The Naked Scientists

The Naked Scientists Forum

Author Topic: What is science fact, not fiction?  (Read 13485 times)

Offline David Cooper

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1505
    • View Profile
Re: What is science fact, not fiction?
« Reply #25 on: 28/05/2015 18:35:34 »
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?

Quote
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.

Quote
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.

Quote
Space as no time? fact

Mere assertion, and disprovable through logic.

Quote
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.

Quote
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.)

Quote
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.
 

Offline Thebox

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 3164
  • Thanked: 47 times
    • View Profile
Re: What is science fact, not fiction?
« Reply #26 on: 28/05/2015 20:05:39 »

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.


 

Offline Thebox

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 3164
  • Thanked: 47 times
    • View Profile
Re: What is science fact, not fiction?
« Reply #27 on: 28/05/2015 20:21:56 »

''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. 


Quote
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.

Quote
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.



Quote
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.
 

Offline Thebox

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 3164
  • Thanked: 47 times
    • View Profile
Re: What is science fact, not fiction?
« Reply #28 on: 28/05/2015 20:32:30 »
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.
« Last Edit: 28/05/2015 20:44:13 by Thebox »
 

Offline jccc

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 990
    • View Profile
Re: What is science fact, not fiction?
« Reply #29 on: 28/05/2015 20:54:05 »
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?
 

Offline Thebox

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 3164
  • Thanked: 47 times
    • View Profile
Re: What is science fact, not fiction?
« Reply #30 on: 28/05/2015 20:56:23 »
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.
« Last Edit: 28/05/2015 21:11:58 by Thebox »
 

Offline jccc

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 990
    • View Profile
Re: What is science fact, not fiction?
« Reply #31 on: 28/05/2015 21:11:23 »
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.
 

Offline Thebox

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 3164
  • Thanked: 47 times
    • View Profile
Re: What is science fact, not fiction?
« Reply #32 on: 28/05/2015 21:21:17 »
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 ,
 

Offline David Cooper

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1505
    • View Profile
Re: What is science fact, not fiction?
« Reply #33 on: 28/05/2015 21:52:08 »

''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.

Quote
''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.

Quote
''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.

Quote
Quote
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.

Quote
Quote
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.

Quote
Quote
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.
« Last Edit: 28/05/2015 21:54:15 by David Cooper »
 

Offline PmbPhy

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 2773
  • Thanked: 38 times
    • View Profile
Re: What is science fact, not fiction?
« Reply #34 on: 28/05/2015 23:27:31 »
Quote from: Thebox
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.

Quote from: Thebox
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
Quote
"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
Quote
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.
 

Offline Thebox

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 3164
  • Thanked: 47 times
    • View Profile
Re: What is science fact, not fiction?
« Reply #35 on: 29/05/2015 05:23:30 »

''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.

Quote
''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.

Quote
''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.

Quote
Quote
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.

Quote
Quote
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.

Quote
Quote
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''.

 

Offline PmbPhy

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 2773
  • Thanked: 38 times
    • View Profile
Re: What is science fact, not fiction?
« Reply #36 on: 29/05/2015 05:47:35 »
Quote from: Thebox
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
Quote
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.
 

Offline PmbPhy

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 2773
  • Thanked: 38 times
    • View Profile
Re: science fact not fiction
« Reply #37 on: 29/05/2015 06:00:39 »
Quote from: alancalverd
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
Quote
Gravitational charge is equivalent to inertia.
See also: http://www.gravityresearchfoundation.org/pdf/awarded/1971/motz.pdf

Quote
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.

Quote from: alancalverd
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
Quote
The purpose of Einsteinís 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.
« Last Edit: 29/05/2015 06:18:33 by PmbPhy »
 

Offline David Cooper

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1505
    • View Profile
Re: What is science fact, not fiction?
« Reply #38 on: 29/05/2015 16:57:52 »
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.
 

Offline Colin2B

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1921
  • Thanked: 125 times
    • View Profile
Re: What is science fact, not fiction?
« Reply #39 on: 29/05/2015 18:03:12 »
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?
 

Offline Thebox

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 3164
  • Thanked: 47 times
    • View Profile
Re: What is science fact, not fiction?
« Reply #40 on: 29/05/2015 19:40:20 »
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.
« Last Edit: 29/05/2015 19:44:15 by Thebox »
 

Offline Thebox

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 3164
  • Thanked: 47 times
    • View Profile
Re: What is science fact, not fiction?
« Reply #41 on: 29/05/2015 20:03:18 »

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. 

Quote from: David
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.





 

Offline Thebox

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 3164
  • Thanked: 47 times
    • View Profile
Re: What is science fact, not fiction?
« Reply #42 on: 29/05/2015 20:10:27 »


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. 
 

Offline PmbPhy

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 2773
  • Thanked: 38 times
    • View Profile
Re: What is science fact, not fiction?
« Reply #43 on: 29/05/2015 23:27:38 »
Quote from: Thebox
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?

Quote from: Thebox
XYZ and time by Albert Einstein is great thought ....
That great thought was due to Herman Minkowski, Einstein's teacher. Not Einstein himself.
 

Offline Colin2B

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1921
  • Thanked: 125 times
    • View Profile
Re: What is science fact, not fiction?
« Reply #44 on: 30/05/2015 09:45:20 »
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.
 

Offline Thebox

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 3164
  • Thanked: 47 times
    • View Profile
Re: What is science fact, not fiction?
« Reply #45 on: 30/05/2015 10:33:40 »
Quote from: Thebox
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?

Quote from: Thebox
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.







 

Offline Thebox

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 3164
  • Thanked: 47 times
    • View Profile
Re: What is science fact, not fiction?
« Reply #46 on: 30/05/2015 10:39:37 »
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.

 

Offline PmbPhy

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 2773
  • Thanked: 38 times
    • View Profile
Re: What is science fact, not fiction?
« Reply #47 on: 30/05/2015 11:57:07 »
Quote from: Thebox
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.

















 

Offline Thebox

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 3164
  • Thanked: 47 times
    • View Profile
Re: What is science fact, not fiction?
« Reply #48 on: 30/05/2015 12:45:03 »
Quote from: Thebox
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)?
« Last Edit: 30/05/2015 12:47:52 by Thebox »
 

Offline David Cooper

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1505
    • View Profile
Re: What is science fact, not fiction?
« Reply #49 on: 30/05/2015 18:54:58 »
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.
 

The Naked Scientists Forum

Re: What is science fact, not fiction?
« Reply #49 on: 30/05/2015 18:54:58 »

 

SMF 2.0.10 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines
SMFAds for Free Forums