IS A Wall Needed For Things To Work How They Work?

Forums: Philosophy, Philosophy Of Science
Email this Topic • Print this Page

For the theories that where developed to explain the motion and distribution of distant nebulas based upon the mathematical principles of general relativity came to two major oppisite conclusions about the universe as a whole.

"A" The universe as a whole resembles a plane surface that is infinite.
"B" The universe as a whole resembles a plane surface that is finite.

Yet conclusion "A", conclusion "B" , that where concluded from the theories has not been factualy proven physicaly with mathematics or observations or through an accpeted logical formula.

For there is a key to cracking this puzzle, which are the concepts of walls, displacement & placement, newtons third law, and gravity.

For "A" is infinite, therefore "A" has no end, therefore "A" has no wall.
For "B" is finite, therefore "B" has a end, therefore "B" has a wall.

Paradox Example 1, "Finite"

The fish bowl represents The Wall
The water represents Outer Space
The large&small round balls represents Soild Mass

A.There is a fish bowl which is inclosed, and full of water, I then materialize a small round ball in that fish bowl.

B.There is a fish bowl which is inclosed, and full of water, I then materialize a large round ball in that fish bowl.

For "B" in example 1 has a larger mass than "A", therefore "B" will displace more water.

For this action of displacement within the inclosed fish bowl full of water will result in an oppisite force apon the object that is creating the displacement, therefore the object has a mass, for it has a displacement.

Paradox Example 2, "Infinte"

A.There is no fish bowl, and the water has infinitly expanded, I then materialize a small round ball in that infinitly expanded water.

B.There is no fish bowl, and the water has infinitly expanded, I then materialize a large round ball in that infinitly expanded water.

Since the water has infinitly expanded an object of any size small or large cannot displace the infinitly expanded water, since the small and large round balls cannot create a displacement within the infinitly expanded water then therefore the small and large round balls have no mass when within the infinitly expanded water.( But what if the objects mass is equal to such?)

Basicaly, If space is infinite (walless), then therefore the vaccume of space has allready infinitly expanded infinitly, and no object regardless of size can displace such, and therefore and object in such would be massless, and have no gravity.

So therefore space must be finite since objects have mass and gravity exists.:brickwall: Then could the universe as a whole resemble a sphere?

The more mass, means more displacement/push, means an equal oppisite reaction to that action, hence equal placement/pull to one point. (Helps when you got an equal displacement, hence a atmospher.)

Lovly Third Law Of Newtons:rolleyes: A function being displaced by a function...

So, here's a question

If gravities strenght is equal to and objects mass, How dose mass create an invisable force that pulls us to one point?

(*NOTE :detective:This post is a single point of view that I'm portraing of such thing's, there are meany points of view and perceptions of such, yet this point of view of this concept is the one a had choosen to portray.)

Topic Stats
Top Replies
Link to this Topic

Type: Discussion • Score: 1 • Views: 2,470 • Replies: 20

No top replies

@No0ne,

No0ne wrote:

If gravities strenght is equal to and objects mass, How dose mass create an invisable force that pulls us to one point?

(*NOTE :detective:This post is a single point of view that I'm portraing of such thing's, there are meany points of view and perceptions of such, yet this point of view of this concept is the one a had choosen to portray.)

The problem lies in the way you portray the universe, and the way you just "materialize" objects into it. You cannot describe mass and gravity in such a way. Start by asking: "if I got to the edge of the universe, to the very last photon, and I then kept going, does the "water" end, and if so, what is past the water? Is there a wall expanding with the water, or just expanding water, and what is the water expanding into? If the water doesn't end, it is obvious the expansion, is only the objects shooting outwards after the big bang, further out into the water, and this would mean the only finite thing is the sphere of objects shooting outwards, also, check your spelling...

1 Reply

@GHOST phil,

Here is a far better example than the first.

http://startswithabang.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/04/2004-0423gravity-lg.jpg

I hold a finite bed sheet at the ends and pull it tight and drop a ball into the middle and it sinks but dosnt drop due to the fact that Im holding it tight which causes counter resistance to the object that falls on it.

Now if I do the oppisite of such...

Wait I cant, since the bed sheet would be infinite and therefore would have no ends for me to pull the infinite expanse of the bed sheet tight, so therefore when I drop the ball onto that infinite expanse, the ball will infinitly drop, due to the fact that there would be no resistance created from the ends, due to the fact that its infinite.

Basicaly somthing that is infinite is "unlimited" somthing that is "unlimited" has NO ENDS! DUE TO THE FACT THAT IT IS UNLIMITED INFINITE NEVER ENDING THERE IS NO END!, and somthing that has no ends cannot create resistance...

So gravity its self proves that the space that all matter exists in cannot be an infinite space with no ends.

http://www.dkimages.com/discover/previews/784/593113.JPG

Hence it would be very easy for a mass to create a black hole... It seems black holes are created when a mass drops in mass very quickly then expands in mass very quickly which seems to rip the bed sheet instead of that of which is holding the bed sheet tight. yet its unknown if the object will infinitly drop after it falls through the bed sheet and it seems like there is no logical insight in that, yet...(Note this great indentation is what gives massive gravity pulling everything to its center point.) "Still in a spiral motion, since all things with mass has gravity, so a space man would just go down the middle, and a galaxy would spiral down into the middle, makes for a great screen saver"

http://www.dailygalaxy.com/photos/uncategorized/2007/11/19/gravitational_waves_2.jpg

Now the waves of gravity shown above, tend to move and change, this is due to the objects mass changing, for example the earth spins on its axis and constantly changing which way it tilts, for example I take that round ball and place in on the bed sheet when its pulled tight, the ball is not moving so therefore the indent of the bed sheet stays the same, yet if I start to spin the ball and the ball tilts more to one side than another, the becomes to be more of a indention on one side than another, hence creating wave like patterns which change from the slightest change in the position of the objects mass... (Im strained for time I will finish another time with better words..)

The earth also has a moon which dose not spin and only orbits, so its waves should be calm, yet those waves would be effected from the earths ever changin waves, and therefore would effect the moons waves making them change... (Note a greate example is two objects spining unevenly on a axis rocking back and forth on that axis on a pond...)

Yet for these to be true that space has an end, would rely on the fae that the fabric of space has no density to it, and there is no way to prove that it dose or dose not, yet a black hole seems to be the key to understanding the fabric of space...

3 Replies

@No0ne,

I don't see the paradox. The water, whether or not contained in a fish bowl, is not analagous to 'space.' Space cannot be displaced, cannot exert force on material objects within it.

I think the whole problem arises from a misunderstanding. We are using the terms finite and infite out of the anthropocentric context in which they have meaning (finite refers to delimitation between things, infinite is just the logical inverse of finite, which we have not actually experienced). If we define universe as 'all that exists' and finite as we did above, it makes no sense to say that 'the universe is finite;' there is nothing outside the universe in which medium the universe is a delimited region. In other words, there would have to be 'something' in addition to and outside of 'everything' for the universe to be a finite thing, delimited from other things. Infinite is an abtraction and we jut don't know what it means. So although I suppose it is proper to say that the universe is infinite, that tells us nothing more than 'too big to count.'

0 Replies

@No0ne,

If space cannot be displaced, what dose a black hole do to space? Displace space? or Rip space? or other? If it rips the fabric of space, what prevents normal mass from riping space? Dose the fabric of space have resistance preventing a rip by mass? If a black of dose other, what is space, is it ether???

All things are only theories in these concepts and have not been physicaly or logicaly proven, so in my opinion outer space is limited and therefore are universe can only expand to a fixed amount before colasping back into a "big bang".

Simply in your opinion, it is unlimited.

(*Note when I say infinite I mean space is said to be an infinite expanded exspanse not the matter within space is, hence a ray of light sent from point "A" in a stright line, will travel infinitly through the infinite exspanse of space...)
(*Note in mathematics the word infinite is used to discribe a number that will infinitly repeat... hence NEVER ENDS Infinitly repeats, hence no end...)

LOL!!! :detective:Just try to physicaly prove somthing will never end!

1 Reply

@No0ne,

No0ne wrote:

If space cannot be displaced, what dose a black hole do to space? Displace space? or Rip space? or other? If it rips the fabric of space, what prevents normal mass from riping space? Dose the fabric of space have resistance preventing a rip by mass? If a black of dose other, what is space, is it ether???

What does that mean? I have problems with physics because of these damn metaphors that mean nothing. As I understand the word, space is nothing. It is the absence of matter/energy. Hence, unlike water, there is nothing in X region of space which is displaced by Y moving into X region, such that the thing originally in X region has to go elswhere, to take up another space.

1 Reply

@No0ne,

No0ne wrote:

Here is a far better example than the first.

Im going to plus rep you solely on those pics lol

But seriously, when dealing with first causes or 'walls' there are the basic two questions, well three if youre being completely neutral, which are: 1) Is it finite? 2) Is it infinite? 3) Is it something else we just dont know? And, to me, all of them run into problems. But I think Brightnoon is looking in the right direction because some of the definitions or terms are incomprehensible. We dont really understand infinite all that well, we just infer infinite from finite (aka its dualistic partner). I bet that even if we were told the answer (dont ask me how) we still wouldnt fully comprehend its entirety. I have been told infinite regress is impossible... I dont necessarily think that but this whole why is there something rather than nothing? question is really mind-boggling.

1 Reply

@BrightNoon,

BrightNoon wrote:

What does that mean? I have problems with physics because of these damn metaphors that mean nothing. As I understand the word, space is nothing. It is the absence of matter/energy. Hence, unlike water, there is nothing in X region of space which is displaced by Y moving into X region, such that the thing originally in X region has to go elswhere, to take up another space.

...Space is a thing, hence "Outer" Space, for space's function is used to seperate one thing from another thing, just how the space bar on the key board is used to seperate one word from another word. (And outer space has a vaccume function aswell do to its charistics.)

Outer Space was once in region "X", but is no longer in region "X" due to the fact that a planet is now in region "X". So what has happend to the Outer Space within region "X"?

Logicaly outer space is no longer there where the planet is. Hence the meaning of the word "Displace", for outer space is no longer within that place, and therefor displaced.

Just-because-its-a-function-that-has-no-matter-dosnt-mean-it-cant-be-displaced-from-its-place. :detective:It seems like it would be more wise to say that space just gets replaced, since its a function that cannot result in a force apon that of which displaces it.

1 Reply

@No0ne,

NoOne, I have to diagree with all of that. A basic rule of science, that which underlies the concept of displacement, is that two bodies cannot occupy the same space. 'Space' is not a body in the same way that a planet is a body. Space is not a thing which has properties. The vacuum effect is not a property of space, but rather a property of material things in space. If space is 'the absence of something,' what would be displaced when something enters that space? How can 'an absence' move or be displaced? It is fundementally wrong to think of 'space' as a thing. This should be very obvious: e.g. imagine that there is a 10mx10mx10m vacuum box with nothing inside it but a thick rubber balloon connected to the outside by a rubber tube. If I pump air into the ballon and its expands, the pressure inside the box does not increase. Why? Because there is nothing on which the balloon presses which would press against the box; there is nothing being displaced by the balloon; there is nothing in the space that the inflated balloon is taking up as a result of its expansion, which would have to go elsewhere and press against the box.

2 Replies

@Kielicious,

Kielicious wrote:

Im going to plus rep you solely on those pics lol

But seriously, when dealing with first causes or 'walls' there are the basic two questions, well three if youre being completely neutral, which are: 1) Is it finite? 2) Is it infinite? 3) Is it something else we just dont know? And, to me, all of them run into problems. But I think Brightnoon is looking in the right direction because some of the definitions or terms are incomprehensible. We dont really understand infinite all that well, we just infer infinite from finite (aka its dualistic partner). I bet that even if we were told the answer (dont ask me how) we still wouldnt fully comprehend its entirety. I have been told infinite regress is impossible... I dont necessarily think that but this whole why is there something rather than nothing? question is really mind-boggling.

Hmmmmmmm yes I have choosen to give up using the words "Infinite"&"Finite" and simply use the words "Unlimited"&"Limited"

:)Hence there is an limited amount of line formations that can be made to express a limited amount of things that exist. ( It seems to be better than the word finite)

Hmmmm? Are you asking why is there somthing rather than nothing? And do you mean why is space somthing rather than nothing?

0 Replies

@BrightNoon,

BrightNoon wrote:

It is fundementally wrong to think of 'space' as a thing.

It depends on your definition of "space" and "thing". According to Einstein's general relativity space can be distorted, morphed, bend, stretch, etc. by the mass of an object. Im not sure if this is what you are talking about though....

0 Replies

@No0ne,

http://www.tu-harburg.de/rzt/rzt/it/Ether.html

Heres a link to a address delivered on May 5th, 1920, in the University of Leyden by Albert Einstein, titled Ether And The Theory Of Relativity. Which can help aid a bit.

0 Replies

@BrightNoon,

BrightNoon wrote:

NoOne, I have to diagree with all of that. A basic rule of science, that which underlies the concept of displacement, is that two bodies cannot occupy the same space. 'Space' is not a body in the same way that a planet is a body. Space is not a thing which has properties. The vacuum effect is not a property of space, but rather a property of material things in space. If space is 'the absence of something,' what would be displaced when something enters that space? How can 'an absence' move or be displaced? It is fundementally wrong to think of 'space' as a thing. This should be very obvious: e.g. imagine that there is a 10mx10mx10m vacuum box with nothing inside it but a thick rubber balloon connected to the outside by a rubber tube. If I pump air into the ballon and its expands, the pressure inside the box does not increase. Why? Because there is nothing on which the balloon presses which would press against the box; there is nothing being displaced by the balloon; there is nothing in the space that the inflated balloon is taking up as a result of its expansion, which would have to go elsewhere and press against the box.

The word "Displace" dosnt allways imply that there must be an aposing force for a displacement to take place.

The word imply's that one person/place/thing/function has taken the place where another preson/place/thing/function once was. Hence "Dis" placed.

The second post of this thread souly rests on the back of the theory of "Ether".

(On a diffrent note, Space can have physical properties and can physicaly move things from one place to another place, for example)

There is "Outer Space" and "Inner Space" If you where to rip open the "Inner Space", it would become the "Outer Space", basicly the vaccume of "Outer Space" would displace all things within the "Inner Space" of earth.

Yet "Outer Space" has no phyiscal matter that is its body, yet Its body has the power to seperate one thing from another thing, and the power to displace that of which is in "Inner Space" into "Outer Space".

Hmmmm :detective:So your ballon simply creates more "Inner Space" while it displaces "Outer Space", since you can aggree that there is no longer "Outer Space" where you ballon is:rolleyes:, and inside your ballon would be no "Outer Space".
Interesting huh>?

So, that "Inner Space" that you have now created is filled with oxygen and has no vaccume, if you where to open your ballon, the vaccume of "Outer Space" would displace the oxygen within your "Inner Space" and turn your "Inner Space" back into "Outer Space".

A lovly dualistic aspect of the thing people clam is "nothing":rolleyes:
(*Note I've ran out of time to finish so I will end on this note for now ty for your time in reading this, adn I hope these last posts put some new insight in what point of view I was typing from.)

1 Reply

@No0ne,

Quote:

So, that "Inner Space" that you have now created is filled with oxygen and has no vaccume, if you where to open your ballon, the vaccume of "Outer Space" would displace the oxygen within your "Inner Space" and turn your "Inner Space" back into "Outer Space".

That grammatical construction makes it sound like space is something, because you use it as the agent of the verb. That is unnecessary. One could say "the oxygen within the balloon diffused into the box because of a difference in concentration: i.e. in order to reach equilibrium." There is simply no reason to view space as a thing. 'Thing' cannot meaningly refer to space if we use that word to designate matter/energy.

Quote:

Yet "Outer Space" has no phyiscal matter that is its body, yet Its body has the power to seperate one thing from another thing, and the power to displace that of which is in "Inner Space" into "Outer Space".

That 'power' is not a function of space; it is not something that space actively 'does'; that is a function of the things, which are defined in reference to one another. Imagine if you cut a loaf of bread. Your above statement would be analogous to then saying that the space between the halves of bread have the power to seperate the bread. The space has not caused the seperation; the space is the seperattion; space is synonymous with seperation.

0 Replies

@No0ne,

For the word means to divide, for such dosnt imply that somthing must be forcfully divided...

Probibility in a "QT" is mainly created by unknown varibles/information within the "QM" of the "QT"...

"Space" cannot be physicaly observed by any humanly means, therefore there are meany unknown varibles of "Space", therefore there is a high probibility that "space" is not what people think it is.

Object "A" and object "B", "space" is the divide of such "A" and "B", for such is the only observation humanity can make of Outer Space.

For all the things humanity has concluded about space, has been due to there lacking of information from observations such, therefore there logic was made apon the lacking of information, and not information...

Just cause you cant see it or detect it, dosnt mean it exists in a state that is beyond your means to see it or detect it.

(*Note, No longer will I hold my tounge apon the phycological methods that have been used to exstend the life of dead threads apon this web site, nor shall I allow the rest of my vast knowlage be used in the books and works of other's, for such knowlage and wisdom that I have left, if far to high for the likes of such to ever posses.)
**___________________________________________________________**

"This is the last post I will ever post apon this web site, For this site has acted as a great mean's for me to make my self known to the one that I wished to make my self known to"

0 Replies

@No0ne,

No0ne wrote:

The earth also has a moon which dose not spin and only orbits, so its waves should be calm, yet those waves would be effected from the earths ever changin waves, and therefore would effect the moons waves making them change...

The Moon wouldn't 'know' if the Earth's diameter is at its present size or that of a golf ball. As long as the mass is the same, so is the gravitational pull. If the Earth was even further reduced in size, say to that of a black hole, the Moon orbits on without a care.

0 Replies

@No0ne,

Ah, my post didnt get a reaction Sad

O well

1 Reply

@No0ne,

That's because it was nonsense, or pure assumption.

And this...what is this?

NoOne wrote:

(*Note, No longer will I hold my tounge apon the phycological methods that have been used to exstend the life of dead threads apon this web site, nor shall I allow the rest of my vast knowlage be used in the books and works of other's, for such knowlage and wisdom that I have left, if far to high for the likes of such to ever posses.)

Really? You really think so? :sarcastic:

0 Replies

@No0ne,

This whole thread I had created to be example's to answer the questions that I had posted in a new thread, and thank you very much Brightmoon for comments and reply's to my posts, and I say that sinserely.

http://www.philosophyforum.com/forum/philosophy-forums/branches-philosophy/uncategorized/3597-what-parts-posts-contribute-angery-badger-like-response.html,

I hope that you will be willing to share your perceptions of my construction and spelling in my posts in this thread, and the way's they effected your reply's and future reply's of my posts in other thread's, with relation to the questions that where asked in the link, and ect.

(*Note on the 19th I will answer all the questions in the linked thread and alot more, and I insure you that those words will not be nonsense and assumtions.)

(*Note this is the first time that I had created a thread souly to be used as an example for another thread in such a mannor, and I will likly not do such again apon this website in the future due to short terms effects it has on the forum, ect.)

(*Note, if you would like me to respond to your posts further apon this thread about the topic of the nature of space, I will be willing to, yet Im not really to intrested in the topic, since the subject was mainly a ploy.)

Thank you all for your thoughts and time in reading and thinking about the things within this thread.

1 Reply

@No0ne,

?
:Not-Impressed:

0 Replies

IS A Wall Needed For Things To Work How They Work?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know