0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
This is why you are completely wrong, because distance does exist and will always exist. There is no contradiction when i say space itself does not bend of stretch, do you know what space means?''a continuous area or expanse which is free, available, or unoccupied.''Remove all the energy from space and you are left with? A void of space.Energy is not space, space has energy in it, there is a big difference there.
Okay, my statement apparently went over your head, so I'll try again. A straight line is the shortest distance between 2 points in space. Any curved line will travel a longer distance than a straight line. The more curved a line between two points is, the longer the distance of the lineAnd for general relativity: If can be inferred that the closer two points are to each other, less curvature there is between them. Gravity and inertia are the same force. All objects with mass have gravity. Gravity affects how an object travels along a spacial curve.Time compression / dilation is the result of traveling along these curves. The longer the curve between you and an object, the more time it takes for the light bouncing off the object to reach you. The shorter the curve between you and the object, the closer it is to becoming a straight line. There's a limit to how dilated or compressed time can be.
both of you seem to believe that I'm laboring under some delusion that my hypothesis conforms to General Relativity. Believe me when I say I am under no such misconception. My hypothesis instead seeks to challenge Relativity and actually places it more into the domain of quantum physics, while at the same time removing quantum physics from the realm of the spooky and unexplained.
1.Ok, then I have some questions, if the void exists, where does it end?2. Does it end at all? 3.Would it have been in the universe before the big bang?4. Or did it occur simultaneously? 5.Or after?6.When the space between galaxies expands, does the void expand with it? 7.Or is the whole of time and space pushed further out into the void?8. If so this brings us full circle to "does the void have an end?" 9.If so does that mean the edges of our universe are being smashed against the end of this spacial void as the space between galaxies expands? 10. If it does not have an end, then what exactly is our universe contained in?
.. a distance can never equal zero or it would not be called a distance ..
Quote from: Thebox on 22/10/2015 18:58:57.. a distance can never equal zero or it would not be called a distance ..It could be an observer effect.Elsewhere you argue that a circle is an observer effect, but a circle is made up of distances. The definition is of a point moving at a fixed distance from a centre. It would seem reasonable to assume that if shapes and waves are observer effects then distance is as well.
A circle is in the void
Quote from: Thebox on 23/10/2015 14:05:20A circle is in the voidSo you think Stonehenge and the plate on your table and the wheels on your car are all in a void?If circles are in the void distance could be as well.
Umm, that's kind of what I'm getting at, my theory is stating that distance does not exist. I'm not using space as a measurement of distance, I'm saying space creates an illusion of distance that does not actually exist, that the universe does in fact exist in a point.
By definition a void does not mean without space, and spaces have a distance,always have,always will.Even light and CBMR is in this void making it not a void.
I think is not surprising that this is the first thing people are questioning. Distance is so fundamental to our understanding and description of the world around us. Even the box with his strange idea of circles only existing in a void cannot conceive of a world without dimensions.I must say that if it an illusion it is a pretty convincing one and has fooled a lot of people for a very long time.Given its very ingrained nature, I can't see you getting past this point.It also seems quite radical just to explain a few minor anomalies. It will be interesting to see how develop your theory to explain all aspects of what we observe and whether you can build the maths to explain your theory without using distance. For example you are already using words such as forwards, backwards, move, beyond, all of which rely on there being a concept of distance and have no meaning in a point universe.
The quantum world is also in this void of yours, so can you explain how the orbit of an electron behaves the way it does in this void? In an atom the electron orbiting a nucleus jumps between different orbits, and by jumps I mean it teleports instantly from one orbit to another orbit without touching any of the "distance" in between, this is where we get the term "quantum leap" from. How are electrons able to defy traveling distance if they are in fact inside of a void that defines a set distance?
It's is a contraction if 'it is'. Its is the possessive form, which is the one you want.I know it sounds pedantic, but it's actually quite important if you want people to take you seriously.
Quote from: ggimark on 24/10/2015 05:54:43The quantum world is also in this void of yours, so can you explain how the orbit of an electron behaves the way it does in this void? In an atom the electron orbiting a nucleus jumps between different orbits, and by jumps I mean it teleports instantly from one orbit to another orbit without touching any of the "distance" in between, this is where we get the term "quantum leap" from. How are electrons able to defy traveling distance if they are in fact inside of a void that defines a set distance?Can I explain the electron transporting from one point to another without travelling through a distance? yesCan science explain,noIt would just be my logical opinion if I told you.
Okay, my statement apparently went over your head, so I'll try again.A straight line is the shortest distance between 2 points in space. Any curved line will travel a longer distance than a straight line.The more curved a line between two points is, the longer the distance of the lineAnd for general relativity:If can be inferred that the closer two points are to each other, less curvature there is between them.Gravity and inertia are the same force.All objects with mass have gravity.Gravity affects how an object travels along a spacial curve.Time compression / dilation is the result of traveling along these curves. The longer the curve between you and an object, the more time it takes for the light bouncing off the object to reach you. The shorter the curve between you and the object, the closer it is to becoming a straight line. There's a limit to how dilated or compressed time can be.
So what is your logical opinion?
Quote from: ggimark on 24/10/2015 14:33:42So what is your logical opinion?The observation of the electron position A is not the same electron observation as position B. They are different electrons.
So you're saying that you believe electrons essentially clone themselves? Take a hydrogen atom for instance, it only has 1 electron to begin with, so it would effectively have to simultaneously clone itself in a different orbit and destroy itself in its current orbit. So the new electron would be a clone. However both the cloning and the destruction would require energy, which does work for increases in orbit, since each uptick occurs when the electrons energy increases. However decreases in orbit are accomplished when the electron loses energy which doesn't allow for it to use that energy to clone and destroy itself.
I am saying that there is no proof a hydrogen atom has one electron, that is a theory, I am not saying clones, I am saying it is a different electron altogether than the original viewed.
You cannot have velocity in a point universe without distance. Therefore you cannot have kinetic energy. You also cannot have any types of wave in a point universe. So ultimately you have zero energy in a point universe. I would imagine that gives zero probability that this hypothesis is correct.