HeavensWarFire's theory of the composition of outer space

[HeavensWarFire]

On what grounds



Do you base the following claims:

the person who told you that is crazy. the fact that space is at approximately 3 kelvin(due to radiation) is the most evident proof of Big Bang.

It is impossible to have a ideal condition where there is nothing(including radiation).

You accusing another of insanity does not make them so. This would be like saying that because i believe the Earth is a stantionary box, that it therefore must follow that it so.

secondly, logic seems to be destroyed by your claims.

Matter must always be smaller than space. Space must be infinite. Matter must be finite. Radiation falls under the class of matter, for it is a substance of a certain kind, hence, if matter is equal to space, then that would mean that matter is not finite, and that therefore matter is infinite, since matter appears to be equal to space. Logic dictates that over, and beyond the finiteness of matter, there is nothing but infinite space.

 

[chroot]

Originally posted by HeavensWarFire
Matter must always be smaller than space.

This doesn't make sense. Matter does not have a defined volume. You cannot compare a volumetric quantity (the size of space) with a non-volumetric one (the amount of matter).

Space must be infinite.

No, it doesn't have to be. Who says it must? You? Why should anyone care what you have to say?

Matter must be finite.

No, it doesn't have to be. Who says it must? You? Why should anyone care what you have to say?

Radiation falls under the class of matter

No. Radiation has no mass, therefore it is not matter.

if matter is equal to space

This statement has no meaning. It makes no sense.

since matter appears to be equal to space.

Neither does this one.

- Warren

 

[HeavensWarFire]

You arent too bright are yu?




Lets see. If matter is the opposite of nothingness, then theoritically speaking, there must be a total amount that must either be less than, equal, or greater than nothingness.

I reckon not a whole lot makes sense to you then?

Anyone of a sober mind would have understood the meanings of what i have said.

If something has no marks, no distinguishing charactoristics, then how is that thing different from a "nothing"? Are you going to tell me "space" is the same as something that is the opposite of a nothing? Can you know space without knowing matter? And vice versa?

Matter is anything that is the opposite of nothing, of a big fat null.

No, it doesn't have to be. Who says it must? You? Why should anyone care what you have to say?

Thats beside the point. Likewise, who has to listen to you? Are you Jesus Christ? Can you create a planet? Are you equal to GOD? Is your knowledge flawless?

You are very silly.

As to why it doesn't have to be, that seems like a claim, and like all claims, it must have some bases in reason. Why can't it be? What prevents it from being?

This statement has no meaning. It makes no sense.

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
since matter appears to be equal to space.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Neither does this one.

It makes perfect sense, you just can't comprehend. Thats like saying that because you can't lift something, that therefore it is unliftable. Aahahahahahahahahahahah.

Matter is the opposite of space. Space is what we call the vastness of the void that is around the boundaries of anything that is the opposite of nothingness.

Shall i bring a dictionary for you?

 

[chroot]

You're not going to last long...

BTW, you might want to at least attempt to learn some science before trying to change all its definitions to suit your wacky philosophical arguments.

- Warren

 

[HeavensWarFire]

LOL




Are you afraid of thoughts? Its all thoughts bro, get with it. Just words that represent thoughts. and for not lasting long, i think it is you who has proved to be without steam.

Wacky my friend, is what you seem to be, for you like to assert many things, but you can't so much as give grounds for your propositions.

Doesnt that sound a bit small minded?

I think you can access a library, and find a book or too for yourself.

Try a dictionary, and some philosophy, and you will actually learn how to use language for your better good.

 

[chroot]

Your barely coherent philosophical ramblings have been split off to the theory development forum. Please keep any further discussion about your interpretation of the words "space" or "matter" out of the main forums.

- Warren

 

[Mike2]

Originally posted by HeavensWarFire
Anyone of a sober mind would have understood the meanings of what i have said.

If something has no marks, no distinguishing charactoristics, then how is that thing different from a "nothing"? Are you going to tell me "space" is the same as something that is the opposite of a nothing? Can you know space without knowing matter? And vice versa?

Matter is anything that is the opposite of nothing, of a big fat null.

Perhaps what you are trying to say is that matter must be a submanifold of space. For there is nothing to distinguish one point (no dimensionality) from another point. And you cannot isolate one region of space from another without some boundary which would also be a submanifold of the overall space. Since matter and energy are characteristics of a sub-region of space, we need some sort of sub-manifold to serve as the boundary of the space whose energy we are considering.