quote:
So what we're debating here is whose position is supported by the available evidence. In the case of space, the evidence we have indicates it does not have an edge. What evidence are you looking at that tells you space does have an edge?
current evidence is speculation. Unless you examine the vacuum itself.
The vacuum is indicative of an edge.
Reason: if you fill a tank twice the size of a water tower with a metal with a low melting point (ie: aluminum or boron or something else) and suck out all the air until the metal almost reaches boiling, the top of the element would behave with a surface tension like water. and the element would stretch from the top and retain weight on the bottom of the tank.
The vacuum holds the top of the liquid at 0 pressure, whilst as you deepen so does the pressure. in this way, the vacuum supports the surface from collapse, via the edges of the tank.
The math for this dynamic is speculative with my current abilities with math, however, i believe this dynamic to follow observation and provable. But only on a large scale. i could be wrong but i do not believe this dynamic to prove itself on a small scale such us under 100 gallons or maybe more. i could be wrong. but I'm showing the evidence to those who have the mathematical ability now, instead of waiting for my own mathematics to improve. However, if you all choose to disagree with the theories Ive introduced, or the evidence being the vacuum itself and expansion within borders; Well that's fine too. I'll eventually find the answers I'm looking for.
However, for scientists to take theories that are built on top of theory, with need be only ONE misconception to throw off years and years of research and math, and to teach it as if it has no flaw, when its widely accepted superbly tentative on what can be said of singularities or the big bang singularity, It is an outrage and foolishness to not accept new evidence or fresh eyes. You can agree to disagree or agree to ignore, but they cannot call themselves an expert on something NO one has understood. Not without pure foolishness.
Expansion, evolution, and a vacuum indicate a universe inside of a body that it expanded within and from. and evolution shows a singularity is eventual regardless of evolutions because the start was pre evolved. and therefore singular. by this logic: that as long as two things are in an evolved state, before that is a relevant question.
To further demonstrate my proposal the proof would be in the actual utilization of perpetual motion, which is motion within an enclosed system because of an imbalance's attempt to correct itself, with no chance at success.
lets take the earlier proposal of how the double sized water tower full of boron would behave if a line was attached at a specific thickness; to the bottom of that tank where pressure was, to the side of the tank above the vacuum line. have the line closed off and full of the element in the tank, then open the bottom, and then the top valve. if the fluid began to circulate without allowing the top pressure to fall beyond the spring level, the liquid acting as a spring would allow motion that could not correct. again, this is only possible at large volumes IF its possible at all. But who has a true answer? either the experiment must be run, or the math available to find out. So..it CAN be proven that space has an edge if the dynamic that allows the planets to move perpetually in space can be mimicked on earth.
It just hasn't been proven YET.
keep your mind from this way of enquiry, for never will you show that not-being is
~parmenides
™ Version 4.2
