OK, I again will try to consolidate a few questions that I have.

1) I was thinking about space and what is space. People here say that space is nothing. They give examples of expanding balloons and the like and say that space is just the distance between particles. I disagree with this. Space is the canvas that matter is painted on. ( heh ... well more complicated than that) Space is not nothing. When space expands it has a specific meaning. Space has properties. The space right outside a black hole differs from the space in the deepest void of the universe. Rates of expansion, curvature, temperature?? Space can have state. Space is not nothing.

2) Space is gravity. Without gravity there is no such thing as space. A true vacuum can not exist. Our universe or at least our visible universe is all connected because at every point in space there is some energy and some gravity. Space does not exist outside of this definition. Gravity not only curves space by it is space. Space and gravity and energy go hand in hand, one can not exist without the other.

3) Because matter and energy are conserved based on the first law of thermodynamics, space is also conserved. What does that even mean? That means that the total amount of space in the universe remains constant. Space can curve, but when space is curved other space needs to be curved to compensate for this curvature.

4) the perceived expansion of the universe is the compensation for the curvature from all the gravity in the universe.

__________________
http://www.whatisorganicliving.com
http://www.cancerfightforums.com/forum/
http://www.nycbrownies.com
"Banned by BAUT" Alumni (2008)

Believe me tommac you will be attacked mercilessly for trying to define space. It has no definition. If you say it has energy someone will say that it is a vacuum. If you say that it is empty someone else will say that it is brimming with energy. If you go half and half both sides will attack you.

Mainstream science doesn't know or want to know what space is otherwise it means not being to wear a person down who is trying to understand what space is. That is how science works.

However if you add properly define space to your resume as well as the study of gravity you may well receive a Nobel prize for answering an unanswerable (so far) question. You will also make a lot of people very upset because they will have to think of something else to try and confuse people with so their jobs stay secure.

A bit biased perhaps ... let me think, hmm. No I have been posting for a year and a half in the against the mainstream section and it holds water.

Good luck, cheers

Now, this is just inaccurate.
Bold mine:
You're stepping off on the slim part of the branch at this point and, frankly, I really had thought you knew better.
I don't know exactly what bitterness drove you to make such a post, but I should think you need to Check It.

I'm sure you are well aware that is not how science works and that science - as a concept- is about knowing what space is.

The conflicts only arise when people speculate wildly without any supporting evidence, supporting mathematics to demonstrate, or operating under assumptions, misguided thinking or misconceptions that we already know to be incorrect.

I thought you said Science doesn't want to know?
Utter nonsense. Very few people out there have their job security depending on what "space" is made out of. This outlandish claim doesn't match up with reality and can only be a figment of the bitterness I asked about a moment ago.
This is like Conspiracy Proposing: The scientists are lying in order to keep their jobs.
Sheesh Apparently you don't follow many scientific journals!

Again Noonan, I really thought you knew better. I'm disappointed.

Perhaps some of your proposals are what didn't hold water.

(my bold)
I am quite sure I didn't say that scientists are lying. It is just that after a year or more on the outer I would like to see tommac get a pleasant run as he has a lot of really good questions and I do remember being given the run around. But then I am not currently looking to enroll in a physics course.

In fact space is surprisingly difficult from a quantum perspective based on the potential multiple universe theory of cosmology which means a lot of things that we would naturally think of as being real do not exist in our time frame.

Case in point the GPS satellites are about 11 seconds slower in real their time compared to earth based time due to not being in the gravity well of the earth. In a way it could even be said based on quantum particle uncertainty principles that it might even be doubtful they were made in the universe we exist in.

A bit far fetched, well every second all that we know goes through 10^44 Planck time intervals in which all movement is calculated. Can one assume the calculation holds true for something so far out in space and of the what of the Voyager probes. On that thought about the strangeness of space little errors change of protocols, variations in code and design all have to be considered. If communication stops is it a fault in our universe or the one that the probe originated in?

Space is not well defined and an accepted and highly accurate definition would indeed go a long way to advancing the cause of science.

And yes Neverfly I must be a grumpy old man today but every time I look at something that appears so simple it gets very complex. Either that or my circular thinking is annoyingly complex to someone who wants everything to be more simple, me.

Whatever you do tommac I hope it goes well for you and you enjoy it. Alternately there is an ignore button if I am too abrupt, sorry all

Yes, but claiming that "Science" or even Mainstreamers don't want to know is an inapporpriate response too.
Scientists want to understand the actual nature.

I'm alternating heavily between severe frustration and grumpiness and trying to cut it back with ill attempts at humor.

I don't see ignoring you as an option- but that doesn't mean I won't give you a swift kick when I feel it was warranted.
Tommac can do well if he sets his sights on learning. Not dreaming and then blaming the mainstreamers and 'arrogant' scientists when his dreams get rejected.
I'm sorry if I'm blunt- but that's just the reality.

These are outrageous claims to make. As Per the rules I hope youcan support threm and show ussome evidence or retract.

__________________
All Moderation in Purple
To report a post (even this one) to the moderation team, click the reporting icon in the upper-right corner of the post:
─────────────────────────────────────────────
◄Rules For Posting To This Board ► ◄Forum FAQs ► ◄ Conspiracy Theory Advice ► ◄ Alternate Theory Advice ►

No. I refuse to dig old dirt on anyone so as per the rules you will just have to apply to ban me. And I refuse even more so now than ever to retract.

Hey, you just had a birthday,

You should be worried about US digging the dirt

I am just glad when people take the time to read what I write. I must be an extremely frustrating person with such a different view of things. I do not want to go cheery picking members who I consider as friends all.

I believe in all walks of life if one is on the verge of discovery the last thing to do is blab the secret source of success. Also I do not know people in scientific circles and hearsay about secrecy although heard is hardly ground for proof but I do not want to roll over on this either. There are secrets in all walks of life, I got a few still.

And besides the post is in ATM so why wouldn't it be attacked mercilessly. Having said that I would get kicked out before trying to discredit or name anyone for saying what they think about me because it would be unfair.

Twenty months here has been great, its a good forum and good people.

What are the predicted observational consequences of the "conservation of space?

The warpage of space is gravity. No warpage, no gravity, but still space. There is a difference.

But, there could be places where the differing amounts of energy, from different points, would cancel out the warpage of space, at a particular point. Space would not be warped. Then you would have space with no gravity.

Mathematically, energy is conserved because of a symmetry in time. There is no corresponding symmetry for space, and thus no conservation of space.

Nope, all you have to do is solve the equations for a point in spacetime. Find out how all the energy affects space at that point. The curvature at other points have nothing to do with the curvature at that particular point, if the energy has already been taken into account.

See above.

__________________
Some try to tell me, thoughts they cannot defend,... - Moody Blues.

Neptune- The original Dark Matter.

The author feels that this technique of deliberately lying will actually make it easier for you to learn the ideas. - Donald Knuth

Just a small nit-pick in the interests of maintaining accuracy:

As predicted by both Special and General Relativity, GPS satellites clocks tick faster, relative to clocks on Earth, by around 38 microseconds (38,000 nanoseconds) a day.

Does this mean you are on my side or neverfly?

__________________
http://www.whatisorganicliving.com
http://www.cancerfightforums.com/forum/
http://www.nycbrownies.com
"Banned by BAUT" Alumni (2008)

Ugggg .... I dont blame mainstreamers for anything ... I just want to have the debate ... I blame people telling me to read books ( and not giving a particular book even ) rather than answering the questions ...

If you dont get it ... I am trying to learn the mainstream ... I just go about it a bit differently.

__________________
http://www.whatisorganicliving.com
http://www.cancerfightforums.com/forum/
http://www.nycbrownies.com
"Banned by BAUT" Alumni (2008)

Well this is where it gets tricky ... the proof would be to take the gravitational field of the entire visible universe and divide it by the size of the visible universe and see if it matches the expansion of the universe ( with an opposite sign. ) would that be the cosmological constant?

__________________
http://www.whatisorganicliving.com
http://www.cancerfightforums.com/forum/
http://www.nycbrownies.com
"Banned by BAUT" Alumni (2008)

Ok. So, what's the answer?

I disagree, space itself can not exist with out energy and therfore gravity. Energy not only warps space-time but it is space-time. You need to razor out the concept of space without energy as it is just too complicated and is not detectable. If it is not detectable then razor it out. In any case I dont think it can exist.


Again I disagree. remember we are talking about space-time ... so even if somewhere in the universe you could find a perfect 360 degrees of perfectly balanced gravity ... you still have its effect in the time dimension which I think would be the combination of all of the forces that made up the 360 degrees ... so the the will always be a scalar value for the time dimension.

space = energy ... space is part of energy ... the same way you can not remove the sun from the solar system you can not remove the space that was curved from the sun ... The only way to do that is to remove the sun.

OK I admit I am still working out the math on this one. But what I want to test is to see that if you curve space near an object does space have to uncurve somewhere else. The deal is that space is formed by energy as energy can not be destroyed space can not either ... if energy begins bending space more in one place then it has to bend it less in another ...

__________________
http://www.whatisorganicliving.com
http://www.cancerfightforums.com/forum/
http://www.nycbrownies.com
"Banned by BAUT" Alumni (2008)

Yes they are equal.

__________________
http://www.whatisorganicliving.com
http://www.cancerfightforums.com/forum/
http://www.nycbrownies.com
"Banned by BAUT" Alumni (2008)

... and to recursively pick a nit or two off the previous nits:

(1) The "GPS clocks" are based on standard atomic clocks which in fact have a net deviation from clocks stationary on the ground of about 38 microseconds per day (more precisely measured, 442.5 parts per 10¹²) fast. However, they are corrected (via a frequency synthesizer), to run at the same standard rate as we would expect on the ground. Thus strictly speaking, "GPS clocks" run at very nearly the same rate as a stationary, ground-based clock. Any residual errors are fixed by ground control.

(2) Michael Noonan's post, to which this was a response, was wrong in two respects. First, being farther out of the Earth's gravity well makes the clock run faster, not slower. Looked at the other way round, clocks on the Earth's surface run slower due to the Earth's gravity. To carry that further, in the intense gravity immediately surrounding (but outside) a black hole, time runs quite slowly.

Second, the relevant GR effect is about 45 microseconds a day fast, not 11 seconds slow (whatever that might mean). Note that the difference between the GR effect (~45 microseconds/day) and the observed deviation (~38 microseconds/day) is due to the SR effect of the orbital speed of the GPS satellites, which slows the clocks slightly from our perspective.

Then you are removing GR as the model. Are you sure you want to do that? In GR, spacetime, is represented by the manifold, gravity, is represented by the warpage of the manifold, described by the Ricci Tensor, which is related to the amound of energy in the Stress-energy tensor. Spacetime and energy are on the opposite sides of the equation and therfore can't be the same thing. I'll await your model replacing the GR model. Or your retraction, take your pick.

Not according to GR. Maybe in your new model.

__________________
Some try to tell me, thoughts they cannot defend,... - Moody Blues.

Neptune- The original Dark Matter.

The author feels that this technique of deliberately lying will actually make it easier for you to learn the ideas. - Donald Knuth

Thank you for that most thorough treatment of the issue! (And I thought I was nit-picking! I just wanted to point out the difference is 38 microseconds faster per day, not 11 seconds slower per se)

So then your theory is proved? Congratulations.

Empty space is not nothing. Empty space is where we put stuff and that makes it the most useful thing in the world. Lao- tse explained this in 500 BC.

We join spokes together in a wheel,
but it is the center hole
that makes the wagon move.

We shape clay into a pot,
but it is the emptiness inside
that holds whatever we want.

We hammer wood for a house,
but it is the inner space
that makes it livable.

We work with being,
but non-being is what we use.

From the Tao De Ching Translated by Stephen Mitchell
http://acc6.its.brooklyn.cuny.edu/~p.../taote-v3.html

I come from a family of eight children and am unfamiliar with the concept of favorite, as often as not the one I was finding the most difficult was the one who was helping me the most. I know like and dislike and need Neverfly to give me a clip upside the head when I step out of line. I need captain swoop to pull me into line when I make outrageous statements that are not supported and I need the tommac's of this world to question and test my logic. I made a right mess of the satellite timing by not defining which satellite and total time elapsed and got it all backwards anyway. To call it a nitpick is unfair as it was a necessary correction to some awfully bad logic.

I need to learn mathematics to communicate as it is the language of science and in twenty months here have had ample time to do an on-line course which means I am lazy. I need to study the English language because communicating ideas is essential and that is more than natural talent, it is essential to know. Using a musical instrument does not make one a musician and the same with words which is why writers are so important.

I wanted to describe an idea of a black hole being the boundary of something like the Eagle Nebula and how its destruction is similar to a coronal mass ejection (CME). Just as a CME is related to a solar tsunami so to a nebula collapse would relate to a black hole collapse. If one knew the positions of both the black hole and the nebula then the instant insertion of the Eagle Nebula into 'normal' space time would mean an instant structure collapse faster than the speed of light from one end to the other. At the same time a massive gamma burst from the connected location in space of the black hole as it collapses of which the light would arrive at our location relative to our distance to the black hole and the nebula, so occurrence of one should predict the other. There is other space stuff but we can go into it later if you are still interested.

Most of all I need to apologize to all members of the BAUT community for my bad tempered outburst and yes I retract all of my unsupported statements.

My hero in cosmology is Albert Einstein because he had an idea and made the effort to learn the mathematics that described a different space to the one he knew. He waited his time and had the confidence that his idea was good and made his name because he wrote from within the community. A woo woo is someone who is a noisy idea holder that does not make the effort to know what they are challenging.

If an idea is good and it survives the teaching process and is worth pursuing then it will cost in commitment or resources if funding someone else to do the work for and often both. To make BAUT a great starting point will mean an investment. What we get out of it depends on how much one is prepared to commit to it, otherwise pray for a miracle.

Space is not just the center hole in the wagon wheel. or the emptiness inside a clay pot. Or the inside of a house ... its not its not. Or maybe it is all of those things but that space is not really empty. In fact I dont believe that there can ever be empty space.

__________________
http://www.whatisorganicliving.com
http://www.cancerfightforums.com/forum/
http://www.nycbrownies.com
"Banned by BAUT" Alumni (2008)

No it may be something equally wonderful and perhaps even the reason for the voyager anomaly in itself. One suggestion is that it was venting causing a slowdown.

Under energy matter equivalence could there be some energy in space that would lessen the mass of an object more than calculated to reduce conserved momentum? Certainly the temperature of the probe would have been factored in for heat loss, it is receiving less of the energy from the sun as it moves further outwards.

Maybe it is energy gain redirected as a negative propulsion then in some sort of propelling arc forwards or outwards towards the edge of the solar system but then that is applying electric universe ideology. So I wont go there.

Is the shape of the gravity well of the solar system uniform or is it also sitting in a larger deformation changing the curvature of space? Space appears to be increasing in a uniform non linear manner with regard to matter and may be as much a key to gravity as anything else or understanding what matter is.

I will admit to being partial to worm holes because the ease of interaction with energy and ability to simulate matter and the forces make them an obvious candidate. However without the benefit of knowing the mathematics my limited understanding of the obvious based on the Internet is ...

This is going out on a limb but kind of can work into some of my other assumptions of the universe. What if all space was a gravitational field ... near mass it is stronger but out in empty space there still exists a gravitational field that does not come from mass ( or conversely comes from ALL mass in the universe ). This would be able to explain the redshift as well as possibly explaining the voyager thing.

__________________
http://www.whatisorganicliving.com
http://www.cancerfightforums.com/forum/
http://www.nycbrownies.com
"Banned by BAUT" Alumni (2008)

Could there be frame dragging from the galaxy or something like that?

__________________
http://www.whatisorganicliving.com
http://www.cancerfightforums.com/forum/
http://www.nycbrownies.com
"Banned by BAUT" Alumni (2008)

I like the comes from all mass or using E=mc^2 from the rest position of all energy in the universe using the equivalence principle. It becomes difficult when a 'known' concept like space is used because naturally each of us will bring to the discussion their own particular concept of space.

Many times I am thinking along one path and yet the explanation will make little if any sense to someone reading it with the concept of another. So much of what is in the universe is paired or seems to be able to have a path in and out. The tube analogy where it has an end is one paired with another or a blister in a tube where at a point it opens out at a two Klein bottle shape giving it one tube line in and one out like a knot in the pipe.

Strange words but it means much of the energy of a wormhole can be contained and out of our frame of space and the gravity is still applicable to the rest frame of the energy whether we see it or not. Before it gets too deep this has some very strange implications with respect to time and is more of a single perceived universe with multiple potential updating capacity.

So we see our existence as only the knot in the pipe and not the connection. It gives us one reality and allows just the energy we need in our frame. It would mean gravity all over space and clustered near the greatest collections of blisters in our frame on the tubes which we would see as mass.

But that is really weird and very ATM and would be an awfully difficult idea to try and prove.

We need to see things in our frame as it arrives but with frame dragging the source may be removed in time by up to several seconds or minutes depending on how long it has been in a different field of gravity like an orbit or an inner planet experiencing time differently to an outer planet. The galaxy is a gravitational structure and a big one and so frame dragging over vast gravitational differences could be significant.

I would expect to see mirror symmetry at some point in structure and so certain layers of structure up should set the picture for how the much larger structures further up will function.

The odd thing is that life experience is then described as travelling with the blister or stretch point in a continuity of energy, much of which we can't see in our time frame. I hope that helps. It is hard to describe a picture and worse if the picture is hard to imagine.

If the last post sounds a bit strange it is because I am trying to look at the observer as being compromised by being part of the reality he is seeing from within that reality. So what the observer is seeing is not the nature of the reality he is in.

Doing it that way avoids the bizarro concept of a worm hole requiring one end in this universe and another end in an opposite charge part of the universe. It is a possibility though. The trouble is there are so many strange logic possibilities the trouble is finding which one.

The idea of a bulge in the line gives the possibility of connected thought to past and future times but with the bulk of the energy at one frame point. Given the difficulty of communication in present times it wouldn't be hard to think that other frame references might not have any significant impact.

So that is where I am up to with connection within reality ... in knots.