Could gravitational waves reveal how fast our universe is expanding?

July 11, 2018, Massachusetts Institute of Technology
A visualization of a supercomputer simulation of merging black holes sending out gravitational waves. Credit: NASA/C. Henze

Since it first exploded into existence 13.8 billion years ago, the universe has been expanding, dragging along with it hundreds of billions of galaxies and stars, much like raisins in a rapidly rising dough.

Astronomers have pointed telescopes to certain stars and other cosmic sources to measure their distance from Earth and how fast they are moving away from us—two parameters that are essential to estimating the Hubble constant, a unit of measurement that describes the rate at which the universe is expanding.

But to date, the most precise efforts have landed on very different values of the Hubble constant, offering no definitive resolution to exactly how fast the universe is growing. This information, scientists believe, could shed light on the universe's origins, as well as its fate, and whether the cosmos will expand indefinitely or ultimately collapse.

Now scientists from MIT and Harvard University have proposed a more accurate and independent way to measure the Hubble constant, using emitted by a relatively rare system: a black hole- star binary, a hugely energetic pairing of a spiraling black hole and a neutron star. As these objects circle in toward each other, they should produce space-shaking gravitational waves and a flash of light when they ultimately collide.

In a paper to be published July 12th in Physical Review Letters, the researchers report that the flash of light would give scientists an estimate of the system's velocity, or how fast it is moving away from the Earth. The emitted gravitational waves, if detected on Earth, should provide an independent and precise measurement of the system's distance. Even though black hole-neutron star binaries are incredibly rare, the researchers calculate that detecting even a few should yield the most accurate value yet for the Hubble constant and the rate of the expanding universe.

"Black hole-neutron star binaries are very complicated systems, which we know very little about," says Salvatore Vitale, assistant professor of physics at MIT and lead author of the paper. "If we detect one, the prize is that they can potentially give a dramatic contribution to our understanding of the universe."

Vitale's co-author is Hsin-Yu Chen of Harvard.

Competing Constants

Two independent measurements of the Hubble constant were made recently, one using NASA's Hubble Space Telescope and another using the European Space Agency's Planck satellite. The Hubble Space Telescope's measurement is based on observations of a type of star known as a Cepheid variable, as well as on observations of supernovae. Both of these objects are considered "standard candles," for their predictable pattern of brightness, which scientists can use to estimate the star's distance and velocity.

The other type of estimate is based on observations of the fluctuations in the cosmic microwave background—the electromagnetic radiation that was left over in the immediate aftermath of the Big Bang, when the universe was still in its infancy. While the observations by both probes are extremely precise, their estimates of the Hubble constant disagree significantly.

"That's where LIGO comes into the game," Vitale says.

LIGO, or the Laser Interferometer Gravitational-Wave Observatory, detects gravitational waves—ripples in the Jell-O of space-time, produced by cataclysmic astrophysical phenomena.

"Gravitational waves provide a very direct and easy way of measuring the distances of their sources," Vitale says. "What we detect with LIGO is a direct imprint of the distance to the source, without any extra analysis."

In 2017, scientists got their first chance at estimating the Hubble constant from a gravitational-wave source, when LIGO and its Italian counterpart Virgo detected a pair of colliding neutron stars for the first time. The collision released a huge amount of gravitational waves, which researchers measured to determine the distance of the system from Earth. The merger also released a flash of light, which astronomers focused on with ground and space telescopes to determine the system's velocity.

With both measurements, scientists calculated a new value for the Hubble constant. However, the estimate came with a relatively large uncertainty of 14 percent, much more uncertain than the values calculated using the Hubble Space Telescope and the Planck satellite.

Vitale says much of the uncertainty stems from the fact that it can be challenging to interpret a neutron star binary's distance from Earth using the gravitational waves that this particular system gives off.

"We measure distance by looking at how 'loud' the gravitational wave is, meaning how clear it is in our data," Vitale says. "If it's very clear, you can see how loud it is, and that gives the distance. But that's only partially true for neutron star binaries."

That's because these systems, which create a whirling disc of energy as two neutron stars spiral in toward each other, emit gravitational waves in an uneven fashion. The majority of gravitational waves shoot straight out from the center of the disc, while a much smaller fraction escapes out the edges. If scientists detect a "loud" gravitational wave signal, it could indicate one of two scenarios: the detected waves stemmed from the edge of a system that is very close to Earth, or the waves emanated from the center of a much further system.

"With neutron star binaries, it's very hard to distinguish between these two situations," Vitale says.

A New Wave

In 2014, before LIGO made the first detection of gravitational waves, Vitale and his colleagues observed that a binary system composed of a black hole and a neutron star could give a more accurate distance measurement, compared with neutron star binaries. The team was investigating how accurately one could measure a black hole's spin, given that the objects are known to spin on their axes, similarly to Earth but much more quickly.

The researchers simulated a variety of systems with black holes, including black hole-neutron star binaries and neutron star binaries. As a byproduct of this effort, the team noticed that they were able to more accurately determine the distance of black hole-neutron star binaries, compared to neutron star binaries. Vitale says this is due to the spin of the black hole around the neutron star, which can help scientists better pinpoint from where in the system the gravitational waves are emanating.

"Because of this better distance measurement, I thought that black hole-neutron star binaries could be a competitive probe for measuring the Hubble constant," Vitale says. "Since then, a lot has happened with LIGO and the discovery of gravitational waves, and all this was put on the back burner."

Vitale recently circled back to his original observation, and in this new paper, he set out to answer a theoretical question:

"Is the fact that every black hole-neutron star binary will give me a better distance going to compensate for the fact that potentially, there are far fewer of them in the universe than neutron star binaries?" Vitale says.

To answer this question, the team ran simulations to predict the occurrence of both types of binary systems in the universe, as well as the accuracy of their measurements. From their calculations, they concluded that, even if neutron binary systems outnumbered black hole-neutron star systems by 50-1, the latter would yield a Hubble constant similar in accuracy to the former.

More optimistically, if black hole-neutron star binaries were slightly more common, but still rarer than neutron star binaries, the former would produce a Hubble constant that is four times as accurate.

"So far, people have focused on binary neutron stars as a way of measuring the Hubble constant with gravitational waves," Vitale says. "We've shown there is another type of gravitational wave source which so far has not been exploited as much: black holes and neutron spiraling together," Vitale says. "LIGO will start taking data again in January 2019, and it will be much more sensitive, meaning we'll be able to see objects farther away. So LIGO should see at least one black hole-neutron star binary, and as many as 25, which will help resolve the existing tension in the measurement of the Hubble constant, hopefully in the next few years."

Explore further: Even small black holes emit gravitational waves when they collide, and LIGO heard them

More information: "Measuring the Hubble Constant with Neutron Star Black Hole Mergers," Physical Review Letters. journals.aps.org/prl/abstract/ … ysRevLett.121.021303 . On Arxiv: arxiv.org/abs/1804.07337

Related Stories

What are neutron stars?

October 16, 2017

Thrilled physicists and astronomers announced Monday the first-ever observation of the merger of two neutron stars, one of the most spectacularly violent phenomena in the Universe.

Recommended for you

Did a rogue star change the makeup of our solar system?

July 20, 2018

A team of researchers from the Max-Planck Institute and Queen's University has used new information to test a theory that suggests a rogue star passed close enough to our solar system millions of years ago to change its configuration. ...

Where to search for signs of life on Titan

July 20, 2018

New findings, published in the journal Astrobiology, suggest that large craters are the prime locations in which to find the building blocks of life on Saturn's largest moon, Titan.

163 comments

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

doogsnova
1.3 / 5 (15) Jul 11, 2018
The Universe is 46 trillion years old, will continue to expand until 155.5 trillion years of age, and then will contract until 311 trillion years of age, going into another sleep period.
https://billymeie...-energy/
DavidDcomments
5 / 5 (7) Jul 11, 2018
It would be nice to add a leg to LIGO on the moon since it is over 200,000 miles away this would greatly increase the resolution of LIGO.

A radio telescope on the dark side of the moon would also be nice.

Mimath224
5 / 5 (9) Jul 11, 2018
The Universe is 46 trillion years old, will continue to expand until 155.5 trillion years of age, and then will contract until 311 trillion years of age, going into another sleep period.
https://billymeie...-energy/

Oh that's good, I got time for another 'cuppa' then, Ha!
richk
not rated yet Jul 11, 2018
/////////But why more accurate?
Apollo Man
5 / 5 (1) Jul 11, 2018
So with LIGO's uncertainty of 14 percent, are the values calculated using the Hubble Space Telescope and the Planck satellite within the tolerance of LIGO? Which one is closest? Got any plots?
NoStrings
1.4 / 5 (11) Jul 12, 2018
How many angels can dance on the head of a pin? How many devils? Larger number of the former, or the later? And if so, what does it say about the nature of our universe?
Ojorf
3.9 / 5 (7) Jul 12, 2018
^^^ Nothing, absolutely nothing at all.

Here are some observations:

https://upload.wi....svg.png
Aretino
3 / 5 (3) Jul 12, 2018
I never quite get what they mean by saying the universe is expanding. If the distance between objects like planets and galaxies is expanding, shouldn't the distance between individual atoms and subatomic particles also be expanding just as rapidly?
Mimath224
1 / 5 (3) Jul 12, 2018
@Aretino
I never quite get what they mean by saying the universe is expanding. If the distance between objects like planets and galaxies is expanding, shouldn't the distance between individual atoms and subatomic particles also be expanding just as rapidly?

Yep, it's called the 'big rip theory'. Lots of animations on Youtube such as https://www.youtu...mVFRpOR8
arcmetal
2.5 / 5 (2) Jul 12, 2018
I never quite get what they mean by saying the universe is expanding. If the distance between objects like planets and galaxies is expanding, shouldn't the distance between individual atoms and subatomic particles also be expanding just as rapidly?

And if so, how can one use a measuring stick that is expanding to then correctly measure the supposed expansion.
humy
5 / 5 (16) Jul 12, 2018
The Universe is 46 trillion years old, ...
https://billymeie...-energy/

The evidence says otherwise.

Your crank weblink says;

"They [scientists] have no idea at all about the belt of our material universe, in which we exist materially, while on the inner side and the outer side of our visible, material-universe belt yet six further fine-matter belts exist.
Our scientists also have no idea that the entire universe constitutes a double spiral and egg shaped Creation,"

So you say that our universe is double spiral and egg shaped?
How would you know this?
Where is your evidence for this randomly made up crap?
WHY should it be double spiral and egg shaped in particular?
This has got to be one of the most idiotic claims I have come across.
I stick to the facts of what we actually observe.
PowerMax
4.6 / 5 (9) Jul 12, 2018
well said humy!!!

I m sorry "doogsnova" but science is not a democracy. Your opinion, if not supported by (a lot) of evidence doesn't mean crap. that's why science is hard. because you just can't say s**t you'd like to be true and expect it to be truth.
Ojorf
4.4 / 5 (13) Jul 12, 2018
I never quite get what they mean by saying the universe is expanding. If the distance between objects like planets and galaxies is expanding, shouldn't the distance between individual atoms and subatomic particles also be expanding just as rapidly?


No, planets and galaxies (and atoms) are not moving apart due to expansion.
Gravity, as weak as it is, is plenty strong enough to bind and keep large clusters of galaxies bound against expansion. Expansion has literally no effect at smaller, galactic scales..
Old_C_Code
3.3 / 5 (7) Jul 12, 2018
FYI: Space within galaxies is NOT expanding. The galaxies themselves are moving apart, away from one another.
Benni
2 / 5 (16) Jul 12, 2018
FYI: Space within galaxies is NOT expanding. The galaxies themselves are moving apart, away from one another.


Then why is Andromeda scheduled to collide with the Milky Way in a couple billion years?

And why do we look through our telescopes & see colliding galaxies all over the the ENTIRE universe as far as we can see if such is the case? Optical illusions maybe?
antialias_physorg
4.2 / 5 (10) Jul 12, 2018
shouldn't the distance between individual atoms and subatomic particles also be expanding

No, because that is quantized. You can't have any random distance between these.

The distance between a star (like our sun) and their planets doesn't change either, because orbital distance is a function of velocity - and velocity doesn't change due to expansion.

Yep, it's called the 'big rip theory'.

The time frame before a big rip would have a measurable effect on our solar system (or atoms) would be minutes (or in the case of atoms tiny fractions of a second) before the actual end. It's when the expansion has become so accelerated that the distance between these entities increase so fast that they are beyond each others event horizon. i.e. that they can no longer interchange force carrying particles (photons/gravitons)

Expansion works on really, really big scales.
milnik
1.6 / 5 (13) Jul 12, 2018
Again, new evidence that science does not understand and comprehend the structure of the universe in general.
It is not culturally qualifying such people in science as stupid, but 100% can say that they are unconscious because they do not respect the one who has formed everything in the universe, and even human human beings. What are Scientific Nebulosities and Someone's Fatigue:
These are the big bang, the spread of the universe, the existence of a multiverse, the existence of dark matter and energy, the Einstein theory of relativity, the Lorentz transformation, the existence of gravitational waves, the Hubble constant, and everything related to these nebuloses.
milnik
1.6 / 5 (13) Jul 12, 2018
Science does not know, in general, the true path of the celestial bodies, nor does it know how it originates, and from what does matter arise, and from matter everything that is in the material energy entity of the universe (MEEU). If they do not know what gravity and magnetism are, how can the conclusions about their behavior be made?
Science must once realize that the universe is infinite and that it is filled with the substance Aether, from which the matter is formed according to the laws determined by the SEU (the Spiritual Entity of the Universe.) All those who ignore the existence of the SEU are not human beings, but only the man of creation without consciousness, and consciousness is the power to understand the true causes of phenomena in line with the SEU.
Old_C_Code
5 / 5 (3) Jul 12, 2018
FYI: Space within galaxies is NOT expanding. The galaxies themselves are moving apart, away from one another.

I'm just saying this is the standard view, right or wrong.... dopes.
grandpa
1 / 5 (2) Jul 12, 2018
The obvious answer is that universes outside of our own are pulling on light waves and adding to the observed red shift on one side of the universe and shortening the red shift on the other side.
Edenlegaia
not rated yet Jul 12, 2018
The Universe is 46 trillion years old, will continue to expand until 155.5 trillion years of age, and then will contract until 311 trillion years of age, going into another sleep period.
https://billymeie...-energy/


......"Merlin, King Arthur and the E.T. sword Excalibur"!?
I don't know what you're taking, but i'm not sure i want any of it.....
fourinfinities
1 / 5 (1) Jul 12, 2018
Then why is Andromeda scheduled to collide with the Milky Way in a couple billion years?

And why do we look through our telescopes & see colliding galaxies all over the the ENTIRE universe as far as we can see if such is the case? Optical illusions maybe?


There is a distance, R_i, about 10^23 m, or 10 Mlyr, beyond which, everything is moving away. R_i is the average spacing between galaxy clusters. At any distance r
torbjorn_b_g_larsson
5 / 5 (1) Jul 12, 2018
Well, this will speed things up! The first LIGO Hubble measurement split the difference between the "all data including supernova" model and the "just supernova data" model. But the uncertainty was way too large to be decisive.

So with LIGO's uncertainty of 14 percent, are the values calculated using the Hubble Space Telescope and the Planck satellite within the tolerance of LIGO? Which one is closest? Got any plots?


Ut was a short paper, but LIGO even did a shorter flyer (with plots), it was hot news at the time: https://www.ligo....ndex.php
Merrit
not rated yet Jul 12, 2018
I don't see how expansion only effecting non gravitationally bound objects makes sense.

For instance, the sun is losing mass due to it giving off radiation which causes the orbit of earth to move out ever so little every year.

Wouldn't expansion cause small effects too?
torbjorn_b_g_larsson
5 / 5 (3) Jul 12, 2018
I never quite get what they mean by saying the universe is expanding. If the distance between objects like planets and galaxies is expanding, shouldn't the distance between individual atoms and subatomic particles also be expanding just as rapidly?

And if so, how can one use a measuring stick that is expanding to then correctly measure the supposed expansion.


Expansion *between* objects that are not bound (chemically or gravitationally, i.e. anything larger than local galaxy groups) does not mean space within a bound object expands. It tries, at a rate of 10^-10 per year, which means your waist would be .01 um wider when you die if not for chemical bonds.

Even better, when you model the universe, the scale factor drops out. You can take distances between large clusters at large distance (i.e. small, ancient, cosmological time) and compare with distances at small distance (i.e. large, recent, cosmological time), and make the distance units go away.
torbjorn_b_g_larsson
5 / 5 (2) Jul 12, 2018
I don't see how expansion only effecting non gravitationally bound objects makes sense.

For instance, the sun is losing mass due to it giving off radiation which causes the orbit of earth to move out ever so little every year.

Wouldn't expansion cause small effects too?


I did not update so missed this, but I covered it in my previous comment. Very small effects over small distances and small times.

But the problem is that the expansion force only gets large over cosmological distances (and times), while gravity slowly gets weaker. So again, you won't see anything until at the scale of large galaxy clusters. It is sensible to me. Even more so after I watched Susskind's cosmological Stanford lectures on the web to clear some of my early confusion up; I can recommend them if anything is unclear,
Merrit
not rated yet Jul 12, 2018
@torbjorn does the expansion cause objects to be length contracted? Objects going at relative velocities compared to the observer should appear length contracted and distant objects with high redshifts are moving relativistic speeds away from us due to this expansion.
Benni
2.7 / 5 (7) Jul 12, 2018
Then why is Andromeda scheduled to collide with the Milky Way in a couple billion years?

And why do we look through our telescopes & see colliding galaxies all over the the ENTIRE universe as far as we can see if such is the case? Optical illusions maybe?


There is a distance, R_i, about 10^23 m, or 10 Mlyr, beyond which, everything is moving away. R_i is the average spacing between galaxy clusters. At any distance r


If you think this to be the case look at this article from this very website: https://phys.org/...ons.html

"Astronomers are studying the combined image in an attempt to decipher the sequence of galaxy-cluster collisions. Currently, they said, evidence indicates a North-South (top-bottom in the image) collision of subclusters and an East-West (left-right in the image) collision. There is a possible third collision, and the astronomers continue to analyze their data...."
arcmetal
1 / 5 (2) Jul 12, 2018
I never quite get what they mean by saying the universe is expanding. If the distance between objects like planets and galaxies is expanding, shouldn't the distance between individual atoms and subatomic particles also be expanding just as rapidly?

And if so, how can one use a measuring stick that is expanding to then correctly measure the supposed expansion.


...
Even better, when you model the universe, the scale factor drops out. You can take distances between large clusters at large distance (i.e. small, ancient, cosmological time) and compare with distances at small distance (i.e. large, recent, cosmological time), and make the distance units go away.

That does make it sound like this "expansion" is a bit selective.
Old_C_Code
3 / 5 (2) Jul 12, 2018
Andromeda is a rare exception of blue shift. Albeit so close to us. Most all other galaxies are red shifted. If there's an error, it's in the theory of what red shift actually means.
jonesdave
4.3 / 5 (6) Jul 12, 2018
Andromeda is a rare exception of blue shift. Albeit so close to us. Most all other galaxies are red shifted. If there's an error, it's in the theory of what red shift actually means.


If there is an error in the meaning of red shift, then, for obvious reasons, there is an error in the interpretation of blue shift as well, and it therefore cannot be used as an argument that Andromeda is moving towards us!
granville583762
4 / 5 (4) Jul 12, 2018
According to orbital velocity the space between orbits is not expanding
Aretino> shouldn't the distance between individual atoms and subatomic particles also be expanding

antialias_physorg> No, because that is quantized. You can't have any random distance between these.
The distance between a star (like our sun) and their planets doesn't change either, because orbital distance is a function of velocity - and velocity doesn't change due to expansion.

Sounds good so far - as just as planets orbit stars, stars orbit galaxies and galaxies orbit galaxies where each space is not growing due to orbital distance is a function of velocity - and velocity doesn't change due to expansion
The ultimate conclusion from this theoretical analysis is galactic space is not expanding
Benni
2.8 / 5 (9) Jul 12, 2018
The ultimate conclusion from this theoretical analysis is galactic space is not expanding


....and if you look at this article a few months back it's easy to get that conclusion:

"A giant collision of several galaxy clusters, each containing hundreds of galaxies, has produced this spectacular panorama of shocks and energy....."

Read more at: https://phys.org/...html#jCp

The Universe is expanding, but things that were once measured in distances of millions of light years are being drawn together whereby they will one day be measured in distances of light-days or even hours of one another.


Yeah, Pop-Cosmology, contriving Dark Energy replacing Entropy as the means of the distribution of energy throughout the universe.
granville583762
3 / 5 (4) Jul 13, 2018
The Honey Pot Theory, Free Albert from the shackles of the Spirit World
granville583762> The ultimate conclusion from this theoretical analysis is galactic space is not expanding

Albert's eternal intellectual honey pot attracting vacuous flies, one has to get your head round the concept of the vacuum of space expanding
Space; a definition the vacuum of space, a definitive description to describe a vacuous volume of infinite dimension
A vacuous volume of infinite dimension by definition cannot expand
This comes to orbital velocity which also cannot expand
Galaxies are intrinsically linked in 10 billions of light year chains in orbital motion
Yet another of Albert's vacuous theories is the ability to theorise endlessly on an entity of vacuous infinite dimensions that is attracting infinite vacuous flies where ultimately this entity of vacuous infinite dimensions does not exist because it is the Spirit World!
granville583762
3.7 / 5 (3) Jul 13, 2018
A vacuous volume of infinite dimension by definition cannot expand

Returning sanity to Albert's shackles of the Spirit World
Who would have thought a simple basic irrefutable concept of orbital motion has such far reaching consequences because by virtue of its mechanics, it dimensions do no change which consequently do not change the spatial orbital galactic dimensions in relation to one another which is the definition of an expanding universe as it is the galaxies expanding their distance from each other.
Because firstly A vacuous volume of infinite dimension by definition cannot expand and secondly galaxies cannot expand in this vacuous volume of infinite dimension by virtue of being in orbit.

humy
4.6 / 5 (10) Jul 13, 2018
Let me correct this confusion here by some posters;

The expansion of space is only signoficant on huge distances across the expanse of the void between many groups of galaxies.
So, obviously, at you incrementally consider lower and lower distances, that expansion of space becomes incrementally less and less significant and harder and harder to measure or detect so that, over relatively short distances, it cannot be detected and can be largely ignored in our calculations for the motion of things.

If, for example, you are talking about the orbital distances of planets around the Sun, those orbital distances are so puny compared with the vast intergalactic distances that you cannot rationally expect the expansion of space over those vast intergalactic distances to have any practical or measurable relevance on your prediction of the orbital paths of planets.
You therefore cannot rationally say we should expect the planets to move continually away from the Sun!
granville583762
3 / 5 (6) Jul 13, 2018
Humy, some confusion, some correction
Humy> Let me correct this confusion here by some posters;
The expansion of space is only significant on huge distances across the expanse of the void between many groups of galaxies

Humy, some confusion, some correction "The expansion of space is only significant on huge distances" is the definitive confusion, because space is a vacuous volume of infinite dimension by definition cannot expand!
You have not broken free of your shackles as it the dimensions between galaxies that are relevant, not the vacuous space expanding, because that is a vacuous volume of infinite dimension by definition cannot expand!
Benni
2.5 / 5 (8) Jul 13, 2018
Even better, when you model the universe, the scale factor drops out. You can take distances between large clusters at large distance (i.e. small, ancient, cosmological time) and compare with distances at small distance (i.e. large, recent, cosmological time), and make the distance units go away.


Oh you think so? Do that with this OBSERVATION: https://phys.org/...html#jCp

"A giant collision of several galaxy clusters, each containing hundreds of galaxies, has produced this spectacular panorama of shocks and energy. The collisions generated shock waves that set off a celestial fireworks.........Astronomers are studying the combined image in an attempt to decipher the sequence of galaxy-cluster collisions.... astronomers continue to analyze their data to uncover more details about the region's complex history of collisions and their aftermath."

...........Entropy at work, not Pop-Cosmology tales of Dark Energy.

milnik
1 / 5 (1) Jul 13, 2018
If the Earth around its axis turns 15 arc sec, for a second, how scientists can claim from where the light comes to their telescopes, and that light comes from the space of a distant and billions of light years from Earth. That light began to travel and the Earth did not exist at that time. Think about this unsolved problem.
granville583762
3 / 5 (4) Jul 13, 2018
Humy you have fallen into the fallacy that it is space is a substance capable of contracting or expanding!

Stars being made up of atoms collectively made up of elemental quarks being the smallest particle collectively as stars in orbit in their galaxies which orbit themselves, their galaxies.
It should be plainly obvious by now Humy, that space is not an entity that exists - is not a substance and is infinite in dimension, does not grow, shrink or stretch and has no quantum fluctuations.
No quarks materialise from this vacuous volume of infinite dimension
We physically occupy this vacuous volume of infinite dimension as that is literally what space is - just infinite dimensions
Our collection of galaxies as a whole is called a Universe where the galaxies occupy the vacuous volume of infinite dimension
https://phys.org/...html#jCp is the Galaxies moving in the vacuous volume of infinite dimension we occupy
granville583762
3.7 / 5 (3) Jul 13, 2018
The Joshua Moment - The moon in reverse! To the ends of the Earth
Watching the moon passing in front of the sun, travelling horseback as travelling by train, experienced the "Joshua's Moment" momentarily looking down observing passing scenery from your sidereal vision the train looks and feels as if it is moving in reverse is exactly what Joshua experienced as he observed the moon as though he was moving with moon observing the sun emerging from behind the moon receding from the moon as though the moon is going backwards
the Earth around its axis turns 15 arc sec for a second how scientists claim from where the light comes to their telescopes that light comes from the space of a distant and billions of light years from Earth. That light began to travel and the Earth did not exist at that time

It is you milnic, your theory put forward how many billions of light years the universe moved in degrees of movement of the moon in one second!
Benni
2.3 / 5 (9) Jul 13, 2018
space is not an entity that exists - is not a substance and is infinite in dimension, does not grow, shrink or stretch and has no quantum fluctuations.


grandy:

In Einstein's famous equation E=mc², E≠mc² in an infinite Universe. A system that is in motion requires a constant input of energy or motion ceases. If the Universe is infinitely expanding there must of necessity be an infinite source of energy or there can be no resulting output of infinite motion, infinite energy would require a source of infinite mass for conversion & it is well known the Universe does not have INFINITE MASS. Motion occurs when there is energy input to a closed system which results in motion, ENTROPY......not Dark Energy, the darling of the Pop-Cosmology aficionado living here.

antialias_physorg
3.4 / 5 (5) Jul 13, 2018
That light began to travel and the Earth did not exist at that time

You're still stuck in a Newtonian way of thinking that the universe has a universal 'tick'. That's not how the universe works.
Benni
2.5 / 5 (8) Jul 13, 2018
The Structure of Space According to the General Theory of Relativity- Albert Einstein

"If we are to have in the universe an average density of matter which differs from zero, however small may be that difference, then the universe cannot be quasi-Euclidean. On the contrary, the results of calculation indicate that if matter be distributed uniformly, the universe would necessarily be spherical (or elliptical). Since in reality the detailed distribution of matter is not uniform, the real universe will deviate in individual parts from the spherical, i.e. the universe will be quasi-spherical. But it will be necessarily finite. In fact, the theory supplies us with a simple connection 1) between the space-expanse of the universe and the average density of matter in it."

What Einstein describes above is ENTROPY, the distribution of energy, it's either that or the Universe would have quit running & snuffed itself out within seconds of coming into existence.
milnik
2.3 / 5 (3) Jul 13, 2018
@antialias,
how can you make judgments on something you did not understand. I said, if the light traveled, say 7 billion years ago, at the moment of the beginning of this journey, the Earth did not exist. How and when the Earth was formed, when the light could not reach the place of its formation. Let's just think about the structure of the universe. I remind all of you that it is futile your desire to learn something from this area, if you do not respect and accept the existence of the Spiritual Entity of the universe, which formed it, only much later after the formation of the Earth.
Who does not understand the structure of the universe here? Think and understand who you are and why you are and how formed. You did not fall out of that BB, which is for you deity.
milnik
2.3 / 5 (3) Jul 13, 2018
@granville,
scientists are not aware of this, when looking at the point on our moon, that point is about 27 km away while our laser beam arrives to the moon. How can I say what they saw there from where the light comes from a distance of several billion light-years away?
granville583762
not rated yet Jul 13, 2018
To find one quark it to find two
granville583762> space is not an entity that exists - is not a substance and is infinite in dimension, does not grow, shrink or stretch and has no quantum fluctuations.

Benni> grandy: In Einstein's famous equation E=mc², E≠mc² in an infinite Universe. A system that is in motion requires a constant input of energy or motion ceases. If the Universe is infinitely expanding there must of necessity be an infinite source of energy or there can be no resulting output of infinite motion, infinite energy would require a source of infinite mass for

Whether infinite or finite, it is all the same; energy has to come from nothing and has to be found, so it is irrelevant the size of the galactic clusters, because finding the energy of one quark is the same as finding the energy of a trillion quarks
humy
4.3 / 5 (6) Jul 13, 2018
Humy, some confusion, some correction
Humy> Let me correct this confusion here by some posters;
The expansion of space is only significant on huge distances across the expanse of the void between many groups of galaxies

Humy, some confusion, some correction "The expansion of space is only significant on huge distances" is the definitive confusion, because space is a vacuous volume of infinite dimension by definition ...


space is not an entity that exists

Actually, it is.
NO, space is NOT "of infinite dimension by definition".
And science says it expands.

https://www.world...ng_into/

"...when we speak of space expanding we mean that the distance between objects in space increases over time, even if there isn't a useful sense in which the overall size of space is growing (as would be the case for an infinite universe)."
humy
5 / 5 (6) Jul 13, 2018
space is not an entity that exists
granville

Here we must be very careful to note that the word 'exist' doesn't have the same meaning in this context as in most other contexts because in most other contexts for something to 'exist' we necessarily mean it 'exists' 'in space and time' but 'space and/or time' doesn't itself 'exist' in 'space and/or time'!
All what we mean by "space exists" is that it has a certain set of definable physical properties; and THAT IS ALL. It doesn't have to exist 'in' something.
granville583762
3 / 5 (6) Jul 13, 2018
Humy a vacuous volume of infinite dimension with physical properties is Obfuscation
Humy> when we speak of space expanding we mean that the distance between objects in space increases over time or All what we mean by "space exists" is that it has a certain set of definable physical properties

The vacuum of space; space is a vacuous volume of infinite dimension by definition cannot expand, it has no dimensions, no physical properties – it cannot be said to be x, y and z because there are no coordinates as having no start or beginning and no end
Protons in atoms have no effect on the vacuous volume of infinite dimension and when sufficient atoms join forces to make a blackhole they equally have no effect on the vacuous volume of infinite dimension, it does not grow or shrink depending on the gravitational force of a quark. The vacuous volume of infinite dimension is not an entity of substance that has physical properties, mathematically it is undefined!
granville583762
3.4 / 5 (5) Jul 13, 2018
At ease not deferring problems to the vacuum of space
I am at ease not deferring problems to the vacuous volume of infinite dimension, but it appears common place to defer unsolvable problems to this spirit world of vacuous volume of infinite dimension.
It is too easy to get lost in this make believe world where time ,energy and matter all materialise out of this nonexistent entity that when sufficient souls believe, they end up believing in spirits, elves and fairies because anything goes in this make believe world.
Because you have quantum fluctuations where time and space flow back and forth all envisaged in the windmills of our minds and applied to this make believe world of vacuous volume of infinite dimension
humy
5 / 5 (6) Jul 13, 2018
space is a vacuous volume of infinite dimension by definition cannot expand, it has no dimensions, no physical properties –
granville

Space is dimensional by definition, meaning we can rationally define position (x, y, z, coordinates) of points within it (or, if want something tangible, we can also define positions of real particles within it). That is at least one example of a physical property of space. How is this not true? Explain.

And "infinite dimension"? why do you believe these dimensions necessarily must be infinite?
Why is it impossible for our universe to be finite but unbounded? Science has yet to tell us whether the universe is infinite or finite and there is no logical contradiction in it being finite but unbounded.

And why do you keep calling volume "vacuous"? In what sense is volume "vacuous"? -please explain your reasoning in plain English and not this weird encrypted language because I'm not a mind reader so honestly don't know what you mean.
Whart1984
5 / 5 (4) Jul 13, 2018
ShotmanMaslo
3.7 / 5 (3) Jul 13, 2018
Oh you think so? Do that with this OBSERVATION: https://phys.org/...html#jCp


If galaxy clusters are massive enough and located nearby to each other, then they can certainly collide. But on even larger scales this is not true anymore and galaxy clusters recede from each other. Gravity falls off with square of distance but expansion of space increases linearly with distance. Thus there is a certain scale above which cosmic expansion overcomes gravitational attraction. This scale is somewhere on the order of tens of millions of light years.
granville583762
3.7 / 5 (3) Jul 13, 2018
Humy on the English Language
Vacuous 1645–55; < Latin vacuus empty
Without contents; empty: the vacuum of space is a vacuus volume of infinite dimensions

Infinite: unlimited or immeasurable in extent of space
1350–1400; Middle English < Latin infīnītus boundless
Having no limits or boundaries

It must be the Yorshire english, coming from the Pennines, probably Norse.
One of these days we'll crack this ancient language barrier, in the meantime we will have to resort to Middle English and Latin translations!
P.S. not that I would have brought up an explanation as to the meaning of Vacuous being that it suggests an empty vessel, but then this is Humy…..
granville583762
3.4 / 5 (5) Jul 13, 2018
A vacuum has no coordinated landmarks
granville583762> space is a vacuous volume of infinite dimension by definition cannot expand, it has no dimensions, no physical properties –

Humy> granville Space is dimensional by definition, meaning we can rationally define position (x, y, z, coordinates) of points within it (or, if want something tangible, we can also define positions of real particles within it). That is at least one example of a physical property of space. How is this not true? Explain..

It is only possible to define cordinates in the vacuum of space by use of landmarks, i.e. known stars, planets, galaxies and pulsars.....
without land marks there is only blackness and nothing else because we exist as atoms in a vacuous volume of infinite dimension with no landmarks there are no coordinates
jonesdave
3.5 / 5 (8) Jul 13, 2018
^^^^That makes zero sense, as usual. Which is why I stopped replying to Granville's posts, due to the language gap. Despite being born in the neighbouring county! Lancashire >>>>> Yorkshire!
jonesdave
2 / 5 (4) Jul 13, 2018
It must be the Yorshire english, coming from the Pennines, probably Norse.


Nah, it'll be something to do with ovine sexual relationships.
granville583762
2.3 / 5 (3) Jul 13, 2018
jonedaves> Nah, it'll be something to do with ovine sexual relationships.

You certainly know how to define your roots
granville583762
1 / 5 (2) Jul 13, 2018
johndaves> ^^^^That makes zero sense, as usual.

Got it in one J.D. exactly what the vacuum of space in reality makes absolutely no sense what so ever, there is no point to the existence of infinite unlimited space, but there it is but making no sense what so ever as usual.
But it was not me complaining of the consequences of this vacuous space, if you want to entertain them don't mind me, your better at it than anyone else!
Benni
2.7 / 5 (7) Jul 13, 2018
Oh you think so? Do that with this OBSERVATION: https://phys.org/...html#jCp


Thus there is a certain scale above which cosmic expansion overcomes gravitational attraction. This scale is somewhere on the order of tens of millions of light years.
........Pop-Cosmology in all it's glory trying to figure out a way around the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics, ENTROPY.

Hey Shotty, you're so smart about Thermodynamics & the known laws of real physics, then you be the brightest bulb in the chatroom who can explain how ENTROPY is negated in your fantasy world of make-believe. Entropy exists everywhere the OBSERVABLE Universe has been viewed through all our telescopes. Might help yourself a bit & take a couple semesters of Thermodynamics like I did in Engineering School.

Mimath224
1 / 5 (2) Jul 13, 2018
@humy'...And why do you keep calling volume "vacuous"? In what sense is volume "vacuous"? -... language because I'm not a mind reader so honestly don't know what you mean.'
This is very odd. Only last week someone (on another forum) asked what I thought space was (they were implying space a kind of pseudo-religious entity) and I replied like this; It is a vacuous entity that allows other entities to exist within it. To be honest, this was the first time I had ever seen and used the word 'vacuous'. I used it to get away from the pseudo-religious direction in which the discussion was going. (incidentally, your comment above is '...certain set of definable physical properties...' is much more appropriate so I do agree with you).
It turned out that the other party was a EU proponent with a religious inclination and as soon as I realized that I terminated the conversation but I wonder if the above posters saw that discussion. my 'vacuous' was, say, 1 sec before BB.
jonesdave
4.2 / 5 (5) Jul 13, 2018
Oh you think so? Do that with this OBSERVATION: https://phys.org/...html#jCp


Thus there is a certain scale above which cosmic expansion overcomes gravitational attraction. This scale is somewhere on the order of tens of millions of light years.
........Pop-Cosmology in all it's glory trying to figure out a way around the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics, ENTROPY.

Hey Shotty, you're so smart about Thermodynamics & the known laws of real physics, then you be the brightest bulb in the chatroom who can explain how ENTROPY is negated in your fantasy world of make-believe. Entropy exists everywhere the OBSERVABLE Universe has been viewed through all our telescopes. Might help yourself a bit & take a couple semesters of Thermodynamics like I did in Engineering School.



Benni? Shut up. You are thick. Yes? Go away, you burke.
jonesdave
4.3 / 5 (6) Jul 13, 2018
.......like I did in Engineering School.........


Hahahahahahaha...! As if anyone believes that! Idiot. 12 year old, sat at home, in front of a laptop thingy. Eh? Come on Benni! Nobody could be as thick as you, and work in a nuclear power plant! No chance. Don't believe it. You sweep floors for a living. Yes? Haven't got the intelligence to do anything other than that, have you dear? Bit thick, yes? Dunning-Kruger rampant in your household, yes? Lol.
doogsnova
1 / 5 (2) Jul 13, 2018

......"Merlin, King Arthur and the E.T. sword Excalibur"!?
I don't know what you're taking, but i'm not sure i want any of it.....

You don't want to know that there is 280 total elements? Or that the speed of light has a half life? Or that there are 7 layers of the universe? Or that the Holy Grail was aka the Cauldron of Life or the Goblet of the Truth? Sorry, ostriches need not pull their head out of the sand. Either E.T.s exist or not, and Billy Meier has 1,476 photos, 34 films, 125 witnesses, or not.
Read the Plejaren's scientific claims and your arrogance will evaporate:
https://billymeie...ated.pdf
humy
5 / 5 (3) Jul 14, 2018

Humy> granville Space is dimensional by definition, meaning we can rationally define position (x, y, z, coordinates) of points within it (or, if want something tangible, we can also define positions of real particles within it). That is at least one example of a physical property of space. How is this not true? Explain..

It is only possible to define cordinates in the vacuum of space by use of landmarks, i.e. known stars, planets, galaxies and pulsars....

granville

So what? How is that not a property of space? or logically entail that space doesn't exist? Explain.
We cannot define dimensions without drawing imaginary i.e. non-tangible lines. Does that mean dimensions don't exist?
granville583762
not rated yet Jul 14, 2018
Humy> granville Space is dimensional by definition, we can rationally define position (x, y, z, coordinates) of points within it (or, if want something tangible, we can also define positions of real particles within it) That is at least one example of a physical property of space How is this not true

granville> It is only possible to define cordinates in the vacuum of space by use of landmarks, i.e. known stars, planets, galaxies and pulsars

Humy> granville So what How is that not a property of space or logically entail that space doesn't exist? Explain. We cannot define dimensions without drawing imaginary i.e. non-tangible lines. Does that mean dimensions don't exist

Laser gyros only give coordinates not where you are
With no matter and energy, yes; you can mathematically calculate coordinates. With no landmarks they are identical 15GLys apart, with existing galaxies in place they are distinguishable 15GLys apart because there is only one M31
granville583762
not rated yet Jul 14, 2018
Humy:- Reference points in complete darkness in a 30GLy diameter vacuum are essential!
This is what I meant by coordinates, effectively finding your way home over 30GLys of seperation in complete darkness in a vacuum.
Where after traveling 15GLys you have no landmarks to tell you that you have travelled halfway home
When we travel in the vacuum we use landmarks to locate are position to locate are destination for example, Pluto;
humy
5 / 5 (3) Jul 14, 2018
Laser gyros only give coordinates not where you are

granville

Yes, thank you for telling me what I obviously already know which is that gyroscopes measure orientation and not position. Relevance? We where just talking about position, not orientation.

Will you now answer my questions which you so far haven't?
It is only possible to define cordinates in the vacuum of space via landmarks.
How is that not a property of space? Or how does that logically entail that space doesn't exist?

humy
not rated yet Jul 14, 2018
My misedit; That "We where..." should be "We were..."
granville583762
3.7 / 5 (3) Jul 14, 2018
Humy> Will you now answer my questions which you so far haven't?
It is only possible to define cordinates in the vacuum of space via landmarks.
How is that not a property of space? Or how does that logically entail that space doesn't exist?

Humy essentially your correct, space does not exist; because being a vacuum it is devoid of all matter and energy and there fore does not exist - only matter and energy exist, the space between quarks and electrons is a vacuum, we exist in the vacuum as a collection of atoms
A vacuum does not exist by definition, you have nailed it as they say, Humy!
granville583762
3 / 5 (4) Jul 14, 2018
Coordinates are a property of matter
Humy:- coordinates are not a property of space because space being a vacuum, does not exist!
Coordinates are a property of matter and energy and the distance between the matter and energy that makes the quarks and electrons. Without atoms effectively there is no dimension because that is one quark to the next quark which is why space is a vacuum, infinite in size and has no begging and no end and is dimensionless with no coordinate does not exist and has no physical characteristics!
milnik
3 / 5 (4) Jul 14, 2018
It is incomprehensible that you all discuss something that you did not understand what causes this phenomenon, and each of you interprets in its own way the meaning of a name such as space, vacuum, blank, infinite, and the like. Is it clear to you what science is and how it evolves and who is its creator? Every normal, logical and conscious man will say that science is the field of action of human beings, in which they are processed to analyze and find out the causes of phenomena around us and the whole universe. If science is a human creation, as it is, why some of you say: it is not in accordance with science. I can say for something: it is not in accordance with natural laws, provided I know these laws of nature. And what is nature? That's all that we live in, we come up, we disappear and everything from which everything in the universe was created. How did all this arise and who is who formed it all?
milnik
2.3 / 5 (3) Jul 14, 2018
Well, here we must be aware that it is illusory to seek to find out everything because we are not so built that we can overcome our Creator in the power of formation. Our Creator assigned us many programs with which we can find out the true causes of the phenomenon. The one who possesses a higher level of consciousness, using the intuition link, currently finds out the true cause of the phenomenon, when it connects its consciousness to the Absolute consciousness universe (ACU).
 You have to know: there is no empty space in the universe, in the material-energy entity of the universe (MEEU). In an empty space, there is nothing, neither matter, nor energy, nor substance of any kind. So where is the vacuum (the space in which the substance from which the substance is formed is not a vacuum, even the most subtle particle, such as the quark and its composition, "is submerged in the substance from which that particle was formed.
milnik
2.3 / 5 (3) Jul 14, 2018
All those particles in that substance (Aether, which fill the infinite universe) have a residual ", has a" family "relationship with Aether and this causes gravity and magnetism.
If this is known, then the process of forming matter from Aether and various energies of matter can be understood. In addition, more process of formation of various forms of celestial bodies can be known.
The fact that science makes up with Einstein's theories, Lorenz transformations, Hubble constants, and various fake particles in particle collisions are just scientific fats.
humy
5 / 5 (4) Jul 14, 2018
Humy essentially your correct, space does not exist;

granville

I did NOT say space doesn't exist. Space exists.

...because being a vacuum

1, space isn't vacuum. There can be matter occupying some space thus making that bit of space not vacuum by definition therefore the definition of space is NOT that it is vacuum.

2, vacuum exists. There is space not occupied by matter; that is vacuum by definition. How isn't it?

Coordinates are a property of matter

Coordinates are only meaningful when defined in space.
granville583762
3.7 / 5 (3) Jul 14, 2018
This appears a really difficult concept that's being discussed mainly by a few, it is dawning how difficult a concept absolutely nothing is to grasp
Space is used to describe the vacuum in orbit and beyond, hence my expression the vacuum of space, Space is a vacuum and consequently space has no characteristics and a vacuum does not exist
Space has no physical characteristics and does not exist which is the basis of this discussion on space because it has become a place where one defers unsolvable problems for a later date, like gravity is warped space or more is precisely - gravity is warped vacuum Humy.
Which Humy, is not very scientific?
Benni
3.4 / 5 (5) Jul 14, 2018
Space has no physical characteristics and does not exist which is the basis of this discussion on space


I kind of see your reasoning that SPACE has no physical characteristics, BUT why can it not simply be defined as the distance between the two closest particles of MATTER? This of course won't provide a volumetric parameter but you can just begin connecting the dots of closest adjacent particles until you've defined an area of empty volume. That empty space would probably end looking like a hollow quasi-sphere.
milnik
3 / 5 (2) Jul 15, 2018
The space is a place for the accommodation of the substance from which matter and all components and forms of matter are formed. In the space, it all goes according to certain natural laws, which means that the space has its own measures in three spatial directions, which represents the basis for a picturesque mathematical representation of the movement of everything in space. Granville, your view of space is not clear or natural. Gravity, in no case, has nothing to do with the space, nor with time, because it appears as an interaction between Aether substance that fills the space and types of matter created by Aether.
Since science does not know that there must be substance from which matter is formed,
milnik
3 / 5 (2) Jul 15, 2018
then everyone thinks that there is no matter where there is an empty space (space without anything). Since Aether fills the whole universe, there is no empty space.
The term, vacuum, came from the thought that when there is nothing in the space it is a vacuum. Under the term vacuum we can consider a space without matter and what is visible, measurable and tangible. It means that the vacuum is not an empty space, because Aether can not be evacuated from the vacuum space in any way. Science will never be able to measure it, only understand it intuitively and prove it exists by understanding the notion of gravity and magnetism.
granville583762
not rated yet Jul 15, 2018
granville583762> Space has no physical characteristics and does not exist which is the basis of this discussion on space

Benni> I kind of see your reasoning that SPACE has no physical characteristics BUT why can it not be defined as the distance between the two closest particles of MATTER? This of course won't provide a volumetric parameter but you can just begin connecting the dots of closest adjacent particles until you've defined an area of empty volume. That empty space would probably end looking like a hollow quasi-sphere

Because space has become a spirit world where anything goes and particles magically appear and warped space is a gravitational field or more precisely warped vacuum, it has become a state of mind Benni, the only way to view space is as a vacuum with no physical characteristics (the vacuum of space) and ultimately Benni as a vacuum it does not exist
This is the difficult concept Benni, grasping the fact, space as a vacuum does not exist
humy
5 / 5 (2) Jul 15, 2018
granville583762> Space has no physical characteristics and does not exist which is the basis of this discussion on space

Benni> I kind of see your reasoning that SPACE has no physical characteristics BUT why can it not be defined as the distance between the two closest particles of MATTER? This of course won't provide a volumetric parameter but you can just begin connecting the dots of closest adjacent particles until you've defined an area of empty volume. That empty space would probably end looking like a hollow quasi-sphere

Because space has become a spirit world where anything goes

NO. The proven laws of physics don't imply "anything goes" thus this is science. The known laws place many constraints on what can happen in space (and you can validly say that they are physical properties of space). Study and learn something about it before commenting on it.
granville583762
not rated yet Jul 15, 2018
A vacuum which by definition does not exist
Benni:- in the real world space is just that, but as space is a vacuum it is vacuous vacuum of infinite dimensions with no begging and no end where we as atoms occupy the infinite volume.
It is not a physical entity that exists Benni, it cannot be stretched or warped there are no wormholes to the end of the universe, you have to physically travel to the end of the universe as we do in our daily lives
Gravity; just as light transmits photons through the vacuum of space, gravity in form of gravitons (yet to be discovered) travel through the vacuum to interact with protons electrons quarks and neutrinos and attract them in the direction of the source mass.
As you can see Benni gravity is not the warped vacuum because how do you warp a vacuum which by definition does not exist
granville583762
not rated yet Jul 15, 2018
The vacuum itself has no physical properties
Humy> NO. The proven laws of physics don't imply "anything goes" thus this is science. The known laws place many constraints on what can happen in space (and you can validly say that they are physical properties of space). Study and learn something about it before commenting on it

There are no physical properties of the vacuum of space itself ; when you have the dialectic constant of space you have to remember that space is totally permeated with gravitational fields, electric fields and magnetic fields and where there are protons in the intervening gap of the dielectric plates the electric fields are more direct and as the plates come within femto distances the nuclear force come into the dialectic constant
There is no physical properties of the vacuum itself Humy; it is solely down to the fact that matter and energy with their electric, magnetic and gravitational fields presently occupy the vacuum!
granville583762
not rated yet Jul 15, 2018
The Casmir effect - Zero point energy of space
Zero point energy is not the energy of the vacuum, it is simply due to the van der walls forces between two plates

As you know Humy, once you get into the Casimir effect, then vacuum energy and then as the list grows you get integrated into the vacuum of space, when the Casmir effect is simply explained by the van de wall forces of the molecules of the two close plates https://en.wikipe...r_effect

"Relativistic van der Waals force - a 2005 paper by Robert Jaffe of MIT states that "Casimir effects can be formulated and Casimir forces can be computed without reference to zero-point energies – Wikipedia"

It is not just me that has come across this fallacy of space; concerning the matter and enegy fields it contains Humy.
humy
5 / 5 (4) Jul 15, 2018
The Casmir effect - Zero point energy of space
Zero point energy is not the energy of the vacuum, ....
granville

Your link strongly implies that vacuum exists and NOWHERE does it imply it doesn't. It says;
"...
The Casimir effect can be understood by the idea that the presence of conducting metals and dielectrics alters the VACUUM expectation value of the energy of the second quantized electromagnetic field...." (my emphasis)

And if you now look up the wiki link for "vacuum expectation value", it clearly says;

"...In quantum field theory the vacuum expectation value ... of an operator is its average, expected value IN THE VACUUM...." (my emphasis)

How can this be if that vacuum doesn't exist?

So, regardless of whether the Casmir effect is a type of van der Waals force (relevance? Why should I care if it is?), your link clearly implies the opposite to what you say it does i.e. it DOES imply that vacuum exists.
granville583762
not rated yet Jul 15, 2018
Space is a vacuum there for the vacuum exists
That is what I have been saying Humy - space is a vacuum therefore the vacuum exists.
What I am also saying that as a vacuum is devoid of all matter and energy and is unlimited in its dimensions as it has no physical characteristics it makes no difference if you look at it as though it does not exist… it is a void of unlimited size that has no physical properties because it cannot interact with matter and energy….
granville583762
not rated yet Jul 15, 2018
That is why I introduced the van der Waals forces to counter the Casmir effect, to show no energy is coming out the vacuum
milnik
3 / 5 (2) Jul 15, 2018
From all your discussions, it's clear that there is no space, vacuum and empty space. In addition to matter and energy of all kinds, in the space there is what the matter forms, which means that there is no empty space. If you do not know this basic, that there must be a substance from which everything is formed in the universe, then for your empty space is equal to a vacuum. Is there a vacuum in the tube particles of the particles? Whoever thinks that in these tubes (before the release of particles), there is nothing (your vacuum), then it is no wonder that you neither grasp matter nor gravity nor magnetism, nor do you understand any phenomenon that provokes.
granville583762
not rated yet Jul 15, 2018
A vacuum is a state of mind milnic
milnik> From all your discussions, it's clear that there is no space, vacuum and empty space. In addition to matter and energy of all kinds, in the space there is what the matter forms, which means that there is no empty space.

It is the difficult concept of accepting the vacuum of space which by definition has no physical properties is just a vacuous void of unlimited dimension with no begging and no end that matter and energy does not interact milnic, once you see it milnic it makes no difference if you assume the vacuum ceases to exist.

The vacuum is just that, a vacuum with no wormholes, singularities, quantum fluctuations and the like milnik just an empty void!
humy
5 / 5 (1) Jul 15, 2018

space is a vacuum therefore the vacuum exists.
Space isn't vacuum. Vacuum is space without matter within it. Neither space nor vacuum means 'nothingness'. Both space and vacuum have properties and both exists. Don't know why you are so confused.
granville583762
not rated yet Jul 15, 2018
Common usage - space is used to describe the vacuum the space station occupies and there lies a common usage in the name Humy, the Space station
space is a vacuum therefore the vacuum exists

Humy> Space isn't vacuum. Vacuum is space without matter within it. Neither space nor vacuum means 'nothingness'. Both space and vacuum have properties and both exists. Don't know why you are so confused.

When the phrase space is used, it is used to describe above the earth's atmosphere in orbit which is a vacuum and the term space is now commonly used to describe the vacuum above the earth's atmosphere i.e. I'm going into space today. So now the vacuum is commonly called space and every one know we are talking about the infinite vacuum Humy!
humy
5 / 5 (1) Jul 15, 2018
Common usage - space is used to describe the vacuum the space station occupies
granville

That is not supposed to mean from common usage that the vacuum is IN the space station i.e. that is not supposed to mean the space taken up by the space station IS a vacuum but rather the space station is in a much larger volume of space that is mainly vacuum except for the much smaller volume of space within it currently occupied by the space station.
The common usage of the word vacuum is for it to mean space without matter within it.
granville583762
not rated yet Jul 15, 2018
Common usage terms in our careers
I did not expect this to come down to understanding common usage terms Humy; this appears to be a common theme away from every day explanations that anyone can comprehend.
The Chemistry Professor in Staffordshire University said that once every one graduates and gets a high paid career in Biophysics everyone uses common usages terms as he was introducing them to us Humy, so don't be miffed at myself mentioning it.
humy
5 / 5 (1) Jul 15, 2018
Just look up the definition of vacuum for yourself;
https://dictionar...h/vacuum

"a space from which most or all of the matter has been removed, or where there is little or no matter"

How can the space shuttle be normally full of vacuum with this above definition?
This definition shows what most people mean by vaccum in common usage.
Vacuum is space with little or no matter in it by definition.
granville583762
not rated yet Jul 15, 2018
Humy, you're not supposed to nitpick to such a degree, we treat objects as a whole and the space station has air at atmospheric pressure.
You know exactly what is being discussed; an atom occupies the vacuum as the space station does some things you have to understand in conversation Humy, even if it is not what the conventional view is.
This is the most basic of concepts Humy; a vacuum, if you cannot yet imagine a atom occupying the vacuum with no break in the vacuum Humy, only your self can get yourself into the frame of mind necessary to make that break through. This is the art of flowing conversation Humy!
granville583762
not rated yet Jul 15, 2018
Humy> How can the space shuttle be normally full of vacuum with this above definition

Can you not understand that the air molecules are occuping the vacuum and between each air molecules is a pure vacuum!
granville583762
not rated yet Jul 15, 2018
What is so difficult to understand Humy because you know exactly what is being discussed here, we simply occupy the vacuum and where the outer surface atom meets the vacuum and as you know Humy the atoms practically do not exist as they are quarks and electron, they are empty space - another common usage term Humy, the oxygen molecules are in the vacuum - You have to understand it in conversation Humy, where everyone uses common usage terms!
granville583762
not rated yet Jul 15, 2018
This is an understanding of scientific realities Humy, you know the air in the space station is not a solid block but trillions of nitrogen molecules separate from one another moving freely in the vacuum.
granville583762
not rated yet Jul 15, 2018
This is an understanding of scientific realities Humy, you know the air in the space station is not a solid block but trillions of nitrogen molecules separate from one another moving freely in the vacuum.

Now can you understand it Humy! It cannot be put any clearer...
humy
5 / 5 (1) Jul 16, 2018
Humy> How can the space shuttle be normally full of vacuum with this above definition

Can you not understand that the air molecules are occuping the vacuum and between each air molecules is a pure vacuum!

That is not what is meant by vacuum on a macroscopic volume of space, which means no matter thus no (or extremely few) atoms in a macroscopic volume of space. The meaning of vacuum on a macroscopic volume of space is different than the meaning of vacuum between atoms in a microscopic volume of space.
The correct terminology says, for example, my body currently occupies space, not vacuum.
What is so hard for you to understand here?
humy
5 / 5 (1) Jul 16, 2018
In addition, we don't say the tiny volume of space within, say, a proton, occupies the same tiny volume of vacuum but rather we say it occupies the same tiny volume of space.
I have already given you the English definition from the English dictionary and also the scientific dictionary of the word vacuum that shows this is the standard accepted meaning to that IS correct.
milnik
1 / 5 (1) Jul 16, 2018
granville and humy,
that your arguments about the notion of a vacuum is a consequence that science has not precisely defined what is completely empty space and what is vacuum. Before the knowledge of the existence of particles that were both invisible and immeasurable, the vacuum was a space with no visible and measurable particles. There is no empty space in the universe because the whole universe is filled with the substance from which matter is formed, and this substance is also found in quarks. This means there is no empty space in the atoms. If the vacuum is a space in which there is no visible, tangible and measurable, then do not confuse the notion of vacuum and empty space.
The space is a place to accommodate anything that exists in the universe.
milnik
1 / 5 (1) Jul 16, 2018
The vacuum tube of the accelerator is not empty, nor is the empty space around the space station, because apart from everything present there is the substance from which the substance is formed. You name that substance, but I call it Aether.
humy
5 / 5 (1) Jul 16, 2018
The vacuum tube of the accelerator is not empty, nor is the empty space around the space station, because apart from everything present there is the substance from which the substance is formed. You name that substance, but I call it Aether.

No, there is no such "substance from which the substance is formed" (no evidence for this and it wouldn't even help to solve any mysteries. If 'substance' came from some other 'substance' then where did that first substance come from? -doesn't help in the slightest!) and neither vacuum nor space means Aether. Science (specifically special relativity) has long disproved (the old aether theory. If the old aether theory was right and relativity wrong then nuclear power stations (and many other things besides) wouldn't work.
humy
not rated yet Jul 16, 2018
"...disproved (the old aether theory..."

My missedit; that bracket shouldn't be there and that should be;

"...disproved the old aether theory..."
granville583762
not rated yet Jul 16, 2018
Only one Vacuum in the Universe
we don't say the tiny volume of space within a proton, occupies the same tiny volume of vacuum but rather we say it occupies the same tiny volume of space. I have already given you the English definition from the English dictionary and also the scientific dictionary of the word vacuum that shows this is the standard accepted meaning to that IS correct.

Satellites orbit in is the same vacuum the earth orbits the sun in, remove earth's atmosphere we will be walking to work in spacesuits in the same vacuum, The vacuum goes through the earth as atoms are empty space so the earth is floating freely in the vacuum, there is only one vacuum in the universe Humy – quarks, electrons, neutrinos, nuclear, electric and magnetic fields all occupy the vacuum

As you move your hand to the keyboard the atoms in your hand are empty space your hand pass's through the vacuum - we cannot disassociate ourselves from the vacuum!
humy
not rated yet Jul 16, 2018

Satellites orbit in is the same vacuum the earth orbits the sun in, remove earth's atmosphere we will be walking to work in spacesuits in the same vacuum, The vacuum goes through the earth as atoms are empty space so the earth is floating freely in the vacuum, there is only one vacuum in the universe Humy – quarks, electrons, neutrinos, nuclear, electric and magnetic fields all occupy the vacuum

As you move your hand to the keyboard the atoms in your hand are empty space your hand pass's through the vacuum - we cannot disassociate ourselves from the vacuum!
Again, you are confusing the two meanings of vacuum. I have already repeatedly explained this. You are repeatedly making a type of error in logic called "equivocating". Read my previous posts again and this time much more slowly and curefully and this time without equivocating the two DIFFERENT meanings.

https://en.wikipe...vocation

granville583762
not rated yet Jul 16, 2018
The poetic language of the vacuum
Humy, take away my Flowery language, stripped back to the bare bones Humy; this is what I am saying

There is only one vacuum in the universe which all atoms occupy
Atoms are empty space and float freely in the vacuum
Steel atoms are empty space in the atomic lattice and float freely in the vacuum
Swing a steel bat and the steel atomic lattice atoms pass freely through the vacuum
We cannot disassociate ourselves from the vacuum
Because Humy as we walk across the room our body is passing through the vacuum
There can be only one definition of the vacuum
granville583762
not rated yet Jul 16, 2018
The vacuum is not simply an English definition from the English dictionary
There is the Vacuum and there are Quarks, Electrons, Neutrinos, Electric, Nuclear and Magnetic fields which all occupy the Vacuum
Macro or nano worlds do not come into the vacuum Humy; there is no scale of size because the atoms are empty space proved by as we walk across the room our body is passing through the vacuum!
granville583762
not rated yet Jul 16, 2018
The Aether wind versus the Vacuum

Now can you see why you're having a pointless discourse on the Aether Humy, after this in depth analysis of the vacuum and the atomic particles occupying the vacuum and atoms being empty space means are body atom pass freely through the vacuum as we walk
Why do you think the Aether wind was disproved Humy – it is because we exist in the vacuum
granville583762
not rated yet Jul 16, 2018
Sir Isaac Newton realized there is no Aether wind 330 years ago
The vacuum is why Sir Isaac Newton wrote his three laws of motion - 1: a body remains at rest or continuous motion unless acted on by a force - Sir Isaac Newton 330 years ago realized the consequences of the vacuum that in the absence of atomic particles an object will continue in motion indefinitely - this implies Sir Isaac Newton realized there is no Aether wind because with an Aether wind his laws of motion could not function in the same context.
granville583762
not rated yet Jul 16, 2018
The brilliance that still is Sir Isaac Newton
Humy:- going back 330 years ago to the world of Sir Isaac Newton with no electricity, no mobiles, no cars, no air travel, no LHC, no space station, no dishwashers... I think you get the picture Humy, as all Sir Isaac Newton had was a quill and parchment and all his calculation were completed mentally and a horse and carriage was his transport and only candles to work through those long nights with a coal fire to keep warm in a cold drafty damp house Humy.
From these Spartan condition of life 330 years ago his insight into the vacuum and his motion and gravity still far succeed anything modern physics can even compare with and to think were squabbling over the Aether wind and trying to give the vacuum physical properties it does not possess.
milnik
1 / 5 (1) Jul 16, 2018
@humy,
what do you think the material is formed from going from subatomic particles to clusters of galaxies? If you do not know how to answer this question, then you know nothing from this topic or understand it. You just do not know what the vacuum is, but that did not define science, but the vacuum uses everything that it has no idea. So is the fictional dark matter and dark energy and gravitons and similar nebuloses.
You will be smarter if you understand the following: in the universe must exist some substance from which matter is formed. Only fools can say that matter is formed from nothing, or from that vacuum.
One day, I will prove to you all, for example, that there is a substance Aether from which matter is formed. Only so-called "scientists" have thrown away the existence of Aether, because without it it can lie and invent for infinite nonsense.
milnik
3 / 5 (2) Jul 16, 2018
@granville,
can you tell me, what is, in your opinion, an absolutely empty space (in which there is nothing), and what is the vacuum? Do these two terms related to space have the same common space apart.? Every thought and discussion is futile, if you do not realize that there must be some substance in the universe (which we are measuring measurable data), and from which the matter is formed. We are an integral part of the material energy entity of the universe (MEEU), but there must be someone who has formed it all. It is the Spiritual Entity of the Universe (SEU). If you are mocking this, then you are not a human being! If you do not know the definition of vacuum, then why can you "bring" conclusions about any occurrence.
humy
5 / 5 (2) Jul 16, 2018
@humy,
what do you think the material is formed from going from subatomic particles to clusters of galaxies?
milnik

Why do you ask such gibberish questions?
What material do YOU say was formed when subatomic particles coalesced to form the clumps of defused matter that later became the clusters of galaxies?
Ask a non-gibberish question and I will do my best to answer it.

humy
5 / 5 (2) Jul 16, 2018
Only so-called "scientists" have thrown away the existence of Aether,
milnik

Well, that comment says it all. It admits the actual scientists, you know, those people that know things you (and even I) don't, have concluded there is no aether (that is because special relativity proved aether theory false). Why do you think that is? Are all those scientists that know things you don't and were smart enough to pass their science degrees (and in many cases got Nobel prizes for discovering the truth and have IQ scores over 160) all just stupid and ignorant of the scientific facts while you, of course, the non-scientist, knows all about the scientific facts and knows them better than they do?
Sorry; don't believe you and I just listen to the experts.
humy
5 / 5 (2) Jul 16, 2018
Sir Isaac Newton realized there is no Aether wind 330 years ago
granville

Regardless of whether he 'realized' that, he didn't prove it. It took Einstein to prove there is no aether (with special relativity) and to also prove Newton wrong about space and time being absolute although Newton physics is good enough approximation for non-extreme conditions which is why it is still often used.
granville583762
not rated yet Jul 16, 2018
330 years of Sir Isaac Newton's continuous motion in the vacuum
milnic> @granville, can you tell me, what is, in your opinion, an absolutely empty space (in which there is nothing), and what is the vacuum?.

Finally milnic, the penny is dropping and the mist is clearing, Sir Isaac Newton 330 years put a great deal of his intellect into this question of the vacuum and he realised it contained no material substance and had no physical properties and a body in motion remained in motion indefinitely

The Vacuum – The Definition
The vacuum is a void of infinite dimensions containing no material substance and has no physical properties and does not interact with atoms and energy and does not create matter and energy and a body in motion remains in motion indefinitely!
granville583762
3 / 5 (2) Jul 16, 2018
The Vacuum has no physical effects
granville573762> Sir Isaac Newton realized there is no Aether wind 330 years ago

Humy> Granville Regardless of whether he 'realized' that, he didn't prove it. It took Einstein to prove there is no Aether (with special relativity) and to also prove Newton wrong about space and time being absolute although Newton physics is good enough approximation for non-extreme conditions which is why it is still often used.

Humy :- Albert's theory about kinetic energy of a body in motion is just scale where its KE increases exponentially to infinity to C, all the other of Isaac's properties remain the same as it still remains in motion at say 0.85C indefinitely unless acted on by a force – the Vacuum has no physical effect on the relativistic (0.85C) body in motion – it is only when the body strikes a atom is it acted on by a force or acted on by a gravitational force or electric or magnetic fields!
humy
5 / 5 (1) Jul 16, 2018

Humy :- Albert's theory about kinetic energy of a body in motion is just scale where its KE increases exponentially to infinity to C, all the other of Isaac's properties remain the same ...
granville

No, it doesn't. For example, there is time dilation, as proven by moving atomic clocks, and that is NOT predicted by Newtonian physics. A body in relativistic motion would appear to have its time running slower from the stationary (in the arbitrary frame of reference) observer seeing it as it passes him by.

https://en.wikipe...dilation
"...time dilation has been repeatedly demonstrated, for instance by small disparities in a pair of atomic clocks after one of them is sent on a space trip, or by clocks on the Space Shuttle running slightly slower than reference clocks on Earth, or clocks on GPS and Galileo satellites running slightly faster..."

– the Vacuum has no physical effect on the relativistic (0.85C) body in motion

Who said it did?
granville583762
3 / 5 (2) Jul 16, 2018
Measuring time in a gravitational field
Humy> Granville, time dilation, proven by moving atomic clocks that is NOT predicted by Newtonian physics. A body in relativistic motion would appear to have its time running slower from the stationary (in the arbitrary frame of reference) observer seeing it as it passes him by. https://en.wikipe...dilation "time dilation has been demonstrated, by small disparities in a pair of atomic clocks after one of them is sent on a space trip, or by clocks on the Space Shuttle running slightly slower than reference clocks on Earth, or clocks on GPS and Galileo satellites running slightly faster

Gravitational field effects the electron transition of a caesium atom in the atomic clock
This effect is used as a gravimeter
Atomic clocks oscillations are affected by the strength of the gravitational field
Time has nothing to do with it how can you measure time with oscillations that change depending on the strength of gravity
granville583762
3 / 5 (2) Jul 16, 2018
330 years of changing gravitational fields in time
Gravity effects the transition of the caesium atom there by changing the frequency in the same way gravity effects the oscillation of atoms falling in the gravitational field of the moon compared to the earth.
Gravity changes the frequency of photons as they pass through the earth's gravitational field
All this has nothing to do with Time - this is being investigated by scientists as it is becoming more prevalent with the increasing use of atomic time keeping devises as highly accurate gravimeters
Humy this is common knowledge and I am surprised to see gravities effects not included in discussions on measuring time dilation accurately and consistently in a changing gravitational field in 2018 after 330 years of Sir Isaac Newton's gravity.
milnik
1 / 5 (2) Jul 16, 2018
@humy,
Do you know how to form the tiniest particles of matter, such as quarks, gluons, photons. ? How are subatomic particles formed like proton, neutron, electron, positron?
How, after this process, are formed the particles from which the quark gluon plasma is formed?
and what is formed of it? How do heavenly bodies form as star systems?
This sequence will teach you to understand something in this area.
Again, I repeat: in the universe must exist some substance from which matter is formed. What is this substance?
milnik
3 / 5 (2) Jul 16, 2018
@granville,
Before any answer, related to gravity and all other phenomena, you need to know in detail the gravity, how it arises, and what its role in the organization of matter in the universe. Gravity can not influence anything in photons, it is responsible magnetism. It is clear from your discussions that you do not know the structure of the universe, nor do you know how to form matter, how gravity and magnetism arise. If you do not know what your statements are?
humy
5 / 5 (1) Jul 17, 2018

Atomic clocks oscillations are affected by the strength of the gravitational field
granville

No, they certainly are not. Learn some basic physics before commenting on it.
Time dilation also is what causes the observed wobble in Mercury's orbit. How do you explain that one?
humy
5 / 5 (1) Jul 17, 2018
@humy,
Do you know how to form the tiniest particles of matter, such as quarks, gluons, photons. ?
milnik

well you sure don't. Ask a cosmologist.
granville583762
not rated yet Jul 17, 2018
Electrons transiting in a gravitational field
granville583762> Atomic clocks oscillations are affected by the strength of the gravitational field

Humy> Granville No, they certainly are not. Learn some basic physics before commenting on it.
Time dilation also is what causes the observed wobble in Mercury's orbit. How do you explain that one?

Humy the electron when it gains energy to a higher orbit then jumps down again (transitioning), the electron in case you have forgotten is a massive object 9.1x10-31kg to be precise Humy, and what do massive bodies poses "gravity". Electrons in a gravitational field transitioning moving against the force of gravity are affected by nano-metre acceleration and nano-metre distance as this effects the transitional frequency of the atomic clock
The change in frequency of the atomic clock consequently has nothing what so ever to do with time Humy!
savvys84
1 / 5 (1) Jul 17, 2018
Estimating age and how fast universe is expanding is very difficult. Until we can accurately predict how the em wave or gravitational waves ( if they exist ), behave when they are traversing the vast expanse of space where ambient time flow is changing all the time.
milnik
5 / 5 (1) Jul 17, 2018
@humy,
cosmologists are also a great ignorant of the process of forming matter, as you are, and that's why science has gone wrong.
@granville,
the movement of the electron takes place under other conditions, and not only under gravity. These are laws similar to those of the laws governing celestial bodies.
The uneven movement of Mercury (precession of the perihel of the planet) is a particular cause of such a movement, and it is caused by the kinetic energy of radial velocity, which forms two spin of the planet: one is its own around the axis of the planet, the other is the sinusoidal rotation around the center of the mass of the observed system (the opposite direction to its own spin ).
granville583762
3 / 5 (2) Jul 17, 2018
The Bohr radius in relation to the electron accelerating under gravity in one second

Atomic clock frequency 9.2x10-09Hz
Electron Bohr radius 5.7x10-11m

The electron accelerating at 10m/s* - 1/9.2x10-09Hz equals a transition distance of 5.91x10-20m
5.91x10-20m multiplied by the atomic frequency 9.2x10-09Hz equals 5.44x10-10m

Humy in one second the earth's gravity has accelerated the electron where the electron has move 5.4x10-10m and the Bohr radius of an electron is 5.7x10-11m

The electron Humy has moved the 10 times the amount as the Bohr radius under gravitational force in one second, the difference in frequency the atomic clock measures under earth's gravity is extremely small which is accounted for by gravitational acceleration of the electron
humy
5 / 5 (2) Jul 17, 2018
@humy,
cosmologists are also a great ignorant of the process of forming matter.
milnik

So experts on the subject that know things about it you and I don't are "ignorant" of it?
Sorry, don't believe you. You are ignorant of the process of forming matter. You have the delusional arrogant belief that your non-expert opinion on expert-subjects is right and those of the experts must be all wrong. Science tells us that your opinion is wrong.
granville583762
2.3 / 5 (3) Jul 17, 2018
The electron as a gravimeter
granville583762> The Bohr radius in relation to the electron accelerating under gravity in one second
The electron Humy has moved the 10 times the amount as the Bohr radius under gravitational force in one second, the difference in frequency the atomic clock measures under earth's gravity is extremely small which is accounted for by gravitational acceleration of the electron

This is why the transitioning of the electron while under the force of gravity makes an excellent extremely accurate gravimeter!

Now it is possible to measure the force of gravity on any planet and compare it to the standard gravity at sea level on earth enabling the changing frequency of the atomic clock to be accurately calculated just as ancient mariners needed accurate time keeping devices for consistent time now gravimeter allow manufacture of consistent unchanging time keeping devices where ever we are in the vacuum!
humy
5 / 5 (2) Jul 17, 2018
The electron as a gravimeter
granville

No, it isn't; No more than a proton or a chair is a gravimeter.
And you show your ignorance of physics. Atomic clocks have helped proved the existence of time dilation and in several different ways.
Time dilation also is what causes the observed wobble in Mercury's orbit which also proves the existence of time dilation -no atomic clocks required. How do you explain that one?

granville583762
2.3 / 5 (3) Jul 17, 2018
The Time dilation Gauntlet is laid Humy, Can you take the Challenge and Prove Time Dilation!
granville853762> The electron as a gravimeter

Humy> granvill No, it isn't; No more than a proton or a chair is a gravimeter.
And you show your ignorance of physics. Atomic clocks have helped proved the existence of time dilation and in several different ways.
Time dilation also is what causes the observed wobble in Mercury's orbit which also proves the existence of time dilation -no atomic clocks required. How do you explain that one?

Well Humy I have shown by acceleration of the electron during transition 1/9.2x10-09s the electron undergoes acceleration
Humy in the same physical context involving gravity, electrons, photons and the like prove that the change in frequency of the transiting electron undergoing gravitational acceleration is in actual fact time dilation.
milnik
3 / 5 (4) Jul 17, 2018
Again, I draw your attention to the fact that you are wrongly educated in relation to the processes of forming matter. If you did not understand this in the manner in which natural laws determine, how can you claim that your or any "claims" have arisen from the announcement of the structure of the universe.
Here's the whole question: Explain how and from what forms a hydrogen atom. If you do not know it, do not try to ignore the truth of those who make it by falsifying your claims. If you know the laws of the movement of heavenly bodies, you would know why Merkur has such irregular movement. Einstein's "proof" of this uneven movement is a fictitious formula that NASA rejected.
 by measuring it.
granville583762
not rated yet Jul 17, 2018
Your inkly typed view milnic
milnic> Here's the whole question: Explain how and from what forms a hydrogen atom.

milnic:- if as you are elucidating we do not know how and from what forms a hydrogen atom.
As you're indicating you already have the answer to your question from what and how a hydrogen forms it would be interesting to read your inkly typed view on your question milnic.
milnik
3.7 / 5 (3) Jul 17, 2018
@granville,
through high Aether vibrations, particles form: 3KG (3 quarks and 3 gluon bonds) and free gluons. It makes a quark gluon plasma. In prescribed thermodynamic processes, free gluons decay, and the positron enters the 3kg particle and forms a proton, and the electron of gluon, in order to maintain the energy state, circles the protons.
Will you continue to educate me to find out how other chemical elements originate?
I give this to you, to accept something naturally and to stop ignoring the truth, which is contrary to your ignorance.
granville583762
not rated yet Jul 17, 2018
@granville,through high Aether vibrations, particles form: 3KG (3 quarks and 3 gluon bonds) and free gluons. It makes a quark gluon plasma. In prescribed thermodynamic processes, free gluons decay, and the positron enters the 3kg particle and forms a proton, and the electron of gluon, in order to maintain the energy state, circles the protons.
Will you continue to educate me to find out how other chemical elements originate?
I give this to you, to accept something naturally and to stop ignoring the truth, which is contrary to your ignorance

There's similarities in what they teach in Cambridge university I have noticed Dr Jarosław Duda of Jagiellonian University a research university in Kraków Poland has a simialar outlook to how you elucidate your theories milnic Jarek Duda used to frequent physicsworld commentaries and his comments were of the world that your theories are
Is this how they teach at the Jagiellonian University and other universities over there milnic
humy
5 / 5 (3) Jul 17, 2018
Can you take the Challenge and Prove Time Dilation!
granville

It is a trivial task to show references of how science has proved time dilation, both as predicted from special relativity and from general relativity. For example;

https://www.scien...erified/
"...Physicists have verified a key prediction of Albert Einstein's special theory of relativity with unprecedented accuracy. Experiments at a particle accelerator in Germany confirm that time moves slower for a moving clock than for a stationary one....."

https://en.wikipe...periment

http://spacetimec...eid.html
milnik
3 / 5 (4) Jul 17, 2018
I have nothing to do with those universities or with the people you mention. Maybe they read my comments somewhere and tried to get closer (facebook, LinkedIin, , Google+)
humy
5 / 5 (2) Jul 17, 2018
milnik

Lets see what the evidence and science says;

https://briankobe...hint-no/
"...An interesting aspect of science history is that you can see how theoretical ideas rise and fall based upon the evidence. Models are proposed, experiments are made disproving them, and then the hammer falls. One such idea is that of the luminiferous Aether.
..
If the aether actually existed, we should be able to see its effect. If light traveled through a medium, then its observed speed should depend on the speed of the aether relative to us.
..
They devised an experiment that would measure the speed of light in different directions.
Much to their surprise they found no observed shift in the speed of light.

The solution to this mystery was eventually found in Einstein's theory of special relativity, which said there was no aether.
..
several other experiments have shown time and again that relativity is right, and the aether model is wrong. "
milnik
3 / 5 (4) Jul 17, 2018
humy,
Honest people can not assemble a larger group of supporters, as can fraudsters and liars. Do you think that light can travel through an empty space (it's not your vacuum)? Can you do something, if something does not force you and attracts you? What property does light have and can move through anything. ?
Aether is a substance that many scientists will appreciate and will have to accept its existence. Aether is a substance, invisible, immeasurable, immobile, except for very high vibrations, has electromagnetic properties and therefore photons pass through it, because it is their router. Also, magnetism and gravity can not function without Aether. Call Einstein, he may have changed his stupid theories.
granville583762
2 / 5 (4) Jul 17, 2018
Theoretical theorising thought experiments are not physicaly atomically proof
granville853762> Can you take the Challenge and Prove Time Dilation!

Humy> granville It is a trivial task to show references of how science has proved time dilation, both as predicted from special relativity and from general relativity

The links you have kindly provided are not proof, unfortunately they are theoretical theorising thought experiments and not actual physical proof as I laid it out how gravity accelerates electrons
It requires you to inkly type exactly how the physical atomically reactions taking place when gravity accelerates the transitioning electron which ultimately changes the clocks frequency.
granville583762
2 / 5 (4) Jul 17, 2018
Increased velocity requires increased energy
Of course if you ignore what is taking place at the atomic level in the atomic clock - two clocks flying in opposite directions are going to register a differing number of oscillations which can be computed into time which because they are moving at differing velocities requiring the transitional electron to use extra energy is going to alter the resultant frequency Humy
humy
5 / 5 (3) Jul 17, 2018

The links you have kindly provided are not proof, unfortunately they are theoretical theorising thought experiments and not actual physical proof
granville

No. The experiments where physically done. They are very clearly real physical experiments that prove time dilation is real and you have yet to explain how they are not proof.
You convince no real scientist or rational person merely by asserting the opposite of what very clearly the evidence and science says.
granville583762
1 / 5 (2) Jul 17, 2018
I have no preference in believing time dilation

The links you have kindly provided are not proof, unfortunately they are theoretical theorising thought experiments and not actual physical proof
granville

No. The experiments where physically done. They are very clearly real physical experiments that prove time dilation is real and you have yet to explain how they are not proof.
You convince no real scientist or rational person merely by asserting the opposite of what very clearly the evidence and science says.

You still have not said what is going on in the clock at the atomic level Humy, I have no preference for believing time dilation, if it is true so be it, but I have to be convinced in an Isaac Newton sort of way and not thought experiments and just plain acceptence two clocks differ with no physical reason as to why
granville583762
1 / 5 (2) Jul 17, 2018
In the Hafele–Keating experiment Special containers protected the clocks from external influences such as vibrations, magnetic fields, or temperature variations
What Hafele–Keating experiment cannot protect the clock against is gravitational fields and as the transitional electron increases it radius from the centre of the earth the reduction in gravitational force allow the transitional electron to increase its frequency such that there are more oscillations in one second
So far no proof of time dilation Humy
granville583762
1 / 5 (2) Jul 17, 2018
milnic> ]humy,
Honest people cannot assemble a larger group of supporters, as can fraudsters and liars. Do you think that light can travel through an empty space (it's not your vacuum)? Can you do something, if something does not force you and attracts you? What property does light have and can move through anything. ?
Aether is a substance that many scientists will appreciate and will have to accept its existence. Aether is a substance, invisible, immeasurable, immobile, except for very high vibrations, has electromagnetic properties and therefore photons pass through it, because it is their router. Also, magnetism and gravity cannot function without Aether. Call Einstein, he may have changed his stupid theories.

Apparently Albert regarded what I call the vacuum a medium which is how space time and gravity flow which can only be described as an Aether milnic, Albert says gravity is warped space time in other words he is clearly describing the vacuum as Aether.
humy
5 / 5 (1) Jul 18, 2018
Albert says gravity is warped space time in other words he is clearly describing the vacuum as Aether.
granville

No. Look up Aether and spacetime and learn the clear difference in meaning for yourself.
humy
5 / 5 (4) Jul 18, 2018
Einstein's spacetime (and thus vacuum) necessarily implies RELATIVE space and time and ABSOLUTE speed of light in a vacuum.

The old disproved aether theory necessarily implies ABSOLUTE space and time and RELATIVE speed of light in a vacuum.

The two are thus very clearly different and mutually exclusive.
To date, all the relevant experimental evidence confirms the first (RELATIVE space and time and ABSOLUTE speed of light in a vacuum) and contradicts the second (ABSOLUTE space and time and RELATIVE speed of light in a vacuum). There is no evidence that aether exists.
The old aether theory has been dead for over a century; real science has long moved on.
granville583762
not rated yet Jul 18, 2018
The vacuum
Einstein's spacetime (and thus vacuum) necessarily implies RELATIVE space and time and ABSOLUTE speed of light in a vacuum.
The old disproved aether theory necessarily implies ABSOLUTE space and time and RELATIVE speed of light in a vacuum.
The two are thus very clearly different and mutually exclusive.
To date, all the relevant experimental evidence confirms the first (RELATIVE space and time and ABSOLUTE speed of light in a vacuum) and contradicts the second (ABSOLUTE space and time and RELATIVE speed of light in a vacuum). There is no evidence that aether exists.
The old aether theory has been dead for over a century; real science has long moved on.

Humy with my in-depth somewhat over extended analysis of the vacuum of space which I am now simply calling the vacuum, I think it is patently clear I do not believe in Aether, space time, relativity the only two aspects of the vacuum I believe is the speed of light and the vacuum has no physical properties!
granville583762
1 / 5 (1) Jul 18, 2018
Science in the Context of Religion
Humy this is exactly why this in-depth analysis of the vacuum was imitated exactly because of Belief, when investigating Albert's theories, say the muon in its race to the ground with light, is you have complete unquestioning faith in the muon decaying in 2.2x10-06s there by implying length contraction with no reason as to why but just gospel like belief because 2.2x10-06s is a mean half-life with a 50-50 chance of decay, I did not expect to be discussing unquestioning belief and faith when discussing Albert's theories as this puts science in the context of religion
granville583762
not rated yet Jul 18, 2018
Muons not decaying in flight till they reach the ground
Humy concerning Albert's theory:- 2.2x10-06s is a mean half-life with a 50-50 chance of decay, the muon is decaying in flight when it reach's 2.2x10-06s, but it is exponential decay where its half life has a 50-50 chance of decay
This implies it might not decay this time but in 4.4x10-06s time or infinitely longer as it is chance just like the neutron has a 50-50 chance of decay in 10minutes with its half life where it could decay in 15minutes or 30minutes or infinitely longer
The point is until it reaches the ground it does not decay and it has travelled a greater distance than its decay life, but that being a 50-50 chance of decay it has lived longer than its 2.2x10-06s half-life from the upper atmosphere to the ground.
So far Humy these points raised have nothing to implicate the muons half-life decay in length contraction
savvys84
not rated yet Jul 19, 2018

What Hafele–Keating experiment cannot protect the clock against is gravitational fields and as the transitional electron increases it radius from the centre of the earth the reduction in gravitational force allow the transitional electron to increase its frequency such that there are more oscillations in one second
So far no proof of time dilation Humy
That is precisely why the atomic clocks will show faster time with time dilation, which definitely takes place as you rise up above the surface of the earth. You may have read my papers, I have posted the link several times. An anomaly that the atomic clocks are prone to.
granville583762
not rated yet Jul 19, 2018

What Hafele–Keating experiment cannot protect the clock against is gravitational fields and as the transitional electron increases it radius from the centre of the earth the reduction in gravitational force allow the transitional electron to increase its frequency such that there are more oscillations in one second
So far no proof of time dilation Humy
That is precisely why the atomic clocks will show faster time with time dilation, which definitely takes place as you rise up above the surface of the earth. You may have read my papers, I have posted the link several times. An anomaly that the atomic clocks are prone to.

Nothing to do with time dilation, simply the physical effects of gravity on the transitioning electron.

milnik
5 / 5 (1) Jul 19, 2018
None of the scientists can define and say what is a vacuum. The vacuum does not have a microwave connection either with matter or energy, nor does it have any physical properties.
The vacuum can only be imagined to be in some space. Now, it depends on you how you imagine the space. Can the space be absolutely empty (without the presence of anything that, according to you, is in the universe). If you think Aether does not exist, then your vacuum is an absolutely empty space. But through such a space, nothing can move, nor is light. Aether is a substance that passes through all kinds of matter in motion in motion. He stays, and passes through matter that is on the move. Both space and time are absolute in the universe, and when viewed locally, they can be relative to the other space and time, but they can not be deformed in any case, as Einstein's and Lorenz's fatamorganists say.
milnik
5 / 5 (1) Jul 19, 2018
If you consider vacuum as a space without matter, you can not find a space without energy that is found in various waves, radiation, and the like.
Space and time do not have any interaction with each other, as Einstein seized the science and now goes into the dead end of ignorance. A humy, who constantly denies the existence of Aether, must realize that neither Aether nor electro or magnetic fields can form around the mobile charge or conductivity of a conductor through a magnetic field. Let hums consider how neutrons with Aether behave. When science understands it, everything will go the right way, but when it comes time to ask you to explain it to a scientific playboy, you will see who is right, me or you and science in general.
granville583762
not rated yet Jul 19, 2018
None of the scientists can define and say what is a vacuum. The vacuum does not have a microwave connection either with matter or energy, nor does it have any physical properties.
The vacuum can only be imagined to be in some space. Now, it depends on you how you imagine the space. Can the space be absolutely empty (without the presence of anything that, according to you, is in the universe)

You're starting to get the hang of this milnic, imagining the Vacuum is a state of mind, once you're at ease imagining space as an infinite empty void of unlimited dimensions with no physical properties and no beginning and end that is the Vacuum!
Now if you want to go further and say where the vacuum came from milnic? You have to defer to the Spiritual Entity of the Universe milnic because the Infinite Vacuum is one of those ethereal spiritual questions that cannot be answered.
Even I, a hard and fast atheist milnic, at times have to defer to the Spiritual Entities at times!
milnik
not rated yet Jul 19, 2018
Granville, you did not understand what I said again. I say that both you and the whole science feel that the vacuum is a completely empty space, without anything. There is no vacuum in the universe as you imagine it. The universe is filled with the substance from which matter is formed. It's Aether. Neither science will ever be able to empty any space and throw Aether out of it. It is impossible. These tubes in particle collisions, you think are empty (your vacuum), it's not true. There is Aether there and from it are obtained these various particles which science thinks are bosons and the like. That's why you do not understand the structure of the universe. And you are in a vacuum if you look at spirituality.
granville583762
not rated yet Jul 19, 2018
The infinite vacuum is a substance from which matter is formed
milnic> The universe is filled with the substance from which matter is formed. It's Aether.

I am setting a ground rule for what a true vacuum in actuality really is milnic!

The truth is what you're saying milnic, the universe is filled with the substance from which matter is formed because we have matter and the vacuum and matter has to come from somewhere milnic and the only place it can come from anywhere is the vacuum, which has to be what you are saying milnic, it is a substance from which matter is formed.

Milnic I have always suspected that there is the vacuum and matter, where matter comes from the infinite vacuum and the two are intertwined such that the vacuum being where matter is formed is a substance
Atomic forces always take a step by step process like the quark-gluon-plasma, the infinite vacuum is a substance from which matter is formed

There is no other explanation on the table milnic!
savvys84
not rated yet Jul 20, 2018

Nothing to do with time dilation, simply the physical effects of gravity on the transitioning electron.


Yes time dilation exists, tho where is your experimental proof of what you are asserting
milnik
not rated yet Jul 20, 2018
@granville.
Now you have to accept that your vacuum is my Aether

Please sign in to add a comment. Registration is free, and takes less than a minute. Read more

Click here to reset your password.
Sign in to get notified via email when new comments are made.