Charas-Project
Off-Topic => All of all! => Topic started by: Grandy on February 14, 2009, 05:08:05 PM
-
What is nothing? Some say that over 99% of the univers is composed of nothing, like the vacuum in the space, but isn't vacuum by itself something? If, as an example, we make a ball of vacuum inside an air-filled room, wouldn't it be better to say it's a ball of something made out of nothing inside something which is so common it could be classified as nothing?
One could say that the very fact that something fails to be something makes it different of the rest, thus making it something instead of making it nothing.
Discuss.
Coming next: This thread is about everything. Stay tuned.
-
a ball of vacuum inside an air-filled room
I don't think that's how Physics works.
-
You're thinking too hard. A vacuum is just a term used to describe nothing; a synonym. So if the universe is 99% nothing, that means all the planets, stars, dust, comets and moons only take up 1% of the available space in the universe.
EDIT: I think I get what he's saying... but still... just because you have a vacuum chamber inside a chamber of air doesn't mean because the vacuum is surrounded by something makes it something... :blue-eye:
-
I don't think that's how Physics works.
Then you're not trying hard enough.
-
I think that space is just one giant hard drive, and eventually we will need to update it, which will take up more space then this OS, and when that day comes, each sun will gain additional features, and reality as we know it, will increase in GUI, making the standard of "realisticness" tenfold. Also, as the ages go on, our cosmic drive will eventually become flooded with 900JLKB's of Porn. When that day comes, if the universe is running any form of Windows, we shall all be fucked, due to the influx of interstellar viruses.
-
I don't think that's how Physics works.
Why not? I mean, if all matter can curl up in balls in the middle of space, why can't space curl up in balls in middle of matter?
-
Why not? I mean, if all matter can curl up in balls in the middle of space, why can't space curl up in balls in middle of matter?
Because a vacuum can only be created in the absence of liquid or gaseous matter surrounding it. A "ball of vacuum" would even itself out with the surrounding air and cease to be. The closest thing to it would be a vacuum jar, which isn't the same thing.
-
Why not? Matter is matter, I used gas as an example of matter. If you will, imagine we turn on a vacuum machine for a split second, momentanially there'll be a ball of vacuum in the air before the air itself covers it-
Okay I'm getting the greatest deja-vú here, I just know I had this kind of discussion against someone in charas, with the exact same argument. Drace, was it you?
-
You can't just instantly make a vacuum, it's a gradual process which involves sucking the air out of whatever airtight container it's being made in - be it a jar or a room. If you turn on your vacuum machine, air is sucked in, and the level of air in the environment equalises to prevent pressure differences. It works similar to osmosis with water. Air cannot support a vacuum within itself because of this. Only a solid (or possibly liquid) container can do that.
Turn on your vacuum machine, and the air pressure in the room or jar gradually drops, until the room or jar is empty of air. There is no "ball of vacuum".
-
Well, suppose a ball of vacuum inside of something solid then, sheesh. Point is it's the lack of something, and since it's the lack of something and we need to name it "The lack of something", it automatically becomes a thing.
-
You can't just instantly make a vacuum, it's a gradual process which involves sucking the air out of whatever airtight container it's being made in - be it a jar or a room. If you turn on your vacuum machine, air is sucked in, and the level of air in the environment equalises to prevent pressure differences. It works similar to osmosis with water. Air cannot support a vacuum within itself because of this. Only a solid (or possibly liquid) container can do that.
Turn on your vacuum machine, and the air pressure in the room or jar gradually drops, until the room or jar is empty of air. There is no "ball of vacuum".
So a jar with no air pressure etc = a jar of nothing. Thus, Grandy wins.
-
Well, suppose a ball of vacuum inside of something solid then, sheesh. Point is it's the lack of something, and since it's the lack of something and we need to name it "The lack of something", it automatically becomes a thing.
It's a jar with a vacuum in it. We're not even considering that there are different sizes of vacuum, and "vacuum" simply means it's less than atmospheric pressure. In its simplest form, a vacuum is the absence of particles. Calling it a thing implies that it is a species of matter, which it isn't. Taking vacuum as nothing is a lot simpler.
Consider how many atoms are in your body, or any material object. Then consider that the space between the nucleus of an atom and the electrons orbiting it is a relatively large distance. Is it important that all objects are mostly empty space? No, because only the actual particles are considered.
So a jar with no air pressure etc = a jar of nothing. Thus, Grandy wins.
How? His argument is that a vacuum can be considered "something", if you think about it that way, therefore "nothing" cannot exist.
-
I love how you guys are getting so hot and bothered about something that not only doesn't really matter, but plays on one of the many flaws of the English language.
-
no, a jar filled with nothing is a jar that happens to have no matter inside of it.
99% of the universe is not so much nothing, as it is devoid of matter. Which is something, in that there is nothing occupying that space.
-
Thing; noun
1. An entity, an idea, or a quality perceived, known, or thought to have its own existence. +1 Grandy, Vacuums themselves exist.
2. a. The real or concrete substance of an entity. +1 Dragonium
2. b. An entity existing in space and time. +1 Dragonium
2. c. An inanimate object. +1 Grandy
3. Something referred to by a word, a symbol, a sign, or an idea; a referent. +1 Grandy
4. A creature: the poor little thing. Irrelevant
5. An individual object: There wasn't a thing in sight. +1 Dragonium
6. a. Law That which can be possessed or owned. Often used in the plural: things personal; things real. Irrelevant
6. b. things Possessions; belongings: packed her things and left. Irrelevant
6. c. An article of clothing: Put on your things and let's go. Irrelevant
7. things The equipment needed for an activity or a special purpose: Where are my cleaning things? +1 Dragonium
8. An object or entity that is not or cannot be named specifically: What is this thing for? Tie
9. a. An act, deed, or work: promised to do great things. Irrelevant
9. b. The result of work or activity: is always building things. +1 Grandy, the result of a lack of matter.
10. A thought, a notion, or an utterance: What a rotten thing to say! +1 Grandy
11. A piece of information: wouldn't tell me a thing about the project. +1 Grandy
12. A means to an end: just the thing to increase sales. Irrelevant
13. An end or objective: In blackjack, the thing is to get nearest to 21 without going over. Irrelevant
14. A matter of concern: many things on my mind. Irrelevant
15. A turn of events; a circumstance: The accident was a terrible thing. Irrelevant
16. a. things The general state of affairs; conditions: "Beneath the smooth surface of things, something was wrong" Tom Wicker Irrelevant
16. b. A particular state of affairs; a situation: Let's deal with this thing promptly. Irrelevant
17. Informal A persistent illogical feeling, as a desire or an aversion; an obsession: has a thing about seafood. Irrelevant
18. Informal The latest fad or fashion; the rage: Drag racing was the thing then. Irrelevant
19. Slang An activity uniquely suitable and satisfying to one: Let him do his own thing. Irrelevant
Grandy- 6
Dragonium- 4
This is how I solve questions like this.
-
You guys fail to see the point.
"Nothing" exists, therefore it's a thing.
Now, "Flagbragerciouslat" doesn't exist, therefore its not a thing, which is to say, it was, before I pronounced it's name, now it exists as a name.
The very idea of something not existing is silly. If you think about it it exists, even if only in your mind, as such, there's no such a thing as true "nothing."
-
the universe is thought to not be infinite.
I prefer the donut theory. Look it up.
-
Donut theory.... sounds delicious.
-
"Nothing" exists, therefore it's a thing.
So nothing =/= nothing? You're making this far more complicated than it needs to be. A vacuum is not nothing, since true nothing is a purely theoretical thing.
Vaguely comprehending an idea without giving it substance does not make it real. You could theorise "a new colour which previously did not exist", but that is impossible because we have already established all the colours in the electromagnetic spectrum visible to the human eye. Of course it's a plausible idea, but put into the context of what we'd be able to see, it is impossible.
If something became real and true because someone could imagine it, God and Allah and Zeus and Oden would be having fights in outer space while riding on flying pink unicorns. It doesn't work that way.
-
Exactly Nothing =/= Nothing, nothing = the idea of nothing, but nothing doesnt exists, as in Nothing exists as a thing, so it's really not nothing.
-
Exactly Nothing =/= Nothing, nothing = the idea of nothing, but nothing doesnt exists, as in Nothing exists as a thing, so it's really not nothing.
"Nothing" does not exist as a thing. A vacuum is the absence of matter, but scientifically that is not nothing. True nothing is purely theoretical.
-
True nothing is purely theoretical.
Exactly. The nothing we have is not nothing, it's a thing called nothing.
-
Exactly. The nothing we have is not nothing, it's a thing called nothing.
I don't even know what your argument is any more.
-
Me neither.
-
Hay gays, sum this thread up for me in two paragraphs (not bullshit ones, either) or more. Two pages worth of spam is tl;dr.
-
Hay gays, sum this thread up for me in two paragraphs (not bullshit ones, either) or more. Two pages worth of spam is tl;dr.
For so far I know:
Grandy states that when you have nothing, you automaticly make it something.
The rest, I didn't follow.
-
YOU ARE ALL CONFUSING SCIENCE WITH PHILOSOPHY.
-
Turn off auto-pilot, kthxbai.
-
First off, you can't have a jar filled with "a vacuum." A vacuum is a property, like the color blue. You can have a jar filled with blue paint, but not just blueness. What you're really trying to say is a jar filled with literally nothing - no matter.
Anyway, this topic reminds me of an old SMAC qutoe (great 90s sci fi computer game) about when they discover space travel for the first time. It's from one of the religious leaders, hence the religious focus, but carries the same idea:
And so we return again to the holy void. Some say this is simply our destiny, but I would have you remember always that the void EXISTS, just as surely as you or I. Is nothingness any less a miracle than substance?
In any event, it's not even true. There's a little bit of hydrogen between the stars, and the temperature out there in space is a smidge above absolute zero because of it. That Large Hadron Collider they're building actually has less matter in it than deep space. That's why the thing is so freaking expensive, complicated, and is taking so long too prepare - because they're getting a state of existance in there that's even crazier than space which would, assuming there are no intelligence civilizations out there to build something similar, make it the most extreme environment in the entire universe. It's the coolest thing ever build that nobody really cares about.
So what you're talking about with pure nothingness doesn't exist, because of the way matter decays, never can exist. Atoms of whatever you try to contain pure nothingness in would eventually "flake off" into the nothing-space.
ALL THAT SAID, nothingness is not something because we gave it a name. Nothingness is nothing because that's what we decide nothing is. It's like how, if you have 0 brothers, you don't have "some amount" of brothers because 0 is a number. No matter how you splice up the language, nothing is still nothing.
-
Yeah, I think that pretty much says it all.
-
First off, you can't have a jar filled with "a vacuum."
(http://img7.imageshack.us/img7/3055/ahemjt6.jpg)
Anyone who tries to use logic to counter this isn't worth paying attention to, as they clearly don't recognize "win" when they see it.
-
wow.
he just blew all of you away.
-
Dude, no. Clearly, I sucked them all away.
-
also, something else occured to me.
If Archem is, like, the God of Charas, would that make Archem2 Kratos?
-
Archem is not the god of Charas
Alex is
Although Archem2 could be Kratos
He's cool enough
-
So if Alex is God, and Archem is Kratos, who's the naked girls in the sex minigames?
-
I'm going to keep my mouth shut about that
-
YES HE IS VERY GOOD
And I'm sorry, high priest
It's just that this Alex dude...he's very persuasive
-
uhh....
what just happened?
-
Lol, silly newbies
-
Lol, silly newbies
we resent the term "newbie." We prefer the term "experience-challenged."
-
Alex = Old god.
Squaredood = New god.
Read the bible.
sorry, im too lazy to search for it. post a link, and ill read it.
-
that would involve walking/driving to the bookstore.
and if i order it online, ill probably just pay $80 for what turns out to be a Playboy from the 70's.
Next stop: Amazon.com
-
Wait, what the hell just happened since I last posted?
-
You were proclaimed the Charas God, I refuted saying Alex was our god, then Father Lucas came in and reminded us all that Square Dood is our true saviour
It was all very exciting
-
Although I am late to the party, Grandy was wrong.
I forget what else I wanted to say.
-
You were proclaimed the Charas God, I refuted saying Alex was our god, then Father Lucas came in and reminded us all that Square Dood is our true saviour
It was all very exciting
So I was God for five minutes?
Neat.
-
if it's any consolation, you WERE named the Charas Kratos.
-
What is nothing? Some say that over 99% of the univers is composed of nothing, like the vacuum in the space, but isn't vacuum by itself something? If, as an example, we make a ball of vacuum inside an air-filled room, wouldn't it be better to say it's a ball of something made out of nothing inside something which is so common it could be classified as nothing?
One could say that the very fact that something fails to be something makes it different of the rest, thus making it something instead of making it nothing.
Discuss.
Coming next: This thread is about everything. Stay tuned.
According to Taoism:
"What is, is. What is not, also is." Therefore, nothing is something, which means that there is no nothing, even though there is. Plus, one must consider energy. Does it not permeate nothing and also everything? Matter is nothing, even though it's something; energy is something, because it is, and also because I said so.
Also, atoms are mostly empty space anyways, but the space in them is still considered a part of their atomic structure. Electron fields and ****, man.
-
If you have absolutely no heat, no energy, you have nothing. If there's a giant void in space somewhere between some crazy galaxies and there happens to be no molecules, atoms, matters, nothing... Just because you can see the black void and empty space in which something could occupy doesn't make the black void anything more than what it is, and it is nothing. You could argue, "well, it is something because clearly we give it a name." And I'd agree, nothing is something, but it's still nothing. Just because we give nothing a name doesn't make it something... Isn't zero not even technically a real number? Just a placeholder for nothing, something humans had to create to understand the absence of an amount. Think about it, zero's the only number with specific privileges
damn, talk about doing loops.
It's interesting to think that numbers have an "Absolute Zero" in the sense that there is nothing, but you can have as large a number as you want. In the same kind of way, heat has no limit, but it can only get so cold... So does cold really exist? Or is it a human fabrication?
-
Cold's just a reference point for when the temperature drops below a point that we are comfortable with. In the north, 'cold' is probably considered below 30 degrees F, because they're used to it. However, a Viet Cong veteran probably finds anywhere below 60 degrees F cold, since it's so hot and humid in Vietnam. Cold is a circumstantial term, temperature is not. So, I suppose cold only really exists in the sense that it is a level of temperature that we don't like.
-
Fahrenheit ftl. Learn to use celcius, it's more ownage than that weird Fahrenheit and more adaptle to that third one I forgot the name of.
-
Real men use the Kelvin scale.
-
Real men use the Kelvin scale.
That's the one I forgot. Kelvin. I prefer using both Kelvin and Celcius. Celcius for every day and Kelvin for science.
-
Hey Drace. >:C
This thread is about nothing. >:C
You're discussing scales. >:C
DO YOU WANT THIS TO BE LOCKED?! >:CCC
-
The only spam I see here is the 'this thread's going off topic' gags :p Don't turn this into another argument about that... Not when the thread's actually brought about some genuine conversation.
The Kelvin scale's kinda cool, provided that scientists are right about all movement in particles stopping at a certain temperature. The big problem is that because we can't achieve 0K, it's all theory and stuff.
-
I aways wondered if it would be possible to get so cold, the particles stoped moving, and then started moving backwards
I know, makes no sense at all, but so does quantun physics.
-
I aways wondered if it would be possible to get so cold, the particles stoped moving, and then started moving backwards
I know, makes no sense at all, but so does quantun physics.
Well if that is possible, we can get immortality! Just freeze yourself in till you start moving backwards till when you're young again and defreeze. That theory and the jellyfish shall grant me eternal life!
-
nope. unless everything newton discovered was wrong...which, believe me, ive seen with my own eyes, is not wrong.
-
I aways wondered if it would be possible to get so cold, the particles stoped moving, and then started moving backwards
I know, makes no sense at all, but so does quantun physics.
When you're in your car and you slam on the brakes and hold them on, you don't go backwards after you stop.
And as Jim's already said, you can't hit absolute zero.
-
And as Jim's already said, you can't hit absolute zero.
You are a quitter.
You'll never get immortal with this kind of mentality.
-
When you're in your car and you slam on the brakes and hold them on, you don't go backwards after you stop.
Have you never played GTA?
Also, this is not a post.
-
Have you never played GTA?
That's reverse gear you big silly. I mean in real life. Also, you should have posted that instead of beaming it into my brain.
You are a quitter.
You'll never get immortal with this kind of mentality.
You know it's physically impossible because heat can only move to somewhere colder, right?
-
You know it's physically impossible because heat can only move to somewhere colder, right?
Quiiiter.
-
Quiiiter.
Please indicate whether or not you are trolling so that I can get back to being overly serious about everything all the time.
It's impossible though. Thermodynamics. Seriously. See what I did there.
-
I smell quit.
-
If you could control an area of space and completely stop all transference of energy within that space, you would in effect achieve the thermodynamic impossibility of absolute zero. I'm not really sure why you would want to, but I suppose someone will probably attempt to invent the technology anyways, making the new coolest, most useless technology in the known universe.
-
But can we create absolute zero in a vacuum?
-
Probably, if there was no energy bouncing at all. But, really, how would you know? Even if you did reach absolute zero, whatever you were using to measure that would more likely than not be unable to get an accurate measurement.