Space is made of ?

Status
Not open for further replies.
exchemist said:
Well of course we do. So what?
Click to expand...
When we walk there is no resistant force to our walking other than if it is a windy day and we are walking facing a strong wind . I think if we consider equality , space must be equal to mass as there doesn't seem an inequality between any sort of forces. Consider KE and a bicycle rolling down a hill , there is no resistant force unless the brakes are applied. So space must be equal to mass .
 
Last edited:
Space is not the opposite of mass. Read a book. There is nothing wrong with not knowing, but there is with pretending to know something you don't know.
 
Billybs said:
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 .
Click to expand...
As I've told people before, you shouldn't be thinking outside the box until you understand the box.

Learn some science before you try to make up any "new perspectives".
 
Billybs said:
When we walk there is no resistant force to our walking other than if it is a windy day and we are walking facing a strong wind . I think if we consider equality , space must be equal to mass as there doesn't seem an inequality between any sort of forces. Consider KE and a bicycle rolling down a hill , there is no resistant force unless the brakes are applied. So space must be equal to mass .
Click to expand...
This makes no sense at all. One moment you appear to be coherent and the next you talk complete gibberish. I think I'll leave you to it for now.
 
Billybs said:
It would be a difficult challenge for sure to gain an answer and adjust the science in consideration of an assumed aether .
Click to expand...
Read your science history to learn about a possible aether. You are trying to rehash stuff that has long ago been debated and the science adjusted for correctness.
In physics, aether theories (also known as ether theories) propose the existence of a medium, a space-filling substance or field, thought to be necessary as a transmission medium for the propagation of electromagnetic or gravitational forces. Since the development of special relativity, theories using a substantial aether fell out of use in modern physics, and are now joined by more abstract models.
Click to expand...
This early modern aether has little in common with the aether of classical elements from which the name was borrowed. The assorted theories embody the various conceptions of this medium and
substance.
Click to expand...
 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aether_theories
 
Write4U said:
Read your science history to learn about a possible aether. You are trying to rehash stuff that has long ago been debated and the science adjusted for correctness. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aether_theories
Click to expand...
Write4U said:
Read your science history to learn about a possible aether. You are trying to rehash stuff that has long ago been debated and the science adjusted for correctness. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aether_theories
Click to expand...
I'll reply further on this subject tomorrow , when I have access to a computer.
 
Billybs said:
You are talking rubbish and I see your game trying to belittle me.
Click to expand...
I'm not trying to belittle you. I'm trying to get you to stop making a fool of yourself. You're in no position to be having new ideas about science until you understand the existing ideas.
 
sideshowbob said:
I'm not trying to belittle you. I'm trying to get you to stop making a fool of yourself. You're in no position to be having new ideas about science until you understand the existing ideas.
Click to expand...

Sounds more like religion than science , a fear of new ideas .
 
Billybs said:
Sounds more like religion than science , a fear of new ideas .
Click to expand...
It has nothing to do with "fear" of new ideas. For the third time, you have to understand the old ideas before you can even know if your ideas are new.
 
sideshowbob said:
It has nothing to do with "fear" of new ideas. For the third time, you have to understand the old ideas before you can even know if your ideas are new.
Click to expand...
Quite clearly a lie and an assumption of my lack of knowledge , a massive mistake by yourself in thinking . I was guided in science and you just proved you lie .
 
Billybs said:
Quite clearly a lie and an assumption of my lack of knowledge , a massive mistake by yourself in thinking . I was guided in science and you just proved you lie .
Click to expand...
You've demonstrated your lack of knowledge. Who or what "guided" you?
 
Grist for thought.
In reality, glass isn't a liquid at all. It's a special kind of solid known as an amorphous solid. This is a state of matter in which the atoms and molecules are locked into place, but instead of forming neat, orderly crystals, they arrange themselves randomly. As a result, glasses are mechanically rigid like solids, yet have the disordered arrangement of molecules like liquids. Amorphous solids form when a solid substance is melted at high temperatures and then cooled rapidly -- a process known as quenching.
Click to expand...
https://science.howstuffworks.com/question404.htm
 
Billybs said:
Oh I know how stuff works , without doubt though I'll find religion more engaging than science with my physics.
Click to expand...
Depends on how much you know about religion, no? Most people here are well versed in religion regardless of belief system.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top