The Naked Scientists

The Naked Scientists Forum

Author Topic: Re: Is space really empty?  (Read 412 times)

Offline aetzbar

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 30
    • View Profile
Re: Is space really empty?
« on: 08/02/2016 04:50:47 »
Secrets of the Universe
In the beginning was infinite geometric space. This space became filled with Static Time at absolute rest and absolute cold. Static time is strictly quantitative, and does not differentiate between past, present and future. Being quantifiable and measurable, static time is a scientific concept. Static time of 0.0033 microseconds per meter will be measured regardless of the direction chosen.
Stars move through static time, which does not disrupt their motion. Static time exists but is imperceptible. Static time is the deepest secret of the universe.
Static time fills all infinite space, eliminating the possibility of a vacuum.  Static Time Waves (STW) travel through static time. The speed of STW is 300,000 km/second.
Aetzbar in amazon   
The Newtonian universe is based on matter and force.
The Einsteinian universe is based on matter and energy.
The Aetzbarian universe is based on static time and energy.
There is no gravity, and there is no gravity waves.
There is  Static Time , and there is Static Time Waves. (STW)
There is a particles of Static Time.
Static Time is real and measured.
Everyone knows the Dynamic Time.
It is time to recognize the Static Time.


Offline the5thforce

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 74
  • Thanked: 1 times
    • View Profile
Re: Re: Is space really empty?
« Reply #1 on: 08/02/2016 05:42:31 »
the best a vacuum can ever do is keep stretching the space proportional to the energy of the vacuum source as with black holes(almost pure mass, probably a sort of mass-plasma/higgs-plasma), even if the space was minimally 'stretched' or otherwise uninfluenced by energy- as long as time is cohering with the space which is the act of observation, the space will always have some small fluctuation(energy), you might even say the energy required to create an observer/observation is enough for observation itself to force small fluctuations of energy in every empty volume of space upon observation, the exception might itself be the event horizon of a black hole.

atoms movement at 0 kelvin may appear to stop, but the subatomic particles cannot stop without the atom becoming a different element(without force carrying particles still fluctuating there would be nothing holding the larger particles together)

the smallest 'particle' can only be reduced to the symmetry break of whatever energy is being measured, due to the uncertainty principle, measurement itself is simultaneously the symmetry break and the symmetry cohesion which would follow the hierarchy of measurement such that the most complex and likely self aware measurement apparatus's provide the biggest/most complex breaks+cohesions... bigger breaks would allow more room for potential itself(or the increasingly unlikely points on a probability distribution dictated by the size of the break which is dictated by the uncertainty principle) to spill into reality before the observers reality is cohesively part of the past

a photon's mass can be zero and still have energy, it would only mean photons dont curve space enough to attract other particles- they would only be attracted to other particles that curve space more than photons(diffraction)

temperature is usually the transfer of energy(all particles have energy)
« Last Edit: 08/02/2016 06:23:49 by the5thforce »

The Naked Scientists Forum

Re: Re: Is space really empty?
« Reply #1 on: 08/02/2016 05:42:31 »


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