Jump to content

space


Guest wolram

Recommended Posts

Guest wolram

as i am new to this forum hi everyone, i have a question.

it seems that SPACE has properties, it can be distorted by gravity,and recently discovered frame dragging,it also has the properties of capacitance, inductance and impedance,

if this is correct then discribing space as the" vacuum" cannot be correct so what is it????

cheers.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally posted by wolram

it also has the properties of capacitance, inductance and impedance...

 

If space has capacitance, does it have leading time, and when space has inductance, does it have lagging time?

 

:P

 

Sorry, bad electrical engineering joke! :lame:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally posted by Clown

Spacetime is just the gravitational field. A vacuum in that case, would be devoid of energy but is not the nothingness people usually think space is.

 

It's not devoid of energy ('zero point energy')

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally posted by Clown

Yes, QM forbids any such concept. But the point is that even if it were possible (as that is the classic definition) it wouldn't make the vacuum any less of a thing.

 

Whut?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally posted by MrL_JaKiri

 

If we're talking modern physics, then 'zero point energy'.

 

 

I'm only talking about definitions here. Classically, a vacuum is just a region devoid of matter/energy. The gravitational field doesn't change that, and it's just QM that prevents this perfect vacuum from being attainable.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 6 months later...

Albert Einstein clarified the position of Relativity in regards to nature of the vacuo for the third time in this transcript of a 1920 paper delivered to the University of Leydon.

http://www.tu-harburg.de/rzt/rzt/it/Ether.html

 

An excellent, simple explaination of space-time, as understood at this time within established physics can be found here:

http://www.theory.caltech.edu/people/patricia/st101.html

 

All youthful imagination aside, it would be utterly incorrect in physics theorum to describe 'space' as a vacuum, devoid of matter and dynamic in any context other than relative to humans considering EVA.

Although a weak-force, according to physics space-time itself is most certainly a dynamic and yes, its physical composition would be the "gas of diffuse photons" which comprise the CBR.

 

According to astrophysicists published in England's New Scientist journal, the correct definition of space is a plasma. This is also my position on the matter.

According to every physicist from Newton to Einstein inclusive and their contemporaries, including Max Planck whether considered the vacuo nevertheless time-space is an ether.

Only among students, journalists and hobbyists is space considered a vacuum. What I find curious is the henceforth properties then attributed to it without the individual process of arriving at logical conclusion.

 

Come on...you know who you are.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I was under the impression that the concept of space being a 'vacuum' derived from the idea that the matter it contains is so massively dwarfed by the volume of the universe, that the universe effectively adopts a density that is infinitely close to zero.

 

The fact that we can see stars is a good indication that, as a whole, it's not a vacuum in the truest sense.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

and in addition to Sayos argument, the fact that we can see stars is also a clear indication that "Space" is largley void of particulate matter, a single spec of dust from every 10 kms would render even our nearest neighboring star 4.7 light years away, invisible :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I was under the impression that the concept of space being a 'vacuum' derived from the idea that the matter it contains is so massively dwarfed by the volume of the universe, that the universe effectively adopts a density that is infinitely close to zero.

 

The fact that we can see stars is a good indication that, as a whole, it's not a vacuum in the truest sense.

 

Since space-time is a body sir, were the universe 100 billion light-years across its relative density would be incomprehensibly positive.

However I fully appreciate your position that water-ice is cold to the touch and a day of 30 degrees celcius is rather warm indeed.

 

However it is a standing which does not account for herefore unattributed dynamics of space-time in a physical sense.

 

I refer you to the original topic posting:

as i am new to this forum hi everyone, i have a question.

it seems that SPACE has properties, it can be distorted by gravity,and recently discovered frame dragging,it also has the properties of capacitance, inductance and impedance,

if this is correct then discribing space as the" vacuum" cannot be correct so what is it????

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • 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.