Science a GoGo's Home Page Forums General Discussion Physics Forum only 3 ingredients are needed to make a universe

Im watching a documentary named
did God create the universe.

in the show it says that the 3 ingredients needed to make
a universe are

1) matter
2) energy
3) space

I can agree with 1 and 2 but space cant be an ingredient
because it has no physical properties itself , even me
using the word "itself" indicating that space has physical
properties is just wrong.

space is a description , it is only a word.

and it says that einstein says that
mass is the same as energy
and
energy is the same as mass.

thats really stupid because if all mass were converted into energy then there would be no energy.

and if all energy were converted into mass there would be no energy.

of course hes the one who invented the fake math to begin
with and you would certainly need fake math to prove such
a farce as that.

Im glad that I decided to watch the show and to experience
the philosophers thought patterns.

it is interesting even if it is mere organized science jargon.

well it was interesting up to that point , then it slithered
into negative energy and of course the quantum crap so I
just stopped watching it as it had devolved into true nothingness and pure quackery.

Did you mean "there would be no mass"?

I figure that there needs to be space because without space where would the mass/energy be located?

Bill Gill

no , I meant there would be no energy.

because energy requires mass.

so if all the mass is converted into energy then there would
be no energy.

if you were to find a way to drain all the energy from all the mass , you would still have mass , but if you convert all the mass into energy then you have no mass and the possibility of
having energy is gone because energy requires mass.

even light has mass.

can you think of any type of energy that does not require
mass?

but there needs to be space does not equate into there is space.

that's like saying I want space to exist because there are
actual things located inside the description/word that I use to describe the area that surrounds those actual things.

Space to me is basically a volume that I find things in. It has no real physical attributes. It really IS just a volume in which things exist. Modern science tells us that all space is full of things, even if it is just something on the order of an electromagnetic field. But that doesn't mean that space is those things. So you are correct space exists "because there are actual things located inside the description/word that I use to describe the area that surrounds those actual things". By my definition then space is just the volume in which things exist. But if there were no space (volume) for them to exist in then they could not exist.

However, I recognize that this description may not work when we come to the expansion of the universe. According to the Big Bang Theory space is expanding. I suspect that this inconsistency might be because of an inadequacy of language. I think GR rather speaks of the fabric of space. In my definition above space does not have a fabric. It might be possible to fix this problem by thinking of the fabric of space as being the fields which fill space. There could be a sort of a master field which included all of the other fields. This field then would be what is expanding. This of course is purely speculation on my part. I have absolutely no evidence that it is in any way correct. But it would fix the problem with my definition of space.

Bill Gill

thats because they somehow think that space can expand , as if
it were an object with physical properties and the galaxies are
pressing against the outer edges of space causing it to expand.

what they should say is that everything in the observable universe is moving away from the original location of the
big bang and leave it at that.

which equates to the universe is requiring a constantly larger volume to fit into , and space is that volume.


theres nothing mysterious about space.

saying the "fabric of space" is misleading as it suggest that
space consist of some type of fabric.

the electromagnetic fields , light waves , gravity fields
etc... could be perceived as being a woven fabric but the fabric would certainly not be "of space" but of actual objects that exist within the volume of space.

No they aren't saying that the galaxies are pressing against the outer edges of space. They are saying that everything in the universe is moving away from everything else in the universe, except for objects that are close enough together to be gravitationally bound. In their definition of space, which is the part that I described as the fabric of space, then the volume that includes everything in the universe is expanding because of the increasing separation between the parts of it.

In their description of the expansion of space things aren't moving away for the original location of the big bang. They are just getting farther away from each other. Think of 2 boats in the ocean. One is sitting in a current that moves it along, the other is sitting in a still place. With respect to the water in which it is floating the first boat is not moving. With respect to the water in which the second boat is floating it is not moving. But they are moving with respect to each other. The universe works the same way. The space in which galaxies exist is stretching, so the galaxies are moving farther apart. But their location in space isn't changing, just the amount of space there is between them.


That is basically what I was trying to say. My completely unsupported idea is that the basic definition of space is simply a concept in which we imagine things to be located. However, this idea of space is purely conceptual, and provides nothing to work with. The scientific conception of space is the area in which the universe exists. This space does indeed provide an area in which we can make observations and predictions. So scientifically if we just use the definition of space that includes everything we can observe we have a usable definition that provides for a realistic view of the universe.

Bill Gill

It just occurred to me that the title of this thread may have a slight inaccuracy. The idea is that 3 things are needed for a universe, mass, energy, and space. I suppose you could have a universe with just those 3 things, but it would be a really boring universe, since nothing would change. For change to happen you also need time. Without time a universe would be stuck in one state for eternity. Kind of like a photograph. The scene in it never changes.

I understand that some theorists have said that time may not really exist it is just an illusion. But that never made much sense to me.

Bill Gill

so the non existent space that has no properties or mass is stretching.

and because the non existent space that has no mass is stretching it is forcing / causing the actual galaxies that do have mass to move further apart from each other.

but the location of the actual galaxies that have mass
is not changing relative to the non existent massless space
that is forcing them apart from each other.

energy requires mass , and to force a galaxy to move would
require at least a tiny amount of mass which space does not
happen to possess.

so how do they assume that the galaxies are propelled to
move?

are they suggesting that the space is just moving the galaxies
because the space is expanding?

even if that is the ludicrous explanation that they are attempting to use , they still must provide the explanation of the force that the space uses in its grand ill-fated and misguided endeavor.

its obviously a non scientific theory.

nothing in science or physics could ever back that up.

Not the non-existent space. All of the mass and energy that the visible universe consists of. That is why I defined 2 different kinds of space. The one you are talking about which is purely conceptual and the space with which science can work, which is everything that exists in the visible universe.


The stretching of space is produced by the sum of all the energy and mass that exists in the scientifically accessible space. Just as a boat in a current requires no energy to move with respect to a boat outside of the current a galaxy in one place can move without any energy if it is just going with the flow.

By the way you say "energy requires mass". Where did that fact(?) come from? I can think of nothing that could lead you to that belief. And your making positive statements that are wrong doesn't somehow make them right. Based on that I think you should go back and rethink this whole discussion and make sure you know what you are talking about before you make sweeping statements. Or at least you should apply a caveat that you don't know for sure. Recall that is what I did when I started talking about what space is.

Bill Gill

energy requires mass.

PE = Potential Energy = mgh = mass x gravity x height

KE = Kinetic Energy = 1/2 x m x v = .5 x mass x velocity

here is a list of forms of energy all of which require mass in
order to have ever existed.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Forms_of_energy

if you know of a form of energy that does not require mass
then please post a link to the find.

the boat DOES require energy to move.
ALL movement / motion requires energy.

a boat in a current is moving with the current because there is a force / energy that propels the current.

without that force / energy propelling the current the current would not move and the boat would not move.

we know that that force / energy comes mainly from our suns radiant energy.

what is the force / energy that causes the space to expand
which the galaxies supposedly float in?

I suppose they also think that newton was wrong when he
said that an object will travel in a straight line unless acted on by a force traveling in a different direction.

because the theory appears to attempt to remove or replace a part of newtons laws of motion in order to please or protect a theory of Einstein.


in other words it look as if they are trying to replace
solid tested logic with flawed logic.

you will not be able to find an example to use that does
not require some type of energy that will show how the galaxies are moving away from each other in the supposed expanding space theory that claims that the galaxies move because the space is expanding.

because its impossible to find one , because the theory
is flawed.

and in the cosmos things tend to obey a set of rules and
making up more and more cover up stories to try and explain
why things are not behaving according to the flawed theories
will only serve to pacify people , and will not affect or dictate to the cosmos how the cosmos works.

Bill, I have to agree with Paul that the boat analogy is not the best you have ever thought of.



If you go back far enough, you will find posts of mine that raise this same doubt. Who needs to take sides?



Could that be a leap of faith?

Discounting photons, which you may argue, must have mass; mass is necessary for us to observe the effects of energy. How would we know if energy were present in an “absolute vacuum” with nothing for it to act upon, and nothing with which it might be observed?

If we cannot say with certainty that it is there, nor can we say that it isn't.

not to me Bill , for me it only takes a mere reference to
the logic that can easily be deducted from the experimental data that has been gathered about mass, energy and motion.

to me faith is not a part of logic.

faith is a belief in something.

taking sides could possibly extrapolate the overall situation
as assistance to side a would overbalance the momentum of side b , which would require more assistance to side b.

I think that logic in this case does not need assistance
as logic has already developed enough momentum to maintain
its ground on its own.

also this would remove any possible future reprisals against
those who might supply assistance.

true science is in control of the situation and true science
really needs no help defending itself against invented modern science.

A form of energy that does not require mass? How about light. The photon is massless, but it carries energy. So energy does not require mass.

Bill Gill

The boat does not have to expend any energy to move. That is what I was trying to say. Yes, there is energy involved, but not the energy of the boat, it is the energy of the water that moves it. In the same way the expansion of the universe is based on the total energy of the universe. The galaxies are not expending any energy to continue to separate.


I'm afraid that your continual denial of the validity of Einstein's theories can only be based on some fundamental misunderstanding of the science involved. I believe that Einstein's theories are correct for one simple reason. They work. Your claims that they are not logical is totally dependent on your simple and possibly willful misunderstanding. The real test of a scientific theory is whether it works. Einstein's theories have continued to work for a century now and they won't quit just because you refuse to accept the evidence.

Bill Gill

This is of value only if you assume that scientific veracity is dependent on popular opinion, or is a matter for democratic vote.

Assumption is an inherent feature of extrapolation. What are you assuming here?

Anyway, the point of my comment was that I question whatever I feel I don't understand about any point of view.

Haha well said Bill.S ... yeah not sure we ever want to get into climate change stupidity where we have 97% consensus rubbish.

The more interesting question to ask however is if Bill G can quantify an ingredient for us please .. he does like his little boxes

Paul I am surprised you need any ingredients don't you just need a GOD? I thought he just snaps his finger and it all comes into being at least that seems to be the consensus of 97% of religions

and I have an electric motor that requires electricity to rotate it.

if I start it running in space and then remove the electricity
from the electric motor , the electric motor will continue to
rotate.

because electric motors do not require electricity either!

when my car runs out of gasoline while Im driving it down
the road for some reason it keeps moving until I wait a long time for it to roll to a stop while Im driving it or until I press the brake pedal while Im driving it
therefore my car does not require gasoline for me to drive it.

your photon requires mass.(a atom)
the electric motor requires mass.(a source of electricity )
the car requires mass.(gasoline)

really Bill , you should at least be able to find something
that would have energy but not require mass if you really believe that energy does not require mass.

BTW

photon mass < 1 x 10 ^-18 eV/c it has mass but not much mass.