Space is made of ?

Status
Not open for further replies.
sometimes I'm not sure what science expects of explanation from a person .

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

:)
 
I believe I've changed the way we can consider space !
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,
Spacetime is a somewhat slippery concept -- Einstein described the universe in four dimensions, combining the well-known three dimensions of space with time. Physicists now suggest that spacetime may itself be a fluid, a very slippery type known as a superfluid.
These new findings could help scientists in their quest for a theory of everything that explains how the cosmos works in its entirety.
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:
I think space is made of glass and all matter is photons passing through glass . Now I imagine from science history , this would be very hard to disprove and as a reflection of this , a challenge for you .
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?
 
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?
Have not really though about how they move , I suppose the initial force of the creation of the universe had some involvement .
 
Last edited:
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".
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:
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

:)
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 .
 
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 .
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.
 
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 .
 
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 .
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?

:)
 
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 .
 
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 .
Uninformed opinions on physics are useless and mock the serious task of science.
 
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?
 
Have not really though about how they move , I suppose the initial force of the creation of the universe had some involvement .
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.
 
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?
I note the references to repeated bs.

Just tell me, is it by any chance your opinion that QM is poop?
 
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.
 
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?
No.
 
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.
Good, always useful with a weirdo to find out the extent of the weirdness. :D

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. :D

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
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top