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

Cecil Moore wrote:
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,

Ah, but you did pretend to.

73, ac6xg

Jim Kelley wrote:
Cecil Moore wrote:
Sorry, I never claimed to know what space is,

Ah, but you did pretend to.

No, I speculated about space and offered my personal
opinion. If that opinion is ever proved wrong, I
will change it.
--
73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com

Cecil Moore wrote:
Jim Kelley wrote:
Cecil Moore wrote:
Sorry, I never claimed to know what space is,

Ah, but you did pretend to.

No, I speculated about space and offered my personal
opinion.

I see. Well, at the time it sounded more like you were saying "The
amazing thing is that space cannot exist without those particles which
provide the very structure of space itself." Which seems to presume to
know what space is.

If that opinion is ever proved wrong, I
will change it.

All the while shouting demeaning epithets, and ever after claiming to
have never held the opinion in the first place. :-)

73, ac6xg

Jim Kelley wrote:

...
I see. Well, at the time it sounded more like you were saying "The
amazing thing is that space cannot exist without those particles which
provide the very structure of space itself." Which seems to presume to
know what space is.
...
All the while shouting demeaning epithets, and ever after claiming to
have never held the opinion in the first place. :-)

73, ac6xg

Yes, I see your point. Space is real; however, does it consist of
bosons or the imaginings/denials of bozos.

Excellent point ...

Regards,
JS

On Sep 19, 6:47*pm, John Smith wrote:
Jim Kelley wrote:
...
I see. *Well, at the time it sounded more like you were saying "The
amazing thing is that space cannot exist without those particles which
provide the very structure of space itself." *Which seems to presume to
know what space is.
...
All the while shouting demeaning epithets, and ever after claiming to
have never held the opinion in the first place. *:-)

73, ac6xg

Yes, I see your point. *Space is real; *however, does it consist of
bosons or the imaginings/denials of bozos.

Excellent point ...

Regards,
JS

Johns Rules for Posting:

CASE I

1. Author makes post.

2. Cecil validates post.

3. John pounces on author's opponent.

CASE II

1. Author makes post.

2. Cecil invalidates post.

3. John pounces on author.

Jim Kelley wrote:
Well, at the time it sounded more like you were saying "The
amazing thing is that space cannot exist without those particles which
provide the very structure of space itself."

Quantum Physics tells us that particles are the only
things that exist in reality so since space exists,
it must be made of particles without which space couldn't
exist. My personal opinion is that Quantum Physics is
correct and that's what I was paraphrasing above.

My personal opinion is that Einstein was correct when
he said:

"Recapitulating, we may say that according to the
general theory of relativity space is endowed with
physical qualities; in this sense, therefore, there
exists an ether. According to the general theory of
relativity space without ether is unthinkable; for
in such space there not only would be no propagation
of light, but also no possibility of existence for
standards of space and time (measuring-rods and
clocks), nor therefore any space-time intervals in
the physical sense."

Replace "physical qualities" with "particles" in
accordance with the latest thinking in Quantum
Physics and you will have arrived at my personal
opinion. Feel free to continue to harass me for
having opinions based on science. In exactly what
ways do you disagree with Quantum Physics and
Einstein?
--
73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com

On Sep 17, 5:16*pm, Jim Kelley wrote:
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
If I drew a vacuum on a bottle on earth and then let the black hole
apply its forces upon the innards of the bottle
would it extract any thing more than the operation on earth? I kinda
look at the black hole as the datum level of maximum force
as a reaction to the big bang and that datum is not the same as that
on earth. Thus a vacuum on earth is not a perfect vacuum in terrestial
form. Quite a quandry for me when determining what nothing is and when
a implosion would occur. Frankly Jim I don't feel what nothing is can
be answered
Very best regards
Art

Art Unwin wrote:
Jim
If I drew a vacuum on a bottle on earth and then let the black hole
apply its forces upon the innards of the bottle
would it extract any thing more than the operation on earth? I kinda
look at the black hole as the datum level of maximum force
as a reaction to the big bang and that datum is not the same as that
on earth. Thus a vacuum on earth is not a perfect vacuum in terrestial
form. Quite a quandry for me when determining what nothing is and when
a implosion would occur. Frankly Jim I don't feel what nothing is can
be answered
Very best regards
Art

So you are saying that the quantum foam would disappear because of the
black hole? Ever hear of Hawking Radiation?

Bet Cecil and I agree on this one.

tom
K0TAR