Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

HeavensWarFire's theory of the composition of outer space

  1. Dec 10, 2003 #1
    On what grounds



    Do you base the following claims:

    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.
     
  2. jcsd
  3. Dec 10, 2003 #2

    chroot

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    Re: On what grounds

    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).
    No, it doesn't have to be. Who says it must? You? Why should anyone care what you have to say?
    No, it doesn't have to be. Who says it must? You? Why should anyone care what you have to say?
    No. Radiation has no mass, therefore it is not matter.
    This statement has no meaning. It makes no sense.
    Neither does this one.

    - Warren
     
  4. Dec 10, 2003 #3
    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 gonna 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.
    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 doesnt have to be, that seems like a claim, and like all claims, it must have some bases in reason. Why cant it be? What prevents it from being?

    It makes perfect sense, you just cant comprehend. Thats like saying that because you cant 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?

     
  5. Dec 10, 2003 #4

    chroot

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    You're not gonna last long.... :wink:

    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
     
  6. Dec 10, 2003 #5
    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 cant 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.
     
  7. Dec 10, 2003 #6

    chroot

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    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
     
  8. Dec 16, 2003 #7
    Re: You arent too bright are yu?

    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.
     
Know someone interested in this topic? Share this thread via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook

Have something to add?



Similar Discussions: HeavensWarFire's theory of the composition of outer space
  1. Laser in outer space (Replies: 3)

Loading...