Somewhat of a theory.

[arkain101]

I have been putting together quite a pile of thoughts in the past while on the current outlook of physics based science and have found some interesting possibilties..

 

Gravity is still a mistery. Light is also a confusing entity, both considered to have particle and wave like properties. Special Relativity is based off of a questionable constant of the speed of light. Questionable because, there has been observations of small variations of possible different light velocities. Not to mention the recent discoveries of Pioneer 10 and 11 launched in 1972 and 1973 ( http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/mystery_monday_041018.html ). The one thing all of these things have in common is where they exist. They are all located in this strange vacume of apparent nothingness. The concept of imaging absolutly nothing is a in itself impossible. To do this is to imagine yourself in a room that contains no color, not even black or white. Although because they all do exist in this vast apparent vacume they are all affected by the same laws that we beleive exist in this infinite vacume, which I am mainly refering to special relativity.

 

For a moment let us ask, what is a vacume. It is a word for lack of pressure, pressure is a word for constrained or compiled mass that is generally created from gravity's forces. Although earth itself is contained in the same vacume as a particle floating in space. A particle floating in space, or an atom rather, is claimed to be in a complete vacume that does not exist. Yet there is this mostly unknown force in which hold a solid nucleus together, even though there is not necessaraly any attractive particles widly described to bond these particles of the nucleus. So this atom floating in space in a place of zero pressure is yet still under the influence of a very strong nuclear pressure that holds everything together. Let us take a look at objects of strong gravitational forces. They first off need to be dense. This means it is either a large object that has alot of mass trying to get to the center where the densest part of the planetoid is. Or the object itself is generally small but extremely dense.

 

What really is dense? First we can say with confidence that any object that contains mass contains volume, anything that contains volume takes up space, which in turn takes up a void in the "vacume of space itself" regardless if it is on a planet or lost in space, they all exist in the same medium, even if we can agree this medium is a source of nothing. So density is the collection of mass that contains volume and the percentage of "space" the matter takes up of a given size or volume of object as a hole. So the greater the percentage mass takes up of space in a given total visible volume the greater the force of atraction matter undergoes.

 

Even though this vacume is said to not exist, we still say that anything that moves from point a to point b within space undergoes cirtain laws that all matter is said to obey. Laws like time dialation mass increase. The relation between the velocity of the matter and the velcoity of this vacume is the function of the laws, yet somehow it does not exist. The closest thing I know that gives this infinite vacume a name and a bit of a purpose is the space-time term. Space-time, a virtual dimension that can be manipulated in by the matter which is contained in it or maybe better explained as the matter of which is it.

 

So we can agree that atoms possibly contain solid volume nucleus's and are pressured together by an unknown very strong nuclear force. Atoms that are grouped together to form a bond of material are of a weaker force and do not contain 100% density, so there is "space" between them and so the pressure is weaker. A large collection of these materials that do not appear to have molecular bonds is said to be a gravitaional force which is weaker yet and contains even more percentage of space between the molecules. The common denominator is that they all are forms of pressure in relation to the densitiy or volume obtained by the matter in the designated system. Although, gravity is found not to be only a weak force. If a collection of matter can become dense enough the pressure can become so great that the gravity force is immensly strong, strong enough where nothing can apparently escape.

 

It appears that mostly all, and I am going to use a made up term here, space-voids (volume of matter) has an attraction to another space-void. The denser the collection of space-voids the greater the force is that pressures them together. Not all space-voids want to bond directly, although when they do they share a closeness that is enough to hold them together like a denser gravity.

 

Light is said to have to be massless in order to obtain the velocity in which it travels at constantly, and doing this has properties of a pulsating differentiating wave through space time. Althought it can likewise have particle like properties and apply "energy" to matter. as if light is reverbaratons through space-time itself. Passing through matter and being absorbed by that matter then directly expelled from the matter through space-time to its next destination.

 

I do not think we can deny the fact that even without matter in the universe. There can still be energy which will continue on its path through an infinite space-time still applying an existance to the nothingness of this infinite space.

[Tormod]

Please forgive me if I'm rambling here - this is my last post today before I hit the sack. :confused:

 

Questionable because, there has been observations of small variations of possible different light velocities.

 

Can you post some links to back up this claim, please.

 

They are all located in this strange vacume of apparent nothingness.

 

Far from it. Where the probes are now, is full of interstellar gas and dust, not to mention lots of radiation.

 

The concept of imaging absolutly nothing is a in itself impossible.

 

And quite unnecessary. What do you base the assumption that space is empty on? We don't know what space is made of. It has been suggested that on a quantum level space has a foam-like structure. The nothingness between the particles in the atom is full of radiation. There arent really a lot of places in this universe where there is "nothing". However, even in areas that are empty of matter and energy there might not be anything like pressure or gravity. Gravity is too weak to work within the atom, and if there was a pressure problem in the atom the electrons would have problems staying in orbit.

 

A particle floating in space, or an atom rather, is claimed to be in a complete vacume that does not exist.

 

Claimed by who? And how do you know that this complete vacuum does not exist?

 

Yet there is this mostly unknown force in which hold a solid nucleus together, even though there is not necessaraly any attractive particles widly described to bond these particles of the nucleus. So this atom floating in space in a place of zero pressure is yet still under the influence of a very strong nuclear pressure that holds everything together.

 

This is not an unknown force. The strong nuclear force is one of the four known forces (the others being electromagnetism, the weak force, and gravity). Of those, gravity is not well understood.

 

Also, the strong force does not hold the atom together. It only holds the nucleus together.

EDIT: I mistakenly wrote that the electrons are held by the weak nuclear force. This is completely wrong. The weak nuclear force is responsible for nuclear decay (mostly beta decay and radioactivity IIRC). Electrons and the nucleus attract due to opposite electromagnetic charges.

 

 

So we can agree that atoms possibly contain solid volume nucleus's and are pressured together by an unknown very strong nuclear force.

 

No, and no.

 

Light is said to have to be massless in order to obtain the velocity in which it travels at constantly, and doing this has properties of a pulsating differentiating wave through space time. Althought it can likewise have particle like properties and apply "energy" to matter. as if light is reverbaratons through space-time itself. Passing through matter and being absorbed by that matter then directly expelled from the matter through space-time to its next destination.

 

This is not really a problem. The wave/particle duality of light has been known since the 1800s and has been proven many times over in experiments. Light behaves as a wave when it travels, and as a particle when it interacts with other particles.

 

I do not think we can deny the fact that even without matter in the universe. There can still be energy which will continue on its path through an infinite space-time still applying an existance to the nothingness of this infinite space.

 

I don't see how you can reach this conclusion from your argument. You do not display a deep insight into the forces of nature and the construction of atoms, and I think you are needlessly confusing issues like pressure and gravity.

[infamous]

 

 

 

I don't see how you can reach this conclusion from your argument. You do not display a deep insight into the forces of nature and the construction of atoms, and I think you are needlessly confusing issues like pressure and gravity.

I must agree with you Tormod. I would suggest that arkain101 could increase his understanding about these issues if he were to google these topics and do a little more reading on the subject. No disrespect intended arkain101, but I do think this is good advice............

[arkain101]

This is not an unknown force. The strong nuclear force is one of the four known forces (the others being electromagnetism, the weak force, and gravity). Of those, gravity is not well understood.

 

Yes it is a known force like gravity. Although, what is behind the forces? I was stating from information I have read there is not logical explanation as to where these forces come from. Gravity is not well understood.

 

Quote:

A particle floating in space, or an atom rather, is claimed to be in a complete vacume that does not exist.

Claimed by who? And how do you know that this complete vacuum does not exist?

 

Someone on here said that infinate space is quite simple to understand. Infinity is an oxymoron so space doesnt exist. Something along those lines.

Not to mention science books and teachers that explain anywhere there isnt radiation, or matter, there is basically nothing. Although, true no matter where you go from any angle you can still see light coming from somewhere. So it would be apparent radioation is everywhere ..

 

 

They are all located in this strange vacume of apparent nothingness.

 

 

 

Far from it. Where the probes are now, is full of interstellar gas and dust, not to mention lots of radiation.

 

I was speaking of the big picture. Gravity, light, electromagnatism, matter is all in a the vacume of space. The universe itself is in the vacume of space.

 

This is not really a problem. The wave/particle duality of light has been known since the 1800s and has been proven many times over in experiments. Light behaves as a wave when it travels, and as a particle when it interacts with other particles.

 

The logic and reasoning behind it from what I have read is not necessaraly explained. I know its been known, but the reason for that is not very well explained. massless particles and waves, understandable. But, i really dont think thats the end of the story. Theres more to answer yet.

[arkain101]

I think you are needlessly confusing issues like pressure and gravity.

 

That is kind of the idea gravity=pressure from space and along with all the nuclear forces, remember its just an idea so you dont need to tell me to read a book I am already am :confused: . Gravity like you said is not very well understood.

 

It is supposed to be fact that there is some kind of universal constant of velocity. So this would mean even if there was only 1 object in all of space, with no reference points to measure its velocity it would still only be able to reach the maximum allowable velocity in empty space with more or less of a guess.

 

So my theory is some what based off the idea that there is some kind of universal constant of pressure in an infinite system. Which I know sounds strange, and its only a small idea dont start assuming I stand by my words as fact.. theoretical...

 

This universal other possible dimension of pressure would be the cause to all the forces that have no description, like gravity, light, strong and weak nuclear forces.

 

I feel I do state alot of good facts, but I know some could be from misleading information.

 

I am a optimist. I am not going to say anyone is wrong on this topic untill the day a fool proof test gives us a solid answer. Special Relativiy could be right and could also be wrong.

 

With this theory, I made the assumption that space the nothing part of it, is rest and matter can only travel through so fast (which we think we already know). And light would be the distortion of the space fabric.

[Erasmus00]

Yes it is a known force like gravity. Although, what is behind the forces? I was stating from information I have read there is not logical explanation as to where these forces come from. Gravity is not well understood.[

 

Google quantum chromodynamics. All about the strong force.

-Will

[Tormod]

YSomeone on here said that infinate space is quite simple to understand. Infinity is an oxymoron so space doesnt exist.

 

That was my quote, but you misinterpreted it. I said "infinite nothingness" is an oxymoron. It has nothing to do with "space does not exist". I am challenging your view that space is "nothing". Infinity is a different concept, but nobody has proven that it exists in nature (but that is a different discussion entirely, which has been brought up earlier).

 

Not to mention science books and teachers that explain anywhere there isnt radiation, or matter, there is basically nothing. Although, true no matter where you go from any angle you can still see light coming from somewhere. So it would be apparent radioation is everywhere ..

 

Then please stop running around the well and show us the water. Which science book says there is no radiation in space? And at subatomic levels you can't expect light to be "seen" - it would merely be something that interacts with the particles in specific ways.

 

The universe itself is in the vacume of space.

 

The universe itself IS space. "The vacuum of space" only distignguishes between parts of space filled with heavy objects and parts of space that aren't. It doesn't mean much in this contect.

 

The logic and reasoning behind it from what I have read is not necessaraly explained. I know its been known, but the reason for that is not very well explained. massless particles and waves, understandable. But, i really dont think thats the end of the story. Theres more to answer yet.

 

All I see is confusion. You mention special relativity but it is in no way tied into your "theory".

 

As with all theories we would need to know a couple of basic things:

1) What does this theory predict?

2) How can we test it?

3) What would the characteristics of wanted experimental results be?

[Tormod]

I feel I do state alot of good facts, but I know some could be from misleading information.

 

You state beliefs and ideas, which is fine. You state very few facts. And how would we know if it is misleading unless you state your sources? "Textbooks" is not a valid reference. I would like to know *which* sources you are using - this is part of the review process for any theory.

[insight]

There are only four . I don't know how much we argue if there is one more force of nature. :confused:

[arkain101]

Well this is purely a concept. I would think that most of you educated people would be able to pick up that I am only expressing a bit of logically expressed possibilites. I havnt thought how to test it or anything like that.. Thats the scientists jobs if they happen to like the idea.

 

What do I need to say to make you people understand I am sharing an idea lol... I cant really prove much of my ideas I dont really know how or have spent the time to get into tests. Its good to share ideas and others may pickup on thoughts and use that idea help them prove something.

 

Im not trying to prove anything around here, mainly just sharing some thoughts. This topic although has some parts I find have to be agreed with.

[insight]

Well this is purely a concept. I would think that most of you educated people would be able to pick up that I am only expressing a bit of logically expressed possibilites. I havnt thought how to test it or anything like that.. Thats the scientists jobs if they happen to like the idea.

 

What do I need to say to make you people understand I am sharing an idea lol... I cant really prove much of my ideas I dont really know how or have spent the time to get into tests. Its good to share ideas and others may pickup on thoughts and use that idea help them prove something.

 

Im not trying to prove anything around here, mainly just sharing some thoughts. This topic although has some parts I find have to be agreed with.

 

Lol, you've come late here(Hypography) than me and becomes 100+ posts :confused:

[Tormod]

Well this is purely a concept. I would think that most of you educated people would be able to pick up that I am only expressing a bit of logically expressed possibilites. I havnt thought how to test it or anything like that.. Thats the scientists jobs if they happen to like the idea.

 

1) Then it is not a theory, but an idea in the works. And I am still challenging that you are providing "logically expressed possiblities". The logic escapes me, at least. :confused:

 

2) When you post ideas here, do you not want feedback? If not, don't post! I am replying because I want to give you feedback on your ideas. This is a forum, not a soapbox. :confused:

 

http://hypography.com/forums/?page=rules

 

"If you ask for opinions, respect the replies you get."

 

Im not trying to prove anything around here, mainly just sharing some thoughts. This topic although has some parts I find have to be agreed with.

 

Nothing "has to be agreed with" in science.

[freeztar]

That was my quote, but you misinterpreted it. I said "infinite nothingness" is an oxymoron. It has nothing to do with "space does not exist". I am challenging your view that space is "nothing". Infinity is a different concept, but nobody has proven that it exists in nature (but that is a different discussion entirely, which has been brought up earlier).

 

 

 

Then please stop running around the well and show us the water. Which science book says there is no radiation in space? And at subatomic levels you can't expect light to be "seen" - it would merely be something that interacts with the particles in specific ways.

 

 

 

The universe itself IS space. "The vacuum of space" only distignguishes between parts of space filled with heavy objects and parts of space that aren't. It doesn't mean much in this contect.

 

 

 

All I see is confusion. You mention special relativity but it is in no way tied into your "theory".

 

As with all theories we would need to know a couple of basic things:

1) What does this theory predict?

2) How can we test it?

3) What would the characteristics of wanted experimental results be?

 

 

Tormod is exactly right. If you postulate a theory, these premises must be addressed.

If you are speculating ideas, fine, but do not put forth assertions. If you take an idea and make an assertion then you will have to back it up. Otherwise, you will experience what you have so far in this thread, which is critical analysis. :confused:

Do not get me wrong, I like your ideas and hope you continue to develop them. People aren't dismissing them, they are merely looking for evidence which supports those ideas. Provide evidence and a way to test it and you have a solid theory. :confused: