Naked Science Forum

On the Lighter Side => New Theories => Topic started by: trevorjohnson32 on 09/12/2020 20:23:55

Title: Properties of space
Post by: trevorjohnson32 on 09/12/2020 20:23:55
For me, the bending of light when it passes a gravity field proves that light refracts when it hits a denser area of space which is the gravity field. It also proves that light waves and gravity fields are an effect on space. My proof is the femto camera experiment. Anyone who argues with either of these points is a misinformed stubborn armchair physicist.

Furthermore since two gravity fields pull objects together using space alone, it is likely that the particle's that make a gravity field are themselves composed of very dense space. The equation is simple, two gravity fields composed of dense space will squeeze on each other just the way the particle of matter puts a squeezing on space in the first place.

Does this make sense?
Title: Re: Properties of space
Post by: Bored chemist on 09/12/2020 20:27:59
Does this make sense?
No.
My proof is the femto camera experiment.
The what?
Title: Re: Properties of space
Post by: trevorjohnson32 on 09/12/2020 20:32:04
Does this make sense?
No.
My proof is the femto camera experiment.
The what?

I figured you would attack the femto camera experiment without addressing any of the points I made. So what is your arguement with space having different density's? You are quite the rude person to selfishly post know it all comments like you do without any explanation. Quite done with you if you can't add anything intelligent to the conversation.
Title: Re: Properties of space
Post by: Bored chemist on 09/12/2020 21:49:57
You are quite the rude person
It's rather rude of you to ignore my question
My proof is the femto camera experiment.
The what?
selfishly post know it all comments like you do
And it's hard to imagine a much less credible response to me asking you a question, than for you to say I act like I know everything.
without any explanation.
How could I explain what it is that doesn't make sense when ... it doesn't make sense

If I asked you "Does this make sense?"
"tiptoe last straighten hierarchy lip reptile syndrome jacket theory"
What would you say?
It's a yes or no question...
I figured you would attack the femto camera experiment
You plainly figured wrongly.
So what is your argument with space having different density's?
I made no comment on that.




Title: Re: Properties of space
Post by: trevorjohnson32 on 09/12/2020 22:23:46
I made no comment on that.

Someday this will be basic knowledge to a person and your responses here will be looked back upon as those of a pompous ass.
Title: Re: Properties of space
Post by: Bored chemist on 09/12/2020 22:30:48
It's rather rude of you to ignore my question
Quote from: Bored chemist on Today at 20:27:59
Quote from: trevorjohnson32 on Today at 20:23:55
My proof is the femto camera experiment.
The what?
Title: Re: Properties of space
Post by: Kryptid on 09/12/2020 23:17:50
What's your evidence that space has different densities?
Title: Re: Properties of space
Post by: trevorjohnson32 on 09/12/2020 23:37:12
What's your evidence that space has different densities?

An amount of a denser substance weighs more then a less dense amount of the same substance, so density appears to cause weight. Light 'bends' or refracts when it hits a gravity field, just as it does when it passes from air into water, a DENSER substance. All waves are a density spreading out through a medium and so to is light a wave in the medium of space. When matter fuses it loses weight, this weight energy pushes out and causes more weight to be displaced example a crater left behind from an explosive.

It took me near ten years to fine tune my density of space theory. I hate how you guys write it off as something I'm making up on the spot.

Title: Re: Properties of space
Post by: Kryptid on 10/12/2020 00:50:51
An amount of a denser substance weighs more then a less dense amount of the same substance, so density appears to cause weight. Light 'bends' or refracts when it hits a gravity field, just as it does when it passes from air into water, a DENSER substance. All waves are a density spreading out through a medium and so to is light a wave in the medium of space. When matter fuses it loses weight, this weight energy pushes out and causes more weight to be displaced example a crater left behind from an explosive.

How is that evidence that different regions of space have different densities? Empty space that contains no matter or energy should have a mass (and thus density) of zero.

Also, the refraction of light doesn't have to do with changes in density. Rather, it's from changes in index of refraction (which isn't directly proportional to density. For example, ethanol has a lower density than water but has a slightly higher index of refraction).
Title: Re: Properties of space
Post by: Halc on 10/12/2020 01:01:53
You are quite the rude person to selfishly post know it all comments like you do without any explanation.
This seems an accurate description of the OP, which explains nothing and is just a loose idea from a "misinformed stubborn armchair physicist" as you put it. The loose idea has no quantification, and lacking any predictions, isn't a theory at all and isn't even wrong. Hence there being no reason to critique it other than the fact that 'high density space' seems to imply that there's more space per space, which is self-contradictory.
Quote
Quite done with you if you can't add anything intelligent to the conversation.
Indeed. Don't bother to reply to this then.
Title: Re: Properties of space
Post by: trevorjohnson32 on 10/12/2020 01:13:28
How is that evidence that different regions of space have different densities? Empty space that contains no matter or energy should have a mass (and thus density) of zero.

When two atom fuse they lose weight, so wouldn't it make sense to say that the protons and neutrons lose weight because they lose density? Density of space wouldn't be measurable through traditional methods of measuring for weight because there is no way to move a quantity of space like scooping up a bucket of water.

Also, the refraction of light doesn't have to do with changes in density. Rather, it's from changes in index of refraction (which isn't directly proportional to density. For example, ethanol has a lower density than water but has a slightly higher index of refraction).

I can't believe you would say this. Of course refraction has to do with light passing from a less dense substance into a denser medium. This almost seems un educated to me or that your just ban wagon riding with all the people who think life is a nonstop comedy fun ride in your response. How do you think a magnefying glass works?
Title: Re: Properties of space
Post by: trevorjohnson32 on 10/12/2020 01:15:11
This seems an accurate description of the OP, which explains nothing and is just a loose idea from a "misinformed stubborn armchair physicist" as you put it. The loose idea has no quantification, and lacking any predictions, isn't a theory at all and isn't even wrong. Hence there being no reason to critique it other than the fact that 'high density space' seems to imply that there's more space per space, which is self-contradictory.

The density of what you just said is mind boggling. Are you even a person or some sort of monster?
Title: Re: Properties of space
Post by: trevorjohnson32 on 10/12/2020 01:57:17
Empty space that contains no matter or energy should have a mass (and thus density) of zero.

Also you are measuring the density that matter puts on space when you weight something. Particle's of matter and light waves are the only two things that can create a density on space. With the absence of both then the density of space would be uniform.
Title: Re: Properties of space
Post by: evan_au on 10/12/2020 07:22:56
Quote from: trevorjohnson32
Light 'bends' or refracts when it hits a gravity field, just as it does when it passes from air into water, a DENSER substance.
The problem here is that the OP is attributing refraction of light when it enters a lens to the wrong characteristic of matter.
- It is not the density of the lens that matters, it is the permeability and permittivity of the lens that matters
- These two parameters together determine the speed of light in the lens
- What changes the path of light when passing into the lens is a change in the speed of light.
- The speed of light in a medium is lower than the speed of light in a vacuum

When light passes into a gravitational well (as in gravitational lensing):
- time slows down in the gravitational well (from the viewpoint of a distant observer).
- and the speed of light slows down in the gravitational well (from the viewpoint of a distant observer).
- It is this change in the speed of light that causes the light to bend
- It is not a change in the density of the medium, as a vacuum always has 0 density.

See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravitational_lens#Description
Title: Re: Properties of space
Post by: Kryptid on 10/12/2020 08:02:36
So even why I supply a counter-example of density not correlating with index of refraction, you still think it's wrong? Which property of water and ethanol do you think scientists mis-measured?
Title: Re: Properties of space
Post by: Bored chemist on 10/12/2020 09:00:51
I'm increasingly of the opinion that the OP is a troll.
Nobody could be that dim.
Title: Re: Properties of space
Post by: Kryptid on 10/12/2020 16:19:42
Density of space wouldn't be measurable through traditional methods of measuring for weight because there is no way to move a quantity of space like scooping up a bucket of water.

So how would you measure it then? Your idea has to be capable of potential falsification, otherwise it isn't even a scientific hypothesis.
Title: Re: Properties of space
Post by: trevorjohnson32 on 10/12/2020 18:46:21
So even why I supply a counter-example of density not correlating with index of refraction, you still think it's wrong? Which property of water and ethanol do you think scientists mis-measured?

"The bending of light as it passes from one medium to another is called refraction. The angle and wavelength at which the light enters a substance and the density of that substance determine how much the light is refracted."


So how would you measure it then? Your idea has to be capable of potential falsification, otherwise it isn't even a scientific hypothesis.

by measuring how long it takes for light to travel a distance in a gravity field vs the same distance in vacant space. The light should take longer to travel the same distance in a gravity field then it would in empty space. We already know that it does so I don't know what your arguement will be.
Title: Re: Properties of space
Post by: Bored chemist on 10/12/2020 18:55:40
"The bending of light as it passes from one medium to another is called refraction. The angle and wavelength at which the light enters a substance and the density of that substance determine how much the light is refracted."
I can fairly easily find two materials with different densities where the angle of refraction is the same*, or two materials withe the same density, but where the angle of refraction is different.
So your idea is simply wrong

It's not us with whom you disagree, you are disagreeing with reality.

*For example, glass and glycerine.
Title: Re: Properties of space
Post by: trevorjohnson32 on 10/12/2020 19:18:05
I'm increasingly of the opinion that the OP is a troll.
Nobody could be that dim.

Bored Chemist you are a WPOS
Title: Re: Properties of space
Post by: Kryptid on 10/12/2020 21:45:51
We already know that it does so I don't know what your arguement will be.

Then you need to find a test that can distinguish your model from relativity, because relativity predicts the same thing.

WPOS

No, we are not tolerating insults. Consider this strike two (the first strike was spamming the other thread of yours with poetry).
Title: Re: Properties of space
Post by: Bored chemist on 10/12/2020 23:55:38
I'm increasingly of the opinion that the OP is a troll.
Nobody could be that dim.

Bored Chemist you are a WPOS
I am indeed a worthwhile person of substance.
I'm glad you spotted it.

Are you ever going to stop ranting and answer this?
It's rather rude of you to ignore my question
Quote from: Bored chemist on Today at 20:27:59
Quote from: trevorjohnson32 on Today at 20:23:55
My proof is the femto camera experiment.
The what?

Title: Re: Properties of space
Post by: puppypower on 24/12/2020 11:58:09
For me, the bending of light when it passes a gravity field proves that light refracts when it hits a denser area of space which is the gravity field. It also proves that light waves and gravity fields are an effect on space. My proof is the femto camera experiment. Anyone who argues with either of these points is a misinformed stubborn armchair physicist.

Furthermore since two gravity fields pull objects together using space alone, it is likely that the particle's that make a gravity field are themselves composed of very dense space. The equation is simple, two gravity fields composed of dense space will squeeze on each other just the way the particle of matter puts a squeezing on space in the first place.

Does this make sense?

If you compare space and time, space is a passive and/or reactive variable, while time is an active and dynamic variable. We measure space with a meter stick, which is a passive tool. The meter stick does not require batteries. Time is measured using a clock, which is a dynamic tool, requiring energy for it to work. These simple tools tell us something about the relative hierarchy of time and space. It is strange nobody notices this.

When you deal with space-time, space cannot change, outside the context of time, except at the speed of light. The change in the passive variable, space, is a reaction to dynamics that occurs in time, due to time and space being integrated.

Gravitational lensing is really a frequency shift or shift in time, with the distance or wavelength following the change in time. Gravity is an acceleration, which has the units d/t/t. Acceleration is two parts time and one part distance. Distance is being actively divided by two time vectors.

The wavelength first convention, derived from the phrase "space-time", implies space or the passive variable is leading. This is conceptually flawed. This tradition is left in place, since it supports other theory that needs the passive to lead the active. 
Title: Re: Properties of space
Post by: Bored chemist on 24/12/2020 13:00:05
. Acceleration is two parts time and one part distance. Distance is being actively divided by two time vectors.
That's meaningless.
Title: Re: Properties of space
Post by: talanum1 on 24/12/2020 13:29:10
I agree that particles are made of space points.

The Voyagers reported denser space beyond the sun's influence. I expected it to get less dense.
Title: Re: Properties of space
Post by: Bored chemist on 24/12/2020 15:59:15
I agree that particles are made of space points.
You keep talking about these. But you seem unable to tell us what they are.
So, you are not talking about science.
Why do you do this?
Title: Re: Properties of space
Post by: talanum1 on 24/12/2020 16:12:33
I can't tell you what they are but I can tell you they are represented by 4-tuples of numbers. That is scientific.

They are units of emptiness that can be superimposed on each other.