Jump to content

How does space get inside of an inflating balloon?


Recommended Posts

As a side note, this is one thing that gets you in trouble. Insisting that you have implied nothing and just asked a question is either deceitful or incredibly clueless. How you phrase a question has implications, but you've done more than just ask a question in this thread.

 

Space does not get displaced because it is not a substance. You say you know this, so why do you keep asking the question?

 

A physical barrier would not isolate geometry, which is a mathematical construct. Why would you think it would?

Ok, and you will probably shout at me for this, I have a second question,

 

 

How can there be a length contraction of space when like you have just explained space is made of nothing, not a substance and can't be displaced?

 

 

I am not isolating geometry , I was using geometry to measure . I was considering no matter how thick the walls , we can't isolate space from space.

Edited by JohnLesser
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 160
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

Ah but there is always other readers involved 😉  edit: besides I'm keeping it as simple and rudimentary as possible. Its far more complex than I've described thus far

They didn't just find "something" and decide to name it the Higgs Boson.   The Higgs Boson was predicted to exist as part of the theory outlining the Higgs mechanism. It was predicted to have a set

Spoken by someone with no concept of what science states about a given subject.   Sorry but your opinion means little compared to the available body of evidence

...

How can there be a length contraction of space when like you have just explained space is made of nothing, not a substance and can't be displaced?

...

It wouldn't make sense for length contraction to work the way you expect, because it's relative.

 

Say A considers B moving at speed X.

And C considers B moving at speed Y (different to X).

 

First up: B does not consider their own view of space as contracted (e.g. if their own spaceship was 50 m long before launch, they still think it's 50 m long).

Secondly: as X and Y are different, A and C will have different views of the contraction of B.

Edited by pzkpfw
Link to post
Share on other sites

I can not quote I have switched to my phone , you are correct in a way. What you just said made no sense to me because you are not explaining what contracts. The length of what contracts ?

B

 

Maybe take a step back, and explain what YOU think length contraction is.

Edited by pzkpfw
Link to post
Share on other sites

sorry I missed your edit , you say the length of the rocket contracts, how strange, so how does this affect the molecular structure and stress levels of the rocket ?

I think length contraction is a visual thing involving the angle of light , not a physical contraction .

Link to post
Share on other sites

That's the thing, it's relative.

 

From the point of view of A and C, B contracts. It's not just some visual illusion.

 

But according to B, they're their normal length - no change to their stress etc. (According to B it's A and C that contract).

 

The Universe is weird.

 

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Length_contraction

 

http://www.rafimoor.com/english/SRE.htm#Length%20Contraction

Edited by pzkpfw
Link to post
Share on other sites

The 'space' does not get inside the inflated balloon.

Space is a mathematical construct, a co-ordinate grid if you will. and we assign each point on the balloon's surface ( and the box' also ) a co-ordinate. Inflating the balloon means the co-ordinates assigned to the balloon's surface ( the event ) change.

 

Relativity, on the other hand, implies that the distance between co-ordinates ( including the time co-ordinate ) is variable, such that the co-ordinate grid can even curve or warp.

Link to post
Share on other sites

How can there be a length contraction of space when like you have just explained space is made of nothing, not a substance and can't be displaced?

 

 

I am not isolating geometry , I was using geometry to measure . I was considering no matter how thick the walls , we can't isolate space from space.

 

 

It is the geometry or the measurements that remain the same when you inflate a balloon.

 

It is the geometry or the measurements that change in length contraction.

 

Length/geometry is not a substance but it can change, anyway. Why do you think it needs to be a substance?

The length of what contracts ?

 

 

Measurements.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Ok, and you will probably shout at me for this, I have a second question,

 

 

How can there be a length contraction of space when like you have just explained space is made of nothing, not a substance and can't be displaced?

 

 

I am not isolating geometry , I was using geometry to measure . I was considering no matter how thick the walls , we can't isolate space from space.

The geometry changes. Length contraction is not a mechanical effect - the object does not sense it in its own frame.

 

You can't isolate space from space with a physical object. Does it bother you that I can't punch what you're dreaming about? Because that's the same problem. A physical interaction with a mental construct.

sorry I missed your edit , you say the length of the rocket contracts, how strange, so how does this affect the molecular structure and stress levels of the rocket ? I think length contraction is a visual thing involving the angle of light , not a physical contraction .

It involves the speed of light, and is not mechanical. There is zero effect on the stresses and molecular structure.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Does it bother you that I can't punch what you're dreaming about?

It does not bother me in the slightest that you can not punch space because the space will pass right through your fist like a ghost passing through a wall or a wall passing through a ghost.

 

Space is passive to matter and matter is passive to space.

 

Thank you for answering the length contraction and it was what I feared but I will not discuss it.

The 'space' does not get inside the inflated balloon.

Space is a mathematical construct, a co-ordinate grid if you will. and we assign each point on the balloon's surface ( and the box' also ) a co-ordinate. Inflating the balloon means the co-ordinates assigned to the balloon's surface ( the event ) change.

 

Relativity, on the other hand, implies that the distance between co-ordinates ( including the time co-ordinate ) is variable, such that the co-ordinate grid can even curve or warp.

Space is not a mathematical construct, Minkowski space-time is a coordinate system and mathematical construct. Space is just space, a volume ''emptiness''.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Space is not a mathematical construct, Minkowski space-time is a coordinate system and mathematical construct. Space is just space, a volume ''emptiness''.

 

 

So why would "emptiness" be blocked by the wall of a balloon.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thank you for answering the length contraction and it was what I feared but I will not discuss it.

 

This is off-topic but you sound like a time traveler gathering info like Bruce Willis in 12 Monkeys.

 

May I please ask what is it that triggered this post about the balloon/box space contraction?

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

So why would "emptiness" be blocked by the wall of a balloon.

If there was any sort of spacial ''fabric'' or any sort of Aether, the balloon would not inflate. The space could not ''penetrate'' the balloons surface and end up inside the balloon. I ''see'' this as evidence that space is a whole and ''coupled'' no matter where the space is or what the divider is.

 

This is off-topic but you sound like a time traveler gathering info like Bruce Willis in 12 Monkeys.

 

May I please ask what is it that triggered this post about the balloon/box space contraction?

I can't discuss it too much, I have been told not too. The balloon question is just something that shows space has no physicality, things without physicality can not contract or expand or deform.

I am about 7 years ahead in thinking about this, so it may sound like I am from the future because I am relative seven years ahead in thought.

I was told to ask questions, so I asked a question which has some difficult in the answer.

There is no trigger, it is just a thought, I have the ability to pluck thoughts out of fresh air about almost anything.

Link to post
Share on other sites

If there was any sort of spacial ''fabric'' or any sort of Aether, the balloon would not inflate. The space could not ''penetrate'' the balloons surface and end up inside the balloon.

 

 

I guess if space were a "substance" or aether existed, then that might be true. Depending on the nature of the substance. For example, meutrinos can pass through the balloon as if it weren't there - in fact they could pass through several light years of solid lead without noticing.

 

 

 

The balloon question is just something that shows space has no physicality, things without physicality can not contract or expand or deform.

 

While it is true that space has no physicality (it is not a substance with properties) that does not imply that measurements cannot change. If anything, I would have thought it was the other way round: if space were a substance, then it might have a fixed shape/size/density and so could not contract.

 

The fact that "space" just means a set of coordinates for measuring relative positions between events (which is what it means in physics) then there is no reason why that coordinate system cannot change (and hence change the measurement of distances between things (or the measurements of the lengths of things).

Link to post
Share on other sites

Space has no border or skin to keep stuff inside. There is only space.

Yes indeed and there is no border that can isolate space from space.

 

 

Question - The universe is expanding, expanding into what ?

 

 

Space is expanding? not likely.

 

The observable point sources are moving away, the observable Space is ''expanding'' because the point sources allow us to observe further.

 

 

I guess if space were a "substance" or aether existed, then that might be true. Depending on the nature of the substance. For example, meutrinos can pass through the balloon as if it weren't there - in fact they could pass through several light years of solid lead without noticing.

 

 

While it is true that space has no physicality (it is not a substance with properties) that does not imply that measurements cannot change. If anything, I would have thought it was the other way round: if space were a substance, then it might have a fixed shape/size/density and so could not contract.

 

The fact that "space" just means a set of coordinates for measuring relative positions between events (which is what it means in physics) then there is no reason why that coordinate system cannot change (and hence change the measurement of distances between things (or the measurements of the lengths of things).

Changing coordinates to contract space when the space does not contract is observer effect.

 

Using numerology in deceit should be a crime.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Question - The universe is expanding, expanding into what ?

 

 

It is not expanding into anything. The simplest model is that the universe is infinite, in which case there is nothing outside of it. And then it may be easier to think of the expansion as a decrease in density.

 

(And note that "[metric] expansion of space" is a metaphor for the mathematics and can be misleading if taken too literally.)

Link to post
Share on other sites

I can't discuss it too much, I have been told not too. The balloon question is just something that shows space has no physicality, things without physicality can not contract or expand or deform.

I am about 7 years ahead in thinking about this, so it may sound like I am from the future because I am relative seven years ahead in thought.

I was told to ask questions, so I asked a question which has some difficult in the answer.

There is no trigger, it is just a thought, I have the ability to pluck thoughts out of fresh air about almost anything.

 

I cannot deny the fact that I am entertained by your comments and I would up-vote you if this would be sci-fi literature section but sadly it is not.

I am sure you have an ocean worth of knowledge above me but please try to separate rational thinking from fictional gumbo.

Edited by Silvestru
Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

It is not expanding into anything. The simplest model is that the universe is infinite, in which case there is nothing outside of it. And then it may be easier to think of the expansion as a decrease in density.

 

(And note that "[metric] expansion of space" is a metaphor for the mathematics and can be misleading if taken too literally.)

I understand the expansion, I know it is point sources that are moving away therefore the space between's length extends. It is rather explained poorly when people say space is expanding. So before the big bang , what ? there was infinite space?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes indeed and there is no border that can isolate space from space.

 

 

Question - The universe is expanding, expanding into what ?

 

 

Space is expanding? not likely.

 

The observable point sources are moving away, the observable Space is ''expanding'' because the point sources allow us to observe further.

Changing coordinates to contract space when the space does not contract is observer effect.

 

Using numerology in deceit should be a crime.

Sounds like you've already made your mind up..

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

I cannot deny the fact that I am entertained by your comments and I would up-vote you if this would be sci-fi literature section but sadly it is not.

I am sure you have an ocean worth of knowledge above me but please try to separate rational thinking from fictional gumbo.

You just did not understand me. I wasn't talking sci-fi lol.

 

I started 7 years ago roughly , so I am seven years ahead in my thinking in this.

Sounds like you've already made your mind up..

Well! after several years yes, the evidence points that way. MY mind can be changed like anyone else, but for that to happen people would have to prove my notions about your notions to be incorrect.

Link to post
Share on other sites

You just did not understand me. I wasn't talking sci-fi lol.

 

I started 7 years ago roughly , so I am seven years ahead in my thinking in this.

Well! after several years yes, the evidence points that way. MY mind can be changed like anyone else, but for that to happen people would have to prove my notions about your notions to be incorrect.

Asking a question as a thread starter when in fact you have your own idea to push is disingenuous, is it not?

Link to post
Share on other sites

So before the big bang , what ? there was infinite space?

 

 

The big bang model describes the expansion and cooling of the universe from an early hot, dense state. Current theories do not allow us to say what happened any earlier than that. It probably needs a theory of quantum gravity to say more.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Asking a question as a thread starter when in fact you have your own idea to push is disingenuous, is it not?

Not at all, we have just drifted into different discussion, however related discussion, it is still about space. My own ideas? No, you have all said space is nothing.

 

 

The big bang model describes the expansion and cooling of the universe from an early hot, dense state. Current theories do not allow us to say what happened any earlier than that. It probably needs a theory of quantum gravity to say more.

I am a bit confused, infinite space can not have a starting point?

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

×
×
  • 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.