Naked Science Forum
General Science => General Science => Topic started by: guest39538 on 24/05/2015 23:28:18
-
Hello all, I though this would be the correct section to start a science fact thread of Physics.
I am not a scientist and wondered if some kind Physicists could post a list of all true Physical facts, the facts that have factual evidence to back it up.
I will start with a few I do know, please correct me if I state fact that is not fact.
1)gravity exists
2)matter exists
3)force exists
4)energy exists
5)space exists
6)atoms exist
anything to add please?
and could we remove 1 and 2 from the list , gravity being a force and matter being atoms?
-
The universe exists and we observe stuff happening. We invent very precise concepts (like gravity) and parameters (like force) to help us predict what will happen next. And some of us get very annoyed when others misuse our precise language and ignore the obvious.
-
The universe exists and we observe stuff happening. We invent very precise concepts (like gravity) and parameters (like force) to help us predict what will happen next. And some of us get very annoyed when others misuse our precise language and ignore the obvious.
Firstly I was generalising factual topics, gravity comes under force? matter is made of atoms.
1)force exists
2)energy exists
3)space exists
4)atoms exist
is there any other facts in generalisation of things?
added - force can not exist by itself?
so....
1)energy exists
2)space exists
3)atoms exist
anything else in general?
sorry guys im mucking it up,
does energy exist on itself?
so....in general
1)atoms
2)space
is there anything else?
-
Once you start asking questions instead of making statements, things get interesting!
"Energy exists"? Well, kind of.... We observe that in any interaction, a mathematical parameter is conserved. If we add up all the numbers by which we define potential, kinetic and heat energy, for instance, we can predict the stopping distance of a car, and we say that the mechanism of stopping is that its kinetic energy is converted to heat by the brakes. Or if we introduce regenerative braking we can calculate the electrical energy that is returned to the battery and once again the equations balance and the measurements concur with expectations. But does energy have any existence independent of a material system? Not if you include photons as "material" - it is a parameter of change.
Gravity is a weird conundrum, at least in the classical world. Why do things attract each other if they have no electric or magnetic field, but the force-distance relationship is the same as for an electric or magnetic field, and indeed the same as a radiation intensity/distance relationship, though we haven't detected any particle exchange? Why no repulsive force? Relativistic mathematics gives us a consistent predictor in terms of space-time warping that neatly applies also to massless entities (photons) and works for very small and very large objects, from laboratory measurements to the structure of galaxies, so gravity is the name of a universal process that explains a lot but is not itself explained.
Atoms exist? Yes. Years ago, when the European Union was tying itself in knots (at your expense) to define a medical device (so European manufacturers can charge you more for their products), a surgeon friend said "it's anything you can hit with a golf club that can be used to heal the sick." Well you can hit an atom with a golf club and use it to make a molecule or an ion, so they exist.
"Space" is the bit between atoms. So if atoms exist and they aren't all stuck together, space exists. And before anyone witters on about the nonexistence of a perfect vacuum, think about styrofoam. Define styrofoam as the stuff between the eggs in a carton of eggs. Now take away some of the eggs. Yes, styrofoam still exists.
-
Once you start asking questions instead of making statements, things get interesting!
"Energy exists"? Well, kind of.... We observe that in any interaction, a mathematical parameter is conserved. If we add up all the numbers by which we define potential, kinetic and heat energy, for instance, we can predict the stopping distance of a car, and we say that the mechanism of stopping is that its kinetic energy is converted to heat by the brakes. Or if we introduce regenerative braking we can calculate the electrical energy that is returned to the battery and once again the equations balance and the measurements concur with expectations. But does energy have any existence independent of a material system? Not if you include photons as "material" - it is a parameter of change.
Gravity is a weird conundrum, at least in the classical world. Why do things attract each other if they have no electric or magnetic field, but the force-distance relationship is the same as for an electric or magnetic field, and indeed the same as a radiation intensity/distance relationship, though we haven't detected any particle exchange? Why no repulsive force? Relativistic mathematics gives us a consistent predictor in terms of space-time warping that neatly applies also to massless entities (photons) and works for very small and very large objects, from laboratory measurements to the structure of galaxies, so gravity is the name of a universal process that explains a lot but is not itself explained.
Atoms exist? Yes. Years ago, when the European Union was tying itself in knots (at your expense) to define a medical device (so European manufacturers can charge you more for their products), a surgeon friend said "it's anything you can hit with a golf club that can be used to heal the sick." Well you can hit an atom with a golf club and use it to make a molecule or an ion, so they exist.
"Space" is the bit between atoms. So if atoms exist and they aren't all stuck together, space exists. And before anyone witters on about the nonexistence of a perfect vacuum, think about styrofoam. Define styrofoam as the stuff between the eggs in a carton of eggs. Now take away some of the eggs. Yes, styrofoam still exists.
Thank you Alan for the great post, the reason I started this thread is so I can get all the true facts in one ''basket''.
Am I correct in thinking that the Universe is space and matter, and fundamentally without space , matter could not exist, and without matter, force and energy could not exist?
But in saying that, if energy did not exists as an entity, how can we have matter in the first place when all matter contains potential energy?
P.S science is the best puzzle in the Universe.
added - Einstein states that E=mc²
How do you have energy with no matter in the first place? E=? (what started the big bang)
or how do you have matter with no energy in the first place?
added - I have just realised that I have just asked an impossible to answer question sorry
so moving on are we agreed that factual and reality, that all that really exists as entities are
1)space
2)energy? ( I have put a question mark for this, it is hard to prove an existence of as an entity),
3)atoms
And would the numbered order be a generalised order of events?
-
all that really exists as entities are... 3)atoms
I agree that at the temperature and density with which we are most familiar, most matter is in the form of atoms, which mostly combine into molecules - solid, liquid or gas.
However, most of the matter in the solar system is not at temperatures and pressures with which we are familiar - in fact the bulk of it is in the Sun, which is a plasma consisting primarily of protons and electrons (plus some helium nuclei and other impurities thrown in).
So, in the bigger picture, atoms are not a major component of our Solar System neighbourhood.
And the main way we know about the Sun is because of the light which it emits - but light is mysteriously missing from the shortlist...
-
all that really exists as entities are... 3)atoms
I agree that at the temperature and density with which we are most familiar, most matter is in the form of atoms, which mostly combine into molecules - solid, liquid or gas.
However, most of the matter in the solar system is not at temperatures and pressures with which we are familiar - in fact the bulk of it is in the Sun, which is a plasma consisting primarily of protons and electrons (plus some helium nuclei and other impurities thrown in).
So, in the bigger picture, atoms are not a major component of our Solar System neighbourhood.
And the main way we know about the Sun is because of the light which it emits - but light is mysteriously missing from the shortlist...
Great logic, I agree that atoms are further down the list. I did not put light on the short list, because light is a product rather than an elementary part of the picture.
So we have this as fundamental fact
1)space
2)elementary particle(s)
3)energy?
Would this be the complete factual generalised short list?
and everything else expands from this?
-
charges carry force
charges form atom
gravity is net charge force between matter
light is gravity/em force wave
you and i are connected by gravity
small attraction but last forever
charges unbalance cause emotion
-
I did not put light on the short list, because light is a product rather than an elementary part of the picture.
So we have this as fundamental fact
1)space
2)elementary particle(s)
3)energy?
Hmm. Light is electromagnetic radiation and since E = mc2, energy is at least as fundamental as mass. If anything, more so as the lightest massive particle, the electron, has a rest mass energy of 511,000 eV but we can detect photons with energies of a fraction of an eV.
-
I did not put light on the short list, because light is a product rather than an elementary part of the picture.
So we have this as fundamental fact
1)space
2)elementary particle(s)
3)energy?
Hmm. Light is electromagnetic radiation and since E = mc2, energy is at least as fundamental as mass. If anything, more so as the lightest massive particle, the electron, has a rest mass energy of 511,000 eV but we can detect photons with energies of a fraction of an eV.
I agree light is electromagnetic radiation, but is EMR not produced rather than being an entity, can EMR exist without a source?
-
Cosmic background microwave radiation seems to predate the rest of the observable universe.
-
Cosmic background microwave radiation seems to predate the rest of the observable universe.
Yes indeed and CBMR can be detected as light, however does CMBR not come under energy?
Is CBMR the fabric of space, the Aether ?
-
So moving on, and sorry for the awkward question before, starting to expand the short list, I would like to know what actual and real facts do we know about space itself, and what do we observe to be facts of space, I will start with a well known fact-
that space is the gaps between matter. We call this a distance.
Fact , also space allows things to pass through it.
fact-space has no physical body
fact-space can not be destroyed and only occupied
That is all I know of space that exists, can anyone add any more facts of space?
-
Is CBMR the fabric of space, the Aether ?
Space being the bit between stuff, it cannot have a fabric.
-
Is CBMR the fabric of space, the Aether ?
Space being the bit between stuff, it cannot have a fabric.
So would you agree that factual, space is just emptiness?
The question is not related to things in space, like air or emr, just space, a void.
added -
fact - space has no directions?
fact-space has no mass?
fact - humanity can only observe has far as vanishing points of matter in space?
-
It's the definition of space.
-
It's the definition of space.
Yes emptiness,
so is it fact or not fact that there is time in space?
fact or fiction that space does not have dimensions? (dimensions man made add ons).
How can emptiness without Physical body that can not be destroyed, have any sort of existence of a time?
space has nothing to curve? (excluding energy and matter)
-
The Free dictionary defines time thus
a. A nonspatial continuum in which events occur in apparently irreversible succession from the past through the present to the future.
b. An interval separating two points on this continuum;
If two photons pass through a bit of space in succession, you have defined time in space.
-
I will start with a well known fact-
that space is the gaps between matter. We call this a distance.
Don't equate space with distance, or with volume. Space is space and it is still space when it's occupied by matter.
fact-space has no physical body
Space may be as physical as everything else.
fact-space can not be destroyed and only occupied
If the universe is expanding, it is possible that space is being created, and that would suggest it can also be destroyed.
Is CBMR the fabric of space, the Aether ?
No - it's just light moving through space which has been stretched into microwaves by the expansion of space.
Space being the bit between stuff, it cannot have a fabric
So would you agree that factual, space is just emptiness?
Alan's assertion is not justified - he cannot prove space has no fabric.
fact - space has no directions?
Space has properties which maintain directions through its fabric.
fact-space has no mass?
Unknown - if it all had mass it should try to collapse together, but that could be cancelled out by dark energy.
fact - humanity can only observe has far as vanishing points of matter in space?
We can observe as far as it is possible for light to reach here from, and no further, but the presence of matter there is not relevant - we can observe a lack of matter.
so is it fact or not fact that there is time in space?
I know you're keen on the idea of empty space having no time, but there is no empty space - there's stuff going on everywhere all the time. Even if there was empty space though, removing time from it would necessarily remove existence from it too, so it would disappear and the universe would shrink down wherever space is empty to eliminate all the gaps - that would be necessary if empty space was nothing, because nothing cannot have any properties of maintaining distances.
fact or fiction that space does not have dimensions? (dimensions man made add ons).
The fabric of space has dimensions and may impose the same limitations on all of its content, unless parts of the content can stick outside in other dimensions, in which case there would need to be an external fabric of external space within which the inner fabric resides.
How can emptiness without Physical body that can not be destroyed, have any sort of existence of a time?
It can't - that's why there must be a fabric.
space has nothing to curve? (excluding energy and matter)
A fabric can be curved. A space with no fabric cannot do anything - not even contain matter.
-
Fabric is stuff, space is "not-stuff", so space cannot have a fabric. You might postulate or even find a bit of fabric containing or contained in space, but the hole in your sock cannot be made of wool - it wouldn't be a hole!
-
Space is stuff - if it wasn't, it wouldn't be able to host directions and distances. Space has properties which are incompatible with it being nothing.
-
I will start with a well known fact-
that space is the gaps between matter. We call this a distance.
Don't equate space with distance, or with volume. Space is space and it is still space when it's occupied by matter.
fact-space has no physical body
Space may be as physical as everything else.
fact-space can not be destroyed and only occupied
If the universe is expanding, it is possible that space is being created, and that would suggest it can also be destroyed.
Is CBMR the fabric of space, the Aether ?
No - it's just light moving through space which has been stretched into microwaves by the expansion of space.
Space being the bit between stuff, it cannot have a fabric
So would you agree that factual, space is just emptiness?
Alan's assertion is not justified - he cannot prove space has no fabric.
fact - space has no directions?
Space has properties which maintain directions through its fabric.
fact-space has no mass?
Unknown - if it all had mass it should try to collapse together, but that could be cancelled out by dark energy.
fact - humanity can only observe has far as vanishing points of matter in space?
We can observe as far as it is possible for light to reach here from, and no further, but the presence of matter there is not relevant - we can observe a lack of matter.
so is it fact or not fact that there is time in space?
I know you're keen on the idea of empty space having no time, but there is no empty space - there's stuff going on everywhere all the time. Even if there was empty space though, removing time from it would necessarily remove existence from it too, so it would disappear and the universe would shrink down wherever space is empty to eliminate all the gaps - that would be necessary if empty space was nothing, because nothing cannot have any properties of maintaining distances.
fact or fiction that space does not have dimensions? (dimensions man made add ons).
The fabric of space has dimensions and may impose the same limitations on all of its content, unless parts of the content can stick outside in other dimensions, in which case there would need to be an external fabric of external space within which the inner fabric resides.
How can emptiness without Physical body that can not be destroyed, have any sort of existence of a time?
It can't - that's why there must be a fabric.
space has nothing to curve? (excluding energy and matter)
A fabric can be curved. A space with no fabric cannot do anything - not even contain matter.
I am sorry Colin but yourself is adding fiction to a science fact thread, Alan is giving honest answers of fact. Some of your answers are not really factual , they may apply when we look at other sections of the short list, but we are trying to establish for now , number 1)space facts.
How can emptiness without Physical body that can not be destroyed, have any sort of existence of a time?
It can't - that's why there must be a fabric
You agree space can have no time, and then explain unless there is a ''fabric'', and go on to say there must be a fabric. One thing science as learnt me, there is no such thing as it must be, when making un-observed thoughts/theories.
I always say it must be, but without proven facts it is simply hearsay.
Space as no time? fact
The evidence suggests this
Also what makes you think that space will shrink if we removed matter? I observe when I remove an object from a space, I can place an equal and proportional object in that space, the space does not change.
That is all we observe of space, things that can move through it.
Would you agree Alan that the true factual observed sum of all values of space is zero?
Would you also agree that values we add are no more than arbitrary uses at the present ''time''?
-
Fabric is stuff, space is "not-stuff", so space cannot have a fabric. You might postulate or even find a bit of fabric containing or contained in space, but the hole in your sock cannot be made of wool - it wouldn't be a hole!
Totally agreed with Alan,
-
If two photons pass through a bit of space in succession, you have defined time in space.
Not quite accurate , if you add two photons travelling through passive dark space, you are observing the start of timing, would you agree that was more accurately true and factual?
''a particular point or period of time when something happens.''
By definition, when something occurs, for example a star is ''born'', we start to time it, meaning timing of stuff that happens. We create the ''time'', we add the ''time'' by how we derived ''time''. Before us, although the state of matter can decay within a period of its own time, there is no one there to monitor it and record the value period.
Is this not a true statement?
We observe the timing /timing periods of all that happens in space? I would say true fact. We then call that period increment time.
added own statement of what time is - The fear of death (our past looked for life prolonging potions, they invented time in the fear of death, we are all self aware of death and time our own lives). NO comments need to this statement, just consider ancient Egypt
-
I am sorry Colin but yourself is adding fiction to a science fact thread, Alan is giving honest answers of fact. Some of your answers are not really factual , they may apply when we look at other sections of the short list, but we are trying to establish for now , number 1)space facts.
Err, which Colin, who he B?
Not me!
This is first comment to this thread
Not quite accurate , if you add two photons travelling through passive dark space, you are observing the start of timing, would you agree that was more accurately true and factual?
We then call that period increment time.
Why dark space? Two photons can pass through space which is already lit?
Why 'period increment time'? We already have a term 'elapsed time' why invent another term, unless yours adds to the meaning or is used for a different meaning?
-
I am sorry Colin but yourself is adding fiction to a science fact thread, Alan is giving honest answers of fact. Some of your answers are not really factual , they may apply when we look at other sections of the short list, but we are trying to establish for now , number 1)space facts.
What makes you think you're well placed to decide who is giving you facts and who isn't?
You agree space can have no time, and then explain unless there is a ''fabric'', and go on to say there must be a fabric. One thing science as learnt me, there is no such thing as it must be, when making un-observed thoughts/theories.
I said the complete opposite of that first bit - space cannot lack time unless it doesn't exist either. One thing logic should tell you is that some things must be when other things depend on them for their functionality. Your magical thinking is not compatible with facts.
I always say it must be, but without proven facts it is simply hearsay.
I explained why there must be a fabric - you want space to be literally nothing rather than a fabric, and if you follow through with that you will lose all dimensionality and distance because you have nothing there to enable them.
Space as no time? fact
Mere assertion, and disprovable through logic.
The evidence suggests this
Your beliefs suggest it, as do comments from people who like to claim there is no aether or fabric of space in order to attack LET and back SR/GR, even though Einstein recognised the need for some kind of aether to enable distances and dimensions to exist.
Also what makes you think that space will shrink if we removed matter?
What makes you put words in other people's mouths that did not come from them? (Mind you, you've also given me a name that isn't mine.)
That is all we observe of space, things that can move through it.
And reason then tells you that it is not possible for something to move through nothing because nothing has no properties - it cannot have an interior to pass through or sit in. Nothing and space are very different concepts.
-
I am sorry Colin but yourself is adding fiction to a science fact thread, Alan is giving honest answers of fact. Some of your answers are not really factual , they may apply when we look at other sections of the short list, but we are trying to establish for now , number 1)space facts.
Err, which Colin, who he B?
Not me!
This is first comment to this thread
Not quite accurate , if you add two photons travelling through passive dark space, you are observing the start of timing, would you agree that was more accurately true and factual?
We then call that period increment time.
Why dark space? Two photons can pass through space which is already lit?
Why 'period increment time'? We already have a term 'elapsed time' why invent another term, unless yours adds to the meaning or is used for a different meaning?
Sorry Colin, it was the C in Cooper and I thought Colin whilst I typed for some strange reason.
Why dark space? because space, having nothing, including ''light'' and CBMR, can only be absolute dark. Light is a thing that travels through space, cbmr is a thing in space, remove either we would logically have dark space, no energy , nothing to be seen .
A period of time is say ten hours, ten hours adds ten hours to the date, hence period increment time.
-
''What makes you think you're well placed to decide who is giving you facts and who isn't?''
Because it is my question in the first place.
''I said the complete opposite of that first bit - space cannot lack time unless it doesn't exist either. One thing logic should tell you is that some things must be when other things depend on them for their functionality. Your magical thinking is not compatible with facts.''
Magical thinking? Not at all, facts, facts that the majority of the population would agree with. Space is a nothingness, it is a fact that there is no fact that shows any existence of a time in space.
If there is no evidence, then it is not fact.
''I explained why there must be a fabric - you want space to be literally nothing rather than a fabric, and if you follow through with that you will lose all dimensionality and distance because you have nothing there to enable them.''
You explained why there must be, this must be is not proven fact. Hearsay. I want space to be literally nothing? the facts are that space is nothing, which is nothing to do with me, it is to do with the facts. This is not to say that space does not contain things.
Space as no time? fact
''Mere assertion, and disprovable through logic.''
Logic is not fact, can you prove a time exists in space? the fact is no, so therefore if it is not proven to exist, it is hearsay to say it exists, logically it does not exist.
The evidence suggests this
''Your beliefs suggest it, as do comments from people who like to claim there is no aether or fabric of space in order to attack LET and back SR/GR, even though Einstein recognised the need for some kind of aether to enable distances and dimensions to exist.''
It is not my beliefs, it is what space is and what evidence you have that is not evidence but only logic. It is things that are made up and people believe, not true facts. A true fact is an object falls to the ground, hearsay is not fact.
That is all we observe of space, things that can move through it.
''And reason then tells you that it is not possible for something to move through nothing because nothing has no properties - it cannot have an interior to pass through or sit in. Nothing and space are very different concepts''
Nothing has no properties, if it did, then things would not move through it because it would be a solid.Space is nothing, In my opinion you are not considering space without things in it.
-
The final fact of space is that it is infinite and can be shown quite easily to be infinite.
A new born baby needs space to expand into ( to grow), we observe galaxies moving away from us, expanding into space like a new born baby. We do not observe expansion of space.
-
that's absolutely correct.
if space is not infinite, show us the edge of it.
if you cannot, better believe us.
few hundred years ago, earth in flat, we are crazy people.
100 years ago, you guys say metal cannot fly, wrong again.
what make you think this time you are correct?
-
that's absolutely correct.
if space is not infinite, show us the edge of it.
if you cannot, better believe us.
few hundred years ago, earth in flat, we are crazy people.
100 years ago, you guys say metal cannot fly, wrong again.
what make you think this time you are correct?
The reason there is no edge JCCC, is that would suggest we was a space within a solid, and even if that were the case, outside of that solid is more space, or an infinite solid.
Finite space is a flat earth theory, but we also can not just rule out other theories.
-
i see space is force field
wherever force able to reach is space
we know charged particle has force field, we know that force field extends to infinity distance.
to think space is finite, is like to look sky in a well.
-
i see space is force field
wherever force able to reach is space
we know charged particle has force field, we know that force field extends to infinity distance.
to think space is finite, is like to look sky in a well.
I personally do not see space as a field , I just see it as space, a nothingness, however that is not to say that fields do not pass through space. Space can not offer resistance or the laws of physics would not work. Space allows emr to pass through it without resistance, if it were not for resistance in space, we would not see anything.
Anyway going off track my apologies to all, and time for bed now 5.30am wakeup ,
-
''What makes you think you're well placed to decide who is giving you facts and who isn't?''
Because it is my question in the first place.
So the word "fact" should be defined as something that Thebox believes.
''I said the complete opposite of that first bit - space cannot lack time unless it doesn't exist either. One thing logic should tell you is that some things must be when other things depend on them for their functionality. Your magical thinking is not compatible with facts.''
Magical thinking? Not at all, facts, facts that the majority of the population would agree with. Space is a nothingness, it is a fact that there is no fact that shows any existence of a time in space.
If there is no evidence, then it is not fact.
You are talking about nothing then and not about space, so you're using the wrong word. Space has dimensions. Nothingness lacks dimensions. Space has time. Nothingness lacks time as it lacks everything. Space can contain things. Nothingness cannot contain anything.
''I explained why there must be a fabric - you want space to be literally nothing rather than a fabric, and if you follow through with that you will lose all dimensionality and distance because you have nothing there to enable them.''
You explained why there must be, this must be is not proven fact. Hearsay. I want space to be literally nothing? the facts are that space is nothing, which is nothing to do with me, it is to do with the facts. This is not to say that space does not contain things.
You're in search of facts, but the truth is that you only want facts that fit your existing beliefs and so you will label things as facts on that basis, thereby attaching the label to some things that aren't facts while rejecting some things which are. That's because you aren't interested in learning.
Space as no time? fact
''Mere assertion, and disprovable through logic.''
Logic is not fact, can you prove a time exists in space? the fact is no, so therefore if it is not proven to exist, it is hearsay to say it exists, logically it does not exist.
Without logic, you have no justification for calling anything a fact.
The evidence suggests this
''Your beliefs suggest it, as do comments from people who like to claim there is no aether or fabric of space in order to attack LET and back SR/GR, even though Einstein recognised the need for some kind of aether to enable distances and dimensions to exist.''
It is not my beliefs, it is what space is and what evidence you have that is not evidence but only logic. It is things that are made up and people believe, not true facts. A true fact is an object falls to the ground, hearsay is not fact.
You really are a hopeless case. There is no point in trying to tell you anything, so in future I'll just let you believe what you want and not bother to point out if someone is misleading you.
That is all we observe of space, things that can move through it.
''And reason then tells you that it is not possible for something to move through nothing because nothing has no properties - it cannot have an interior to pass through or sit in. Nothing and space are very different concepts''
Nothing has no properties, if it did, then things would not move through it because it would be a solid.Space is nothing, In my opinion you are not considering space without things in it.
I'm considering space with nothing in it - it maintains distances and directionality. It does things which nothingness can't do. Until you take that on board, you will make no further progress - you will just go on making ridiculous claims and asserting that they are facts. You're another person who needs to try writing a computer program to simulate your model of reality, because then you'd be forced to confront all the problems with it. The only way to make a model in which space has no properties is to transfer something that can stand in for those properties into all the "content" of that nothingness, and that means every particle has to store co-ordinates and have lots of maths carried out on them by a computer in order to work out what they should be interacting with and when, in which case the real space is hidden from them as it becomes an array of computer memory, and real time is the time of the processor which does all the calculations to decide what should interact with what. But hey, all of this will go right over your head, so I won't bother going into any further detail.
Goodbye.
-
I am not a scientist and wondered if some kind Physicists could post a list of all true Physical facts, the facts that have factual evidence to back it up.
There are too many of them to list or even to remember. It's even debatable what's a physical fact or not since facts depend on definitions and some definitions are debatable.
I will start with a few I do know, please correct me if I state fact that is not fact.
1)gravity exists
2)matter exists
3)force exists
4)energy exists
5)space exists
6)atoms exist
anything to add please?
and could we remove 1 and 2 from the list , gravity being a force and matter being atoms?
It's difficult to say since its unclear what is considered to exist and what isn't. Consider a related subject, i.e. what is real and what isn't. Einstein responding to someone on this subject in a letter where he made the following comments
"The physical world is real." This is supposed to be the basic hypothesis. What does "hypothesis" mean here? For me, a hypothesis is a statement whose truth is temporarily assumed, whose meaning, however, is beyond all doubt. The above statement seems intrinsically senseless though, like someone saying "The physical world is a cock-a-doodle-do." It appears to me that "real" is an empty, meaningless category (draw) whose immense importance lies only in that I place certain things inside it and not certain others. It is true that this classification is not a random one ....... now I see you grinning and expecting me to fall into pragmatism so that you can bury me alive. However, I prefer to do as Mark Twain, by suggesting that you end the horror story yourself.
<Real and unreal seem to me like right and left.> I admit that science deals with the "real" and am nonetheless a "realist." - Letter from Albert Einstein to Eduard Study (Sept. 25, 1918)
Consider the following quote reportedly said by Einstein: http://cococubed.asu.edu/class/energy/pdf/mini48.pdf
Concerning matter, we have been all wrong. What we have called matter is energy, whose vibration has been so lowered as to be perceptible to the senses. There is no matter.
I don't see the logic in that argument. Just because something goes under another name it can't be said that it doesn't exist. Also I hold that matter is not energy as this statement claims to be the case. What's true is that one of the properties of a quantity of matter is the mass of that quantity. If a body has an amount of mass m then the amount of energy it has is E = mc2. However mass and energy are very different concepts and cannot be said to be the same thing for that reason.
-
''What makes you think you're well placed to decide who is giving you facts and who isn't?''
Because it is my question in the first place.
So the word "fact" should be defined as something that Thebox believes.
''I said the complete opposite of that first bit - space cannot lack time unless it doesn't exist either. One thing logic should tell you is that some things must be when other things depend on them for their functionality. Your magical thinking is not compatible with facts.''
Magical thinking? Not at all, facts, facts that the majority of the population would agree with. Space is a nothingness, it is a fact that there is no fact that shows any existence of a time in space.
If there is no evidence, then it is not fact.
You are talking about nothing then and not about space, so you're using the wrong word. Space has dimensions. Nothingness lacks dimensions. Space has time. Nothingness lacks time as it lacks everything. Space can contain things. Nothingness cannot contain anything.
''I explained why there must be a fabric - you want space to be literally nothing rather than a fabric, and if you follow through with that you will lose all dimensionality and distance because you have nothing there to enable them.''
You explained why there must be, this must be is not proven fact. Hearsay. I want space to be literally nothing? the facts are that space is nothing, which is nothing to do with me, it is to do with the facts. This is not to say that space does not contain things.
You're in search of facts, but the truth is that you only want facts that fit your existing beliefs and so you will label things as facts on that basis, thereby attaching the label to some things that aren't facts while rejecting some things which are. That's because you aren't interested in learning.
Space as no time? fact
''Mere assertion, and disprovable through logic.''
Logic is not fact, can you prove a time exists in space? the fact is no, so therefore if it is not proven to exist, it is hearsay to say it exists, logically it does not exist.
Without logic, you have no justification for calling anything a fact.
The evidence suggests this
''Your beliefs suggest it, as do comments from people who like to claim there is no aether or fabric of space in order to attack LET and back SR/GR, even though Einstein recognised the need for some kind of aether to enable distances and dimensions to exist.''
It is not my beliefs, it is what space is and what evidence you have that is not evidence but only logic. It is things that are made up and people believe, not true facts. A true fact is an object falls to the ground, hearsay is not fact.
You really are a hopeless case. There is no point in trying to tell you anything, so in future I'll just let you believe what you want and not bother to point out if someone is misleading you.
That is all we observe of space, things that can move through it.
''And reason then tells you that it is not possible for something to move through nothing because nothing has no properties - it cannot have an interior to pass through or sit in. Nothing and space are very different concepts''
Nothing has no properties, if it did, then things would not move through it because it would be a solid.Space is nothing, In my opinion you are not considering space without things in it.
I'm considering space with nothing in it - it maintains distances and directionality. It does things which nothingness can't do. Until you take that on board, you will make no further progress - you will just go on making ridiculous claims and asserting that they are facts. You're another person who needs to try writing a computer program to simulate your model of reality, because then you'd be forced to confront all the problems with it. The only way to make a model in which space has no properties is to transfer something that can stand in for those properties into all the "content" of that nothingness, and that means every particle has to store co-ordinates and have lots of maths carried out on them by a computer in order to work out what they should be interacting with and when, in which case the real space is hidden from them as it becomes an array of computer memory, and real time is the time of the processor which does all the calculations to decide what should interact with what. But hey, all of this will go right over your head, so I won't bother going into any further detail.
Goodbye.
I appreciate all help David, and thank you for your help, I will discuss your post thoughts thoughtfully later after work. I do not mean to offend you in any way, and if you do feel offended I apologise.
When I consider space, I consider empty ''disclosed'' volume. I am not considering nothing, I am considering the Physical properties, the values of space , I consider the value of space is nothing. Space is not nothing, because it is space,it exists evidentially to all. However all properties in space are not of space, which is a different part of the short list.
I think we have crossed wires in what we are talking about, maybe it would be easier to consider a spacial void that I would define as ''pure space''.
-
I personally do not see space as a field , I just see it as space, a nothingness, however that is not to say that fields do not pass through space. Space can not offer resistance or the laws of physics would not work. Space allows emr to pass through it without resistance, if it were not for resistance in space, we would not see anything.
Anyway going off track my apologies to all, and time for bed now 5.30am wakeup ,
What does if it were not for resistance in space, we would not see anything. mean? I.e. what is this resistance in space that you're referring to?
See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Field_(physics)
That page explains what the term field means when it's used in the context of physics. It's very simple as is the idea of a field
A field is a physical quantity that has a value for each point in space and time.
That's why jccc's idea of a field is nonsense.
-
Gravity is a weird conundrum, at least in the classical world. Why do things attract each other if they have no electric or magnetic field, but the force-distance relationship is the same as for an electric or magnetic field, and indeed the same as a radiation intensity/distance relationship, though we haven't detected any particle exchange? Why no repulsive force?
re - Why do things attract each other if they have no electric or magnetic field,
This is an odd question. You accept attraction due to the electric field but deny if for the electric field. I don't see why. In gravitational physics there are two kinds of mass: active gravitational mass and passive gravitational mass. The former is the source of a gravitational field while the later is what the field acts on. Passive gravitational mass can be and often is thought of as gravitational charge. E.g. the term is used at Caltech. See: http://www.tapir.caltech.edu/~teviet/Waves/differences.html
Gravitational charge is equivalent to inertia.
See also: http://www.gravityresearchfoundation.org/pdf/awarded/1971/motz.pdf
but the force-distance relationship is the same as for an electric or magnetic field, and indeed the same as a radiation intensity/distance relationship
That's easy to understand if you think of the field in terms of field lines or virtual photons. The number of field lines per unit area drops off as 1/r2 because that's how the surface area of a sphere at that distance drops off with distance. Though we haven't detected particle exchange it doesn't mean that they're not there or can be detected. They're virtual particles.
re - Why no repulsive force?
Who says that there isn't a repulsive gravitational force? General relativity certainly allows for it. There are hypothetical objects which exist on the distance scale of cosmological proportions. One of them goes by the name vacuum domain wall[/i]. The gravitational field of such a wall is repulsive. You can read about it in Principles of Physical Cosmology by P.J.E. Peebles. You can download the text from: http://bookos-z1.org/book/451796/4d4f1c See pages 282-285.
Relativistic mathematics gives us a consistent predictor in terms of space-time warping that neatly applies also to massless entities (photons) and works for very small and very large objects, from laboratory measurements to the structure of galaxies, so gravity is the name of a universal process that explains a lot but is not itself explained.
Well put, my friend. Well put! Sir Arthur Eddington said something very similar in an article in the journal Nature.
From Gravitation and the Principle of Relativity by A.S. Eddington, Nature, March 14, 1918, page 36
The purpose of Einstein’s new theory has often been misunderstood, and it has been criticized as an attempt to explain gravitation. The theory does not offer any explanation of gravitation; that lies outside its scope, and it does not even hint at a possible mechanism. It is true that we have introduced a definite hypothesis as to the relation between gravitation and a distortion of space; but if that explains anything, it explains not gravitation, but space, i.e. the scaffolding constructed for our measures.
-
I appreciate all help David, and thank you for your help, I will discuss your post thoughts thoughtfully later after work. I do not mean to offend you in any way, and if you do feel offended I apologise.
No need to apologise - I'm just pushed for time and need to cut back on what I try to do with it.
-
Why dark space? because space, having nothing, including ''light'' and CBMR, can only be absolute dark. Light is a thing that travels through space, cbmr is a thing in space, remove either we would logically have dark space, no energy , nothing to be seen .
Ok, let's think this one through.
"Light is a thing that travels through space" So far so good, light is EMR, travels through space and other media.
"cbmr is a thing in space" CBMR is microwave radiation, that is also EMR, hence it also travels through space, if it didn't we wouldn't be able to detect it.
So we could say there is really no such thing as dark space.
What do you think?
-
Why dark space? because space, having nothing, including ''light'' and CBMR, can only be absolute dark. Light is a thing that travels through space, cbmr is a thing in space, remove either we would logically have dark space, no energy , nothing to be seen .
Ok, let's think this one through.
"Light is a thing that travels through space" So far so good, light is EMR, travels through space and other media.
"cbmr is a thing in space" CBMR is microwave radiation, that is also EMR, hence it also travels through space, if it didn't we wouldn't be able to detect it.
So we could say there is really no such thing as dark space.
What do you think?
I would think your logic is not considering ''turning the light off'', meaning remove all light emitting things from space , we would observe by eye without man made light a very closed Universe. The blackness background of space will be at low altitude to the earth. We would all be blind if we removed emr from the universe, regardless devices could detect cbmr , we would not see the device . If you also remove cbmr, even a device could see no light. Hence a passive dark space behind the light.
p.s sorry my post reads a bit gibberish.
-
So the word "fact" should be defined as something that The box believes.
I would define fact as something of axiom values, nothing to do with what I do or do not believe.
Space has dimensions. Nothingness lacks dimensions. Space has time. Nothingness lacks time as it lacks everything. Space can contain things. Nothingness cannot contain anything.
Space does not have dimensions , dimensions are added to space cleverly by ourselves for our use. XYZ and time by Albert Einstein is great thought to define direction into a direction-less space. When the expansion is complete and all other matter as travelled beyond our limited visual distance, XYZ of space collapses.
-
What does if it were not for resistance in space, we would not see anything. mean? I.e. what is this resistance in space that you're referring to?
The resistance in space I refer to is matter , Matters resistance to EMR creating visual observation of the matter.
-
Space does not have dimensions , dimensions are added to space cleverly by ourselves for our use.
The term dimension is (informally) defined as the minimum number of coordinates needed to specify any point within it. It is said that space "has" three dimensions meaning that it's a property of space whereas spacetime "has" four dimensions meaning that it too a property of spacetime.
So how can you claim that "space does not have dimensions" when in fact the dimension of a space is a property of that space?
XYZ and time by Albert Einstein is great thought ....
That great thought was due to Herman Minkowski, Einstein's teacher. Not Einstein himself.
-
I would think your logic is not considering ''turning the light off'', meaning remove all light emitting things from space , we would observe by eye without man made light a very closed Universe. The blackness background of space will be at low altitude to the earth. We would all be blind if we removed emr from the universe, regardless devices could detect cbmr , we would not see the device . If you also remove cbmr, even a device could see no light. Hence a passive dark space behind the light.
p.s sorry my post reads a bit gibberish.
Yes it is a bit gibberish, but I think I see what you are saying.
One point I was trying to make is that light and CBMR need to be treated the same way. Both are EMR, both travel through space.
Ok, turn them both off. I believe space is still there. Consider a volume of space between here and the moon. If we could shield all EMR from that volume - dark space - the space would still exist and have dimensions, eg the distance from here to the moon.
Why is dark space so important to your thinking? If you could gather the thoughts together, put them into order rather than typing offtopofhead it might help.
-
Space does not have dimensions , dimensions are added to space cleverly by ourselves for our use.
The term dimension is (informally) defined as the minimum number of coordinates needed to specify any point within it. It is said that space "has" three dimensions meaning that it's a property of space whereas spacetime "has" four dimensions meaning that it too a property of spacetime.
So how can you claim that "space does not have dimensions" when in fact the dimension of a space is a property of that space?
XYZ and time by Albert Einstein is great thought ....
That great thought was due to Herman Minkowski, Einstein's teacher. Not Einstein himself.
Thank you for the correction of Herman Minowski, something I did not know and had wrong. So XYZ was created by Mr Minowski, created being the word of invention.
Space is a disclosed shape, that can fit any shape in it. A sphere shape can fit a cube in it, a cube can fit a sphere in it. To say space has a dimension is in my opinion the wrong context, to say space has dimensional shaped objects in it , is factual.
XYZ and time, are simply journey planners through a space, space itself does not have lines in it.
We use this because we have no background points of space, it is a blank wall with no points of ''zero point space''.
A...................................................B
A, being a visual point, and B being a visual point, ...............................zero points of space better known has timing distance points.
It is easier to consider space before your eyes between objects, although we observe the object by line of sight, we can fit any shape in the space before our eyes.
We also do no observe any shape to the space or of the space, because we simply can not see space, it is like an invisible shapeless vast expansion with no seen end.
It is important in my opinion, that when considering facts, exist is a key player, and we must define exist according to observation. We observe a space exists, we observe things exist in a space, we observe distance and observe direction by using points, but factually we do not observe any shape of space itself.
Fact -space is dimensionless that has dimensions in it,
ourselves are dimensions of space.
I do consider this is an axiom valued fact based on reality.
-
I would think your logic is not considering ''turning the light off'', meaning remove all light emitting things from space , we would observe by eye without man made light a very closed Universe. The blackness background of space will be at low altitude to the earth. We would all be blind if we removed emr from the universe, regardless devices could detect cbmr , we would not see the device . If you also remove cbmr, even a device could see no light. Hence a passive dark space behind the light.
p.s sorry my post reads a bit gibberish.
Yes it is a bit gibberish, but I think I see what you are saying.
One point I was trying to make is that light and CBMR need to be treated the same way. Both are EMR, both travel through space.
Ok, turn them both off. I believe space is still there. Consider a volume of space between here and the moon. If we could shield all EMR from that volume - dark space - the space would still exist and have dimensions, eg the distance from here to the moon.
Why is dark space so important to your thinking? If you could gather the thoughts together, put them into order rather than typing offtopofhead it might help.
Passive dark space, in my opinion is the beginning, before everything, logically this is the only thing there could be, dark space also represents our imaginations, beyond our view is a blankness of thought, we can only guess at the blank picture.
We are always in the dark without observation, closing your eyes, consider you brain is in a dark place.
-
So XYZ was created by Mr Minowski, ...
Nope. Recall what I said - XYZ and time by Albert Einstein.., not simply XYZ. XYZ is due to Rene Descartes while TXYZ is due to Minkowski.
-
So XYZ was created by Mr Minowski, ...
Nope. Recall what I said - XYZ and time by Albert Einstein.., not simply XYZ. XYZ is due to Rene Descartes while TXYZ is due to Minkowski.
To clarify there is three xyz's?
Einstein 3 dimension and time (independent space-time)?
Rene Descartes 3 dimensions (timeless)?
finally Minkowski putting time first then dimensions, ( dependant to the observer or object)?
-
I dropped a pair of right-handed scissors, and when I picked it up it had turned into a pair of left-handed scissors. Somehow they had rotated through a fourth dimension and then realigned with the three dimensions that I was using. That all happened in a dream in which space allowed for an extra space dimension. A kind of space without a strict dimensional structure would do that kind of thing all the time.
-
..., space itself does not have lines in it.
Consider an OS map. It has contour lines on it, the real landscape does not. But the lines represent something real, height. Space has dimensions, size, otherwise it would be just a single point.
-
To clarify there is three xyz's?
I don't know what you mean by "three xyz's". To me that sounds like three xyzxyzxyz. If you mean that The Cartesian space whose points have coordinates xyz is a three dimensional space then yes.
Einstein 3 dimension and time (independent space-time)?
Awkward phrasing. In physics you need to be much clearer than this. Minkowski spacetime has elements called events. Each event is specified by a place and a time. Therefore and event can be specified as txyz. The formal notation for a position 4-vector is R = (ct, r). Capital bold letters are 4-vectors whereas small bold letters are 3-vectors. Here I put in a factor of "c" in order that each element have the same dimensions. The reason for this particular value will become clearer as you learn relativity.
Rene Descartes 3 dimensions (timeless)?
Yup.
finally Minkowski putting time first then dimensions, ( dependant to the observer or object)?
You shouldn't think of time being first. There are various ways to write that. Some authors choose to let it be the fourth component as in xyzt. The order makes no difference.
-
..., space itself does not have lines in it.
Consider an OS map. It has contour lines on it, the real landscape does not. But the lines represent something real, height. Space has dimensions, size, otherwise it would be just a single point.
My only point is that the lines are virtual lines that we add, the lines itself do not ''exist'', the dimensions of space we virtually add, when talking about existence in space, I mean literal content and not added content which then falls under matter. Matter being co-ordinate points we use for a guide of space, a mapping system devised by us.
I am not arguing dimensions do not ''exist'' in space with a use by us.
I am simply asking for the true facts of space.
How can there be a dimensional shape of infinite space?
Is it not fact that we can add any dimension of shape to space?
P.s correct I will probably understand more when I have leant more.
added thought - space-time stands still?(dormant)
using all 3 of these definitions in a round about way.
(of an animal) having normal physical functions suspended or slowed down for a period of time; in or as if in a deep sleep.
"dormant butterflies"
(of a plant or bud) alive but not actively growing.
(of a volcano) temporarily inactive.
edit - Matter having normal physical functions suspended or slowed down for a period of time by gravitational influence; in or as if in a deep sleep. Space-time being inactive until occupied by matter, space time existing but not actively growing unless occupied by matter.
added - everything logically started from an infinite void, and thought is also limitless, (this is a great puzzle).
added - Could we define ''nothing'' as an infinite void?
''in the beginning there was nothing'', is this the factual conclusion , a singularity?
added- ''time'', started to exist in this singularity?
sorry all quick thoughts today
added- we all know evidentially , for anything to ''expand'', there has to be space to expand into. Evidence is gases, heated metals etc, the expansion being geometric points increase of space. (increased distance).
The big bang started from a singular point of an infinite void is the only logical conclusion with evidential fact merit of science observation of ''expansion'' of matter into space.
An expanding balloon increases the dimensional volume of space occupied. Each atomic component occupying a singular point of ''zero point space'' allowing the dormant space time to be activated temporary whilst occupied.
-
My only point is that the lines are virtual lines that we add, the lines itself do not ''exist'', the dimensions of space we virtually add, when talking about existence in space, I mean literal content and not added content which then falls under matter. Matter being co-ordinate points we use for a guide of space, a mapping system devised by us.
I am not arguing dimensions do not ''exist'' in space with a use by us.
I am simply asking for the true facts of space.
How can there be a dimensional shape of infinite space?
Is it not fact that we can add any dimension of shape to space?
OK, I understand what you re saying. However, going back to contour lines. If we lived on a flat plain there would be no height so we would not need contour lines, we only use them because they represent something real. Say we were smart bacteria living between 2 sheets of glass, no height just 2 dimentions, we would not be able to specify a 3rd dimention because it wouldnt exist. So while I agree that we put measurements and virtual lines on space, we wouldnt be able to unless it had the property of 3 dimentions.
Can there be a shape of infinite space. Don't know, beyond my ability to think through that one [:-\]
-
Imagine a two dimensional world floating in a three dimensional space. What is the result of this? Things keep vanishing as they fall out of the 2D plane, and other objects may appear out of "nowhere". If a 3D object passes through the 2D world, the 2D inhabitants would see objects appear and magically grow before they shrink again and vanish. Do we see these things happening in our 3D world with things disappearing as they fall out of our 3D equivalent of a plane and with 4D objects passing through? No. The universe imposes a 3D structure on all of its content. With 3D space you get an inverse square law for things like light which spread out as they travel, so twice the distance means a quarter of the illumination power for a given area. With 4D space it would be an inverse cube law. With 2D space the reduction in force/brightness would be directly proportional to the distance travelled. With a space with an infinite number of dimensions, the brightness would always diminish to zero in a tiny distance due to the number of directions available to it to spread out into.
Proposing that space is nothing and that it can therefore support an infinite number of dimensions leaves you struggling to explain what holds 2D content in a 2D plane and stops all other content from passing through that plane, and likewise 3D content in a 3D block while stopping all other content from passing through that block. You can have an infinite-dimension space to contain everything if you wish, but within that you'll need to have another kind of space with a 3D fabric capable of holding together a 3D universe like ours.
-
My only point is that the lines are virtual lines that we add, the lines itself do not ''exist'', the dimensions of space we virtually add, when talking about existence in space, I mean literal content and not added content which then falls under matter. Matter being co-ordinate points we use for a guide of space, a mapping system devised by us.
I am not arguing dimensions do not ''exist'' in space with a use by us.
I am simply asking for the true facts of space.
How can there be a dimensional shape of infinite space?
Is it not fact that we can add any dimension of shape to space?
OK, I understand what you re saying. However, going back to contour lines. If we lived on a flat plain there would be no height so we would not need contour lines, we only use them because they represent something real. Say we were smart bacteria living between 2 sheets of glass, no height just 2 dimentions, we would not be able to specify a 3rd dimention because it wouldnt exist. So while I agree that we put measurements and virtual lines on space, we wouldnt be able to unless it had the property of 3 dimentions.
Can there be a shape of infinite space. Don't know, beyond my ability to think through that one [:-\]
I do not understand where you are getting a ''flat plane'' from, or do I understand why 2d is coming into it.
An infinite space would be isotropic to all observers from any reference frame, ''virtual boxes interlacing and expanding''. (x*y*z)³=t³=d³ (not factual maths for any young readers benefit).
''up'' is as equal to ''east'' in infinite distance. But east is also up. There is no true direction.
You either expand your distance of space from a point or you contract your distance to a point.
-
I do not understand where you are getting a ''flat plane'' from, or do I understand why 2d is coming into it.
An infinite space would be isotropic to all observers from any reference frame, ''virtual boxes interlacing and expanding''. (x*y*z)³=t³=d³ (not factual maths for any young readers benefit).
Flat plane and 2D came from the discussion on space and dimensions.
Not sure where infinite space comes into it, we don't need to postulate infinite to discus dimensions.
We need to discuss maths elsewhere, don't follow your formula.