|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total) |
| |
popoi | |
Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 0/0 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: The infinite space of the Universe | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
Let's see what your hypothesis is about it? What exactly is empty space if it's completely void of matter and particles? Nothingness? That would be a perfect vacuum, but that's never been observed.
Something non-material that has no measurable or observable qualities, yet its existence is non-disputed and unquestioned by us? Just do some homework, man. Here is the wiki page on space and the wiki page on outer space. Read, learn, come back with questions.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
So you're going to quote mine from the PHILOSOPHY section and post it in the science thread.
You can go rub salt in your ass, for all I care.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
Straigth from the links you provided, wise man: "Among physicists and philosophers there is disagreement regarding whether space is itself an entity, or is part of a conceptual framework.[5]" So fucking what? If you want to know what are the theories about what space is, then fucking do your homework. Read up on the subject. Learn. Being an asshat on internet forums isn't going to help much.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
Nobody's gonna talk to you if you're just going to be a dick.
You can find out what an absolute vaccum is in the wiki thread on vacuums that I linked too upthread.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
In essence a black hole is a nothing because it shatters our dimension and so it could perhaps be the heart of nothingness. I would say nothing(absolute vacuum) does exist, but perhaps only in the infinity of a black hole. Nope. Black Holes have mass.
Absolute vacuum is space completely devoid of particles. This of course is not possible, so absolute vacuum does not exist(there will always be massless wave-like particles emerging and disappearing). But this causes a paradox as nothing/nothingness does not exist as well. It's a man-made concept. What's wrong with absolute nothingness being an impossibility? How is it a "paradox"?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
The fact that black holes do have mass does not rule out the possibility that they constitute true "nothingness". It's a contradiction!
If the word nothingness does not signify anything meaningful, then there is no need for such a word. However, the word can be found in every dictionary and that is a paradox. Its just a concept. Like absolute zero on the temperature scale. Nothing can ever really get to absolute zero but the concept exists as a benchmark.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
Catholic Scientist writes: What's wrong with absolute nothingness being an impossibility? How is it a "paradox"? What is wrong? We are Here.
What's wrong with it being an impossiblity?
If there was ever a time that there was absolute nothingness (an absence of anything) It would still be. Yupp. So nothingness is impossible.
Energy can not be created therefore it had to always exist. Or it can be created out of an absence of anything. Or two things that aren't energy themselves combine to become energy, like two branes colliding. You're creating a flase dichotomy of either nothingness or eternal energy so that you can claim god. But lets ust leave god out of this thread, okay?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
Reality as we see it is simply a multi-layer of fields. There is some pre-existing topology, so for example lets assume these fields are wrapped into a sphere (surface of a sphere), but its more like a stretchy empty bean-bag in that there is no concept of shape, geometry or distance - jut global topology. One field gives rise to a concept of 'distance'; at each point in the field, its values give the distance between neighbouring points at that location. Over the entire surface, this gives rise to the global shape, curvature and large scale distance. This is the gravitational or metric field. Its local values are given as a function of the values of the other fields at that point and the neighbouring values of its own field. Local fluctuations in this field give rise to gravitational waves, and at the qunatum scale, gravitons. The other fields are the ones we discussed above. This is the totality of reality. What we think of matter, space, vacuum, particles, people, stars, voids, curved space-time, etc, are all just aspects of this layer of fields. When they talk about the "bulk" in brane cosmology here:
quote: Are they postulating that the multi-layer of fields exists within something else?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
Your quote is explaining that the effective 4d gravity is decomposed from the 11d in a slightly different way to the other effectuve 4d forces. I got that part.
In a string/brane/M context, the dimension would be 10 + time, and our reality would exist as a 4d sub-slice of this higher-d space. So the effective fields that we see in 4d are only part of the real 11d fields. The bulk is the whole 11d space. This answers my question. Thanks. I wasn't sure if the 11d was the bulk or if the 11d was in the bulk, so to speak.
I didn't actually specify a dimension of the reality before, but I guess we all assumed it was 4 dimensional (or 3 + time, depending on how you were picturing it.) Does the multi-layer of fields fall apart if you assume 11d instead of 4?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
So are saying two branes are an absence of anything? What!? Are you joking? Of course they're not.
So how did they collide? I dunno. I was just pointing out that your two possibilities are not the only ones.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
What a terrible waste on cosmic scales it would be, if the universe served no purpose. If there was no purpose then there couldn't be any "waste". You think bacteria cares if there's a purpose or not? The only reason we think there should be a purpose is because we've attained cognizance. Had we not, we couldn't care less about a "purpose". Cognizance, in and of itself, doesn't indicate a purpose either. The purpose is what you make it. Outside of that, there's no indication that there really is a purpose.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
I think he's talking about THIS ARTICLE.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024