Blinded by the Light

[jtb]

Blinded by the Light
Posted on January 20, 2015 by Stephen Smith

"space cannot warp or bend or ripple. It is a domain without substance, since it is where substance exists. To say that space and time are a “fabric” in which gravity can “wave” is ludicrous. It is tantamount to saying that space exists in and of itself and is capable of alteration."

Steve, below is my concept of space. Just like air that we can't see, space is something: some thing, and does exist in and of itself. Space is an invisible substance existing between visible objects.

Space is simply the interval between 2 or more points: a container with volume. If the room you are sitting in was air tight and the air (space) displaced out of the room, the molecules in objects would begin to pull further and further apart to fill the interval previously occupied by the air. As the pressure in the room lowered beyond the strength of your veins, they would burst. You would be like an aerosol can with a weak point in its container. Eventually the low pressure inside the room and the higher pressure outside the room, would cause the container to collapse and the pressure to equalize. The air, or space, is simply relocated outside the room creating a change in pressure.

Outer space, or the universe, is no different than an airtight room. It contains things visible and invisible, and is somehow contained. If the pressure of the vacuum of space was too low, it would exceed the stress limits of the container enveloping Earth's atmosphere. Earth is like an aerosol can floating in the low pressure of the universe. A weak point in our container would cause the higher pressure on Earth to equalize with the lower pressure of the universe. Although not visible, space, or the interval between objects, has to be something: some thing, with physical properties, even if we can't measure them.

Another example is a balloon. Transferring pressure (air) from outside the balloon to inside the balloon will eventually exceed the ability of the molecules in the container to absorb the space and it will burst. Transferring pressure out of the balloon will cause the space between molecules to displace outside the balloon and it will eventually collapse. The amount of space, just like air, remains constant; all that changes is its location.

[Frantic]

Space is simply the interval between 2 or more points:

Outer space, or the universe, is no different than an airtight room. It contains things visible and invisible, and is somehow contained. If the pressure of the vacuum of space was too low, it would exceed the stress limits of the container enveloping Earth's atmosphere. Earth is like an aerosol can floating in the low pressure of the universe. A weak point in our container would cause the higher pressure on Earth to equalize with the lower pressure of the universe. Although not visible, space, or the interval between objects, has to be something: some thing, with physical properties, even if we can't measure them.

I would disagree. If you did not have 2 points, space in itself does not exist, it only exists as a relation ship between objects. And if those 2 points were not moving, neither space or time would exist(our experience of time is based on motion, even when we don't move are body is always moving something). Space is the relation ship between multiple points, Time is the relationship between multiple instances of a unique point. My opinion is highly influenced by Kant's "Critique of pure reason"

You have an assumption that the universe is contained, but if we believe forces can pull matter together, we only need enough force to hold it together, rather than contain it. I don't imagine somewhere a galaxy is bouncing off a universe wall, and what would the material containing be, it would be more matter and it would need space itself.

[jtb]

Hi Frantic,
I agree with your statement below, especially about time, but don't understand why points need to be moving for space to exist. Space is a really bad word to describe the universe. "Void" is a much better term. A void is space containing no visible matter. Also, space, or the void, is not a perfect vacuum. If it was, it would contain nothing, but we know it contains dust, radiation, plasma, radio and electromagnetic waves, etc...., that we have only recently gained the technology to observe.

If you did not have 2 points, space in itself does not exist, it only exists as a relation ship between objects. And if those 2 points were not moving, neither space or time would exist(our experience of time is based on motion, even when we don't move are body is always moving something). Space is the relation ship between multiple points, Time is the relationship between multiple instances of a unique point.

You have an assumption that the universe is contained, but if we believe forces can pull matter together, we only need enough force to hold it together, rather than contain it. I don't imagine somewhere a galaxy is bouncing off a universe wall, and what would the material containing be, it would be more matter and it would need space itself.

The container could be a force. I used the term "somehow contained", which does not rule out a force being the container. Earth's high pressure atmosphere is somehow contained separating it from the low pressure of space, or the void. There is a perfect balance of forces between Earth and the universe containing our atmosphere.

Wal Thornhill stated in his latest video posted on this site that energy is dependent on the existence of matter. In other words, matter preexists energy. And, as you say, everything is moving, creating forces, or this energy. This includes electricity. Electricity only exists as a result of the mechanical movement of matter. Northeastern US is powered by moving water over Niagara Falls.

I understand that when motion stops, so does time, because time is based on relative motion between objects: the eastern horizon and the sun, numbers on a clock and rotating hands, etc.... When all motion ceases, matter looses its form and becomes void, so a void can exist without motion. Where am I wrong in my logic?

[Frantic]

So let's say there is a universe, and it has defined innate properties. We developed sense, in order to orient and guide ourselves through our environment. Our sense allows us to create a manifestation of the universe, but we do not see the universe itself.

In the case of the 2 points in different locations in space, neither is emitting light, that would be motion. So each particle would be its own universe there is actually no space. When movement begins space is created. The nature of space is such that not only could it hold the matter of our universe, but could likewise hold multiple universes. What-ever we perceive to exist, must necessarily have space for our conception. Kant describes space as a conception of each individual mind rather than an attribute of the universe. He spent much detail on what can be part of cognition a priori and a posteriory. Much of our pursuit of knowledge is hampered by our lack of understanding the capabilities of cognition.

Some of our most difficult concepts to explain are manifestations of cognition rather than the universe itself. Many assume our perception is capable of perceiving the universe, it is not.

[jtb]

Our sense allows us to create a manifestation of the universe, but we do not see the universe itself.

Agreed. Input from our senses requires a mind to create an image, or blueprint. As our senses receive more data, the image or blueprint changes.

In the case of the 2 points in different locations in space, neither is emitting light, that would be motion.

I'm confused by the above statement. All matter has a resonance and is emitting a frequency, detectable or undetectable by our senses. Our senses are limited in their ability to detect all frequencies. We require technology, like infrared receivers, to convert some frequencies to an intelligible form we can conceive in our minds.

Bose-Einstein Condensate experiment showed that motion ceases and matter looses its form when it approaches zero Kelvin. Your points not emitting light (a frequency) would indicate a lack of motion. If motion completely ceases in matter, nothing, including any technology, would be able to detect its presence. It would become void, or an area where nothing can be detected to exist. Something may exist, but simply cannot be detected. The void, in the heaven, would have to be set in motion in order to be detected by our senses and an image created in our minds.

If a point in space, such as the earth was motionless, it would exist, but without form and void, or undetectable.

[Frantic]

We are in hypothetical grounds here for sure. I'll admit quantum theory is something I am not well studied on. But I will comment as best I can on what I think about it.

So I have a two point system and neither point has property of motion, no vibration, etc. 0 degree Kelvin. In this Bose-Einstein Condensate we enter the quantum realm. But even here we must be motionless, quantum tunneling, changes in energy states, etc would cause problems I think. The break down of conventional space seems inherent within the Bose-Einstein condensate.

We are talking in a sense about the universe consisting of 2 points, both isolated 0 Kelvin Bose-Einstein condensates.
It can be one of 2 situations :
They have a net force between each other, and motion(not 0 Kelvin) and 2 points exist and hence space exists.
Or, they have no net force and no motion exists(0 Kelvin), and no space exists. (each is a universe within itself and the space is within the point, not an external medium of the point) In essence I am saying if the entire universe were 0 Kelvin, no matter the number of points space does not exist. Imo the universe cannot reach 0 Kelvin. Quantum effects would prevent it. I accept that I do not understand space, it is a tool.

We have theories of conservation of energy, the mass energy equivalence, etc. But, where are the laws regarding space? What is the maximum speed space can expand? What dimensions does space expand within? What dimensions can it be curled folded or warped within? Are dimensions a property of space, or is space a property of dimensions? How do we know space is infallible? What is the maximum and minimum number of dimensions possible? What is the minimum and maximum size for a dimension? Maybe wormholes are possible, we say that space cannot bend or fold, and we get caught in the same problem as the mainstream. A wormhole may be possible because the fundamental properties of space are not set laws. Just a feeble construct of the human mind. When we say space warps, or that it can't warp, we extend beyond logic, we attempt to manipulate that which we cannot define to begin with.

[jtb]

Hi, Frantic. All I'm trying to say is that the interval between visible objects in the universe is some thing. The interval between 2 points on a piece of paper is paper molecules. The interval between 2 walls in an empty room is air molecules. The interval between 2 stars has to be some thing. Without technology, it looks like there is no thing between the stars. With technology to assist us, we see, or detect, things between the stars: dust, plasma, infrared, radio waves, etc... Just because we don't have the technology to detect every thing between the stars doesn't mean things are not there. In other words, outer space is some sort of substance, or thing: a super conductor. Because outer space, or the substance of outer space, is so cold and nearly motionless, it is undetectable.

[Frantic]

Space can be described as a property of matter itself. Is space required for matter, or is matter required for space? I say that matter is required for space. Dimensions are inherent attributes of matter. Space is the perception of matter.

I agree with Steve :

It is a domain without substance, since it is where substance exists.

Steve is defining Space as the domain where substance exists. If I graph y=x^2 the domain is not an inherent attribute of 2d graph space, but an inherent feature of the equation y=x^2. Y and X specify the dimensions, the formula of the matter contains the dimensions. The ability to do math in higher and lower dimensions is a clue as to the intellectual construction of space as opposed to an attribute of nature.

[Frantic]

http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-31038256

Interesting article, explaining an experiment on the mental number line. Thinking of space as substance would be like thinking that numbers really have right and left handedness. I think it is only a mental tool and we evolved it long ago. Numbers have many innate properties, but our biological correlation of left/right to small/large has nothing to do with the innate properties of numbers. Likewise our correlation of space and matter is a mental tool not related to the innate properties of matter.

[viscount aero]

Space requires 3 points to exist


Only 2 points is not defining a space.

[Frantic]

Could I not have 1-D, 2-D, and 3-D space and so on? I can easily plot 2 points on a graph in a 2D space. That does not make the space real, space is only the cognition that occurs when, I, the observer relate the two points to each other. In and of themselves the points do not require space. It would be the same for any number of points in any # of dimensions. We create the space, we draw horizontal lines, or a plane. We use our spatial reasoning, it is all within us, not within the objects themselves.

How would one prove space exists? There are no predictions, no results. It is like trying to say that addition does or does not exist. Yes 2+2 = 4, but what did I change when I moved 2 rocks to be with the other 2 rocks and then called them 4? I can prove 2+2 = 4 but how can I prove addition, what is it besides a tool?

[viscount aero]

Space can only be 3D. There is no such thing as 1D or 2D space. Pure 1D or 2D are only physically non-existent mathematical abstractions such as found in a singularity.

3D space can be proven by walking, running, standing, looking at your own body, etc...

[Frantic]

I disagree. If you define space as the relation ship between objects perceived by an observer, yes observation is proof.

If you mean that space exists in and of itself, observation does not prove that. Absent of matter we do not have space. The perception of matter is space. Space is only a product of matter and perception. Given no matter, different matter, or another form of perception would significantly alter space. Although we think of space as absolute, it is entirely relative.

For example I walk, my body is always moving in a rhythm, both relating to itself and the ground around it. Space is all relationships and correlations.

How can you dismiss 1D 2D, 4D, 5D, 6D, 7D as mathematical constructs, but not 3D. They are all mathematical construct derived from our spatial reasoning. There would not be a term spatial reasoning if space was self-evident by observation.

If anyone is actually interested in understanding what I am talking about. Please read Kant's Critique of Pure Reason, an excellent work on epistemology. I am basically arguing his point, but I cannot do what took him 500 pages, and put it on the forum.

[viscount aero]

I disagree. If you define space as the relation ship between objects perceived by an observer, yes observation is proof.

If you mean that space exists in and of itself, observation does not prove that.

Yes it does. Just go anywhere you see space and feel the dimensionality of it and that proves it exists. It is science.

Absent of matter we do not have space.

I agree. Matter defines space and space defines matter in our 3D experience.

The perception of matter is space.

Yes that is also what proves it to exist.

Space is only a product of matter and perception.

In a way yes, I agree. And matter is a product of space and perception, too.

Given no matter, different matter, or another form of perception would significantly alter space. Although we think of space as absolute, it is entirely relative.

Perception yes depends on an individual reference frame.

For example I walk, my body is always moving in a rhythm, both relating to itself and the ground around it. Space is all relationships and correlations.

Ok yes we can agree on that

How can you dismiss 1D 2D, 4D, 5D, 6D, 7D as mathematical constructs, but not 3D.

Because there is no such thing as "6D" space. Spatial dimension exists only 3D. Spatial dimensions are not an abstract number line. Carl Sagan was wrong. There is no "4D hypercube".

Unless you incur the idea of teseracts (which may or may not exist), folding of space. wormholes. metaphysical "places" (which I believe do exist in layers of consciousness but not as "spatial places"), then any lower dimensions will not produce spatial relationships, and any higher dimensions of "space" are unnecessary, untenable, entirely abstract, and fantasy.

They are all mathematical construct derived from our spatial reasoning.

3D space is a real phenomenon with our without mathematical equations created by mankind.

There would not be a term spatial reasoning if space was self-evident by observation.

Space is self-evident by the nature of you sitting there and reading your PC screen and typing.

If anyone is actually interested in understanding what I am talking about. Please read Kant's Critique of Pure Reason, an excellent work on epistemology. I am basically arguing his point, but I cannot do what took him 500 pages, and put it on the forum.

Not interested in reading 500 pages of what is refutable right here

[jtb]

I guess what I'm saying is that space is undetectable matter existing between, or within, detectable matter. I'm sitting in a room surrounded by undetectable matter: air. With technology, we detect atoms of oxygen and nitrogen surrounded by undetectable matter. With further technology we detect electrons, protons, and neutrons within the atoms surrounded by undetectable matter. As our technology advances we detect matter where previously "empty space" existed. Just because we don't have the technology to detect something, doesn't mean it isn't there.