Do We See A Train Arrive That Arrived 8 Minutes Earlier?

[superpsycho]

I have no problems visualising particles, connected particles or even a Quanta whole. I am now  uncertain on the red-shift thought but I am certain that space is not expanding. Free space is made of ''nothing'' although it contains ''things'',  We see light between distant bodies however it is perceived to be darkness which is actual invisible free space. 

Space has no solidity, only things with mass can expand their mass. 

Space is not made of nothing. Nothing is without dimensions. We also know that space has some level of impedance above zero or particles would be able to travel from one side of the universe to another instantaneously. Space must also have at least two states, a reference and a level above the reference. A singularity would effectively be the same as nothing.

 

Space appears to be expanding, though it's likely there's a lot more to it then we realize. It could be expanding and contracting simultaneously in some dimension we aren't aware of. Just because an observation seems not to make sense doesn't mean it's not real, only that there is more to the story then we've yet to discover.

 

There are two basic theories of existence, particle and wave theory but if you follow each to their natural conclusions, neither logically works. That doesn't mean there is no existence, just that we're missing something. It's very likely our view of the universe is inverted.

Edited August 20, 2016 by superpsycho

[xyz]

Space is not made of nothing. Nothing is without dimensions. We also know that space has some level of impedance above zero or particles would be able to travel from one side of the universe to another instantaneously. Space must also have at least two states, a reference and a level above the reference. A singularity would effectively be the same as nothing.

 

Space appears to be expanding, though it's likely there's a lot more to it then we realize. It could be expanding and contracting simultaneously in some dimension we aren't aware of. Just because an observation seems not to make sense doesn't mean it's not real, only that there is more to the story then we've yet to discover.

 

There are two basic theories of existence, particle and wave theory but if you follow each to their natural conclusions, neither logically works. That doesn't mean there is no existence, just that we're missing something. It's very likely our view of the universe is inverted.

I agree nothing is without dimensions, however nothing can also be interpreted to be an ''emptiness volume'', i.e a void has dimension but is empty. The whole of space is made up of nothing ''points''. Nothing can be interpreted as the ''adjoining'' point of everything. 

Edited August 20, 2016 by xyz

[superpsycho]

I agree nothing is without dimensions, however nothing can also be interpreted to be an ''emptiness volume'', i.e a void has dimension but is empty. The whole of space is made up of nothing ''points''. Nothing can be interpreted as the ''adjoining'' point of everything. 

But nothing, even under your definition, wouldn't have properties and again it must. Even under current theory, space has the ability to expand but not evoke the relativistic effects of motion upon matter. What does E=MC² tell you?  

[xyz]

But nothing, even under your definition, wouldn't have properties and again it must. Even under current theory, space has the ability to expand but not evoke the relativistic effects of motion upon matter. What does E=MC² tell you?  

My point was more of that before the big bang , space must of already existed but in its nothing/empty form.  How can space have the  ability to expand?  by space we are literally talking space , as in ''empty'' volume? Gases expand, molecules expand, light expands, fields expand, but space is without mass or physicality. 

 

And E=MC²   energy = mass *  the speed of light squared ,   does not mean energy to me and I have no idea why it means energy to anybody else either. 

Edited August 20, 2016 by xyz

[superpsycho]

My point was more of that before the big bang , space must of already existed but in its nothing/empty form.  How can space have the  ability to expand?  by space we are literally talking space , as in ''empty'' volume? Gases expand, molecules expand, light expands, fields expand, but space is without mass or physicality. 

 

And E=MC²   energy = mass *  the speed of light squared ,   does not mean energy to me and I have no idea why it means energy to anybody else either. 

Just because there appears to be an expansion of space does not necessarily mean there must have been a big bang. That is an assumption supported only by the notion that if space is expanding it must have started at a single point in space.

 

In the formula E=MC² there is only one constant C². Energy and Mass are just states of C², E the equivalent of linear motion and M effectively binding motion.

Edited August 20, 2016 by superpsycho

[xyz]

Just because there appears to be an expansion of space does not necessarily mean there must have been a big bang. That is an assumption supported only by the notion that if space is expanding it must have started at a single point in space.

 

In the formula E=MC² there is only one constant C². Energy and Mass are just states of C², E the equivalent of linear motion and M effectively binding motion.

Well I do not agree with the big bang as such, I much more the summation of all forces. 

 

And energy is more hf / S and the propagation of hf

 

anything to with motion is force, i.e c² is a collision and a force rather than E

[superpsycho]

Well I do not agree with the big bang as such, I much more the summation of all forces. 

 

And energy is more hf / S and the propagation of hf

 

anything to with motion is force, i.e c² is a collision and a force rather than E

You're getting ahead of yourself again and jumping to a different context. Force is defined as the push or pull one object has on another, where energy is defined as the capacity to sustain an action, which may or may not be applied as force.

 

The context of F=ma (Force equals mass times acceleration) is to define the potential force that a level of mass will have if accelerated to a specific rate.  The context for E=MC² is a definition of the available level of C² (velocity) contained in an amount of Mass. C² being specifically defined as 'the velocity of light squared'.

 

Each equation has specific terms and context. I would suggest you spend a little more time digesting what someone is explaining to you before you start rejecting it. Especially before you start changing terms and the context of what is being discussed. That way you'll not only learn something but be able to discuss a topic in a more rational manner. Then, if you disagree, you'll be able to form an argument based on facts rather than supposition or imagination.

 

If you keep attempting to relate an expanding universe to a context within classical physics, you're not likely to get anywhere. Man has only just begun to try to establish a context in which the universe can be viewed, so it's way to early to attempt to find parallels in classical physics.

 

Science sees existence as a series of x, y and z coordinance and motion as a change in an objects position as established by those coordinance. The question than becomes, how far out do these coordinance go? Are they infinite?

 

In particle theory, you have particles existing in empty space but in the model you can't get the particles to interact except to collide with each other, unless you have some mysterious undefined electromagnetic (magic) force. In wave theory, you effectively have a solid substance without the empty spaces, which means you have no way to get motion. If our current theories of existence do not add-up, if followed to their logical conclusions, then either we're missing something or looking at it wrong.

 

In the current big bang or expanding space model, neither the volume that is expanding, nor the volume being expanded into, has been defined or given a sufficient number of properties to draw any conclusions. Therefore as a first step, we must begin to establish at least a few basic characteristics of the volume we define as space or universe. What properties would space have to allow a particle to form from it?

[xyz]

 

 

Science sees existence as a series of x, y and z coordinance and motion as a change in an objects position as established by those coordinance. The question than becomes, how far out do these coordinance go? Are they infinite?

 

 Therefore as a first step, we must begin to establish at least a few basic characteristics of the volume we define as space or universe. What properties would space have to allow a particle to form from it?

Space itself or matter can only be infinite by logical conclusion.  Let us say we travelled to the '''edge'' of space and encountered a boundary, we then have finite space with boundary, however the question then changes to how far does the boundary go beyond our stoppage (how ''thick'' is the wall).   But then the question changes again, if the boundary is finite then is there space beyond the boundary and is there a boundary beyond this space,  this question can be infinitely repeated which gives us the infinite answer. 

 

What properties would space have to form a particle? A tough question and one that should be closely related to what property of space is there to form energy. I am not sure of the answer , maybe space itself has areas that have more permeability than other areas and these areas in some way ''capture'' energy. to form particles. I consider space is adjoined by itself.

[superpsycho]

Space itself or matter can only be infinite by logical conclusion.  Let us say we travelled to the '''edge'' of space and encountered a boundary, we then have finite space with boundary, however the question then changes to how far does the boundary go beyond our stoppage (how ''thick'' is the wall).   But then the question changes again, if the boundary is finite then is there space beyond the boundary and is there a boundary beyond this space,  this question can be infinitely repeated which gives us the infinite answer. 

 

What properties would space have to form a particle? A tough question and one that should be closely related to what property of space is there to form energy. I am not sure of the answer , maybe space itself has areas that have more permeability than other areas and these areas in some way ''capture'' energy. to form particles. I consider space is adjoined by itself.

Better but you're still trying to jump to the end and draw a conclusion before any details have been considered.

 

The point about viewing existence only in terms of a coordinate system, is it results in an open ended unknowable, effectively an infinite series of unknowables.

 

For a particle to develop, space most consist of at least two states, a reference and one or more states above the reference. More specifically, it must have a variable set of impedances, making it a non-homogeneous volume able to have ripples and form eddies. From there particles can form.

[A-wal]

Space itself or matter can only be infinite by logical conclusion.  Let us say we travelled to the '''edge'' of space and encountered a boundary, we then have finite space with boundary, however the question then changes to how far does the boundary go beyond our stoppage (how ''thick'' is the wall).   But then the question changes again, if the boundary is finite then is there space beyond the boundary and is there a boundary beyond this space,  this question can be infinitely repeated which gives us the infinite answer.

A finite universe does not have boundaries! It can be finite and unbounded and that to me is the only logical possibility.

[xyz]

 

 

For a particle to develop, space most consist of at least two states, a reference and one or more states above the reference. More specifically, it must have a variable set of impedances, making it a non-homogeneous volume able to have ripples and form eddies. From there particles can form.

Not necessarily, impedance ,permeability ,   ripples and eddies could be all things that occupy absolute space which is a volume of absolute nothing, Empty can fit anything in , including the ''dark'' problems we can not see.  For example dark energy could be something that occupies space, fills the whole of space but has no solidity like matter. Our problem is the invisible, gravity, light, curvatures, etc, are all interwoven as ''invisible''. 

[xyz]

A finite universe does not have boundaries! It can be finite and unbounded and that to me is the only logical possibility.

The Universe is visually finite , we  have limitations, we  have the problem of that when an object moves away from us, the visual area visually contracts , at radius X relative to visual  area of of the object, the object visually contracts to a zero point source and vanishes from the line of sight. 

 

So when you next look at the night sky and see the ''darkness between distance bodies, consider there is lots of things to see but they are visually contracted beyond a visual seen point source. 

[A-wal]

It has nothing to do with any visual limitation, as I've told you before.

 

The observable universe isn't the whole thing, that doesn't mean it goes on forever.

 

And no, that also doesn't mean it has to have boundaries.

[superpsycho]

Not necessarily, impedance ,permeability ,   ripples and eddies could be all things that occupy absolute space which is a volume of absolute nothing, Empty can fit anything in , including the ''dark'' problems we can not see.  For example dark energy could be something that occupies space, fills the whole of space but has no solidity like matter. Our problem is the invisible, gravity, light, curvatures, etc, are all interwoven as ''invisible''. 

Again, you jump ahead to this and that instead of trying to build a cohesive train of thought. You haven't even logically built the most basic particle, yet you ramble on about dark matter, gravity, light, and curvatures.

 

The goal is to see if you can actually build something in detail that fits observations. Rambling on endlessly about possibilities gets you nowhere and only makes what you say sound foolish. If you take things step-by-step to their logical conclusion, you can see if it logically works or not. You do that from enough angles and you may develop a glimmer of what is actually happening. Otherwise, you're just chasing your tail.

 

When I defined a requirement of impedance to allow for a non-homogeneous volume, the question you should have been asking is, 'how does that allow a stable particle to form and what characteristics would that particle have?'

[xyz]

It has nothing to do with any visual limitation, as I've told you before.

 

The observable universe isn't the whole thing, that doesn't mean it goes on forever.

 

And no, that also doesn't mean it has to have boundaries.

I have told you before that you have no idea of what you are talking about.  Of course there is a visual limitation and obviously the observable universe is within this limitation, 

[xyz]

Again, you jump ahead to this and that instead of trying to build a cohesive train of thought. You haven't even logically built the most basic particle, yet you ramble on about dark matter, gravity, light, and curvatures.

 

The goal is to see if you can actually build something in detail that fits observations. Rambling on endlessly about possibilities gets you nowhere and only makes what you say sound foolish. If you take things step-by-step to their logical conclusion, you can see if it logically works or not. You do that from enough angles and you may develop a glimmer of what is actually happening. Otherwise, you're just chasing your tail.

 

When I defined a requirement of impedance to allow for a non-homogeneous volume, the question you should have been asking is, 'how does that allow a stable particle to form and what characteristics would that particle have?'

How am I suppose to  know in which way you want me to think?

If you would like to talk about permeability causing impedance of hf to manifest a visual energy that somehow becomes solidity i have no problem with that, but then question arises of the origin of the hf, which I think is ''space'' contracting. 

 

 

added- some sort of ohmic free space field is on my mind.

Edited August 23, 2016 by xyz

[A-wal]

I have told you before that you have no idea of what you are talking about.  Of course there is a visual limitation and obviously the observable universe is within this limitation, 

You said the universe can't be finite.

I said it can.

You said it looks finite because there's a limit to how far we can see.

I said I know there's a limit to how far we can see and it's obviously bigger than that but it has absolutely nothing to do with the universe being finite.