|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total) |
| |
popoi | |
Total: 915,806 Year: 3,063/9,624 Month: 908/1,588 Week: 91/223 Day: 2/17 Hour: 0/0 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
|
Author | Topic: What's the Fabric of space made out of? | |||||||||||||||||||||||
Fabric Member (Idle past 5671 days) Posts: 41 From: London, England Joined: |
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 makesup most of the universe, so my above statement is pretty much useless yes ? lol Edited by Fabric, : No reason given. Myspace!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
cavediver Member (Idle past 3643 days) Posts: 4129 From: UK Joined: |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Fabric Member (Idle past 5671 days) Posts: 41 From: London, England Joined: |
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 sometimesto describe natural phenomena. Also that was a good response about space being discrete, i guess it makes sense thatwhen 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..
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
V-Bird Member (Idle past 5584 days) Posts: 211 From: Great Britain Joined: |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
cavediver Member (Idle past 3643 days) Posts: 4129 From: UK Joined: |
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???
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
V-Bird Member (Idle past 5584 days) Posts: 211 From: Great Britain Joined: |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
cavediver Member (Idle past 3643 days) Posts: 4129 From: UK Joined: |
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...
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
V-Bird Member (Idle past 5584 days) Posts: 211 From: Great Britain Joined: |
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!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
onifre Member (Idle past 2950 days) Posts: 4854 From: Dark Side of the Moon Joined: |
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: wiki definition for graviton,Graviton - Wikipedia quote: 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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Buzsaw Inactive Member |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
cavediver Member (Idle past 3643 days) Posts: 4129 From: UK Joined: |
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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Son Goku Inactive Member |
the rather banal "energy is the ability to do work" doesn't cut it anymore.
Really, could you explain why it is deficient?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
V-Bird Member (Idle past 5584 days) Posts: 211 From: Great Britain Joined: |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
V-Bird Member (Idle past 5584 days) Posts: 211 From: Great Britain Joined: |
No, energy exists AS space!
It is what space IS.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
V-Bird Member (Idle past 5584 days) Posts: 211 From: Great Britain Joined: |
...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.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024