|
|
| Author |
Message |
Guest
|
 Posted: Sun May 01, 2005 10:33 am Post subject:
Nasty Little Truth About Space
|
|
|
Excerpted from 'More Nasty Little Truths About Physics':
http://users.adelphia.net/~lilavois/Crackpots/nasty.htm
The Crackpottery
We've already seen that spacetime cannot possibly be a model of
reality. But what of space? Is there such a thing as a space in which
we exist and move? Is space a collection of positions or points? Does
matter occupy space? Ever since Newton legitimized the idea of space
most physicists have believed in some sort of physical space existing
separately from matter. To Newton, space was absolute. Einstein's
revolution did not do away with the idea of an independent physical
space but transformed it into the concept of spacetime.
The Nasty Little Truth
Physical space is given as a collection of positions. The idea is that,
in order for any physical entity or property to exist, it must exist at
a specific position in space. But if a position is a physical entity
that exists, it too, must exist at a specific position. In other words,
if space exists, where is it? As with time, one can posit a meta-space
but this quickly turns into an infinite regress. The nasty little truth
is that there is no such thing as space.
Abstract Space
The concept of a space existing separately from matter has not been
without its detractors. Sir Isaac's nemesis, none other than the great
German mathematician and philosopher Gottfried Leibniz, rejected the
concept of space, absolute or otherwise. Leibniz wrote that "space is
nothing else but an order of the existence of things, observed as
existing together; and therefore the fiction of a material universe,
moving forward in an empty space cannot be admitted." Leibniz believed
that the position of an object is not the property of an extrinsic
space but an intrinsic property of the object. These properties, taken
together, form an abstract order that he called space. I fully agree
with Leibniz on this issue.
Everything Is Absolute
The most immediate consequence of nonspatiality is that all physical
properties in the universe are absolute. The relative is abstract (in
our minds) and is dependent on the absolute. The reason is that, since
there is no space, all properties are intrinsic to (belong to)
individual particles. They are absolute by virtue of being intrinsic.
We've been told that the absolute does not exist and that only the
relative exists. The truth is that the relative is abstract and only
the absolute exists.
Paradoxes That Never Were
All of the nasty problems and paradoxes associated with the existence
of space disappear in one fell swoop. We no longer have to ponder the
notion of an impossibly infinite space or whether or not it has an
edge. Of course if space was finite, the impossible question would be,
what's on the other side? None of these things are of any importance
any longer because space is a mere illusion that arises from the
properties and interactions of particles. It does not exist. Particles
do not move from one location in space to another. Motion is just a
type of change, a change in the intrinsic positional property of a
particle.
Quantum Nonlocality and Nonspatiality
In the early eighties physicist Alain Aspect and colleagues performed
an experiment that confirmed the so-called Bell's Inequality Principle.
Without going into the details of the experiment, I'll just say that it
proved a major prediction of quantum theory, one that Einstein objected
to in a famous paper describing a thought experiment that became known
as the EPR (Einstein, Podolsky, Rosen) paradox. Two entangled photons
can be millions of miles apart and yet, if the polarity of one photon
flips, the other will flip simultaneously. To a lot of classical
physicists such as Einstein, the existence of nonlocal phenomena would
mean that the two photons are communicating at superluminal speeds
which is a no-no. Einstein called it "spooky action at a distance."
Many have refused to accept the completeness and even the correctness
of QM for this reason. But the superluminal objection is flawed in my
opinion, because it assumes the physical existence of space.
As soon as one realizes that there is no space then it is easy to see
that there is no superluminal or any sort of communication taking place
between the entangled photons. Particles do not exist in space, they
just exist. There is no spooky action at a distance because there is no
distance between particles. This is not the same as saying that the
distance is zero; distance simply does not exist: it is abstract. More
precisely, it is the abstract vector difference between two positional
properties. The entangled polarities are facets of the same coin. In
other words, nonlocality is equivalent to nonspatiality. Nature is able
to apply its principles of conservation "everywhere" because the
universe is one. Not one in the sense of a single point or location
(there is no location) but one in the sense of yin-yang
complementarity.
Exciting Consequence of Nonspatiality
By far the most exciting consequence of nonspatiality is that it should
be possible for a particle to move almost instantly from one position
to any other without going through the intervening positions. Normally
a particle moves by making a quantum jump, i.e., its intrinsic
positional property changes from one discrete value to another. The
fundamental discrete distance is on the order of the Planck Length
(about 10^-35 meters), a very minute distance. However, there is no
reason to suppose that the positional property of a particle cannot
change by amounts larger than the fundamental value. Note that this is
not the same as moving faster than light. Superluminal motion only
means that a quantum jump happens at a speed faster than c. This is not
the case with long distance jumps.
What's even more exciting about this is that it opens up the future
possibility of visiting other star systems and even other galaxies
hundreds of light years away without having to go into stasis during
the voyage. Closer to home, long distance jump technologies would
revolutionize our way of life by eliminating conventional modes of
transportation. Imagine waking up in New York City and having breakfast
in Paris or Rome and lunch in Rio de Janeiro! What kind of world would
we have?
Is Nonspatiality Too Wild?
I received several emails from people who agree with most of my
arguments but consider my ideas on nonspatiality to be as wild and far
fetched as wormholes and time travel. Let me point out that I argue
against time travel and the like, not because they look or sound far
fetched, but because they are illogical. I find the existence of space
as illogical as the existence of a time dimension.
Louis Savain
The Silver Bullet: Why Software Is Bad and What We Can Do to Fix it
http://users.adelphia.net/~lilavois/Cosas/Reliability.htm |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Helmut Wabnig
science forum Guru Wannabe
Joined: 25 Mar 2005
Posts: 171
|
| Posted: Sun May 01, 2005 11:37 am Post subject:
Re: Nasty Little Truth About Space
|
|
|
On 1 May 2005 05:33:19 -0700, eightwings2002@yahoo.com wrote:
| Quote: | Excerpted from 'More Nasty Little Truths About Physics':
http://users.adelphia.net/~lilavois/Crackpots/nasty.htm
The Crackpottery
Paradoxes That Never Were
. Particles
do not move from one location in space to another. Motion is just a
type of change, a change in the intrinsic positional property of a
particle.
|
How many Heinecke's or Beck's did change
their intrinsic positional properties
while you wrote that?
Get sober.
w. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Traveler
science forum Guru
Joined: 03 May 2005
Posts: 782
|
| Posted: Sun May 01, 2005 1:35 pm Post subject:
Re: Nasty Little Truth About Space
|
|
|
In article <vnm971t6g96lo5k65v9kehulpd16jnklpj@4ax.com>, Helmut Wabnig
<> wrote:
| Quote: | On 1 May 2005 05:33:19 -0700, eightwings2002@yahoo.com wrote:
Excerpted from 'More Nasty Little Truths About Physics':
http://users.adelphia.net/~lilavois/Crackpots/nasty.htm
The Crackpottery
Paradoxes That Never Were
. Particles
do not move from one location in space to another. Motion is just a
type of change, a change in the intrinsic positional property of a
particle.
How many Heinecke's or Beck's did change
their intrinsic positional properties
while you wrote that?
|
I am sure that you'll eventually tell us what you're talking about
when you figure it out.
Louis Savain
The Silver Bullet: Why Software Is Bad and What We Can Do to Fix it
http://users.adelphia.net/~lilavois/Cosas/Reliability.htm |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
David Johnson
science forum beginner
Joined: 01 May 2005
Posts: 6
|
| Posted: Sun May 01, 2005 7:23 pm Post subject:
Re: Nasty Little Truth About Space
|
|
|
My question involves more than just science.
If it was possible to travel with virtual no limitation to anywhere in the
universe, and if also there is intelligent life elsewhere in the universe,
what would protect us from these intelligent beings and they from us? Humans
have a dark and agressive side to them and other intelligent beings may as
well. With advanced technology it would be quite easy, even by mistake, for
some of us to cause massive destruction to them or some of them to us, even
totally wipe one or both of us out.
Consequently, it seems to me that space provides safety in the universe for
both living beings and nature.
David |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
FrediFizzx
science forum Guru
Joined: 01 May 2005
Posts: 774
|
| Posted: Sun May 01, 2005 7:59 pm Post subject:
Re: Nasty Little Truth About Space
|
|
|
"David Johnson" <mountains260@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:_Mbde.73$7U.42@newssvr30.news.prodigy.com...
| My question involves more than just science.
| If it was possible to travel with virtual no limitation to anywhere in
the
| universe, and if also there is intelligent life elsewhere in the
universe,
| what would protect us from these intelligent beings and they from us?
Humans
| have a dark and agressive side to them and other intelligent beings
may as
| well. With advanced technology it would be quite easy, even by
mistake, for
| some of us to cause massive destruction to them or some of them to us,
even
| totally wipe one or both of us out.
|
| Consequently, it seems to me that space provides safety in the
universe for
| both living beings and nature.
What dream Universe do you live in? Mother nature is a real b***h and
father nature is a bastard. One freakin' big asteroid hit and we are
toast. But we love 'em anywise since they gave us life. The point is,
massive destruction of us or any alien civilization is more likely to
come from nature. We are puny compared to what nature can dish out.
FrediFizzx
http://www.vacuum-physics.com/QVC/quantum_vacuum_charge.pdf
or postscript
http://www.vacuum-physics.com/QVC/quantum_vacuum_charge.ps |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Bill Hobba
science forum Guru
Joined: 02 May 2005
Posts: 2138
|
| Posted: Sun May 01, 2005 8:17 pm Post subject:
Re: Nasty Little Truth About Space
|
|
|
<eightwings2002@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1114950799.730567.134930@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
Since models using the concept of space-time are fully in accord with
experiment the above is trivially false.
Bill
| Quote: | But what of space? Is there such a thing as a space in which
we exist and move? Is space a collection of positions or points? Does
matter occupy space? Ever since Newton legitimized the idea of space
most physicists have believed in some sort of physical space existing
separately from matter. To Newton, space was absolute. Einstein's
revolution did not do away with the idea of an independent physical
space but transformed it into the concept of spacetime.
The Nasty Little Truth
Physical space is given as a collection of positions. The idea is that,
in order for any physical entity or property to exist, it must exist at
a specific position in space. But if a position is a physical entity
that exists, it too, must exist at a specific position. In other words,
if space exists, where is it? As with time, one can posit a meta-space
but this quickly turns into an infinite regress. The nasty little truth
is that there is no such thing as space.
Abstract Space
The concept of a space existing separately from matter has not been
without its detractors. Sir Isaac's nemesis, none other than the great
German mathematician and philosopher Gottfried Leibniz, rejected the
concept of space, absolute or otherwise. Leibniz wrote that "space is
nothing else but an order of the existence of things, observed as
existing together; and therefore the fiction of a material universe,
moving forward in an empty space cannot be admitted." Leibniz believed
that the position of an object is not the property of an extrinsic
space but an intrinsic property of the object. These properties, taken
together, form an abstract order that he called space. I fully agree
with Leibniz on this issue.
Everything Is Absolute
The most immediate consequence of nonspatiality is that all physical
properties in the universe are absolute. The relative is abstract (in
our minds) and is dependent on the absolute. The reason is that, since
there is no space, all properties are intrinsic to (belong to)
individual particles. They are absolute by virtue of being intrinsic.
We've been told that the absolute does not exist and that only the
relative exists. The truth is that the relative is abstract and only
the absolute exists.
Paradoxes That Never Were
All of the nasty problems and paradoxes associated with the existence
of space disappear in one fell swoop. We no longer have to ponder the
notion of an impossibly infinite space or whether or not it has an
edge. Of course if space was finite, the impossible question would be,
what's on the other side? None of these things are of any importance
any longer because space is a mere illusion that arises from the
properties and interactions of particles. It does not exist. Particles
do not move from one location in space to another. Motion is just a
type of change, a change in the intrinsic positional property of a
particle.
Quantum Nonlocality and Nonspatiality
In the early eighties physicist Alain Aspect and colleagues performed
an experiment that confirmed the so-called Bell's Inequality Principle.
Without going into the details of the experiment, I'll just say that it
proved a major prediction of quantum theory, one that Einstein objected
to in a famous paper describing a thought experiment that became known
as the EPR (Einstein, Podolsky, Rosen) paradox. Two entangled photons
can be millions of miles apart and yet, if the polarity of one photon
flips, the other will flip simultaneously. To a lot of classical
physicists such as Einstein, the existence of nonlocal phenomena would
mean that the two photons are communicating at superluminal speeds
which is a no-no. Einstein called it "spooky action at a distance."
Many have refused to accept the completeness and even the correctness
of QM for this reason. But the superluminal objection is flawed in my
opinion, because it assumes the physical existence of space.
As soon as one realizes that there is no space then it is easy to see
that there is no superluminal or any sort of communication taking place
between the entangled photons. Particles do not exist in space, they
just exist. There is no spooky action at a distance because there is no
distance between particles. This is not the same as saying that the
distance is zero; distance simply does not exist: it is abstract. More
precisely, it is the abstract vector difference between two positional
properties. The entangled polarities are facets of the same coin. In
other words, nonlocality is equivalent to nonspatiality. Nature is able
to apply its principles of conservation "everywhere" because the
universe is one. Not one in the sense of a single point or location
(there is no location) but one in the sense of yin-yang
complementarity.
Exciting Consequence of Nonspatiality
By far the most exciting consequence of nonspatiality is that it should
be possible for a particle to move almost instantly from one position
to any other without going through the intervening positions. Normally
a particle moves by making a quantum jump, i.e., its intrinsic
positional property changes from one discrete value to another. The
fundamental discrete distance is on the order of the Planck Length
(about 10^-35 meters), a very minute distance. However, there is no
reason to suppose that the positional property of a particle cannot
change by amounts larger than the fundamental value. Note that this is
not the same as moving faster than light. Superluminal motion only
means that a quantum jump happens at a speed faster than c. This is not
the case with long distance jumps.
What's even more exciting about this is that it opens up the future
possibility of visiting other star systems and even other galaxies
hundreds of light years away without having to go into stasis during
the voyage. Closer to home, long distance jump technologies would
revolutionize our way of life by eliminating conventional modes of
transportation. Imagine waking up in New York City and having breakfast
in Paris or Rome and lunch in Rio de Janeiro! What kind of world would
we have?
Is Nonspatiality Too Wild?
I received several emails from people who agree with most of my
arguments but consider my ideas on nonspatiality to be as wild and far
fetched as wormholes and time travel. Let me point out that I argue
against time travel and the like, not because they look or sound far
fetched, but because they are illogical. I find the existence of space
as illogical as the existence of a time dimension.
Louis Savain
The Silver Bullet: Why Software Is Bad and What We Can Do to Fix it
http://users.adelphia.net/~lilavois/Cosas/Reliability.htm
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
David Johnson
science forum beginner
Joined: 01 May 2005
Posts: 6
|
| Posted: Sun May 01, 2005 9:46 pm Post subject:
Re: Nasty Little Truth About Space
|
|
|
A book called "Rare Earth: Why Complex Life Is Uncommon in the Universe"
that came out a few years ago explains why in fact we aren't yet "toast".
For example the earth is located in the outer area of the Milky way where
asteroids and meteors moving about are much lower in quantity than closer
in. And Jupitor, with its enormous mass draws in a great deal of the
asteroids and meteors entering our solar system.
Furthermore, with advances in technology the incident of a dangerous
asteroid hitting the earth with be preventable.
David
"FrediFizzx" <fredifizzx@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:3dl1ogF6rg6faU1@individual.net...
| Quote: | "David Johnson" <mountains260@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:_Mbde.73$7U.42@newssvr30.news.prodigy.com...
| My question involves more than just science.
| If it was possible to travel with virtual no limitation to anywhere in
the
| universe, and if also there is intelligent life elsewhere in the
universe,
| what would protect us from these intelligent beings and they from us?
Humans
| have a dark and agressive side to them and other intelligent beings
may as
| well. With advanced technology it would be quite easy, even by
mistake, for
| some of us to cause massive destruction to them or some of them to us,
even
| totally wipe one or both of us out.
|
| Consequently, it seems to me that space provides safety in the
universe for
| both living beings and nature.
What dream Universe do you live in? Mother nature is a real b***h and
father nature is a bastard. One freakin' big asteroid hit and we are
toast. But we love 'em anywise since they gave us life. The point is,
massive destruction of us or any alien civilization is more likely to
come from nature. We are puny compared to what nature can dish out.
FrediFizzx
http://www.vacuum-physics.com/QVC/quantum_vacuum_charge.pdf
or postscript
http://www.vacuum-physics.com/QVC/quantum_vacuum_charge.ps
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Uncle Al
science forum Guru
Joined: 24 Mar 2005
Posts: 1226
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Traveler
science forum Guru
Joined: 03 May 2005
Posts: 782
|
| Posted: Sun May 01, 2005 10:35 pm Post subject:
Re: Nasty Little Truth About Space
|
|
|
In article <427573D1.40B1ACAE@hate.spam.net>, Uncle Al
<UncleAl0@hate.spam.net> wrote:
[cut crap]
You never answered the important question, Uncle Dickhead. Did John
Baez have a bowel movement when you shamelessly and publicly kissed
his ass last week?
Louis Savain
The Silver Bullet: Why Software Is Bad and What We Can Do to Fix it
http://users.adelphia.net/~lilavois/Cosas/Reliability.htm |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Uncle Al
science forum Guru
Joined: 24 Mar 2005
Posts: 1226
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Traveler
science forum Guru
Joined: 03 May 2005
Posts: 782
|
| Posted: Sun May 01, 2005 11:34 pm Post subject:
Re: Nasty Little Truth About Space
|
|
|
In article <42758096.CF0A6FBA@hate.spam.net>, Uncle Al
<UncleAl0@hate.spam.net> wrote:
[crap]
Movement. Bowel. Baez. John. Ass. Kiss.
Louis Savain
The Silver Bullet: Why Software Is Bad and What We Can Do to Fix it
http://users.adelphia.net/~lilavois/Cosas/Reliability.htm |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
FrediFizzx
science forum Guru
Joined: 01 May 2005
Posts: 774
|
| Posted: Mon May 02, 2005 12:11 am Post subject:
Re: Nasty Little Truth About Space
|
|
|
[top posting corrected; please don't top post in these groups]
"David Johnson" <mountains260@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:iTdde.100$Vz4.29@newssvr11.news.prodigy.com...
| "FrediFizzx" <fredifizzx@hotmail.com> wrote in message
| news:3dl1ogF6rg6faU1@individual.net...
| > "David Johnson" <mountains260@hotmail.com> wrote in message
| > news:_Mbde.73$7U.42@newssvr30.news.prodigy.com...
| > | My question involves more than just science.
| > | If it was possible to travel with virtual no limitation to
anywhere in
| > the
| > | universe, and if also there is intelligent life elsewhere in the
| > universe,
| > | what would protect us from these intelligent beings and they from
us?
| > Humans
| > | have a dark and agressive side to them and other intelligent
beings
| > may as
| > | well. With advanced technology it would be quite easy, even by
| > mistake, for
| > | some of us to cause massive destruction to them or some of them to
us,
| > even
| > | totally wipe one or both of us out.
| > |
| > | Consequently, it seems to me that space provides safety in the
| > universe for
| > | both living beings and nature.
| >
| > What dream Universe do you live in? Mother nature is a real b***h
and
| > father nature is a bastard. One freakin' big asteroid hit and we
are
| > toast. But we love 'em anywise since they gave us life. The point
is,
| > massive destruction of us or any alien civilization is more likely
to
| > come from nature. We are puny compared to what nature can dish out.
| A book called "Rare Earth: Why Complex Life Is Uncommon in the
Universe"
| that came out a few years ago explains why in fact we aren't yet
"toast".
| For example the earth is located in the outer area of the Milky way
where
| asteroids and meteors moving about are much lower in quantity than
closer
| in. And Jupitor, with its enormous mass draws in a great deal of the
| asteroids and meteors entering our solar system.
|
| Furthermore, with advances in technology the incident of a dangerous
| asteroid hitting the earth with be preventable.
Another key word phrase for today; "Super Volcanoes". I am sure you
heard about the tsunami? Still think mother nature ain't a b***h?
FrediFizzx
http://www.vacuum-physics.com/QVC/quantum_vacuum_charge.pdf
or postscript
http://www.vacuum-physics.com/QVC/quantum_vacuum_charge.ps |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Google
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
The time now is Thu Jan 08, 2009 4:38 pm | All times are GMT
|
|
Sexy School Girl Costume | Debt Consolidation | Mortgage | Optical Illusions | Credit Card Advice
|
|
Copyright © 2004-2005 DeniX Solutions SRL
|
|
Other DeniX Solutions sites:
Electronics forum |
Medicine forum |
Unix/Linux blog |
Unix/Linux documentation |
Unix/Linux forums
|
Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
Forum index
»
Science and Technology
»
Physics
»
Relativity
