Container of Vacuum

[Ecmandu]

A pure vacuum cannot persist because it will be violated by quantum fluctations almost instantaneously
And as far as black holes are concerned they will have less mass over time because they will evaporate

Answer me this: current physics states that black holes have extremely high density.

How do you know that they’re not just ‘vacuums’??

That’s the problem at the limits. They’re both the same, that’s where physics gets strange.

Differing densities is not Carleas offered. Carleas offered the behavior of an object the same density as water with an absolute vacuum in the middle.

I’m trying to point out that as an analogy to a black hole, an absolute vacuum has no gravity and infinite gravity.

[surreptitious75]

Theres no such thing as a persistent absolute vacuum as quantum mechanics has demonstrated
So whatever is at the centre of a black hole is not absolute or infinite even if it is a singularity

For a singularity cannot contain infinite density because that is both logically and physically impossible
As a dead star with finite density cannot suddenly possess infinite density after it becomes a black hole

[obsrvr524]

Answer me this: current physics states that black holes have extremely high density.

How do you know that they’re not just ‘vacuums’??

Aren't those things, mass density and vacuum, opposites?

an absolute vacuum has no gravity and infinite gravity.

Gravity stems from having a high mass. A vacuum, having no mass, could not have gravity at all.


In general isn't this an issue of average density of a given volume? Given a specific volume and considering that in one case the average density is that of pure water while in another case that same volume is mostly void of mass so with a lower average mass density, the one with the lower average density will get pushed away from the source of high gravity - the Earth (having tremendous mass in comparison).

The average density of a volume considers both the highest and the lowest mass (the water-weight shell and the vacuum together) to arrive at a medium density over all. It seems obvious that the rigid vacuum ball would rise even faster than an air filled balloon.

It seems disturbing that this would even be a question for anyone beyond primary school.

[Ecmandu]

Answer me this: current physics states that black holes have extremely high density.

How do you know that they’re not just ‘vacuums’??

Aren't those things, mass density and vacuum, opposites?

an absolute vacuum has no gravity and infinite gravity.

Gravity stems from having a high mass. A vacuum, having no mass, could not have gravity at all.


In general isn't this an issue of average density of a given volume? Given a specific volume and considering that in one case the average density is that of pure water while in another case that same volume is mostly void of mass so with a lower average mass density, the one with the lower average density will get pushed away from the source of high gravity - the Earth (having tremendous mass in comparison).

The average density of a volume considers both the highest and the lowest mass (the water and the vacuum) to arrive at a medium density over all. It seems obvious that the rigid vacuum ball would rise even faster than an air filled balloon.

It seems disturbing that this would even be a question for anyone beyond primary school.

Guy de Maupassant wrote (as a sexual line) “nature abhors a vacuum and every vessel demands to be filled”

One of the greatest lines in literature.

What’s the difference between an absolute vacuum (that instantaneously sucks everything in) and absolute gravity (that also instantaneously sucks everything in)?!?!

You guys are still thinking in the box about vacuums.

Let alone offsets (Particle balances) (which we haven’t delved into yet).

Your primary school was worse a teacher to you than me dropping out of it.

[obsrvr524]

“nature abhors a vacuum and every vessel demands to be filled”

Demanding something and getting it are two different things.

What’s the difference between an absolute vacuum (that instantaneously sucks everything in) and absolute gravity (that also instantaneously sucks everything in)?!?!

The difference is at least two fold. A vacuum is what is left after everything (at least the mass particles) have been attracted out of it or freed to leave the region. And also a vacuum doesn't "suck" anything. A vacuum is the lack of anything that could do any sucking or anything else. Energized atoms (mass) race about and like migrants pouring into America, filling any unprotected (walled ) void but also race out of it. The vacuum is merely what hasn't been yet filled by loose mass particles buzzing about (or any worthy thoughts filling a void of ignorance).

You guys are still thinking in the box about vacuums.

Let alone offsets (Particle balances) (which we haven’t delved into yet).

Your primary school was worse a teacher to you than me dropping out of it.

Just keep protecting that empty bubble. Maybe one day it will expand enough to float.

[Ecmandu]

Ok....

You put a bomb on the side of a plane. What happens? No cabin pressure anymore. The velocity of the plane (greater mass) sucks everything out of the hole you just made (lesser mass).

You’re really going to stand here with a straight face and tell me that no mass has a different property than infinite mass in terms of attraction?

Wipe your ass with your degree because it means nothing.

[obsrvr524]

Ok....

You put a bomb on the side of a plane. What happens? No cabin pressure anymore. The velocity of the plane (greater mass) sucks everything out of the hole you just made (lesser mass).

The air rushing by is what disallows an even number of atoms of air to enter the plane as the number that are carried away. More air leaves (on its own) than what enters. If the plane was not moving, has its mass changed? You really didn't go to school (honest question)? And if you don't mind, what country were you raised in?

You’re really going to stand here with a straight face and tell me that no mass has a different property than infinite mass in terms of attraction?

I am still trying to figure out whether mass has any attraction at all (James has proposed a reason to believe that it doesn't). But I am very confident that a vacuum, nothing at all, has no abilities to do anything. A vacuum is nothing but space. It just sits there. It isn't really even an "it". It is a region where there is no mass particles. It is up to mass-like things to enter that region or not due to whatever is propelling them at the time - their energy. If nothing around an empty space has any energy or motion of its own, the space would remain empty.

This is merely what the words mean. The word "vacuum" means that there is nothing there - nothing to do any sucking, blowing, or anything else. Otherwise it would not be called a "vacuum".

[Ecmandu]

Ok, so you think nothing and vacuum are synonyms.

That vacuums cannot exist.

I’ll tell you how all universes begin.

Let me start with this:

The faster you pull the air out of a balloon, it will implode to destroy the structural integrity of the balloon. It will still pop, just as if you over extended it.

Here’s the deal with absolute vacuums:

They will scrunch every particle in existence at infinite speed so that they all collide with each other ... this will create an explosion/expansion as they all hit each other at infinite speed and blow up! Like fireworks blow up or an atom bomb blow up.

That’s how our little universe started.

[obsrvr524]

Ok, so you think nothing and vacuum are synonyms.

A vacuum is an absence of matter such as particles. It might still have light and radio energy passing through it. It would have to have that much.

I’ll tell you how all universes begin.

Let me start with this:

The faster you pull the air out of a balloon, it will implode to destroy the structural integrity of the balloon. It will still pop, just as if you over extended it.

Here’s the deal with absolute vacuums:

They will scrunch every particle in existence at infinite speed so that they all collide with each other ... this will create an explosion/expansion as they all hit each other at infinite speed and blow up! Like fireworks blow up or an atom bomb blow up.

That’s how our little universe started.

And what is your source for this enlightenment? Why should I or anyone believe your extraordinary proclamation?

[Ecmandu]

Ok, so you think nothing and vacuum are synonyms.

A vacuum is an absence of matter such as particles. It might still have light and radio energy passing through it. It would have to have that much.

I’ll tell you how all universes begin.

Let me start with this:

The faster you pull the air out of a balloon, it will implode to destroy the structural integrity of the balloon. It will still pop, just as if you over extended it.

Here’s the deal with absolute vacuums:

They will scrunch every particle in existence at infinite speed so that they all collide with each other ... this will create an explosion/expansion as they all hit each other at infinite speed and blow up! Like fireworks blow up or an atom bomb blow up.

That’s how our little universe started.

And what is your source for this enlightenment? Why should I or anyone believe your extraordinary proclamation?

Let’s be more precise.

A vacuum is an absence of bosons.

You know... the thing I hate about physicists is that they think light is a cosmological constant. This is just bible and ancient Egyptian and mesapotamian cosmology (the sun god/the sun is the center of all things). I hate these backwards religious fucks.

Truth is: if a Big Bang really did occur, and light is a constant — our entire night sky would be white.

That means that something travels faster than light on some of our celestial objects (but not all of them)

So how does this relate to an absence of bosons?

Or radio waves, or light?

An absence of everything has the same gravitational pull as everything.

The concept is demonstrated over and over again when less air pressure pulls shit towards it that has greater air pressure. The ‘vacuum’ in this example.

The concept is also demonstrated when something with greater mass pulls something towards it.

What this means, and this is rudimentary science, is that masslessness acts the same as mass.

[obsrvr524]

Again..

And what is your source for this enlightenment? Why should I or anyone believe your extraordinary proclamation?

[Ecmandu]

Again..

And what is your source for this enlightenment? Why should I or anyone believe your extraordinary proclamation?

Well... your name is observer!

Just fucking look at the night sky.

[obsrvr524]

So no reason.

I could just as easily say, "just read a book on elementary science" but you have already rejected that.

I'll just leave you with your vacuous bubble.

[Ecmandu]

So no reason.

I could just as easily say, "just read a book on elementary science" but you have already rejected that.

I'll just leave you with your vacuous bubble.

Well, if you leave me with a vacuous bubble, I’ll eventually absorb more knowledge and wisdom than the world combined. The bubble will erode at some point, if not collapse instantly, and all the knowledge of existence will flood into my brain.

So sure... leave me with that.

[obsrvr524]

While I have you here, let me ask you something.

If you are American, who would you prefer Mr Trump or Mr Biden?

Let me guess - neither.

[Ecmandu]

While I have you here, let me ask you something.

If you are American, who would you prefer Mr Trump or Mr Biden?

Let me guess - neither.

I don’t vote for people who have sex or get married. It’s one of many indications that they’re not trustworthy. I also don’t vote for people who, while running, don’t raise the problem that the US is hacking it’s own elections. My politics is simple: transparent / anonymous voting. Even if it costs trillions to implement, its the most important part of a democracy alongside an informed populace. I always just vote for myself.

[phoneutria]

way to ruin a thread, tards

[Ecmandu]

way to ruin a thread, tards

Well, I guess that’s you: not engaging

One of my favorite phrases in life is:

“Well, that just happened”

Answer me this:

I’m assuming that you read and shit, rather than thinking things through.

Does a black hole have more or less mass than its surroundings?

How you answer this will determine how intelligent you are.

[phoneutria]

no

[Ecmandu]

no

Neti neti... not bad. It’s Vedic philosophy.

[obsrvr524]

no

A definite positive sign of intelligence.

[MagsJ]

When we know what something is not, then we know what it really truly is.

Carleas defined the parameters, and yet this philosophical inquiry was reinvented.. like the wheel. But back on-track now.. or so it seems, and I still haven’t looked at Carleas’ tabbed conclusion, yet. lol

[obsrvr524]

I think Mr Carleas proposed this thread as a veiled question as to whether Mr Joe Biden will float in the sewer.

[MagsJ]

Ah! lol.. well that went over my head, but.. then again, I ain’t American.

When will feudalistic countries realise that it’s what’s best for your country, not for your individual selves.. coz you’ve got to live in that muck and mire, sire.

[obsrvr524]

Ah! lol.. well that went over my head, but.. then again, I ain’t American.

I keep forgetting that the people on this board pay little to no attention to international and world affairs. Just to fill in the possible gaps:

After years of observing a variety of Americans while having to live in the "muck" of international manipulations, I think what is happening in America right now is the most important event since World War 2.

What is happening in the US is apparently exactly what led to the rise of Nazism, World War 1 and 2, and the Bolshevik Revolution. The US is in a battle with Marxism. The chosen leader for the Marxist revolution is a vacuous shell of a man named Mr Joe Biden who is standing as a Trojan puppet for a self-proclaimed socialist Mr Bernie Sanders and his bolsheviks and brown coats - Antifa and BLM. This is the time of pre-World War 3. You are living through it - right now. The presidential election in the US is extremely critical to the entire world. Will Mr Biden float to the top - will the USA lose its constitution - will the world's icon of individual and civil rights be lost forever?

That is how Mr Joe Biden got into this thread.

When will feudalistic countries realise that it’s what’s best for your country, not for your individual selves.. coz you’ve got to live in that muck and mire, sire.

I think that it is an intentional false narrative (created by Marxists) that individual rights are a separate, distinct, and contrary issue from societal obligations. The two issues are intertwined. The need of society is to serve individuals and the need for individuals is to serve society. They have to determine the balance. It is not, and never has been the dichotomy that Marxists promote for their required murderous revolutions.

The conclusion of this thread is that yes historically a socialist trojan horse will in fact rise in the sewer is society. The hope of the world is that a constitution separating governing powers (the Constitution of the USA) will form such a firm crust upon the waters that the Marxist fantasy bubble of belief will never reach the light of day in the USA.