The Concept of Time and Space

To not lead the discussion, I'm hoping the Title of this discussion thread will evolve to something magical



.....there's not enough time to ponder space and no time to waste with empty space

According to Einstein, everything is relative. I'm just saying... :J

Damien W,...

Should you care to debate the pros and cons of "Time & Space Concepts", I am somewhat versed in Theoretical Physics and Quantum Mechanics.

So,...I will start with the following:
There is no "magic or magical". There is the basic understanding of our known laws of physics and how they relate to our universe.

Please feel free to e-mail me with your reply.

Your friend,...


Damien W,...

The "model" I tend to lean toward is the flat Lambda-CDM Big Bang model where the expansion of the Universe is accelerating, and the age of the Universe is approximately 13.7 billion years.
Then again I am a "big bang" proponent and again, somewhat versed in the concept of unified field theory.

Now,....back to you Sir;
What is your stance on "dark matter", "black holes", and interstellar travel, faster than the speed of light ?

Your friend,...


Oh brain

*passing the "tylenol" to Suzy E*,....*wink*

I like my comment makes no sense and yet is somehow easier to understand lol. Like Suzy E, ya'll are making my brain hurt lol

Hey William, you sound clever.

I'm not. Cld you google Impossible Cellotape Angus Lavery for me and come back with your thoughts. I would do it as a link but don't know how to, sorry.

It is really freaking my brain out how he has managed to do this..... check it out....


I looked at the site, "impossible sellotape angus lavery" and without an actual "hands on" evaluation I can only speculate.

Speculation #1,..."Trick" photography, or manipulative photography effects.
Speculation #2,...Actual dissasembly and reassembly with the use of "trick photography" to create the optical illusion.
Speculation #3,...Computer Photoshop.

I know that my 3 speculations probably don't help, but in this instance this is nothing more but a true magic trick or optical illusion.

Your friend,...



Agreed,...your comment is far superior,...albeit much easier to understand.
So,...tell me,...which brain pain medication do you prefer ?...*wink*,...LOL


Thanks for looking at the site. Ihave handled the objects and they are interlinked but you cannot see where the cut was made, though logically that is the only way they can be inter-linked ie to be cut and reassembled. They look exactly like two roles of cellotape. Weird.


There is no such thing as "empty space, only space lacking measurable solids, liquids and gasses. Let's look at it in one of the smallest scales measurable... The space between Earth and the moon. For all intents and purposes, the area between the two could be considered "empty space" as it has no air, liquids, and only satellites that have been launched from Earth and the occassional meteor. But the fact that we can see the moon from Earth indicates that, even in the vacuum of space, various types of waves are constantly travelling. Waves of light, magnetic fields, infrared, etc. If there was really nothing to be found within areas of "empty space," then we would look up in the sky and see just that... Nothing. Even if the Sun, moon, stars and other planets existed, we would not be able to see them as their images cannot travel through "nothing". Therefore, there is always something.

Jake M,...

I somewhat disagree,...

Due to the focal plane of our modern telescopes and their resolution, some debris in "empty space" are in all actuality not visible to the naked eye.

This also does not take into consideration of (ie) cosmic waves and light waves in and above/below our threshold of visibility, as well as gravity fields.

Here are a few links that will clarify my position,....


Your friend,...


Then what are your thoughts on Dark Matter, which some scientist beleive makes up a majority of "empty space"? Consider a vacuum here on Earth. Perhaps a glass dome that serves as a controlled environment in which all matter has been removed. By the same argument used for the description of "empty space," things like light and various forms of radiation should not be able to pass through the void inside of the glass vessel, in essence creating something that would act something like a reverse lightbulb. Instead of emitting light, it would be emtting darkness.

Actually... Since it would be inside of a contained vacuum, it would not be emitting darkness, but containing infinite darkness. Basically, one would not be able to see inside of the vessel or through the vessel.

I make the argument that space, while void of atmospheric pressure and gravity is reliant on solid bodies (black holes included), it is not void of radiation, gasses and other particulates.

That being said, until the question is proven one way or another, your argument is every bit as valid as mine.

Jake M,...
1st of all,..excellent post !

Now,..before we continue with this debate we must agree on definitions of certain terms:
Dark Matter
vacuum in space/created vacuum on earth
empty space
Higgs boson particle

Here are a few links (as a start) that will hopefully assist us both in a better understanding and agreed upon definition of the above terms.

Now, for my "spin" on "dark matter" I would respectfully ask you to refer to the above link provided on "dark matter", as I am a proponent of this belief/theory.

Jake M,...your quote:
"I make the argument that space, while void of atmospheric pressure and gravity is reliant on solid bodies (black holes included), it is not void of radiation, gasses and other particulates."

I make the argument that gravitational forces as well as electromagnetism/magnetic fields should be included in your definition of "space". After all, a "black hole" nothing more that an intense/immense gravitational field ?

I also agree with you on our questions/arguments/debate being valid untill proven otherwise, one way or another.

Jake M, please feel free to add to the supplied links, and to let you know,...I for one, am thoroughly enjoying this debate with everyone on this discussion/topic.

^5 Jake M,...

Your friend,...


I'm sorry I have to stop following this post. Totally lost on this even though I keep trying. I thought you were speaking metophorically or something. I didn't know this would turn into a "who's the most stupid of the stupids" kind of thing. Sorry dude, I'm out. Science was never my thing. I'm more of a...
"Let's lay in a field of wet grass at night
Let's look up at the stars and remember how small yet lucky we are
Let's see all that darkness with all those tiny spots of hope shining down on us"
kind of person. This is totally not my thing. Good luck with all the brainage ya'll got going on there.....:)

i think it should be 'TIME SPACE ' as from my understanding you can't have one without the other

Hey Kristi,
I'm with you, but they seem to be enjoying the discussion. I prefer to look at the stars in the sky too and no, this does not mean that we're dumber than anyone else. I would argue the opposite. But William might debate me, ya never know... ;) Umm keep talking about space theory fellas, we're just over here looking at the stars (but wet grass? no way!) :J

Hi William,

So here is the part that has me stumped... Dark matter, anti-matter, Higgs Boson, and the like often make reference to space being "emtpy," but in the same description of the various theories will make reference to space that does not emit nor absorb electromagnetic fields, radiation, etc. at any significant level.

By adding the term "at any significant level" almost negates the same argument that they are using the term to describe. For example, "absolute zero" is a term that is often used to descibe theories in the fields of astronomy and physics, but absolute zero is an unattainable theory itself. It goes right along with dividing a number in half... Regardless how small the number may get, it is still always a number. Absolute zero follows the same pattern and can never be reached. It can be so insanely close that some may say "close enough," and to me, that is the type of information that I use to support my personal optinion. In reading the entry on Dark Matter that you posted from Wikipedia, one of the first descriptions stated is:

"Dark matter cannot be seen directly with telescopes; evidently it neither emits nor absorbs light or other electromagnetic radiation at any significant level."

Perhaps using dark matter is a bad example for my argument because dark matter is not the same as empty space, but if scientists are arguing that dark matter makes up as much as 84% of the matter in the universe, then the primary area universe is by no means "empty".