• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every persons position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

Can you prove that the Space is real?

zyzygy

DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 6, 2014
Messages
42,616
Reaction score
8,317
Location
Flanders.
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Space and time existed long before we arrived on the scene. They do exist. They are not creations of the mind.
 

BlackMatters

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 20, 2017
Messages
577
Reaction score
92
Yes. I can and I have many times. I did so with the Answer.
Even from a scientific standpoint, there reaches a point where you are forced to take a leap of faith as with religion. That's why I've always refrained from mocking people for what they believe in. Until I have an answer I'm content with for every single question I have, I'm going to logically assume that I probably shouldn't dispel too much.
 

Skeptic Bob

DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 6, 2014
Messages
16,626
Reaction score
19,487
Location
Texas
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Left
Far as know, I'm the only one conscious....all the rest of you are just programs to fool me into believing I'm not alone.
You never know.

Or your perceived life is just a really intense psychedelic trip and when you “die” you wake up from the trip. Granted, that sounds most plausible to me when I actually am tripping. :)
 

Tanngrisnir

DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 2, 2016
Messages
34,150
Reaction score
15,592
Location
No longer Los Angeles
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Even from a scientific standpoint, there reaches a point where you are forced to take a leap of faith as with religion. That's why I've always refrained from mocking people for what they believe in. Until I have an answer I'm content with for every single question I have, I'm going to logically assume that I probably shouldn't dispel too much.
That's actually an inaccurate statement. It has a lot to do with semantics.

Scientific 'faith' is utterly and irreconcilably different from religious faith.
 

the_recruit

DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 30, 2011
Messages
4,207
Reaction score
2,615
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Space and time are just innate mental templates hardwired in the human mind serving to order human experience.
They don't really exist, or rather they exist in our experience of reality because our minds put them there.
See Kant's Critique of Pure Reason.
Yeahhh but it turns out that we have good reasons for supposing that space is non-Euclidean (a la Einstein). Which is a problem for Kant's view of space as an a priori intuitive. FWIW Kant's views on space are not widely accepted among academic philosophers nowadays for this very reason (and because of challenges to the synthetic/analytic distinction raised in the 20th century).
 
Last edited:

Skeptic Bob

DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 6, 2014
Messages
16,626
Reaction score
19,487
Location
Texas
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Left
Everyone always scoffs and makes humor of those who are open to the simulated reality theory, and it probably doesn't help that the University of Oxford suggests that "even just to store the information about a few hundred electrons on a computer, one would require a memory built from more atoms than there are in the universe." However, notable astrophysists who are actually notorious for dispelling silly theories have actually came forward and asserted it's very likely that we could be the simple yet complex complex creation of a being we're not familiar with, with the intelligence of which would leave us drooling over ourselves like brain-dead half-bred monkeys in comparison. We share the majority of our DNA with monkeys, and what the course of evolution had produced (humans) wouldn't be enough if the Darwin theory is correct.

Not to mention, there's a clear pattern throughout history with Russia that we've always had. We've always tried to best them at everything and the moon was no exception. The friction and competitive haste between our two countries are still the same to this very day. There are several different notable people with reputable backgrounds who believe the moon landing was actually a hoax as well.

As far as where to draw the line on only believing what you can see, I think it's very important to ALWAYS remain a particular level of skepticism about almost anything. Not limited to just history either. Hell, if it wasnt for people like Christina Hall, we'd be ALL easily manipulated into conforming to our society in the exact way that those in control would want us to. It's happening vastly, but if that was actually happening in whole and not in part, well.. you get the picture...

I always admired those who read texts from history books and learn to question it. Oftentimes the source comes from a distorted reality of what actually happened. Something as simple as our own American history is notorious for false accounts and distorted renditions being taught in schools as fact, only to misinform our youth. Sometimes the history books we read are nothing more than propaganda.

Shifting the focus over towards European history, and most historians wouldn't dare tell you that Hitler is arguably the most lied about people throughout the entire timeline of human history. Even the most honest historians who know this would never dare acknowledge it because of the unwarranted shunning and scornful criticisms that would ensue. All of the outlash would make it appear as if they were attempting to assert Hitler was one of the greatest human beings on the planet, but simply asserting truths and critiquing what has already been deemed as fact is that in itself, enough to shake your head at.
The bolded never really convinced me. Let’s assume we are simulated. Our observable universe could be tiny compared to the “real” universe. Second, we don’t know what the physics of the real universe are like. Maybe their reality isn’t “quantized” like ours. Third, even if the real universe is exactly like ours, the programmers wouldn’t have to mimic it atom for atom to make it a useful model. Perhaps the finer details only rasterize when beings in the simulation look at them. Just like when I play a video game, the game only shows me what I need to see at any given moment.
 

the_recruit

DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 30, 2011
Messages
4,207
Reaction score
2,615
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
But, that still doesn't under cut my point. At least as things are now, and measurably so, existing matter requires space to occupy. I am not aware of any spaceless matter postulated.
Well, certainly the classical (Newtonian) view is that we have this empty container called "space" which exists as a primary; and into which we can drop objects like particles (which can only exist "within" a space of some sort). But my understanding is that in contemporary physics space (and time) "drop out" of the fundamental equations. Instead of space and time being a necessary framework within which we can understand physical interactions, it seems the reverse. That the particles (or fields or whatever) and interactions are primary (without any space or time) and that space and time spontaneously emerges out of these relations at a higher level. In the same way that, say, temperature is an emergent phenomenon - at the level of individual particles there is no such thing as "temperature"; temperature only emerges as a real phenomenon at a higher level.
 

Tim the plumber

DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 3, 2014
Messages
15,288
Reaction score
3,451
Location
Sheffield
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
Well, certainly the classical (Newtonian) view is that we have this empty container called "space" which exists as a primary; and into which we can drop objects like particles (which can only exist "within" a space of some sort). But my understanding is that in contemporary physics space (and time) "drop out" of the fundamental equations. Instead of space and time being a necessary framework within which we can understand physical interactions, it seems the reverse. That the particles (or fields or whatever) and interactions are primary (without any space or time) and that space and time spontaneously emerges out of these relations at a higher level. In the same way that, say, temperature is an emergent phenomenon - at the level of individual particles there is no such thing as "temperature"; temperature only emerges as a real phenomenon at a higher level.
Fine, but given we live at a higher level than the interactions within sub-atomic particals, space is real.

Real for us.

Nothing else matters for us.




At least directly.
 

Casper

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 14, 2015
Messages
23,013
Reaction score
8,933
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
I contend that there is no space. That every pocket of area is filled. With something. Dark matter? Maybe. All mass, all area, in the universe, is filled.


With something.
It is just a word to describe what we see..............
 

Binary_Digit

DP Veteran
Joined
May 21, 2005
Messages
4,048
Reaction score
1,577
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
I contend that there is no space. That every pocket of area is filled. With something. Dark matter? Maybe. All mass, all area, in the universe, is filled.


With something.
This is my thinking as well. In the early 1900's, physicists thought the aether must exist, but after years of failing to detect it they finally gave up. I think the recent detection of gravitational waves has given the idea some new life. Gravitational waves, gravitational lensing, time dilation, and orbital mechanics all converge to strongly suggest that something like the aether does exist as a malleable, rubber-like "substance" of some sort.
 

wellwisher

DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 20, 2017
Messages
1,173
Reaction score
431
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Conservative
Space can be explained by first using an analogy to color. When we look at objects, what we see is the light that is reflected off the object. For example, we see grass as green, due to the reflection of green light off the grass.

The sun gives off all wavelengths of visible light. The grass absorbs red and blue for photosynthesis, but it has no use for the green light. This is reflected off the grass, to make it appear green. This reflected green light goes into our eyes, and is then converted to signals, that go into the brain to be interpreted, through instinct and convention, as the green color of the grass.

When we see white objects, the color white is due to all the colors of the spectrum, being reflected off the object, onto our eyes. Our eyes sends signals to the brain, that interprets this as a white object. Black, on the other hand, is the absence of all reflected color. Black absorbs all the colors of the spectrum and reflects none. When we think we see a black object, there is actually no signal going into the eyes, to flow into the brain, to be interpreted by the brain. What we actually see is all the light around the black object, with the black object a light gap in the middle.

The brain interprets the shape of the gap, like the black type print on white background, as a form, even though there is no light, directly defining the black type. We do not see the black type, since no light is reflected to enter our eyes. The appearance of the black object, does not start in the eyes, since there is no light signal. Rather it starts in the brain, based on the light gap within the eyes. It is not there in the sense of seeing. It is there via the brain and imagination as an interpretation.

Space is similar, in that it is a gap, which lacks all reflected output, that can trigger any of our five sensory systems. Space does not give off any signal, that uses our senses, for signals into the brain for a direct interpretation of a tangible reality object. Space is inferred, as an object, by the brain, based on the dark silhouette, defined by the surrounding matter and energy, even though the silhouette, does not give off any output, attributed to a tangible object, relative to the senses. Space is an unconscious and imagination brain game. There is human tendency to make this imaginary space, tangible, when it is in really, it is an interpreted presence.

In that sense, space is similar to a science version of a concept like God. God does not appear to enter the brain, through the eyes or any sensory system, when experiments are performed in the lab. Rather it begins in the brain, as an interpretation of the gaps, in the surrounding sensory input. God and space, by by-passing the sensory systems, is interpreted directly by the brain.
 

zyzygy

DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 6, 2014
Messages
42,616
Reaction score
8,317
Location
Flanders.
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
This is my thinking as well. In the early 1900's, physicists thought the aether must exist, but after years of failing to detect it they finally gave up. I think the recent detection of gravitational waves has given the idea some new life. Gravitational waves, gravitational lensing, time dilation, and orbital mechanics all converge to strongly suggest that something like the aether does exist as a malleable, rubber-like "substance" of some sort.
Several high-profile theoretical physicists have lined up to support Starkman's theory, including Jacob Bekenstein, theoretical physics professor at Hebrew University in Jerusalem, Israel, and Andreas Albrecht, cosmologist and physics professor at the University of California, Davis.

Still, Starkman acknowledges that his theory is in its infancy and may not stand up to rigorous testing.

"We're offering an alternative to the dark matter theory—we're not saying it's wrong. If I had to bet today on which of these theories was correct, I might bet on dark matter."

Meanwhile, many other experts are sitting on the fence.

Michael Turner, an astrophysicist at the University of Chicago in Illinois, is intrigued by Starkman's theory, but he hesitates to accept it wholesale due to its troubling implications.

For example, the presence of ether would create holes in Einstein's theories of relativity, the widely accepted explanations for how light moves and gravity works (read an excerpt and see images from "Einstein and Beyond" in National Geographic magazine).

"It's early to tell whether this [ether] theory will really pass through the gate," Turner said. "When you change the theory of gravity, you could cause lots of problems elsewhere.

"It's an interesting Plan B, but we already have a pretty good Plan A."

https://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2006/09/060908-dark-matter_2.html
 

Binary_Digit

DP Veteran
Joined
May 21, 2005
Messages
4,048
Reaction score
1,577
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
Space is similar, in that it is a gap, which lacks all reflected output, that can trigger any of our five sensory systems. Space does not give off any signal, that uses our senses, for signals into the brain for a direct interpretation of a tangible reality object. Space is inferred, as an object, by the brain, based on the dark silhouette, defined by the surrounding matter and energy, even though the silhouette, does not give off any output, attributed to a tangible object, relative to the senses. Space is an unconscious and imagination brain game. There is human tendency to make this imaginary space, tangible, when it is in really, it is an interpreted presence.
Aren't there plenty of cases where we know something exists even though we can't detect it directly? (Black holes, Neptune before it was observed in telescopes, etc.) Empty space may not reflect light or any other electromagnetic wave, but it does propagate waves of gravity. So unless we start calling gravity a particle, like photons, we're left with little choice but to consider that empty space is actually composed of some yet-to-be-discovered quantum substance.


Michael Turner, an astrophysicist at the University of Chicago in Illinois, is intrigued by Starkman's theory, but he hesitates to accept it wholesale due to its troubling implications.

For example, the presence of ether would create holes in Einstein's theories of relativity, the widely accepted explanations for how light moves and gravity works (read an excerpt and see images from "Einstein and Beyond" in National Geographic magazine).

"It's early to tell whether this [ether] theory will really pass through the gate," Turner said. "When you change the theory of gravity, you could cause lots of problems elsewhere.
I don't agree that an aether would poke holes in Einstein's theories, nor does it significantly change general relativity's explanation of gravity. Here's a quote from Einstein:

"We may say that according to the general theory of relativity space is endowed with physical qualities; in this sense, therefore, there exists an aether. According to the general theory of relativity space without aether 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. But this aether may not be thought of as endowed with the quality characteristic of ponderable media, as consisting of parts which may be tracked through time. The idea of motion may not be applied to it."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aether_theories

In later papers, Einstein refers to the "spacetime continuum" instead of aether. He says gravity is not a "force", rather a "consequence" of the curvature of the spacetime continuum. I believe that spacetime and the aether are one and the same. A malleable, rubber-like substance of some strange sort.
 
Last edited:

KevinKohler

DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 4, 2011
Messages
21,915
Reaction score
9,960
Location
CT
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
This is my thinking as well. In the early 1900's, physicists thought the aether must exist, but after years of failing to detect it they finally gave up. I think the recent detection of gravitational waves has given the idea some new life. Gravitational waves, gravitational lensing, time dilation, and orbital mechanics all converge to strongly suggest that something like the aether does exist as a malleable, rubber-like "substance" of some sort.
Energy travels by osmosis, more or less. Except in space? Nope. There must be something that energy passes through to travel.
 

Nilly

stb
DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 12, 2014
Messages
6,869
Reaction score
3,804
Location
DC
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Progressive

rhinefire

DP Veteran
Joined
May 3, 2007
Messages
8,389
Reaction score
1,977
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Conservative
There is no such thing as this thread.
 

Lord Tammerlain

DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 25, 2010
Messages
18,486
Reaction score
7,888
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Energy travels by osmosis, more or less. Except in space? Nope. There must be something that energy passes through to travel.
Like all elementary particles, photons are currently best explained by quantum mechanics and exhibit wave–particle duality, exhibiting properties of both waves and particle
Particles can travel through a vacuum.
 

zyzygy

DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 6, 2014
Messages
42,616
Reaction score
8,317
Location
Flanders.
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Osmosis-the tendency of a fluid, usually water, to pass through a semipermeable membrane into a solution where the solvent concentration is higher, thus equalizing the concentrations of materials on either side of the membrane.
 

Evilroddy

Pragmatic, pugalistic, prancing, porcine politico.
DP Veteran
Joined
May 30, 2017
Messages
5,426
Reaction score
2,954
Location
Canada
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Centrist
Real question, can you?
BlackMatters:

Space can be proved to exist at most levels of existence by empirical methods. Space may be redefined as space-time or a harmonic fluid existing at a very small scale. At very small distances near or below the Planck length (1.6 X 10^-35 meters) both mathematics and empirical capacity break down and we are left with unknowns. So the answer to your question is yes and no! Welcome to the fuzzy universe!

Are we correct in our understanding of space-time? Probably not, but it's the journey of the search and not the final destination which is the great part of science.

Cheers.
Evilroddy.
 
Top Bottom