Space and Energy

File: 0031.jpg (118KB, 960x540px) Image search: [Google]

118KB, 960x540px

>>8432461
>planck length is the resolution of space
>mfw

>>8432461
What then is an electric charge

>>8432489
I would say it is the ratio between energy and space. If there is an equal amount of energy and space (red and green) there is no charge.

Then we are in a computer

in a computer called ETHER

>>8432461
Hey OP do you mind defining what "energy" is without looking it up?

>>8432628
The opposite of space

>>8432630
I suggest you come up with a different name for it. There's already a different concept called energy that is not at all like your "energy".

>>8432632
If you think it through, it makes sense to call it energy and space.

>>8432639
Gonna be frank with you, it sounds like you know less about physics than I do and I hardly know anything. So how about you carefully explain your ideas and we see where it leads.

>>8432649
That will take days

>>8432669
We have time.
Start with clarifying what your ideas are, and what they would predict.
Then explain why you think its true.

>>8432461
You really need to give us at least a hint of an idea of how that concept is supposed to work. So I get it, it's a binary, discrete world and the dynamics of the system is determined by some law, whatever. If it's either energy or not-energy, then you can describe the energy of an object, alright. What about momentum? What about other important properties of fields? (spin, charges, mass etc). Those are very important and they somehow need to follow from your model. I'm not really saying it's impossible, but you definitely need a way to somehow extract those things somehow from your model to make it more plausible.

>>8432677
Stop it anon you're just gonna confuse him.

>>8432461
Wouldn't it be a Planck Volume? Not an area?

>>8432677
We have to talk about what time is in this model. Time flows when there are more zero's then one's (There is a lot of space and almost no energy). In time this difference should be neutralized. So we end up with the same amount of one's and zeros'. If we think of the "one" as energy, energy is not conserved. That's why I mean kinetic energy.

>>8432702
This is dumb and far more complicated than it needs to be. Unless you are solving an actual problem in physics this theory is worthless

>>8432721
How can yu tell so fast. It's a way to define space, energy and time all at once. Space is the opposite of energy, and in time the difference will be neutralized.

>>8432702
You should read something about physics, in particular particle theory. Your ideas will sound extremely stupid once you are there.

>>8432738
Then why does space have energy as a fundemental quantity of itself?

>>8432743
I don't think so. I studied it carefully. It is only difficult to explain the model.

File: Blinking.gif (95KB, 655x653px) Image search: [Google]

95KB, 655x653px

>>8432677
This gif helps visualizing it

>>8432461
How would this "on or off" system account for different quantities of energy? Are you saying one Planck volume can only contain one of two different amounts of energy?

But there must be forms of energy out there that we couldn't possibly even fathom. Humans know to look for electromagnetic waves even if we can't perceive the wavelength because it's something we have evolved to sense. We even know to look for gravitational waves because this is something we can see through our vision of matter interacting.

But there is undoubtedly energy out there that we will never even be able to conceptualize which leaves our understanding of the universe forever incomplete. These ideas about computers and holograms are just futile speculations derived from stubborn intelligence. People can't accept the fact that the world is more complicated than we have ability to comprehend as humans.
Who knows what life may have evolved to sense in distant areas of the universe where other forms of energy may be more abundant.

Don't buy the computer simulation ideas

>>8432756
>>8432769
Wow, it's fucking nothing. What do you want to say?

>>8432775
A Planck volume would be only one bit of information. A zero or one. A complete particle will have a lot of these Planck volumes. If you need more energy you can only add these "volumes". But then there is less "space" (The energy is not IN space).

>>8432785
Maybe it's noting. Maybe it's everything

what new/observed phenomenon would this predict/explain

>>8432802
Anti-matter travels backwards in time.

>>8432797
What I'm saying is are there any reasons to believe that energy is discretized in this way? Or is this particular to your model?

>>8432797
How do you explain negative energy? Does negative space now exist? What is negative space?

>>8432814
Top notch meme my friend.

>>8432817
Yes. In this model, space and energy should have the same properties, because they are opposite. So if you have a lot of space, and a small amount of energy, we call it matter. But if you have a small amount of space and a lot of energy, everything is different and we call it anti-matter.

>>8432816
Energy is discrete in quantum mechanics.

>>8432830
This is terrible logic and doesn't fit reality at all. I must be really bored to continue to reply.

If you constrain space you get negative energy, not more

>>8432836
The logic is very simple. We have only one's and zero's (or black and white, or red and green). The difficult thing is to understand how all the human concepts are derived from only this. This requires a lot of thinking, but I think it is possible.

>>8432850
You are going about this incorrectly. You should start instead with what we know.

>>8432850
You never responded to my point. You constrain space and you can show negative energy. This violates your theory. Therefore your theory is wrong. All it takes is one testable experiment to show your theory wrong and it is wrong simple as that. If you want to talk philosophy go to /lit/

>>8432858
>How do you explain negative energy?
Can you explain your question, I do not understand it.

>>8432861
Then take a physics class or at least Wikipedia your ignorance. Negative energy exists

>>8432865
Im talking about kinetic energy. Negative kinetic energy?

>>8432870
Then talk about kinetic energy. There are many forms of energy, space seems to be one.

Your half assed ideas don't seem to match reality. Learn the real world before you go deepak chopra

>>8432881
I did all that as I was saying. I am challenging you to think it through, because I see no problems now.

>>8432832
I mean volumetrically discrete.

>>8432892
No you explain it properly cause you post >>8432830 doesn't match reality.

>>8432461
So what are black holes then?

How come the universe is unable to "heal" their black holes and the black holes just remain permanently with no end in sight.

>>8432895
The difference with other models is that energy is not IN space. It is either space or energy. So one could transform from a point of view where the two are reversed. We are matter (Energy in space), but if we observe anti-matter, we do not agree about what is the "energy" and what is the "Space"

>>8432917
An equation would help. But where does space go? What happens to time?

Eh. I'm done with this garbage that sounds like 6th grade shlock

>>8432910
This is a region with only one's. There are no zero's. So no space. Time starts from there, because it has to be neutralized.

File: Time direction.jpg (35KB, 360x655px) Image search: [Google]

35KB, 360x655px

>>8432920
Time gets reversed

>>8432942
So since that doesnt exist you have proven your theory wrong. Good. Now you can drop this and move on

>>8432952
Are you sure anti-matter doesn't travel backwards in time?

>>8432910
they evaporate

>>8432956
Not talking about anti matter. Just vacuum energy. And all it take is one thing to prove you wrong. You are wrong.

You talk like a theologian

>>8432971
Vacuum energy is not a prove against it I believe. Can you explain why?

>>8432985
Wiki it at least. Or explain your hairbrained idea on how space and energy are on off switches. Cause in that idea space would have both a 1 and 0 cause it is both energy and space. And a black hole is space without time so it cant be either

>>8432995
The idea is that matter is defined as a small amount of energy and a large amount of space. But an observer build from matter does not agree with an anti-observer build from anti-matter about which is which. So what the "energy" is for an observer, is the "Space" for the anti-observer. So it depends on the observer weather the ones are "kinetic energy" or "space". By definition, the ones is "energy" for matter.

>>8433007
>The idea is that matter is defined as a small amount of energy and a large amount of space
No it isn't, an electron has no 'size'. And a photon has no size or time. Again learn basic science first

>>8433035
>an electron has no 'size'
Is energy in not IN space, but they are next to each other, then you can compare it with a point particle, because space doesn't exist under it. Again, try to understand it.

>>8433049
>s energy in not IN space,
English. Do you speak it? Or better mathematics

>>8433049
Space is a reference frame as well as something. A point particle without space is nothing, even if it has angular momentum or spin or the like because without space to provide a reference frame it is nothing. A grid of 1 and 0 sounds more like a holographic principle where out 3d world is actually 2d. And that one has testable predictions.

>>8433053
Do you understand it? In this model the particle is a point particle, because space is not defined where the particle's energy is defined.

>>8433063
Yes, the holographic principle. One bit per Planck area. That is what I'am saying. Only I define the 1 as "Kinetic energy" and the 0 as "Space". And the ratio between the two: If there is a difference, time flows to neutralize it.

>>8432769
pics are not arguments