Philosophy Discussion Forums

Xris~ the experiment is very simple and easy to understand. When Gaede hits a pin with a laser, which has a beam diameter larger than the pin cross section, a diffraction pattern is displayed on the wall behind. The pattern is perpendicular to the orientation of the pin, and forms a horizontal line with a bright spot at its center. The cross section of the pin is circular, so the light hitting it encounters a smooth continuum of chromed reflective surface. The laser light is reflected to the left and right at various angles, and thus forms the diffraction pattern observed due to the various distances to the wall from the reflections. The varying distances to the wall, given a single wavelength for the laser light, results in constructive and destructive interference. The laser/pin experiment can only be explained by light acting as waves.

In general, regarding Gaede, I have to say that his 'rope' idea doesn't make anything clearer regarding physics. It merely pushes attempts at explanation to another level. Gaede was asked to speak at an Electric Universe gathering, and declined, because he doesn't believe that plasma is a physical object. His definition of an object is clearly dubious, and doesn't create any new insight into physics. If part of his definition of an object regards a discontinuous separation between the object and space, then he doesn't even adhere to his own conditions regarding plasma. Sure, a rope as we all understand it, is a physical object. Does equating EM radiation with a rope suddenly make EM radiation a physical object? His rope idea is completely idiotic because it has no explanatory power. His own pin/laser experiment proves that the rope idea is defunct. We enter into a world where ropes bounce off surfaces, and interfere with other ropes... Its truly idiotic.

So if we replaced the pin with a bar you are saying the results would defunct Gaedes ropes? I would love to see you produce that alternative.Why should he support a concept that contradicts his hypothesis? The electric universe still insists on imposssible particles occupying space that defy any explanation. You have to ask them why they banned him from their forum.Why should he repeat his claims to a bunch of closed minded individuals.His ropes perform to every observation and never contradict the laws of science.


Trying to claim his topes bounce of objects is a gross misrepresentation of how his hypothesis explains em radiation. If you know anything, ropes do not bounce.

Xris wrote:How can you claim the universe is infinite? I personally have no idea but I do understand that space is only created by a relationship with objects of mass. If you have nothing to relate to then space must end. As nothing is an impossible concept you can never venture beyond this universe. I have always favoured the torus universe as concept with shape.

What is your definition of space? Space is the static distance between objects/matter. It is synonymous with nothing, nada, zip, etc.

If space is created by a relationship with objects of mass, aren't if there are no matter around, then we will just see or experience nothing that we called as space? So assuming if there is a lone and single atom in this universe, don't you think it is still contoured by nothing that we called as space?

Julius Caesar wrote:

Xris wrote:How can you claim the universe is infinite? I personally have no idea but I do understand that space is only created by a relationship with objects of mass. If you have nothing to relate to then space must end. As nothing is an impossible concept you can never venture beyond this universe. I have always favoured the torus universe as concept with shape.

What is your definition of space? Space is the static distance between objects/matter. It is synonymous with nothing, nada, zip, etc.

If space is created by a relationship with objects of mass, aren't if there are no matter around, then we will just see or experience nothing that we called as space? So assuming if there is a lone and single atom in this universe, don't you think it is still contoured by nothing that we called as space?

Sorry but there is no such thing as nothing. This hyperthetical single atom does not require or create space.

Xris wrote:

Julius Caesar wrote: (Nested quote removed.)


What is your definition of space? Space is the static distance between objects/matter. It is synonymous with nothing, nada, zip, etc.

If space is created by a relationship with objects of mass, aren't if there are no matter around, then we will just see or experience nothing that we called as space? So assuming if there is a lone and single atom in this universe, don't you think it is still contoured by nothing that we called as space?

Sorry but there is no such thing as nothing. This hyperthetical single atom does not require or create space.

How could a single atom exist without space? Then isn't this lone object is the same as space which is nothing?

Space does not exist, so it can't have anything done to 'it'. Nor can matter take up space. One cannot fill space with matter. And one cannot displace space with matter. Space resolves to nothing. Matter cannot impart causal relations to nothing. Very simple. Thus it is space contoured by matter, not "matter contoured by space". It seems you define space as the separation/distance between objects. Distance is a static concept of separation between surfaces. Since there is nothing after the farthest object in the universe space is NOT the distance between objects.

If you want to place a hyperthetical isolated atom into an infinite space, go ahead but it does not prove space exists without objects of mass.Space can only exist in presence of mass. Without mass how do you explain space? Space can only be imagined by measuring the distance between objects with mass. Infinity is a concept that defies an explanation. A metaphysical attempt to reason our inability to understand nothing.

EM radiation can only be explained using a hypothesis that gives objects and space a relationship. Light does not aimlessly wander of into the cosmos travelling till it encounters an object.Bill Gaedes ropes give mass and space a relationship that explains our universe.

Xris said:

"Space can only be imagined by measuring the distance between objects with mass."

This is wrong. I can imagine space without measuring at all. This false argument can be used to say that matter doesn't exist at all either because it can't be measured. In fact this phony argument can be applied to Bill's ropes to say they don't exist because they can't be measured.

There are two types of empty space, conceptually speaking. One type is without any objects in it at all. The other type is with objects. I don't know how the universe actually started, but I think it's fair to say it didn't start as empty space. Just to mention, from a recent NOVA episode, it says that even empty space has properties (what they are, it didn't specify).

Bills ropes exist between two objects so why can they not be measured? We have the ability to imagine many strange concepts but that does not create space without the need to measure it. Space time has to be a seen and measured. You can not make a metaphysical argument appear scientific. If we can not turn nothing in to something.

Xris wrote:Bills ropes exist between two objects so why can they not be measured? We have the ability to imagine many strange concepts but that does not create space without the need to measure it. Space time has to be a seen and measured. You can not make a metaphysical argument appear scientific. If we can not turn nothing in to something.

What evidence says that Bill's ropes exist? Why doesn't mainstream science support the notion of Bill's ropes? (BTW your last sentence doesn't make sense).

Philosophy Explorer wrote:

Xris wrote:Bills ropes exist between two objects so why can they not be measured? We have the ability to imagine many strange concepts but that does not create space without the need to measure it. Space time has to be a seen and measured. You can not make a metaphysical argument appear scientific. If we can not turn nothing in to something.

What evidence says that Bill's ropes exist? Why doesn't mainstream science support the notion of Bill's ropes? (BTW your last sentence doesn't make sense).

What evidence do you want exactly? Is there any proof that photons exist beyond the theoretical concept of them? You will have to ask science or those who support the accepted concept of EM radiation why they don't support his hypothesis. You want me to believe that space can exist with nothing in it.You want me to believe that space can exist of nothing.

What evidence do I want exactly? Your best evidence.

Philosophy Explorer wrote:What evidence do I want exactly? Your best evidence.

I am not going to revisit a subject that has been well explained before. I suggest you research his hypothesis. I am surprised you are actually questioning the hypothesis when you have no idea what it is.

I don't research hypotheses, just theories

Philosophy Explorer wrote:I don't research hypotheses, just theories

Then you can not argue from an informative position. It makes me wonder why you asked?

I asked to see what you had to offer. Apparently you can't argue from an informative position either and it hasn't been well explained.