What space did the universe expand into?

page: 18
11
<< 15  16  17    19  20 >>

log in

join

posted on Oct, 2 2012 @ 02:14 PM
link   
reply to post by spy66
 


So basically your saying your right. You cant prove it, you cant explain why or provide sources, you just keep rambling.




posted on Oct, 2 2012 @ 03:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by ubeenhad
reply to post by spy66
 


So basically your saying your right. You cant prove it, you cant explain why or provide sources, you just keep rambling.


Do you even try to comprehend what he is trying to say to you?

your judging him preconceived,,, that he doesnt know what hes talking about,,, when in fact he comprehends what your talking about,, and trying to show you how he is able to see things,,a way which may hold ground in truth and reality,, and you are refusing to attempt to understand it.,,.
edit on 2-10-2012 by ImaFungi because: (no reason given)


he is saying the vacuums we study are all biased,..,.,.,

because we are using matter to contain an area of space,,, in a moving/expanding universe,,, thus not really measuring fundamental matter less space,..,,.,. you take this data to mean that fundamental mater less space does not exist,,,,,
he is saying there must be fundamental void of matter,,, for the matter to occupy,,,,

he believes that infinite non material space exists ( i think),.,.,. and that the physical material universe exists somewhere and somewhen within this space.,,.

this void of matter is known as completely empty neutral matter less space,,,,

this space is only understood as a vacuum when there is measured matter within this contained space,, because every time we attempt to measure the non material space,,,, there are traces of material,.,,.

if there was no material,,,,,, but infinite space,,,, there would be no vacuum,,,,because there would be no pressure,, and nothing to distinguish any point or area from another,..,.,

Spy can explain himself better then i can for him,,, and if you give him a chance you/we can have an interesting discussion.,,.,.,.
edit on 2-10-2012 by ImaFungi because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 2 2012 @ 04:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by ImaFungi

Originally posted by ubeenhad
reply to post by spy66
 


So basically your saying your right. You cant prove it, you cant explain why or provide sources, you just keep rambling.


Do you even try to comprehend what he is trying to say to you?

your judging him preconceived,,, that he doesnt know what hes talking about,,, when in fact he comprehends what your talking about,, and trying to show you how he is able to see things,,a way which may hold ground in truth and reality,, and you are refusing to attempt to understand it.,,.
edit on 2-10-2012 by ImaFungi because: (no reason given)


he is saying the vacuums we study are all biased,..,.,.,

because we are using matter to contain an area of space,,, in a moving/expanding universe,,, thus not really measuring fundamental matter less space,..,,.,. you take this data to mean that fundamental mater less space does not exist,,,,,
he is saying there must be fundamental void of matter,,, for the matter to occupy,,,,

he believes that infinite non material space exists ( i think),.,.,. and that the physical material universe exists somewhere and somewhen within this space.,,.

this void of matter is known as completely empty neutral matter less space,,,,

this space is only understood as a vacuum when there is measured matter within this contained space,, because every time we attempt to measure the non material space,,,, there are traces of material,.,,.

if there was no material,,,,,, but infinite space,,,, there would be no vacuum,,,,because there would be no pressure,, and nothing to distinguish any point or area from another,..,.,

Spy can explain himself better then i can for him,,, and if you give him a chance you/we can have an interesting discussion.,,.,.,.
edit on 2-10-2012 by ImaFungi because: (no reason given)


Believe me, I understand what he is saying, but about 50% of it is nonsense. Until he stops contradicting established theory, I dont have the patients. I have repeatedly corrected him to no avail. Can't discuss with ignorance



posted on Oct, 2 2012 @ 06:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by ubeenhad

Originally posted by ImaFungi

Originally posted by ubeenhad
reply to post by spy66
 


So basically your saying your right. You cant prove it, you cant explain why or provide sources, you just keep rambling.


Do you even try to comprehend what he is trying to say to you?

your judging him preconceived,,, that he doesnt know what hes talking about,,, when in fact he comprehends what your talking about,, and trying to show you how he is able to see things,,a way which may hold ground in truth and reality,, and you are refusing to attempt to understand it.,,.
edit on 2-10-2012 by ImaFungi because: (no reason given)


he is saying the vacuums we study are all biased,..,.,.,

because we are using matter to contain an area of space,,, in a moving/expanding universe,,, thus not really measuring fundamental matter less space,..,,.,. you take this data to mean that fundamental mater less space does not exist,,,,,
he is saying there must be fundamental void of matter,,, for the matter to occupy,,,,

he believes that infinite non material space exists ( i think),.,.,. and that the physical material universe exists somewhere and somewhen within this space.,,.

this void of matter is known as completely empty neutral matter less space,,,,

this space is only understood as a vacuum when there is measured matter within this contained space,, because every time we attempt to measure the non material space,,,, there are traces of material,.,,.

if there was no material,,,,,, but infinite space,,,, there would be no vacuum,,,,because there would be no pressure,, and nothing to distinguish any point or area from another,..,.,

Spy can explain himself better then i can for him,,, and if you give him a chance you/we can have an interesting discussion.,,.,.,.
edit on 2-10-2012 by ImaFungi because: (no reason given)


Believe me, I understand what he is saying, but about 50% of it is nonsense. Until he stops contradicting established theory, I dont have the patients. I have repeatedly corrected him to no avail. Can't discuss with ignorance


ok...

so do you think the space the universe exists within/takes up is infinite?
going in all directions to infinity,, surrounding the universe?

the kind of interstellar space between galaxies,,, is fundamental space,,,, infinite 3-d emptiness?

or do you think interstellar space,, and all matter/energy in and of the universe,,,, is a whole contained systematic entity,, which has nothing to do with any external or greater reality ( from our perspective anyway,, if it does we cannot know it from within),,,, and we really may know nothing about a more fundamental reality,,,so we can only label and describe things like space,, and vacuum and infinite,and energy, and understand these concepts against other concepts we become familiar with and understand,,,, there is nothing to base the data off of except the data... so we label things and comprehend things as we see them fitting into the puzzle of reality and as we see fit...
edit on 2-10-2012 by ImaFungi because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 2 2012 @ 07:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by ubeenhad
reply to post by spy66
 


So basically your saying your right. You cant prove it, you cant explain why or provide sources, you just keep rambling.


In a quantum mechanical physical system you will never reach a vacuum purity beyond ground sate.


Vacuum energy is the zero-point energy of all the fields in space, which in the Standard Model includes the electromagnetic field, other gauge fields, fermionic fields, and the Higgs field. It is the energy of the vacuum, which in quantum field theory is defined not as empty space but as the ground state of the fields.


I think you try to use this to verify your knowledge about what a vacuum is. But than you have not read properly because this si not a study about a vacuum. But rather about particles within a vacuum state. This is not relative to the OPs question at all.


Zero-point energy is fundamentally related to the Heisenberg uncertainty principle. Roughly speaking, the uncertainty principle states that complementary variables (such as a particle's position and momentum, or a field's value and derivative at a point in space) cannot simultaneously be defined precisely by any given quantum state. In particular, there cannot be a state in which the system sits motionless at the bottom of its potential well, for then its position and momentum would both be completely determined to arbitrarily great precision. Therefore, the lowest-energy state (the ground state) of the system must have a distribution in position and momentum that satisfies the uncertainty principle, which implies its energy must be greater than the minimum of the potential well.


Here, more about particles.


Quantum mechanics (QM – also known as quantum physics, or quantum theory) is a branch of physics dealing with physical phenomena at microscopic scales, where the action is on the order of the Planck constant. Quantum mechanics departs from classical mechanics primarily at the quantum realm of atomic and subatomic length scales. Quantum mechanics provides a mathematical description of much of the dual particle-like and wave-like behavior and interactions of energy and matter.


I can bring up a whole bunch of these.



This is what i have been talking about. This is from the text above:

such as a particle's position and momentum, or a field's value and derivative at a point in space.


This text clearly mentions space and particle as two separate things. You haven't picked up on this at all.
Which i have described all along. How can i prove something to you when you don't know what you are reading?



posted on Oct, 3 2012 @ 05:24 AM
link   

Originally posted by spy66

What he is saying above is not write. A vacuum is a volume of space with matter inside it. The reason a volume of space becomes a vacuum is because of a the presence of matter in a space that is absolutely neutral.

edit on 27.06.08 by spy66 because: (no reason given)


Before you keep jumping around your points, you gotta explain this one.
So your saying a perfect vacuum(which doesn't exist, I sourced that aswell in previous posts) would have to have matter in it? Because if you don't mean a non existant perfect vacuum, then you must mean a QED Vacuum or possibly a QCD Vacuum(the ones we use in science!). But the problem there is I already sourced multiple times that the actual definition of those quantum vacuums includes "lack of matter". So were left do you have to go spy66? Kinda hard when I pin you down on just one errorenous statement instead of getting lost in your sea of ignorance.
Looks like your only option left is a dust-devil vacuum? There, you got one. There is your excuse, you were talking about vacuum cleaners. Makes more sense than what you were supposedly discussing.


Originally posted by spy66

In a quantum mechanical physical system you will never reach a vacuum purity beyond ground sate.



Its almost a direct copy past of my argument.

See you keep changing up what you say, maybe your actually reading the # I posted and your learning! Keep it up!
edit on 3-10-2012 by ubeenhad because: (no reason given)
edit on 3-10-2012 by ubeenhad because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 3 2012 @ 05:28 AM
link   
double post
edit on 3-10-2012 by ubeenhad because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 3 2012 @ 07:19 AM
link   

Originally posted by ubeenhad

Originally posted by spy66

What he is saying above is not write. A vacuum is a volume of space with matter inside it. The reason a volume of space becomes a vacuum is because of a the presence of matter in a space that is absolutely neutral.

edit on 27.06.08 by spy66 because: (no reason given)


Before you keep jumping around your points, you gotta explain this one.
So your saying a perfect vacuum(which doesn't exist, I sourced that aswell in previous posts) would have to have matter in it? Because if you don't mean a non existant perfect vacuum, then you must mean a QED Vacuum or possibly a QCD Vacuum(the ones we use in science!). But the problem there is I already sourced multiple times that the actual definition of those quantum vacuums includes "lack of matter". So were left do you have to go spy66? Kinda hard when I pin you down on just one errorenous statement instead of getting lost in your sea of ignorance.
Looks like your only option left is a dust-devil vacuum? There, you got one. There is your excuse, you were talking about vacuum cleaners. Makes more sense than what you were supposedly discussing.


Originally posted by spy66

In a quantum mechanical physical system you will never reach a vacuum purity beyond ground sate.



Its almost a direct copy past of my argument.

See you keep changing up what you say, maybe your actually reading the # I posted and your learning! Keep it up!
edit on 3-10-2012 by ubeenhad because: (no reason given)
edit on 3-10-2012 by ubeenhad because: (no reason given)



Ok i will explain my argument.

A absolute empty space is always neutral. When i say always neutral i mean always even if there is matter inside this space. Because i have also stated that, A absolute empty space will act as a catalyst for the changes within particles. The catalyst is "the" vacuum force. That is the difference in force between the state of the particle compared to the absolute neutral space it is inside. " The particle is positive compared to the neutral space". The only thing that is changing within this space is the particle it self. The neutral space will never change. It is the particle that fluctuate not the space. Right here you have the answer to the OPs question


Its like saying; A ice cube will try to be like the surrounding atmosphere so it will melt. The atmosphere wont try to become a ice cube.


Lets talk about this quote. Because you have clearly not understood why i brought it up.



In a quantum mechanical physical system you will never reach a vacuum purity beyond ground sate.


I assume you don't know what the ground sate is. Since you think this is what all space is like. But its not. It is the the purest state of a vacuum/particle scientists can create within a physical system. The ground state is a agreement among scientists on how pure the ground state can be within a isolated system/chamber/Well. It is the lovest energy state to a particle in a empty space.



edit on 27.06.08 by spy66 because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 3 2012 @ 07:25 AM
link   
The flat universe we perceive expanded into water. The leaflike structure we see is growing in a fluid of some sort.



posted on Oct, 3 2012 @ 07:37 AM
link   

Originally posted by rickymouse
The flat universe we perceive expanded into water. The leaflike structure we see is growing in a fluid of some sort.


The flat universe is expanding back to what it used to be: And that is a infinite state. That is a absolute neutral void.

There is a reason why energy wont ever disappear. That is because it is formed by the infinite void. And that is what it is trying to become by expansion. This void is not a fluid. Its a void that is absolutely neutral.



edit on 27.06.08 by spy66 because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 3 2012 @ 11:37 AM
link   

Originally posted by spy66

Originally posted by rickymouse
The flat universe we perceive expanded into water. The leaflike structure we see is growing in a fluid of some sort.


The flat universe is expanding back to what it used to be: And that is a infinite state. That is a absolute neutral void.

There is a reason why energy wont ever disappear. That is because it is formed by the infinite void. And that is what it is trying to become by expansion. This void is not a fluid. Its a void that is absolutely neutral.



edit on 27.06.08 by spy66 because: (no reason given)


Why/how...... did the infinite neutral void,,,consolidate a massive,, long living,, physical universe,,, in a specific point of the infinite neutral void..... you have to admit the physical universe is quite different from infinite neutral space........



posted on Oct, 3 2012 @ 11:44 AM
link   

Originally posted by jiggerj
Did a quick search, couldn't find it.

Now a quick question: If space and time was created at the moment of the Big Bang, what space did the expanding universe expand into?

Now, this is just for chat. I don't wanna see comments of go to school, click all these links, blah blah blah.

I'd like to read what you know, and if you don't know, then your opinion is still welcome.


When you pass from this life...Then! You Will Have Your Question Fully Answered...



posted on Oct, 3 2012 @ 01:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by ImaFungi

Originally posted by spy66

Originally posted by rickymouse
The flat universe we perceive expanded into water. The leaflike structure we see is growing in a fluid of some sort.


The flat universe is expanding back to what it used to be: And that is a infinite state. That is a absolute neutral void.

There is a reason why energy wont ever disappear. That is because it is formed by the infinite void. And that is what it is trying to become by expansion. This void is not a fluid. Its a void that is absolutely neutral.



edit on 27.06.08 by spy66 because: (no reason given)


Why/how...... did the infinite neutral void,,,consolidate a massive,, long living,, physical universe,,, in a specific point of the infinite neutral void..... you have to admit the physical universe is quite different from infinite neutral space........


Exactly. The finite universe is totally different than the absolute neutral space. And there is a perfectly good reason for that.

A absolute volume of empty space is absolutely neutral. That makes this space infinite. A volume of space that is infinite and absolutely neutral, is a absolute constant. A absolute constant will never change. But it has at least once, we are the proof of that. How that happened is a different topic.

A infinite volume of space that is absolutely neutral can not form something that is exactly like it self. Because only one volume of space can be absolutely neutral and infinite. So what ever the infinite volume of space forms, it will always be totally different than it self.



posted on Oct, 3 2012 @ 02:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by spy66
Ok i will explain my argument.

A absolute empty space is always neutral. When i say always neutral i mean always even if there is matter inside this space. Because i have also stated that, A absolute empty space will act as a catalyst for the changes within particles. The catalyst is "the" vacuum force. That is the difference in force between the state of the particle compared to the absolute neutral space it is inside. " The particle is positive compared to the neutral space". The only thing that is changing within this space is the particle it self. The neutral space will never change. It is the particle that fluctuate not the space. Right here you have the answer to the OPs question


Its like saying; A ice cube will try to be like the surrounding atmosphere so it will melt. The atmosphere wont try to become a ice cube.


Lets talk about this quote. Because you have clearly not understood why i brought it up.



In a quantum mechanical physical system you will never reach a vacuum purity beyond ground sate.


I assume you don't know what the ground sate is. Since you think this is what all space is like. But its not. It is the the purest state of a vacuum/particle scientists can create within a physical system. The ground state is a agreement among scientists on how pure the ground state can be within a isolated system/chamber/Well. It is the lovest energy state to a particle in a empty space.



edit on 27.06.08 by spy66 because: (no reason given)

I think I quoted the ground state long before you did, and sourced it and used it as information to debate "vacuum needing matter". You keep babling on about neutral pressure. Thats a property, not the cause of a vacuum. Your very confused about you own argument. You have stated things that I have been saying for 10 pages, to argue against me. Multiple things.

YOU sir, know nothing about a vacuum state or ground state. Its the lowest possible energy possible in the universe anywere. It has to do with Plancks constant(which im sure you will start using as a reference for your argument out of context) which is the smallest amount of "action" you can have. Those fluxuations can't be ridden of, and they will not be detectable except around the Planck distance which I have already stated I to be 10^-35 meters. It is only able to get to ground state if there is an ABSENCE of matter. How can you come back from that. (your quote below incase you forgot)

No matter how you look at it, the cause of a vacuum is absence of matter, and the quantum mechanical properties of space and fields. So once again I would like to provide two quotes. You should recognize them.


Originally posted by spy66
So basically all the vacuums you have been studying are isolated within our universe in one way or another. There is no way you can bring up a source that describes factually what space is like outside our expanding universe.


Huh?? But you just said....

Originally posted by spy66
Exactly. The finite universe is totally different than the absolute neutral space. And there is a perfectly good reason for that.

A absolute volume of empty space is absolutely neutral. That makes this space infinite.


Here's the quote im gunna put in my sig just for you.


Originally posted by spy66
What he is saying above is not write. A vacuum is a volume of space with matter inside it.
'

Just so you know if you search vacuum in wikipedia, the first sentence in the definition is "Vacuum is the absence of matter." Dont believe me? You got the internet right? Try it yourself. lol

Ohhhh, heres a good one....


Originally posted by spy66
Creating a absolute vacuum demands a very strong chamber to withstand the collapse/vacuum pressure.


Then you said...


Originally posted by spy66
The thing is, we will never observe a absolute vacuum within our universe. Because of pressure.


I can keep going bro. Its obvious you have read a few books, but dont you think your in over your head. Your entire argument is about negative, negative negative, for awhile I thought you might have switched to talking about negative charge! Like stated above, negative pressure is a property not a cause. So please, it might look like I avoid points of yours, I just dont always have patients to nit pick your entire argument, it TRY to just attack the foundations of your argument, but you just don't read my responses I guess.
If you admit that you were confused for awhile and said some backwards stuff, and that I wasn't wrong then we can try to salvage a descent discussion.
edit on 3-10-2012 by ubeenhad because: (no reason given)
edit on 3-10-2012 by ubeenhad because: (no reason given)
edit on 3-10-2012 by ubeenhad because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 3 2012 @ 02:45 PM
link   
reply to post by ubeenhad
 





I can keep going bro.



Please do.



posted on Oct, 3 2012 @ 02:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by spy66
reply to post by ubeenhad
 





I can keep going bro.



Please do.


I accept your surrender.
edit on 3-10-2012 by ubeenhad because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 3 2012 @ 03:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by ubeenhad

Originally posted by spy66
reply to post by ubeenhad
 





I can keep going bro.



Please do.


I accept your surrender.
edit on 3-10-2012 by ubeenhad because: (no reason given)


Who said anything about surrendering? I didn't.

I am going to stay hare and state my point of view.



posted on Oct, 3 2012 @ 03:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by spy66
I am going to stay hare and state my point of view.


Well atleast your not claiming its fact anymore. Thats progress.



posted on Oct, 3 2012 @ 04:45 PM
link   
reply to post by ubeenhad
 


This is why you dont have a clue about what i am talking about.
"From your last quote"




Here's the quote im gunna put in my sig just for you.


Originally posted by spy66
What he is saying above is not write. A vacuum is a volume of space with matter inside it.
'

Just so you know if you search vacuum in wikipedia, the first sentence in the definition is "Vacuum is the absence of matter." Dont believe me? You got the internet right? Try it yourself. lol


Just so you know a volume of space with matter inside it; is a vacuum. Do you think you can figure out why on your own, or do you need time to read from your sources?

I have been explaining it for a bloody long time. But you never catch on. Are you slow?

Why would a volume of space with mater inside be a vacuum?

My question is directly related to the OPs question. That is a hint "lol"




edit on 27.06.08 by spy66 because: (no reason given)
edit on 27.06.08 by spy66 because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 3 2012 @ 04:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by spy66
reply to post by ubeenhad
 


This is why you dont have a clue about what i am talking about.
"From your last quote"




Here's the quote im gunna put in my sig just for you.


Originally posted by spy66
What he is saying above is not write. A vacuum is a volume of space with matter inside it.
'

Just so you know if you search vacuum in wikipedia, the first sentence in the definition is "Vacuum is the absence of matter." Dont believe me? You got the internet right? Try it yourself. lol


Just so you know a volume of space with matter inside it; is a vacuum. Do you think you can figure out why on your own, or do you need time to read from your sources?

I have been explaining it for a bloody long time. But you never catch on. Are you slow?

Why would a volume of space with mater inside be a vacuum?





edit on 27.06.08 by spy66 because: (no reason given)


Because your understanding of pressure, quantum "logic", and cosmology, hell pretty much everything is rudamentary at best, but your ego is that of a nobel laureate.

If I were trying to argue your point I would reference something like this.
www.npl.co.uk...

Take some of the actual concepts and try to paint your picture of the internal and external pressures of a vacuum and try to apply it to the entire universe as a system. But thats still flawed logic, but logic I could respect. You sir are just rambling on and on and on.

Edit: Oh and you told me I was wrong when I wasn't. Even after proving I wasn't, to the fullest extent allowed on an internet forum. And you still say you need matter for a vacuum. People have killed for less.
Your trying to play some kind of word games with the entire universe as a vacuum and a system. all thats nonsense and unimportant to current SCIENCE.
edit on 3-10-2012 by ubeenhad because: (no reason given)
edit on 3-10-2012 by ubeenhad because: (no reason given)





new topics
top topics
 
11
<< 15  16  17    19  20 >>

log in

join