Quote:
On 2002-11-24 18:26, heusdens wrote:
I think from our discussion we have minor problems in understanding, because of the use of different terminology. I for example use matter in a more general way (not just mass having objects, but also energy, fields, whatever can be grasped as being material), and also motion.
|
Jargon is a somewhat debatable issue, but consider this. When physicists talk about "motion" they mean motion as measured from a rest frame. What you are describing is something else entirely. Particle and nuclear physics indeed involves complex interactions and exchange diagrams that may look a lot like "motion" but they are not "motion" in the sense objects move in the universe.
Quote:
|
Take for instance the nucleus of an atom, where protons and neutrons reside. Well nothing at rest here, the proton and neutron interchange particles (so called gluons, if I am correct), and which causes the proton to become a neutron, and vice versa. I would call this phenomena also motion. In fact, matter (anything material) is never at rest.
|
"At rest" would mean that there is a zero derivative of the position of the particular particle. Indeed, the nucleus remains immobile in its rest frame. It is not "in motion" at all. You
have to be rigorous when using these terms. Right now you are being too sloppy.
Quote:
|
Has void space existence of it's own? I don't think so. I think the GR theory of Einstein just shows us how connected matter is with spacetime.
|
No, empty sapcetime also is dealt with. It is a solution to Einstein's Equations. In fact, if you enter the metric for empty spacetime you get a very interesting set of solutions known as the Milne Universe. Look it up if you don't believe me.
Quote:
|
Matter has no meaning without spacetime
|
This is true
Quote:
|
and spacetime has no meaning without matter.
|
This is untrue.
Quote:
|
You might think of a void space of having existence of its own, but your reasoning is ultimately derived from an existing (material) world, which contains (almost empty) voids.
|
No, it is derived through theoretical considerations of Einstein's Equations.
Quote:
|
But could you think of an existing world, which would be just totally empty space? Please go ahead and try to think of it.
|
Milne Universe, as I've said twice before.'
Quote:
|
What I was merely trying to say is that existence has no alternative. There is no "negative" existence or "non" existence.
|
There absolutely is. What happens to your lap when you stand up? It ceases to exist. However, this is an ontological question rather than a physical one. There is no
a priori reason, though, for accepting your postulate that existence means existence is all that can be. This is a topic both Leibnitz and Kant struggled with, actually.
Quote:
|
You cannot think of a mere "nothingness" as being in existence.
|
Ontologically, yes you can. It's kind of like saying that the "vacuum" has substance. It doesn't have substance in any sense other than the fact that we define our coordinates to exist in that place. That and the fact that there is a stress-energy tensor associated with it that allows us to solve the Einstein Equations. But if I'm beginning to sound like a repeating record it's because you refuse to listen to what I'm saying.
This link is one way to jump into the Many Worlds Hypothesis. It is not, however, anything more than a metaphysical game treatment of these issues. We cannot say yea or nay with regards to this issue. Science is right now mute as to the mystery of existence, and therefore I shall comment no further on it.
Quote:
About the alternative redshift-distance explenation, I found this page dealing with such effects:
http://www.newtonphysics.on.ca/BIGBA...ng.html#Author
I don't know if this holds true, and in fact I can imagine that this argument has been succesfully been dealt with in the BB theory,
|
This is a very incomplete and inappropriate critique of Big Bang Theory. It may not be the intent of this page to provide a complete interpretation of the "plasma" universe, but it certainly doesn't do a convincing job at demonstrating how the proposed mechanism.
Quote:
|
but - apart from the fact that in explenations of the BB theory, it is said that such effects (like the 'tired light' theory) have been succesfully excluded - I did not see a good explenation of why such an effect can be excluded. If you have such material, that deals with this issue, I would be happy if you can show me.
|
Absolutely. The problem is that the expansion of the universe has all kinds of other implications that cannot be explained by the "plasma" explanation. I already outlined these in this thread.