Philosophy Now Forum

I know it's an area of active research. Quintessence, dark energy, etc. which is highly technical when you Google it. According to this science program (I think it was NOVA), it said amazingly that empty space had many properties which may explain that you can get something from nothing e.g. I'm not saying I'm buying it, however something may come out of this area of active research, what I'm not going to predict.

If I see any interest in this area of science, I'll put up some links. So what have you to say to this?

PhilX

Mathematically, something we choose to call "empty space" could have tons of patterns, and those patterns would be properties.

However, and I'm no scientist, but I don't think empty space is entirely empty. So things would still be able to interact with it, it's just not a place containing a lot of "stuff". It would be like an area stuff goes through but doesn't stick to.

So for other stuff it would be a place for meeting in, extending distance through, etc.

It seems like you have been a good boy and come prepared to a thread, instead of ignorent.

It's pure nonsense to say that space is empty, it's filled with subatomic particles and specially super strings, which Blagg will most likely come and crusade against, but don't heed his parrot speeches. His view is super strings doesn't exist because the rest mass will increase too much in weight and bla bla..
But Super Strings are too small to be hit by the Higgs Boson which gives mass to particles, very simple.

HexHammer wrote:It seems like you have been a good boy and come prepared to a thread, instead of ignorent.

It's pure nonsense to say that space is empty, it's filled with subatomic particles and specially super strings, which Blagg will most likely come and crusade against, but don't heed his parrot speeches. His view is super strings doesn't exist because the rest mass will increase too much in weight and bla bla..
But Super Strings are too small to be hit by the Higgs Boson which gives mass to particles, very simple.

Please do us a favor. Use a spellchecker (ignorent is spelled ignorant unless it's spelled that way in British). I respect people more who put an effort into spelling right and getting their grammar right too (I think you can pick up a free spellchecker off the internet). It also helps to facilitate communications.

I've picked this topic because it's rarely covered in forums. I already know that perfect vacuums don't exist so we have to use our imaginations and pretend that one can exist.

I didn't know that this topic was already covered to some extent. Even so my working philosophy is that new members join forums and new information may develop so if the (prior) thread is at least a year old, then I see nothing wrong in doing another thread on the same topic.

The (NOVA) program I watched over a year ago. Is there anything new about so-called empty space since then?

PhilX

Philosophy Explorer wrote:Please do us a favor. Use a spellchecker (ignorent is spelled ignorant unless it's spelled that way in British). I respect people more who put an effort into spelling right and getting their grammar right too (I think you can pick up a free spellchecker off the internet). It also helps to facilitate communications.

I've picked this topic because it's rarely covered in forums. I already know that perfect vacuums don't exist so we have to use our imaginations and pretend that one can exist.

I didn't know that this topic was already covered to some extent. Even so my working philosophy is that new members join forums and new information may develop so if the (prior) thread is at least a year old, then I see nothing wrong in doing another thread on the same topic.

The (NOVA) program I watched over a year ago. Is there anything new about so-called empty space since then?

PhilX

Dude, I bumped my head a lot as young thus I can't spell well, so just let it go. Or should I say, when you make serious philosophy, I shape up with my spelling, deal?

But it seems you missed my point entirely about Higgs Boson and Super Strings.

HexHammer wrote:

Philosophy Explorer wrote:Please do us a favor. Use a spellchecker (ignorent is spelled ignorant unless it's spelled that way in British). I respect people more who put an effort into spelling right and getting their grammar right too (I think you can pick up a free spellchecker off the internet). It also helps to facilitate communications.

I've picked this topic because it's rarely covered in forums. I already know that perfect vacuums don't exist so we have to use our imaginations and pretend that one can exist.

I didn't know that this topic was already covered to some extent. Even so my working philosophy is that new members join forums and new information may develop so if the (prior) thread is at least a year old, then I see nothing wrong in doing another thread on the same topic.

The (NOVA) program I watched over a year ago. Is there anything new about so-called empty space since then?

PhilX

Dude, I bumped my head a lot as young thus I can't spell well, so just let it go. Or should I say, when you make serious philosophy, I shape up with my spelling, deal?

But it seems you missed my point entirely about Higgs Boson and Super Strings.

Haven't missed your point. Super strings are theoretical. So far nobody has confirmed.

Higgs Boson hasn't been confirmed last I heard (but it is closer to being confirmed than super strings). What do you think about the God particle?

PhilX

Philosophy Explorer wrote:Higgs Boson hasn't been confirmed last I heard (but it is closer to being confirmed than super strings). What do you think about the God particle?

That's because you need others to inform you about very basic things.

This is just another tragic evidense of that you are but a mere cozy chatter.

HexHammer wrote:

Philosophy Explorer wrote:Higgs Boson hasn't been confirmed last I heard (but it is closer to being confirmed than super strings). What do you think about the God particle?

That's because you need others to inform you about very basic things.

This I gotta hear! Mr Hammer, how exactly do you know about very basic things like the Higgs Boson or superstrings?

HexHammer said:

"This is just another tragic evidense of that you are but a mere cozy chatter."

And what do you regard yourself as?

PhilX

Philosophy Explorer wrote:And what do you regard yourself as?

An actual philosopher, maybe not the best but least a philosopher.

It's entirely a contradiction to say that space is empty, while then proceeding to say that it has parts to it. Space is not empty at all, and is instead in fact filled by the aether. Proofs of it come from Dayton Miller's 'Aether Drift' experiments, Nikola Tesla, Walter Rusell and many others (even the Michelson-Morley experiment had a slight positive result, and not a null result as it's interpreted).

WanderingLands wrote:It's entirely a contradiction to say that space is empty, while then proceeding to say that it has parts to it. Space is not empty at all, and is instead in fact filled by the aether. Proofs of it come from Dayton Miller's 'Aether Drift' experiments, Nikola Tesla, Walter Rusell and many others (even the Michelson-Morley experiment had a slight positive result, and not a null result as it's interpreted).

It just means that the aether was the most likely explanation for velocity and the speed of light at that particular historical time period. The experiments came up with a minimal or no result in terms of detecting an ether. It doesn't actually mean there is no aether, it just means it wasn't detected, so the results were and still are inconclusive. What the Michelson-Morley experiment did show was that an alternative hypothesis was required- hence Lorentz and Einstein with an alternative explanation for the properties of light.

Ginkgo wrote:

WanderingLands wrote:It's entirely a contradiction to say that space is empty, while then proceeding to say that it has parts to it. Space is not empty at all, and is instead in fact filled by the aether. Proofs of it come from Dayton Miller's 'Aether Drift' experiments, Nikola Tesla, Walter Rusell and many others (even the Michelson-Morley experiment had a slight positive result, and not a null result as it's interpreted).

It just means that the aether was the most likely explanation for velocity and the speed of light at that particular historical time period. The experiments came up with a minimal or no result in terms of detecting an ether. It doesn't actually mean there is no aether, it just means it wasn't detected, so the results were and still are inconclusive. What the Michelson-Morley experiment did show was that an alternative hypothesis was required- hence Lorentz and Einstein with an alternative explanation for the properties of light.

I have mentioned Dayton Miller's experiments on the ether, which showed positive results and which had actually denked the Relativity theories of Einstein (whom happened to have plagriarised from Lorentz and others). You can search for the overview of his experiments in an article entitled, "Dayton Miller's Ether-Drift Experiments".

There's no such thing as empty space, it's impossible. But hell the space between some peoples ears sure fills that gap.

Einstein only dismissed luminiferous ether, he never made any claim about ether in general, just that which was made in regards to light. Before anyone judges Einstein, know what he said not what some dumbass on a web site opined.

WanderingLands wrote:
I have mentioned Dayton Miller's experiments on the ether, which showed positive results and which had actually denked the Relativity theories of Einstein (whom happened to have plagriarised from Lorentz and others). You can search for the overview of his experiments in an article entitled, "Dayton Miller's Ether-Drift Experiments".

And so one must ask after passing through the peer review process, being independently tested by other scientists, they still hold to Einsteins theory. And if you say it's a conspiracy to keep the truth down I am going to cry. If experiment proves, and peer review proves beyond a doubt no one can keep any theory down. Never has done, never will. The facts will out.

Einstein did indeed plagiarise from sources, but so did Newton and so did Galileo, standing on the shoulders of giants. No man approaches his sphere of study in a vacuum. The reason Einstein received a Noble prize was not that he used other people to build something that was theirs, it was because his ideas were built on theirs, and advanced new ideas no one had ever thought of before in ways they had not considered.

In the 19th century it was declared by some that physics was a dead field because we knew all we had to. How wrong was that. How wrong will anyone be in the years to come, but they wont do it by magic. They wont do it by claiming something that cannot be empirically derived.

Show me the money, show me the opinion and you can suck my balls. One guy proved something, who the hell cares, might of well have said I just proved that I am x and now I am. Talk shit all you want if no one can verify your experiments, no one cares, if it's not published in several journals no one cares, if it's not accepted by experiment no one cares. I feel sorry for the plucky losers, but if they don't do what every other Scientist does and spends their career doing, no one cares.

If you were to search that paper online (which I doubt you did), the paper showed graphs and detailed documentation of Dayton Miller's experiments, which did show positive results on the ether. Whether or not the peer review accepts it is futile, because it would be a fallicious appeal to authority and false superiority to just believe them just because they claim 'science'. I believe anyone can figure it out through their own reasoning and investigating.

By the way, your ramblings aren't adding at all to the conversation. It's really pathetic.