How is the Universe here?

Percy writes:It says you need to read more carefully. Or, if you actually realize it didn't say anything to the effect that "matter is 99.9999% empty space and the other 0.0001% is... virtual," then it says you have to stop making stuff up.

Percy writes:As Cavediver said, it says nothing new. It is a more accurate validation of already accepted theory. That's not to say it isn't a stunning analytical accomplishment, because it most certain is.--Percy

Agobot writes:ut it did say that almost the entire mass of those 0.0001% comes from virtual particles that pop into "existence" for a very brief period of time from the vacuum of space.

You seem to have a classical picture of the quantum world which is wrong.

I'll leave it up to cavediver to say if the whole scientific community was aware that 99% of the mass of the nucleus came from virtual particles, or that it was his conviction/conclusion.

Agobot in Message 100 writes:ust wanted to add something cavediver didn't mention - matter is 99.9999% empty space and the other 0.0001% is... virtual.

It's confirmed: Matter is merely vacuum fluctuations

Matter is built on flaky foundations. Physicists have now confirmed that the apparently substantial stuff is actually no more than fluctuations in the quantum vacuum.

Percy writes:Do you get it now? The article did not say that 0.0001% of the atom is virtual. It said that the entire nucleus (the majority of the mass of an atom) is virtual.

Percy writes:Ah, okay, I see connection now. But this point is something you were arguing in the Uncovering a Simulation thread. I don't think your "matter is mostly empty space" argument makes sense here, or at least the tie-in isn't apparent to me.
--Percy

cavediver writes:Suddenly we're back to our question of what is 'touch'? If 'things' are 99.99999999% empty space, why do they seem solid? Why do our hands not pass through each other when we clap? Clearly it isn't the 'things' - electrons and nucleus - that are giving rise to the solidity. It is actually the electromagnetic forces generated by those charged electrons. The reason you cannot pass your hands through each other is because of ELECTROSTATIC REPLUSION; not because of any sense of there being 'things' in the way or the common sense view of 'clearly things cannot pass through other things'. When you 'touch' something, all that is happening is that you are being pushed away from some area of space by electromagnetism. Switch off that electromagnetism, and your hands will happily pass straight through each other, just as with colliding galaxies, where the chances of any single pair of stars actually hitting each other is very remote.

It's actually all energy.

The only "Solid" stuff is just an energy field as well.

The "Flux" theory is just a handle to explain how it may have come into being without an pre-intelligent source. Scientifically, nothing comes into being without an intelligent or engineered source, except in this one case of course. But it's all ancient history and subject to the whim and whimsy of the stroke of a pen.

Scientifically, nothing comes into being without an intelligent or engineered source, except in this one case of course.

Mr Jack writes:If there isn't a universal timeframe, how can it be meaningful to describe the big bang as happening a certain number of years in the past?

I think that what can be assumed is "13.7 billion years ago as far as the Earth is concerned."

I think that what can be assumed is "13.7 billion years ago as far as the Earth is concerned."

So, yeah, my guess is that the 13.7 billion year age is in reference to the Earth. Maybe our Sun? Or would our entire solar system (galaxy?) have about the same reference anyway?