universe...small but still it should. It just a part of my thought that gravity works a bit different as everyone thinks...
koti Posted September 18, 2016 Posted September 18, 2016 I know i am a bit wierd in explaining but...if 0+0=0 then it would mean that emptiness fits inside inself... When something fits inside itself, it no longer exists since all emptiness would fit into one single piece of emptiness... this means that nothing is empty.... and if nothing is empty then we basicly are connected to everything within the universe... Moving your arm should then technically create a change throughout the complete universe...small but still it should. It just a part of my thought that gravity works a bit different as everyone thinks... You are touching many subjects and a good starting point would be defining "emptyness" Empty = 0. For something to fit inside something you have to have somehing. If there is nothing there is no point of putting nothing into nothing. Space on the other hand could be not empty, it could be full fields on the quantum level. It might be full of activity which in our understanding would not be "empty"
Phi for All Posted September 18, 2016 Posted September 18, 2016 In your definition, is outer space empty?
koti Posted September 18, 2016 Posted September 18, 2016 In your definition, is outer space empty? I am not trying to define space, I dont feel fit to do so. I'm trying to define the concept of emptyness.
Phi for All Posted September 18, 2016 Posted September 18, 2016 I am not trying to define space, I dont feel fit to do so. I'm trying to define the concept of emptyness. Sorry, @ the OP.
Marco Wouters Posted September 19, 2016 Author Posted September 19, 2016 Emptiness I define as not holding any mass... Reality floats on one moment only...how it gets its information on what is to be reailty does not really matter yet at this moment. Quantum flux etc...thats a step beyond what I am looking at. How reality gets its information on what is real can or cannot be defined by us, I don't know yet For me...looking at reality as one frame in time...if emptiness cannot be since there is always a mass at every place in the universe then mass does not fit inside the space of emptiness... So if everything started as emptiness then mass does not fit inside this coat...time was created to make reality able to gain mass in an empty space by keeping the momentum flowing...time is just mass not fitting inside the emptiness which used to be before the Big Bang... I know I make huge jumps in conclusions but it's difficult to explain the details which float inside my mind... Discussions like this makes them flow easier
Strange Posted September 19, 2016 Posted September 19, 2016 (edited) If you put empty space inside an empty space…do you then end up with two empty spaces? Or is the one now no longer empty because of it containing the other empty space? Do they add up to more emptiness? It depends what you mean by the term "empty space" (and "put in"). If you mean a volume of (say) 1 cubic metre that does not contain anything put next to another volume of 1 cubic metre that does not contain anything then you will have 2 cubic metres that do not contain anything. But if you mean pouring the contents of the first cubic metre that does not contain anything into the second cubic metre that does not contain anything, then you end up with 1 cubic metre that does not contain anything. Or is the one now no longer empty because of it containing the other empty space? Or, you can take a set-theoretical approach and say that the union of two empty sets is the empty set [latex]\{\} \cup \{\} = \{\}[/latex]. But the set containing an empty set is not an empty set: [latex]\{ \{\} \} [/latex]. emptiness cannot be since there is always a mass at every place in the universe then mass does not fit inside the space of emptiness... Mass fits inside space. I don't know what "the space of emptiness" means. So if everything started as emptiness Is there any reason to think that? In the big bang model, for example, the universe has always been homogeneously full of matter and/or energy. Edited September 19, 2016 by Strange
koti Posted September 19, 2016 Posted September 19, 2016 If you mean a volume of (say) 1 cubic metre that does not contain anything put next to another volume of 1 cubic metre that does not contain anything then you will have 2 cubic metres that do not contain anything. But if you mean pouring the contents of the first cubic metre that does not contain anything into the second cubic metre that does not contain anything, then you end up with 1 cubic metre that does not contain anything. The above seems correct Or, you can take a set-theoretical approach and say that the union of two empty sets is the empty set [latex]\{\} \cup \{\} = \{\}[/latex]. But the set containing an empty set is not an empty set: [latex]\{ \{\} \} [/latex]. This also seems correct. What makes me uncomfortable is that 1 cubic metre that does not contain anything does not equal to [latex]\{ \{\} \} [/latex] Is this proof that theoretical aproaches are full of crap ?
Strange Posted September 19, 2016 Posted September 19, 2016 What makes me uncomfortable is that 1 cubic metre that does not contain anything does not equal to [latex]\{ \{\} \} [/latex] Is this proof that theoretical aproaches are full of crap ? No. It just says that you can create an abstract version of a problem that does not necessarily represent anything physical. I just went an extra step in thinking about the problem (purely) mathematically.
koti Posted September 19, 2016 Posted September 19, 2016 No. It just says that you can create an abstract version of a problem that does not necessarily represent anything physical. I just went an extra step in thinking about the problem (purely) mathematically. Your "extra step" might be very useful for the OP to understand some of the issues touched here. As for me - the contradiction is ruthless and still makes me uncomfortable
Marco Wouters Posted September 19, 2016 Author Posted September 19, 2016 Quote So if everything started as emptiness Is there any reason to think that? In the big bang model, for example, the universe has always been homogeneously full of matter and/or energy. According to the big bang theory, one of the main contenders vying to explain how the universe came to be, all the matter in the cosmos -- all of space itself -- existed in a form smaller than a subatomic particle. I define everything outside of this "smaller than a subatomic particle" as empty. but due to my issue with emptiness fitting inside itself this also could not have been bigger as "smaller than a subatomic particle"... Now I don't do math...I just have strange questions and weird answers but to me it looks like that at the moment that one single particle of mass was formed it automaticly started to cancel emptiness out of existence... Since something then was...emptiness could no longer be...but if nothing is then emptiness infinitly big...
Phi for All Posted September 19, 2016 Posted September 19, 2016 So if everything started as emptiness then mass does not fit inside this coat... Our current best explanations don't start with emptiness. According to the big bang theory, one of the main contenders vying to explain how the universe came to be, all the matter in the cosmos -- all of space itself -- existed in a form smaller than a subatomic particle. I define everything outside of this "smaller than a subatomic particle" as empty. There is nothing "outside" of everything. Nothing "outside" the universe.
Strange Posted September 19, 2016 Posted September 19, 2016 According to the big bang theory, one of the main contenders vying to explain how the universe came to be, all the matter in the cosmos -- all of space itself -- existed in a form smaller than a subatomic particle. I define everything outside of this "smaller than a subatomic particle" as empty.. As you say, "all of space" was that size. So there was nothing outside of that. it automaticly started to cancel emptiness out of existence... "Emptiness" is not a thing.
koti Posted September 19, 2016 Posted September 19, 2016 (edited) Marco, I think you will need to first wrap your head around the difference between empty and lack of everything. The word "Empty" reffers to lack of contents but the concept of "empty" is rooted in the 3 geometrical dimentions we live with everyday and also rooted in time, foe example: My wallet is empty now but next week it will be full (hopefully) When we talk about what was before the big bang or what was outside of the particle during the big bang, these questions have no meaning. There were no dimentions and no time before the big bang or outside of that particle during the big bang. That is very different from empty. Edited September 19, 2016 by koti
Phi for All Posted September 19, 2016 Posted September 19, 2016 As you say, "all of space" was that size. So there was nothing outside of that. I think this concept is so difficult to grasp partly because, in order to visualize the universe compressed down to its hot, dense, t=0 beginning state, we shrink it down in our minds but "we" are standing outside of that, imagining it shrink down before expanding at the time of the Big Bang. I think our minds default to outside observer perspective, and that makes it easy to imagine an "outside" to the universe. 2
Delta1212 Posted September 19, 2016 Posted September 19, 2016 I think this concept is so difficult to grasp partly because, in order to visualize the universe compressed down to its hot, dense, t=0 beginning state, we shrink it down in our minds but "we" are standing outside of that, imagining it shrink down before expanding at the time of the Big Bang. I think our minds default to outside observer perspective, and that makes it easy to imagine an "outside" to the universe. I've stopped thinking of it as smaller and just think of it as homogenously denser. Our current observable universe may have been the size of a pea at some point, but I solve the "pea floating in empty space" by imagining that the universe outside of the observable universe is the same as the universe outside the observable universe, so while I may still be "outside" the observable universe when imagining it smaller, I'm sitting in a dense block of matter and energy rather than empty space.
Strange Posted September 19, 2016 Posted September 19, 2016 I think this concept is so difficult to grasp partly because, in order to visualize the universe compressed down to its hot, dense, t=0 beginning state, we shrink it down in our minds but "we" are standing outside of that, imagining it shrink down before expanding at the time of the Big Bang. I think our minds default to outside observer perspective, and that makes it easy to imagine an "outside" to the universe. Imagining the universe to be infinite solves that problem. As long as you can imagine an infinite universe ...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now