Existence

[RussDill]

Re: stop the insanity

I'm not sure what your point is. Our existence is within 3 spatial dimensions, and if you are advocating the finiteness of this existence, then at some point you have to explain what resides beyond this existence. A finite existence must be enveloped by something else - not necessarily more space as we know it, but definitely 'something' as opposed to 'nothing'. This is simply obvious to me, but the skeptics here are trying their utmost to avoid this conclusion.

wow, you compeletly ignore everything I say, and then argue with me on a point I did not make. Astonishing.

I did not argue that space is finite, I just argued that by your logic, its just as likely finite as infinite.

Like I said. A finite space would be a 3d volume stretching to inifinity, a finite space would be a 3d volume that has the properties of a hypersphere.

Viewing either is difficult to do, so we'll step it down to 2 dimensions. A plane, and a sphere. Again, I ask, how is a plane any less surrounded by nothingness than a sphere (when placed in three dimensions).

(the argument is then expanded for a 3d plane and hypersphere in 4 dimensions) Add another dimension to *any* space and its "bounded by nothing".

 

[RussDill]

Woo woo alarms going off! Everyone run for the exits!

Space has negative energy? Maybe, I'll listen if he can explain *why* space has negative energy. Otherwise, its just regurgitation.

 

[lifegazer]

I stated that space is a negative-energy because it works against universal-unification. There is an energy/force within space which opposes gravity.

 

[TLN]

I stated that space is a negative-energy because it works against universal-unification. There is an energy/force within space which opposes gravity.

You can't define terms with other undefined terms.

Lifegazer, you're just making all this up without any evidence. That's perfectly alright, but don't expect to sway any skeptics with your baseless claims.

 

[Ed]

Your Threads? What a concept.
And "Space is negative energy"?
What in Ed's name is that supposed to mean?

I warned you all.

A miasma of meaningless gibberish.

It ain't your thread, kiddo.

 

[RussDill]

I stated that space is a negative-energy because it works against universal-unification. There is an energy/force within space which opposes gravity.

lifegazer, you are truly further off the deepend than I thought. You debate only because you know you are right, and "we" are wrong. You may not always understand why we are wrong, but you know we are wrong. You have finally found vindication for your beliefs, and because your beliefs are vindicated, they are right, and because your beliefs are right, the reasons for believing them must be right.

Realize the loop that you've gotten yourself into.


Being new to this board, I'm still compelled to argue with you logically, even though you are already convinced that I'm wrong.

Just because there apears to be a yet unmeasured force that apears to push matter apart at very great distances, does not mean that space has a negative energy.

Also, what is universal-unification? Is that when all the life in the universe comes together, understands the spirit world, no longer hates, and signs cumbiya? Because the way you say "universal-unification" makes it seem like something happy. Whereas in an infinate universe where a force counters gravitiy and works against "universal-unification" it would seem to me that this universal-unification would be matter accelerating towards matter at extremely high velocity, eventually forming massive black holes, and destroying all matter and life as we know it. Otherwise, explain how a force that acts on matter on scales that make our galaxy seem infentesimal has an effect on whether or not beings on this planet we call earth choose to love or hate.

 

[Jeff Corey]

This thread has a superstring of negative-energy binding its bowels.

 

[Ed]

This thread has a superstring of negative-energy binding its bowels.

I fear that the binding energy has dissipated.

 

[lifegazer]

Just because there apears to be a yet unmeasured force that apears to push matter apart at very great distances, does not mean that space has a negative energy.

Question: How does the space between matter expand (the universe is expanding at an accelerating rate, apparently), unless:
(a) There is 'something' in space (space is not nothing).
(b) There is a force/energy in this 'thing' which opposes the gravity which is pulling matter together?

The force/energy of space opposes that of the force within matter. So in this sense, I feel justified in stating that there is a negative energy in space.

Also, what is universal-unification?

Matter, through gravity, is actually seeking unity. Not really physics-speak, I know, but it's true.

Is that when all the life in the universe comes together, understands the spirit world, no longer hates, and signs cumbiya?

Mankind is also returning to unity. But that's a different matter altogether, best left for other threads.

 

[TLN]

Matter, through gravity, is actually seeking unity. Not really physics-speak, I know, but it's true.

The very opposite of evidence. You'll get nowhere here lifegazer; quit while you're behind.

 

[RussDill]

Question: How does the space between matter expand (the universe is expanding at an accelerating rate, apparently), unless:
(a) There is 'something' in space (space is not nothing).
(b) There is a force/energy in this 'thing' which opposes the gravity which is pulling matter together?

you assume a classical view of space. You also assume that the force must be in this thing we call space. Its a matter of great study and debate that has nothing (from what I can tell) to do with your point. It even seems to point to an expanding universe, which would indicate a finite, but most likely boundless, universe.

The force/energy of space opposes that of the force within matter. So in this sense, I feel justified in stating that there is a negative energy in space.

Simply because a force is attractive instead of repulsive has nothing to do with energy levels. In fact, with a repulsive force, and a lot of matter close together, that would be a positive potential energy. To say there is a negative energy, you have to define your zero-point, not discuss the direction of forces.

Matter, through gravity, is actually seeking unity. Not really physics-speak, I know, but it's true.

unity? seeking? there is no evidence that matter can have wants and desires. There are a number of forces that act on matter. Electromagnetic, gravitational, strong/weak, etc. Different forces push matter in different directions. It has nothing to do with seeking, wanting, or unity. Please explain further what you mean and why you "know that it is true"

Mankind is also returning to unity. But that's a different matter altogether, best left for other threads.

hooray for that, too much hate and ignorance in the world. In the same day, one leader says the jews control everything by proxy, and another says muslims are controlled by the devil.

 

[lifegazer]

The very opposite of evidence. You'll get nowhere here lifegazer; quit while you're behind.

Have you heard of gravity? It draws matter towards singularity. That's why black-holes occur.
The only reason why the universe doesn't collapse upon itself is because of the energy which exists in space, pushing matter apart and enforcing the expansion of the universe. It is space which is expanding - not matter.
To state that my statement opposes the evidence seems absurd.
Why don't you explain yourself instead of just making threats?

 

[TLN]

Why don't you explain yourself instead of just making threats?

I made no threat. I simply pointed out that the statement "I know it's true" will get you nowhere in this forum.

 

[lifegazer]

you assume a classical view of space.

I'm not sure what you mean by that. I have assumed nothing of space that isn't supported by scientific-knowledge. If it wasn't for a force occuring within space, the universe would be at singularity.

You also assume that the force must be in this thing we call space.

Well it is the space which is affected. Therefore, the force is in space.

Simply because a force is attractive instead of repulsive has nothing to do with energy levels. In fact, with a repulsive force, and a lot of matter close together, that would be a positive potential energy.

Gravity would win the day in such a scenario.

To say there is a negative energy, you have to define your zero-point, not discuss the direction of forces.

Okay, this is semantics I feel. At the end of the day, I can still show that space is 'something' (not 'nothing') and that there is energy within that space. Those are the essential points.

unity? seeking? there is no evidence that matter can have wants and desires. There are a number of forces that act on matter. Electromagnetic, gravitational, strong/weak, etc. Different forces push matter in different directions. It has nothing to do with seeking, wanting, or unity. Please explain further what you mean and why you "know that it is true"

All matter is being forced to gather together and we label this force 'gravity'. If it wasn't for the opposing-energy in space, matter would collapse to singularity. So whether 'matter' seeks it or not, something seeks to bring matter back to singularity. This 'thing' is the source of that force.

 

[Mercutio]

I made no threat. I simply pointed out that the statement "I know it's true" will get you nowhere in this forum.

Oddly enough, I know that's true...

 

[lifegazer]

I made no threat. I simply pointed out that the statement "I know it's true" will get you nowhere in this forum.

Well my knowledge of physics is adequate to state that matter seeks singularity, through the force of gravity. Rather, the source of the force seeks matter to move towards singularity.

 

[TLN]

Well my knowledge of physics is adequate to state that matter seeks singularity, through the force of gravity. Rather, the source of the force seeks matter to move towards singularity.

Matter, through gravity, is actually seeking unity. Not really physics-speak, I know, but it's true.

This is belief, not physics. Matter "seeks" nothing. Saying you know it's true isn't science, it's blind belief.

You're ill equipped to debate here.

 

[Beleth]

Re: Re: stop the insanity

This is simply obvious to me, but the skeptics here are trying their utmost to avoid this conclusion.

You say we're avoiding an obvious conclusion?

You know there's no higher compliment you can give a skeptic, right?





Here's a rule of thumb. Call it Beleth's Law of Complex Questions if you like.

If you have answered one of the world's great questions (the four-color theorem, Fermat's Last Theorem, the Goldbach Conjecture, the existence of God, the existence of free will, etc.) in less than one screenful of text, then you have either
1) not explained yourself thoroughly enough, or
2) have Done Something Wrong.

And of the two, #2 is far more likely.

 

[hammegk]

This is belief, not physics. Matter "seeks" nothing. Saying you know it's true isn't science, it's blind belief.

Have you ever heard of "gravity"? Is that a blind belief?

You're ill equipped to debate here.

At least he's putting up something for smart guys like you to throw stones at.

 

[Thanz]

The only reason why the universe doesn't collapse upon itself is because of the energy which exists in space, pushing matter apart and enforcing the expansion of the universe. It is space which is expanding - not matter.

What? I always thought that the expansion of the universe is a result of the big bang, there being nothing in the way of the matter to stop it from moving away.

People other than lifegazer - is my thought ridiculous? Am I making a Jedi Knight gravity explanation type error here?