Monday, July 1, 2002

Space is Something

"AETHER" hasn't been shown to exist. But doesn't the fact that one can travel through "it" show that it exists? You can't travel through nothing. If we had a "nothing" between us and a star, we would see nothing but darkness (or more likely, be sucked closer to the star).

Even in relativity, gravity is said to be bending space. Then, as I understand it, space must consist of something.

There are distances in space. So there must be volume. And volume usually is a measure of fluids and similar things. If the distances were "nothing", then there would be no distances.

So, is the thought of space as a vacuum really making sence?

If the universe is expanding, is it because the objects are coming out from a big bang, or is it because space is moving them apart? If the first is true, I think that will be no hinder for the objects to consume space around them, while traveling outwards.

If I use the sea as a picture again, it would be like waves from a (very big) dive, moving outwards, while creeks still are draining the sea.

If there is new space added all the time, wouldn't that be something like the cosmological constant? I have no idea what kind of substance, if any, Einstein meant by that. But in my mind it would be like a cosmic "rain", coming from "above", into the electro-ocean.

I think of space fluid as the lowest possible form of energy - the fluidic, transparent state. Then there are radio- and light-waves, and after that matter. Matter would be the "frosen" state of the space fluid.

I believe there are similarities between everything in the universe.

Below the space fluid there would be vacuum. But because that state is impossible to uphold, just as it's impossible to make a hole in the ocean, the "surface" of space will, and must, be narrowed, all across.

Water can be deformed in shape, but not in state, because then it starts to boil or freeze. So if the space-ocean was drained, it's volume would shrink through the whole universe. It wouldn't transform into a lower density because there is no lower state. And therefore it couldn't be "streched". But reshaped, yes.

I know that Newton said something similar to this, and that Einstein showed it to be wrong. And who would question Albert Einstein? Still, to me it sounds more logic that gravity is consuming space, than bending it.

The reason that makes me think like this, is that I don't believe in a "nothing". Nothing is nothing, therefore it can't exist. You can't be in a nothing, you can't travel in it, mass can't expand in it, time can't pass in it. Space must be something, and as distances in it are measurable, while the substance of it isn't (yet), it would be logic to asume it's the lowest possible form, or state, of energy (something like the cosmic background radiation).

And perhaps everything else is created of, and from, this energy.

The only thing that actually exists, is energy. All other things, light, time, space and gravity, are different moods of energy. Then what is energy? Where did it come from? As I have understood, it is undestroyable, and therefore eternal - without beginning and end. Energy is all there is - period.

Very enlightening, one could say.

A quote from a scientific website: "It is fair to say that what Einstein did is that he replaced the absoluteness of time and of space with the absoluteness of light. Light is more fundamental than time and space."

A very biblical standpoint. As a Christian, I fully agree.

No comments:

Post a Comment