The first cause argument

[Kfox]

Does light travel through "nothing at all"?

What's preventing it? (*hint nothing at all)

What do you mean by "nothing at all"? [/quote)
Nothing at all

What do you expect to detect?

Nothing at all! And thanks for making my point.

 

[Kfox]

And what prevents something to exist that is four dimensional? Or, for that matter, 100 dimensional?

Nothing. All you have to do is recognize a property of something that exists, and call that property a dimension. Right now we have 3 dimensions; length, width, and height. But there is nothing preventing us from calling time a dimension, or speed, or anything else the imagination might conjure.

 

[Kfox]

Not true. You can still measure from any point of space to any other point of space and get a distance. The distances between points is a *property* of space, not just a property of things in space.

But those points are imaginary; they are not real.

 

[Kfox]

The same thing applies. You know how big you expect the inside of an object to be because of the geometry of space. Just how you know how much area you expect to be contained in a circle because of the geometry of a 2-d space. If you change the geometry, like if you do 2-d geometry on a sphere, then get a different answer

Does 2-D geometry work for building a house? If not, your response has nothing to do with my question.

Those are just representations of the object, like a 2-d drawing of a cube isn't a cube, the diagrams on that page are actually 2-d drawings of 3-d 'drawings' of a 4-d object.

But the object on that page can be built; do you agree?

But I'm curious, what is it that makes you want space to be nothing? Why are you so resistant to learning something new?

I don't really have a dog in this fight, I am just asking questions about an issue that does not make sense to me. You are explaining it in a way that does not make sense to me, so I am asking questions trying to explain why none of this make sense to me.

 

[Polymath257]

Nothing. All you have to do is recognize a property of something that exists, and call that property a dimension. Right now we have 3 dimensions; length, width, and height. But there is nothing preventing us from calling time a dimension, or speed, or anything else the imagination might conjure.

Time is legitimately a dimension. Speed, though, is a distance divided by a time. It isn't an independent dimension. Now, there are theories that describe electromagnetism as a small, tightly curved fifth dimension and those can be generalized for the nuclear forces. This is where the 11-dimensional universe concept comes from.

 

[ratiocinator]

Nothing. All you have to do is recognize a property of something that exists, and call that property a dimension. Right now we have 3 dimensions; length, width, and height. But there is nothing preventing us from calling time a dimension, or speed, or anything else the imagination might conjure.

You've completely misunderstood the concept of a dimension in this context. If I have three straight rods, I can put them so that they are all at right angles to each other. I can't add a fourth at right angles to all the other three. That is because space is three dimensional. I can only put two lines at right angles to each other on a surface, that's why it's two dimensional.

Does 2-D geometry work for building a house? If not, your response has nothing to do with my question.

Actually yes, because it's a subset. However, the point still applies. What determines how large to expect the inside of a 3-d object to be is one particular type of 3-d geometry (flat or Euclidean). There is nothing unique about that any more than there is about 2-d geometry that applies only on a flat 2-d surface, as opposed to a curved surface.

But the object on that page can be built; do you agree?

No, you can build the representation, but not the object it represents. It would help if you'd bothered to read the article, or at the very least the first paragraph, rather than just look at the pictures. For example: "...the tesseract is to the cube as the cube is to the square."

You are explaining it in a way that does not make sense to me, so I am asking questions trying to explain why none of this make sense to me.

Yet you seem to be just flatly denying (without any apparent thought) what is being said. This has been understood for a long time mathematically. Even Newton didn't regard space as nothing. The science of space-time and its curvature has been established for about a century now.

 

[muhammad_isa]

What's preventing it? (*hint nothing at all)

Hmm .. I think your definition of "nothing it all" is different from mine.

If we look out into space, we see that the universe is comprised of heavenly bodies in orbits. While you see "nothing at all", in fact, the forces of gravity are acting everywhere.

 

[Polymath257]

But the object on that page can be built; do you agree?

No. A tesseract cannot be built.

Again, those pyramidal forms on the sides are supposed to be cubes with parallel sides. All the angles in the figure are supposed to be 90 degrees.

In particular, you need to have *four* mutually perpendicular struts at each corner. I challenge you to do that: the most you will be able to get is three mutually perpendicular struts because space is three dimensional.

 

[Polymath257]

But those points are imaginary; they are not real.

How so? What do you mean they are 'imaginary'? part of the point of relativity is that such points are *real* and particulate in the physics.

 

[ratiocinator]

But the object on that page can be built; do you agree?

Just to add, if I have this 2-d shape:

I can fold it through a third dimension to make a cube. To make a tesseract, I'd have to fold this 3-d shape through a fourth dimension:

 

[Kfox]

Hmm .. I think your definition of "nothing it all" is different from mine.

How is it different?

If we look out into space, we see that the universe is comprised of heavenly bodies in orbits. While you see "nothing at all", in fact, the forces of gravity are acting everywhere.

Not quite. The area between those heavenly bodies, between those forces of Gravity, between all of that matter and energy as being nothing at all

 

[Polymath257]

How is it different?

Not quite. The area between those heavenly bodies, between those forces of Gravity, between all of that matter and energy as being nothing at all

And that is wrong. That vacuum has properties. 'Nothing at all' would not.

Here's an example. Start out at any location. Move in some direction and *keep going in that direction*. Do you return to your original place or not? Whether you do or not, and which directions you do, is a property of space itself.

 

[Polymath257]

How is it different?

Not quite. The area between those heavenly bodies, between those forces of Gravity, between all of that matter and energy as being nothing at all

And that is wrong. That vacuum has properties. 'Nothing at all' would not.

Here's an example. Start out at any location. Move in some direction and *keep going in that direction*. Do you return to your original place or not? Whether you do or not, and which directions you do, is a property of space itself.

 

[muhammad_isa]

The area between those heavenly bodies, between those forces of Gravity, between all of that matter and energy as being nothing at all

Is there any area of space that has "nothing in it"?
How do you know?
What is gravity, can you see it?
If you could, wouldn't you see that space was a mesh of forces that included all of space?

Anyhow, you get the idea.
I know what you are saying, but I just don't see it like that.

If you envisage cosmological inflation, you will see what "nothing at all" means in a physical sense.
It simply means that our physical reality is bounded.
That comes as no surprise to me, as I consider reality as merely an illusion, in any case.

 

[Kfox]

No. A tesseract cannot be built.

Again, those pyramidal forms on the sides are supposed to be cubes with parallel sides. All the angles in the figure are supposed to be 90 degrees.

In particular, you need to have *four* mutually perpendicular struts at each corner. I challenge you to do that: the most you will be able to get is three mutually perpendicular struts because space is three dimensional.

So you're saying the drawing is not accurate?

 

[Kfox]

How so? What do you mean they are 'imaginary'? part of the point of relativity is that such points are *real* and particulate in the physics.

One point to another, if the point is real, then it isn't empty space, it's an area with some points in it, and you are measuring the area between the points.

 

[Kfox]

And that is wrong. That vacuum has properties. 'Nothing at all' would not.

What properties do that vacuume have?

Here's an example. Start out at any location. Move in some direction and *keep going in that direction*. Do you return to your original place or not? Whether you do or not, and which directions you do, is a property of space itself.

What makes it a property of space?

 

[Kfox]

Is there any area of space that has "nothing in it"?

That's what I'm trying to find out.

How do you know?
What is gravity, can you see it?

You can't see it, but you can feel it

If you could, wouldn't you see that space was a mesh of forces that included all of space?

I don't think so; gravity and other forces exist as you approach a large object with a gravitational field. Get far away from that object, and there is no gravity.

 

[Polymath257]

So you're saying the drawing is not accurate?

It is, at best, a two-dimensional projection of a three-dimensional projection of a four-dimensional figure.

So, no, it is not precise.

If you draw a cube on a piece of paper, the image is not a cube. it is a projection of a cube. A real cube is three-dimensional.

Even if you constructed the figure on that webpage, it would only be a projection of the four-dimensional figure.

 

[Polymath257]

Get far away from that object, and there is no gravity.

Nope, there is always *some* gravity. We say that gravity has infinite range.