The Universe is a continuum of matter

[ZVBXRPL]

 

As this is a science forum, I think you will find the rules require evidence, even in the "Speculations" forum. Not just baseless ruminations.

 

 

I suggest you ask questions like that in the appropriate part of the forum. But it seems a bit odd to attack these hypotheses if you don't even know what the supporting evidence is.

 

 

Of course they are not "fact". We are talking about science here.

 

 

And thge evidence will be what determines who is right, not what anyone believes.

 

 

There is a difference between being open minded to new evidence and just making stuff up. You might as well say that all the stars we see are insible pink flying unicorns with light coming out of their horns.

 

 

As we have a very good theory that already explains that, you need to start by showing in suitable mathematical detail how your theory provides a better explanation than the current theory. Can you do that?

The evidence doesn't determine who is right, the majority determine what is right.

One person might say "this here is evidence that that theory is true", another might say "no, I disagree, there are alternative explanations". The majority rule.

An example would be redshift.

Why did people first start to say the Universe is expanding? They thought galaxies were moving away from us and each other. Why did they think that? Redshift?

What if galaxies moving away and empty space expanding were not the reason for redshift?

There were and still are scientists who did not believe redshift was a result of expanding Universe, they are wrong because they are the minority.

[Mordred]

When they did they the experiment, what did they believe the Earth to be and how did they believe it moved through the Universe?

Several centuries of research oft wrong. At first the Earth didn't move. This is where philosophy interfered with true science. Empirical evidence showed otherwise. Much like the topic at hand. Study the evidence before formulating a theory. Study current models before you state they are wrong.

[ZVBXRPL]

Several centuries of research oft wrong. At first the Earth didn't move. This is where philosophy interfered with true science. Empirical evidence showed otherwise. Much like the topic at hand. Study the evidence before formulating a theory. Study current models before you state they are wrong.

Go to the chat and can discuss? If not I am logging off for the night.

[Mordred]

Ps my link has some historical articles as well my personal fav is the great debate

Go to the chat and can discuss? If not I am logging off for the night.

Have a good night mate late for myself as well

[Strange]

The evidence doesn't determine who is right, the majority determine what is right.

 

Not in science. There is no theory that is considered "right" if the evidence contradicts it.

 

Why did people first start to say the Universe is expanding?

 

It was a prediction of general relativity.

 

They thought galaxies were moving away from us and each other. Why did they think that? Redshift?

What if galaxies moving away and empty space expanding were not the reason for redshift?

 

Every other explanation that has been tried so far does not fit all the rest of the evidence.

 

There were and still are scientists who did not believe redshift was a result of expanding Universe, they are wrong because they are the minority.

 

No. they were wrong because the evidence did not fit their hypotheses. From this, and some of your other posts, it seems you really need to learn a little bit about how science works. Studying the history of science, and how various theories came to be accepted, would be a good start.

[derek w]

 

 

This one of many problems that needs to be explained by your idea. How can this continuum have both of these properties? Rigid enough for light to travel through it, but massless so that planets don't experience any drag at all?

non newtonian fluid

[swansont]

The evidence doesn't determine who is right, the majority determine what is right.

One person might say "this here is evidence that that theory is true", another might say "no, I disagree, there are alternative explanations". The majority rule.

An example would be redshift.

Why did people first start to say the Universe is expanding? They thought galaxies were moving away from us and each other. Why did they think that? Redshift?

What if galaxies moving away and empty space expanding were not the reason for redshift?

There were and still are scientists who did not believe redshift was a result of expanding Universe, they are wrong because they are the minority.

 

!

Moderator Note

 

There must be a match between a theory and the evidence we gather. For that to be possible, a theory needs to contain at least one model of how things behave. "It doesn't just have those 2 properties, it has every property, it is the Universe." doesn't even come close to what is required for this discussion to move forward.

 

Telling everyone that their objections don't apply also falls short. If current physics doesn't apply, you need to replace that gap with physics that does apply, that can be tested to show if it's wrong, or if it works.

 

You need to read this, and adhere to it

http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/86720-guidelines-for-participating-in-speculations-discussions/

 

[Commander]

Can you prove there IS empty space? The answer to your question and mine is NO.

 

The continuum of matter/energy is infinite, there are no bounds. Infinite size, infinite age, infinite microcosm, infinite macrocosm and infinite energy variation.

 

I remember when younger I used to ask "what is beyond that and what is beyond that" type of questions, there are 2 possible answers - Infinite with no end to the question or eventually you get nothingness. I do not like the second possible answer for a few reasons, mainly because it leads to a Universe of something and nothing. I believe we exist in a Universe of infinite something and there is no such thing as "nothingness". If there is no such thing as nothingness, then the only possible answer to the question is the Universe is infinite

Yes, but I would prefer infinite "particle" rather than massive. A whale is massive to a human and even more massive to an ant, but the Universe is infinite to the whale, the human, the ant, everything.

 

You and I seem to agree on one thing that the Universe or Cosmos is Endless and Limitless.

 

You say that there are Endless Matter but I say that as matter has this tendency to gravitate together the forces involved can so gravitate the matter around and leave the Space around Empty or Matter free.

 

Please elaborate more on the exact meaning of Continuum, Energy and Wave.

[Bignose]

You said "how can this continuum have both these properties?". It doesn't just have those 2 properties, it has every property, it is the Universe.

Wow, this is some amazing stuff. How does it have no mass when planets move through it, but mass to allow wave propagation like light through it?

 

Magic?

 

Or, maybe you need to think deeper about what I am asking here. There is a blatant contradiction here. Just telling me that "it has every property" is hand waving gibberish. It is certainly not scientific.

 

If that is going to be your answer to all our questions about your proposed continuum, then there is nothing scientific and nothing all that interesting here.

 

Science is about making models that make predictions that agree with reality. If your model can't even get mass vs. no mass right, then its predictive power is very low, and hence scientifically uninteresting. The current models make very good predictions. You need to be able to do likewise to have something scientifically interesting. This story telling you have here doesn't cut it. Sorry.

 

If you are interested in exploring this idea scientifically, then this forum has people who can help you. I am offering to help you. But I'm not going to pay much attention if you aren't going to pay attention to criticisms and just declare that your continuum has "every property" and hand wave it away.

 

non newtonian fluid

A non-Newtonian fluid can exhibit different apparent viscosities under different conditions and even at different times, but I've never seen one that exhibits positive density behavior in one condition and zero density behavior in another. If you know of one, I'd appreciate it if you cite it. I know the fluid mechanics literature pretty well, but I certainly don't know it all.

 

Besides, this maybe fixes one slight issue. I had a total of 7 that need to be addressed. Just saying 'non-Newtonian' doesn't fix them all.

Edited December 29, 2014 by Bignose

[ZVBXRPL]

Wow, this is some amazing stuff. How does it have no mass when planets move through it, but mass to allow wave propagation like light through it?

 

When light travels through space, air and water, the continuum it is travelling through is different in each because the continuum is variable, due to the energy fluctuations.

What would happen to the Earth's journey if you filled the galaxy full of water, or full of cement? The continuum has changed. Earth, the Stars and planets travel through space and they don't encounter the same kind of changes that light encounters on it's journey through the Universe.

[Bignose]

When light travels through space, air and water, the continuum it is travelling through is different in each because the continuum is variable, due to the energy fluctuations.

What would happen to the Earth's journey if you filled the galaxy full of water, or full of cement? The continuum has changed. Earth, the Stars and planets travel through space and they don't encounter the same kind of changes that light encounters on it's journey through the Universe.

Sooooooo, it's not one continuum that fills all space, then? I thought that was your main point above. Either its one continuum that fills all space (and thusly has one set of properties) or you're telling me it is magic and changes its properties to match exactly what we observe and remain undetectable.

 

Your question above it exactly what I am asking you, and needs a good answer. You are the one telling me that there is one single continuum that fills all space. That light (that everything) travels through it as a wave. Well, give that that is so, the equation I gave above for how waves travel through a continuum was given above. And requires the continuum to have some kind of density, a mass per unit volume. But if that continuum was out there, then everything else that moves through that space should experience some drag. Because unless mass is zero, the drag can't be zero. It's not that 'the continuum has changed', it's that I am taking your idea to the very next step and noticing a contradiction between your idea and what is observed. I guess the choice is yours here: you can either chose to understand the issue I've brought up or you can continue to throw more words at it and hope it satisfies me. It probably won't, but I will probably stop replying because the second choice there isn't science, and I participate on this forum to discuss science. If you don't want to discuss science, then I'm going to choose not to participate. And, as a word of friendly advice, see swansont's note above. If you continue to refuse to engage scientifically, you will get this thread closed.

 

How does an 'energy fluctuation' change a continuum's properties? What are the fluctuations that the Earth has or a photon has to that as each moves through this continuum, it changes from massless to apparently extremely rigid?

 

Any chance you can present a model from which testable predictions can be made? Or are you just going to keep telling me that this wondrous stuff that you can't even define has all these amazing properties?

Edited December 29, 2014 by Bignose

[swansont]

When light travels through space, air and water, the continuum it is travelling through is different in each because the continuum is variable, due to the energy fluctuations.

What would happen to the Earth's journey if you filled the galaxy full of water, or full of cement? The continuum has changed. Earth, the Stars and planets travel through space and they don't encounter the same kind of changes that light encounters on it's journey through the Universe.

 

Then you need to be able to describe the properties of this continuum, because if the galaxy was full of water or cement, there would be friction that slowed the earth's orbit down. You have been given some specific objections, where your description is in conflict with accepted physics. You absolutely need to address those objections. Hand-waving does not suffice.

[Mike Smith Cosmos]

Light travels as a wave. The medium is the continuum of matter, the continuum is the medium for all motion. The energy levels of the medium, the continuum of matter, at light's level of substructure are the reason for it's speed. If the energy level of the medium changes the speed is affected.

.

ZVBXRPL.

 

I think you might be touching on something Frank Wilczek was trying to explain in his Book "The Lightness of being " . He called this continuum ' The Grid ' . . He won a Nobel prize for Quark behaviour. " Asymtotic freedom ' . So he should have some idea what he is talking about !

 

Mike.

 

.-----------------------------------------------------------.----------------------------------------.----------------------------

Links

 

 

Frank Wilczek (@FrankWilczek) | Twitter

https://twitter.com/frankwilczek

 

Wikipedia link:-

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frank_Wilczek

Space Is the Primary Reality | Professor Frank Wilczek | The Search ...

Edited December 30, 2014 by Mike Smith Cosmos

[Mike Smith Cosmos]

ZVBXRPL

 

Is supported in his theory by Frank Wilczek , if the terminology is translated across . From Wilczek to ZVBXRPL.

 

Says Wilczek ::-

Space Is the Primary Reality . Professor Frank Wilczek . The Search for the Theory of Everything.

 

He is saying fields fill space everywhere ( continuum ) . The primary reality everywhere.

 

Particles of the standard model , are NOT the primary reality " but merely a disturbance in the fields ."

 

 

I think we need to take seriously what ZVBXRPL Is saying

 

Mike

Edited December 30, 2014 by Mike Smith Cosmos

[swansont]

Fields are not made of matter, so these are not equivalent.

[Mordred]

There is one significant difference between fields and the model presented. There is space between the particles and fields.

This isn't really for the laymen as it's lengthy and technical but it's handy nonetheless

 

http://arxiv.org/abs/hepth/9912205: "Fields" - A free lengthy technical training manual on classical and quantum fields

[Mike Smith Cosmos]

There is one significant difference between fields and the model presented. There is space between the particles and fields.

Surely Not , if the matter particles are merely " disturbances " in the fields, as Wilczek is saying . The standard model is Not primary reality !

 

He is saying ( in his interview quoted above on you tube .

 

" particles are NOT primary building blocks , but Fields are primary building blocks ! He goes on to say that the fields are what space IS , everywhere . That they are the primary reality "

 

" And the maths says it is that way , in conjunction with our minds and imagination we perceive things as they really are ! "

 

Eek !

 

Mike

Edited December 30, 2014 by Mike Smith Cosmos

[Mordred]

Think of the term grid model. You still have empty space between the grid connection points and grid lines

[studiot]

Hang in there Mike, +1, let us see if the OP will consider this a true discussion (shooting the breeze) and modify his ideas according to comments or if this is just another 'I know best' squabble.

 

We do not yet have a defininition or even a vague idea what is meant by the OP's use of the word 'continuum' yet.

 

This is crucial as to whether grids or other constructs are admissable.

[Mike Smith Cosmos]

Think of the term grid model. You still have empty space between the grid connection points and grid lines

.

No but , if I am understanding what Wilczec is saying , then we are Not talking of space as being ' Gaps' .but rather that fields ( described by the Maths ) are the primary reality that .. IS ..Space . Not gaps between things . Space a continuous entity not Gaps !

 

I think that is what he( ZVBXRPL and Wilczek ) are saying . Have a listen to Wilczek .

 

 

Mike

Edited December 30, 2014 by Mike Smith Cosmos

[Mordred]

Look at the model. The grid points are the particles the grid lines are the geometric regions of influence. These grid lines can be warped and twisted much like in GR. However in his case he employs the Higgs field as one possibility his model is the interactions of energy in virtually empty space.

 

http://cosmiclog.nbcnews.com/_news/2008/09/24/4351586-the-grid-we-live-in

Here read this descriptive

http://www.google.ca/url?sa=t&source=web&cd=16&ved=0CCoQFjAFOAo&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.symmetrymagazine.org%2Fsites%2Fdefault%2Ffiles%2Flegacy%2Fpdfs%2F200511%2Fcomputing_the_quarks.pdf&rct=j&q=frank%20wilczek%20the%20grid%20pdf&ei=7AKjVJDsMIiuyQStmYCYAw&usg=AFQjCNFVBAqXJCWc1geB8UnWS7V6keFGvg&sig2=Z784zwzvhjhOczBKR5zBag&bvm=bv.82001339,d.aWw

It shows the advantages in terms of its computative power

However as mentioned this isn't the Ops model so should be a seperate discussion

[Strange]

I think you might be touching on something Frank Wilczek was trying to explain in his Book "The Lightness of being " . He called this continuum ' The Grid ' . . He won a Nobel prize for Quark behaviour. " Asymtotic freedom ' . So he should have some idea what he is talking about !

 

Some people really shouldn't be allowed to write popular science books. Sometimes it seems that people with Nobel Prizes are the among worst offenders.

[ZVBXRPL]

.

ZVBXRPL.

 

I think you might be touching on something Frank Wilczek was trying to explain in his Book "The Lightness of being " . He called this continuum ' The Grid ' . . He won a Nobel prize for Quark behaviour. " Asymtotic freedom ' . So he should have some idea what he is talking about !

 

Mike.

 

.-----------------------------------------------------------.----------------------------------------.----------------------------

Links

 

 

Frank Wilczek (@FrankWilczek) | Twitter

https://twitter.com/frankwilczek

 

Wikipedia link:-

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frank_Wilczek

Space Is the Primary Reality | Professor Frank Wilczek | The Search ...

I google him and the theory and there are some similarities to the theory I am attempting to explain. He is someone I would like to talk to about my theory and Science in general.

I have thought of an excellent way to describe my infinite continuum Universe, using a 3D number line.

Infinity ........ 10 - 9 - 8 - 7 - 6 - 5 - 4 - 3 - 2 - 1 - 0 - 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5 - 6 - 7 - 8 - 9 - 10 ........... Infinity

Y and Z axis all go on to infinity too

Next, zoom out the number line, so you get 10, 20, 30, 40 etc in all directions, zoom out again so you get 100, 200, 300, 400 etc

Zooming out represents the macrocosm, this is infinite.

Go back to original number line, zoom in so you get 0.1, 0.2, 0.3, 0.4 etc and zoom in again and agin

Zooming in represents the microcosm, this is infinite.

This continuum is one continuus body, I called it continuum of matter, but perhaps I should have said continuum of energy to avoid confusion. The most important concept however, is that it is continuus, there are not 2, 3 or several continuus bodies, there is one continuus body, there is no empty space, anywhere in existence.

From our perpective, from where we are on the number line, where we reside in this continuum, we observe the Universe around us.

In this continuum Universe there is energy and the energy levels are in a constant state of flux. No energy is ever created or destroyed, energy only transfers either from one location to another location or from microcosm/macrocosm - macrocosm/microcosm.

The energy fluctuations are the cause for all motion and all interactions. The motion and interactions depend on the energy level of the region in the continuum we are concerned with and the energy level of the surrounding regions of the continuum. Whether we are zoomed out 1000x or zoomed in 1000x, whether we are at 4 on the number line or 4 billion.

Edited December 30, 2014 by ZVBXRPL

[swansont]

.

No but , if I am understanding what Wilczec is saying

 

Which is not the topic of discussion here, except as it pertains to ZVBXRPL's idea.

 

This continuum is one continuus body, I called it continuum of matter, but perhaps I should have said continuum of energy to avoid confusion.

 

Energy is a property, though, not a thing unto itself. What has the energy in your model? And what are the rules that it follows?

[Strange]

This continuum is one continuus body, I called it continuum of matter, but perhaps I should have said continuum of energy to avoid confusion.

 

Maybe you should just say continuum of space and then we could be done with it.