Jump to content


Senior Members
  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by Jiggerj

  1. Mr. Jiggerj, you should be more respectful of the moderators and experts who take their time to try to answer your questions.

    This is not a question and answer site. It's a chat forum.


    Nobody here has ever suggested that empty space is "nothing". You even suppose scientists believe in an "Absolute Nothing".


    Spyman, No, space is very very very empty.


    swansont There is a tiny amount, once you get away from massive bodies, because there is the odd atom here and there.


    swansont As you move up through the atmosphere, the air becomes continually less dense, until you reach areas where there are only an atom or two per cubic centimeter... Nothing doesn't have to move out of the way, because there is nothing to move out of the way.




    Mr. Jiggerj, you should be more respectful of the moderators and experts who take their time to try to answer your questions.


    Then they need to change the name of this site from scienceforums to S F Q&A. net. As for being respectful, I don't care if he's the pope. He's coming across as an arrogant know-it-all with no talent for conversation.


    Where I work, someone mentioned to someone else about how scientists were going to smash an atom that might create a black hole. Later, that someone else (around 25 years old) asked me what an atom was.


    All I said was, those are the microscopic things that make up bigger things. I didn't say, "Hey, you really should go back to school and do a lot of reading." It would've been just plain rude.


    This is a science forum, The implication is that you are here to learn People get to challenge that,


    1. Wiki: Forum: is an online discussion site where people can hold conversations in the form of posted messages.


    "The implication is that you are here to learn" Please see 1.


    People get to challenge that, No, that's a competition, and I've had enough.


    You really need to read up on topics like:


    How not to be a know-it-all.

    The art of conversation.

    Recognizing the difference between competition and discussion.


    Really, you shouldn't be a staff member. Please retire.

  2. Let's call this material that's "not nothing" FOOF. All the gas has left in the vacuum of space and been replaced by it. What mass does the FOOF have?


    The problem with this "logic" is that nobody else is treating nothing as a substance. It's merely the absence of material. This is like saying you have a hole, you ask how much dirt is in the hole, and you exclude zero as a possible answer.


    Yes, yes, I am saying that even the tiniest parts of space cannot ever (never, never, never) be unoccupied. Else, that space would collapse. Even though we don't know what it is that fills that space, there is something there. That SOMETHING has to be energy, the very energy that somehow brought all the material into the Big Bang. If it is believed that Big Bang just happened without any previous accumulation of SOMETHING, then we are right back to when mainstream science once believed in Spontaneous Generation. <--- Proving that mainstream beliefs were once proven to be utterly wrong, and will undoubtedly be proven wrong again and again.



    The problem with this "logic" is that nobody else is treating nothing as a substance.


    I'm not doing that. I'm saying that a State of Absolute Nothing has never, and will never exist. So, our gallon container of nothing is actually a gallon container filled to the brim with something that we just can't detect at this time.


    Really? I suggested that you learn some physics in order to learn how some things are possible. But the simple truth remains that if you truly want these things explained to you


    Look, we're coming at this forum from two different directions. I just want to chat; to have others express their own thoughts. You give the impression that you are here to teach. To give lessons. To suggest other readings...


    Imagine waking up in the morning to find your wife made a pot of coffee, but drank it all. You say, "Aw, you didn't save a cup for me?" And she says, "You really should read up on human nature."


    Then, at the local store, you ask how much a 20 ounce coffee is. Instead of just telling you how much, the clerk hands you a ten page price list of everything in the store.


    Before you get back in your car you notice one of your neighbors. "Looks like rain," you say, just to be friendly. With a scowl, he counters with, "You should buy a newspaper and check the weather report."


    I don't want people doing this to me. Do you?

  3. But the simple truth remains that if you truly want these things explained to you and be to be less mysterious, you have to meet people halfway and learn some basic science.


    Young man, I am not in school. I don't need homework to chat. I am not here to follow links to the ends of the cyberworld. I am not here to be told that I need to do this or that.


    Someone starts a thread to chat about science, and if you can't chat by using your own words, if you have nothing to offer in terms of conversation other than "You need to do this, you need to do that" then why are you here?


    Let's try this: You are creating a documentary by which you will explain how the state of absolute nothing can exist, and how there are empty spaces in the universe. You are the narrator. Now if other physicists can explain things in simple terms for the masses, then why can't you post what you know in simple terms?


    Hey, if you can't - that's fine. Some people just don't have that ability. If I were to be rude, I would say that you need to read a book on the art of conversation, but I am not your teacher, and you are not mine.



    As you move up through the atmosphere, the air becomes continually less dense, until you reach areas where there are only an atom or two per cubic centimeter (and recall this part of the discussion referred to matter density). You seem to be claiming that something takes the place of the atmosphere. What properties does that substance have? We need to be able to run tests to confirm its existence.


    This is great piece of conversation! It's all I'm looking for. Thank you.


    Now, let's run that test. You are out in the deepest darkest regions of space, and you want to find out what that space is made of. With an empty 1-gallon container and special goggles that can see the few floating atoms (don't want those atoms in the container because you already know what they are), you exit the ship. That unknown part space fills the container and you put a lid on it.


    Once back on the ship you analyze the contents of the container. What's in it? First off, NOTHING cannot flow into a container. You cannot capture a gallon-worth of NOTHING. <--It just can't happen. lol

  4. So much for rockets and spacecraft.


    You are implying that rockets and spacecraft are flying through nothing. They are not. There's something out there; something more than just a few hydrogen atoms per cubic meter.


    Comet tails. If there's nothing in outerspace, what causes the loose (or warmed) debris to be thrust away from comets? If you say solar wind, then that means the supposedly empty space is filled (FLOODED) with photons. How about gamma rays? How about Dark Energy (we may not know exactly what it is, but it's definitely out there.


    You really do need to read a physics book. Several.


    Fine. Please point me to one proving there are places of Absolute Nothing in this realm?


    So much for rockets and spacecraft.


    You really do need to read a physics book. Several.


    Since I found what I was looking for, you'll probably say this guy's a nutjob. But:


    John Timmer

    "So, empty space isn't really empty as we might understand it, but it's a lot easier to have that stuff there than having space that was closer to our traditional conception of empty."






    Things will probably be less mysterious if you learn some physics, but it's your responsibility to do that. It's unfortunate of you find that truth to be nasty, but I'm not going to be held responsible for your fragile ego.


    What are you going on about? I'm here to chat. That's all. If I pick up bits of information in this forum, then I'm very happy. You're the one getting all uppity. I don't have much time left on this earth (certainly not enough time to master physics), but what I really don't have time for is immaturity. So, if you've had enough of this thread, simply stop with the tantrum and stop responding. Not hard to do. Just don't click on it anymore.


    Common sense doesn't trump reality. What is this something that moves out of the way yet does not transfer momentum in doing so? What properties does it have? How can we detect it?


    You walk - air moves out of the way. You swim - water moves out of the way. You drill through wood - wood moves out of the way. You jackhammer - pavement moves out of the way. You shovel dirt - dirt moves out of the way.


    You try to fly through NOTHING, and you can't. NOTHING can't move out of the way.

  6. That's the obvious answer - unfortunately its wrong. What if x was 0cm? Give you any ideas?


    OH! You're pretty smart in my book! I won't give it away. All I'll say is, thank god there's a square root button on my calculator, and thank god for Pythagoras.


  7. A problem with argument from incredulity is that nature doesn't care whether you understand it or not. And that other people have gotten past this and developed an understanding. Addressing "How is this even possible" requires that you expend some effort learning physics.


    Come on, it's just common sense. As for learning physics, it's just like saying learn the math. But, (I forget his name) some genius used the math to come up the fact that the universe is a hologram spewing out from a black hole. <--- What does this prove? It proves that if someone wanted to use the math to prove the universe is made out of peanutbutter, then they'll find that equation. And they'll find the equation to prove that NOTHING is SOMETHING.




    What moves out of the way for the baseball to occupy point b?


    Another one of those common sense things: In the realm of SOMETHING, every moving object must go through a process of Displacement and Replacement. If a baseball moves through space it is displacing SOMETHING. It simply cannot move through nothing. And as it moves, SOMETHING must replace (fill in) the space the ball previously occupied. Without the Displacement and Replacement of SOMETHING, everything would be locked into place.


    Addressing "How is this even possible" requires that you expend some effort learning physics.


    I'm truly enjoying this chat, so don't get nasty.

  8. An ant lives on the surface of a cube with edges of length 7cm. Please tell the steps you have followed to arrive at the solution.


    You say the ant lives on the surface of the cube (not just on the edge), so the cube is solid. So, with each side being 7cm's, the answer has to be that the ant moves straight up one side and then straight across the top. That's 14 cm's. Unless I'm an idiot (which hasn't been proven in a court of law yet!).

  9. No, space is very very very empty.


    From wiki:

    "In the space between galaxies, matter density can be as low as a few atoms of hydrogen per cubic meter."


    Is this saying that (other than those few atoms of hydrogen) there is NOTHING else in those cubic meters? How is this even possible?


    A baseball is moving through outerspace. (See image attached.) First it moves from Point A. to Point B. So, what completely filled in the space that the ball previously occupied at Point A? We can't say that NOTHING filled in that space, because NOTHING can't do that. NOTHING can't move, and it can't flow like a liquid or a gas. NOTHING has no height, width, or length. NOTHING is not hard, soft, or maleable. We can't say that there was once a solid object occupying a space, but when that object was removed it was replaced by NOTHING. It's just not possible.


  10. I remember being told of some confusion that once arose between a lecturer and a student. The lecturer's first language was not English. The lecturer posed some question. The student answered "nothing". The lecturer was very puzzled by this answer and then stated that the answer is not nothing, the answer is zero.


    I think it is a true story, but I did hear it second hand.


    Anyway, my coffee is ready :D


    LOL I also remember a story of a man that shut everything off in his house for a month while he went on vacation. When he returned he received a bill from the electric company for $0.00. The man decided to ignore all the notices to pay $0.00 until he received a threatening shut off notice. His only recourse was to send the company a check for $0.00, which, according to the story, broke the computer.

  11. It does, actually.

    But it is also attracted by the rest of the planet, and universe... so it's own gravitational pull is rather negligible.


    If oil's gravitational pull is 'rather negligible' then how can the early gasses of the universe have more gravitational pull - enough to form whole stars???


    Gas is matter and attracts itself.


    Oops, I meant solid matter. But, right now isn't the universe filled with hydrogen? If this gas attracted itself, then what's going on here? Why aren't we seeing the formation of new solid matter just outside of our galaxy?

  12. they can't continue gathering up small stuff until they're big enough to gather big stuff.


    TL;DR They missed their chance, if they even had one in the first place, because they started so far from all the action.


    So, why isn't it the same scenario with the beginning gasses? When matter was forming it had to start out small and most definitely away from all the action.


    I imagine that, first, a tiny spot of matter formed. Its gravity could only reach out so far and take in a very small area of surrounding gasses. How else could it be? What would compel the out-of-reach gasses to be drawn into the tiny spot of matter?


  13. Engine oil does not clump from gravity. The early universe was much denser than now, and gravity clumped gasses early. Those clumps were the seeds to galaxy clusters, which stopped expanding. Expansion has only been between proto-superclusters. So the answer to your question is gravity.


    LOL I was hoping someone would bring up gravity. As long as everyone knows my background in science is zilch and a lot of curiosity, I can add this idea:


    What about the kuiper Belt? I read that these rocks-of-all-sizes have been travelling in the same circle for 4.5 billion years. How come gravity hasn't snagged all of them and made one whole planet in over four billion years?

  14. You and I both are on the same team.


    Maybe perchance we can be friends. Go to my profile and think it over.




    Hey! I got this response in my email and the word 'team' was spelled tema. What a relief! I've posted things where I KNEW didn't misspell a word, but it came up wrong anyway. Just glad it's not me!

  15. Keep in mind that the early universe had many more very massive stars that went supernova after only millions of years. Big stars blow up early.



    And I'm suggesting that the 'BIG' early stars were formed from the very thinnest of gasses that were spreading out all through the cosmos.


    How about this: Have you ever seen old engine oil spreading out over water in your driveway? Imagine that oil is the hydrogen spreading out over the infant universe. How much of that oil would it take to equal just our sun? How long would it take to gather that oil, especially since it is streaming away from where it was dropped? Does a million years sound like enough time to you? It really doesn't to me.

  16. Also, do you have any idea how long a billion years is?

    Stars form in parallel too.

    The time it takes for one star to form is enough for a galaxy worth of stars to form.


    How much of the gasses (helium, hydrogen, lithium) would it take to make one star? Maybe somebody knows the answer, but it's mind boggling to me. In my mind I'm seeing a whole universe of gasses to make that star, and with hydrogen and helium being the lightest of the gasses, I'd go so far as making that TWO universes worth of gasses.


    Let's just say it took a cosmic amount of space filled with gasses to make one star. Now, my thinking is that SOME of the gasses came together, and this tiny mass acquired a little bit of gravity to draw more hydrogen into it. But that gravity could only have drawn in the gasses within its vicinity - certainly not enough to even make a mass the size of a golf ball.


    And with the ever expanding universe, those gasses that were just out of gravity's reach had to have been moving further and further away from the smaller-than-a-golf ball mass.


    So (admittedly in just my imagination), it feels like the time it took to go from a gas-filled space to a huge star should have taken an eternity.


    If we could take our sun apart and spread its gasses out, how much space would it occupy? I can't even fathom it.


    What's a factor of 1000 in such a giant scheme of things? And for that matter, what is the point you're trying to make?


    Did you spot a bottleneck in the process, for which 14 billion years is not enough? If so, please tell us.


    If this is "just a feeling", then we might as well close the thread.


    A feeling. A question. A friendly chat. If you don't like it, then I won't hold it against you if just don't respond.

  17. Does anyone else get a sense that 14 billion years isn't enough time for the universe to have formed into what it is today?


    From the Big Bang we got a whole lot of gas: (From Wiki) The first element produced was hydrogen, along with traces of helium and lithium. Eventually, clouds of hydrogen would coalesce through gravity to form stars, and the heavier elements would be synthesized either within stars or during supernovae.



    With so many galaxies in the cosmos it seems like it would have taken TRillions and Trillions of years for enough gas to coalesce into the matter we see today. Added to this is the fact that the ever expanding universe would have been pulling hydrogen, helium, and lithium atoms away from each other, causing the formation of stars even that much more difficult and time consuming.


    The accepted time of 14 billion years just seems way WAY off to me.

  18. Not looking for sympathy, so I ask that you please direct your responses to the question of why the mind still yearns to learn.


    Seven years ago I was told by my doctor that I was ready to have a massive stroke at any moment. Obviously, this didn't happen. But, now my veins are so clogged that I can't walk a hundred feet without having to stop to rest. I get severe chest pains on a weekly basis. And I'm so tired all the time. Long story short - my time is pretty much up.


    And yet, my mind STILL wants to learn about all the wonders of the universe. Why? What is it about the brain that makes it not want to just give up? After living for seven years under a cloud of immenent death, I've certainly had plenty of time to make my peace with the certainty of death. If I were subconsciously in denial and desperate for a cure, I would think that my mind would hunger for medical knowledge, and that's just not the case.


    My mind yearns to see a real extraterrestrial just once before I die. I want to go fishing on one of the ice moons of Jupiter; row a boat on a methane lake on Saturn's moon, Triton; see a black hole eat up a giant dead planet. I want to learn the maths of science (Gawd, I wish I had learned that!).


    I've heard that when elephants know they are going to die, they are compelled to go off to some burial ground. Is it instinct? Are they mentally aware and simply accept death?


    Why aren't we like the elephants? Why does the human mind still grasp for the things of the living when it knows that death is calling?


    P.S. To prove that I am ready and willing to die, I fully believe that the next fifty years are going to be an absolute nightmare, and I don't want any part of it. Good luck to all the young, you're going to need it!

  19. We need, I think, a Steven Fry like carracter who is capable of understanding the science but is magically able to use our language to create understanding. A rather large task I know but I think our society would benefit if science had a larger part to play.


    Agree. I've been thinking about this since I started coming here. I'll ask a question with the expectation of getting down-to-earth answers, but instead I am overwhelmed by the sheer brilliance of some of the members here.


    It has been said that people that go blind might obtain a better level of hearing to compensate. Those that go deaf might have an increased sense of smell. I find that this also works in reverse in some aspects of life. For instance, the more one mind absorbs vast amounts of knowledge, the more that mind loses the ability to communicate this knowledge to the masses. It's not a good or a bad thing; it just happens.


    I am thankful for the few great minds that have not lost this ability. I can understand almost everything that Michio Kaku has to say, along with people like Brian Greene, Sagan, Clark, Sautoy, Tyson... Without people like these my love for scientific knowledge would quickly vanish.

  20. I learnt something new due to this thread :D


    Yeah, me too! It would take me fifty years of intense study to be able to conduct a decent conversation with some of the incredible brains here. Well, I don't have fifty years, so I'll settle for picking up little tidbits of knowledge from this site.


    It depends on the misinformation. Am I giving misinformation when I say that kinetic energy is 1/2mv^2?


    Do I need to open a new thread to ask why the ^ in that equation? It's: Kinetic Energy equals half the mass, times velocity squared (which is the 2).


    I see a lot of equations like P1 with the 1 being small (subscript?). What's that about?

  21. We have all made errors and have misconceptions. It is just part of being human.


    I want to agree, but there are certain conditions where one shouldn't make mistakes. Imagine a lawyer not knowing a tiny piece of law that could get his client off; a doctor that thinks a stethoscope is a tongue depressor...


    If a trained tour guide doesn't know the parts of an emu's anatomy, then what misinformation is giving to children about the other animals? He shouldn't be a tour guide.


    Isobars, pressure (atm), links to complicated equations... Look, if you people keep throwing this scientific mumbo-jumbo at me then I'm going back to religion! From now I want all my answers summed up in three little words: God did it! :P

  23. I have never really understood how space is supposed to never end. I really don't see how that's possible. Everything ends somewhere. Where one thing ends the next begins.


    Can people please provide thoughts on this?


    I'm reading this question as: Where does the realm of Something meet the realm of Nothing?


    In a spaceship, we've flown to a place where we can go no further. What is there to prevent us from going ever forward? A wall? The inner surface of a shell? Even so, walls and shells can be cut through.


    The only thing that could truly stop us is a big ol' chunk of Nothing. But, what is nothing? What does it look like? Is it impenetrable? No, nothing can't be impenetrable because Nothing can't be hard or solid; hard and solid define Something.


    A state of absolute nothing cannot exist. Therefore, the realm of Something cannot end.


  24. yep, but pressure changes the melting and boiling points of substances.


    I can make ice at 50 centigrade. just requires suitible application of pressure.


    I understand that you are saying it's different with water, but please allow me this example:


    I'm boiling water in an open pressure cooker on the stove. I place the lid on the pressure cooker and the water boils more rapidly. Are you saying that if I could melt iron in this way, when I put the lid on (creating more pressure) the iron wouldn't boil more rapidly, but would instead return to a solid state?

  25. No, it's not a matter of right and wrong but if you want to understand why this simply is what it is, it has to make sense to be able to understand it, for me anyway. ;)



    I'm not saying that it doesn't make sense, per se. I'm just saying there are certain 'Why' questions that don't need to be made sense of. Finding the sense of it won't change anything. Like: Why is there so much water on the earth? We know HOW the water got here, but do we really need to expend a ton of energy to find out if there's some reason to why it's here? It is what it is. If we find out, will it change anything?


    If we found out why there's a food chain, what would we do with this knowledge? Would we change it (and really scew things up!)?


    Why did they name Sunday after the sun? Why aren't the other days named Cloudday, Rainday, Snowday? Who cares?! It is what it is. lol




    Autotroph - new word for me. Thanks!

  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.