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.

 

Our planet is not in space...

page: 1
2

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 12 2008 @ 08:04 PM
link   
...because the atmosphere, gravity, or magnetic field to it may be. What is seen is light reflecting off the planet to make it appear as though it's in space, but it's technically not, correct?

And the atmosphere, magnetic field, gravity can not be called earth because they are not made of earth. Just like the water of the oceans are not called earth. So dont let light reflection fool your eyes or perception when gazing from a space angle.

Inside the sun's light there is no space. Only when the light is blocked do you get to see and perceive space. If you defined space as whatever makes something float than water would be space. So dont go there.
So when the space shuttle is not on earth, but in the light of the sun (or even moon light or star light), it's not in space at all actually. Space can not technically be without the absence of a light field, heat field , gravity field, magnetic feild, and matter field. Anyone get what I'm saying at how scientist and space exploration have it all so incorrect?

There has never been a person who has been up in space before is also what this is implying.

[edit on 12-4-2008 by Mabus]

[edit on 12-4-2008 by Mabus]




posted on Apr, 12 2008 @ 08:44 PM
link   
So if I were somewhere in the USA and I were to jump I wouldn't be in the USA anymore? I mean I'm not touchting the earth, I'm not made of earth and there's air between me and the american soil.....

'Earth' doesn't just mean the soil, it also includes the athosphere (it is part of the earth) etc. so the earth IS in space after all...



[edit on 12-4-2008 by redshirt0202]



posted on Apr, 12 2008 @ 09:11 PM
link   
space is defined as the vacuum in between bodies of mass(ie the sun or earth or the moon). it has nothing to do with whether or not there are particles like photons or atoms of hydrogen zipping around in it. you're basing your opinion on a flawed understanding of physics and astronomical terms...



posted on Apr, 12 2008 @ 09:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by Mabus
..

Anyone get what I'm saying at how scientist and space exploration have it all so incorrect?


Pleas excuse my ignoance but no... I just dont get it.

Cheers

Mungo



posted on Apr, 12 2008 @ 09:28 PM
link   
You couldn't be more wrong. The Earth "floats" thru space around the Sun which amazingly also "floats" thru space.



posted on Apr, 12 2008 @ 09:38 PM
link   
Either you are splitting hairs or you have no idea what you are talking about... so to be generous I will assume that you are splitting hairs.

I could never understand why physicists were always involved with the problems of time and space, specially space until I had the insight that since matter itself is a mere mist of particles then space is the primary element in the universe, not matter. We are enbedded and infused with space.



posted on Apr, 12 2008 @ 09:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by optimus primal
space is defined as the vacuum in between bodies of mass(ie the sun or earth or the moon). it has nothing to do with whether or not there are particles like photons or atoms of hydrogen zipping around in it. you're basing your opinion on a flawed understanding of physics and astronomical terms...


Vacuum-

1. a space entirely devoid of matter.

^^By this definition there is no space in how I said like that the shuttle has entered into. What it has entered before was never space.

Matter-

3. something that occupies space.

^^By this definition a something can be gravity, light, heat, cold, etc that occupies space. What is it doing in occupying space, is it deleting space or moving space as though space can be moved in that it's occupying?

The more I understand it, the more I conclude that space just doesnt exist. Whether is has before or ever will or is somewhere beyond this something indeed we are in has yet to be learned.

Is light, gravity, heat, and cold incorporeal? If so, those things are yet in still defined as "something" which means if we use the 3rd definition to matter I stand on point.



posted on Apr, 12 2008 @ 10:06 PM
link   
Details Details its always the Details, technically this or theoretically that,
The fact remains we are connected to everything that floats in space,IE atmosphere, Magnetic field, whatever else is there, therefore we are in fact in space, i think it is called splitting hairs?, information that has no use whatsoever to the average person anywhere outside a dedicated mad scientists laboratory,

I feel you are grasping at something that was answered long ago by some obscure lab tech, or Victorian dreamer, looking for something to blow the minds of the intellectualy minded, committed to their world of discovery.

Sadly it was discovered long ago the world was round.

Im not trying to cause offense by saying this, im just asking does it really matter?

[edit on 12/4/2008 by azzllin]



posted on Apr, 12 2008 @ 10:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by Mabus

Originally posted by optimus primal
space is defined as the vacuum in between bodies of mass(ie the sun or earth or the moon). it has nothing to do with whether or not there are particles like photons or atoms of hydrogen zipping around in it. you're basing your opinion on a flawed understanding of physics and astronomical terms...


Vacuum-

1. a space entirely devoid of matter.

^^By this definition there is no space in how I said like that the shuttle has entered into. What it has entered before was never space.

Matter-

3. something that occupies space.

^^By this definition a something can be gravity, light, heat, cold, etc that occupies space. What is it doing in occupying space, is it deleting space or moving space as though space can be moved in that it's occupying?

The more I understand it, the more I conclude that space just doesnt exist. Whether is has before or ever will or is somewhere beyond this something indeed we are in has yet to be learned.

Is light, gravity, heat, and cold incorporeal? If so, those things are yet in still defined as "something" which means if we use the 3rd definition to matter I stand on point.


so what i'm understanding of what you're saying, is that there is no vacuum, that you can just fly from here to the moon with no spacesuit and breathe deeply? you're nitpicking at the terminology trying to prove you're smarter than astrophysicists, from what i can tell. what we commonly refer to as "space" , like in space exploration, is a vacuum. vacuum as in, besides the random particle whizzing through the universe, there is no atmosphere and bodies of mass like stars and planets or nebulae are not sitting one on top of another stretching on into infinity. like the "space" between earth and the moon. or i suppose the space in an atom seperating the particles....
so are you really trying to say there is no space at all? that everything is connected via electromagnetism,gravity and other quantum and such forces? while that's true, it still doesn't change what the world of physics and astronomy call "space".



posted on Apr, 13 2008 @ 09:43 AM
link   

Originally posted by Mabus
The more I understand it, the more I conclude that space just doesnt exist. Whether is has before or ever will or is somewhere beyond this something indeed we are in has yet to be learned.

On the contrary it can be seriously argued the matter doesn't exist. Only emptyness exists. Matter is shaped emptyness. Ask any Buddhist.



posted on Apr, 13 2008 @ 09:49 AM
link   
if we go by the understanding that everything is vibrating particles and they do not 'touch' then technically NOTHING exists....



posted on Apr, 13 2008 @ 11:17 AM
link   
reply to post by optimus primal
 


It can be said that where something ends another something begins, which may or may be be of the main something focus to why it's overlooked or excluded. Atoms are examined here on earth where there is gravity and magnetic fields and temperature and light and etc that should be (or even would come to be) inbetween particles of in an atom when it's being viewed under a microscore by man.



posted on Apr, 13 2008 @ 11:23 AM
link   

Originally posted by nablator

Originally posted by Mabus
The more I understand it, the more I conclude that space just doesnt exist. Whether is has before or ever will or is somewhere beyond this something indeed we are in has yet to be learned.

On the contrary it can be seriously argued the matter doesn't exist. Only emptyness exists. Matter is shaped emptyness. Ask any Buddhist.


I'm not in any known to man religion, but I read the bible. In it if you notice there is no mention of space anywhere. There is mention of the sun, moon, stars, and the heavens which are all something. Even the great gulf fixed (concerning the rich man and laz parable) is something, or else, they of a concern that would pass from thence (hell) to us (Ab and Laz) can and vise versa.



posted on Apr, 13 2008 @ 11:25 AM
link   
OP is philosophising over the nature of null - or nothing.

He's saying that seeing as space contains something be it photons or unknown sub-atomic material, it cannot technically be called space - because that space is taken up by material.

I think the OP may be confusing the astro-physical definition of space, and the space you have in, for example; the boot of your car, maybe.

It is my opinion that space, or that which is more aptly named null exists in another dimension, and that dimension is comprised entirely of null.

The exact opposite of that chaos dimension i'm always harking on about.

[edit on 13-4-2008 by Anti-Tyrant]



posted on Apr, 13 2008 @ 11:29 AM
link   
Naturally, 'nothing' can only exist in a multi-dimensional universe.

Tis a concept, but it is also a concept that chairs are used for sitting, that planes are used for flying, that mirrors are used to see a reflection.



posted on Apr, 13 2008 @ 11:32 AM
link   
Yes, the OP is mixing up definitions of words like "space", using them in the wrong contexts. One definition of light could be an incandescent lamp. Could I then say there is no light in the room I'm in right now simply because there are no incandescent lamps?

No. If you're going to waste people's time, at least attempt to do so using the proper definitions of words given the context.



posted on Apr, 13 2008 @ 11:45 AM
link   
Just for fun, i'm going to make a statement;

If the Chaos dimension represents Everything, and the Null dimension represents Nothing, then inbetween you can have Something in this case being Anything.

I'll let other people decide whether it's just clever wordplay or if i've actually got something here, because i'm unwilling to make a conviction on this.

[edit on 13-4-2008 by Anti-Tyrant]



posted on Apr, 13 2008 @ 01:21 PM
link   
While we are on to this, that sort of makes me think of the stupid idiot that made a whole website about there is no moon its a figment of our imagination. Since we are making all this wonderful stuff up, I am not even here and truthfully, the earth is actually inside a big glass bubble with huge aliens looking at us daily. Sort of like us looking at an ant farm.


Hilda



posted on Apr, 13 2008 @ 01:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by Anti-Tyrant
Just for fun, i'm going to make a statement;

If the Chaos dimension represents Everything, and the Null dimension represents Nothing, then inbetween you can have Something in this case being Anything.

I'll let other people decide whether it's just clever wordplay or if i've actually got something here, because i'm unwilling to make a conviction on this.

[edit on 13-4-2008 by Anti-Tyrant]


I think you may be on to something which may mean nothing figuring that none of us know everything. Yet some of us know nothing. Which then means that it still could mean something but we just dont know anything or everything so therefore we cant tell if it does or doesnt mean something. Which at this point could mean anything, dont you think?

Hilda



posted on Apr, 13 2008 @ 07:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by Mabus

Vacuum-

1. a space entirely devoid of matter.

^^By this definition there is no space in how I said like that the shuttle has entered into. What it has entered before was never space.

Matter-

3. something that occupies space.

^^By this definition a something can be gravity, light, heat, cold, etc that occupies space. What is it doing in occupying space, is it deleting space or moving space as though space can be moved in that it's occupying?

The more I understand it, the more I conclude that space just doesnt exist. Whether is has before or ever will or is somewhere beyond this something indeed we are in has yet to be learned.

Is light, gravity, heat, and cold incorporeal? If so, those things are yet in still defined as "something" which means if we use the 3rd definition to matter I stand on point.


This is all wrong here are the correct definitions:
vacuum - A pressure less than atmospheric pressure.

matter - substance: that which has mass and occupies space; "an atom is the smallest indivisible unit of matter"
a vaguely specified concern; "several matters to attend to"; "it is none of your affair"; "things are going well"
topic: some situation or event that is thought about; "he kept drifting off the topic"; "he had been thinking about the subject for several years"; "it is a matter for the police"
a problem; "is anything the matter?"
(used with negation) having consequence; "they were friends and it was no matter who won the games"
written works (especially in books or magazines); "he always took some reading matter with him on the plane"
count: have weight; have import, carry weight; "It does not matter much"

Ya do a little more research, also your eyes wouldn't implode if you floated in water; funny thing is they would in space.

[edit on 13-4-2008 by Lokey13]



new topics

top topics



 
2

log in

join