Xittenn Posted January 24, 2012 Share Posted January 24, 2012 Yes, but you were saying that space is a physical thing and that its removal would cause the chamber to collapse. I was merely pointing out that this is not the case I'm having a hard time with the argument that space is not a physical thing, and that it itself does not occupy a volume. I can't think of an argument ever presented, or a proof, or an analysis on this subject, even though it comes up pretty frequently. Given the conditions implied by the thread I am assuming here that space is defined as what is left over after the matter which makes up our observable objects is removed. But then space is an observable object that remains after the prior is complete. Can anyone define a reason why this object isn't made up of a type of matter that allows it to exist within the volume, or that defines the volume condition itself? I am of the opinion that it is in fact made of something and that if it was removed there would be no volume, as the volume would necessitate to collapse under this condition. To me this is logically important in the development of physical existence that is built upon these fundamental objects. Just to be clear I am not specializing this to any ether formerly mentioned. And also I think it is safe to say that a vacuum exists when the matter that makes up observable objects is removed, and the condition of a vacuum exists as a consequence of what remains underneath the hood. IMHO! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JustinW Posted January 24, 2012 Share Posted January 24, 2012 The chamber is crushed by the weight of pressure outside it, not from the "removal of space" within How can you remove space? Wait a second. . . Did someone say that a vacuum causing a chamber to collapse is because of the outside pressure? I would say the chamber collapses due to the negative pressure of vacuum inside the chamber being stronger than the structure of the chamber is able to withstand. A vacuum inside a chamber has no influence on the pressure outside of the chamber. You cannot remove space either. Vacuum is created by the removal of matter from space, not the removal of space. The only reason I say that space is an entity is because of the fact that if you remove all matter from space you would still have the force of vacuum, which energy can be measured and observed. If someone thinks I have misspoken on this matter please correct me, for I am just a mere layman and correction is needed in most cases. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rigney Posted January 24, 2012 Author Share Posted January 24, 2012 (edited) Wait a second. . . Did someone say that a vacuum causing a chamber to collapse is because of the outside pressure? I would say the chamber collapses due to the negative pressure of vacuum inside the chamber being stronger than the structure of the chamber is able to withstand. A vacuum inside a chamber has no influence on the pressure outside of the chamber. You cannot remove space either. Vacuum is created by the removal of matter from space, not the removal of space. The only reason I say that space is an entity is because of the fact that if you remove all matter from space you would still have the force of vacuum, which energy can be measured and observed. If someone thinks I have misspoken on this matter please correct me, for I am just a mere layman and correction is needed in most cases. Is there not space inside a chamber during evacuation, and until implosion? Edited January 24, 2012 by rigney Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
doG Posted January 24, 2012 Share Posted January 24, 2012 Is there not space inside a chamber during evacuation and just prior to implosion? Empty space is already an absolute vacuum, there's nothing there to evacuate. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
D H Posted January 24, 2012 Share Posted January 24, 2012 For good, bad or whatever, space is a physical entity, and regardless of where in the universe such an evacuation takes place, at some point, the container will collapse. Baldly asserting something to be true does not make it true. Bald assertions are of course a logical fallacy; perhaps you ought to read the rules of the forum. The fact is science doesn't quite know what space is. Mathematics doesn't tell us. Space is an undefined term, just as are point, line, and plane. Newtonian physics doesn't tell us. Newtonian mechanics assumes Euclidean geometry (where space is an undefined term). General relativity doesn't tell us what it is, either. What space is gets even more murky when you take in the expansion of space, or when you look at space very, very closely. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JustinW Posted January 24, 2012 Share Posted January 24, 2012 Is there not space inside a chamber during evacuation and just prior to implosion? Anything that is not occupied by matter is space. So yes there is space inside the chamber, but it is the removal of matter that creates the vacuum. Not the removal of space. The way I'm saying that space is an entity is not the same as saying that it is a physical property to be removed from somewhere. You cannot remove space unless you occupy it with something. That would creat a possitive pressure which is the opposite of a vacuum. That would cause the chamber to explode instead of implode. Empty space is already an absolute vacuum, there's nothing there to evacuate. Show me empty space and I'll show you a perfect vacuum. Empty space would create an absolute vacuum but there is no such thing as empty space. There are areas so vast to be considered mostly empty, but considering the bigger picture of the universe can never be considered totally empty. As it stands now deep space is the closest thing we can come to an absolute vacuum. But still is not a perfect vacuum. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
swansont Posted January 24, 2012 Share Posted January 24, 2012 For good, bad or whatever, space is a physical entity, and regardless of where in the universe such an evacuation takes place, at some point, the container will collapse. You're going to have to back that up with some actual physics. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rigney Posted January 24, 2012 Author Share Posted January 24, 2012 (edited) Baldly asserting something to be true does not make it true. Bald assertions are of course a logical fallacy; perhaps you ought to read the rules of the forum. The fact is science doesn't quite know what space is. Mathematics doesn't tell us. Space is an undefined term, just as are point, line, and plane. Newtonian physics doesn't tell us. Newtonian mechanics assumes Euclidean geometry (where space is an undefined term). General relativity doesn't tell us what it is, either. What space is gets even more murky when you take in the expansion of space, or when you look at space very, very closely. No assertions, bald or otherwise were intended; just simple physics. If you blow a paper bag up whether at sea level or fifty miles into the blue, it will expand to some measure? Now, "inhale" from the bag and it will collapse back to its original state. Simple mechanics. A cylinder is no different. You may perhaps have to expend a bit more energy to vacuum it out to (implode)it as a bubble might do, but the cylinder will eventually cave in. Universal ether being what it is, will instantly move in to replace any lost space. You're going to have to back that up with some actual physics. Can you refute the statement? If so, please explain; since at eighty years I'm a sucker for enlightment. Edited January 24, 2012 by rigney Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
swansont Posted January 24, 2012 Share Posted January 24, 2012 No assertions, bald or otherwise were intended; just simple physics. If you blow a paper bag up whether at sea level or fifty miles into the blue, it will expand to some measure? Now, "inhale" from the bag and it will collapse back to its original state. Simple mechanics. A cylinder is no different. You may perhaps have to expend a bit more energy to vacuum it out to (implode)it as a bubble might do, but the cylinder will eventually cave in. Universal ether being what it is, will instantly move in to replace any lost space. What does this have to do with space and the assertion that "space is a physical entity"? When you blow up a bag you fill it with air, not space. It collapses because air is at a higher pressure outside. Simple physics, as you say. "space is a physical entity" is a very different claim. Can you refute the statement? If so, please explain; since at eighty years I'm a sucker for enlightment. That's not how we play the game. Assertions are not held true until proven false. They are assumed false until shown to be true. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rigney Posted January 24, 2012 Author Share Posted January 24, 2012 What does this have to do with space and the assertion that "space is a physical entity"? When you blow up a bag you fill it with air, not space. It collapses because air is at a higher pressure outside. Simple physics, as you say. "space is a physical entity" is a very different claim. That's not how we play the game. Assertions are not held true until proven false. They are assumed false until shown to be true. I wasn't trying to equate it as a game, just common sense. Suppose at fifty miles into the stratosphere, you could actually stick a fully extended paper bag from a window of your space craft. Would it continue to expand, be squashed or remain stolid? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Klaynos Posted January 24, 2012 Share Posted January 24, 2012 ! Moderator Note Moved to speculations.Rigney, please review our rules. Also note that repeating yourself doesn't make it true.Please do not reply to this action or modnote. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
D H Posted January 24, 2012 Share Posted January 24, 2012 I wasn't trying to equate it as a game, just common sense. Suppose at fifty miles into the stratosphere, you could actually stick a fully extended paper bag from a window of your space craft. Would it continue to expand, be squashed or remain stolid? You missed an option. To make this experiment a bit more realistic, suppose you release a weather balloon from ground level. Unless you under-fill the balloon, the balloon flight ends when the balloon bursts. Why is that? The balloon doesn't fill with space as a substance. You've sealed it tightly so the helium doesn't leak out. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dekan Posted January 25, 2012 Share Posted January 25, 2012 (edited) Isn't this just abstract nouns causing confusion again! If we say: "There's 93,000,000 miles of space between the Earth and the Sun" - that invites the question: what's this space thing, what's it made of, what's its structure? Is it a vacuum, what's a vacuum made of - can there be absolute vacuum? We invent an abstract noun - space, or vacuum. Then we think that because it's a noun, it must be like other nouns, such as "leg" or "bicycle". That is, an actual physical object. But it isn't. "Space" is no more an object than "Time" is. It's just a word we've made up, because we like making up words. We could express the same idea another way. Instead of saying "There's 93,000,000 miles of space between the Earth and the Sun", we could say: "The Earth is 93,000,000 miles from the Sun". Would anyone then ask "What's from made of? Can there be absolute from"? (Actually, come to think of it, Philosophers probably would ) Edited January 25, 2012 by Dekan 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
doG Posted January 25, 2012 Share Posted January 25, 2012 Empty space would create an absolute vacuum.... Is there some point to repeating what I said and then acting as if it's not true? I was simply pointing out to rigney that 'space' itself cannot be evacuated. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rigney Posted January 25, 2012 Author Share Posted January 25, 2012 (edited) Is there some point to repeating what I said and then acting as if it's not true? I was simply pointing out to rigney that 'space' itself cannot be evacuated. doG, I've only been on this science kick a couple of years now and honestly, am not too swift at it. Actually things get more bewildering as I dig deeper. Last night I was thinking of an experiment that may shed some light on my ignorance. Likely it has been done hundreds of times of which I am unaware. But perhaps someone on the forum is familiar with it? A glass sphere 1' in diameter is designed to withstand an external pressure of 10 atmospheres., or a vacuum of -10 atmospheres. It is then evacuated to -9.99 atmospheres and placed in a visible water colume. How far down must it sink before imploding? And when it does implode, will the gas bubble being released represent the size of the sphere, or the .1 atmosphere of gas in the sphere? The following link has many explanations and formulae. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pressure Edited January 25, 2012 by rigney Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
swansont Posted January 25, 2012 Share Posted January 25, 2012 doG, I've only been on this science kick a couple of years now and honestly, am not too swift at it. Actually things get more bewildering as I dig deeper. Last night I was thinking of an experiment that may shed some light on my ignorance. Likely it has been done hundreds of times of which I am unaware. But perhaps someone on the forum is familiar with it? A glass sphere 1' in diameter is designed to withstand an external pressure of 10 atmospheres., or a vacuum of -10 atmospheres. It is then evacuated to -9.99 atmospheres and placed in a visible water colume. How far down must it sink before imploding? And when it does implode, will the gas bubble being released represent the size of the sphere, or the .1 atmosphere of gas in the sphere? The following link has many explanations and formulae. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pressure Atmospheres is the pressure of air. Air is not space, and the recent objection was to the claim that "space is a physical entity". If you agree that this is not true, then say so. If you still think it is, back it up with something relevant. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rigney Posted January 25, 2012 Author Share Posted January 25, 2012 Atmospheres is the pressure of air. Air is not space, and the recent objection was to the claim that "space is a physical entity". If you agree that this is not true, then say so. If you still think it is, back it up with something relevant. In this case, if you are relating relevence as facts, forget it. Neither you nor I or anyone else can explain or refute this issue. I believe from what I have read, that space is a physical entity. Can I prove it? No! No more than your ability to disprove it. Atmosphere? Without space, the (ether); there would be no atmosphere for us to exist. I was using it as an example, not a comparison. And whether you accept my ideas or not, I'm convinced that space itself is a complete and necessary entity of our universe. http://www.theofficenet.com/~rad/Space.htm Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
swansont Posted January 25, 2012 Share Posted January 25, 2012 In this case, if you are relating relevence as facts, forget it. Neither you nor I or anyone else can explain or refute this issue. I believe from what I have read, that space is a physical entity. Can I prove it? No! No more than your ability to disprove it. Atmosphere? Without space, the (ether); there would be no atmosphere for us to exist. I was using it as an example, not a comparison. And whether you accept my ideas or not, I'm convinced that space itself is a complete and necessary entity of our universe. http://www.theofficenet.com/~rad/Space.htm "Can I prove it? No!" is what makes it a bald assertion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
doG Posted January 25, 2012 Share Posted January 25, 2012 http://www.theofficenet.com/~rad/Space.htm Are you presenting this personal opinion piece as some some sort of alleged evidence of something? You cannot use someone else's unsupported opinion as factual evidence for your own unsupported opinion. There is ZERO evidence that space itself is anything more than a volume that everything else occupies. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rigney Posted January 25, 2012 Author Share Posted January 25, 2012 (edited) Are you presenting this personal opinion piece as some some sort of alleged evidence of something? You cannot use someone else's unsupported opinion as factual evidence for your own unsupported opinion. There is ZERO evidence that space itself is anything more than a volume that everything else occupies. I gave you a reasonable experment to conduct, but you; like the T Man didn't think it worth while. But a volume of what?, do you propose, lets everything else occupy it? Isn't that statement in itself little more than an assertive ambiguity? Edited January 25, 2012 by rigney Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
doG Posted January 25, 2012 Share Posted January 25, 2012 I gave you a reasonable experment to conduct, but you; like the T Man didn't think it worth while. But a volume of what?, do you propose, lets everything else occupy it? Isn't that statement in itself little more than an assertive ambiguity? You proposed a worthless experiment in regards to space that is not worth explaining and is off topic. Your experiment is simply about a pressurized gas in a closed vessel that is crushed by the weight of the water column above it. The outcome of that experiment would tell you nothing about 'space' and says nothing about the thread topic, "What is an absolute vacuum?" This has been answered already. If you want to debate the composition of space then you need to start a thread in the speculations forum because that discussion would be nothing but speculation. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
losfomot Posted January 25, 2012 Share Posted January 25, 2012 (edited) A glass sphere 1' in diameter is designed to withstand an external pressure of 10 atmospheres., or a vacuum of -10 atmospheres. It is then evacuated to -9.99 atmospheres and placed in a visible water colume. How far down must it sink before imploding? And when it does implode, will the gas bubble being released represent the size of the sphere, or the .1 atmosphere of gas in the sphere? I do not believe the question is answerable, as it is impossible to have a negative atmospheres (or am I wrong). Perhaps you meant that the sphere is capable of holding a vacuum of 0.01 atmospheres rather than -10 atmospheres? And that it is then evacuated to 0.02 atmospheres? If so, I believe the answer is that the sphere will drop 10 cm before imploding. As for the size of the bubble being released, do you mean when the sphere implodes? Or when the bubble reaches the surface? Either would be less than the 1' diameter that the sphere was. Edited January 25, 2012 by losfomot 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rigney Posted January 26, 2012 Author Share Posted January 26, 2012 Space is not matter. It is something else. But what? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tres Juicy Posted January 26, 2012 Share Posted January 26, 2012 But what? Answer that question and then get yourself on the next flight to Stockholm.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rigney Posted January 26, 2012 Author Share Posted January 26, 2012 (edited) Answer that question and then get yourself on the next flight to Stockholm.... With no background in science, especially physics, I'm not trying to be controversial or a smart a--; just inquisitive? But I do believe "ether" is a physical part of our universe not remotely understood at this time. Have we ever brought back a bucket of the stuff to be analyzed? (uncontaminated cylinders, not vacuumed or pressurized, that is). Almost every test I find has to do with photons and other exotic particles racing through it, not space itself. Can anyone lead me to any physical tests that have been done? Edited January 26, 2012 by rigney Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
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 accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now