It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Thank you.

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

# What space did the universe expand into?

page: 19
11
share:

posted on Oct, 3 2012 @ 05:14 PM

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.

But you still haven't answered my question. Why is a volume of space with matter inside a vacuum?

You can use your link to figure out the correct answer. But i bet you don't have a clue on how to figure it out.
If you do know how to figure it out and can prove me wrong. I will surrender "lol"

I am stubborn when i know i am write.

EDIT: I will give you some help "lol"

The volume of space is infinite and the matter is finite. This should give you a clue.

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

posted on Oct, 3 2012 @ 05:48 PM

Originally posted by spy66

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.

But you still haven't answered my question. Why is a volume of space with matter inside a vacuum?

You can use your link to figure out the correct answer. But i bet you don't have a clue on how to figure it out.
If you do know how to figure it out and can prove me wrong. I will surrender "lol"

I am stubborn when i know i am write.

EDIT: I will give you some help "lol"

The volume of space is infinite and the matter is finite. This should give you a clue.

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

idk what drugs your on, but please tell me were anything I have posted says space is infinite? There are many who speculate it might be, but no such observations have been made. And thats physics buddy.

Your looking at the expanding universe as a whole system of a vaccum. The problem is, our whole system has matter and above ground state energy levels, and by definition IS NOT A FREAKING VACUUM.

Found this little gem on google+

The Question
(Submitted September 02, 2001)

It has been said that because our universe creates its own "space and time" it is expanding into pure nothing. Is there a possibility that this "nothings"' main attribute is that of a perfect vacuum pulling the universe apart like a balloon inside a bell jar when the air is removed?

Interesting idea, which may help explain why the universe appears to be expanding at an ever increasing rate. If I can extend your logic - an infinitely dense point of matter appears in an otherwise perfect vacuum state. An event of some sort causes that point to begin to expand very rapidly, overcoming whatever initial gravitation pull would keep the point of mass together. As the new universe continues to expand, there is less and less gravitational pull to bring all of this mass back to its origin. If the pulling force outward is constant and the gravitational pull continues to decrease, the expansion rate will continue to increase. This is a valid line of thought, however, let's say one inserts a puff of gas into an evacuated bell jar. The gas will quickly expand, but the more volume it fills, the slower the expansion rate (at least in terms of the radius of the expansion; maybe the change in volume per unit time is constant or increases?).

Apart from that potentially damaging argument, there is the issue of the definition of "universe." Or universe, by one definition, is everything. There is nothing beyond or outside of it, not even the empty space-time we can conceive of as perfect space, so there would be no vacuum into which the universe could expand. This may seem a bit of a paradox, as we can always imagine something outside of our house or our solar system, but then it really becomes a question of philosophy as much as science.

edit on 3-10-2012 by ubeenhad because: (no reason given)

posted on Oct, 3 2012 @ 06:25 PM

idk what drugs your on, but please tell me were anything I have posted says space is infinite? There are many who speculate it might be, but no such observations have been made. And thats physics buddy.

Your looking at the expanding universe as a whole system of a vaccum. The problem is, our whole system has matter and above ground state energy levels, and by definition IS NOT A FREAKING VACUUM.

- I have never said that you have stated that there is a infinite volume of space. But i have mentioned it, because i believe space is infinite. And i have my reasons.

- I hope you know why our scientists haven't observed the infinite space yet. I have mentioned it earlier within this topic.

- Yes, i am looking at the whole universe "our universe" as a expanding system within a infinite space.

There is a very important thing you don't get when you read from your sources. And that is; space and matter. You don't know the difference between the two. That is why you don't grasp the extent of what a vacuum is. And that is why you have no clue as to what i am saying.

- It doesn't matter if our universe has matter above ground state level. All that proves is that we can not go beyond the particles ground state with our finite procedures. The ground sate is not a true constant. It is only a good enough constant.

A absolute empty space is a true constant. You can't argue about that. We can not create this space with our finite resources. But that does not mean it doesn't exist. And it doesn't mean the ground state is the last stage of a particle expansion/changes. NOT if the space it exists in is absolutely neutral.

posted on Oct, 3 2012 @ 06:32 PM

Originally posted by spy66

idk what drugs your on, but please tell me were anything I have posted says space is infinite? There are many who speculate it might be, but no such observations have been made. And thats physics buddy.

Your looking at the expanding universe as a whole system of a vaccum. The problem is, our whole system has matter and above ground state energy levels, and by definition IS NOT A FREAKING VACUUM.

- I have never said that you have stated that there is a infinite volume of space. But i have mentioned it, because i believe space is infinite. And i have my reasons.

- I hope you know why our scientists haven't observed the infinite space yet. I have mentioned it earlier within this topic.

- Yes, i am looking at the whole universe "our universe" as a expanding system within a infinite space.

There is a very important thing you don't get when you read from your sources. And that is; space and matter. You don't know the difference between the two. That is why you don't grasp the extent of what a vacuum is. And that is why you have no clue as to what i am saying.

- It doesn't matter if our universe has matter above ground state level. All that proves is that we can not go beyond the particles ground state with our finite procedures. The ground sate is not a true constant. It is only a good enough constant.

A absolute empty space is a true constant. You can't argue about that. We can not create this space with our finite resources. But that does not mean it doesn't exist. And it doesn't mean the ground state is the last stage of a particle expansion/changes. NOT if the space it exists in is absolutely neutral.

I think its safe to say your the only one here who doesn't know what space and matter is lol. Im actually well versed in relativity thank you very much, you obviously are not.

Your beating up the same horse over and over again. "absolute space is a true constant" we cant even show what your refering to as "absolute space" would be like if it exists. So how can it be a fundemental constant? G is a constant, c is a constand, h(plancks) is a constant. Your absolute space doesn't even exist in physics.

The laws of quantum mechanics I.e Heisenbergs uncertainty principle hold true everywere bro, so yes the ground state is the ground state. Lowest amount of energy allowed. For this to not be true a whole LOT of new physics needs to come around.

Seems like you already have an aswer to this question. Is space granular or fluid geometric bending? Cause no one knows, but for you to make the assumptions you are, you must.

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 @ 06:58 PM

Your beating up the same horse over and over again. "absolute space is a true constant" we cant even show what your refering to as "absolute space" would be like if it exists. So how can it be a fundemental constant? G is a constant, c is a constand, h(plancks) is a constant. Your absolute space doesn't even exist in physics.

Ehmmm.

-What is the speed of light measured in? Jesse's Christ do we really have to go here???

-The gravitational force between two bodies? Are you sure there is no space between them or surrounding these bodies???

- A Planck wave? how can it exist without space????

A absolutely true constant don't have motion. It is stationary.

posted on Oct, 3 2012 @ 07:13 PM

Originally posted by spy66

Your beating up the same horse over and over again. "absolute space is a true constant" we cant even show what your refering to as "absolute space" would be like if it exists. So how can it be a fundemental constant? G is a constant, c is a constand, h(plancks) is a constant. Your absolute space doesn't even exist in physics.

Ehmmm.

-What is the speed of light measured in? Jesse's Christ do we really have to go here???

-The gravitational force between two bodies? Are you sure there is no space between them or surrounding these bodies???

- A Planck wave? how can it exist without space????

A absolutely true constant don't have motion. It is stationary.

Im done with you. I never implied space does not exist. I said flat out and planly that your proposed idea of "absolute space" were there are no fluxuating fields no virtual particle pairs popping in and out of existence is NON EXISTENT TO TODAYS PHYSICS.

The listed constants, which i figured were gimmies (obviously you have NO CLUE what h is tho based on ur little comment about it) are not in the same category as your "absolutle space" . I even used quotations before and the word absolute, how did you think i was talking about traditional concepts of space?) I said I am well informed of SR and GR. You seriously just take whatever you want out of my posts don't you.

You got to be a colleague of mine messing with me. I told a couple of them about a few topics, so this is jerry isnt it? How does someone this dense even know the word quantum mechanics?
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 @ 07:23 PM

"I never implied space does not exist. I said flat out and planly that your proposed idea of "absolute space" were there are no fluxuating fields no virtual particle pairs popping in and out of existence is NON EXISTENT TO TODAYS PHYSICS. "

in a true vacuum,,, with sparse particles and virtual particles detected..... in a contained volume.....
besides the particles,,, in that volume,, what exists?

are the particles that are witnessed popping in and out of existence,, caused by the absence of particles ( space)?
or are the particles ( energy/mater) caused by energy/matter?

is every Planck's length of space in the universe full of energy in particle/physical form?
what im asking there is,,,,, is space by nature,, material/energy... meaning there is no such thing as "empty space"?
edit on 3-10-2012 by ImaFungi because: (no reason given)

posted on Oct, 3 2012 @ 07:28 PM

Originally posted by ImaFungi

"I never implied space does not exist. I said flat out and planly that your proposed idea of "absolute space" were there are no fluxuating fields no virtual particle pairs popping in and out of existence is NON EXISTENT TO TODAYS PHYSICS. "

in a true vacuum,,, with sparse particles and virtual particles detected..... in a contained volume.....
besides the particles,,, in that volume,, what exists?

are the particles that are witnessed popping in and out of existence,, caused by the absence of particles ( space)?
or are the particles ( energy/mater) caused by energy/matter?

is every Planck's length of space in the universe full of energy in particle/physical form?
what im asking there is,,,,, is space by nature,, material/energy... meaning there is no such thing as "empty space"?
edit on 3-10-2012 by ImaFungi because: (no reason given)

I don't know much about the properties of a true vacuum, and the concept has no use most of the areas i care about. One thing about a true vacuum would have to be NO particles and NO virtual particle pair interactions. But see, everything we experience or can observe takes place an no lower energy level than ground state(sourced back a few pages before clown shoes started throwing it around). Physics is about what we can observe. So a true vacuum is irrelevant. The spy guy is missing the whole point, and then some.

In our "universe" if we were to take every possible amount of energy out of a closed system, there would still be particles popping in and out of existince really fast. In quantum field theory, these fields are the ones going through the fluctionations, and then we get to wave particle duality and quantized fields and cant go any father on a forum
edit on 3-10-2012 by ubeenhad because: (no reason given)

posted on Oct, 3 2012 @ 07:31 PM

Originally posted by ImaFungi

"I never implied space does not exist. I said flat out and planly that your proposed idea of "absolute space" were there are no fluxuating fields no virtual particle pairs popping in and out of existence is NON EXISTENT TO TODAYS PHYSICS. "

in a true vacuum,,, with sparse particles and virtual particles detected..... in a contained volume.....
besides the particles,,, in that volume,, what exists?

are the particles that are witnessed popping in and out of existence,, caused by the absence of particles ( space)?
or are the particles ( energy/mater) caused by energy/matter?

is every Planck's length of space in the universe full of energy in particle/physical form?
what im asking there is,,,,, is space by nature,, material/energy... meaning there is no such thing as "empty space"?
edit on 3-10-2012 by ImaFungi because: (no reason given)

I don't know much about the properties of a true vacuum, and the concept has no use most of the areas i care about. One thing about a true vacuum would have to be NO particles and NO virtual particle pair interactions. But see, everything we experience or can observe takes place an no lower energy level than ground state(sourced back a few pages before clown shoes started throwing it around). Physics is about what we can observe. So a true vacuum is irrelevant. The spy guy is missing the whole point, and then some.

dangit,,,, i only wrote true,,, because i thought you defined a vacuum as a true vacuum earlier.,,.

can you please respond to my questions with what you think,,, and change out true vacuum for,,, creatable vacuum,,

posted on Oct, 3 2012 @ 07:33 PM

Originally posted by ImaFungi

Originally posted by ImaFungi

"I never implied space does not exist. I said flat out and planly that your proposed idea of "absolute space" were there are no fluxuating fields no virtual particle pairs popping in and out of existence is NON EXISTENT TO TODAYS PHYSICS. "

in a true vacuum,,, with sparse particles and virtual particles detected..... in a contained volume.....
besides the particles,,, in that volume,, what exists?

are the particles that are witnessed popping in and out of existence,, caused by the absence of particles ( space)?
or are the particles ( energy/mater) caused by energy/matter?

is every Planck's length of space in the universe full of energy in particle/physical form?
what im asking there is,,,,, is space by nature,, material/energy... meaning there is no such thing as "empty space"?
edit on 3-10-2012 by ImaFungi because: (no reason given)

I don't know much about the properties of a true vacuum, and the concept has no use most of the areas i care about. One thing about a true vacuum would have to be NO particles and NO virtual particle pair interactions. But see, everything we experience or can observe takes place an no lower energy level than ground state(sourced back a few pages before clown shoes started throwing it around). Physics is about what we can observe. So a true vacuum is irrelevant. The spy guy is missing the whole point, and then some.

dangit,,,, i only wrote true,,, because i thought you defined a vacuum as a true vacuum earlier.,,.

can you please respond to my questions with what you think,,, and change out true vacuum for,,, creatable vacuum,,

I added more to my last post. I thought you meant "true vacuum" in the context that spy was. That there is a lower energy level than the quantum vacuum. If you mean a ture vacuum then just say vacuum or quantum vacuum.
edit on 3-10-2012 by ubeenhad because: (no reason given)

posted on Oct, 3 2012 @ 07:38 PM

Besides the helpfulness to physics models, and the most likely accurateness of the universes energy having a starting point,, a common moment of birth,,, a beginning of time,,,,.,,. Do you think that this universe is the first thing to ever exist in the history of a more ultimate reality,,,, do you think this universe is the first thing to ever happen in the history of something being able to happen?

posted on Oct, 3 2012 @ 07:42 PM

"In our "universe" if we were to take every possible amount of energy out of a closed system, there would still be particles popping in and out of existince really fast".

if we were to take all possible energy out of the closed system of universe(?) ,, this is kind of what i was getting at,,, i want to know what you think would be left,,,, Spy thinks what would be left is an infinite neutral space.....
you think what would be left is... an infinite quantum vacuum capable of fluctuating?

and since you got at Spy for speaking hypotheticals,,, how do you know if we removed all the energy there would still be particles ( measure-able energy),, when we only have evidence of measuring "empty space" in an area surrounded by energy and particles? you are convinced that the nature of reality is one where accidental and chaotic particle popping is destined to happen,,, that is the natural way of nature,,, but this is just an after the fact assumption,, of being stuck in this universe,, being created by it and of it., and only being able to measure it,, in an expanding,, energy full universe,,

edit on 3-10-2012 by ImaFungi because: (no reason given)

posted on Oct, 3 2012 @ 07:44 PM

I dont know you at all.

I think yo have gotten a few things wrong from the start.

1. I don't think you have looked up the definition "universe". It is our universe scientists are uncertain if it is finite or infinite. Meaning: they don't know if our universe is infinite.

2. You have been denying that a absolutely empty space exists. I have stated that it does exist. Because all matter exists in it. All matter occupy space, no matter how much matter or how little, or how large the matter is. We wouldn't have a vacuum at a quantum level if a absolutely empty space didn't exist.
I was hoping you would catch on!!!

I know you will probably argue that a space with matter is not empty. But you have to look at it a bit differently when you study this stuff.
You have to think empty space and matter.

A absolute empty space is neutral. You can not argue against it. If you put a particle into this space only the particle will change. Where do you think "c" came from? where do you think G came from?? And h planck.

It sure didn't come from the neutral space. And it sure ain't space that is "c", G or h.
the empty space is just a carrier that houses matter and energy.

posted on Oct, 3 2012 @ 07:46 PM

Originally posted by ImaFungi

"In our "universe" if we were to take every possible amount of energy out of a closed system, there would still be particles popping in and out of existince really fast".

if we were to take all possible energy out of the closed system of universe(?) ,, this is kind of what i was getting at,,, i want to know what you think would be left,,,, Spy thinks what would be left is an infinite neutral space.....
you think what would be left is... an infinite quantum vacuum capable of fluctuating?

and since you got at Spy for speaking hypotheticals,,, how do you know if we removed all the energy there would still be particles ( measure-able energy),, when we only have evidence of measuring "empty space" in an area surrounded by energy and particles? you are convinced that the nature of reality is one where accidental and chaotic particle popping is destined to happen,,, that is the natural way of nature,,, but this is just an after the fact assumption,, of being stuck in this universe,, being created by it and of it.,.,,.

No bro, i got at spy cause he told me I was wrong and his SPECULATION was right. So I tore apart his speculation, to a very mild degree. Someone in this specific field could make him cry. Seriously.

As to what would happen if we pulled all the energy out of the universe, AND removed the flucuations?
We can't. Conservation of energy, were would it all go? So if a question violates a known fundemental law, its pointless in physics. Just the way it is.

posted on Oct, 3 2012 @ 07:48 PM

Originally posted by spy66

I dont know you at all.

I think yo have gotten a few things wrong from the start.

1. I don't think you have looked up the definition "universe". It is our universe scientists are uncertain if it is finite or infinite. Meaning: they don't know if our universe is infinite.

2. You have been denying that a absolutely empty space exists. I have stated that it does exist. Because all matter exists in it. All matter occupy space, no matter how much matter or how little, or how large the matter is. We wouldn't have a vacuum at a quantum level if a absolutely empty space didn't exist.
I was hoping you would catch on!!!

I know you will probably argue that a space with matter is not empty. But you have to look at it a bit differently when you study this stuff.
You have to think empty space and matter.

A absolute empty space is neutral. You can not argue against it. If you put a particle into this space only the particle will change. Where do you think "c" came from? where do you think G came from?? And h planck.

It sure didn't come from the neutral space. And it sure ain't space that is "c", G or h.
the empty space is just a carrier that houses matter and energy.

I told you Fool. Im done with you.

posted on Oct, 3 2012 @ 07:53 PM

Originally posted by ImaFungi

"In our "universe" if we were to take every possible amount of energy out of a closed system, there would still be particles popping in and out of existince really fast".

if we were to take all possible energy out of the closed system of universe(?) ,, this is kind of what i was getting at,,, i want to know what you think would be left,,,, Spy thinks what would be left is an infinite neutral space.....
you think what would be left is... an infinite quantum vacuum capable of fluctuating?

and since you got at Spy for speaking hypotheticals,,, how do you know if we removed all the energy there would still be particles ( measure-able energy),, when we only have evidence of measuring "empty space" in an area surrounded by energy and particles? you are convinced that the nature of reality is one where accidental and chaotic particle popping is destined to happen,,, that is the natural way of nature,,, but this is just an after the fact assumption,, of being stuck in this universe,, being created by it and of it.,.,,.

As to what would happen if we pulled all the energy out of the universe, AND removed the flucuations?
We can't. Conservation of energy, were would it all go? So if a question violates a known fundemental law, its pointless in physics. Just the way it is.

what does the conservation of energy state about,,, no universe existing,,,,, and then a massive energetic universe existing in a matter of micro moments?

has the universe lost any total energy since its birth? will it ever?

if it has lost energy or will,,,,, where does it go?

and you can hypothetically think about removing all matter and energy.... but you cant imagine removing the fluctuations? because then that would give credence to absolute empty space existing?

you believe quantum fluctuations in (empty space?) created the entire universe,, one day by accident?
edit on 3-10-2012 by ImaFungi because: (no reason given)

posted on Oct, 3 2012 @ 08:10 PM

The laws of quantum mechanics I.e Heisenbergs uncertainty principle hold true everywere bro, so yes the ground state is the ground state. Lowest amount of energy allowed. For this to not be true a whole LOT of new physics needs to come around.

Then you didn't read the whole page. Because it tels you more.

It is true that ground sate is a low state of energy. I have never denied that. But you didn't mention the limitations of our finite system used to create this ground state. It is not possible for scientists to go past this ground state.
Physics are not limited to our resources. We are limited in physics because of our finite resources. Big difference.

posted on Oct, 3 2012 @ 08:10 PM

Originally posted by ImaFungi

Originally posted by ImaFungi

"In our "universe" if we were to take every possible amount of energy out of a closed system, there would still be particles popping in and out of existince really fast".

if we were to take all possible energy out of the closed system of universe(?) ,, this is kind of what i was getting at,,, i want to know what you think would be left,,,, Spy thinks what would be left is an infinite neutral space.....
you think what would be left is... an infinite quantum vacuum capable of fluctuating?

and since you got at Spy for speaking hypotheticals,,, how do you know if we removed all the energy there would still be particles ( measure-able energy),, when we only have evidence of measuring "empty space" in an area surrounded by energy and particles? you are convinced that the nature of reality is one where accidental and chaotic particle popping is destined to happen,,, that is the natural way of nature,,, but this is just an after the fact assumption,, of being stuck in this universe,, being created by it and of it.,.,,.

As to what would happen if we pulled all the energy out of the universe, AND removed the flucuations?
We can't. Conservation of energy, were would it all go? So if a question violates a known fundemental law, its pointless in physics. Just the way it is.

what does the conservation of energy state about,,, no universe existing,,,,, and then a massive energetic universe existing in a matter of micro moments?

has the universe lost any total energy since its birth? will it ever?

if it has lost energy or will,,,,, where does it go?

and you can hypothetically think about removing all matter and energy.... but you cant imagine removing the fluctuations? because then that would give credence to absolute empty space existing?

you believe quantum fluctuations in (empty space?) created the entire universe,, one day by accident?
edit on 3-10-2012 by ImaFungi because: (no reason given)

There is all kinds of speculation along the lines of quantum flucuations creating space, etc. Its really interesting.

And no, according to the conservation of energy law all the matter and energy that is in the universe now, was there when it started. That does point to us not fully understanding were all the energy is.

posted on Oct, 3 2012 @ 08:18 PM

I told you Fool. Im done with you.

LoL your funny. Did i touch a nerve .)

posted on Oct, 3 2012 @ 08:30 PM

Originally posted by spy66

I told you Fool. Im done with you.

LoL your funny. Did i touch a nerve .)

Ya, armchair experts bother me.
edit on 3-10-2012 by ubeenhad because: (no reason given)

new topics

11