Lunchbox and Space Transportation

Thread Starter

rahulpsharma

Joined Sep 5, 2010
21
While packing lunchbox for the kid at a place 'A', I realized that there are three things (or perhaps four) I pack, inside... Eatables at Place A, air molecules of Place A and empty space of Place A...!!

Now when the kid goes to school at Place 'B', he opens the lunchbox and finds the same eatables packed at place 'A', the air molecules packed at Place 'A' BUT what about the empty space packed at Place A...?? Is the lunchbox at Place B carrying the same space packed at Place A....???
 

djsfantasi

Joined Apr 11, 2010
5,680
I’m not sure what you mean by “empty space”? Can you clarify?

The eatables are the same at A and B. The air not so much. Unless it is a hermetically sealed lunchbox, some air will be exchanged. So, at place B there will be air molecules from place A, place B and everywhere in between.

In both the case of air and eatables, we are talking about concrete physical objects. So you are talking about measuring molecules. My impression of your empty space, is that you’re measurements are different. You are not measuring molecules. Thus, any comparison is invalid.

Once again. What is empty space? Are you talking about volume? What?
 

Thread Starter

rahulpsharma

Joined Sep 5, 2010
21
I’m not sure what you mean by “empty space”? Can you clarify?

The eatables are the same at A and B. The air not so much. Unless it is a hermetically sealed lunchbox, some air will be exchanged. So, at place B there will be air molecules from place A, place B and everywhere in between.

In both the case of air and eatables, we are talking about concrete physical objects. So you are talking about measuring molecules. My impression of your empty space, is that you’re measurements are different. You are not measuring molecules. Thus, any comparison is invalid.

Once again. What is empty space? Are you talking about volume? What?
When I framed the thot in my mind, I didnt quite have a fair idea myself of what I wanted to ask... So took up the analogy of air molecules and food inside to bring out a contrast with 'Empty Space'....!! Perhaps I wanted to know about Empty Space itself and needlessly made up an elaborate question...!!

However, what I think, I wanna ask is this: At Place A, there would be 'something' (I am avoiding calling it 'empty space' now lest it has a deeper technical meaning in physics) which would be there in addition to the molecules (of air, food, i.e, matter)....!! If I evacuate all these molecules, this 'something' would still be there...!! And when I pack my lunch box (hermetically), at Place A, this 'something' should get sealed inside the box...!!

When the box is displaced to Place B, there would be similar 'something' there too... And upon opening my box, would I find the 'something' that was packed at Place A or 'something' already there at Place B...!!

Sorry, again if it sounds vague again...
 

MrChips

Joined Oct 2, 2009
19,375
"Empty space" is a void. There is nothing inside a void. You can move a void from one place to another.
I can create a vacuum chamber, for example and vacuum flask or dewar. I can move the dewar from one place to another and it remains a vacuum dewar.
 

Daniel Sala

Joined May 28, 2015
60
Hi,

Depending on how far away Place A is from Place B, maybe the electrons from the atoms in the (non-)empty space trapped in the lunchbox are already at Place B before the kid even leaves Place A. Allegedly, electrons flying around an atom's nucleus are comparable in distance to standing in the centre of Central Park and the perimeter fence, allegedly.

There's no such thing as empty space, only what we as a species haven't been able to quantify or bothered to read about/watch a few documentaries about yet. What's dark matter? - Definitely not nothing, I think it's the bad karma the human race is multiplying with our collective actions by the second, it's a Star Wars light and dark/good and bad kind of thing. So is the empty space in this kid's lunchbox positive or negative? ;)
 
This reminds me of how the vocabulary of subjects can often be self defeating. With engines vacuum and vacuum leak are common terms but what they mean is never defined. There is no actual "vacuum" involved and that's accepted but no where can you find a defined measure or universal differential standard of low pressure identifying what is meant by vacuum. There is also no such thing as a vacuum leak. If a low pressure is leaking into a lower pressure than the leak would be to the lower pressure or vacuum. An engine works by creating pressure differentials and nothing confuses kids or students more than how loosely vacuum is used with explaining how an engine works. Trying to explain pressure wave reflection and scavenging with positive and negative pressure waves is difficult because of the loose use of vacuum. "Empty space" in a lunch box seems about as incorrect of a definition as vacuum is with an engine.
 

BR-549

Joined Sep 22, 2013
4,940
When, or at what point, and how much, empty space did you put in the lunchbox?

Our modern science does not believe in empty space. But the real truth is, that if it were not empty, they would not be able to detect anything in it.

Sounds backwards doesn't it.
 
When, or at what point, and how much, empty space did you put in the lunchbox?

Our modern science does not believe in empty space. But the real truth is, that if it were not empty, they would not be able to detect anything in it.

Sounds backwards doesn't it.
How is "empty" defined in your supposition? I'd say it sounds more illogical than backwards. Put two vases on a table, put water and flowers in one and nothing in the other and neither is empty. That's how I understand it anyway.
 

BR-549

Joined Sep 22, 2013
4,940
That's the point. What exactly does empty mean. Hertzian emission(radio waves) fills empty space. Space is filled from all directions. You may detect them when they pass. Or view a small portion at nite. There are so many, that there is a background flux average with time.

It gives space an apparent temperature. Or an energy level. A foam(superposition) of radio waves. Static.

As our detection improves and because of the elapsed time, and all the directions of the emissions, this foam should be extremely dynamic.

We can detect femtosecond changes and we will get much quicker.

This foam is a big deal for a lot of scientists. They believe that it is a property of space, or another property of matter, instead of just temporally occupying space, like matter does.

Many believe that space itself was created along with matter in the big bang. So space is spreading out with matter. But they have not defined what is on the other side of space.

There is also the theory that mass has a lot of empty space in it. Along the lines of if one took all the space out of the empire state building......it would be the size of a golf ball. And still weigh the same. So it would oscillate thru the center of the earth.

But the space between particles in the atoms is not empty. It is occupied by the particle fields, which have much larger volumes than the particles. You can not compress an atom very much.

I think space is fundamentally empty.......but one would have to travel a far distance away from this universe to find clean space at zero temp. Need to escape the eons of radiation.
 

Thread Starter

rahulpsharma

Joined Sep 5, 2010
21
When, or at what point, and how much, empty space did you put in the lunchbox?

Our modern science does not believe in empty space. But the real truth is, that if it were not empty, they would not be able to detect anything in it.

Sounds backwards doesn't it.
How much empty space and at what time..??

Well, I believe wont it be equal to the dimensions defined by the lunch box...?? The lunch box is sitting with lid open... At the time of closing the lid, the 'space', within the interior boundaries of the lunch box, gets 'trapped' (or doesnt it, I am not sure and thats what the post is about..!!) along with the other contents like food and air etc...
 

BR-549

Joined Sep 22, 2013
4,940
If the space goes with the lunchbox......what fills the depleted space you left behind on the table?

We would see space holes everywhere. Moving an object might destroy the universe.
 
This is something I heard and accept but don't pretend to fully understand. In theoretical physics for something to exist it has to contain information. Does the information of the empty space in the lunch box move with the lunch box or stay at the table? I'm assuming the minimal information of the empty space is its position with reference to some coordinate system.
 

BR-549

Joined Sep 22, 2013
4,940
Information theory is one of the most delusional of all the modern theories.

Classical theory shows where the constants come from. That's why it is the superior theory.

It defines and shows the difference between mass and matter. Mass is a force, matter is a structure.

Our physical universe is powered by force, no information is needed. No information is read, except by man. The ignorant man needs his information.

You or anybody else that reads this......has never been taught classical physics. You have been told that you have been taught classical physics.....but that classical theory fails to explain many results. That's a lie. Classical science detected, measured and explained relativity 50 years before einstein. Most of our modern theories are real hogwash.

Classical theory had an atomic model long before quantum mechanics. Were you taught the classical atomic theory....of course not. You never heard of the Parson magneton.

Study Wilhelm Eduard Weber for your electrical theory and relativity, and study Parson Magneton for atomic theory.

That's real science. And reasonable adult thinking. Physical reality is firm(sure) and simple. No magic is needed.

The only real physical mystery left is .......why is life the only singularity that has ever been detected?
 
Last edited:
Was I ever taught theoretical physics? No. Classical physics? I had my share of physics classes but as far as the philosophical arguments of physics, I never got that. In fact I would bet the majority of engineers I know, and that's many, would say the same.

I do know this much though, a lot of what is generally accepted today was hog wash not long ago. Furthermore if the classical theories are so straight forward and obvious why isn't there a unified theory yet? You could be 100% correct. I don't know enough to argue the point one way or the other as I said. No one can deny though the long history of physicists saying "oops." Because Einstein argued against black holes, black holes was considered out there theoretical physics for a long time. Now they can apparently be photographed.

https://mysteriousuniverse.org/2019/04/black-hole-photographed-what-do-black-hole-deniers-do-now/

Has any classical physics theory ever been proved wrong?
 

BR-549

Joined Sep 22, 2013
4,940
Yes, continuously. That's how classical science works. One of the best examples is in astronomy.

And that was the realization the planetary orbits are not elliptical, there are helical.

This led to the Theory of Everything. There is a classical theory of everything.

It comes from the concept that there is only one physical entity in our reality. Our modern science calls this entity, an electrical charge, but does not understand what it is.

Charge is not a property of, or a part of, mass. Mass is a property of, and a part of, electrical charge. Charge is the only entity.

An electrical charge is a explosion of energy that has been locked and phased into mid-explosion.

A gravitational orbit is an implosion of mass that has been locked and phased into mid-implosion.

Both are accomplished with a helical spin. A electrical divergent force and a mass convergent force, controlled and contained by a helical spin.

Both have two perpendicular accelerations. Just like light.

The theory of everything.

Oh yes...the black hole image.........look closely and you can see a torus. A torus is made of many helices.
 
Thanks for the response but most of what you wrote is beyond my knowledge and grasp but this did stick out; E=MC^2. I get that you are saying a "charge" and "energy" are different properties but I've always understood a charge to be stored or potential energy. For example, a charged battery vs. a dead battery. I understand mass and weight are not the same but does a charged battery weight the same when dead? I always thought they didn't. The charged battery had slightly more weight. If mass is weight * acceleration, what's changing in the battery except or other than the charge? I also have a hard time comprehending a charge with no mass. What is charged? Nothing? What holds a charge together or contains it?

EDIT, I see what I'd call a torus in the picture but I'm not sure I see a helices?
 
Last edited:
Information theory is one of the most delusional of all the modern theories.

Classical theory shows where the constants come from. That's why it is the superior theory.

It defines and shows the difference between mass and matter. Mass is a force, matter is a structure.

Our physical universe is powered by force, no information is needed. No information is read, except by man. The ignorant man needs his information.

You or anybody else that reads this......has never been taught classical physics. You have been told that you have been taught classical physics.....but that classical theory fails to explain many results. That's a lie. Classical science detected, measured and explained relativity 50 years before einstein. Most of our modern theories are real hogwash.

Classical theory had an atomic model long before quantum mechanics. Were you taught the classical atomic theory....of course not. You never heard of the Parson magneton.

Study Wilhelm Eduard Weber for your electrical theory and relativity, and study Parson Magneton for atomic theory.

That's real science. And reasonable adult thinking. Physical reality is firm(sure) and simple. No magic is needed.

The only real physical mystery left is .......why is life the only singularity that has ever been detected?
Yes, continuously. That's how classical science works. One of the best examples is in astronomy.

And that was the realization the planetary orbits are not elliptical, there are helical.

This led to the Theory of Everything. There is a classical theory of everything.

It comes from the concept that there is only one physical entity in our reality. Our modern science calls this entity, an electrical charge, but does not understand what it is.

Charge is not a property of, or a part of, mass. Mass is a property of, and a part of, electrical charge. Charge is the only entity.

An electrical charge is a explosion of energy that has been locked and phased into mid-explosion.

A gravitational orbit is an implosion of mass that has been locked and phased into mid-implosion.

Both are accomplished with a helical spin. A electrical divergent force and a mass convergent force, controlled and contained by a helical spin.

Both have two perpendicular accelerations. Just like light.

The theory of everything.

Oh yes...the black hole image.........look closely and you can see a torus. A torus is made of many helices.

First, I admire your judicious editing as it advoids any spiraling.

"Mass is a force"

This is new to me. Could you explain it to me please.

"A torus is made of many helices."

Mrs. Gowman's 6th grade geometry class was a long time ago in 1966\7. Maybe something has changed but at that time a torus was made from circles and I don't remember that ever changing.

"And that was the realization the planetary orbits are not elliptical, there are helical."

I assume you are referring to heliocentric orbits which are orbits around a barycenter? The necessity for computing heliocentric orbits based on the parallel motions of let's say the earth and sun because of their common orbits in the Milky Way requires a common reference and a common constant velocity to that reference. Since a heliocentric orbit requires the constant velocity and parallel motion the orbit of the earth with reference to the sun is still computed as helical. The external reference to the Milky Way is irrelevant.

"That's real science. And reasonable adult thinking."

"You or anybody else that reads this......has never been taught classical physics. You have been told that you have been taught classical physics.....but that classical theory fails to explain many results. That's a lie. Classical science detected, measured and explained relativity 50 years before einstein. Most of our modern theories are real hogwash."

Wow, a bit harsh isn't it? I understand you don't accept the Information Theory but I did preface my post that it was something I'd heard and don't pretend to understand. If you think I'm challenging your opinion, which by the way many renowned physicists would, I'm not.

"Our physical universe is powered by force, no information is needed. No information is read, except by man. The ignorant man needs his information."

Wow again! What's the explanation for the advances in Quantum Mechanics and Computing because the Quantum Information Theory.

From classical science, science is a process or methodology. Part of the process is the philosophy of emergence which is about advances are made upon the history of what came before. The philosophy also states that the rules and laws of science have no casual efficacy. They don't cause or generate anything. All they do is define consistent relationships.

The theoretical physicist, Carlo Rovelli wrote about what he sees as some of the problems going on in science using how Einstein used methodology. You are right that many new theories disregard classical science as flawed but per Einstein you're wrong for disregarding new theories because of its flaws. The job is to examine the coherence of the new with the old. The problem isn't in the information or the data. The problem isn't in the theories. The problem is in the way we think about the theories. It's not enough to identify flaws in the theories, it's also necessary to identify where the theories are correct and supported by the data. That's where the coherence exists. That's the emergence.

To out right deny data or information just because someone "knows better" is intellectual dishonesty. It not only ignores the possibilities, it ignores that possibilities exist. It's not that the, "Ignorant man needs his information." It's that the ignorant man believes he intuitively knows everything. The ignorant man ignores the possibility his intuition might be skewed because the possibility doesn't feel good.
 

BR-549

Joined Sep 22, 2013
4,940
"Mass is a force"

This is new to me. Could you explain it to me please.

Ok....How did you think that mass is defined?........and what do you think mass is? Here is a definition of mass.

"Mass is both a property of a physical body and a measure of its resistance to acceleration (a change in its state of motion) when a net force is applied."

What does it take to move something or change the movement of something? It takes force.

The amount of force it takes.....is the mass. That's how mass is defined. Usually, we call that force, weight. We have X lbs. of mass. Or kilograms, to be European.



"A torus is made of many helices."

Do you have a hula hoop? Every man needs a hula loop to understand particle physics. OR planetary orbits. Astronomy. The hula hoop is the best tool.

Wrap a one turn of wire around the hula hoop. That doesn't mean, put a single turn thru center. It means a one turn around the toroid core. The hula hoop is the core. That one turn wire......forms a CLOSED helix around the hula loop. Add a few thousand more helices. Remove hula hoop. Now you have a torus. A torus is a round, closed cylinder. A cylinder that forms a circle. A cylindrical circle made of helices. The inside is empty.

By the way, that first one turn on the hula hoop.........that is also the path of a planet around our sun. It's helical, not elliptical. All the gravitation equations are for elliptics.

There is another definition of mass. Mass attracts mass. Mass is gravitational. THIS IS NOT TRUE. ONLY UNSYMMETRICAL MASS, ATTRACTS UNSYMMETRICAL MASS. Gravity has no affect on symmetrical particles or symmetric mass. What is UN-symmetrical mass? It's a dipole or an atom.

Theory of everything and all that jazz, but I don't think that you are really that interested.

I think maybe you like to debate, but not really interested in new ideas.

Modern science uses math models. Classical science uses physical models.

Charge is the only physical entity that is in existence. It has the structure of the STRIPE on a hula hoop. This structure is formed by two accelerations or two forces. The first force is the electrical force. The electrical force is repulsive. Cut the stripe or the helix, into a thousand slices. All of those pieces are trying to get away from all the other pieces. All of those pieces are trying to fly out away from each other. As they move out from each other, a magnetic field forms. If the charge is negative, an electron, all of the pieces will turn left as they move out. If the charge is positive, a proton, the pieces will turn right. The magnetic field is perpendicular to the electric field, is is NOT in opposition. It does not push back in....on the electric field......it turns it instead.

It rotates it. It rotates at the same speed that it expands. Did you get that. Think of an explosion.....and a split sec later.....turn all the flying out parts.....in one same direction.....at the same speed as the explosion. It turns the explosion into a confined spin.

Now there is more to this, because when the pieces of charge turn, they do a rotational turn, not a left handed turn like a car. Or like the solid parts, i.e. schrapnel of explosion.

This process forms a MULTI turn, rotating helical structure. It is powered by the repulsive electric and confined by the perpendicular magnetic. This rotating helical charge manufactures all the properties of the charge. And all of the physical properties in the universe, except gravity. And it is adjustable. But it takes two combined charges, to manufacture gravity.

This is usually bout the time I get called a crackpot. Do you want to continue?

Modern science has mass and energy, and even light......all wrong.
 
Top