Space theory-idea

  • Thread starter Lifegazer
  • Start date

Lifegazer

Would it be feasible to consider everything as a form of positive & negative space?
For example, when charge moves through the positive-space (of matter), there is an instant negative-response, so that a charge runs-through space - creating the magnetic-field.
Also; for every atom with a positive-nucleus of this positive-space, an electron is created as a negative-response [for every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction]. But within the context of this idea for a theory, I propose that an electron is actually a dynamic-field of negative-space which surrounds the positive space, and which has the properties which we now associate with 'an electron'.
Also, gravity can now be considered as a force of matter (positive-space), because gravity is the unifying force of matter. Hence, there is an opposing force created through space - a disunifying force, through space, which grows ever-weaker with distance. Thus, a gravitational-field can be considered as a disunifying-force of negative-space, which is merely a natural response to the presence of a unifying-force which we know as gravity, which exists within all matter (positive-space).

Any room for discussion? Or is it a dodo?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I think that all known to us the forses and the fields, or more exactly all phenomenas, have one purpose. This prevention from destruction or conservation of an created objects. They must save the TIME of THEIR EXISTENCE or inherent to each object the Time Cycle. With this view becomes comprehensible the presence of the power of the reluctance on any action. This statement is valid on any level from atom before the whole universe, including alive world with all its manifestations.
On this reason any action of people threatenning to the nature does meets the reluctance.
 

Eh

671
1
LG,

Everything in the universe gravitates, including electrons with negative charge. That is, everything with mass is curved space. The gravitational field then, is just the geometry of space-time. In that sense, gravity is not really a force at all, and it has nothing to do with the positive and negative charges.

Now space itslef can have negative or positive curvature, but again the terms positive and negative are just arbitrary scales we've imposed.
 

(Q)

143
0
Lifey

I don't understand what your point is with this thread. According to you, everything is of the mind - there is no reality hence no space, no matter, no charge, no electrons - nothing. Its all in the mind, right?
 

Lifegazer

Originally posted by (Q)
Lifey

I don't understand what your point is with this thread. According to you, everything is of the mind - there is no reality hence no space, no matter, no charge, no electrons - nothing. Its all in the mind, right?
Science and math still exists, even if I was right. We still see what we see, and it works in a specific manner.
I'm genuinely interested in science. Was looking for a direction to explore, through physics (not to heavy on the math though please).
 

Lifegazer

Originally posted by Eh
Everything in the universe gravitates,
Space opposes matter, does it not? Something must, anyway.
including electrons with negative charge.
But an electron would be regarded as negative-matter in regards to my first post. It has mass. Therefore, it must gravitate.
That is, everything with mass is curved space.
Exactly. And everything without mass (fields) is smooth negative-space. Fits in, see.
The gravitational field then, is just the geometry of space-time.
So I could say that the gravitational-field is a disunifying-force of smooth space? How does that sound?
In that sense, gravity is not really a force at all, and it has nothing to do with the positive and negative charges.
Gravity brings matter together again right? It's a force which exists within matter itself. It's just like magnetism, I think. It exists within the matter... and the force is opposed, through space. Hence, a magnetic-field might be considered as the negative magnetism of smooth space. Likewise, gravity draws matter together, and the gravitational-field throws space apart.
I can't see you buying into that. It's not much like physics thinks at the moment. But does it make sense?
 

Eh

671
1
Originally posted by Lifegazer
Space opposes matter, does it not? Something must, anyway.
I'm not sure what you mean by opposes. Do you mean opposes, as in being different? Or something to do with resistance? They are both the same entity.

But an electron would be regarded as negative-matter in regards to my first post. It has mass. Therefore, it must gravitate.
Keep in mind the negative charge is just making use of an arbitrary scale. An electron is the made of the same stuff a quark is.

Exactly. And everything without mass (fields) is smooth negative-space. Fits in, see.
There seems to be some confusion here. Fields are real things that are continous with a certain strength value at each point in space. This strength is mass. So a region of space where a field (EM, matter, Nuclear, etc.) is present has mass.

While other fields are localized, gravity is everywhere. General relativity is a field theory of gravity, but more precisely it is a theory of geometry. The gravitational field literally is the geometry of space-time. With classic fields, a "strength" value is assigned to each point in space. This strength in GR is the amount curvature in any given region. Thus the difference between matter and completely empty space is simple - empty space is flat (Euclidean) and occupied space is curved.

So I could say that the gravitational-field is a disunifying-force of smooth space? How does that sound?
The field is literally space-time itself. As I mentioned above, the difference between mass and empty space is curvature.

Gravity brings matter together again right? It's a force which exists within matter itself. It's just like magnetism, I think. It exists within the matter... and the force is opposed, through space.
Gravity is different from the other forces in that sense. Matter (always in motion) comes to together because of the curved geometry of space. You've probably read that physicists are searching for a unified field theory. Maybe you've also read that the goal of some physicists is the explain the entire universe in terms of pure geometry. As Einsteins theory of GR predicts the force of gravity is just a matter of geometry, attempts to do likewise with electromagnetism have been made. So far, they haven't succeeded.

Hence, a magnetic-field might be considered as the negative magnetism of smooth space. Likewise, gravity draws matter together, and the gravitational-field throws space apart.
I can't see you buying into that. It's not much like physics thinks at the moment. But does it make sense?
You just have to keep in mind that space IS the gravitational field, and the force of gravity is quite unlike the other 3 forces. That should make a little more sense.
 

Lifegazer

Originally posted by Eh
I'm not sure what you mean by opposes. Do you mean opposes, as in being different? Or something to do with resistance? They are both the same entity.
How can space be regarded as exactly like matter? If gravity unifies matter and space is all that opposes singularity, then there must be some sort of force (in space) which keeps the matter apart. Or else matter cannot be apart. The unifying force of gravity wins, always, otherwise.
Keep in mind the negative charge is just making use of an arbitrary scale. An electron is the made of the same stuff a quark is.
But what is a quark in this context? Positive folded space. Hence I could say that an electron is negative folded space.
There seems to be some confusion here. Fields are real things that are continous with a certain strength value at each point in space. This strength is mass. So a region of space where a field (EM, matter, Nuclear, etc.) is present has mass.
Space has mass? Anti-mass, perhaps?
While other fields are localized, gravity is everywhere.
True. Most fields start and finish at source. But if gravity is a unifying-force, then it must extend outwards, towards all matter; rather than to just locally, within the matter which is exhibiting that gravity.

I think I might be confusing you. But I still haven't seen a reason for throwing this in the waste-bin yet.
If we were given this as a working theory, why wouldn't it work? Where does it go wrong? I haven't seen that yet.
 

Eh

671
1
Originally posted by Lifegazer
How can space be regarded as exactly like matter?
In modern physics, everything is fields. The statement just means that matter does not have independant existence from the field.

If gravity unifies matter and space is all that opposes singularity, then there must be some sort of force (in space) which keeps the matter apart. Or else matter cannot be apart. The unifying force of gravity wins, always, otherwise.
That depends what exactly you mean. Do you mean what keeps the universe from collapsing into a singularity? If so, the answer would be expansion. Expansion seems to be an intrisic property of the flat space between the galaxies, even without a cosmological constany or vacuum energy source. Even so, eventually gravity would cause the universe to contract - so long as the average density of the field is high enough. Again, it's all a matter of geometry and time.

But what is a quark in this context? Positive folded space. Hence I could say that an electron is negative folded space.
Do you mean negatively curved?

Space has mass? Anti-mass, perhaps?
Curved space is mass. Flat space is what we would normally call empty. In classic theory, flat space should contain no mass. I will not mention quantum jitters here.

True. Most fields start and finish at source. But if gravity is a unifying-force, then it must extend outwards, towards all matter; rather than to just locally, within the matter which is exhibiting that gravity.
This is the source of confusion. Gravity isn't really a force, as it is the geometry of space-time. You cannot have space OR matter without the gravitational field, and you can't have the gravitational field without space. They are the same.

I think I might be confusing you. But I still haven't seen a reason for throwing this in the waste-bin yet.
If we were given this as a working theory, why wouldn't it work? Where does it go wrong? I haven't seen that yet.
The problem is that gravity is not just another field in space - it is literally space itself. You can get a mental picture of the situation with a 2D analogy. Take a piece of paper, and crumple some parts of it to represent mass. The uncrumpled parts of the paper is the vacuum, and the crumpled is regions where matter is present. This is a crude analogy of the field, since it is 2 dimensional and does not include time. But it helps.
 

Lifegazer

Originally posted by Eh
In modern physics, everything is fields. The statement just means that matter does not have independant existence from the field.
My idea would be compatible with this statement. I'm really saying that 'everything' is space.
But you aren't making the distinction between space & matter (a distinction between the different 'fields'). That puzzles me.
That depends what exactly you mean. Do you mean what keeps the universe from collapsing into a singularity? If so, the answer would be expansion.
How does space expand, unless there is a force present (within that space)? This is the force I equate to anti-gravity, in negative smooth-space. And it is a force which is the opposite of the force which binds folded-space.
Expansion seems to be an intrisic property of the flat space between the galaxies, even without a cosmological constany or vacuum energy source. Even so, eventually gravity would cause the universe to contract - so long as the average density of the field is high enough. Again, it's all a matter of geometry and time.
Last I heard, work on class-A supernovae advocates the increased-acceleration of spacetime. It is believed that the universe will never contract upon itself (I think).
This is the source of confusion. Gravity isn't really a force, as it is the geometry of space-time.
I am suggesting that gravity is a force which 'seeks' to fold space completely upon itself, and that there must be a negative-force (through smooth unfolded-space) which opposes this force. Hence, I am advocating that 'gravity' is actually in a tussle with an opposing force which exists in space.
 

Eh

671
1
Originally posted by Lifegazer
My idea would be compatible with this statement. I'm really saying that 'everything' is space.
But you aren't making the distinction between space & matter (a distinction between the different 'fields'). That puzzles me.
Indeed I have. Matter is curved space, and what we normally call space would be flat space. Both are different states of the same thing.

How does space expand, unless there is a force present (within that space)? This is the force I equate to anti-gravity, in negative smooth-space. And it is a force which is the opposite of the force which binds folded-space.
Well if that's what you had in mind, it's not that far off. But in GR, you do not need a force in empty space to allow for expansion. As I said, the expansion seems to be an instrinsic property of space itself, so that the universe increases in volume at the expense of the overall space curvature. It's just something that apparently comes out of the equations - the technical answer to "why" would involve a lot of math.

Now you're not wrong about the existence of some kind of anti-gravity, it just isn't necessary. The word anti-gravity is misleading as well, because gravity does not only repulse. As mentioned above, gravity is just the geometry of space-time, and all normall matter gravitationally attracts. That is, objects with positive pressure attract, but anything with negative pressure would be repulsive. Some kind of repulsive field is said to exist in the vacuum of space causing the acceleration. The expansion would not require it, but the acceleration apparently does.

Last I heard, work on class-A supernovae advocates the increased-acceleration of spacetime. It is believed that the universe will never contract upon itself (I think).
True, hence the existence of some kind of vacuum energy.

I am suggesting that gravity is a force which 'seeks' to fold space completely upon itself, and that there must be a negative-force (through smooth unfolded-space) which opposes this force. Hence, I am advocating that 'gravity' is actually in a tussle with an opposing force which exists in space.
Gravity can be both repulsive and attractive, but is still geometry rather than a force. Maybe what you're looking for is the concept of negative and positive pressure, as opposed to charges. Sci American had an article on that subject, and I will try to dig up a link. But just know that the repulsive vaccuum energy is not a seperate force competing with gravity. Rather, it is a different aspect of the same force, namely the geometry of space-time.
 
Last edited:

Lifegazer

I want to thank-you for your responses Eh. It's nice to be taken seriously by somebody (especially in a science forum).
Originally posted by Eh
Indeed I have. Matter is curved space, and what we normally call space would be flat space. Both are different states of the same thing.
Well, that's the basis of my idea: that all phenomena are the same 'space' (but diverse and opposing functions of this source). Really, I should also qualify that this 'space' is actually an unobserved quantity - since we don't observe it until it becomes positive or negative.
My idea is that 'fields' and negative-forms of matter are actually the opposing-consequence of having positive-forms of matter.
What I'm really saying, is that we have an unobserved source which can be viewed positively & negatively at the same time... but cannot be observed as itself.
Therefore I have suggested that 'gravity' (which 'seeks' to unify matter) is naturally-opposed by anti-gravity - which seeks to oppose matter, through space.
Therefore; I also suggest that 'gravity' is a "natural outcome" of having positive-'space'. If you have positive-space, then you must also generate negative-space. And if you generate negative-space, then you must also generate a negation to the unification of matter (by gravity). I will label this force as anti-gravity, occuring through space.
I'm not a physicist - as you have seen by my posts - but I strongly suspect that 'gravity' is gleaned from the positive and negative ~balance~ of space/source itself. I strongly suspect that 'gravity' is about the relationship between the positive and negative-aspects of 'space'. I think it's a mistake to think that 'gravity' is just a phenomena/force that happens between matter itself. Indeed, if there is no opposing force to positive-gravity, then space would have lost the fight, long-ago. Almost instantaneously.
I propose that 'anti-gravity' should be accepted as a serious 'force' which exists within the universe.
I shall compare it to magnetism, in this respects. For if the magnetic-field can be viewed as the negative-response to a magnetic-field of positive-charge (the motion of matter-charge through matter), so that space is also adversely-affected; then why can't 'anti-gravity' be viewed as the negative-response (through space) of a force which seeks to expand that space between matter?
Do you get my drift?
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Eh

671
1
The basic idea is ok, you should just note that it's really 2 aspects of the same force. And in cosmology, the repulsive side of gravity is not required for the expansion of the universe, even though acceleration most certainly would.

Just to clear up a few things:

Really, I should also qualify that this 'space' is actually an unobserved quantity - since we don't observe it until it becomes positive or negative.
My idea is that 'fields' and negative-forms of matter are actually the opposing-consequence of having positive-forms of matter.
What I'm really saying, is that we have an unobserved source which can be viewed positively & negatively at the same time... but cannot be observed as itself.
You're forgetting the all important vacuum. This is the flat Euclidean space we are used to, and it's just as real as the curved space of matter. The term negative forms of matter should not refer to anti-matter, as that has an arbitrary meaning of charge. Did you mean matter with negative preasure?

Therefore I have suggested that 'gravity' (which 'seeks' to unify matter) is naturally-opposed by anti-gravity - which seeks to oppose matter, through space.
The only problem here is gravity is both attractive and repulsive. As such, there is really no such thing as anti-gravity in that regard. As I said before, you can have energy that is gravitationally repulsive, but it still an effect on the same force. And the 2nd point is that this repulsion is not necessary in typical models in the evolution of the universe.

But nearly 100 years of thought into the issue has been put through. If you want to pursue the idea, what you're looking for is general relativity (not special relativity), and reading up on that should give you a better understanding of the phenomena
 

Related Threads for: Space theory-idea

  • Posted
Replies
4
Views
831
Replies
1
Views
1K
Replies
13
Views
4K
  • Posted
Replies
17
Views
3K
  • Posted
Replies
2
Views
4K
  • Posted
Replies
9
Views
3K
  • Posted
Replies
6
Views
1K

Physics Forums Values

We Value Quality
• Topics based on mainstream science
• Proper English grammar and spelling
We Value Civility
• Positive and compassionate attitudes
• Patience while debating
We Value Productivity
• Disciplined to remain on-topic
• Recognition of own weaknesses
• Solo and co-op problem solving
Top