Sciencemadness Discussion Board - theory of all matter

theory of all matter

futurenobellaureate - 15-7-2006 at 19:02

I have come up with a theory for how all matter in the universe was created. It goes below:

Blank universe (no energy or matter) -> change in velocity of universe creates small amount of electrical energy -> small amount of electrical energy form quarks -> quarks form protons, neutrons, and electrons -> protons, neutrons, and electrons form atoms -> atoms form compounds -> compounds form matter

This knowledge is useful because it tells us how matter formed, tells us how we can create matter, explains why new elements are constantly being discovered, and possibly implies that the universe is older than we think. What do you think about this? How can I publish it?

[Edited on 16-7-2006 by futurenobellaureate]

DeAdFX - 15-7-2006 at 19:12

I don't follow this section very much but by looking at the other publications I can tell you that you are far from the publishing state. Where are your sources, background, experimental, conclusion, and fancy graphs

Rosco Bodine - 15-7-2006 at 19:53

What is " velocity " when there is nothing to relate it to
and velocity is by definition relative .

And what is electrical energy ?

These are entirely nonspecific quantities which are being used in an effort to define specific quantities .

Perhaps the way in which God put everything into being
is something which is not the capability of human thinking to understand even if it were all correctly explained and life was long enough to hear the complete explanation .

12AX7 - 15-7-2006 at 21:10

Seems to me the most likely possibility is that this universe is the result of a compression of a previous "big crunch", essentially the ultimate expression of gravity and conservation of energy. Hmm, I don't remember the Schwartzchild radius of the estimated universe...

...As for how it got here, it just *IS*. If you need God to explain that, by all means please do.

Tim

chromium - 15-7-2006 at 22:56

To explain universe (or anything in it) scientiffically you need formulas that describe numerically how things behave. If these (numerical) descriptions follow facts with greater precision than those we have so far then its considered new and valuable theory. As presented here it is just "some philosphical thoughts about universe". May be great for sci-fi but not any help for science or technology.

[Edited on 16-7-2006 by chromium]

futurenobellaureate - 17-7-2006 at 14:34

The proofs of my theory are:

1.The fact that Hydrogen has an atomic number of one and an atomic mass of 1.079.
2.The composition of atoms. All atoms in general are made of protons, neutrons, and electrons; suggesting the particles come from a single source.
3.The universe, as we know it, began devoid of matter and energy. This is common sense, because for at least one second, the universe had to be blank. And in a universe without energy or matter, the only way that the matter could form is through a change in velocity.

An experiment for this would be impossible and without an experiment, I cannot develop a mathematical model for this phenomena.

[Edited on 17-7-2006 by futurenobellaureate]

12AX7 - 17-7-2006 at 15:46

Er...okay...those facts have nothing to do with each other, and don't make much sense in and of themselves. For instance, neutrons are related to protons, but carry no charge; therefore, intuitively, one might suspect they were generated from a different source. You have a *lot* of work to go before you get a sensible syllogism going there.

1. This means...!? No duh it has an atomic mass of 1 point something, that's how we defined the unit convienient for nuclear-scale masses. What's that have to do with it being #1?

2. According to current theories, protons and neutrons (and other complex, heavy particles) condensed from quarks, at an extremely high temperature. In contrast, electrons are an elementary particle, and coexisted within the quark gas in the first couple nanoseconds of the "Big Bang".

3. A groundless assumption; for all we know, space has dimensions such that the amount of mass/energy remains constant. Conservation of mass/energy IS supported by the last 15 billion years of observed astronomical evolution. The observation of "empty space" would be a product of attractions, not so much the inherent properties of space. (For all we know, interstellar or intergalactic space is chock full of exotic stuffs anyway.)

I don't even know what to make of "a change in velocity". How can absolute, impermeable nothingness have velocity? With respect to what? WTF!

Tim

futurenobellaureate - 17-7-2006 at 16:45

Basically, what I am generally saying is that "matter came from energy".

Rosco Bodine - 17-7-2006 at 16:56

Matter is energy which is organized and behaving
in a certain way which gives it a definite form .

What is the nature of the energy ?

Did it have an origin and/or ending or is it eternal ?

Why is it organized in certain forms ?

If these things cannot be explained , then what
substance has your theory of matter ?

Also you relate things like time and velocity to a universe
at a point of non-development which was a state of nothingness supposing that such a blank condition existed
for at least " one second " ......during such a condition
when time itself would be irrelevant since time is related
to different progressions of development of one thing
compared to another . When no * things * have yet come to
exist , then neither does time . Because time is a relationship between the workings of one thing as compare to some other thing ....time is relative and requires different
* things * for comparison . Velocity is a function of distance
travelled and time , and distance is also relative ....so it is clear you are applying quantities which only exist in an
already existant universe , and have no form yet in a universe not yet existant . This is oxymoronic .

[Edited on 18-7-2006 by Rosco Bodine]

12AX7 - 17-7-2006 at 17:34

Quote:

Originally posted by futurenobellaureate
Basically, what I am generally saying is that "matter came from energy".

Well, it certainly did; if you do the calculations, you'll see that, due to the intense temperature of the early (first couple seconds/minutes) universe (according to Big Bang), so much black-body radiation, matter-antimatter annihilation and whatnot, that energy (primarily as photons, and probaby as kinetic energy as well) was in excess of the mass-energy of the masses present.

Tim

sparkgap - 17-7-2006 at 20:13

Quote:

Originally posted by futurenobellaureate
Basically, what I am generally saying is that "matter came from energy".

Yep. Original.

In any case, if that's that, as you claim, why did you have to spew a cloud of mumbo-jumbo that don't lend credence to your theory anyway?

And yes, would you mind telling us your definition of velocity and *what* exactly changed in velocity in your, ehem, "unique" theory?

sparky (~_~)

Marvin - 18-7-2006 at 08:24

The most important part of any theory, is that it must contain a difference to the existing theory that can be tested.

joeman2194 - 18-7-2006 at 19:09

actually, god created the universe in six days... thats how it was created... read yo' genisis boi!

IrC - 18-7-2006 at 19:23

If a bear shit in the woods would he have heard the big bang?

If he did, theory proved! If he did not, then another detritical thesis bites the dust.

guy - 18-7-2006 at 20:29

Hey I was always wondering if exothermic reactions cause loss in mass due to E=mc<sup>2</sup>. Every book, site I have read supports this, but I was wondering what you guys think.

IrC - 18-7-2006 at 20:58

Not sure where you are getting "every book" but chemical reactions involve electrons, not more massive particles (other than proton donors or acceptors but really they are not being "lost" anywhere). Any loss would have to be small as electrons are light and the final products should be electrically neutral for the most part. The only loss of electrons would be from compounds which are sharing electrons to give neutrality meaning yes there could be less electrons at the finish of a reaction in a given product than the electrons within the original elements which made up that product. I am sure there can be esoteric reasons I am wrong here but in the final analysis the electrons are so light it would not have a lot of meaning in terms of mass loss.

[Edited on 19-7-2006 by IrC]

chromium - 18-7-2006 at 22:15

Quote:

Originally posted by guy
Hey I was always wondering if exothermic reactions cause loss in mass due to E=mc<sup>2</sup>. Every book, site I have read supports this, but I was wondering what you guys think.

They surely cause (as energy always has certain mass according to this formula) but change in mass is so small that we rarely can measure it even if best manmade devices are used.

[Edited on 19-7-2006 by chromium]

woelen - 18-7-2006 at 22:32

Quote:

Originally posted by futurenobellaureate
The proofs of my theory are:

1.The fact that Hydrogen has an atomic number of one and an atomic mass of 1.079.
2.The composition of atoms. All atoms in general are made of protons, neutrons, and electrons; suggesting the particles come from a single source.
3.The universe, as we know it, began devoid of matter and energy. This is common sense, because for at least one second, the universe had to be blank. And in a universe without energy or matter, the only way that the matter could form is through a change in velocity.

An experiment for this would be impossible and without an experiment, I cannot develop a mathematical model for this phenomena.

[Edited on 17-7-2006 by futurenobellaureate]

Reminds me of Archimedes Plutonium

Do we have a serious troll????

Rosco Bodine - 18-7-2006 at 22:37

Quote:

Even better still

Does a burned out light bulb whose envelope and seal is intact ......have less weight than when it was new ?

guy - 18-7-2006 at 22:44

Quote:

Originally posted by Rosco Bodine

Quote:

Even better still

Does a burned out light bulb whose envelope and seal is intact ......have less weight than when it was new ?

A light bulb as far as I know does not undergo chemical reactions. It heats up due to energy supplied.

The energy loss is very very very little for chemical reactions that it has not been conformed experimentally. Example, 1 Kg of TNT will lose 1/10,000,000 of a kg.

Rosco Bodine - 18-7-2006 at 23:11

I would guess that there is some small loss in mass for the burned out light bulb even if the vapors from the burned out filament are condensed on the inside of the glass . I have no data to support that guess , it is just my guess that some small part of that incandescent filament
did not remain as intact matter within that glass envelope , but likely as ions or other particles escaped .
I could be wrong , but I can't find any data on this either way .

The loss of mass for purely chemical reactions would
probably correspond to the change of energy associated
with electrons populating different orbital shells , the
transition to a lower energy state for electrons in the compounds formed as reaction products , corresponding
with a very tiny loss in mass . Only nuclear reactions
would show a substantial change in mass , and of course a lot greater energy associated with the greater change
in mass .

tumadre - 19-7-2006 at 00:54

There is a loss of mass in a light bulb because a good 550 watt halogen lamp will lose half its tungsten, and become half as bright by the time it burns out, and the tungsten is not visable on the glass, as it can be is smaller lamps.

correct me if i'm wrong but the pressure in halogen bulbs during operation can be several hundred pounds.

IrC - 19-7-2006 at 01:22

Please stop, my brain can't take the pain. Everythying inside the light bulb is still there. No difference in weight. The tungsten is still in there, even a pet chimp knows this much.

"as energy always has certain mass according to this formula"

Not true. A photon obeys that formula but has no mass. It has momentum. In effect the momentum would be the mass equivalent just as gravity would be felt whether on earth or inside an elevator under a steady 1g acceleration, meaning the equivalency between the attraction between masses and acceleration is like unto the equivalency between mass and momentum . The m in mc2 would be the momentum equivalent and the numbers would come out the same. When electrons and a positrons collide you find photons with the energy (frequency) directly equivalent to the mass of the particles, so e=mc2 still holds. Again, this does not give the photon the right to claim it has mass.

Marvin - 19-7-2006 at 02:36

It has no *rest* mass, I'm not sure that amounts to the same thing as your argument.

Einsteins general theory is beyond me, but a ray of light bends due to gravity of a star, it therefore seems reasonable to suspect a force must also be felt by the star.

With regard to the lightbulb, if we assume it to be a truly sealed container with no atoms exscaping or entering then we still have the seperation of the filement. Breaking metalic bonds requires energy, so we'd expect the bulb with the filiment spread over a larger surface area to be heavier than a new one.

Nicodem - 19-7-2006 at 02:43

Quote:

Originally posted by woelen
Reminds me of Archimedes Plutonium

Do we have a serious troll????

Indeed, all of the few Futurenobellaureate's posts up to now were more or less obvious trolling. Some might be considered a joke like this one, but it gets quite annoying after some time. Especially if considering that such an attitude is nothing else but mocking on this forum and its members (not that I take that personally, but nevertheless…).

PS: However, I must admit that his nickname is just perfect for a troll. I appreciate such creative imagination.

Rosco Bodine - 19-7-2006 at 08:02

Regarding a ray of light being bent by the gravitation
of a star past which the light makes a near pass , that predicted effect has been confirmed by a
very famous experiment done on an island during an eclipse , where the light from a distant star passing
along a line near to the sun , was refracted sufficiently
to give an illusion that the stars location had shifted .

The predicted observation was based on Einsteins understanding that " empty space " is not just " nothing "
even though it is a vacuum devoid of matter for the most part ....it is a " space time continuum " which is an abstract " thing " having properties itself that are influenced by the regions where matter is located ......
so a " straight line " through " space time " does not
necessarily follow a straight path when viewed by an
observer in a different region of space , even though if the observer was on the object which is supposed to be travelling a straight line , its course would appear to be a perfectly straight path through space time . So what is
a straight line depends on the point from where the course is being observed and what is a straight line is
therefore relative to space time whose property is not
constant but is modified in different regions of space .
If I understand correctly what Einstein has said , space
time itself is distorted by the gravitational field of objects .

It is this theory which accounts for the wording of definitions concerning magnetic and gravitational fields
as being " a property of space " in the vicinity of an object , rather than defining a field as being " something "
which is emanating from the object .

To understand and visualize this is something difficult for most people , and even Einstein himself was likely able only in part to visualize a picture of the universe defined
by relativity , a visualization which contradicts the more simplistic view of our practiced senses ....which in terms
of the absolute of relativity , the view we accept more
easily deceives .....so to think and visualize in relativistic
terms is a mental discipline which produces a headache .
It hurts to think correctly and it is tiring . Machine intelligence is more likely to " understand " the secrets of the " relative " universe , than is the human mind at its present state of evolution , as we are not yet there where a few like Einstein barely were to even glimpse such things themselves .

http://www.danceage.com/media_player/?aid=2180&q=hi&...

[Edited on 19-7-2006 by Rosco Bodine]

IrC - 19-7-2006 at 11:42

I really have a hard time (no pun) with the term "spacetime". You really do have to look deeper into what space and time are to realize that space has no "time". Most people get stuck on this point. Once I sat among various doctorates having just this conversation. Most of them were from Cornell, one of them was Arden Sher of SRI. After much time I finally managed using my book written by Einstein to show that when He said x,y,z=i,c,t He was not talking about the number 1! You would not believe how firmly people who have merely studied books written about relativity rather than actually reading it from the source have the wrong concept of dimensionality. I did much work in this for over 40 years, and what Einstein meant was "i" stood for a single Planck length, and "t" stood for the time it took light at "c" to go this distance.

Furthermore people fail to understand that c is set by Eo and Uo in such a way that clearly space (empty) has both inductance and capacitance per unit length. Everyone uses these formulas and knows them quite well but I have noticed they never really (at least many of them I meet) understand that empty space has all the characteristics of a resonant transmission line. Probably because the frequency is so damn high? I mean, this resonance is established for x,y,z=i,c,t. So we have in effect a cavity resonator in space itself which has the dimensions x,y,z=planck,planck,planck. You can see why the frequency is therefore so high we cannot see the trees for the forest.

However, time is not a property of space and anyone so believing will never uncover the fundamental truths of creation. If time had any real physical dimensionality it would be a fundamental unit based upon i,c,t. So we must seperate space from time, and no time is not the 4th dimension either. We may measure "time" while sitting in space, but your ruler is only capable of measuring x,y, and z. In effect if we could move outside of the three dimensions we all know and love so well we would find that time no longer exists.

Gravity is not a static field. Blow on a bubble and you will see a deformation on the wall which is dimensionally the same as what gravity does to space, and it does so by coupling to the electromagnetic structure of space itself, i.e. the Eo and Uo of the fabric of space. So therefore gravity is a steady pressure against the electric and magnetic qualities of space even though space is empty. Something I find easy to visualize by moving a flyswatter very fast, we feel a pressure against the surface even though the air goes through the holes quite easily. Gravity does not couple strongly to space and this is why it is so weak compared to the EM and Strong forces.

Roscoe, has it ever occured to you that all I just said is wrong and during that famous experiment a UFO was out there which reflected the light? OK, so I feel better believing my above text but please, stop giving me a headache and using so loosely the term "spacetime"!

Rosco Bodine - 19-7-2006 at 12:06

When you are packing for your journey away from this
universe , find time for space and find space for time ,
as they must be packed away in your bag together ....
you absolutely will not have one without the other

And that goes for energy and matter also .....the four
stooges are quite inseparable in our present dimension

IrC - 19-7-2006 at 12:12

I liked Curly the most.

As space curves, what we call time seperates from it. As the curvature becomes complete the time becomes nonexistent. The only two places I can imagine this occuring 100 percent is either outside the universe or inside of a black hole.

Rosco Bodine - 19-7-2006 at 12:21

When you survey and quantify the height , beadth , and depth of things which are
* changing * in relationship to each other , time is the arbitrary quantity applied to reference the progression of those changes in relative position , distance , size or whatever other quantity is in flux . For a static , stable system time is a meaningless quantity . Time is an abstract observational convention more than a " solid " reality . But it is a part of the relativity of interrelated quantities which are being observed .....because everything being observed is in flux relative to something else .

P.S. When speaking of the " fabric of space " let's not forget
what is the warp and what is the woof nor get the two confused . Identifying any lint properly is sure to be a challenge also

[Edited on 19-7-2006 by Rosco Bodine]

IrC - 19-7-2006 at 14:06

I think I should give up at this point. Space is a substance (yes, it IS a substance) which has a unit amount of inductance and capacitance per Planck length. This is the origin of Eo and Uo! Since time depends upon the amount of Eo and Uo per unit distance, if space becomes curved, therefore "warped", time becomes a varying quantity. Therefore it is forever impossible to use time as a true frame of reference. Good Lord, I think I should scan my original book by Einstein. However it was his very first english translation and I am not going to risk the binding trying to lay it flat out page by page on a scanner, as it is very old. A collectors item if you will. I promise you it reads very differently than every single other source of the theory, seeing as how everyone else merely explained it as they saw or understood it. Time cannot be a reference since it is both velocity and "space compression" dependant. Give up trying to use time as a reference. The best reference you can find is C in pure vacuum, problem is you need a "time reference" to measure it. Good luck. In effect I am saying you cannot have a pure reference unless Pi is in your dreams but depending upon how you measure the diameter and radius of something sitting in curved space even that idea flies out the window.

If science was advanced enough maybe we could measure the modes of zero point oscillation in a cavity of unit Planck dimension. I don't know, but I do know you still are not truly understanding the subject. No big deal, general relativity is a bitch, stick with special.

Rosco Bodine - 19-7-2006 at 14:56

You seem to think I am somehow arguing that time is
a constant , a fixed quantity ....nowhere have I said that but quite the contrary , time is a relative variable which
is used as an abstract parameter describing progression
of change for one thing as compared with another thing .
Since these are generally referenced to a single point
of observation , relativity is the interpreter which must be used to ascribe difference between observed and actual
simultaneity . Just because things are observed to be occurring at the same time does not mean the events are actually simultaneous . Time is inherently related to velocity .

Space is a non-substance with substantive properties in the regions where it exists near substances .

IrC - 19-7-2006 at 15:54

"Space is a non-substance with substantive properties in the regions where it exists near substances"

It just appears to be a non substance to us. To have L and C per unit length implies it is something even if it looks to us like nothing, and being near anything has nothing to do with what it is. Only the symmetry of space varies when a substance is in a given place. Space would exist whether or not anything else did. So these "substantive properties" are there even when we (or anything) are near it or not near it. As I said, the existence of anything in space only alters the unit properties of space per unit distance, nothing more.

I was not implying you were stuck on an invariant time reference, only making it very clear that whatever we do decide is a good reference will likely be a better reference than time itself is.

Actually, the fact that we can evolve this whackbrained thread started by a questionable mind into something of value in terms of good debate and discussion proves that at the very least we members of SCM have something going for us.

Many of our ducks really are in a row.

Mr_Benito_Mussolini - 19-7-2006 at 16:01

The whole point about Special Relativity is that time is a dimension no different to the spacial dimensions. The model moves from 3 dimensional space existing in 'time' to 4 dimensional space-time. Just as the line between 2 points in 3 dimensional time can be rotated in space preserving its length, so can the line between 2 events in 4 dimensional space-time. This rotation in 4 dimensional space-time gives rise to phenomena such as time dilation and relative change in length: as well as the line rotating between the spacial dimensions, it also moves into and out of the time dimension.

As RB says, space-time is not a substance.

Rosco Bodine - 19-7-2006 at 18:00

The entire concept of time is a convention which is based upon the rotational speed of the earth which causes a progression where the sun appears to travel across the sky and then cross the horizon , when the " day " ends
and another event called " night " begins .....with a cyclical regularity about that change which is observed
then being the basis for how we earthlings reckon
" time " . And then that observed natural cycle becomes
the basis for our convention for defining the increments
of the " standard day " as hours , minutes , seconds .
So time is merely a way of describing observed progression of * change * of one thing in comparison to the amount of
* change * manifested by some standard used for comparison . Time is therefore intinsically relative to the standard being applied to quantify the observation . A year on Earth is a different interval than a year on Mars . A day on Earth is different from a day on Mars .

Time is related to velocity as a fundamental concept such as for two rotating spheres which are otherwise identical
in size and mass as an example . If the angular velocity
of one sphere is double the angular velocity of the other rotating sphere , then the progression of the one having
turned ten revolutions will have simultaneity with the
completion of twenty revolutions of the other , in the
same * interval * of " time " . But the number of rpms
is an entirely Earthly convention ....based upon an Earth
minute ....so a more scientific standard for describing
angular velocity would be desirable ....and likewise for
other calculations involving time and velocity . Indeed part of the secret of arriving at some better understanding of the universe may be predicated upon the necessity of defining
" time " in some units that relate more intelligently to some cosmological constant , than the units which are used by Earthers in common practice .

[Edited on 20-7-2006 by Rosco Bodine]

IrC - 19-7-2006 at 19:13

"As RB says, space-time is not a substance."

Another time freak. I should upload an mp3 of "freaks come out at night".

Only a "substance can have inductance, i.e. the ability to create a magnetic field when subjected to an accelerated charge, likewise only a "substance" can produce electric fields when subjected to a varying magnetic field. I might also add that only a "substance" can warp or curve since nothing can only do nothing. No wonder science is still so far behind the realm of true possibilities if this is the best minds the world can produce today. Minds who lived and died before you were born understood this. One in particular was writing letters along these lines to fellow researchers and other brainiacs in general when he came up with the Dirac sea. Oh yeah, name of Dirac. One among many who knew. Texts used to teach this, of all things in the day of Einstein and Dirac. This is what they learned when they went to school. Because these things are no longer taught, there are no longer any Einsteins nor any Diracs, nor (a big long list goes here).

Screw it, this song fits right in with this thread!

http://www.theradicalremnant.com/freaks.mp3

Rosco Bodine - 19-7-2006 at 20:06

Space time ....wherever you go in it , there you are ,
but where that is depends entirely on what time it is

IrC - 19-7-2006 at 22:25

No, where you go has no relation to time. You can be anywhere at any time. I had hoped the point would be easier to understand, but you cannot grasp the underlying concept from a mechanics point of view. In other words many can fix a car but few can design one. The only reference that is absolute is C and this is only an absolute when space is perfectly rectilinear, i.e., zero curvature in any dimension. But I quit, go listen to the song I provided.

Rosco Bodine - 19-7-2006 at 22:43

Where you are located is most definitely related to time .

The only point in an expanding universe that isn't moving is the point of origin . So it would have to matter what time it is where any other point is located with respect to its distance from the point of origin and every other point . The spatial coordinates may not change as the entire coordinate system is expanding in scale also ,
but the actual distances and hence the real location does depend on what time it is .

guy - 19-7-2006 at 22:51

This is why I don't go into physics..LOL

IrC - 20-7-2006 at 00:39

No shit. Does Roscoe hear what he is saying or is he just speaking to make noise? For FYI a Planck time before the big bang there was no expanding universe therefore the point you reference does not exist in our universe. For further FYI the point is not moving, just all the crap we call matter and energy is. You really need to think more deeply upon these things. A black hole may be moving through our universe but there is no "spacetime" as you call it INSIDE IT. Inside a black hole is precisely identical to the outside of your "spacetime" unless all the math we use has gone out the window. The points are going nowhere! Neither is this thread!

Get the point?

woelen - 20-7-2006 at 01:37

IrC, could you please explain HOW space itself can form inductance and capacitance per unit length? (or are you kidding????) I know that between two objects there always is a certain capacity, which depends on the eps_0 of the vacuum (and of course on the shape, relative orientation and relative distance of the objects), but I do not see how space itself forms a capacitance. Capacitance between what?

And I do not see at all how there could be inductance per unit length. And also, if I go along two unit lengths, then the inductance also doubles and the capacitance halves, just like in normal electronic circuits with series connections of inductors and capacitors?

Rosco Bodine - 20-7-2006 at 07:40

IrC is never going to cut it as a starship navigator until he can reconcile celestial mechanics and relativity , and get himself a decent star sextant and an atomic clock .
But not knowing how they work together to plot a course is always going to present some difficulty in navigation ,
for the lost spacefarer who was going to slingshot maneuver getting a little help from a black hole that
turned out to actually be where it shouldn't be , not just in space after all .....but at a location in space time .

IrC - 20-7-2006 at 11:41

Woelen, so far no one can explain why. I suggest you go look up the definitions of Eo and Uo for free space. Especially study the concept of dimensionality for these items. That is, their quantification in "free space". At the turn of the century universities all taught this subject exactly as I am describing it here and now. Perhaps you can explain to me and the rest of the world why "free space" has an impedance of 377 ohms. Or why C is governed by the square root of the divisor of Eo and Uo. Especially if the space is "empty, nothing". Why does space have properties at all?

Most importantly explain to me why the world has failed to produce another great mind since they started teaching all children the things you all believe? Study the old texbooks used by Einstein, Dirac, Fermi, (add to the list as you see fit). It was this inability to believe the very question you just asked that prompted book writers to remove such items of study.

Why you may ask? Because you all started believing the aether does not exist. Ask yourselves this question: what is it that gravity bends which light travels through in a curved path as Roscoe pointed out previously. Nothing? Or, something?

[Edited on 20-7-2006 by IrC]

Rosco Bodine - 20-7-2006 at 11:48

Quote:

Originally posted by IrC
Why does space have properties at all?

That is the smartest thing said in this whole thread .

We all await your enlightened answer ,

beyond of course the obvious that " space " is more
than we think it is .

IrC - 20-7-2006 at 12:34

No, you go ahead, I give up. You yourself stated in this thread that gravity curves space. If so, then how is "nothing, no properties, etc." curved? You are asking me to answer a question that has never been answered by any mind no matter how great, and implying that if I cannot answer then somehow you are right and I am wrong. Why don't you go dig up Einstein and ask him? Of course his answer will be "gee, I don't know either".

Yet space has properties and therefore anyone with intelligence could see that that which is nonexistent, cannot have "properties".

Have fun with this thread I guess but I for one give up. I must go in search of minds with deeper understanding, as this conversation is pointless.

This much I will add. If space is "nothing" how can space curve? How can there exist a free space impedance, a Eo, a Uo, for a vacuum? How can these quantities which I know you all know of exist unless space, a vacuum, nada, a void, emptyness, etc., does indeed have "properties" and "structure"?

I suggest that since you clearly have an internet connection you go in search of a deeper understanding of Eo, Uo, Zo with all the dimensionalities implied instead of trying to prove me wrong by implying that since I cannot answer that which has yet to be answered somehow you are right?

Furthermore how can you be right when you don't even know the answer to these questions themselves? How can I be right? Who knows, I am just going on the fact that science clearly believes in Eo and Uo, and the impedance of free space, and the curvature due to gravity, yet continues to produce a mindless sea of lemmings which march into the sea never once believeing in the things which they daily use in their calculations. Go figure.

[Edited on 20-7-2006 by IrC]

Rosco Bodine - 20-7-2006 at 13:08

Here's a thought . Space itself is a dimension which only in part overlaps and interacts with matter , but it is an attribute of matter , a coexistent partner with matter , that which is neither matter nor antimatter and separates the two . Space is a " thing " but it is not a
" substance " having any solid nature , more like a vacuum dielectric insulating
" distance " between a matter universe and a mirror image antimatter anti-universe . It is a field .

[Edited on 20-7-2006 by Rosco Bodine]

IrC - 20-7-2006 at 14:14

Possible. Myself, I believe in the theory of "shit happens".

While we all contemplate the theory of everything I find it helpful to listen to music. Ah yes, music.

http://www.theradicalremnant.com/casbah.mp3

http://www.theradicalremnant.com/underground.mp3

http://www.theradicalremnant.com/lay.mp3

http://www.theradicalremnant.com/together.mp3

http://www.theradicalremnant.com/yesterday.mp3

Rosco Bodine - 20-7-2006 at 15:33

Nice , especially the third and fourth ones .

Not all of it , but some of that site could have been written by me .....
took the words right out of my mind

Got a link to the site playlist ?

Anyway , the more I have contemplated the
" secrets of the universe " and seen more and more
evidence that everything seems to involve properties
that relate to what is inescapably electromagnetics theory
in some variation , I am forced again and again to consider
the possibility that the entire reality which we believe we see
is a sort of very fancy " projection " , a virtual reality of even more vast proportions than is the idea in the " Matrix " movies ......of course to us it is all real enough and governs us by its rules , but it does seem like in the Emerald City of the universe , science would often have us keep our attention on the wizard of science , and not notice the LORD behind the curtain working the levers and pushing the buttons which govern all that we think we know .

[Edited on 20-7-2006 by Rosco Bodine]

IrC - 20-7-2006 at 16:26

No playlist, just my site which I use to host files for other reasons from time to time. I like having my own server space for use when I need to post a file or image somewhere or another. When I think of a song worthy of posting I put it up there.

As of this time I am looking into theory which in effect would be along the lines of the reality we exist in is a hologram.

"Not all of it , but some of that site could have been written by me ....."

I keep the book up in memory of my brother. My writings are under the name Dr Vel in Science Links.

[Edited on 21-7-2006 by IrC]

Odyssèus - 20-7-2006 at 18:22

Hologram? You could easily (With the tech level required to simulate an entire world/universe) stimulate some nerves and pick up signals from others. You learn how to interpret these signals when your a baby, if you grew up in a simulation you could never tell the difference. In fact, the 'real world' might even feel very strange. You wouldnt nessesarily look anything like you do also, or even human, not to mention you could be a mostly disembodied brain. Well, brain is a thing defined by our science, if you had such a simulation you could make up whatever science or biology you wished.

IrC - 20-7-2006 at 18:45

One exaustive study implied the entire brain works on the principle of holgraphy. Rats trained in a maze could still remember the correct path, even when bit by bit a section of the brain was removed. They were trying to figure out where the memories were stored, and removed piece by piece everything not needed for such things as motor responses, breathing, and so on. They became more and more astounded that the rat still remembered the maze on the first try each time. Finally they started theorizing that each section holds an image of each memory precisely as in a hologram. Other theorists are studying/working on the idea that the physical universe is a hologram made up of the energy within it but I really have not read up enough on their approach to comment a whole lot.

12AX7 - 20-7-2006 at 18:45

Simple: a "space" is the set of all points.

Thus, you can define a function f(x) where all points x correspond to some value f(x). This can be extended to more dimensions: f(x,y,z) for instance (or f(r, phi, theta) if you prefer spherical coordinates; etc.).

Sometimes things don't move very well, so you might include a series of functions x(t), y(t), z(t) so that the variables all depend on a single parameter. Substituting, you get f(t), a simple function when complex functions of t are used.

Parametric equations may or may not be particularly useful. I haven't studied general relativity or quantum mechanics. But in any case, it isn't much of a stretch to use the same mathematical extension into four dimensions, giving a function f(x,y,z,t), where every point in, for lack of a better term, "space-time", has an associated value. Just like a field equation.

So, just from a purely mathematical point of view, what's wrong with having properties associated with a space? Okay, math isn't reality...but hey, so damn many things act on mathematical principles; is it such a stretch to imagine there are electromagnetic field properties associated with simple "empty space"?

The real questions we should be pondering are,
What caused the "Big Bang", or else, what produced the evidence of it?
Why are the relations between the fundamental physical constants? Why are they the value they are? Why aren't they an even number, or a multiple of some other irrational constant (such as pi, or e)? What would be the consequences if the values were different, or changed (perhaps over time)? (Could you tell?

)

Tim

Odyssèus - 20-7-2006 at 19:10

Oh, thought you meant illusion-hologram sort of thing.