This might sound stupid but so does everything else to me. Einsteins theory shows that something with 0 mass could in fact have motion and be there as a form of energy even if not accountable through a perception of measurement. 95% of it is completly undetectable or unknown where it resides or what happens to it. If outter space was that 0 mass but a form of energy in motion, the missing 95% of measureable energy of matter. Wouldnt it be possible that earth is not rotating...but everything outside of earth- measureable or not, like space the sun,planets and stars and so forth is revolving around the earth. As in the earth is the center of the universe. When you are in space you might sit there and see the earth appear to be rotating. But with the theory that gives insight that 0 mass can in fact have motion as a form of energy. Space has 0 mass and could resemble an "ocean" and be the energy,while earth is the bearing of stillness or solidarity and all other matter out there is just objects stuck in that current of energy that space enables matter to travel through.
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Einsteins theory
- Thread starter cheyennewilson
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
- Status
Your density isn't far off, but the concept of the aether has long been unnecessary.
In the interest of clarity...
For what it's worth, here are certain points that might clear some things up.
1. Massless particles are not weird unidentified things. They are very real and easily experimentally produced. The next time you want to see one, turn on a lightbulb. Light (i.e. electromagnetic radiation of all kinds) is composed of massless particles (photons). What Einstein's theory of (special) relativity did was consistently merge the formulation of mechanics (i.e. the way things, colloquially stuff with mass, works) with the formulation of E&M (i.e. how light, stuff without mass, works). One of the implications of this merger is that mass and energy are really two facets of the same physical quantity. Things may be massless but still possess energy.
2. I assume that the 95% number being bandied about is the accepted proportion of "Dark Energy" in the Universe. Here's what that is. Einstein's theory of general relativity consistently merged the way gravity works with the way special relativity works. Since gravity is the primary physical system governing the evolution of the universe, we can apply general relativity to the universe as a whole. When this is done, the known evolution of the universe implies the existence of a uniform energy field throughout space, which causes 95% of the effect. This is (unfortunately) called Dark Energy. Dark because it does not seem to interact with E&M and therefore cannot be "seen". However, it can be observed due to its gravitational effect. Of course, alternatively, relativity may be wrong on very large scales and there might not be any Dark Energy. This is also being investigated at the cutting edge of research (these are called MOND theories).
3. There is no ether.
. At least not in the sense that was meant at the turn of the 20th century.
4. As to what the OP means by their post... I have no idea.
P.S. Sorry for the long post. I'm a former physicist, still current geek, and touchy feely half science upsets me. No offense.
For what it's worth, here are certain points that might clear some things up.
1. Massless particles are not weird unidentified things. They are very real and easily experimentally produced. The next time you want to see one, turn on a lightbulb. Light (i.e. electromagnetic radiation of all kinds) is composed of massless particles (photons). What Einstein's theory of (special) relativity did was consistently merge the formulation of mechanics (i.e. the way things, colloquially stuff with mass, works) with the formulation of E&M (i.e. how light, stuff without mass, works). One of the implications of this merger is that mass and energy are really two facets of the same physical quantity. Things may be massless but still possess energy.
2. I assume that the 95% number being bandied about is the accepted proportion of "Dark Energy" in the Universe. Here's what that is. Einstein's theory of general relativity consistently merged the way gravity works with the way special relativity works. Since gravity is the primary physical system governing the evolution of the universe, we can apply general relativity to the universe as a whole. When this is done, the known evolution of the universe implies the existence of a uniform energy field throughout space, which causes 95% of the effect. This is (unfortunately) called Dark Energy. Dark because it does not seem to interact with E&M and therefore cannot be "seen". However, it can be observed due to its gravitational effect. Of course, alternatively, relativity may be wrong on very large scales and there might not be any Dark Energy. This is also being investigated at the cutting edge of research (these are called MOND theories).
3. There is no ether.
. At least not in the sense that was meant at the turn of the 20th century.4. As to what the OP means by their post... I have no idea
.P.S. Sorry for the long post. I'm a former physicist, still current geek, and touchy feely half science upsets me. No offense
.It's a contradiction in terms.
A universe might expand infinately, but at any given moment it must have a finite actuality.
There are many universes in a multiverse which is infinite in my opinion. There are parallel universe and in each one outcomes can come out differently.
It's interesting how one could reach such a definitive conclusion when scientists who have devoted their entire lives to solving this question have yet to find an answer. Even more interesting is that the conclusion reached is impossible to prove or falsify.
Density within what box?
If the space being measured is unmeasurable due to no end and beyond. How can you really give a density measurement unless your doing your measuring within the limits of something- Space goes forever and ever with no something to limit it. Just because we are in a place of existance within limits does not mean what is beyond us falls into the same category. Imagine a glass that can never be filled with anything. It will never amount to a mass because there is no bottom or side or top.
If the space being measured is unmeasurable due to no end and beyond. How can you really give a density measurement unless your doing your measuring within the limits of something- Space goes forever and ever with no something to limit it. Just because we are in a place of existance within limits does not mean what is beyond us falls into the same category. Imagine a glass that can never be filled with anything. It will never amount to a mass because there is no bottom or side or top.
Even if this is true, which is not entirely established, it does not entail that there is no actual infinity.
I'm not disputing whether or not the universe is finite. I just didn't think your original response was very satisfying.
Maybe because I don't know what you mean by "actual" infinity. Your last statement seems to suggest you believe 1) time is infinite, but 2) nothing else is infinite in a single moment of time. I'm not saying either of those concepts is wrong, but at the same time I don't think they're obvious.
Finite was in your idea of a moment
Originally Posted by Much Ado
"It's a contradiction in terms.
A universe might expand infinately, but at any given moment it must have a finite actuality."
You limited infinity to a moment. Time. So of course you will have a finite within the restrictions of a human teaching that limits an existance of forever to moments. Its like your trying to count steps up a stairs that will never end. But somehow in your brain your suppose to believe there is a step that counts towards something to an existance of finite matter?????
Originally Posted by Much Ado
"It's a contradiction in terms.
A universe might expand infinately, but at any given moment it must have a finite actuality."
You limited infinity to a moment. Time. So of course you will have a finite within the restrictions of a human teaching that limits an existance of forever to moments. Its like your trying to count steps up a stairs that will never end. But somehow in your brain your suppose to believe there is a step that counts towards something to an existance of finite matter?????
Simple:
Nothing is Infinte.
Everything is Finite.
To not be nothing (to be something or to exist) is to be in a finite state.
An infinite state cannot exist...therefore, the infinte is nothing.
This is like that logic trap where if you always move half way to the door you'll never reach the door, therefore the distance to the door is infinite except in reverse.
We have no idea if the universe is infinite or not and cannot prove it either. We can't even prove a unified theory yet.
We have no idea if the universe is infinite or not and cannot prove it either. We can't even prove a unified theory yet.
The problem with this "logic trap" is that you would eventually reach a certain "point" where distances become the same no matter how much you try "halving them." A point in space is space folded in on itself. You can't move half a point because a point is the distance itself. You would always eventually reach the door because the distance is a set number of points of space. This is true even if you discount or don't adhere to the theory of "spacing folding in on itself when you reach a certain mathematical size."
I'm hoping to actually be able to do this and want to write an essay on the concept of infinity. This is an area where science and philosophy merge.
Exactly lol It is non existant and seen as nothing because it can not be measured within any specific amount of 'space'. Only mankind as bright as they are would call "space" with a label that limits it to a finite space. To occupy a space is trying to signify some sort of mass has occured. The mass has only occured to the limited (spaced?) thinking brain that is calling it a space occupied.
- Status