Sometimes?? Seriously ALL the time SCIENTISTS (not science) expect a explanation which makes sense and backed up with evidence from testing and/or step by step details of the thought processes
Space is made of ?
- Thread starter Billybs
- Start date
- Status
Sometimes?? Seriously ALL the time SCIENTISTS (not science) expect a explanation which makes sense and backed up with evidence from testing and/or step by step details of the thought processes
Write4U
Valued Senior Member
Your perspective of space is wrong. Space is permittive of all dynamical movement by all forms of energy and matter. Space is a collection of "fields".
BillyBs said,
a) Space is glass, a transparent solid.
BUT,
By your argument space could be concrete because muons can pass right through concrete. Therefore space is concrete??? Wrong!
Solids only allow movement of subatomic paricles.
OTOH,
https://www.insidescience.org/news/spacetime-may-be-slippery-fluid
b) Space is a transparent fluid. Fluidity allows for movement of both particles and waves.
The viscosity of spacetime restricts velocity of light to SOL or "c".
Last edited:
exchemist
Valued Senior Member
How do you imagine planets move through a solid like glass, at speeds of over 10km per second? Or do you contend they do not move?
exchemist
Valued Senior Member
I can't imagine why that might be.
Have not really though about how they move , I suppose the initial force of the creation of the universe had some involvement .
Last edited:
Very funny sarcasm .
Space is a variation of comparisons , you could compare to concrete if you like but I like my version .
Just because you don't like my notion , it doesn't mean it isn't true , I've an open mind and I have the freedom to speak my opinion .
Last edited:
I thought I had presented it well and it was quite kind of me to care about presenting a different version than the standard models .Sometimes?? Seriously ALL the time SCIENTISTS (not science) expect a explanation which makes sense and backed up with evidence from testing and/or step by step details of the thought processes
Write4U
Valued Senior Member
So do I, but regardless of the logic used, it must rest on a solid scientific premise.
Comparisons of transparency has nothing to do with spacetime. It is the physical properties of spacetime which are permittive of movement or not.
Spacetime is not a solid like glass, it has no physical properties other than having fluid properties, a requirement for transmission of a large range of wave functions.
I hate comparisons but sometimes that is all we've got to think with sometimes . I think space itself is made of no thing but contains things such as the "glass" comparative I mentioned that is , could be, an assumed ether that emitted light propagates through .
You have thought wrong in every post you have made in this thread
I am reposting a previous post. Please re-read as I have highlighted what I think you should concentrate on and while OK to give yourself a pat on the back for being kind. Science would prefer sensibility
Sometimes?? Seriously ALL the time SCIENTISTS (not science) expect a explanation which makes sense and backed up with evidence from testing and/or step by step details of the thought processes
So having re-read care to try again about what space is?
Well I can only share my thoughts in my own way because my brain doesn't work the same as your brain as no two brains are alike . Before I thought about this I'd not really thought about presentation , that doesn't seem to difficult thought . I will get back to you later on , on this subject . I shall think how to present the argument better .You have thought wrong in every post you have made in this thread
I am reposting a previous post. Please re-read as I have highlighted what I think you should concentrate on and while OK to give yourself a pat on the back for being kind. Science would prefer sensibility
Sometimes?? Seriously ALL the time SCIENTISTS (not science) expect a explanation which makes sense and backed up with evidence from testing and/or step by step details of the thought processes
So having re-read care to try again about what space is?
spidergoat
Valued Senior Member
Uninformed opinions on physics are useless and mock the serious task of science.
Interesting but I suspect more bs science from you in the fact that you haven't mentioned any physics or given proof of any physics. Are you suggesting there couldn't be an existence of a type of Higg's field?
exchemist
Valued Senior Member
Right, well, I submit that the fact we observe them to move, very fast but each at a different speed, must mean that space is not a solid medium such as glass.
So that, I think disposes of your original question.
exchemist
Valued Senior Member
I note the references to repeated bs.
Just tell me, is it by any chance your opinion that QM is poop?
No , quantum mechanics is not as you put it "poop". It is perhaps written in a way that people can't always understand but some science minded type people can understand. Just read any Wiki article and it isn't understandable to ordinary folk who perhaps just want look something up. Then of course there is the type of " pop science" videos on YouTube etc which might be easy to understand but not necessarily science facts as wiki tries to project.
spidergoat
Valued Senior Member
No.
exchemist
Valued Senior Member
Good, always useful with a weirdo to find out the extent of the weirdness.
So, what's all this rubbish about glass, then? I presume from your previous reply to me that you don't actually mean glass in the sense of solid vitreous SiO2, but rather some sort of tenuous aether. Would that be right?
Good, always useful with a weirdo to find out the extent of the weirdness.
So, what's all this rubbish about glass, then? I presume from your previous reply to me that you don't actually mean glass in the sense of solid vitreous SiO2, but rather some sort of tenuous aether. Would that be right?
I think you understand what I am saying .
Additionally added , consider walking , we ourselves traverse through space .
Last edited:
- Status