To add comments or start new threads please go to the full version of: There is no space where there is no matter
PhysForum Science, Physics and Technology Discussion Forums > Relativity, Quantum Mechanics and New Theories > Relativity, Quantum Mechanics, New Theories

Majkl
there is nothing but matter actually…empty space (em-fields) exists only between objects of matter (repulsion or attraction fields) and nowhere else…---which means—that matter expands and not space…since space is the consequence of matter…not the other way around.there is no space where there is no matter…
czeslaw
QUOTE (Majkl+Apr 11 2006, 02:40 PM)
there is nothing but matter actually…empty space (em-fields) exists only between objects of matter (repulsion or attraction fields) and nowhere else…---which means—that matter expands and not space…since space is the consequence of matter…not the other way around.there is no space where there is no matter…

It is modern point of view, I think.
In old String Theory they distinguish a particle of matter and an empty space.
The empty space does not exist. There are virtual particles , photons, CMBR, gravitational and Electromagnetic fields. It is not possible to separate a space-time from an energy (matter, information). More energy – dense space – the foam of the space is carrying a shorter wave.
No information – no space.
Zephir
QUOTE (Majkl+Apr 11 2006, 05:40 PM)
...there is no space where there is no matter...

Such insight comes originally from Einstein, which can serve as proof, the Dr. Einstein has deeper insight into Aether hypothesis, then most of proponents of his theory later till now. Surprisingly enough, the Einstein's authority was totally ignored at this point:

"...More careful reflection teaches us, however, that the special theory of relativity does not compel us to deny ether. We may assume the existence of an ether... According to the general theory of relativity space without ether is unthinkable; for in such space there not only wouldn't be no propagation of light, but also no possibility of existence for standards of space and time (measuring-rods and clocks), nor therefore any space-time intervals in the physical sense..."

Such statement can be easily interpreted by the following way:

The space-time is generated by the inertial waves of inhomogeneous massive environment, i.e. the Aether.

I would follow, such statement is recursive, as here is no obvious way, how to create such environment without another wave spreading. But the wave itself can be interpreted as the diffusion spreading in the multidimensional environment - it means, under certain conditions such environment shouldn't be elastic necessarily - just random.
amrit
matter and space are made out of same stuf
matter is energy of space that is stuctured
see more:
www.ejtp.com
article
AGN as a Renewing Sistems of the Universe................Sorli, (2005)



ether = a-temporal space
a-temporal space = ether

physical time = motion onto a-temporal space
Nick
The aether is spreading out it is the expansion of the universe
amrit
the idea that universe is expanding and growing into dyameter has no much ground for me.
universe is not a melon
we vare observing huge space, but we have no idea of how bif universe is
we should study universe in the area we can see and out of this observations
we can speculate that the entire universe functions in the same way
it seems that the main low in the universe is a "DYNAMIC EQUILIBRUIM"
universe is self-renewing sistem, no creation, no end

Majkl
Metaphorically speaking..it is like :everything you look at, is like looking at different aspects of yourself...—our perception is relativity..
Here it goes..naive construction—extended picture of speculation...missing piece was dynamic equlibrium...
everything is matter...which means...it has many different states and it is always in the dynamic equilibrium of states...its states for example naively differentiated would be:magnetism, electric, plasma, solid, liquid, gaseous, antimatter,aether..(how many states there are –and should they be treated as dimensions or fused dimensions is a matter of observance)..and then it follows that each state is not possible without all others...---sum of all states is always the same.... it is always in the dynamic equilibrium of states which means always changing which means-that natural state of matter is dynamic equilibirum...this means further that geometry of matter is dynamic...which means that mathematical space and time are always changing long term...dynamic equlibirum of states has a weather like pattern so we cannot conclude what happens next long term...the flux of equilibrium is too random to describe...we could only have snapshots of intervals...—which tell us for example what happens in the next 10 years or maybe even millions or billions for of years...in infinite time and space this looks like a point on infinite plane of possible matter flux arrangements...
life being some kind of dynamic equilibrium of small scale (according to perception of differences between quantites) might not be uncommon in matter....we might even be a special set of circumstances or even the state of matter which we see (universe) might be a set of special circumstances or just an ordinary occurence...we could be an exotic piece of matter...if we for example had history of such occurences which is beyond of course...we might also be nothing special, as an every day occurence in infinity......---another thing is.. so called mind is matter itself..when mind reasons it finds out that it defines itself...this is another property of matter which says that matter is self definable...self contained...it sounds strange..but with the right descripiton i think it would make sense....when talking about matter we are talking about its changes of states which is constant and always...
conclusions of all this are....matter is all there is..it always is-meaning it never started it never ends---its natural state is dynamic equlibrium....sum of all of its states are always the same...which means that no matter what the arrangements of its possible states are their totality is always the same...but like mentioned before the fusion or flux of its states is very dynamical..
of course—things like always is and self definability..are of course a matter of faith..but if described properly they could make some kind of sense i think...---and things like: all there is..are of course in the end a matter of convention or standards or the way each of us prefers it to see..for it is possible to describe it in millions of ways it seems...and i apologize for chaotic writing and bad use of language.. smile.gif
fivedoughnut
Most of space-time is created by non zero-space intersectional hyperfields, therefore matter = space is a little incorrect, by around 96%. biggrin.gif

Spacial Vacuoles
amrit
space-time is only a math model with which we describe motion into space, so it can not be created
actualy nothing can be created, all exists for evever, energy (so matter) can not be destroyed and not created,
energy can only be transformed, in the universe we can only talk about transformation and not at all about creation
CREATION IS BORROWED INTO SCIENCE FROM RELIGION AND HAS TO BE ABANDONED; UNIVERSE IS ETERNAL; NO CREATION
Zephir
QUOTE (amrit+Apr 14 2006, 07:12 PM)
..space-time can not be created, nothing can be created, all exists for ever, energy (so matter) can not be destroyed and not created, energy can only be transformed, in the universe we can only talk about transformation and not at all about creation, universe is eternal; no creation...

It's nice - but people in science aren't interested about claims, but about proofs of such claims. Claim without proof is just a subject of belief and such of this it hasn't a place in science.

Do you believe, the claim repeated by thousands of times will become truth without any proofs? I don't think so.
amrit
DID YOU HEARE ABOUT

FIRST LOW OF THERMODYNAMICS my dear

is for you a claim !?
Zarabtul
proof could be out there....
Zephir
QUOTE (amrit+Apr 14 2006, 11:47 PM)
FIRST LOW OF THERMODYNAMICS my dear, is for you a claim

Nope, it is verified experimentally. But how do you want to prove claims like

...space-time can not be created, nothing can be created, all exists for ever, energy (so matter) can not be destroyed and not created, energy can only be transformed, in the universe we can only talk about transformation and not at all about creation, universe is eternal; no creation...

If I tell you now:

The space-time can be created during inflation. At least the space-time can be created. At least the space-time doesn't exist for ever. Energy can be transfered into entropy and vice versa. The Universe has it's own beginning in the BigBang event and such of this isn't eternal, the creation has some physical meaning.

How do you disprove such claims? Such claim has at least the same reliability, like the one of yours without proofs and we finished at this point. We can continue in different business.
Guest_Neurohacker
QUOTE (Majkl+Apr 11 2006, 02:40 PM)
there is nothing but matter actually…empty space (em-fields) exists only between objects of matter (repulsion or attraction fields) and nowhere else…---which means—that matter expands and not space…since space is the consequence of matter…not the other way around.there is no space where there is no matter…

Um
The Holographic Universe.


Sincerely Yours,
Neurohacker@gmail.com
(.~.)
--oOO--(_)--OOo--
learning through repetition or what it really is (brain washing through repetition)
Thats how Toilet training a Human is done!!!!!
The only Fear we have is human stupidity
Psychiatry is just Legal Drug Pushers.
the brain's total electrical activity corresponds to the information processing in the brain. or as some call the Mind of the Human.

StevenA
Interactions between energy/matter create reality/time. Spacial dimensions are heuristics perceived by correlations between these interactions - when two things interact, we perceive them as being at the same spacial location for that instant. The perception of 3-D space is simply the most natural model for 2-D senses over time. Self organizing algorithms, like Kohonen networks can extract spacial correlations from information and this process likely works in both sense of vision and touch.

The perception of space is a learning process. Individual atoms wouldn't seem to have any ability to perceive 3-D space ... they simply interact at various times and at various orientations with other energies. Maybe these interactions occur in potentially 11 dimensions, but these other dimensions aren't entirely independent and unrelated. Even the 3 spacial dimensions we typically refer to are largely redundant and not truly 3 independent coordinates - there is no universal X,Y,Z marker in space but it's simply a natural interpretation of how 2-D visual senses + time are interpreted. If you use a more natural reference for dimensional orientation, like gravity, you'll find that most things at a specific potential in a gravity well are very similar, no matter what direction you go (i.e. 100 miles from the center of the Earth in any arbitrary X, Y or Z direction appears similar and the same is true of a black hole or orbital of atoms or planets etc.) We probably live in a universe best described as having 1.3 independent dimensions, or something like that as most of the 3 dimensions we perceive aren't independent, but are correlated. For example, we could say one second of speech in CD audio format is a 44,100 dimensional object because it could be described as 44,100 waveform samples (CD audio standard format), but if there are truly only a small number of truly significant and independent components that describe it usefully, then for intelligeability it would seem better to simply describe the word and possibly tonal structure instead of individual audio samples taken at 44.1 KHz. Speech can be easily compressed into many fewer dimensions with virtually no loss in perceived audio quality. 44.1 KHz is simply a factor of the hardware sampling, just like 3-D is the representation that 2-D + time senses naturally perceive. but these are oversampled representations with much redudancy that causes confusion over what the irreducible core of reality is.

I won't claim I know exactly how to extract an irreducible spacial coordinate system for everything but it seems that the 3 dimensions we normally perceive are likely more a learned macroscopic approximation largely driven by how our senses operate than a representation of the "fabric" of the universe. I'm just trying to point out that there's likely a smaller, but more informationally dense representation for things that would describe observed phenomenon better except that this isn't easily seen as we don't have an intuitive understanding of such a perspective. It doesn't seem impossible that the structure of the universe could actually not even be regular on a small scale but that the macroscopic linearities we envision are simply approximates of smaller, irregular and possibly even stochastics actions that are diffused in a rather even manner on a larger scale.

Then again, I might be adding unnecessary complexity ... but there does seem to be an obvious redundancy in spacial dimensions that seems to be generally overlooked. Basically, I think the ideas of a "thinner" holographic universe, at least in functionality, offer some incredible possibilities and could tie together microscopic and macroscopic characteristics - if the universe exists as a smaller "seed" of interactions that's fractally unfolded, then characteristics seen at a small scale would be seen on a larger scale as well. Are similarities and regularities seen at various scales simply products of overactive imaginations or are they created by a fundamental process of the universe that uses the past as a seed to grow the future?

Maybe I'm searching for a holy grail that doesn't exist, but if we can understand how a molecular chain of 1,000 atoms self-organizes and even simulate it in some reasonable time on a computer, it seems there should exist a scalable set of physical rules that doesn't require an entire rewrite when, for example, we want to model the weather - if the spiral arms of galaxies appear physically similar to the arms of a hurricane, it's almost guaranteed they operate by similar processes. This would seem to apply to orbits of planets as well (galaxies are composed of orbitals). Do electron shell orbits operate similarly except that EMF forces interact on a larger magnitude?

I'm probably getting old but there seems to be a recursive structure that likely applies on all scales of observation. We just haven't been looking for nesting/recursion in the universe but once you begin looking in that direction the signs appear obvious. (Sorry, I don't have enough energy to post another 20K words reinforing this view biggrin.gif ... use it for what it's worth, or not)
amrit
unregistered

since space is the consequence of matter…not the other way around.there is no space where there is no matter…


space is energy as matter is energy, space and matter are made out of the same stuff
to say something like above you will go directly in hell for eternity
what you say above is pure nonsense
space is the consequence of matter s**t
Zephir
QUOTE (amrit+Apr 21 2006, 10:25 AM)
...what you say above is pure nonsense...

It seems, you don't believe, the Universe is formed by interior of black hole (gravastar be more specific), and the material of this interior forms the space for energy spreading?

BTW Do you believe, the space has density and isn't formed by mass at the same time? Does it mean, the space density is just a mind construct without real meaning?... wink.gif
czeslaw
The energy is just a distortion of the space-time, I think. If a particle of the energy vibrates it means the space vibrates because of its energy. This vibrations of the space are inwards only - that way the gravity warps the space inwards.
The ether space model joins also the space and energy together I think.
amrit
Interactions between energy/matter create reality/time.

interaction between energy-matter creates motion (movement)
and time is man invention to experience motion into linear way
before-now-next
Zephir
QUOTE (amrit+Apr 21 2006, 05:00 PM)
... time is man invention to experience motion into linear way
before-now-next...

But "space density" is man invention too... wink.gif
amrit
Zephir light bend in strong gravitation because space is dense
light follow the round distribution of QS that defines geometry of space
Zephir
QUOTE (amrit+Apr 21 2006, 09:11 PM)
...light bend in strong gravitation because space is dense..

I can say easily, light bends in strong gravitation because photons are attracted by gravity like other particles.... wink.gif The light bending itself isn't proof, the space is dense. After all, you're refuting the Aether concept and without Aether space is empty, empty space cannot have density or any other scalar properties.
amrit
no, I'm not refuting Ather, I just give it a form that can be absorbed by the current science

idea of empty space is the result of math prevailing physics, the idea of granular structure of space brings ether back into science, but in a more concrete way, more physical way

but you have to understand that space (ether) is a-temporal

it is not that space is filled with ether, no, space is ether,
as we can not observe ether, it make sense to talk about granular space, space is observable, space is real
ether as a term is abstract, as GW
no correspondence in material universe


if you want your ether theory to develop, drop term ether and make it a-temporal, actually my work and yours are close, only time is dividing us
czeslaw
QUOTE (amrit+Apr 22 2006, 06:24 AM)
no, I'm not refuting Ather, I just give it a form that can be absorbed by the current science

idea of empty space is the result of math prevailing physics, the idea of granular structure of space brings ether back into science, but in a more concrete way, more physical way

but you have to understand that space (ether) is a-temporal

it is not that space is filled with ether, no, space is ether,
as we can not observe ether, it make sense to talk about granular space, space is observable, space is real
ether as a term is abstract, as GW
no correspondence in material universe


if you want your ether theory to develop, drop term ether and make it a-temporal, actually my work and yours are close, only time is dividing us

You use both (Amrit and Zephir) the same idea of the space, I think.
Amrit does not use the word Aether only and it seems more acceptable for people.
You vast Zephir much time to explain what Aether is. The words vacuum, space-time, nothingness are better acceptable and you may freely explain your idea without writing about the word Aether only.
You may create your own complete new word for this Aether and it will be better acceptable for traditional people.
fivedoughnut
How about Zether biggrin.gif
Zephir
QUOTE (czeslaw+Apr 22 2006, 10:42 AM)
...You may create your own complete new word for this Aether and it will be better acceptable for traditional people....

You can use it, of course - but I should respect the scientific priority of Descartes. For example, I shouldn't use a different name for electron, just because I'm using it in less traditional consequences for some people. After all, I'm not profiting from number of citation index, number of publication or grants, so I've no reason to create commonly used illusion, I'm describing somewhat new just by using a new word.

I don't care about "traditional people", just about truth and understanding. And the truth is, the Aether concept was refuted incorrectly before one hundred years, just because of misunderstanding of the nature of transversal wave spreading. The Aether concept has nothing to do with politic. If you believe in massive environment for light wave spreading, then you believe in luminiferous aether concept by its very definition.
After all, the Amrit concept of "atemporal space" differs from Aether in lotta fundamental points, for example Amrit believes, the Aether cannot be elastic, i.e. without gravitational waves. Furthemore, the Aether cannot be synonym for vacuum, as vacuum is distinguished from observable mass, whereas aether is common denomination for environment of both vacuum, both mass.
Zephir
QUOTE (amrit+Apr 22 2006, 09:24 AM)
...no, I'm not refuting Ather, I just give it a form that can be absorbed by the current science...

You're simply liar, Amrit - everything what you're talking about ether by now is just a result of my patient arguments over time... biggrin.gif
BTW I've expected such result - after all, it's the only reason, why I'm wasting a time in discussions with people like you, Amrit. dry.gif
You can believe me at this point.

ether was supposed to be a medium of light, Michelson experiment has shown idea is wrong ether is only an unproven hypothesis

ether has no place here, it is a dead idea

electromagnetic waves does not need medium (ether) to exists, they propagate into space

Light was considered as a vibration of the ether. With negative result of Michelson-Morley experiment the idea of ether was abandoned. Space was considered empty, light was considered as a movement of electromagnetic waves into empty space.

It's just a tiny sample of Amrit's relation to Aether concept from recent time (one week, or so), in fact. It's obvious, Amrit is pretty scrambled and the ideas of his have nothing to do with my Aether theory, as they're suplying a quite opposite predictions. Amrit claims and mantras without proofs are just vasting time all of us.

I don't want to be confused with such feinting crank for future by anybody... dry.gif
amrit
Einstein's idea of empty space into which electromagnetic fields exists on its own is not adecquate according to my understanding

all that exists in the universe exists into space, space is real, space is physical,
space is "arena" "stage" of the universe.

existence of ether into space is a pure meta speculation, according to my understanding space is full of itself, space is not empty, space has a granular structure,
in this sense space itself could correspond to the ether

conclusions:

-existence of a physical reality (phenomena) requires existence of space, thinks can not exists without space
- all that exist is made out of the space, out of the QS of space


my statements above about ether i did on purpose to show you that ether as you imagine it for me is nonsense
you can go on if you want, but be aware you are walking on the one way streat into desert, ether is dead, a-teporal space is freas born, it will be alive at least for 1000 years



Inflaton
*There is no space where there is no matter*

Firstly in the first few nanoseconds or so in the history of the universe, matter could not be supported, only energy. However space still existed despite this.

Secondly, light is not matter but there is still space existing in the area the light occupies.
Nick
Einstein pointed out that without matter's extension there could be no space. What might qualify as empty space might negate this definition though.
Zephir
QUOTE (Inflaton+Apr 22 2006, 09:18 PM)
Firstly in the first few nanoseconds or so in the history of the universe, matter could not be supported, only energy. However space still existed despite this.

Yes, it's true. Aether Wave Theory supposes, each space is formed by waves some another environment, recursively. It means, our Universe is formed like collapsar by the collapsed matter of another Universe.

user posted image

Of course, such model doesn't solve the spacetime origin, just explains the relation between space and energy. Maybe the whole origin concept is just anthropocentric misunderstanding, because we can always ask about reason of Universe formation, despite of some origin postulated. From causality perspective it maybe would be better not to introduce the origin concept into cosmology at all.

QUOTE (Nick+Apr 22 2006, 09:18 PM)
..Einstein pointed out that without matter's extension there could be no space. What might qualify as empty space might negate this definition though. ....

"No space" doesn't mean "empty space" necessarily, i.e. space without matter at all. Even empty space can serve as inertial environment for energy spreading a quite well, as Inflaton mentioned. No space is true emptiness, it has no inertia or even dimensions (i.e. preferred directions) for subsequent energy wave spreading.
fivedoughnut
Space = mass?.....by my way of thinking this concept is only around 4% correct, as most of space-time is created by partially embedded 4-D wave envelopes (vacuoles) that do not produce zero-space nodes within our brane. The trans-dimensional propagative effect from these singularities, is mass, charge & gravity.
Zephir
QUOTE (fivedoughnut+Apr 23 2006, 09:32 AM)
..Space = mass?.....by my way of thinking this concept is only around 4% correct...

By Aether Wave Theory 4D spacetime is formed by the waves of matter by the same way, like 3D space for water waves spreading (i.e. the water surface) is created by the underwater vibrations of water. As another equivalent point of view can serve the idea, the vacuum (the Aether, be more specific) forms the interior of collapsar, i.e. some black hole without singularity formed from previous generation of Universe.

user posted image

In both cases space is formed by some dense mass by 100%.. wink.gif Where did you come to 4% number, please?
fivedoughnut


In both cases space is formed by some dense mass by 100%.. wink.gif Where did you come to 4% number, please? [/QUOTE]
Zeph,

The 4% is based upon the amount of missing mass (96%) required for our universe form the way it is. (additional gravity)....Perhaps Dark matter/energy is just another definition of partially embedded hyperfields? biggrin.gif
Zephir
QUOTE (fivedoughnut+Apr 23 2006, 10:46 AM)
The 4% is based upon the amount of missing mass (96%) required for our universe form the way it is. (additional gravity)....

Observable mass is forming just 10E-52 part of the Universe mass.
fivedoughnut
QUOTE (Zephir+Apr 23 2006, 09:30 AM)
QUOTE (fivedoughnut+Apr 23 2006, 10:46 AM)
The 4% is based upon the amount of missing mass (96%) required for our universe form the way it is. (additional gravity)....

Observable mass is forming just 10E-52 part of the Universe mass.


Zeph'

This is one of the places that gives reference to 96%.


96% missing mass?

p.s, I also feel that 'neutrino's'/virtual particles are also due to these partially
embedded fields.
Zephir
QUOTE (fivedoughnut+Apr 23 2006, 01:51 PM)
...This is one of the places that gives reference to 96%...

This is a GR estimation of density of matter in the Universe. Unfortunately, the estimation supplied by quantum mechanic theory should be more than 10E+200 times higher, then GR predicts.

From my perspective it's quite surprising, you're talking about space vacuoles, but you're still missing fundamental consequences. The space with density supposed by you cannot create "space vacuoles"...

What you're talking about all the time?
Your fellow human (yfh)
QUOTE (Zephir+Apr 21 2006, 08:15 AM)
QUOTE (amrit+Apr 21 2006, 10:25 AM)
...what you say above is pure nonsense...

It seems, you don't believe, the Universe is formed by interior of black hole (gravastar be more specific), and the material of this interior forms the space for energy spreading?

BTW Do you believe, the space has density and isn't formed by mass at the same time? Does it mean, the space density is just a mind construct without real meaning?... wink.gif

Patially inspired by Biocosm banter,
I suspect the stability of the universe is its "survival" factor, or what makes it exist-- and the biproduct is that life can "inhabit" that universe--but the main factor here is the growing of new blackholes, which contain more universes.

4/23/2006

user posted image

Universe A creates Blackholes B1, B2, B3, B4, etc.

Within each black hole is another universe [another A].

Evolution principals of macrolife on earth may also apply to a multiverse creation principal.

The universes that are able to make more black holes--will be "sexually selected"--in that they reproduce more, and become more pronounced.

R is more often distructive then it is good, much like random genetic macromutation(?)
If R is applied to each B [which is a basic replica, but has slight random mutation], and R has a uniqueness factor, general structure of eventual and evolving sub-universes will become more complex and proficient, though they will always hold onto their simple and primary foundations [much like life on earth always reproducing].

At far lower areas of the multiverse,
There are more often instances of exotic matter or energy
that do not behave in a normal and simple way.
Will these more advanced and diverse universes also contain more exotic structure?

Arguably, animate life forms are an exotic structure,
that can exist--built of non-exotic matter or energy.
Life is not exotic matter, it is exotic structure(?)

If exotic structure requires a random and rare event to initiate it [ex: low odds of life evolving on earth]
This means that it needs more oppertunities to "throw the dice"
And this depends on how many planets+stars the universe has.
Size and seed of a universe--the amount of "stuff" it would naturally have in it
Is a pro-reproductive factor of its general structure/existence.

The usual pattern [theoretically] is:
More evolved universes contain more blackholes, kinds of matter, kinds of energy, planets, stars, nebulas, and "physical laws".

Our organic lives may have arisen during a far later stage or era in the multiverse's evolution process
If multiverse evolution is a factor that effects existence of "life" in some area of that universe.

>

On note of "TimeCube":
Are all blackholes cubable spheres?
Would this mean a universe is ultimately cubable aswel?

Is a sphere always a natural and imperfect shape,
Only produced by evolution
And cubable?
Zephir
QUOTE (Your fellow human (yfh)+Apr 24 2006, 03:26 AM)
...I suspect the stability of the universe is its "survival" factor, or what makes it exist...

Of course, the evolution is the only viable alternative to God, we know till at this moment. I even suppose, the wave equation, as the simplest stable solution has evolved from random diffusive environment by repetitive phase transitions. Such transitions are able to intercept the character of carrier environment into a newly created phase. Such mechanism involves inheritance and mutations at the same time.

user posted image user posted image
Nick
If space existed when time began was it an open space with boundaries or a closed space without?

If it was closed it started off with gravity. tongue.gif
Zephir
QUOTE (Nick+Apr 24 2006, 04:08 AM)
If space existed when time began was it an open space with boundaries or a closed space without? If it was closed it started off with gravity.  tongue.gif

Suppose our Universe generation is collapsar, it appear like common star from outside, i.e. without any boundary. But the space formation process at it's very beginning remains unclear, as such emptiness isn't able to vibrate, having no inertia or even dimensions defined. Heres a problem with causality of formation of space, so at least two possibilities exists here:

1) the Universe has no beginning at all, it's eternal, i.e. formed by infinite number of generations. End of story.
2) the space was created by different mechanism then common phase transition, involving diffusion or some other process. The initial gravity isn't required after then, all the limited speed is defined by limited speed of mutual diffusion of massless particles, defining space.
czeslaw
QUOTE (Zephir+Apr 24 2006, 03:09 AM)
QUOTE (Nick+Apr 24 2006, 04:08 AM)
If space existed when time began was it an open space with boundaries or a closed space without? If it was closed it started off with gravity.  tongue.gif

Suppose our Universe generation is collapsar, it appear like common star from outside, i.e. without any boundary. But the space formation process at it's very beginning remains unclear, as such emptiness isn't able to vibrate, having no inertia or even dimensions defined. Heres a problem with causality of formation of space, so at least two possibilities exists here:

1) the Universe has no beginning at all, it's eternal, i.e. formed by infinite number of generations. End of story.
2) the space was created by different mechanism then common phase transition, involving diffusion or some other process. The initial gravity isn't required after then, all the limited speed is defined by limited speed of mutual diffusion of massless particles, defining space.

The most important is to know the Black Hole structure, I think.
If the Black Hole is an empty space with an overdense singularity in its centre, then our Universe is something different.
If the Black Hole is like a Gravastar with a structure of the Baryons and Bosons moving in the whole inner space, then our Universe may be like this.
Zephir
QUOTE (czeslaw+Apr 24 2006, 11:32 AM)
...If the Black Hole is an empty space with an overdense singularity in its center, then our Universe is something different....

I suppose, only housewives are believing in such primitive model of black hole today, because it was proved, not all information is lost after falling matter into black hole. Such information cannot be stored in singularity, of course.
czeslaw
QUOTE (Zephir+Apr 24 2006, 10:03 AM)
QUOTE (czeslaw+Apr 24 2006, 11:32 AM)
...If the Black Hole is an empty space with an overdense singularity in its center, then our Universe is something different....

I suppose, only housewives are believing in such primitive model of black hole today, because it was proved, not all information is lost after falling matter into black hole. Such information cannot be stored in singularity, of course.

Maldacena and Horowitz prove that we can see the inside structure of the Black Hole in Hawking radiation and the matter can not be destroyed.
http://motls.blogspot.com/2006/01/black-ho...inal-state.html
It is clear for us but I meet many people they believe in overdense singularity.
Zephir
QUOTE (czeslaw+Apr 24 2006, 02:09 PM)
It is clear for us but I meet many people they believe in overdense singularity.

Such overdense singularity is connected with the infinite high space convolution level, but we can see, the convolution of space has it's own topological limits, obviously.

user posted image user posted image

You can imagine the collapsar formation as step-wise process, analogue to final state of dense stars. Such stars undergoes the transition of degenerated particle states, where character of collapsar corresponds gradually the single big atom (white dwarf), the single big atom nuclei (neutron star) or even the single giant hadron particle (quark star).

The next logical step would be some giant lepton particle (black hole, i.e. neutrino star) or even hypothetical parton particle (axion star). Here's no reason to suppose, the repulsive force of neutrino disappears just because some people are believing in singularity.

Nevertheless, for formulation of physical model of vacuum the interior of neutron or quark star can be enough. Such material is so dense, so each deformation encloses a big inertial energy, which increases the gravitation field around such deformation by such a way, it collapses to some quantized state like common particle. So we can imagine some particles formation even inside superfluid interior of neutron stars and we can model it behavior by the same way, like the particles inside the black hole and our vacuum.

We aren't required to wait for some inner BH structure confirmation.
Zarabtul
To answer the original question in it's simplest form. We pick up frequencies from other sources using our "senses" like taste, smell, sight, hearing, and even touch. We feel the electrical fields, we see the electrical field, we smell pieces attached to the electrical fields, we taste the chemical reactions that are made by what we eat. These are the simplest explanations for this question. Now to take it one step further. What other energies do you feel? Or frequencies or whatever you may wish to call them today. What about those that do. Are there laws pertaining to those and have we been lied to about those laws that nothing is known. No we've been told it's classfied which means it can be found out. That would break ground in this area of study at least if not every other area of study as usually when you find physics breakthroughs they tend to change the course of the world. Course then again Noah was told long before cars were invented about the rainbow that teaches ya how not to flood the earth.
fivedoughnut
QUOTE (Zephir+Apr 23 2006, 02:30 PM)
QUOTE (fivedoughnut+Apr 23 2006, 01:51 PM)
...This is one of the places that gives reference to 96%...


From my perspective it's quite surprising, you're talking about space vacuoles, but you're still missing fundamental consequences. The space with density supposed by you cannot create "space vacuoles"...

What you're talking about all the time?

Zeph,

My Spacial vacuoles are trans-dimensional 'tiered' wave envelopes, and as such create there own densities as they 'condense' exponentially whilst propagating into lower dimensional space....and as jal understands, they are by definition
protosimplex in nature....as for QM (force bearing particles).....a lot of codswallop!

Your friend doughnut. biggrin.gif
Nick
How does the Big Bang escape its own gravity?
Zarabtul
There would have to be some form of ground potential there.
Zephir
QUOTE (Nick+Apr 26 2006, 05:58 AM)
How does the Big Bang escape its own gravity?

The Big Bang is considered as phase transition by Aether Wave Theory, in fact it forms the mass/gravity of Universe. The initial gravity/energy density of vacuum was nearly zero and it increased during time.
Knot of this world
QUOTE (Nick+Apr 26 2006, 02:58 AM)
How does the Big Bang escape its own gravity?
StevenA
QUOTE (Nick+Apr 26 2006, 02:58 AM)
How does the Big Bang escape its own gravity?

I don't think it needs to. We don't have an independent yardstick to measure the size of things. Why couldn't the universe be continually contracting, at least locally. How could we tell? Maybe this is why the rest of the universe appears to be expanding in comparison?

The reason why this seems possible, is because time is a relative measurement. If an area of space was compressed, interactions that determine time would occur at a faster rate as well, so relative to other local interactions, time (and space) would remain constant, relative to each other. I admit I haven't dug in too deep into what scaling problems might occur but this scenario seems possible.
Zephir
QUOTE (StevenA+Apr 26 2006, 03:00 PM)
I don't think it needs to.  We don't have an independent yardstick to measure the size of things.  Why couldn't the universe be continually contracting, at least locally.

This is a question of the same nature, how gravity field of some black hole can escape its own gravity, if it's supposedly moving by the same speed, as the light does...
PhysOrg scientific forums are totally dedicated to science, physics, and technology. Besides topical forums such as nanotechnology, quantum physics, silicon and III-V technology, applied physics, materials, space and others, you can also join our news and publications discussions. We also provide an off-topic forum category. If you need specific help on a scientific problem or have a question related to physics or technology, visit the PhysOrg Forums. Here you’ll find experts from various fields online every day.
To quit out of "lo-fi" mode and return to the regular forums, please click here.