|
On July 04 2017 13:42 Thieving Magpie wrote:Show nested quote +On July 04 2017 13:08 IgnE wrote:
how does matter being there or not affect the total geometric space? do i not "take up space?" is there not matter situated where i am? How does one create empty space that never existed prior to that moment? There is a totality of existence. In that existence X area is empty "space" and Y is occupied by matter. How does one create X+Z space where Z is any positive value? You can't just find it, since all of existence is already accounted for. To make new space, you'd have to reduce Y in order for X to be greater. In other words, new space. Space, by definition, cannot be occupied. Because it stops being space. It stops being empty. It stops being blank, absent, of nothingness. If something is currently present, then it cannot be currently absent as well. You can move mass. You can cover up and shift, hide, partition, quarantine. But to create space out of existence the only way would be to remove things that occupy it. But since it is impossible to destroy (or create) matter, then it is impossible to create space.
so where is my body if not in space?
i get the feeling you just like saying things with no regard for whether you think they are true or not
|
On July 04 2017 13:46 opisska wrote:
When physics talks about "space", they mean a thing that exists regardless of matter being there or not. The extend of thid space increases in time with the expansion of the Universe, but you can't point your finger to "new space" that wasn't there before, but you van fit in more stuff. Matter can be destroyed - turned into energy, but from physics point of view, there isn't that much difference between matter and energy anyway.
And I'm answering Uldridge's question of: I'm talking about a hypothetical machine that's invented/made that can literally create space
I understand what space means from its re-extrapolated concept outside of its original meaning. But I doubt Uldridge was asking about a gun that aims to generate mass, but instead is asking about a gun that generates space.
Energy and matter is no different, there's a reason why I didn't talk about objects.
|
On July 04 2017 13:51 IgnE wrote:Show nested quote +On July 04 2017 13:42 Thieving Magpie wrote:On July 04 2017 13:08 IgnE wrote:
how does matter being there or not affect the total geometric space? do i not "take up space?" is there not matter situated where i am? How does one create empty space that never existed prior to that moment? There is a totality of existence. In that existence X area is empty "space" and Y is occupied by matter. How does one create X+Z space where Z is any positive value? You can't just find it, since all of existence is already accounted for. To make new space, you'd have to reduce Y in order for X to be greater. In other words, new space. Space, by definition, cannot be occupied. Because it stops being space. It stops being empty. It stops being blank, absent, of nothingness. If something is currently present, then it cannot be currently absent as well. You can move mass. You can cover up and shift, hide, partition, quarantine. But to create space out of existence the only way would be to remove things that occupy it. But since it is impossible to destroy (or create) matter, then it is impossible to create space. so where is my body if not in space? i get the feeling you just like saying things with no regard for whether you think they are true or not
Your body is taking up space, but your body itself is not space. The exact position of all your particles is not an empty space. The exact atoms of your matter are not voids of non-existence but are instead areas that other particles cannot be put into because there is no space there to put them into. Meaning it is not space--it is you. Now if there was space, you can place your matter into that space, but someone elses matter cannot be put into the exact spot of the space you occupy because there is no longer space, there is only you.
|
so i am not space but i am in space just not empty space which is fairly tautological
you are making this up as you go
|
On July 04 2017 14:05 IgnE wrote:
so i am not space but i am in space just not empty space which is fairly tautological
you are making this up as you go
See, I am talking about literal space while you are talking about a location.
Answering the original question from Uldrig: I'm talking about a hypothetical machine that's invented/made that can literally create space
He's not talking about a location, ie, a place you can move matter into. Nor is he talking about a plane, the abstract idea of a place where things happen. Nor is he talking about a designated point, where the coordinates exists whether it is empty or not. We are talking about literal space. Nothing.
He is literally talking about creating, manipulating, and touching "space," empty literal space existing as a thing as opposed to its actual state of non-existence. He is not asking if its possible to manipulate mass, or to if its possible to put matter into emptiness. He is not asking if bullets can be put above peoples heads and they can touch and hold onto and pinch the bullet. He is talking about space.
Space has nothing in it. It stops being space if it is composed of something.
|
This discussion went off the deep end.
|
Okay: Magpie, the problem in the discussion is currently that everyone but you talks with the physics meanings of words, while you take the everyday meaning of words.
The everyday meaning of "space" or "outer space" is "the area that planets and stuff are in, but not where they are. Empty space"
The physics meaning is "The framework within which things like energy or matter can be. It does not matter whether something currently occupies the space or not, the space is there nonetheless"
Imagine a warehouse floor. On some spots, there are boxes with stuff. Others are empty. To everyone else in this thread, the whole warehouse floor is "space". To you, only the empty bits are "space". Since you are not talking about the same thing as everyone else, you reach different conclusions, and the whole discussion is utterly silly. Now, you may claim that your definition of space is the better one, and thus your conclusions are correct. But that is basically semantics and not very interesting. It is much easier to accept the definition of a word that everyone else uses, and use a different word to describe what you want to describe (Like "Empty space"), than to fight forever over the definition (without actually acknowledging that that is what you are doing). It also leads to way more interesting discussions.
|
On July 04 2017 19:24 Simberto wrote:
Okay: Magpie, the problem in the discussion is currently that everyone but you talks with the physics meanings of words, while you take the everyday meaning of words.
The everyday meaning of "space" or "outer space" is "the area that planets and stuff are in, but not where they are. Empty space"
The physics meaning is "The framework within which things like energy or matter can be. It does not matter whether something currently occupies the space or not, the space is there nonetheless"
Imagine a warehouse floor. On some spots, there are boxes with stuff. Others are empty. To everyone else in this thread, the whole warehouse floor is "space". To you, only the empty bits are "space". Since you are not talking about the same thing as everyone else, you reach different conclusions, and the whole discussion is utterly silly. Now, you may claim that your definition of space is the better one, and thus your conclusions are correct. But that is basically semantics and not very interesting. It is much easier to accept the definition of a word that everyone else uses, and use a different word to describe what you want to describe (Like "Empty space"), than to fight forever over the definition (without actually acknowledging that that is what you are doing). It also leads to way more interesting discussions.
I did not start with that definition.
Someone asked if it's possible to create space. Not location in which to put things, not boxes, not areas of existence that we know we can place matter into--but to create, manipulate, and touch, space.
He did not ask if it's possible that there are boxes in a warehouse floor that he can shoot mouth words at. He did not ask if you can manipulate matter that is already occupying space. He asked about creating space, and I said he could not.
I did, however, provide a way to answer his problem, but that even that says the answer is no. To create more space within existence one would have decrease the amount of matter within existence to generate an increase of space within existence.
Hence why I told him the only way we can increase the amount of space in existence requires removing matter from existence; which is impossible.
Guys please keep up and don't keep getting lost in trying to redefine words in an already moving dialogue just so you guys can pretend to be the smart ones.
|
On July 05 2017 00:40 Thieving Magpie wrote:Show nested quote +On July 04 2017 19:24 Simberto wrote:
Okay: Magpie, the problem in the discussion is currently that everyone but you talks with the physics meanings of words, while you take the everyday meaning of words.
The everyday meaning of "space" or "outer space" is "the area that planets and stuff are in, but not where they are. Empty space"
The physics meaning is "The framework within which things like energy or matter can be. It does not matter whether something currently occupies the space or not, the space is there nonetheless"
Imagine a warehouse floor. On some spots, there are boxes with stuff. Others are empty. To everyone else in this thread, the whole warehouse floor is "space". To you, only the empty bits are "space". Since you are not talking about the same thing as everyone else, you reach different conclusions, and the whole discussion is utterly silly. Now, you may claim that your definition of space is the better one, and thus your conclusions are correct. But that is basically semantics and not very interesting. It is much easier to accept the definition of a word that everyone else uses, and use a different word to describe what you want to describe (Like "Empty space"), than to fight forever over the definition (without actually acknowledging that that is what you are doing). It also leads to way more interesting discussions. I did not start with that definition. Someone asked if it's possible to create space. Not location in which to put things, not boxes, not areas of existence that we know we can place matter into--but to create, manipulate, and touch, space. He did not ask if it's possible that there are boxes in a warehouse floor that he can shoot mouth words at. He did not ask if you can manipulate matter that is already occupying space. He asked about creating space, and I said he could not. I did, however, provide a way to answer his problem, but that even that says the answer is no. To create more space within existence one would have decrease the amount of matter within existence to generate an increase of space within existence. Hence why I told him the only way we can increase the amount of space in existence requires removing matter from existence; which is impossible. Guys please keep up and don't keep getting lost in trying to redefine words in an already moving dialogue just so you guys can pretend to be the smart ones.
Dude, seriously?
Your reason as to why one cannot create space is because "space is where no matter is", or something along those lines, and that thus creating space is the same as removing matter. This is a clear case of you completely missing what people are talking about, and then acting smug about it.
You are using a different definition of "space" than anyone else in this discussion. That is a problem on your end, not on the end of everyone else. For everyone else, creating or removing matter has literally NOTHING to do with space at all.
The reason i used the warehouse example is to show you the difference. What you are talking about is creating more "empty space" in the warehouse by removing boxes. What everyone else is talking about is creating more "total" space in the warehouse. Maybe by cutting the warehouse in half and adding a square meter of storage space into the middle of it. Or basically anything along those lines. Of course imagining adding more space gets weird. But you are just missing the whole point of the discussion, and then act as if everyone else is missing it.
|
I actually don't know what's going on at the moment.
I feel like Simberto understands what I'm trying to ask, but then Magpie says this: but to create, manipulate, and touch, space.
I don't understand why one would need to remove matter out of existence if one needed to create space, though.
Maybe I can let you visualize it like this.
You're in the bathtub, and your body is the space creating machine. You are submerged with matter (water) and space is the air above the water. You create space (fart; air) and this then rises to the top to be added to the existing space. Or imagine a cup you hold upside down where you trap the air into and pull it underwater. Or Imagine a closed box already with air into it, put under water. The problem with the last one is, the space is already created, but it's still made and quarantined.
The real issue, however, is that there's a large, clear, well defined divide between matter and space in my analogy, while this isn't the case in nature.
Edit: okay, with the last one, Simberto nailed it. I hope he made it clear now 
|
On July 05 2017 01:42 Uldridge wrote:I actually don't know what's going on at the moment. I feel like Simberto understands what I'm trying to ask, but then Magpie says this: I don't understand why one would need to remove matter out of existence if one needed to create space, though. Maybe I can let you visualize it like this. You're in the bathtub, and your body is the space creating machine. You are submerged with matter (water) and space is the air above the water. You create space (fart; air) and this then rises to the top to be added to the existing space. Or imagine a cup you hold upside down where you trap the air into and pull it underwater. Or Imagine a closed box already with air into it, put under water. The problem with the last one is, the space is already created, but it's still made and quarantined. The real issue, however, is that there's a large, clear, well defined divide between matter and space in my analogy, while this isn't the case in nature. Edit: okay, with the last one, Simberto nailed it. I hope he made it clear now
Let's go back to the original question then.
On July 04 2017 04:00 Uldridge wrote:
I don't think you come off too negative, however, I do think you're underestimating me. I know the universe is expanding.
I'm talking about a hypothetical machine that's invented/made that can literally create space.
Let's say matter can be made (fusion, kind of) or that we can use/condense photons to make it into matter; great, that's straightforward and not abstract because we know what matter is (we interact with it all the time), and it's probably the most researched property of our universe. It might not be possible because of the laws that act upon energy, but it can at least be thought about conceptually.
But what happens when you introduce new space into existing space. Or, let's think about it in another way, could we pinch of a piece of space? Let's say you want to "quarantine" the cubic meter of space that floats right above your head. How would/could that work? Like I said, it's pretty out there, but that's because something like space (time much less, even though they're so linked with each other) is so much more esoteric for me.
Of course I don't know as much about time and matter as I should, so I can probably expect another Cascade post directed to me, but it's just some stuff I like to think about, even though it's not fruitful in any way.
Where you say:
I know the universe is expanding. I'm talking about a hypothetical machine that's invented/made that can literally create space.
But what happens when you introduce new space into existing space.
Or, let's think about it in another way, could we pinch of a piece of space?
Let's say you want to "quarantine" the cubic meter of space that floats right above your head. How would/could that work?
This is different than people arguing over the definition of the word space. You literally already defined it.
Let's say matter can be made (fusion, kind of) or that we can use/condense photons to make it into matter; great, that's straightforward and not abstract because we know what matter is (we interact with it all the time), and it's probably the most researched property of our universe. It might not be possible because of the laws that act upon energy, but it can at least be thought about conceptually.
But what happens when you introduce new space into existing space.
So I don't need to use their definition of space, your hypothesis already defines it for us.
It is also clear we are not talking about just existing space when you talk about creating space, because your follow up question focuses on manipulating existing space.
Or, let's think about it in another way, could we pinch of a piece of space? Let's say you want to "quarantine" the cubic meter of space that floats right above your head. How would/could that work?
Wherein you are trying to contextualize your original question about creating space into what would created space look like, how can we observe it.
This is where your distinctions of space and matter really hinges on. You already say you don't care about matter, and then you follow that up by talking about creating space inside of space, and then follow that up by talking "pinching off" and holding said space.
My answer to that is simple: All possible space is already within existence. You can never create more space or find more space since it's already there. So how does one create more space inside of existence?
You've already dictated a specific difference between mass/matter as not the topic of interest, but of the interest of creating more "space within space" or increasing the amount of space within existence. The only way to create this space is through making there be less matter within existence, which itself is also not possible.
Simberto's initial answer does not look at your question at all:
you can mostly just stretch spacetime, not make a completely new one. The only way that i know of to seal of a part of spacetime is inside a black hole, and that is irrevocable.
Where he talks about manipulating, stretching, and compressing current space through its interaction with mass and time. That dodges your initial query about creating space within space.
His most recent follow-up also ignores it, with his emphasis on boxes inside a warehouse. He still points to locations (boxes) and talks about how I am continually just adding or removing boxes. What I am saying is that the warehouse a is fixed point--ie existence. Inside of that warehouse is stuff--ie matter. If you want the warehouse to have more space--you need to have less things in it. The option to grow the warehouse is not available--since it is already all there is, existence. So you can't cut it, expand it, add more floor to it. So how do you increase the amount of space inside the warehouse? How do you allow more things to be able to fit into that warehouse? You make it more empty.
Its frustrating because instead of actually going deeper into what your initial question was, we now have a page of people complaining about your definition of space. Which, from your recent point, is fart/emptiness floating in water/matter and not "the framework in which we put boxes to fill stuff in with".
|
It is indeed frustrating, because you are the one who lead us to that annoying semantics discussion, and you keep on insisting that everyone else is using the words wrongly.
Also, you just claim that the space that is there is all that there ever will be, as if that is obviously self-evident. I don't see why that would necessarily be the case.
And if you remove the matter from a space, that does not add more space. It adds more empty space. The total amount of space stays the same, just more of it is empty. You are going off on your own tangent here, and then demand that everyone else follows you onto your tangent that no one else wanted to go on except for you. Basically, you want to talk about something different. And you want everyone else to talk to you about that different thing, and claim that they are wrong if they keep on talking about the thing they were initially talking about before you inserted your completely different boring semantics discussion.
The problem is not that no one understands what you are writing. I understand it very well. You are just talking about a completely different problem, and claiming that that is the problem we were talking about before, when it clearly was not.
|
This is why I said my question(s) was(were) pretty out there, it's pretty abstract. Creating more "usable" space, by deleting matter is one way to look at it, like Magpie does, but he then ignores my premise, even though he explicitly says he doesn't, where I have a machine that can create space, i.e. the framework in which matter can reside into.
If you want to reduce it to "it can't happen", fine, but you shouldn't start to make complete walls of text just to try prove you're interpreting it the right way. My hypothesis does not violate how space is defined traditionally.
My followup question, does manipulate space, but there would still be left a "vacuum" of where space once was and a newly obtained space which is now quarantined and could be placed anywhere (a space in a space).
The funny thing is, I actually think you are interpreting it the right way, but because you go off the premise 'we can't remove/add/cut space' (which you didn't specify at all, only in your last post), you've made a leap in logic we couldn't follow.
And still, by moving the topic back to matter to create "more" space, you've completely ignored the actual question and put in the court of matter creation/destruction/manipulation instead of space creatio/destruction/manipulation.
|
Just ignore thieving magpie Uldridge. It's probably for the best when he deliberately ignores everybody else's definitions and uses his own. The words are the same, but the meaning isn't. You can't have a conversation when someone decides to just talk past you.
|
On July 05 2017 02:53 Uldridge wrote:
This is why I said my question(s) was(were) pretty out there, it's pretty abstract. Creating more "usable" space, by deleting matter is one way to look at it, like Magpie does, but he then ignores my premise, even though he explicitly says he doesn't, where I have a machine that can create space, i.e. the framework in which matter can reside into.
If you want to reduce it to "it can't happen", fine, but you shouldn't start to make complete walls of text just to try prove you're interpreting it the right way. My hypothesis does not violate how space is defined traditionally.
My followup question, does manipulate space, but there would still be left a "vacuum" of where space once was and a newly obtained space which is now quarantined and could be placed anywhere (a space in a space).
The funny thing is, I actually think you are interpreting it the right way, but because you go off the premise 'we can't remove/add/cut space' (which you didn't specify at all, only in your last post), you've made a leap in logic we couldn't follow.
And still, by moving the topic back to matter to create "more" space, you've completely ignored the actual question and put in the court of matter creation/destruction/manipulation instead of space creatio/destruction/manipulation.
I actually answered you directly when I said:
That's an already solved problem right?
It can't happen.
And then followed up with an attempt to find an answer to your question. I flipped the viewpoint of the variables in order to be able to produce your intended goal--create more space within existence or "space within space."
I setup a clear distinction between matter and space--just as you did in your initial statement. Walked through a process that would allow you to increase space within the known universe by remove matter (increase of space overall) instead of adding void (increase of space overall) concluding with.
So in order to create space, you'd need to de-exist matter to "create" said space--correct?
Notice I had to put it into quotations in my initial answer in the page prior just to show how tenuous the word choice is.
Igne was the one that popped up right afterwards talking about Plato and Khora as if that was what you were talking about, and suddenly its 2 pages of people trying to define a term you had already defined.
|
that actually was what he was talking about tho
|
On July 05 2017 03:22 IgnE wrote:
that actually was what he was talking about tho
So when someone says "this is matter" and "this is space" and asks how to make more "space" you're answer is Plato's metaphorical use of their version of the burbs?
Khora
That when someone brings up the topic of matter and space as two distinct things, that the proper answer is to think of a 3rd plane for us to overlay concepts of space and beings into? How does that answer the question? How does that even relate to the question?
|
And...now you stopped talking about what he was talking about.
|
On July 05 2017 04:07 Dangermousecatdog wrote:
And...now you stopped talking about what he was talking about.
Igne wasn't talking about Khora? Please enlighten us as to what Igne was talking about.
|
On July 05 2017 03:45 Thieving Magpie wrote:Show nested quote +On July 05 2017 03:22 IgnE wrote:
that actually was what he was talking about tho So when someone says "this is matter" and "this is space" and asks how to make more "space" you're answer is Plato's metaphorical use of their version of the burbs? KhoraThat when someone brings up the topic of matter and space as two distinct things, that the proper answer is to think of a 3rd plane for us to overlay concepts of space and beings into? How does that answer the question? How does that even relate to the question?
its not a distinction between "matter and space" but between matter and form. it's not a third plane so much as the plane-ness of space-matter
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
