Can religion reject this science ?

[shmogie]

Began? How can you begin without time?

Ciao

- viole

The beginning of time, previous to the BB there was nothing, 0, zilch, zip, nada, nothing.

The clock started at the instant of the BB

 

[Thief]

7) Space has no physicality

but......it's there...

in between everything else

 

[viole]

The beginning of time, previous to the BB there was nothing, 0, zilch, zip, nada, nothing.

The clock started at the instant of the BB

Started? How can you start if there was not time before? Well, there was not even before before. Not to talk of previous. begin, was, instant
So your post contains at least 5 terms that make no sense in this context.

Ciao

- viole

 

[osgart]

Well there's always imaginary time. Like the clock in ones head. Night and day, every instant can be counted. So counting backwards in imaginary time there was a first instant, and before that nothing of an instant. Normal everyday experience runs sequentially.

It all sounds speculative that there was no before the first instant of the universe. It sounds like humans talking themselves out of a normal intuition for the sake of math.

 

[blü 2]

N-field theory , an united field theory that explains the beginning of the visual universe , unites field matter ( spatial quantum fields ) and atomic matter ( Visible objects ) into an united manifold that is independent of space.
Additionally the Universe inside and out explains the gravity mechanism , the nature of light and the nature of time.

By n-field theory they mean n-field hypothesis.

the definition of space

1. A continuous area or expanse which is free, available, or unoccupied.

Are we assuming that N=4 is correct for our universe? If not, which value of N are we talking about? And whatever we choose, how do we demonstrate that it's the correct value to represent our universe?

How are 'area', 'expanse' and 'continuous' defined for our N-space?

I propose that space is the single property of an infinite void, agreeing with Newton that space is absolute and immovable.

I know of no reason to think that our universe is 'infinite' in any meaningful sense. What do you mean, 'infinite' here? On what basis do you say our universe fits with that definition?

I also don't understand 'absolute'. Leaving aside the point that there are no absolutes in physics, our present model of the cosmos has eg the galaxies moving apart at an accelerating rate. In what sense is such a universe 'absolute'?

And again, I can understand the conceptual notion that each point in an ideal n-space is defined by coordinates along n axes, and that any point within that conceptual space is by definition always in the same relation to any other point. But I suspect if we include the n-space within an (n+1)-space we can distort the n-space so that eg two of its points share the one location in (n+1)-space. So what do you mean by 'immovable'?

In regards to space there is no evidence that suggests anything other than these provided seven postulates :
1) Space cannot be created or destroyed

So bang goes the notion of the expanding universe, you say?

2) Space is immovable

See above.

3) Space is timeless and has no mechanism to age or decay

But our physics model says we live in spacetime. Further, we have no way of accelerating, slowing, stopping or reversing time in our local space (though we can do those things relative to other spaces).

4) Space is the unique property of a void

I take it you're making this part of the definition of a void. But since it's timeless, the instant you create a timeless void is the only glimpse you'll ever get of it; after that it'll be further and further away in the past, no?

5) Space has no mechanism to be visibly light or visibly dark

Is it transparent to photons, or is the movement of a photon ruled out by your 'timeless' rule?

6) Space is transparent

You can see through something that isn't there? Interesting idea.

But all these points are rather summed up in your last ─

7) Space has no physicality

Therefore your space is not part of physics and can only be imaginary, no? When it comes to reality, your 'space' is not just timeless but nothing can distinguish it from 'spaceless' either. Is it not the case that a real emptiness, unlike yours, can't avoid having the energy of the vacuum, 'physicality'?

There's no reason or reasons why these postulates are not of axiom value

I'll know more when you've answered my questions to my satisfaction.

and true to observation

Your 'spaces' are incapable of being observed, or detected, or brought into a lab, or subjected to a repeatable experiment, aren't they? So what observation are you referring to?

 

[james blunt]

but......it's there...

in between everything else

It's not only between everything , it is within everything and has no physicality . An object occupies a space but the space is still there and unaltered .

 

[james blunt]

By n-field theory they mean n-field hypothesis.
Are we assuming that N=4 is correct for our universe? If not, which value of N are we talking about? And whatever we choose, how do we demonstrate that it's the correct value to represent our universe?

How are 'area', 'expanse' and 'continuous' defined for our N-space?
I know of no reason to think that our universe is 'infinite' in any meaningful sense. What do you mean, 'infinite' here? On what basis do you say our universe fits with that definition?

N stand for electrically neutral , the N-field is my own theory . Space is infinite and infinite can be deducted . People who claim finite are claiming a solid boundary after space , Is this solid finite or infinite , what is after ?

The question is a continuum , therefore defining and deducting infinite .

Consider the Chinese dolls , where they are stacked within each other .

 

[Kangaroo Feathers]

No need for Religion to reject science. Yes they see things differently now, but in some thousand years more science will discover that religion was right, because right now science can not messure God or spiritulity. But they will in future

What do you think religion is right about that science disagrees with?

 

[james blunt]

Therefore your space is not part of physics and can only be imaginary, no? When it comes to reality, your 'space' is not just timeless but nothing can distinguish it from 'spaceless' either. Is it not the case that a real emptiness, unlike yours, can't avoid having the energy of the vacuum, 'physicality'?
I'll know more when you've answered my questions to my satisfaction.
Your 'spaces' are incapable of being observed, or detected, or brought into a lab, or subjected to a repeatable experiment, aren't they? So what observation are you referring to?

Space is not imaginary , space is the unique property of an infinite void , it has no physicality but it is observed . We can see space with our eyes .....

Consider this , we can see invisible when invisible contains bodies because the bodies allow perspective view .

If there were no bodies in space , you'd not see anything although you can still see , the space would look dark to you although the space is not dark and can't be dark. It is the nature of light .

The space itself is neither dark or light , it is a transparent constant . Optical illusions make people subjectively think that space goes dark with the lights out .

If you are in a dark cellar , the walls are dark , the floor and ceiling is dark, you are dark but the space is unaltered from when the light was turned on .

 

[Kangaroo Feathers]

Space is not imaginary , space is the unique property of an infinite void , it has no physicality but it is observed . We can see space with our eyes .....

You can't see space, you can only see stuff on the other side of space. Sight requires photons being emitted or reflected from an object. If there's no object, there's no photons, and therefore nothing to see. Even if you observe the appearance of a virtual particle in the space you're looking at, you're still not seeing the space, because now there's a particle there, not space.

 

[james blunt]

You can't see space, you can only see stuff on the other side of space. Sight requires photons being emitted or reflected from an object. If there's no object, there's no photons, and therefore nothing to see. Even if you observe the appearance of a virtual particle in the space you're looking at, you're still not seeing the space, because now there's a particle there, not space.

No , you see the space , if you didn't see space all things you see that illuminated by light would have no perceived distance between you and the object .

You see the space between objects like you see the space between the distant stars.

Seeing the object allows you to see the space .

 

[james blunt]

This is what you see with no illuminated objects , however it is not dark in this picture .

 

[blü 2]

N stand for electrically neutral , the N-field is my own theory.

Oh.

Good luck with that.

Space is infinite and infinite can be deducted . People who claim finite are claiming a solid boundary after space.

No, they're claiming finite but unbounded, like the surface of a sphere (with equivalents in all n-spaces>1).

Forgive me if I observe you don't seem to understand my questions. Certainly your answers don't address them.

Perhaps we should leave it at that.

 

[james blunt]

Oh.

Good luck with that.
No, they're claiming finite but unbounded, like the surface of a sphere (with equivalents in all n-spaces>1).

Forgive me if I observe you don't seem to understand my questions. Certainly your answers don't address them.

Perhaps we should leave it at that.

I can only interpret your question to what I think you are asking me ! It is very difficult as writing can be ambiguous and we can use different semantics .

The visual universe is visually finite , people make the mistake of semantics and don't understand the physics .

I'm talking the unbounded , beyond the visual finite , which is infinite .

The universe and space is infinite , we see finite because of the nature of light and sight . The edge of space is our lacking in vision , not a boundary or an end .


Could you please ask your questions one at a time , deal with each issue rather than multiple questions ?

 

[blü 2]

Space is not imaginary , space is the unique property of an infinite void , it has no physicality but it is observed.

Physics knows of no truly empty space. not even in that cubic foot of space which is furthest from any hadron in the universe. There's always a substrate, 'the energy of the vacuum', in which QM events constantly occur. In other words, physics has never found an 'infinite void'. And you've only imagined one that can't exist.

We can see space with our eyes .....

That is, we can interpret distance from the signals reaching the brain as a result of photons reacting with our retinas. The photons may well have crossed space as physics understands the notion, but they have not crossed 'an infinite void' because there are no infinite voids as you define them.

Consider this , we can see invisible when invisible contains bodies because the bodies allow perspective view.

You simply mean that air is transparent. We can make it visible by a variety of means, smoke being an easy one.

Anyway, I leave you to it. Get to understand why you're wrong and feel free to try again.

 

[james blunt]

Physics knows of no truly empty space. There's always a substrate, 'the energy of the vacuum', in which
QM events constantly occur. In other words, physics has never found an 'infinite void'. And you've only imagined one.

Ok, we can start with this !

Physics knows of no truly empty space because after the Big bang , space became full of energy etc . Before the Big bang was no matter , i.e an empty void

Does that make sense to you ?

You can't find an infinite void because we evolved in the already created visual universe .

 

[blü 2]

Physics knows of no truly empty space because after the Big bang , space became full of energy etc . Before the Big bang was no matter , i.e an empty void

Does that make sense to you ?

You can't find an infinite void because we evolved in the already created visual universe .

Have a nice day.

 

[james blunt]

Have a nice day.

I'm finding people rather strange , as soon as I start offering proofs, they run away .

It is logical that if we could make a perfect vacuum with perfect shielding , the inner of the vacuum would be just empty space !

 

[blü 2]

I'm finding people rather strange , as soon as I start offering proofs, they run away .

It is logical that if we could make a perfect vacuum with perfect shielding , the inner of the vacuum would be just empty space !

You haven't offered a proof, you don't address my questions, and you appear not to understand what you've said.

But the moment the weather's nice, go for a long walk through a pleasant park and enjoy it all. Careful not to step on any infinite voids, though.

 

[Spirit of Light]

What do you think religion is right about that science disagrees with?

The spiritual part about Gods Buddhas, Dao and the different teachings we today call religions