On Nothing in a void.

exchemist said:
Oxygen is not alive.
Click to expand...

Where did I mention oxygen?

The human average body contains enough iron to make a small nail.

The iron is in the form of hemoglobin within the red blood cells.

Copy Paste all of the below as to lazy to retype.

I was of the opinion that iron was not alive but became alive when it was incorporated into the life process in the form of hemoglobin.

I was totally wrong and it was explained to me why.

I do find it strange that my life depends on a non living substance. (The iron)

But it works so I am not going to argue.

Humpty Dumpty not like arguments.
Ditto Poe :)
 
Michael 345 said:
Where did I mention oxygen?

The human average body contains enough iron to make a small nail.

The iron is in the form of hemoglobin within the red blood cells.

Copy Paste all of the below as to lazy to retype.

I was of the opinion that iron was not alive but became alive when it was incorporated into the life process in the form of hemoglobin.

I was totally wrong and it was explained to me why.

I do find it strange that my life depends on a non living substance. (The iron)

But it works so I am not going to argue.

Humpty Dumpty not like arguments.
Ditto Poe :)
Click to expand...
I was merely giving another example of some non-living substances that you depend on, since you profess to find it strange.

There are plenty of others, water being perhaps the most obvious. But you also depend on copper. Cytochrome c is vital for the respiration of cells and contains both iron and copper. (It is the binding of cyanide to this Fe-Cu system that makes it such a devastating poison.)
 
exchemist said:
I was merely giving another example of some non-living substances that you depend on, since you profess to find it strange.

There are plenty of others, water being perhaps the most obvious. But you also depend on copper. Cytochrome c is vital for the respiration of cells and contains both iron and copper. (It is the binding of cyanide to this Fe-Cu system that makes it such a devastating poison.)
Click to expand...

OK thanks and noted.

The person who gave me the tit bit about iron also mentioned brain cells.

Brain cells can be considered non living as they lack the ability, as do red blood cells, to reproduce.

Seems like we are all brain dead but still walking around.

;)
 
I can only express this crudely but here goes.
In an atom there is center bit and electron occupying an oribit that makes out a track all over does this electron orbit in nothing?
Does this electron orbit thru something?
Alex
 
Xelasnave.1947 said:
I can only express this crudely but here goes.
In an atom there is center bit and electron occupying an oribit that makes out a track all over does this electron orbit in nothing?
Does this electron orbit thru something?
Alex
Click to expand...
Just empty space - with an electric field in it, due to the charge on the nucleus, of course.
 
Xelasnave.1947 said:
So there is a field can it be resolved to particles moving thru space?
In that space between the space is there nothing?
Alex
Click to expand...
No a field is not made of particles. It is something describing an influence capable of exerting a force, due in this case to a particle somewhere nearby (the atomic nucleus).

But certainly, while one would describe the space an atomic electron inhabits as "empty", one would not say it is "nothing", because there is something detectable present, namely the electrostatic field. I think it is a nice point what a "field" actually is.
 
TL;DR

"Nothing" is just the recognition of potential. If you hold out any empty hand, you are holding nothing. It's not that "nothing" is a tangible existence that you can hold, but that the context of the hand limits the possibilities, e.g. it cannot actually "hold" air, etc.. It is primarily a cognition relative to something. "Nothing" can be created at will, and only takes up space as long as we entertain the relationship. I can recognize there is nothing between my couch and coffee table, but if I extend the context to the rug, air, etc., there is no longer nothing there. Now we can abstract that to some absolute, but absolutes are unattainable. It is legitimate to discuss "nothing" in cosmology because without time the definition of "exists" is ambiguous. After all, how does a property exist in no time at all? Since matter relies on the motion of its subatomic particles, if there is not even the Planck time for motion to occur, we cannot say that matter exists.
 
Xelasnave.1947 said:
So there is a field can it be resolved to particles moving thru space?
In that space between the space is there nothing?
Alex
Click to expand...
Hi Alex: BTW: I think your posts are insightful and noteworthy. Been reading on other Threads re: concepts of nothing. IMO: There is always something. Nothing is a useful descriptive and conversational concept, but it is never actual. There is always (at least) a field (or manifold fields, etc) penetrating otherwise 'nothing', albeit some fields are too weak to detect, or some we can not yet detect (e.g., subquantum) fields.
 
Xelasnave.1947 said:
I suggest that there is no place where we find nothing in so far as there is always something.
In the most empty part of space there is something.
I find such interesting.
Alex
Click to expand...
I did read thru the whole thread (I'm sorry to say, lol), but this post on page two seems to propose the answer. There is no empty space. It solves the question about nothing doesn't it?
 
quantum_wave said:
I did read thru the whole thread (I'm sorry to say, lol), but this post on page two seems to propose the answer. There is no empty space. It solves the question about nothing doesn't it?
Click to expand...
Just because I make a claim does not mean I am right so the question may not be solved.
Alex
 
Syne said:
TL;DR

"Nothing" is just the recognition of potential. If you hold out any empty hand, you are holding nothing. It's not that "nothing" is a tangible existence that you can hold, but that the context of the hand limits the possibilities, e.g. it cannot actually "hold" air, etc.. It is primarily a cognition relative to something. "Nothing" can be created at will, and only takes up space as long as we entertain the relationship. I can recognize there is nothing between my couch and coffee table, but if I extend the context to the rug, air, etc., there is no longer nothing there. Now we can abstract that to some absolute, but absolutes are unattainable. It is legitimate to discuss "nothing" in cosmology because without time the definition of "exists" is ambiguous. After all, how does a property exist in no time at all? Since matter relies on the motion of its subatomic particles, if there is not even the Planck time for motion to occur, we cannot say that matter exists.
Click to expand...
Well put! I like that description! :)
And certainly fits in with my ideas about space and time....
 
Conceptions of space are similar to nothing, which is why "nothing" is ofter conflated with "space" or "void". Space is just a relationship between objects, similar to how something provides the context for nothing. Without objects, space could not really be defined. Events are to time what objects are to space.
 
"...Tit bit...," it's tid bit.

Hold out your hand and there is still space there! The "universe" is "expanding" so movement is possible. Without space we would not be able to move. Space is not just where the stars exist. We exist within space. The stars exist in outer space.
 
Xelasnave.1947 said:
So there is a field can it be resolved to particles moving thru space?
In that space between the space is there nothing?
Alex
Click to expand...

I think I am resigned to our Universe having no space where nothing is present

Even when the space has the lowest vacuum possible there will be streams of neurones passing through

But at the visible edge of the Universe we have galaxies and extending out from those galaxies at the edge light waves (and I guess neurones)

So the question becomes into what are the light waves and neurones extending into?

What is out beyond the furthest tip of the extending light wave or neutron?

Could that beyond beyond be considered NOTHING?
 
Michael 345 said:
So the question becomes into what are the light waves and neurones extending into?
Click to expand...
We can only speculate but I think the mainstream view is that there is no outside of our universe.
If there is nothing how far would it extend before we again find something.
Alex
 
...space!

"Nothingness" (sacralidge, how dare I!) exists in the beginning. Anyone interested in aliens?? Aren't they green? "Little green men?" That's where they come from (so I'm telling you!) "Nothing"
 
Xelasnave.1947 said:
We can only speculate but I think the mainstream view is that there is no outside of our universe.
If there is nothing how far would it extend before we again find something.
Alex
Click to expand...

there is no outside of our universe.

Surely you are not suggesting our Universe has some sort of skin covering?

To quote my favourite space entity Buzz Lightyear

To Infinity and beyond

Unless we bump into another expanding Universe???

Thought bubble

Can external Universes be Dark Matter / Dark Energy?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top