Furshiz

Orbital mechanics are weird. But yes, if you're in orbit and you apply your thrusters to try to speed up, you end up in a higher orbit, going more slowly than before. If you decelerate, you drop into a lower orbit and accelerate.

 

On the other hand, if you accelerate and go into a higher orbit, but continue applying thrusters, you will just move into higher and higher orbits until you just launch yourself out into space. That's what's happening with the elevator that rises above a geosynchronous orbit.

If you are geosynchronous orbit, your altitude makes no difference!

matter cannot always be divided into smaller protions. do the words "elementary particles" mean anything to you?

Matter is the term for elimentary particles - no one knows what matter is or what size it is.

The Elimentary Particle used to be Sand

Then it became the Atom

Then it became the Neutron, Electron, Proton

Then it became the Quark

Who knows what it will become tomorrow?

Who knows what it will become in a thousand years?

There can be no end to space.

Anyone who quotes Time as the fourth dimension clearly hasn't thought it through.

Agnostic means to not know.

No-one will or can ever know how far space goes or who is in charge, because it is all impossible.

Infinity is impossible.

In an empirical sense, you cannot really go beyond claiming that space extends to the furthest observation of matter/energy. To claim that space continues beyond that, you need to extend your perception from the empirical to what can be imagined as potential based on your empirical knowledge, correct? Space can then be described as deviation from a single point of simultaneous space/time. The moment a point is differentiated into multiple points, space-time becomes an issue. Space/time is basically variability in the paths energy can take to return to its source. All matter-energy was presumably together in a single point prior to the big bang or whatever causes it to begin expanding and separating. If the big bang had produced only EM radiation, the entire contents of the universe would be expanding in a single spherical plane (presumably) with all energy concentrated in the skin of the bubble. However, because matter travels at different speeds according to its momentum and gravitational relations with other matter, the objects in the universe are moving in different directions at different speeds. Space can be attributed to this fact, I believe, but others may disagree with my generalization.

 

If space is conceived in this way, as a product of relationships between matter as a result of energy/gravity dynamics, then I think you could also say that matter and energy stretch space as they move. So, for example, as two galaxies move away from each other, it is as though they were stretching the space between them. Likewise, if an observer in either galaxy looks off in a direction away from the other galaxy and there is nothing to see, then could it also be said that space ends in that direction? Saying this is problematic insofar as one can know without seeing that light emitted in the direction of nothing continues to radiate indefinitely in that direction at the speed of light (unless lack of gravity causes it to curve around through space-time curvature). Still, how can space be said to extend beyond the forward-most photon of light emissions from a given source?

 

Therefore, I would say that space ends at whatever point a photon, particle, or object has reached. Maybe it would make sense to use the term, "spatial potential" for space that is perceived as extending beyond a given entity's path as an assumption of physical potentiality. Just as potential energy is distinguished from kinetic energy in the sense it is energy that is not yet actual/expressed; the same could be said of spacetime beyond the front of a moving object. So, for example, we know that the Earth will return to its current position in a year's time, but couldn't it be said that the point in spacetime where the Earth will be in a year is still potential rather than actual?

You're are basing your opinion on scientific fact.

Scientific fact does not exist.

The world was once flat according to scientific fact.

LMFAO at that reply 'maybe he gets it now'

Look at the calender on your wall - is that when life on earth will end?

 

 

David Wilcock has some good youtube presentations on space and time ECT he believes their were people on mars some time ago who were like a big influence on life on earth, not saying he is right in any way just that he has his shit together so to speak. He says something is going to happen in 2012 that will change life on earth forever, guy is worth watching.

LMFAO at that reply 'maybe he gets it now'

Look at the calender on your wall - is that when life on earth will end?

 

 

David Wilcock has some good youtube presentations on space and time ECT he believes their were people on mars some time ago who were like a big influence on life on earth, not saying he is right in any way just that he has his shit together so to speak. He says something is going to happen in 2012 that will change life on earth forever, guy is worth watching.

So a lot of people seem to think space never ends. But what about "why" it never ends? They only way I can think for space to be infinite, is if distance itself is an illusion, which would explain why entanglement exists.

Have you ever considered Agnosticism.

Could it be possible?

If you believe in mother nature then yes, otherwise no!