Is Space Like Liquid?

When a great planetary body in space warps space, is that the same thing as when a solid object displaces it's own mass in liquid?

You guys really need a cosmology for morons section, that's where I would be hanging.

I am just trying to better understand space as a fabric. It's tough to imagine space as a bed sheet or a piece of dental dam because of space not being flat. If an object rests on a bed sheet it's easy to understand why it makes a dent as it "warps" the fabric it rests on, but how can we define space as such when there are planets everywhere "out there" giving space an anything but flat nature?

Is space like jello? (what most of you are likening my brain to right now)

Even so, where is the point of reference for the opposing force that is responsible for the warping of space to begin with? What is responsible for it's taunt, warp prone nature?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

i don't believe that space is made of nothing. it is made of something that we are yet unable to detect. waves cannot be transmitted without a medium. if you throw a rock into a pond, you see waves. but if you throw a rock into a vacum, there won't be waves.

thoughts ? :bugeye:

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Some would have us believe that space is a material which can be shaped by gravity and which can expand from quantum size to over 100,000,000,000 light years across without changing in any way, as well as being affected by energy (DE). Nonsense!

Space is literally nothing given definition by what fills it. Spacetime is no more accurate than spaceheat.

Photons are not ripples in space. If they were, they would leak into "the medium". They are discrete units of what we call energy that travel through space. Gravity is something unknown, behaving like a field or even a hole which fills space around it. It is the all-pervasive gravity which gives the vague impression that space is a material in that gravity so readily interacts with everything else.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Now this is "getting somewhere". At least you understand the premise for what has peaked my real but nonetheless ignorant curiosity.

So this "thing" gravity, which is so taken for granted, is really a mysterious constant that is ever present throughout the universe, where in and by we can make relative judgments and measurements of that which reacts to and with it?

 

Photons are indeed ripples in space-time, they are waves carried on its surface. But they are also single particles when interacting with matter, which is a result of the Higgs field interacting with it. This is all theoretical, however, and no one can say for sure.

Back to the original thread. Gravity is a curvature in space-time. I should have made a standard answer for this long ago but here goes. A curvature in space is what? Answer: a line that changes direction. A curvature in space-time, however, includes time as well as space, meaning velocity. A curvature in space-time is a change in speed therefore, aka acceleration.

Case 1: a space ship that accelerates traces a curve in space-time, experiencing g-forces.
Case 2: gravity is a curvature in space-time itself, and anything enering a gravitational field must follow that curvature, experiencing g-forces.

The difference is like drawing a curve on a flat piece of paper versus trying to draw a straight line on a curved piece of paper. It's not exactly known why mass produces this effect, but it does.

 

there is nothing wrong with your thinking of trying to understand space

but the thing about space is that there is NO fabric or substance too space

for instance can anyone carve out a block of space from any point of space , including the enviroment inwhich you live ?

no

 

I see what you mean. Space is probably just space. The geometry of everything. Objects displaces this geometry so that the easiest (less energy consuming) path is curved. This is because energy is part of the equation and the equation is perfect. What follows the line of geometry thinks it is moving straight (if it could think that is). There are no force acting on it even though it's motion is disturbed because of "gravity" (or the curving of space geometry), play with the thought for a while. Everything is the perfect flaw.

I really think that reality in a sense is perfect. We must make better because of reality, not the other way around - no need to make reality better because we in our ego thinks we are God.

The best computer that can ever be, would be an extension of reality itself, a way to tap into the computer power of reality. There would be nothing better.

And I just sense somehow that this is what we do. Our brain, developed through eons of perfection.

Use the force, mate. Love&Peace&Understanding!

 

Nucleon. Space is literally nothing. Time is change (though Dr Who fans think it is a dimension), so spacetime is useful only in mathematics.

Gravity is all pervasive. It holds everything together even at the smallest levels (strings?) so has no fine structure. That is what people think of as spacetime. I prefer to think of us being in a sea of gravity but you could as easily imagine that the whole universe is encased in a field of gravity, like jello if you wish.

Particles do not travel at light speed, so photons are not particles. They just behave like particles sometimes.

 

Space, the final frontier...

It's definitely something.

Without it the universe could not possibly exist. To appreciate this idea, consider that because it is physically and logically impossible for nothing to exist, space can not be nothing.

The only way out of this is to suggest that nothing can in fact be something, that it can have at least one property, and that perhaps that sole property is the ability to contain something. But if something has a property, it can not be nothing. Nothing is the absence of anything and everything. It cannot exist. Space does.

I am of course aware that when people suggest that space is nothing, they are perhaps suggesting that it is simply something that is not physical or that it has no measureable properties. But just because you are unable to measure something does not prove that it does not exist. The fact that you are even contemplating this proves that it does. Space is something to consider.

Back to the original question. What is it?

Some have suggested that it is a sea of quantum activity, a quantum foam created by virtual particles. It comes up often during discussion about whether or not space is truly empty and the idea is that virtual particle pairs can pop into existence briefly after which they annihilate each other. Fewer people have been bold enough to go that one step further and suggest that this sea of virtual particles out of which these particle pairs emerge is indeed the very fabric of space itself. This is where the current scientific thinking ends, and radical ideas begin. I love radical ideas. The ones below are mine. The kind of shit you might discuss with a mate over a few drinks when you really don't care how scientifically sound your arguments are. Please consider them in that context.

The physical universe is an illusion. It's not really physical. Matter, energy, space. It's all made up of exactly the same stuff. The properties that many things seem to possess are only evident at macroscopic scales. In the quantum world, it is all just particles with different properties interacting in different ways. Consider all this within the context of string theory, and all you are left with is energy. Vibrating (oscillating perhaps) strings (points, or surfaces if you like) of energy. It is the manner in which they oscillate, possibly also the form that they take if indeed there is more than one, that governs how they interact with everything else. String theory is, to me, simultanously the most conceptually simple yet profoundly unfathomable idea in the history of physics. I'm not alone in that respect it seems.

There is no "space" between strings of course if strings themselves are exactly what space is made up of. Everything that actually exists is a manifestation of energy. What follows from this is the idea that there is either energy, or there isn't anything. If the universe is indeed expanding, that apparant expansion is simply energy seeking an equilibrium determined by a set of rules. Remember that the universe isn't actually expanding into some mysterious dimension. The universe is already everything that exists. This puts an interesting spin on the idea that it is infinite, which I'll get back to in a little bit.

It is also important to realise at this point that gravity, or any force in the universe for that matter, is also a manifestation of energy. It follows then that the expansion or possible future contraction of the universe (the big crunch) is not determined by matter or gravity, but rather what configuration all the energy that exists will eventually settle into. These ideas aren't mutually exclusive but are instead simply different ways of looking at or understanding exactly the same thing. Nothing is what it seems to be or more accurately, everything is exactly what it is regardless of how you are looking at it. Whether we are talking about an infinite universe or a singularity, it is just a different configuration of exactly the same stuff.

Throwing the idea of a multiverse into the mix, which I am not opposed to as it makes for another excellent discussion, the suggestion that such a thing actually exists leads me to point out that it too must owe it's properties to strings. Based on a fundamental set of governing rules, even if not the same subset of those rules that govern this or any other particular universe that may have sprung forth from this realm. Or perhaps, or more likely to my way of thinking, the rules are always the same but the energy is what is different, which is of course what I am saying about anything and everything that actually exists. How could that not be the truth?

Finally, getting back to the idea of an infinite universe which is of course what this discussion is really about, being that space is what we typically think of, I feel there is a logical flaw in the way we tend to consider the question. The biggest problems are that 1) something that is already infinite in size cannot possibly get any bigger and 2) there's nothing for it to expand into even if could. The closest I can get to an answer is this. The universe isn't actually infinite. It is simply everything that exists. Even if from our perspective it might seem that it is bigger now than it was billions of years ago, it really isn't. Once again it is just a different configuration, or manifestation of precisely the same amount of energy. You have to keep reminding yourself that space itself is made up of the same stuff that everything is. Bigger is an illusion, because space just like matter is also an illusion. It isn't what we think it is. The missing piece of the puzzle of course is time. Something I have left out until now to prevent myself from wandering off never to return. Time, like everything else, is also a property of universe that is only apparant the way we understand it at macroscopic scales. Both space and time, like matter and all the forces that seem to bind it, are exactly what they are regardless of your perspective. Energy. If we can indeed accept the idea that it is impossible for nothing to exist, remembering that nothing is in fact the absence of anything and everything, then the universe is, once more, everything that exists. It always has been, and it always will be. It just is. This makes the expansion an illusion also. It's not that things aren't happening, it's simply that our perspective on them doesn't reveal to us the true nature of it all.

I admit that this isn't very satisfying, and that it doesn't really answer any of the big questions. To suggest that the answer is in all probability beyond our understanding, and that it is this realisation that brings us closer to the truth, is no doubt a little irritating. But really, it's just a perspective. Fuel for discussion. I'm no more attached to any of these ideas than I typically would be to whatever new ones I might be ranting on about next year. And don't be silly enough to get all bent out of shape over something that you think is completely absurd. I am putting these potentially ludicrous ideas out there for a good reason. I can gaurantee you all that some of the greatest scientific minds of our age spent a lot of time sitting down thinking about absurd possibilities until one of those ideas became truly intriguing and was eventually found to have some merit. You've just got to be brave enough to put it all on the line.

So, bring it on! But if anyone tries to engage me in a line by line point counterpoint, I'm just going to ignore most of it. I find it counterproductive if a good free flowing exchange of ideas is the goal.

 

Rav. Why cannot space be nothing? This "nothing" is given definition when it is occupied by gravity, photons, matter, etc. The universe would end at a set point, beyond which there is literally nothing, but if the universe is expanding indefinitely, then that nothing has the potential to be "infinite" (I use the word loosely) in that one day the universe could be spread across it with maybe an atom per cubic light year.

Spacetime is the name given to it by mathematicians. This is for their convenience so they can work out the details of something travelling through space. It is no more real than curved space, which is just the effects of gravity travelling through space.

The particles do not annihilate each other (they would have to impact to do that), but just vanish back into non-existence. Think of nothing as zero, but it is also +1 and -1, also +trillion and -Trillion, so equalling zero. It is a potential full of pluses and minuses. What we see are the pluses before they vanish again. The minuses would be gravity but so weak there is not a hope we could detect it.

Like strings which you mention. They may be true, they may not, but they are far too small to ever be detected. From our size, go down to proton size. Then that far again. Then that far again and you'll find string, if they exist.

The dogma is that matter is energy but how is it that there is no threshold with matter one side and energy the other? How can energy not travel at light speed when in matter form? How can matter always travel at light speed when in light form? How can we have matter at such a high energies? Why is it not energy?


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ultra-high-energy_cosmic_ray


No evidence for a multiverse. No evidence for other dimensions. They are just ideas dressed up as "theories". Time is a man-made measure for change. It doesn't exist outside SF.

 

Time is a dimension as per the scientific definition. The 'dimension' of a system is the number of independent variables needed to describe it. The define an event in the universe you need 3 spacial variables and 1 time variable. Even pre-space-time (ie before relativity) time was a dimension, such as Newtonian mechanics. The issue with Dr Who fans would be whether you can travel in time as you can travel in space.

This is not true, you're working with your own definitions, not the ones more commonly used.

All subatomic objects, ie photons, quarks, electrons, neutrinos etc are quantised fluctuations in a field. Some travel at c, some do not, but their fundamental construction is the same. Putting in a mass term for a photon into a QED description doesn't change the fact its a quantised fluctuation in a vector field.

I feel compelled to point out to those in this thread unfamiliar with Kaneda that he does not speak for mainstream physicists, nor does he have any actual working knowledge of any quantum mechanical or relativistic models so whenever he tells you something that mainstream physicists supposedly say I suggest you go find out for yourself as his word is rarely close to the mark.

 

I see the idea of nothing as an absolute. It is the absence of anything and everything. Although my position on this might feel more philosophical than scientific, I strongly believe it is both. Whilst I believe that space can be empty according to some definitions, I don't believe that absolute emptiness is exactly what space is. Absolute emptiness is the same as absolute nothingness. It is an impossibility. If space wasn't something, we wouldn't be able to exist within it.

It is this idea that demonstrates to me that the question of what space actually is is an important one, and a valid one. The properties of Space may very well derive from the same fundamental building blocks that make up every other aspect of the universe.

 

-=-

Every time there is an attempt to define space, there is utter confusion between what space is & what is in space.

 

No there isn't. For instance, the Einstein Field Equations are \(R_{ab} - \frac{1}{2}R g_{ab} \propto T_{ab}\). The left hand side is the configuration of space, ie its curvature and structure, and the right hand side is the stuff in the space causing the curvature.

A table isn't space but it's got a location in space.

 

-=-

To begin to attempt to support that, you need to say what the structure is.

A table has a location in space for an extremely short time then it has another location for an extremely short time & so on & on. Same for Earth, everything on it & everything we can observe, as far as humans can tell.

 

stranger...
by extremely small time your saying an infinitely small amount of time right? that's at least always the way i pictured it.

As for space, i don't believe there is a real way to define what it is. Its neither filled with stuff or empty. There is no possible explanation for what it is, kind of like what photons are. Ya, we can say that photons are both waves and particles, but thats just to define it as something. You can somewhat say its neither, but something else entirely that we just cant come up with, and this "thing" acts both as a wave and particle.
So it can be said that space is both empty and filled, but that still doesnt get us anywhere.

 

agreed

space is " room " for something to manifest in , but

space>energy>matter become at the same moment

neither energy/matter can become without space and space cannot become without energy/matter being envolved

all go hand in hand

 

I believe space does act react like a liquid!

This just seemed to pop in my head the other day whilst trying to understand space and the universe. I base my theory on the concept that I believe space is made up of tiny particles and each one having the same make-up of all matter. These particles I believe are very small and invisible to even the most high tech equipment that we have in space, but when alot of them are together they make up a liquid like effect when reacted upon. I may be incorrect but once again this is what I feel to be true. When we look at how the planets rotate in our own system (some clock-wise and some counter clock-wise) I looked at first how they are arranged in distance and mass to one another and working like "gears" floating in water maybe this explains why three of our planets rotate the opposite from the others. Also we now know that all planets even the sun has sound in space, so just like placing a speaker on a desk next to a glass of water it creates a "ripple" effect and I believe that is what keeps our planets from "bumping" into one another. The other thing that lead me to believe this is the effect of almost weightlessness outside our planet like floating in water but a water of matter and molecules. If correct we should be able to "move" through space using frequency of soundwaves! But like I said this is just one mans thought on the subject. And who am I to prove science and the laws of gravity and a supposed vacuum of space wrong. But I also remember when science also believed the earth to be flat so anything is possible. I have faith within time man will put this puzzle together.

 

First off, I know nothing.

This is what makes the most sense to me...

In OUR beginning there was a singularity, A single point where all energy existed. This was caused by all the black holes coming together. This also means no energy outside of this point. (i consider this a cycle not the first beginning. )

So what happens when you have unbalance, things tend to want to balance, so boom, big bang.

I think of big bang as a explosion but also on the smaller level a giant fart.

I consider the space outside of our planet to be a liquid or gas, following liquid and gas dynamics.

Gravity:
The sun spins and that causes ripples, the earth is caught in the ripple and its wake causes us to spin. The spin causes gravity, yes i'm saying gravity does not exist with out movement. How do you create artificial gravity, hrmm with spin...

So space is something and i also believe there is a edge of space where the edge of our space is expanding, because that is what gas does until it equalizes which if you think about it probably won't, however it did, and the big bang did happen. So equalization in this type of system is not the point of balance of expansion but the balance of be coming a singularity again. Thus a never ending cycle.

How could it happen again? How could the expansion ever get reversed into a compression?

Black holes while argued upon, I see them as super dense high spin vortexes. I do not think they destroy energy, just compress it because the spin is faster then the space gas energy can deal with. Thus it will not stop compressing and collecting until there is nothing else to compress, meaning when all the black holes have become a singularity then and only then can the big bang happen.

Again I know nothing but that is how I see the world.

Thanks for reading.

Edit - learned about some experiments where they clearly can separate the spin vs gravity and that gravity is universal. This doesn't change much of what i was saying other then i think the displacement of the physical space (a medium not a void) is the cause of gravity. Spin is just spin and can act like its avoiding gravity but is not gravity. To me gravity is the force caused by space medium trying to equalize causing pressure for anything that disperses its equilibrium. Thus like relativity the more mass / density the more pressure around it.

 

Unfortunately I think this is where your post should have ended....

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

I recommend that you do some research on gravity:

Google:

General relativity explained
or
General relativity for dummies
or
General relativity for nonphysicists