Thread: An Idea
View Single Post
Re: An Idea
Old
  (#1021 (permalink))
Fredrick
4th degree Black Belt
Fredrick is a jewel in the roughFredrick is a jewel in the rough
 
Fredrick's Avatar
 
Status: Offline
Posts: 587
Thanks Given: 44
Thanked 99x in 81 Posts
Join Date: May 2004
Rep Power: 23
   
Re: An Idea - 05-03-2008, 04:13 PM

Quote:
Originally Posted by Profpat View Post
So yes I do believe in an ether. The void I vision to be just outside of our universal space. It is that which allows our space to expand. Once space expands into the void it is no longer the void however, but space.

It is therefore not " REAL ' in that it is not, nor could it ever be part of our reality. Our reality being the universe and the void is just outside of our universe.
So in a "real" sense there is no outside, since it is void and becomes the universe once the universe enters it.

Just some of my thoughts. I also think the ether is the EMR or whatever else which may be out there. ( Quantum foam, strings, neutrinos, etc. )
Pat,

We may not be too far off then, though I would place that ether with the non-materialized part of the universe (which I think is a contradiction in terms, but you know what I mean). Ether, dark matter, and dark energy belong to that we cannot discover unless indirectly. That position of having discovered something indirectly is a precarious situation because it contains the option that we are seeing something incorrectly.

Always a fan of Einstein, and knowing he was a believer in god (based on his expression that god does not play dice, which turned out to be incorrect), I think he was creating space for the scientifically unknowable parts of our universe. As such, I think he indicated that science is a limited tool.

I hope you agree therefore with me that the question of the ether remains an open question — if ether really fits in the scientific dictionary. Personally, I feel strongly that the word void does not fit in the scientific dictionary, which may surprise you, since I am a big proponent of giving scientific prominence to the phenomenon of nothing.

My goal is to be clear about those words and concepts that help us understand the theory of everything, and to sift the words out that only muddy the picture; it is complicated enough to get the dual basics out when those basics each contain warped aspects of singularity.

Thank you for your reply, Pat, including all the gathered information you had posted earlier, which made it handy and easy to read for me.


The difference between a structure based on unification and a structure without unification hinges on the question if nothing is just plain nothing or if nothing is mighty fundamental. Read In Search of a Cyclops with titillating mathematical evidence (see homepage) to find out if separation belongs to the fundamental basics of our universe - or not.
  
Reply With Quote