0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Does this make sense?
My proof is the femto camera experiment.
Quote from: trevorjohnson32 on 09/12/2020 20:23:55Does this make sense?No.Quote from: trevorjohnson32 on 09/12/2020 20:23:55My proof is the femto camera experiment. The what?
You are quite the rude person
Quote from: trevorjohnson32 on 09/12/2020 20:23:55My proof is the femto camera experiment. The what?
selfishly post know it all comments like you do
without any explanation.
I figured you would attack the femto camera experiment
So what is your argument with space having different density's?
I made no comment on that.
It's rather rude of you to ignore my questionQuote from: Bored chemist on Today at 20:27:59Quote from: trevorjohnson32 on Today at 20:23:55My proof is the femto camera experiment.The what?
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.
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.
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).
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.
Empty space that contains no matter or energy should have a mass (and thus density) of zero.
Light 'bends' or refracts when it hits a gravity field, just as it does when it passes from air into water, a DENSER substance.
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 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?
So how would you measure it then? Your idea has to be capable of potential falsification, otherwise it isn't even a scientific hypothesis.
"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'm increasingly of the opinion that the OP is a troll.Nobody could be that dim.