Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 63 (9161 total)
1 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,585 Year: 2,842/9,624 Month: 687/1,588 Week: 93/229 Day: 4/61 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   What's the Fabric of space made out of?
Fabric
Member (Idle past 5662 days)
Posts: 41
From: London, England
Joined: 02-27-2005


Message 256 of 284 (479967)
08-31-2008 10:16 AM


I think we will know if space is made out of energy or not when or if we find out if is discrete or not, if space is discrete and made from particles then surely it is energy as particles are forms of energy themselves..
Thats just thinking of the top of my head here i dont know how right i am, what are your thoughts cavediver on space being nice and smooth or being discrete ?
Of course then you get dark energy that we know near to nothing about, thats what makes
up most of the universe, so my above statement is pretty much useless yes ? lol
Edited by Fabric, : No reason given.

Myspace!

Replies to this message:
 Message 257 by cavediver, posted 08-31-2008 10:26 AM Fabric has replied

  
cavediver
Member (Idle past 3634 days)
Posts: 4129
From: UK
Joined: 06-16-2005


Message 257 of 284 (479968)
08-31-2008 10:26 AM
Reply to: Message 256 by Fabric
08-31-2008 10:16 AM


Hi Fabric - please don't listen to anything V-Bird says - he's a typical internet crank who thinks his ideas will replace the last 100 years of space-time physics. There's a million of his type out there, and they don't have a clue between them
"Things" aren't made out of "energy" in any way.
Smooth or discrete? Wow, that's a deep question. I would say eventually discrete, but whether there is still any semblance of what we would call space at the level it becomes discrete, I'm not so sure. I gues what that means is that as you look deeper and deeper, it would stop looking like space long before it starts looking discrete. But that's just a Sunday afternoon hunch
Dark energy is a piece of cake compared to the above question. We're not sure what dark energy is in the same way that we're not sure what makes up the secert ingrediants in Coke or Pepsi. Is not that we have no clue... we have many clues, and we know many things that it definitely is not. But we're just not sure which guess is the right one yet. Don't let the popular press overstate our ignorance...
Don't forget to use the reply button for adding posts - don't just use the general reply button (unless it is a general reply) as it breaks the flow.
Edited by cavediver, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 256 by Fabric, posted 08-31-2008 10:16 AM Fabric has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 258 by Fabric, posted 08-31-2008 11:12 AM cavediver has not replied

  
Fabric
Member (Idle past 5662 days)
Posts: 41
From: London, England
Joined: 02-27-2005


Message 258 of 284 (479973)
08-31-2008 11:12 AM
Reply to: Message 257 by cavediver
08-31-2008 10:26 AM


cheers cavediver, i figured that about V-Bird pretty much straight away though no disrespect is meant by that.
Is energy basically just the momentum of an object moving, the more momentum the more energy it has or if an object is still it has potential energy.
So "things" are not made from energy but yet they store it ?
The word energy has always confused me and i think is used to much sometimes
to describe natural phenomena.
Also that was a good response about space being discrete, i guess it makes sense that
when you go to those small distance scales it will look a lot different because it does already, like electrons,protons ect...
Also i thought sub atomic particles were made of energy, i thought objects like quarks, gluons, leptons ect etc were just single energy packets with a certain amount of energy and that amount of energy is what gives them the value they have, thats how we tell the difference between them.
What i really want to do one day is sit down with a decent physicist and ask him/her a bunch of questions, as i have so many and as much as i read i still dont understand things, but if someone explained them to me in person i would get such a better understanding of the questions i have..

This message is a reply to:
 Message 257 by cavediver, posted 08-31-2008 10:26 AM cavediver has not replied

  
V-Bird
Member (Idle past 5575 days)
Posts: 211
From: Great Britain
Joined: 03-22-2004


Message 259 of 284 (479993)
08-31-2008 1:26 PM
Reply to: Message 255 by cavediver
08-31-2008 7:02 AM


Re: Congratulations.
Energy in the form of EMR.
Without a doubt, the only thing that clearly defines the cosmos from nothing IS energy.
Bound EMR.
Perhaps you think YOU understand what the parallel plate phenomena is but I'm pretty sure you are wrong.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 255 by cavediver, posted 08-31-2008 7:02 AM cavediver has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 260 by cavediver, posted 08-31-2008 1:38 PM V-Bird has replied

  
cavediver
Member (Idle past 3634 days)
Posts: 4129
From: UK
Joined: 06-16-2005


Message 260 of 284 (479994)
08-31-2008 1:38 PM
Reply to: Message 259 by V-Bird
08-31-2008 1:26 PM


Re: Congratulations.
Energy in the form of EMR.
I asked 'what is energy?' - is that all you can come up with as a reply? It's a bit self-referential, don't you think?
Without a doubt, the only thing that clearly defines the cosmos from nothing IS energy.
You seem to use 'energy' as a place-holder for your ignorance. That's not very scientific.
Perhaps you think YOU understand what the parallel plate phenomena is but I'm pretty sure you are wrong.
Then how do I manage to calculate from theory the observed force to such high precision if I am wrong? Lucky guess???

This message is a reply to:
 Message 259 by V-Bird, posted 08-31-2008 1:26 PM V-Bird has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 261 by V-Bird, posted 08-31-2008 5:29 PM cavediver has replied

  
V-Bird
Member (Idle past 5575 days)
Posts: 211
From: Great Britain
Joined: 03-22-2004


Message 261 of 284 (480047)
08-31-2008 5:29 PM
Reply to: Message 260 by cavediver
08-31-2008 1:38 PM


Re: Congratulations.
Energy is motion.
Your calcs are simply made to fit what was previously viewed, you don't have an explanation, you have a working formula, that formula does not give an understanding of any kind as to what mechanism gives rise to the effect, the best you can manage is virtual particles which is a dreadful cop out for the simple truth of having finally to accept FTL phenomena at work.
I have a formula for the combustion of gasoline, it does not help me at all in understanding how the car moves does it? It doesn't explain enough, just as your formula does not explain enough.
I can pretty accurately guess from formulae how that mythical car might work, as it burns fuel, but it simply does not give the insight into what mechanism is at work to turn the wheels, in fact it won't even explain the wheels.
Formulae are good, but they remain a castrated form of knowledge unless they can be related to the underlying nuts and bolts, virtual particles are a joke, but the as yet many still cannot see the joke of the emperors new clothes.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 260 by cavediver, posted 08-31-2008 1:38 PM cavediver has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 262 by cavediver, posted 08-31-2008 6:26 PM V-Bird has replied

  
cavediver
Member (Idle past 3634 days)
Posts: 4129
From: UK
Joined: 06-16-2005


Message 262 of 284 (480056)
08-31-2008 6:26 PM
Reply to: Message 261 by V-Bird
08-31-2008 5:29 PM


Re: Congratulations.
Energy is motion.
No, it's not
you don't have an explanation
Yes, I do
the best you can manage is virtual particles
No, it's not. Why would I use virtual particles to explain the Casimir Effect??? I'm not some pop-science writer - I actually know what I'm talking about
You seem to be wrong on quite a few counts here...

This message is a reply to:
 Message 261 by V-Bird, posted 08-31-2008 5:29 PM V-Bird has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 263 by V-Bird, posted 08-31-2008 7:41 PM cavediver has replied

  
V-Bird
Member (Idle past 5575 days)
Posts: 211
From: Great Britain
Joined: 03-22-2004


Message 263 of 284 (480086)
08-31-2008 7:41 PM
Reply to: Message 262 by cavediver
08-31-2008 6:26 PM


Re: Congratulations.
Energy is fundamentally motion, the rather banal "energy is the ability to do work" doesn't cut it anymore.
No motion = no energy
Kinetic energy is relative time-frame motion.
At its most basic energy is only motion and motion of any kind is energy, it is had to accept for some I know, but to deny this is just flying in the face of reality.
EMR is the purest/simplest/basic form of motion it is equally the purest/simplest/basic form of energy.
I explain, you contradict without explanation. If I am wrong explain how, perhaps you can name an energy that has no motion, that would be a first!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 262 by cavediver, posted 08-31-2008 6:26 PM cavediver has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 266 by cavediver, posted 09-01-2008 7:37 AM V-Bird has replied
 Message 267 by Son Goku, posted 09-01-2008 10:52 AM V-Bird has replied

  
onifre
Member (Idle past 2941 days)
Posts: 4854
From: Dark Side of the Moon
Joined: 02-20-2008


Message 264 of 284 (480092)
08-31-2008 7:57 PM
Reply to: Message 254 by V-Bird
08-31-2008 6:50 AM


Re: Congratulations.
V-Bird writes,
The only exception to all this is gravitation [not gravity] gravitation is not bound by the upper limit of the speed of light.
When we stop blinkering ourselves and look for the 'gravity particle' at above the speed of light
Are you talking about a gravitons?
wiki definition for gravitation,
Gravity - Wikipedia
quote:
Gravitation is a natural phenomenon by which objects with mass attract one another[1].
wiki definition for graviton,
Graviton - Wikipedia
quote:
In physics, the graviton is a hypothetical elementary particle that mediates the force of gravity in the framework of quantum field theory.
Seems like you confused that which you were trying to sound intelligent on...
*Also note that many physicist disagree with what you said about gravity at above the SoL. Many with far more knowledge on the subject than you, plus they have one very important thing on their side and that is the lack of evidence to support gravitons, or them being able to travel faster than the SoL.
*So if you have evidence for (1)gravitons, or (2)gravitons traveling at above the SoL, then present it so we may see what it is you are so confident about.
Edited by onifre, : spelling

"All great truths begin as blasphemies"
"I smoke pot. If this bothers anyone, I suggest you look around at the world in which we live and shut your mouth."--Bill Hicks
"I never knew there was another option other than to question everything"--Noam Chomsky

This message is a reply to:
 Message 254 by V-Bird, posted 08-31-2008 6:50 AM V-Bird has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 268 by V-Bird, posted 09-01-2008 5:51 PM onifre has not replied

  
Buzsaw
Inactive Member


Message 265 of 284 (480122)
08-31-2008 10:28 PM
Reply to: Message 254 by V-Bird
08-31-2008 6:50 AM


Re: Congratulations.
V-Bird writes:
the areas we see as 'empty' space is full of another aspect of energy conveying what all those other aspects of energy are doing.
Oh. Fine. Okay, we agree on that much. Energy exists in space.
The unresolved problem, now, is that you can't have it both ways. Either all forces, energy and matter exist in space, or space is energy. Which is it?

BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW.
The immeasurable present eternally extends the infinite past and infinitely consumes the eternal future.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 254 by V-Bird, posted 08-31-2008 6:50 AM V-Bird has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 269 by V-Bird, posted 09-01-2008 5:53 PM Buzsaw has not replied

  
cavediver
Member (Idle past 3634 days)
Posts: 4129
From: UK
Joined: 06-16-2005


Message 266 of 284 (480151)
09-01-2008 7:37 AM
Reply to: Message 263 by V-Bird
08-31-2008 7:41 PM


Re: Congratulations.
No motion = no energy
So an isolated non-rotating black hole has no energy? Really?
At its most basic energy is only motion and motion of any kind is energy, it is had to accept for some I know
You're not wrong
but to deny this is just flying in the face of reality.
*YOUR* reality, of course
I explain, you contradict without explanation.
No, you bullshit, and I call it

This message is a reply to:
 Message 263 by V-Bird, posted 08-31-2008 7:41 PM V-Bird has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 270 by V-Bird, posted 09-01-2008 5:59 PM cavediver has replied

  
Son Goku
Inactive Member


Message 267 of 284 (480186)
09-01-2008 10:52 AM
Reply to: Message 263 by V-Bird
08-31-2008 7:41 PM


Re: Congratulations.
the rather banal "energy is the ability to do work" doesn't cut it anymore.
Really, could you explain why it is deficient?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 263 by V-Bird, posted 08-31-2008 7:41 PM V-Bird has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 271 by V-Bird, posted 09-01-2008 6:02 PM Son Goku has not replied

  
V-Bird
Member (Idle past 5575 days)
Posts: 211
From: Great Britain
Joined: 03-22-2004


Message 268 of 284 (480232)
09-01-2008 5:51 PM
Reply to: Message 264 by onifre
08-31-2008 7:57 PM


Re: Congratulations.
No, I have not mixed my words, what we call gravity is the light speed aspect of the true force behind gravitation which through the action of continual exchange between particles of EMR at supra-light speed gives us the instantaneous gravity acceleration we experience on this planet.
We may give the FTL Gravitational Exchange phenomena the name 'gravitons' at some point in the future but for the time being 'gravitons' are something thought to be entirely light-speed limited and won't ever be found to be fundamental to anything.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 264 by onifre, posted 08-31-2008 7:57 PM onifre has not replied

  
V-Bird
Member (Idle past 5575 days)
Posts: 211
From: Great Britain
Joined: 03-22-2004


Message 269 of 284 (480233)
09-01-2008 5:53 PM
Reply to: Message 265 by Buzsaw
08-31-2008 10:28 PM


Re: Congratulations.
No, energy exists AS space!
It is what space IS.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 265 by Buzsaw, posted 08-31-2008 10:28 PM Buzsaw has not replied

  
V-Bird
Member (Idle past 5575 days)
Posts: 211
From: Great Britain
Joined: 03-22-2004


Message 270 of 284 (480236)
09-01-2008 5:59 PM
Reply to: Message 266 by cavediver
09-01-2008 7:37 AM


Re: Congratulations.
...and therefore within the black hole you think that matter, all matter suddenly becomes stagnant?
Protons no longer revolve a nucleus?
There is no swirl within as the matter spears into the blackness?
You cannot be wronger if you tried.
If it is 'bullshit' as you quaintly say it is, then dismissing this is simple, show me motion without energy or vice versa.
Do it, cut the rhetoric, show your Royal Flush, I reckon it will turn out a busted flush, but I will happily walk away without a murmur if you do it.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 266 by cavediver, posted 09-01-2008 7:37 AM cavediver has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 272 by cavediver, posted 09-01-2008 7:04 PM V-Bird has replied
 Message 273 by Rahvin, posted 09-01-2008 7:18 PM V-Bird has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024