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

On Sep 17, 6:01*pm, Cecil Moore wrote:
wrote:
... I disagree since empty space is
also "nothing" as defined in this universe. Empty space,in locii where
the exotic paricles do not exist, needs no structure. It is that
without structure.

You need to update your knowledge to the 21st century.
"Empty" space has been proved not to be empty and
therefore not "nothing".
--
73, Cecil *http://www.w5dxp.com

Please show me the reference that proves empty is not nothing and I
will prove by definition of the word empty that empty is not
something. This is true even in the 21st centruy.

Cecil Moore wrote:

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.


No strings allowed then?

tom
K0TAR

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

wrote:
On Sep 17, 6:01 pm, Cecil Moore wrote:
wrote:
... I disagree since empty space is
also "nothing" as defined in this universe. Empty space,in locii where
the exotic paricles do not exist, needs no structure. It is that
without structure.
You need to update your knowledge to the 21st century.
"Empty" space has been proved not to be empty and
therefore not "nothing".
--
73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com

Please show me the reference that proves empty is not nothing and I
will prove by definition of the word empty that empty is not
something. This is true even in the 21st centruy.

I think what he means and hasn't said is "Nothing can be truly empty".
Period. No matter what you do.

Although extracting energy through the Casimir effect can cause a very
small space to have lower that normal foam in it. It's due to very
short spacing constraining the longest wavelength allowed in between the
plates. Which is not really different than the normal ways things
temporarily can change entropy in a volume.

tom
K0TAR

JB wrote:
"Cecil Moore" wrote in message
...
JB wrote:
So you are trying to tell me that if I completely evacuate a sealed
glass
jar it then contains space?
Casimir effect experiments have been run in
a vacuum and proved there is lots of "stuff"
still there even in empty space. There is
no such thing as nothingness, at least not
within the space of our universe.
--
73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com

Ok now yer giving me a headache by explaining an observation on theories
based upon theories base upon theories. In the Casimir experiments, there
are plates or shapes deliberately placed in the vacuum.

Quantum theory goes too far into the theoretical for my taste. It is a
curious mental and mathematical exercise but it reminds me of Leibnitz'
Monad theory of existence. It doesn't help me with antenna performance. Go
there without me.


The Casimir effect is NOT theory. It's pretty easily detected and
measured, as quantum things go.

tom
K0TAR

On Sep 17, 8:57*pm, Tom Ring wrote:
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

No I am not saying anything I was asking for Jim's thoughts on the
matter.
He is a straight shooter and I admit to having tunnel vision and this
sort of stuff
is outside my focus. On the question....No I have not heard of
Hawkings radiation.
I am aware that he does not agree CERN will be successfull and that he
is also
trying for a divorce, nothing more. and that includes quantum foam
which stays in the bottle possibly.
Art

Art Unwin wrote:
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?

An interesting question. Assuming a perfect vacuum
and the entire bottle outside of the event horizon
of the stationary black hole, would the black hole
ever eat the bottle? I suspect the black hole would
collapse space inside the bottle on its way to eating
the bottle.
--
73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com

wrote:
Please show me the reference that proves empty is not nothing and I
will prove by definition of the word empty that empty is not
something. This is true even in the 21st centruy.

If you chose to use colloquial English, you have to
live (or die) by fuzzy unscientific definitions. The
definition for "empty" that I have been using here is
"absolute nothing", i.e. no space and not even the
structure of space is there. I defined my use of the
word "empty" days ago. It is the same as a *literal*
interpretation of the definition from Websters's:

"empty - 1. containing nothing", i.e. literally

"empty - containing absolutely nothing including space"
--
73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com

Tom Ring wrote:
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.

I'm sure we agree *in the long run* that the black
hole would eventually dissipate. In the short term,
I would guess that the black hole would eat the bottle.

I wonder if our universe is nothing more than Hawking
Radiation?
--
73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com