The Naked Scientists

The Naked Scientists Forum

Author Topic: Does a void still contain a virtual negativeness?  (Read 1984 times)

Offline Thebox

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 3164
  • Thanked: 46 times
    • View Profile
As title asks.....
added -


a convertual positive spark attracted the whole of virtual negative space to a singular point?


added - and even today the same process still happens except with more positive bodies?

added - the virtual negative of the void neutralising the positive output by volume being greater, negative space being a ''solution'' of diluted energy.?

added-negative space having a greater centripetal force towards the positive than the positives output strength and the positive-positive repelling force of its own body?

added- in conjunction with positive and negative mass, negative virtual space being the super glue of all things of body?

added- an explosion creates a central isotropic virtual negative vacuum that then implodes the explosion resulting in the pulse like behaviour of an explosion. (positive pushes positive apart leaving a central vacuum of negative that sucks the positive back in at a certain point of the inflation)?

« Last Edit: 03/10/2015 16:08:57 by Thebox »


 

Offline Bill S

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1830
  • Thanked: 12 times
    • View Profile
Re: Does a void still contain a virtual negativeness?
« Reply #1 on: 03/10/2015 17:15:01 »
What does "virtual negative" actually mean?
 

Offline Thebox

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 3164
  • Thanked: 46 times
    • View Profile
Re: Does a void still contain a virtual negativeness?
« Reply #2 on: 03/10/2015 22:27:40 »
What does "virtual negative" actually mean?

Having no physical body or physical presence, void like.  I am asking myself where does negative come from, it must of originated from somewhere, everyone concentrates on positive things, but seemingly discards the negative side of things, I am thinking space itself , beyond the light and cbmr is negative.

Because if I recall correctly an explosion inflates then deflates then inflates again, there has to be a central void when it is inflating.

Inside of an explosion is like a doughnut?






« Last Edit: 03/10/2015 22:54:07 by Thebox »
 

Online evan_au

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 4129
  • Thanked: 247 times
    • View Profile
Re: Does a void still contain a virtual negativeness?
« Reply #3 on: 04/10/2015 10:21:50 »
Quote from: Thebox
everyone concentrates on positive things (electrical charge), but seemingly discards the negative side of things
Physics has a quite strong law about conservation of electrical charge.
If you add up the charges going into a process, it equals the charge of the outputs.

The universe as a whole seems to be overall electrically neutral, to a high degree of precision.
  • So for every created proton (positive), there seems to be an electron (negative).
  • Every neutron that decays into a proton (positive) also produces an electron (negative) and neutrino (neutral).
  • Every gamma ray that produces a positron (positive) seems to produce an electron (negative), via pair production.
  • In every battery you buy in the supermarket, every positive charge at one end of the battery seems to have a corresponding negative charge on the other terminal.

So when particle physicists talk about positives, they are always thinking of the balancing negatives.

There is one area where we primarily think about negatives, and that is in the fields of electricity and electronics.
  • In an old-fashioned TV tube, the glow on the screen is triggered by movement of negative electrons from the (hot) negative cathode, which are accelerated towards the positive anode.
  • When electrical current flows through a wire, it is talking about the movement of negative electrons from the negative terminal to the positive terminal.
  • When current flows through a semiconductor, it is talking about the movement of negative electrons from the negative terminal to the positive terminal.
  • In semiconductors, even when we talk in terms of the flow of positive "holes" from the positive terminal to the negative terminal, we know that the underlying mechanism is the movement of negative electrons from the negative terminal to the positive terminal.   

For physicists, preoccupied with balancing positives & negatives, it is still a mystery why:
  • The initial universe had equal positive and negative charges
  • There should be more matter than anti-matter in the universe 
 

Offline alancalverd

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4725
  • Thanked: 155 times
  • life is too short to drink instant coffee
    • View Profile
Re: Does a void still contain a virtual negativeness?
« Reply #4 on: 04/10/2015 10:32:18 »
Does a void contain a virtual negativeness?

No. A void by definition doesn't contain anything, and virtual things by definition do not exist. So the answer is in fact no*no = definitively no (not to be confused with no x no = yes).
 

Offline Thebox

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 3164
  • Thanked: 46 times
    • View Profile
Re: Does a void still contain a virtual negativeness?
« Reply #5 on: 04/10/2015 16:51:46 »
Does a void contain a virtual negativeness?

No. A void by definition doesn't contain anything, and virtual things by definition do not exist. So the answer is in fact no*no = definitively no (not to be confused with no x no = yes).


I am not talking about like a negativeness as in a battery or even magnet poles, although there be a relationship, consider a void, empty of everything except space, space itself being negative, imagine a single convertual positive particle at the center of this infinite void, all the virtual negative space, centripetally attracted to  the convertual particle, as if to ''crush'' a photon, a photon has no physical body, so you could not crush a photon conventionally, the only possible thing that can crush a convertual photon is a virtual negative. 

I understand this is hard to imagine, so imagine being submerged in an ocean, all the pressure of the water surrounds you, imagine then at an instant removing yourself/transporting yourself out of the dimension of space you was occupying, imagine then all the water at an instance fills this space centripetally.


Where does negative come from, ask yourself this question.

And from Evan
''The universe as a whole seems to be overall electrically neutral, to a high degree of precision.''

Space Neutralises the electricity, space is not neutral but is neutral at the same time.

Imagine a black hole is virtual negative space and ''sucks'' in the positive of a star.

Or consider this negative I am speculating to be dark energy.


Imagine this negative virtual space is infinite , but it is connected and attracted to itself, always centripetally creating this convertual spark by negative pressure at the center of the universe.
The density function of the centripetal negative at the center of the infinite universe converting it into a positive.

In another words , if you could remove a piece of space, the rest of space would flood into that removed space.


Mass is not displaced in space, mass displaces space, when mass moves the space is filled by space. Space always wants to join together.

added- please do not put this in speculations, please discuss seriously.


Consider even atoms have got space in them, when we split atoms we are ripping apart the virtual fabric of space.

added thought - the process is faster than the speed of light , it is instant.


Move any object  in front of you, observe how quick the space replaces the displacement of space.

added - I have read it back and do understand how delusional this sounds, but move an object and observe space replacing the object.







« Last Edit: 04/10/2015 17:33:43 by Thebox »
 

Offline Bill S

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1830
  • Thanked: 12 times
    • View Profile
Re: Does a void still contain a virtual negativeness?
« Reply #6 on: 04/10/2015 20:30:39 »
Quote from: Thebox
please do not put this in speculations, please discuss seriously.

I don’t wish to sound discouraging, but I think you may have to explain/define a few things in order to have a serious discussion.

“I am not talking about like a negativeness as in a battery or even magnet poles,”  So, what are you talking about?

“consider a void, empty of everything except space,”  Is a void something or nothing?  Is space something or nothing?

“space itself being negative”  What does this mean, and what is your evidence for it?

“convertual positive particle”  What is a convertual particle?

“virtual negative space”  What is the difference between “negative” and “virtual negative”?

“Where does negative come from,”  Negative what?  Or do you mean “negativity”?

This is by no means an exhaustive list of things that need to be explained/defined before any really serious discussion could start.  Alan, of course, was right, so it might be good to start by saying how your "theory" gets round that.
 

Offline Thebox

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 3164
  • Thanked: 46 times
    • View Profile
Re: Does a void still contain a virtual negativeness?
« Reply #7 on: 04/10/2015 21:02:47 »
Quote from: Thebox
please do not put this in speculations, please discuss seriously.

I don’t wish to sound discouraging, but I think you may have to explain/define a few things in order to have a serious discussion.

“I am not talking about like a negativeness as in a battery or even magnet poles,”  So, what are you talking about?

“consider a void, empty of everything except space,”  Is a void something or nothing?  Is space something or nothing?

“space itself being negative”  What does this mean, and what is your evidence for it?

“convertual positive particle”  What is a convertual particle?

“virtual negative space”  What is the difference between “negative” and “virtual negative”?

“Where does negative come from,”  Negative what?  Or do you mean “negativity”?

This is by no means an exhaustive list of things that need to be explained/defined before any really serious discussion could start.  Alan, of course, was right, so it might be good to start by saying how your "theory" gets round that.

Ok I understand, lets start with a void, by definition completely empty, but not empty of space, do you agree?  a void has volume.

a void does not emit light or absorb light do you agree?

∑E/xyz=0?   when xyz represent the volume of the void.

A convertual particle is a particle without body such as a photon that is neutralised energy that can be converted into energy. hence convertual .

The propagation through space of the photons , space giving photons no work to do ,

space is something of absolute negativeness, space always joins space, I say virtual in the sense that a virtual negative energy exists in a void. but a connectivity that can never be broken only displaced.


the dimensions of mass dividing space and displacing space. This negative virtual fabric that can not be divided indefinitely.

added - the photon is positive charged but remains neutral until it has work to do?

I mean this -





That is why I mentioned black holes.


There is a plug hole(s) next to the sun?

Is the earth and all the other planets attracted to this plug hole rather than being attracted to the sun like we think?





« Last Edit: 04/10/2015 22:28:45 by Thebox »
 

Online evan_au

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 4129
  • Thanked: 247 times
    • View Profile
Re: Does a void still contain a virtual negativeness?
« Reply #8 on: 04/10/2015 22:54:19 »
Quote
space is something of absolute negativeness
I would rather say that space is something containing zero mass, not negative mass.

Quote from: Thebox
move an object and observe space replacing the object
I think this post may be confusing negative and zero?
  • Space is the absence of matter.
  • A void is the absence of matter
  • This means that space or a void is "zero matter", not "negative matter"
  • It's perfectly logical that when you move matter/mass out of the way, you are left with "zero mass"=space=a void.

Quote
∑E/xyz=0?   when xyz represent the volume of the void.
If I read this rather unique notation correctly, it is saying that "the total amount of energy in a volume of space is zero"?
I would rather say that "the amount of mass in a volume of space is zero".

But the amount of energy in any accessible volume of space is not zero, because there are always photons and neutrinos zipping through it, even if these originate from the cosmic background microwave radiation, and cosmic neutrinos.

Quote
A convertual particle is a particle without body such as a photon that is neutralised energy that can be converted into energy.
A photon is a very real particle, so I would hardly say that it is a "particle without a body".
Physicists would normally say "a photon is a particle with zero rest mass".
  • A neutron is a particle with a very significant rest mass and zero charge, which does real work inside nuclear reactors.
  • A neutrino is a particle with a miniscule but non-zero rest mass, and zero charge. It can be converted into energy in a detector - but you need a big detector to detect many of them, since it rarely interacts with matter.
Would you classify a neutron and a neutrino as "convertual particles"?

A photon does not have "neutralised energy", since it can do real work - just look at solar cells on a house roof. Similarly for neutrinos and neutrons.
You could say that a photon has "neutralised electric charge=zero charge", since you can produce a pair of gamma ray photons when an electron and a positron collide.

Quote
the photon is positive charged but remains neutral until it has work to do?
No, the photon is electrically neutral, but it has a positive energy, which can be utilised by a detecting device (eg to produce positive and negative charges in a solar cell).

I think this post might be confusing energy and electric charge?
 

Offline Thebox

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 3164
  • Thanked: 46 times
    • View Profile
Re: Does a void still contain a virtual negativeness?
« Reply #9 on: 05/10/2015 00:08:51 »


If I read this rather unique notation correctly, it is saying that "the total amount of energy in a volume of[b] void[/b] is zero"?


But the amount of energy in any accessible volume of void is zero, because there are no photons and neutrinos zipping through it, even if these originate from the cosmic background microwave radiation, and cosmic neutrinos.



Would you classify a neutron and a neutrino as "convertual particles"? If they can travel through forces un-effected then yes, if they have no body then yes.




https://wordpress.com/read/post/feed/19049337/825067815

If we could remove the sun, space would replace the suns dimensions .


''No, the photon is electrically neutral, but it has a positive energy, which can be utilised by a detecting device (eg to produce positive and negative charges in a solar cell).''

It is positive energy that is seen as  neutral because in flight it does no work. Photons need an activator...Like electricity is not electricity unless you touch it. like the volume of space is greater than my light bulbs output,

« Last Edit: 05/10/2015 00:29:28 by Thebox »
 

Offline Thebox

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 3164
  • Thanked: 46 times
    • View Profile
Re: Does a void still contain a virtual negativeness?
« Reply #10 on: 05/10/2015 10:44:34 »
The negative of the ground is attracted to the negative of the core,   and the negative of the earth is attracted to the negative of the sun,   the positive of the sun opposes the positive of the earth, is this not gravity?


added-


Protons are negative mass?

Electrons are positive mass?


Quarks are attracted to Quarks, so protons are attracted to protons, electrons repel electrons, this is your answer.


« Last Edit: 05/10/2015 11:03:29 by Thebox »
 

Offline Thebox

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 3164
  • Thanked: 46 times
    • View Profile
« Last Edit: 10/10/2015 15:41:49 by Thebox »
 

The Naked Scientists Forum

Re: Does a void still contain a virtual negativeness?
« Reply #11 on: 10/10/2015 15:39:52 »

 

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