|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: The infinite space of the Universe | |||||||||||||||||||
IamJoseph Member (Idle past 3699 days) Posts: 2822 Joined: |
quote: How can 'space/area' exist w/o matter, and how would you determine and identify such? - what instrumentation would you use, which is not itself matter? What is water without water; - or what is a hole without the hole? It becomes semantical, as opposed science. Thus, if we can see or percieve space, even if we can imagine it - it is not nothing but something. I see space as the final frontier between the corporeal and non-corporeal, the space bed being made of the rarest, smallest, oldest, deepest forms of matter; it's particles probably have only has one side - its other side being non-corporeal, and representing only that which is not uni contained.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
IamJoseph Member (Idle past 3699 days) Posts: 2822 Joined: |
Light essence, namely a pre-star light, predated photons. Photons are a later occurence, and is the factor which produced luminosity, which is varied from light per se. Light is massless, and ageless - the latter factor disqualifies photons, which are not ageless but has a very limited lifespan.
Edited by IamJoseph, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
IamJoseph Member (Idle past 3699 days) Posts: 2822 Joined: |
quote: The atom itself has a limited life span, so does the electron. A photon is seen as a quantumn particle of light; that it is also massless and ageless, says this particle was suitable to be light contained/light contained, probably because of its unique state when heated - because matter particles do not of themselves have these traits of becoming massless, but they instead disipitate or become gaseous or another state or another molescule, eg. H2O. That light has no mass, means it is not mass; only a mass-less particle can be ageless, because it is not effected by mass drag. That a photon is not light but a component in all radiation:
quote: That photons are not light itself, but an additive energy input exciter ['Lewis did not consider photons as light or radiant energy but as "the carrier of radiant energy."]:
quote: That the photon travels from atom [particle] to particle, with energy transfer, thereby incurring loss of energy at each transfer, until when the energy is depleted, making the light essence not vision-friendly anymore. Thus the energy additive [heat] makes light vision friendly by excitation [as in a wood log glowing when heated by fire]. We know that changes of states result in energy loss and there is no free energy or ever-lasting energy.
quote: quote: Light is produced by a star, but this does not mean light was created by the star. The star could not produce light if it was not already an existent entity, and light can exist outside of a star [as in a torch]. The stars perform an [atomic] action which is condusive to the production of light, which can be emulated elsewhere also. Not all stars produce light, or, they have to undergo a embryotic period before they become light producing adult stars. Luminosity and light are seperate phenomenons, and since light is an independent intity from the stars, it predates the stars, and is a primodial factor in the universe. Luminosity is derived via excitation, mostly via heat generation.
quote: IMHO, luminosity occured at a later stage in the universe emergence, and photons are connected with luminosity. We know this because a star does not give out light till a later stage of its development. We find that a photo reveals its image with another action, but that image was imprinted earlier, but it was not vision friendly. This is a similar process concerning photons. Edited by IamJoseph, : No reason given. Edited by IamJoseph, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
IamJoseph Member (Idle past 3699 days) Posts: 2822 Joined: |
quote: No demensions, no time, etc. This says that nothing we determine as universe contained = nothingness. Here, I cannot see any alternative other than an external [Creator?] impacting factor being applicable. This cannot be dismissed solely because the word Creator is used, because it means science and logic itself points at this premise - by the process of elimination. If there is nothingness, and then something emerged, and performs mechanical feats such as the universe structures - there is no alternative of an external factor applying. In fact, even if there was space, and nothing else within that space, and something happens - it still becomes only possible by an external triggering. I would like someone to explain any credible alternative applying, because my premise is not based on theology, but a logical deduction; there is no scientific theory to apply, because there is nothingness - no forces, energy, matter, light, heat/density variations, particles or fluctuations of any kind. No cool breeze either - just nothingness. Edited by IamJoseph, : No reason given. Edited by IamJoseph, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
IamJoseph Member (Idle past 3699 days) Posts: 2822 Joined: |
quote: Ok, I wont say the surface is the edge, or that the sphere is the earth below. There is no edge in space - but there is if you were outside the edge, no?
|
|||||||||||||||||||
IamJoseph Member (Idle past 3699 days) Posts: 2822 Joined: |
I wont go there - I'm not into talibanic science. But, before enlightening about space, do you except space is a post-uni product, or did it 'ALWAYS EXIST' - which violates the finite universe premise. The preamble rules.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
IamJoseph Member (Idle past 3699 days) Posts: 2822 Joined: |
The problem with the BBT is, while there is no other known knowledge of the uni origins - this is not in itself a reason to accept the BBT. Basically, the BB is a brylcream kid's definition, namely if space is expanding this-away, it must have come from that-away, and if everything in space is getting bigger, it must have started at a smallest point. It is back zooming of some inferences.
The negative factor of the BB is that it avoids the non-negotiable factor of an external impact applying.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
IamJoseph Member (Idle past 3699 days) Posts: 2822 Joined: |
quote: I must have asked a scary question. Just to make it even more interesting - unbounded has no relationship with un-ending. My confusion is, are you not confused when speaking of the universe origins, without first stating a preamble, like which universe are you discussing - a finite or infinite one - like as if this is a superflous factor?
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024