Lobstrosity

Bob, I didn't take the time to debunk your assertions because frankly they seem too poorly thought-out to be worthy of any real criticism. It's sort of like my saying that the earth cannot be curved and hence I have logically proved it is flat. QED. That seems to be the level of thought you have put into this. You kind of just make up things as you go along...how is a person supposed to have a logical discussion with someone who does that. But fine, I will point out a few things as I see them just this once. (I apologize if this derails the thread further, but I'm just going to get this off my chest and then be done with it. I will not reply to Bob further as my observations lead me to believe such conversations are beyond pointless.)


You haven't operationally defined space, matter, or energy yet and have no clue how the three relate.


Unfounded assertion. You haven't defined "spatial reality" and you have no justification for the fact that it isn't physical and bears no relation to energy. You're erroneously claiming with no justification that physical spacetime is abstract. This is what I mean about just making stuff up.


C is incorrect when dealing with a closed system of infinite extent. What remains finite is the average energy density of the system, not the total energy. Thermodynamics does not say that an unbounded system must have finite energy. General relativity, on the other hand, along with modern cosmology, tells us that the universe can have any one of three geometries: flat (k = 0 => normal 3-D Euclidian space), closed (k = 1 => 3-sphere of radius a embedded in an abstract flat 4-D Euclidian space), or open (k = -1 => 3-D hyperboloid embedded in an abstract flat 4-D Euclidian space). k = 0 or -1 give an infinite universe while k = 1 gives a universe of finite volume. Furthermore, the Cosmological Principle along with empirical backing tells us that this space is homogeneous and isotropic, which means that on large scales mass is distributed uniformly throughout it. If want to refute this you'll have to do more than make erroneous assumptions and claim that the refutation is hence obvious. You might learn some interesting things from here.


Actually, from relativity we get that energy relates to matter according to E² = p²c² + m²c&#8308


Unjustified assertion. You have no grounds for claiming that m/e is finite if the system itself is infinite.


First of all, this is only true if the universe is infinite and you haven't shown this to be true. There could be a finite quantity of energy in a finite universe, in which case you have no reason to say there would be regions of "pure vacuum." You have done nothing to debunk the equations that allow for a closed-geometry universe. Secondly, even in an infinite universe there won't be regions of "pure vacuum" (quantum foam, anyone?). The average energy density of the universe, whether bounded or unbounded, will be finite and as such there is no reasonable claim that regions of space can be intrinsically devoid of energy. Furthermore, actual verified theories and empirical data (yes, testing that goes beyond mere thought experiments) are against you. From here:

• Vacuum Fluctuations of Quantum Physics:
  Zero Point Energy (ZPE), or vacuum fluctuation energy are terms used to describe the random electromagnetic oscillations that are left in a vacuum after all other energy has been removed. If you remove all the energy from a space, take out all the matter, all the heat, all the light... everything -- you will find that there is still some energy left. One way to explain this is from the uncertainty principle from quantum physics that implies that it is impossible to have an absolutely zero energy condition.
  For light waves in space, the same condition holds. For every possible color of light, that includes the ones we can’t see, there is a non-zero amount of that light. Add up the energy for all those different frequencies of light and the amount of energy in a given space is enormous, even mind boggling, ranging from 10^36 to 10^70 Joules/m3.
  
  In simplistic terms it has been said that there is enough energy in the volume the size of a coffee cup to boil away Earth’s oceans. - that’s one strong cup of coffee! For a while a lot of physics thought that concept was too hard to swallow. This vacuum energy is more widely accepted today.
  
  What evidence shows that it exists?
  
  First predicted in 1948, the vacuum energy has been linked to a number of experimental observations. Examples include the Casimir effect, Van der Waal forces, the Lamb-Retherford Shift, explanations of the Planck blackbody radiation spectrum, the stability of the ground state of the hydrogen atom from radiative collapse, and the effect of cavities to inhibit or enhance the spontaneous emission from excited atoms.
  
  
  The Casimir Effect:
  The most straight-forward evidence for vacuum energy is the Casimir effect. Get two metal plates close enough together and this vacuum energy will push them together. This is because the plates block out the light waves that are too big to fit between the plates. Eventually you have more waves bouncing on the outside than from the inside, the plates will get pushed together from this difference in light pressure. This effect has been experimentally demonstrated.
  
  Can we tap into this energy?
  
  It is doubtful that this can be tapped, and if it could be tapped, it is unknown what the secondary consequences would be. Remember that this is our lowest energy point. To get energy out, you presumably need to be at a lower energy state. Theoretical methods have been suggested to take advantage of the Casimir effect to extract energy (let the plates collapse and do work in the process) since the region inside the Casimir cavity can be interpreted as being at a lower energy state. Such concepts are only at the point of theoretical exercises at this point.
  
  With such large amount of energy, why is it so hard to notice?
  
  Imagine, for example, if you lived on a large plateau, so large that you didn’t know you were 1000 ft up. From your point of view, your ground is at zero height. As long as your not near the edge of your 1000 ft plateau, you won’t fall off, and you will never know that your zero is really 1000. It’s kind of the same way with this vacuum energy. It is essentially our zero reference point.

You cannot just brashly separate the space of our universe from energy just because it sounds good in your own head as some half-baked thought experiment. You have no justification for separating the two.


You cannot show that a "pure" vacuum even exists, let alone that it cannot be curved. You're still just making things up as you go along. There's this little thing called "justification" that's required for claims such as this, usually involving some sort of math and appeal to actual physics.


Umm, you're just saying this. You haven't actually shown anything. Doesn't it bother you that other people have actually shown that space can be curved. Are you saying that people like Einstein and Hawking are complete morons? I like how your only approach to refuting Einstein and virtually every other physicist on the planet is to just mis-state consequences of thermodynamics and then assert that the conclusion space cannot be curved is obvious. If it were this obvious, don't you think someone else would have seen it? Exactly what is your physics background, anyway?


This is a statement of classical physics and is a macroscopic approximation. It holds true quite well for sufficiently large objects.


Technically, force in classical physics is given by F = dp/dt, which reduces to ma when dm/dt = 0 for a given body. Force is not equivalent to energy, E = &#8747 F&#8729ds or F = -&#8711U
Where is this going, anyway?


You're rambling...


Remember now, energy in an infinite universe doesn't have to be finite. All of your ... speculations ... are founded on an erroneous and wholly unjustified premise. Where in the world do you get the notion that an unbounded system must have finite total energy?

Eh, I'm tired now. This sort of logic enough to drive one to the brink of insanity and it doesn't help that it comes in such vast quantities. Your fundamental premise is flawed and as such nothing else you write follows.