wrote:
What, the "amazing" revelation that particles exist in space, even
though for all practicle purposes it can be treated as a vacuum?

The amazing thing is that space cannot exist without
those particles which provide the very structure of
space itself. It seems that space is a property of
matter rather than vice versa.
--
73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com

What, the "amazing" revelation that particles exist in space, even
though for all practicle purposes it can be treated as a vacuum?

The amazing thing is that space cannot exist without
those particles which provide the very structure of
space itself. It seems that space is a property of
matter rather than vice versa.
--
73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com

Theoretical absolutes don't happen as often as in the space in the head.
You can't convince me that gravity or magnetic fields really require a media
to travel through. Assuming there is one would be a crutch. Didn't stop us
from getting people to the moon and back.

JB wrote:

...
Theoretical absolutes don't happen as often as in the space in the head.
You can't convince me that gravity or magnetic fields really require a media
to travel through. Assuming there is one would be a crutch. Didn't stop us
from getting people to the moon and back.


Although not clearly stated for the "general public", isn't that exactly
what the Hadron project is all about?; splitting matter down to its'
smallest particle(s), and therefore, discovering the "matter" which
space itself is constructed from?

I mean, that is what I expect ...

Regards,
JS

John Smith wrote:
Although not clearly stated for the "general public", isn't that exactly
what the Hadron project is all about?; splitting matter down to its'
smallest particle(s), and therefore, discovering the "matter" which
space itself is constructed from?

Stephen Hawking has predicted that CERN will not
find the Higgs bosom, the only particle in the
Standard Model that has not been detected.
--
73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com

Cecil Moore wrote:

...
Stephen Hawking has predicted that CERN will not
find the Higgs bosom, the only particle in the
Standard Model that has not been detected.

Yep, it is pretty-much, up-for-grabs. Even the CERN project may fall
short of energy levels required ... but then, you have to start somewhere.

Regards,
JS

JB wrote:
You can't convince me that gravity or magnetic fields really require a media
to travel through. Assuming there is one would be a crutch. Didn't stop us
from getting people to the moon and back.

We certainly traveled through the medium of space in
order to get to the moon. EM photons obviously travel
through the medium of space.

What you need to prove is that EM photons can travel
somewhere else besides the medium of space, i.e.
outside of the boundaries of the universe.

(P.S. Since "media" is the plural of "medium",
"a media" is improper.)
--
73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com

Cecil Moore wrote:

The amazing thing is that space cannot exist without
those particles which provide the very structure of
space itself.

One would first have to presume to know what space is in order to
stipulate the conditions for its existence. Ample amounts of
foolishness and arrogance would be required to make such a presumption.
On the other hand reasonable men speculate about what it might be.
The only thing we can be sure of is what it is _not_.

73, ac6xg

Jim Kelley wrote:
One would first have to presume to know what space is in order to
stipulate the conditions for its existence.

We know space exists and according to quantum physics,
nothing except particles exist. It doesn't take a
rocket scientist to conclude that, if quantum physics
is correct, then space must be constructed of particles
albeit possibly as yet undiscovered and possibly
unmeasurable particles.

http://www.astronomycafe.net/qadir/q1501.html
http://www.world-science.net/otherne...1014_empty.htm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vacuum_energy
http://www.infidels.org/library/mode...ic/vacuum.html
http://discovermagazine.com/2008/aug...of-everything/
--
73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com

Cecil Moore wrote:
Jim Kelley wrote:
One would first have to presume to know what space is in order to
stipulate the conditions for its existence.

We know space exists and according to quantum physics,
nothing except particles exist. It doesn't take a
rocket scientist to conclude that, if quantum physics
is correct, then space must be constructed of particles
albeit possibly as yet undiscovered and possibly
unmeasurable particles.

And with that you feel that you can claim to know what space 'is'.

It must be just marvelous to be you. :-)

ac6xg

Jim Kelley wrote:
And with that you feel that you can claim to know what space 'is'.

Sorry, I never claimed to know what space is, just
that I know it's not empty which has been proved.
Space is something, as opposed to nothing.
--
73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com