[dleviwing]

Originally Posted by dipayankar

We follow a chain and somehow the chain leads us to something from nothing if followed logically. Most of the time, we tend to 'invent' our own theories and concoctions just to please ourselves as well as satisfy our theories..

And some people know how to us logic; you know, “if it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, looks like a duck, it’s probably a CAT!” I try to ignore these logical people and just think.

[dipayankar]

Haw haw har har... That was funny. However can absolute vacuum produce particles?? If yes then is it violating the theory of conservation? Or do we need to relook at these antiquated theories like Einstein relooked at the theory of Gravity?

Originally Posted by dleviwing

And some people know how to us logic; you know, “if it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, looks like a duck, it’s probably a CAT!” I try to ignore these logical people and just think.

[N0B0DY]

I think it was RascalPuff who cited "Nothing begets nothing." A fair assessment I would say because change is an impossibility. The scientific vacuum isn't absolute, and if we put Dirac and Mandelbrot together we would perhaps get an Einstein with his relativity functioning infinitely.

If we start with causeless matter/energy that must be conserved, and particles are halved infinitely it will never become zero no matter how long the chain is. Yet, this proposition unavoidably creates a paradox of the real kind, which is proposing existence within non-existence. I call this highly illogical.

Conversely, if the absolute state never changes, but the state is understood as absolute speed - not "c" in free space - it forms the basis for relativity to function locally anywhere without paradox through a reduction in that absolute speed.

We then have to ask ourselves how speed can possibly be reduced if there is no such thing as space, time, this, that, etc.. It is reduced only through the abstract perspectives of non-existence: one is expansive through division - which doesn't literally change the absolute state; and the other is contractive through multiplication - which doesn't literally change the absolute state. The former creates spacetime incrementally allowing abiogenesis, mutation, and evolution to occur through time; and the latter provides the motionless medium.

Another way to consider it is through considering the time it takes you, light, and the absolute universe to reach the sun. The absolute perspective can't include space and time because there is no time to judge space, and there is no space to cover through time.

[dleviwing]

Originally Posted by dipayankar

However can absolute vacuum produce particles?? If yes then is it violating the theory of conservation?

Today "vacuum" is just another word for space and thus the answer is YES. If it's an absolute "VOID" then the answer is NO.

With all due respect gentlemen, you really do not know what you are talking about or you are confused!

[N0B0DY]

There is a difference between absolute vacuum and absolute void or even absolute space? I would disagree, Dave.

The point is how does the scientific vacuum produce particles? If through virtual particles from vacuum fluctuations, then what exactly are virtual particles, space, etc. made of?

I think ultimately it's a matter of thinking more deeply about normal things, than it is a matter of acquiring a normal understanding of how people think about things.

[dleviwing]

First of all Nobody, unless you are creating your own definitions, “absolute” cannot apply as an adjective to either space nor vacuum. Both are inundated with electromagnetic radiation (a state of fundamental matter) and thus both have the raw material to form what we know of as particles; even if it is for a short increment of time to call them virtual. An absolute void would not even have this state of the fundamental substance of the universe. It is the PLACE where a vacuum, space, and everything else occupies a tinny volume.

[N0B0DY]

I can see your point about using absolute as an adjective, Dave. Very clearly actually, because when I usually use the term it pertains to non-existence.

Though it could also be used to separate substrata, like a room for example being flooded with water (electromagnetic radiation) would have the room itself as its substratum or more specifically the air in the room. I know you meant that the radiation would pertain more to a state of the water, but I just wanted to give an example of more refined layers that have been proposed to me in the past. Layers that can be refined - H2O, O, H... - where we could say that hydrogen exists within all atoms. Further, could less massive atoms exist within hydrogen? Why not?

Even if that were possible, the bottom line is that there has to be a motionless medium for any sensory motion to be possible. Otherwise, if someone were to stand in front of you and attempt to push you, you would move before you were even touched. And my point here, Dave, is relatively simple: if every point in space must be motionless, all observations of motion must be incremental re-creations. Wavelengths included, must be recreated measurements between two abstract points. Abstract, because the points must be non-dimensional.

I couldn't tell by your response, though, if the EM-filled void you mentioned is the same as the void in your thread title. I'm assuming they are different.

Just one more thing, if I may, the point you made about the "short increment of time" can express my point even clearer actually. If short-lived particles are a necessary factor of longer-living particles, is it fair to say that no particles is a necessay factor in creating time-dependent particles? Or, put another way, what would be a fair estimate of the shortest-living particles?

[dipayankar]

If void cannot hold any matter, then the topic of this discussion is answered.. unless we are looking at some other explaination..

Originally Posted by dleviwing

Today "vacuum" is just another word for space and thus the answer is YES. If it's an absolute "VOID" then the answer is NO.

With all due respect gentlemen, you really do not know what you are talking about or you are confused!

[dleviwing]

Originally Posted by N0B0DY

I couldn't tell by your response, though, if the EM-filled void you mentioned is the same as the void in your thread title. I'm assuming they are different.

Just one more thing, if I may, the point you made about the "short increment of time" can express my point even clearer actually. If short-lived particles are a necessary factor of longer-living particles, is it fair to say that no particles is a necessay factor in creating time-dependent particles? Or, put another way, what would be a fair estimate of the shortest-living particles?

The “void” is the same as that inferred in the header title; space and vacuum are states of the substance that occupy regions of that infinite void.

It is only my view that to form any particle or autonomous unit from fundamental matter, an absolute quantity of motion must be concentrated upon a quantum increment quantity of fundamental matter (Planck unit). This normally occurs at sites of wave interference; it occurs more often when the fundamental substance is concentrated in regions of high spatial density like what we call black holes and singularities.

One of the best advices I can offer to those attempting to comprehend the science jargon is to keep your thinking out of the fantasy worlds of interpretations. This simply means don’t fall for the time traveling alternate dimensional hyperspace science fiction. Just keep your thinking real.

[N0B0DY]

Ok, Dave, that seems to be much clearer and more plausible a standpoint than what I originally thought was an entire universe existing within a non-existent void. We can have differentiable densities forming matter separated by an electromagnetic field infinitely, if I'm not misreading you.

Some say that a galaxy wouldn't exist if there were not a black hole at the center, or the universe wouldn't exist if there were not a singular origin. Whether or not my abstract observations or your real observations are accurate is irrelevant, because the effects must be due to variable quanta - I would think always. There must be causes to create various effects of particular magnitudes, and my question is are the causes cumulative.

If we consider that it had been inferred that atoms were indivisible whereas now they are deemed composite, we might want to ask where the finish line is. If macroscopic causes are now deemed the result of microscopic effects, which in turn are the result of quantum causes, what exactly is causing processionary effects?

I know why scientists justify limitations based on empirical evidence. And I have nothing against scientists, outside of playing with dangerous things without fully knowing the consequences, but to indirectly influence people's sense of reality based on those limitations is another matter. Intrinsic properties, particular quanta, planck units, renormalization, etc., are based upon uncertainties due to instrumentation that render the starting points of measurements non-zero. There can be no such thing as an accurate measurement in science, and therefore depictions of what is called reality must be just that, less-than-accurate. Conversely, the logic of the mind knows no bounds, and is the basis for making yesteryear's science fiction the science that you know today.

Ultimately, I would ask if a quark can be rendered comparable in size to the entire universe, if we account for infinitesimal quanta (defined as quanta infinitely less than quarks)? I would think that with all the evidence of fractal geometry found in nature, and knowing that the laws required to produce such phenomena must follow throughout unobservable scales which are the basis of observable fractals, it is fairly probable if not certain.

We can know absolute reality and relative reality by knowing what is required for infinitesimal particles to function as movable spatial densities, which is the motionless and pointless origin of motion and point measurements (momentum and position).