eh

Also, the subject of plasma cosmology has been discussed here before. A link from the archive: http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.p...asma+cosmology

Bob K

eh
Modern physics is wrong.

Question: What remains if matter/energy were to be completely destroyed, does not exist, all gone, etc.?

Answer: Space and time. Space would be a pure vacuum, and time would continue to be the measurement of occurrences of events in sequences of events by the use of invariable time-intervals, except, of course, no matter/energy being available, there would be no people/things available to measure time. But if the gods were to decide to recreate the old matter/energy, or create new matter/energy, then ...

So long as you worship 'modern physics' without questioning its premises you will continue to flounder in its conclusions, which are nonsense.

Space is exactly what I said it is: An unbounded location/place/volume/etc. in which exist time and physics, and would be a pure vacuum if not for the presence of matter/energy, and those areas in which there is no presence of matter/energy are pure vacuums.

Matter/energy is matter/energy; it is present in space but it is not space, it does not define space, it is no more than itself.

If you think intuitively, then this should be crystal clear to you, but if you continue to worship 'modern physics' as you have, you will never understand the true nature of space.

Anyone who claims space is the gravitational field produced by matter/energy is wrong.

Note: I am asserting 'wrong' = 'incorrect' and not firing an ad hominem attack.

The pure vacuum DOES exist in this universe. [What other universes are there?]

A closed physical system [matter/energy system] is defined as a system from which matter/energy cannot be taken and into which matter/energy cannot be added.

The entire universe [and there is one and only one universe] is a closed system, because matter/energy cannot be taken from it [where would it go?] and matter/energy cannot be added to it [where would it come from?]

The sum total of matter/energy in a closed system is a constant.

A constant is a finite number.

Infinity is not a finite number.

If you think it is, then tell us what it is.

The sum total of matter/energy being a constant, a finite number, the quantity of matter/energy present in the universe is a finite quantity.

You cannot extend a finite quantity infinitely into an infinite volume arriving at the edge of the quantity and therefore a pure vacuum beyond, pure vacuum being defined as the total absence of matter/energy.

The dispersal of matter/energy into an infinite/unbounded volume means that at a point in space [but not in time] the field effects of electromagnetism and gravity stop, they no longer exist beyond that point.

You don't ever find an infinite dispersal of a finite quantity of matter/energy.

Thus, in space, intuitively, we ought to find areas in which no matter/energy is present, a possibility if humans would be able to constuct spaceships which could travel to the the edge of the known/observable quantity of matter/energy and go beyond, in which case although those humans would be present in an area of space as matter/energy, they would be the only matter/energy present, and directly outside the spaceship and its gravitational and electromagnetic fields would be a pure vacuum. [I.e. if the spaceship produced no electrical or gravitational fields, the area directly beyond the spaceship's hull would be a pure vacuum.]

I don't care what 'modern physics' preaches as gospel in its religion. It is nonsense, mysticism, no more rational/logical/reasonable/etc. than the mysticism of philosophical religions which include belief in the existence of gods.

NOTE: I am accusing physics of having 'religions', philosophies with specific beliefs concerning physical phenomena, of being analogous to philosophical religions, philosophies which include belief in the existence of gods. I do not claim that physics religions include belief in the existence of gods. I do claim that physics religions include beliefs which are just as much nonsense as belief in philosophical religions.

You don't ever find an infinite dispersal of a finite quantity.

To take your premise and run it into absurdity, let's take the same finite quantity of matter/energy which is the only quantity of matter/energy in the universe and then let's let you tell me what would be the process by which we would stretch an already infinite region that would be different from my process which is the dispersal of matter/energy into a larger volume, in the case of the universe, an infinite volume.

We do we have?

I come up with the same conclusion: The process of dispersal of a finite quantity of matter/energy into an infinite volume leaves areas of the infinite volume with zero density of matter/energy, and, since a pure vacuum is defined as zero density of matter/energy, the presence of no matter/energy, the total absence of matter/energy, those areas of the unbounded volume have to be pure vacuums.

I do not know how you could 'expand a region' of space.

I do agree that you can expand a local area of space, such as the area of a container, a piece of lab equipment, etc., but I have no clue as to how you can expand space itself.

If you claim that space = matter/energy, which you are, then I cannot understand where you get the idea that space can be expanded, what you mean when you describe a process by which space can be expanded.

If you claim that the distances between physical objects can be expanded, that is not an expansion of space, it is only a change of the distances between physical objects.

I get the impression that you are suffering from triangular thinking, which I define as regarding the mater/energy which is the source of causality as causing additional people/things/events as effects as if additional matter/energy is being created/caused and thus there is an increase in the sum total of matter/energy in the universe.

I have shown that the matter/energy system of the universe is a closed system to which no additional matter/energy can be added or taken away, meaning, by extension, the matter/energy present cannot create new or additional matter/energy.

The proper conception of the universe is accomplished by block thinking, in which a 'block' is a conception of the finite quantity of matter/energy present in the entire universe at any timepoint, and that this finite quantity never changes [matter/energy changes in form, matter<->energy, via E = mc2 and m = E/c2].

Space is not matter/energy.

Gravity is a form of energy, and, thus, a form of matter/energy, therefore, in accord with space is not matter/energy, space cannot be a gravitational field.

The same for electromagnetism and electromagnetic fields.

Substance = Matter/energy.

Space has not substance, no matter/energy.

How can you expand that which has no substance, no physical reality, other than its unbounded volume which would be emptiness except for those local areas within it in which matter/energy are present?

I have been complaining that if mathematics does not fit the physics then the mathematics is wrong, useless.

If you keep asserting you have a science which uses mathematics to describe reality and which derives specific conclusions re: reality and and I find intuitive reasons to conclude that the mathematical conclusions are faulty because they do not describe the physics, then I am justified in complaining that the mathematics does not fit the physics.

This is the case herein between thee and me.

You continue to champion mathematics which do not fit the physics.

Physics = matter/energy, space = space, time = time, and space n= matter/energy, time n= matter/energy, matter/energy n= space, matter/energy n= time, etc., etc., etc.

NOTE: Because of the possibility that various fonts may not produce correctly the traditional 'not equal' symbol, I use n= to mean 'not equal.'

I have defined time to be the measurement of the occurrences of events in sequences of events by the use of time-intervals for units of measurement.

I have shown that the key element to the understanding of time is the unit of measurement of time, the time-interval, the TI, which is the unit of measurement, and that there are two types of time-intervals, ITs, the variable time-interval, the VTI, and the invariable time-interval, the ITI.

If you construct mathematical theories using VTIs, as Einstein admitted he did, then time appears to be variable, dilatable.

But what happens when you construct mathematical theories using ITIs? Time then appears to be, and is, invariable, nondilatable.

I don't care if this observation and conclusion fouls up various physics religions including 'modern physics.'

My intention is not to foul up physics religions/theories; my intention is to describe reality as it actually is, not as I want it to be, and not necessarily as 'modern physicists' want it to be.

Scientific American, Sept. 2002, devoted an entire issue to A Matter Of Time.

On page 41 in a text block connected to a figure in an article, That Mysterious Flow, by Paul Davies, is the following quote:Thus, neither scientists nor philosophers know what time is?

I gave you an operational definition of time that the best description of time currently available because it describes exactly what humans and machines do when they measure time, when they 'do time.'

I also showed you that there exist two time-intervals.

I have shown you that when ITIs are used, time is independent of space.

Because of the liberation of time from space, we get back Absolute Time [AT] and Absolute Space [AS].

That ought to prompt you to challenge the concept of spacetime, a valid conclusion from relativity when VTIs are used for time, but an invalid conclusion when ITIs are used for time.

And in your challenge you ought to find that space = space n= time n= physics [matter/energy].

And if nothing else convinces you that there is a separation of time and space, then consider this, intuitively, logically: Time describes when, space describes where, physics, matter/energy, therefore, describes what and how and why.

If you are happy confusing when with where with what/how/why, then so be thee, but me is not obligated to agree with thee.

If the mathematics don't fit the physics, then the mathematics is wrong.

eh

Ahh, well that settles it then. Seriously, do you suppose it could be you that is wrong here? Or maybe you're not interpreting the theories correctly? To avoid strawman attacks on modern physics, you have to first have the correct theories.

If you could destroy the gravitational field, space would disappear. But we've already been through this. I understand you think the ancient atomists concept of space is correct, being a void in which substances move about. Fair enough.

But in math space=geometry. Everything from vacuums to material things are geometrical objects. In modern physics, the gravitational field is equivalent to the geometry of space. It does not mean that the field of space is some kind of substance, but is just as physical as the curved space we percieve as matter.

Sorry, but I have already been through this nonsense in other threads. I have given reasons and support why the modern concept of space makes more sense (GR, QM, the concept of fields) than the old atomist void, and am certainly not merely posting it because physicists say so. But you seem to be avoiding several key points made. Hopefully you will forget attempting to drown out other viewpoints with pure volume of text, and address the issues here.

Space is pure geometry, and....

Matter is also geometry. The difference between a vacuum and matter is curvature.

Logic is a much more useful tool than intuition.

Gotta disagree. Everything in modern physics is fields. In GR, the universe is pure geometry. Flat empty space is just as real as curved space (matter/energy). The notion of substances comes from our perception of density. But they are equally physical.

There are no problems with a finite space-time, as I've mentioned before. That is because the finite amount of energy will never fill an infinite volume. Finite cannot become infinite. You can have a finite volume where there is a finite amount of energy to be distributed at each point in space. You can expand the volume, so that each point still has energy, but because of the increased size that amount of energy has decreased. But the energy of the system as a whole, stays the same.

A couple misconceptions here. First, there is no edge to the universe. It's going to take some time getting familiar with the concept of non-euclidean geometry here, but a hyper-shaped universe is required based on the cosmological principle. Go in a straight line in a spaceship, and eventually you will wind up back where you started.

Second, the statement that the space would have no gravitational field makes no sense. Everything in the universe gravitates.

However, if the cosmological principle was invalid, the universe might have an edge and center. Traveling past this edge would expand the universe. Since you and all humans are literally space, it would simply be a case of an expanding area of space.

But you clearly aren't on the same page as physicists. That is because your concepts of space, energy and such are different than those used by physicists. But you must be on the same page to avoid strawmen.

An infinite region would posses an infinite amount of energy. So....

We're not expanding a finite volume into an infinite volume.

Think about this one real hard. Why can't space expand? Intuition tells us it cannot, but logically it would be impossible to find a reason why it actually can't. Since space is geometry, it makes no more sense for a substance to expand, than for pure space to do likewise.

Careful here. While they are the same entity, I would actually have it the other way around, so that matter/energy is a product of a fundemental space. Think in terms of pure geometry.

Remember the old quote from Democritus about nothing being real except atoms and space? Well in this case, color, taste, substance, heat etc. are all conventions, but in reality there is only space.

In GR, the flat space in between galaxies actually expands itself, as opposed to the galaxies rushing away from each other like an explosion.

You just can't have one without the other. Space-time and matter seem unavoidable.

Which is irrelevant. I'm not talking about a finite amount of energy within an infinite volume of space.

This comes up to the concept of a field. In terms of classic physics, the field is a continuous thing throughout the universe, with a strength value at each point in space. In GR, that "strength" is the amount of curvature at each point. Perfectly flat (Euclidean) space would fit the description of a vacuum, devoid of any energy. But quantum mechanics gets in the way, saying such vacuums are forbidden.

But the issue of the uncertainty principle has come up before in other threads. I don't think you've addressed the fact that this uncertainty has nothing to do with our measuring abilities. I see you brought up your idea of a perfect observer in another thread, but another poster showed that this was wrong. A perfect observer cannot exist, because a particle simply does not have a precise location and momentum at the same time. So the perfectly flat space suffers from quantum jitters like all other fields in nature.

I'm not sure we're on the same page here. Gravity=geometry of space. Perhaps you are thinking of gravity waves, which do carry energy, or you are thinking of gravitational potential energy. In either case, gravity is not a substance.

Here is the crux of it. Matter/energy=curvature. Only space is actually real.

Because geometry is real. This goes back to my prior question: Why can't pure space expand? It has dimensions and structure. It can expand, and does.

No, I think it is a simple misunderstanding of definitions, ie. substances, space, fields, etc. Once you see that space=geometry, I think we will agree more often. Intuition has to be traded for hard logic, though.

Not only does the math fit the physics, but they are supported by observation. Of course I mean GR and QM. Even supporters of alternative cosmologies (plasma cosmology, steady state, etc.) are forced to take on these fields as accurate descriptions of the universe. They simply attempt to show that those theories can also support a different cosmological model.

Physicists disagree.

How did we get to talking about this again? Finish up on space, and then we'll move on to time.

Err, no. Stay on topic, please.

Of course. Name any event, and you'll find that you need all 3 to describe it. Hence, space and time are fundementally connected.

I think this is getting off topic. A thread on the nature of space in the science&skepticism forum would be appropriate.

Philosoft

I agree that this thread is now entirely off-topic. I can move it to Sci&Skep if you wish, or you may open another thread anew over there.

~Philosoft - Philosophy mod

eh

Yeah, it seems these long threads with Bob K often get off topic. I suppose the thread should be closed, and I'll reopen it in S&S. Unless there is something left to this discussion about infinite regress.

Philosoft

I'll close it pending reopening discussion in Sci&Skep. If anyone would like it reopened in the future for topical matters, PM me and I'll consider it.

~Philosoft