It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

So what exactly is "Space" comprised of ?

page: 2
3
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 17 2007 @ 03:41 PM
link   

bothered

Actually, it's kind of funny, but the Ether Concept is making a comeback. That's were it's established something is present as a convexion source, but not readily defined.



So why is it not readily defined, could it be because it's not possible to definine 'it' within the normal dogmatic framework of science?

Seriously.. how do you quantize "nothing"? How can 'nothing' exert a force on 'something'? Well.. that's exactly what happens ALL the time right under our noses.

That's why I brought up electricity earlier. Most people do not understand the difference between an electrical charge and electrical 'energy'. Energy is something but it's nothing. How can matter be made out of energy if energy is made out of 'nothing'?

A couple of questions to ponder:

What is the difference between the 'wave' travelling through water and the 'wave' travelling through the electrons and their charges in a wire? Why does the electrical 'wave' require charge to travel through while the 'wave' travelling through water merely requires the "water" to propagate? Sound can't move through space because no 'air' is present.

They are all 'energy' but what sets them apart on that deeper level?

Also, some people and dogmatic science believe that longitudinal waves can't exist in space.. or can they?




[edit on 17-2-2007 by ViewFromTheStars]




posted on Feb, 17 2007 @ 03:52 PM
link   
The difference of all your questions it not necessarily the energy, but the medium. Densital proportions provide more substance to mediate through.

As to longitudinal waves, where all accelleration is "forwarded" and not "heightened". They could, there's some theories on the detection of the formations of star cluster galaxies forming that give off patterns of detectable gamma radiation that by all rights, we shouldn't be able to detect.


jra

posted on Feb, 17 2007 @ 03:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by sardion2000
Also when you get down to the smallest scales, time doesn't just stop. It still exists and is hypothetically measured as Plank Time.


Ok. I had read something recently about a quantum haze as they called it and mentioned about time and space having no meaning at that scale. Thanks for the link though.

[edit on 17-2-2007 by jra]



posted on Feb, 17 2007 @ 04:09 PM
link   

bothered

The difference of all your questions it not necessarily the energy, but the medium. Densital proportions provide more substance to mediate through.




I'm not sure I understand what you are saying. How does 'densital proportions' affect the propogation of electrical energy?

I'm focusing mainly on 'energy' and not the mediums that are required for them to travel through.

For example, PURE water does not conduct electrical energy but allows 'normal' energy (non-electrical longitudinal and transverse waves) to pass through it. Whats the difference between a non-electrical wave and an electrical one? They are both energy but one requires a 'charge' to pass though and the other one does not.

Electromagnetic radiation travelling through space is travelling through what?? And THEY are believed to exist only in the transverse realm. There are supposedly NO logitudinal waves in "space".

On a fundamental leve these 'waves' are different and until we can quantize this difference we will never really understand what we are going after here. I think the differences I speak of has less to do with the mediums that have been brought up and more to do with where these waves come from.





[edit on 17-2-2007 by ViewFromTheStars]



posted on Feb, 17 2007 @ 05:17 PM
link   
Someone earlier posted that dark matter filled around 73% of space. I too have heard that being bandied about in some heady science journals. Additionally, there is a dark energy which is kind of like antigravity that is the source of space expansion.
"Dark energy is best known as the purative agent of cosmic acceleration -- an unidentified substance that exerts a kind of antigravity force on the universe as a whole.
Worse, dark energy might be evolving. Some models predict that if dark energy becomes ever more dominant over time, it will rip apart gravitationally bound objects, such as galaxy clusters and galaxies. Ultimately, planet Earth will be stripped from the sun and shredded, along with all objects on it. Dark energy, once cast in the shadows of matter, will haved exacted it's final revenge." -- Scientific American, February 2007 issue.

[edit on 17-2-2007 by carnival_of_souls2047]

[edit on 17-2-2007 by carnival_of_souls2047]



posted on Feb, 17 2007 @ 05:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by ViewFromTheStars

I've had some revelations lately and have read quite a bit here but the conclusion I have come to? space (or the area between matter as some one here put it) is 'merely' an energy field "at rest". That will probably not make much sense until you realize that ALL matter is made out of energy and then when you really try and think about what 'energy' is it will warp your brain. For example, have you really studied how electricity really works? Man, I wish I had the links handy but most people think that electricity is a 'flow' of electrons through a wire. WRONG.. The electrons with their charge merely 'wiggle' back and forth allowing the 'energy wave' to 'travel' through them. (Much like a wave travelling through water) The electrons with their corresponding charge merely give the medium for the wave to travel through. After thinking about that and studing how batteries work it will REALLY blow your mind. We know how batteries 'store' a charge but how do they really store the actual energy that comes out of them? I'll stop there but rebuttals are welcome and I do have an open mind.



Matter is merely 'space that has been spun/vibrated/oscillated into matter at varying frequencies'. Perhaps space is made out of God himself.



Well, no. I'm not sure where you're getting that, but it's incorrect.

Getting into the actual nature of what happens takes a bit of physics and some time to learn what you have to understand to learn what you want to know. Like about five semesters of calculus based physics and a couple of DE based fields courses.

But there's no "energy wave" that makes electrons wiggle. A somewhat simple way to look at it is that the power source puts a field along the conductor. The field biases, slightly, the thermal noise in the electron gas in the conductor. That is, the electrons in the conductor are zipping around randomly. The electric field from the power source makes them go one way more than another, slightly, so there is a net flow down the conductor.

If you try to get into a fields version of it, you end up having to deal with Poynting vectors, curl, divergence and the like and there's no really clear way to describe it without invoking a lot of math.

The term "charge" when used with batteries doesn't correspond to "charge" in terms of the electric field potential of a charged particle. Batteries create a potential by means of a chemical reaction.



posted on Feb, 17 2007 @ 06:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by ViewFromTheStars

bothered

The difference of all your questions it not necessarily the energy, but the medium. Densital proportions provide more substance to mediate through.




I'm not sure I understand what you are saying. How does 'densital proportions' affect the propogation of electrical energy?


Think conduction. Properties of. You have conductors, non-conductors, and semi-conductors. Not everything gets charged up.

You also have quality. Certain alloys produce a more effecient streaming of the electrons. Which by the way don't move in wave form at all, but rather bounce all over the place. The basic principle behind electricity is the instance of a potential difference. Where a higher charge of electrons attempts to reach static equilibrium by reaching a lower charge, through a circuit (or other form of discharge).



posted on Feb, 17 2007 @ 06:51 PM
link   
As I see it, as some previous posters have said it seems to comprise of small amounts of particles, ions gravity waves etc.

But is it space? I see the distance between electron and nucleus in an atom as space. I think it is funky to think that most of matter is space!!

I see matter and the distances / time between stellar objects as just constructs of human perception. We exist in 3D world so that's what we sense. Other dimensions could be millimetres away and we would not know. I sometimes wonder that as other "bits" of the universe have quanta light photons eg. if future science will find that time has some quanta / unit. But what do I know?

Dark matter / energy they say is the substance of most of the universe, well that's what the math says...but nature don't need maths we invented that!!

Could it be that these areas are where other dimensions intersect our own and so have some affect on the 3D world our existence?

Well that's just an ordinary blokes view.

My tuppence worth.


Dae

posted on Feb, 17 2007 @ 07:57 PM
link   
Alot of our local space will be empty compared to whats outside our helioshpere, its quite amazing, our sun creates a bubble that earth and our other planets are protected from the big wide universe (cosmic rays and radiation etc.), or at least from the interstellar cloud we are travelling in.

I love this artists impression!



And this one looks quite scary with all the firey colours used. Our heliosphere even has a bowshock, it looks like some huge organic space ship hurtling at around mach 2.5!




posted on Feb, 17 2007 @ 10:02 PM
link   
10 Percent of everything that you see.

And 90 percent of everything we don't know.

Shattered OUT...



posted on Feb, 17 2007 @ 10:06 PM
link   
Good question to ask, and one should never be ashamed of asking such simple, basic question about everything that is deemed "sure" according to mainstream scientific views.

If everything in the universe obeys the laws of relativity, then space cannot simply contain "nothingness", or a perfect vaccum of any form of matter. It's all a matter of density. Water, if we consider it as an "atmosphere", can be another level of space, just as the atmosphere in which we live, and what's beyond... the only difference between them all is the density of matter. So the most rational theories out there are saying that space itself, all the "black stuff" we see up there (not including celestial bodies of dense matter) are a blend of emptiness, and matter, Some others, such as in quantum mechanics, claims that this is in fact dark matter (or the "ether" of some new and ancient theories), that is matter of an unknown nature, probably perceivable, but outside of our known visual (and sound?) spectrum.

But what is matter? Still a ratio of emptiness, and more dense matter. Look at a piece of rock with a microscope... the more you go into smaller proportions, the less dense matter will be. Perhaps that with a microscope a hundred times more powerful than the most powerful we have right now, we could prove just about the same thing... that matter exists only within relative parameters, and that it's presence is never absolute, and it's existence quite a paradox on a strictly logical perspective.

[edit on 17/2/07 by Echtelion]



posted on Feb, 17 2007 @ 10:11 PM
link   
What a great question. I don’t think there’s an easy answer, fortunately. We don’t like easy answers here from what I gather. Keep in mind, I’m no physicist.

I’ll quote the website, and I’ll provide a link below:

“Very briefly summarized;
The Spherical Standing Wave Structure of Matter is founded on One Principle which describes One Substance, Space, and its Properties as a Wave-Medium. Matter Exists as Spherical Standing Waves in Space. Time is caused by wave Motion (as spherical wave motions of Space which cause matter’s activity and the phenomena of time). The discrete ‘particle’ effect of matter is formed by the Wave-Center of the Spherical Waves.

Source Link

The more important question, for me, is:

What is Matter? From what I gather, matter seems to be nothing more than the wave-center of a spherical standing wave amidst a sea of spherical waves. I think of spherical waves as flat and spherical standing waves as 2 dimensional. The only difference is that the spherical waves of matter are bound to that location? Is that all that separates us from the emptiness of space? Is it all the same energy just moving in different ways to get attention?



posted on Feb, 17 2007 @ 11:02 PM
link   
Excellent input folks. Yeah Im to the point where I try to question things like its just there or its nothing.
On some level there is something or somethings there. And its good to think tank these theories and ideas with others and ATS seems to be the perfect spot for posing such thinking. Im no degree holder but do have a pretty decent intellect and I just have to ponder on many things and I know that we as a species are still quite infant like when explaing how, what, when and where's about our Galaxy and Outer Space in General.
Im currently reading other theories and the Quantum subjects are quite a mind blower to say the least.



posted on Feb, 17 2007 @ 11:29 PM
link   
Space is the nothingess of somethingly nothing for nothing and something to be nothing in the end with something yet to be said. We can approxiamte this vast expanse by the deductive arguements of 19th century Vitruvian philosopher Desjant Borgia, in that as he states "if the virtue is held vastly into the contempt of the righteousness's overpowering glory, the nothing fades every further blinding the true call, less be the begger for he is the grand and enlightened chooser amongst the heavens, the stars, and the nothingness in between."

There is a vast volume between masses, this is space. Defining masses means to give a standard mass in relation to all masses with a characterstic size requiring an incontrovertably noticeable recognition given certain criteria of time. We can distinguish the proportion of earth, the sun and jupiter, but further we can distinguish the proportions of the ant, the fly and blueberry by shear eyeing of the product without any need to reduce down to unyieldy semantics and arbitrage hedging.

Now, define the proportions of the moon, and asteroid and left over and forgotten tail fragments of a comet. Though the variation of size is not much and completely different than the two original arguements, we have yet to place all three in ratio to one another. Doing so leads to a misunderstanding. While the ratios may have equally justified proportions amongst their separatly collected substances, together and in relation relative to one another, the three groups do not satisfy the logic in adhering to size/mass as the standard means to weigh the arguement.

Therefore, the individual elements themselves are the arguement against the dual nature of space, yet we have not to stop here, less my fingers hurt from typing so long.



posted on Feb, 18 2007 @ 04:55 AM
link   

Originally posted by jra
Well everything in space (planets, stars, galaxies, etc) is composed of something, but space itself is nothing. It's hard sample and study nothing


That's not exactly true. Space, the area between planets and stars, is composed of the very same stuff that's here on Earth, just not as much of it. Bits and particles. Lots of nasty unshielded radiation. Roast you in no time.

And it's dusty, too. Filthy with dust. Some of it floating around slowly, some of it zipping along at incredible speeds.

It's not a very hospitable place. Probably the safest place to be in space is on the nice surface of a planet with a healthy, thick atmosphere surrounding it, backed up by a good magnetic field.

Some people have even suggested that astronauts don't have a prayer of reaching Mars alive, considering how nasty space is and how long it would take to get there. Even with thick inner chambers to protect them against radiation and micrometeor clouds. Could be. We stick pretty close to Earth with our current space activities. We've never sent anyone into space any further than the Moon, and only for a very short time. We've never even sent astronauts out to a LaGrange point and back, to place a beacon, or just to see if we can do it. Maybe we can't.

As for making it to even the nearest star... well...

If there are ET aliens visiting us, how they make it alive from planet to planet is something we might want to ask them.

Hey, anybody know if any of the Lunar astronauts were able to have kids after they returned to Earth? Any sterility issues? Just curious.



posted on Feb, 18 2007 @ 06:47 AM
link   
The big problem with modern astro- and particle physics is its total detachment from the study of electromagnetism and the incredibly poor state of understanding of EM itself.

All this goes back to the late 19th C and the work of Maxwell, who believed in the "ether" but understood it as EM energy. His equations explaining EM--over 30 of them--were later reduced and simplified to 4 lowel-level algebraic equations by Heaviside--who essentially bowdlerized them, because he did not believe in Maxwell's idea of EM "animating" the ether of space. Heaviside's equations are the basis of our modern understanding of EM, but they explain only a small part of what has been experimentally observed of EM phenomenon.

Then go to Tesla, who was an EM genius, creater of modern AC current, and who had built numerous machines that actually ran on and tapped into the EM forces coursing through "empty" space. Tesla was an empiricist, not a theorist, and his work proved in physical terms the validity of Maxwell's original work and equations.

Einstein's E=MC2 says that mass/matter is energy, and this is where physics got it wrong. EM theory, having been derailed by Heaviside, could not account for what we now call "dark matter" and "dark energy" or more recently "quintessence", and the silliness of these names shows how lost physicists truly are.

What they are searching for is simply EM energy. The universe is essentially a huge field of plasma--electricity, energy. It really is simple. here's a quick link to explain it in a nutshell: A Power Somewhere: What's Missing From Modern Physics:Common Sense (& Revised Electromagnetism)

[edit on 18-2-2007 by gottago]



posted on Feb, 18 2007 @ 09:08 AM
link   

Originally posted by jra

Originally posted by sardion2000
Also when you get down to the smallest scales, time doesn't just stop. It still exists and is hypothetically measured as Plank Time.


Ok. I had read something recently about a quantum haze as they called it and mentioned about time and space having no meaning at that scale. Thanks for the link though.

[edit on 17-2-2007 by jra]


The only instance that I'm aware of where Time has no meaning is for Photons and other particles traveling at the speed of light in a vacuum.



posted on Feb, 20 2007 @ 11:27 AM
link   

Originally posted by sardion2000

Originally posted by jra

Originally posted by sardion2000
Also when you get down to the smallest scales, time doesn't just stop. It still exists and is hypothetically measured as Plank Time.


Ok. I had read something recently about a quantum haze as they called it and mentioned about time and space having no meaning at that scale. Thanks for the link though.

[edit on 17-2-2007 by jra]


The only instance that I'm aware of where Time has no meaning is for Photons and other particles traveling at the speed of light in a vacuum.


The most widely excepted theory of time-expansion-contraction is within a very extremely large gravity-well. Where, space-time theories will not hold.
These are believe by many to be in existence.



posted on Feb, 25 2007 @ 07:45 PM
link   
Tom,

I'll try and get to some of the details of your post but I'd like to keep things as simple as possible so most poeple can understand the mystery I'm trying to elaborate on .. and it is a mystery, no matter how much science you know or try and throw at it.

Lots of information out there but I'll post this one for now.


science.howstuffworks.com...

But most metals have electrons that can detach from their atoms and move around. These are called free electrons. Gold, silver, copper, aluminum, iron, etc., all have free electrons. The loose electrons make it easy for electricity to flow through these materials, so they are known as electrical conductors. They conduct electricity. -The MOVING ELECTRONS TRANSMIT -electrical energy- from one point to another.



Top of the search list so most poeple probably have seen this just like me.

Moving electrons ONLY trasmit electrical energy *from one point to another*


The fact that I'm punctuating here is that moving electrons (whether they wiggle, or move around randomly.. really is irrelavent in this case) and electrical energy are TWO ENTIRELY DIFFERENT THINGS. Without free electrons, otherwise knows as the electron sea or "electron foam" in conductors, *electrical energy/waves* CAN'T propagate.

Do you understand what I'm saying? It's the WAVE I'm focusing on here. What is it exactly? What is the difference between an electrical 'wave' and a NON electrical 'wave'?

Alot of people I talk to that are somewhat educated believe that electricity is the 'flow of electrons'. This is wrong as I stated earlier.. Free moving electrons in a conductor merely provide the medium for the electrical energy to -flow- THROUGH.


Unless you can mechanically explain beyond the shadow of a doubt what causes the electrical wave to require a 'charge' to propagate versus a non electrical wave needing only 'matter' you are only spinning your wheel.

Last time I checked, no one (at least in mainstream dogmatic science) is able to explain this any more than they can explain mechanically how gravity really works aside from explaining it's effects.

No offense.. I'm glad we have knowledgeable educated people who know all the math and science and understand how things work "inside the box" but I'm more interested and focused on what's outside of it.


Einstein did a pretty good job illustrating that matter was made out of "energy/nothing" but I ask again.. What is energy exactly? We know it exists, we know that it can exert a force on 'something'.. but what is it? It's made of NOTHING but yet it can have different properties? One type of "nothing" requiring a 'charge' to propagate through while another type of "nothing" can move through water?

Then we get to gravity.. the ultimate nothing.

Rumor has it Einstein had made the connection between electricy and gravity by actually finishing his unified field theory. Who knows but it's all still a mystery, at least to me.






[edit on 25-2-2007 by ViewFromTheStars]



posted on Feb, 25 2007 @ 08:09 PM
link   
It's pretty much everything out over 'THERE"
That's all I know...Don't tell anybody else its a secret.



new topics

top topics



 
3
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join