# The Naked Scientists Forum

### Author Topic: Zero Theory  (Read 2925 times)

#### ggimark

• Jr. Member
• Posts: 18
##### Zero Theory
« on: 19/10/2015 06:24:07 »
I have recently been delving into the reconciliation of Relativity and Quantum Theory and found that it took me to some very strange places.  And at the end of months of pondering and researching the subjects I found the only way that I could make it work was to rewrite all the rules quite literally.  Basically I rejected all of the accepted principals and wrote my own.  My purpose for sharing them here is specifically for the criticism; I have broken the basic principals down into 4 rules and their subsets that I have titled Zero Theory, though it's more of a hypothesis, theory had a better ring.  They are as follows.

Zero Theory:

1st Rule:
All of Space and Matter is comprised of the same energy
A: Energy moving forward = Matter
B: Energy moving backwards = Space
C: The interaction between these two energies = Mass
D: Should energy collide with an object which it cannot move through, reflect off of, or be absorbed by it will
reverse

2nd Rule:
The diameter of the universe is 0. And the distance between any 2 points is always 0.
A: However any amount of the two types of energy can exist between 2 points.

3rd Rule:
All objects with mass must exert energy greater than the total energy they interact with to move past said
energy.
A: Mass-less objects may move unencumbered in a vacuum because the energy density is not great enough to force an
interaction.
B: Mass-less objects have no speed, as long as they are not forced to interact with dense energy they will always
move from any point to any other point instantaneously.
C: As energy increases the interaction between energies also increases, this creates a greater density in both
Matter and Space. As density increases mass-less objects passing through will begin to interact and no
longer move unencumbered.

4th Rule:
The energy of a particle allows it to move beyond any number of other particles so long as their combined energy
is not equal to or greater than the original particle.
A: This creates a zone around every particle in which it can exist at any given point.
B: The greater the energy surrounding a particle, the smaller this zone becomes.
« Last Edit: 22/10/2015 16:16:51 by ggimark »

#### Colin2B

• Global Moderator
• Neilep Level Member
• Posts: 1914
• Thanked: 123 times
##### Re: Zero Theory
« Reply #1 on: 19/10/2015 09:02:40 »
..... And the distance between any 2 points is always 0..
So you are saying that the diameter of your head is zero.

#### ggimark

• Jr. Member
• Posts: 18
##### Re: Zero Theory
« Reply #2 on: 19/10/2015 11:14:48 »
So you are saying that the diameter of your head is zero.
Why yes in fact that would be what the 2nd rule states.  Though I feel that was meant more as a personal jab than any sort of question or critique.  But can you tell me why it makes more since to believe that distance exists instead of simply defining it as the collection of energy between two points?  If you do it this way you maintain the universe's since of distance and depth but at the same time remove the "spooky action at a distance" that quantum entanglement entails.  To the entangled particles there could be an immense quantity of energy between them, but simultaneously they would remain right next to each other.

Further more if you viewed it from the perspective of the singularity of a black hole the same would apply, all of its energy exists in a point infinitesimally small, basically with a diameter of 0, so there would be no distance between any two points inside of it, yet there could be immense quantities of energy.
« Last Edit: 24/10/2015 14:26:40 by ggimark »

#### Colin2B

• Global Moderator
• Neilep Level Member
• Posts: 1914
• Thanked: 123 times
##### Re: Zero Theory
« Reply #3 on: 19/10/2015 17:34:05 »
.... I feel that was meant more as a personal jab than any sort of question or critique.
More a sense of puzzlement

.... If you do it this way you maintain the universe's since of distance and depth
but you don't, you have removed the sense of distance and replaced it with something you havent really defined.

If I travel from here to the end of my road I travel a distance. The energy I use varies with the method of travel.
Measurement of some forms of energy also uses distance, so removing it is of little help.

Also energy cannot move forwards or backwards if there is no distance.

I don't think you are explaining your ideas very well, as there must be something in your mind that makes sense to you, but not to me.

#### Bill S

• Neilep Level Member
• Posts: 1802
• Thanked: 11 times
##### Re: Zero Theory
« Reply #4 on: 19/10/2015 19:16:45 »
Quote from: ggmark
A: Energy moving forward = Matter
B: Energy moving backwards = Space

I'm puzzled by the concept of "backwards" and "forwards" - relative to what?

#### ggimark

• Jr. Member
• Posts: 18
##### Re: Zero Theory
« Reply #5 on: 20/10/2015 02:02:16 »
but you don't, you have removed the sense of distance and replaced it with something you havent really defined.

If I travel from here to the end of my road I travel a distance. The energy I use varies with the method of travel.
Measurement of some forms of energy also uses distance, so removing it is of little help.

Also energy cannot move forwards or backwards if there is no distance.
The way I imagine it is this, if you take two points that are foot apart, then that foot is filled with energy that makes them appear to be separated, in my hypothesis if you removed all of the energy between the two points, both spacial and matter, then the two points would be right next to each other.  They would not have physically moved, but they would also no longer be separated.  Alternately if you added more energy between them they would appear further apart yet they still wouldn't have moved.  In both of these scenarios the distance between them never changed, only the quantity of energy between them.

And as for the method of travel changing the amount of energy used, that also comes down to the fact that some forms of travel are more efficient than others.  But in all forms of travel you must add to your output energy to move from point a to point b.  What I'm saying is that the reason for this requirement is not because of the distance of empty space that we must traverse, but because of the energy between us and our destination that we must overcome.

And why exactly can't something move backwards or forwards with no distance?  A photon only ever moves in one direction, it can be reflected but to the photon it never stopped moving strait forward, and it never stops unless it is absorbed by something.  So let me ask this, if you could trap a photon, would the photon stop trying to do the only thing it knows how to do? Or to the photon would it still be moving forward?

I'm puzzled by the concept of "backwards" and "forwards" - relative to what?
Relative to the formation of the universe.  Forward in 3 dimensions would be outwards in all directions, and backwards in 3 dimensions would be inwards from all directions.  And an interesting facet of this hypothesis is that it does not require that space-time have been a separate entity that came from the formation of the universe at the moment of the big bang.  This theory states that even with all the energy of the universe existing as one type at the moment of the big bang, spacial energy would be the very first creation at the moment that energy was unleashed.  As energy attempted to move outwards and could not pass through, reflect off of, or be absorbed by the space outside of our universe, it would be forced to reverse and thus create space.
« Last Edit: 20/10/2015 02:33:55 by ggimark »

#### Thebox

• Neilep Level Member
• Posts: 3154
• Thanked: 44 times
##### Re: Zero Theory
« Reply #6 on: 20/10/2015 08:05:54 »

The way I imagine it is this, if you take two points that are foot apart, then that foot is filled with energy that makes them appear to be separated, in my hypothesis if you removed all of the energy between the two points, both spacial and matter, then the two points would be right next to each other.  They would not have physically moved, but they would also no longer be separated.  Alternately if you added more energy between them they would appear further apart yet they still wouldn't have moved.  In both of these scenarios the distance between them never changed, only the quantity of energy between them.

Hello, no, if you remove energy from the space between masses, there would be no gravity mechanism, so objects would not be close to each other. if you remove the space (distance)  from between the masses, ''that makes them appear to be separated'', the objects have to physically move.  Space is a divider and is physically there, space is not virtual. Your idea is a no starter, there is no premise for argument.

#### ggimark

• Jr. Member
• Posts: 18
##### Re: Zero Theory
« Reply #7 on: 20/10/2015 08:42:40 »
Space is a divider and is physically there, space is not virtual. Your idea is a no starter, there is no premise for argument.
Umm, I know, I agree that space is physically there, I even defined it as physical energy no different than the energy that comprises matter, all I did was remove distance between things, and instead said that space itself is what separates and divides, I never defined space as virtual, in fact I made it even more physical than some other theories.  What i defined as virtual is distance and that it is the very physical properties of space that create the illusion of distance.

Further more anything on earth can be argued, I never said I was right, just that I had a hypothesis, and whether right or wrong the essence of science is to think outside of the box because thinking about the universe differently is what has always led to discoveries... Everyone said the moon flew around the earth, but Newton said "What if it's falling?"; everyone knew that electricity and magnetism were separate, Faraday said "What if they're just two halves of the same thing"; everyone knew that space was just emptiness until Einstein asked "What if space curves?"  To say that an idea isn't worth arguing because you don't like it, or because it doesn't fit conventional wisdom, is the most unscientific thing you can possibly do.
« Last Edit: 20/10/2015 09:00:23 by ggimark »

#### Thebox

• Neilep Level Member
• Posts: 3154
• Thanked: 44 times
##### Re: Zero Theory
« Reply #8 on: 20/10/2015 22:43:07 »

Further more anything on earth can be argued, ?"

Not quite true, axioms cant be argued but I have not asked you to defend yourself , it is only a discussion and this forum is quite brilliant at allowing freedom of thought , we cant just simply remove space .  However for some reason I think I know what is confusing you and why you have made something simple sound complex.  You are saying distance is virtual, I understand why you are saying this I think.

You see that far could really be near?

If that is the case then yes of cause, it is scaling,  the entire universe we know is scaled by ourselves on the earth's scale.

#### ggimark

• Jr. Member
• Posts: 18
##### Re: Zero Theory
« Reply #9 on: 21/10/2015 03:39:18 »
Not quite true, axioms cant be argued but I have not asked you to defend yourself , it is only a discussion and this forum is quite brilliant at allowing freedom of thought
We'll simply have to fundamentally disagree that axioms can't or shouldn't be argued, I mentioned 3 that were successfully argued against in the last 400 years, but I do know where you're coming from.  As for the theories of Relativity and Quantum Mechanics they work for so much of the universe that challenging them is almost silly.  However it is in the ways that they do not work that baffles and hampers us, especially how they do not work together.  Now this could simply be that we are missing just a few pieces of the puzzle and in time we may be able to find those last few pieces and finally complete our image of the cosmos.  There is a scary possibility, even as small as it is, that the reason for their downfall is that we got it wrong, that our view of the universe is not simply incomplete but fundamentally flawed.  Now enough people accept Relativity and Quantum Mechanics and that is a good thing because they have taken us so far, but there must also be people who are thinking outside the box, playing devils advocate so to speak because there might just be something else that can take us even further.

...we cant just simply remove space.
I do agree with this, I believe the confusion arises because I have separated the concepts of space and distance being the same thing.  Which considering that Relativity does the exact same thing I didn't think this would be such a stretch.  In Relativity space can be bent, stretch, and contract.  All of these change the distance involved but not the space, so to Relativity space and distance are not the same thing and not actually bound in any way.  What I have done is to go a step further and say that space may not be a solid fabric that is stretched, bent, or contracted, but rather energy and particles.  The concentrations of these particles would become dense in the presence of matter, and very thin where there is none.

You say that far could really be near?
And yes that is what I'm saying, I am taking it slightly further than that, but basically yes.

#### Thebox

• Neilep Level Member
• Posts: 3154
• Thanked: 44 times
##### Re: Zero Theory
« Reply #10 on: 21/10/2015 09:38:12 »

And yes that is what I'm saying, I am taking it slightly further than that, but basically yes.

Distance is very easy to understand, is there any need to look at it any further?

We know that scaling is exactly that, we know 1000 miles could relatively be 1 cm .

If I was to enlarge you by an X amount a times, you could touch the moon and the moon would have relatively no distance from you.   I like your thinking but think it is sort of a pointless conversation subject.

I want to pinch your title lol, I do have a zero theory ,it involves light propagating through space, sort of 0+1=E

#### ggimark

• Jr. Member
• Posts: 18
##### Re: Zero Theory
« Reply #11 on: 21/10/2015 11:28:54 »
Distance is very easy to understand, is there any need to look at it any further?

We know that scaling is exactly that, we know 1000 miles could relatively be 1 cm .

If I was to enlarge you by an X amount a times, you could touch the moon and the moon would have relatively no distance from you.   I like your thinking but think it is sort of a pointless conversation subject.

Well if distance is what we see it to be then no of course there's no reason to look at it any further.  But in this scientific age absolutely nothing has ended up being what we thought it was in the beginning.  The earth was thought to be flat because where ever we looked it seemed flat, we believed the sun revolved around the earth because when you look that is how it appears, for the longest time we had absolutely no clue that light was a self propelling wave, we never imagined their were invisible lines of force surrounding every magnet, and once we did then we didn't believe that those same lines of force accompanied electric currents.  We didn't think that light could possibly have a constant speed because nothing else we had ever seen did.  We didn't imagine that space could possibly be deformed or change shape because after all when we looked at it it was just empty and how could something that is empty have any form.  We assumed that time was a strict progression of events, but actually from a non-linear, non-subjective viewpoint it's more like a big ball of wibbily wobbly time-y whimy stuff... Wait, that lost ones from Doctor Who... Where was I, oh yeah, we thought that time was a constant flow always ticking by at exactly the same rate for everyone everywhere because that is what we had always observed but now we understand it to be relative and different depending on where you are and how fast you are traveling.

Basically in the history of science we have challenged every single convention that we ever believed; the earth, the orbits of the planets and stars, what the sun is made of, the nature of space, electricity, magnetism, light, matter and even time itself... and every single time what we held to be true was actually completely wrong.  The only convention we have never challenged is the nature of distance, and since we have a 100% track record of being wrong so far, it's quite possible that our age old belief that we "know" the nature of distance because we can "see" it, is completely wrong as well.

And as for why we should look at it any further, with every one of those other conventions that we challenged, the wealth of knowledge and advancement that came from learning the truth was incalculable, so it stands to reason that this would be no different.

Where my hypothesis differs from scaling is it is stating that an atom on the moon, may in fact be no closer to the moon than the sun is to the moon.  The only difference between the two comparisons would be the quantity of energy between them.

I want to pinch your title lol, I do have a zero theory ,it involves light propagating through space, sort of 0+1=E
Hahaha, yeah it is a pretty catchy title isn't it, ironically it is not named after my second rule that everyone has so much trouble with.  Though your equation looks eerily similar to Euler's equation ei∏+1=0
« Last Edit: 21/10/2015 11:32:18 by ggimark »

#### Thebox

• Neilep Level Member
• Posts: 3154
• Thanked: 44 times
##### Re: Zero Theory
« Reply #12 on: 21/10/2015 20:07:51 »

Though your equation looks eerily similar to Euler's equation ei∏+1=0

Your post is an interesting premise for argument.

I made my equation up lol, I will have to lookup Euler's equation now, I am a bit maths illiterate.   I just thought to myself the Photons have no net charge in space, so 0+1=q or 0+F=q.

Never mind though, so in your theory you are suggesting that distance is an amount of energy between masses?   if so what about the space behind the energy?  and isn't anything between anything a distance between?

#### ggimark

• Jr. Member
• Posts: 18
##### Re: Zero Theory
« Reply #13 on: 22/10/2015 05:53:30 »
Never mind though, so in your theory you are suggesting that distance is an amount of energy between masses?   if so what about the space behind the energy?  and isn't anything between anything a distance between?

The difference would be that my hypothesis states that if you take the earth and the moon, and were somehow able to remove all of the spacial energy between them, and at the same time keep any new spacial energy from filling the void you created, then the earth and the moon would be touching each other because they would no longer be separated.

But where this rule actually get's interesting is on a much smaller scale, because it also creates the possibility that if something has a high enough energy but a low enough mass, it could actually begin skipping points in space.  So that the object would no longer only move 1 quantum at a time, but could move 2 quantum's, or 3, or 4 but skip all of the steps between depending on its energy to mass ratio.  And not just forward but also left or right. Which is exactly what the 4th rule states that particles will do because they have a high enough energy but a low enough mass.

This would have a two fold effect, 1 it would make particles take on the appearance of a probability wave when not being observed because they could freely jump left and right, but when you began observing you would increase the latent energy surrounding the particles which would decrease the amount of steps a particle could skip and narrow the probability of where it ends up.  This would result in particles acting like waves when not being observed, and seeming to become particles again once you looked, but in reality it was a particle the entire time you simply limited its capacity to move when you looked at it.  Basically because of the 2nd rule, the 4th rule is able to completely explain the particle-wave duality, and at the same time explain why the particles in large objects do not behave like waves, it is because their energy-mass ratio has become to great to skip steps and can now only move in single quanta steps.

Take this a step further and you can explain quantum tunneling, as two particles begin to collide each of their energy is great enough to keep the other from skipping any steps, but as the weak force tries to push them apart it will actually feed energy into the particles, in cases where one of the particles gains enough energy from this process it will once again be able to skip a step.  This will take it past the barrier of the weak force and allow it to collide with the other particle.

What I find funny is that people are having the greatest trouble accepting the 2nd rule of my hypothesis when I never went into this thinking about distance at all. I simply realized towards the end that by adding the second rule there are so many "spooky" things in physics that became explainable, especially in quantum physics.
« Last Edit: 24/10/2015 14:27:49 by ggimark »

#### Thebox

• Neilep Level Member
• Posts: 3154
• Thanked: 44 times
##### Re: Zero Theory
« Reply #14 on: 22/10/2015 13:10:28 »
Never mind though, so in your theory you are suggesting that distance is an amount of energy between masses?   if so what about the space behind the energy?  and isn't anything between anything a distance between?

The difference would be that my hypothesis states that if you take the earth and the moon, and were somehow able to remove all of the spacial energy between them, and at the same time keep any new spacial energy from filling the void you created, then the earth and the moon would be touching each other because they would no longer be separated.

But where this rule actually get's interesting is on a much smaller scale, because it also creates the possibility that if something has a high enough energy but a low enough mass, it could actually begin skipping points in space.  So that the object would no longer only move 1 quantum at a time, but could move 2 quantum's, or 3, or 4 but skip all of the steps between depending on it's energy to mass ratio.  And not just forward but also left or right. Which is exactly what the 4th rule states that particles will do because they have a high enough energy but a low enough mass.

This would have a two fold effect, 1 it would make particles take on the appearance of a probability wave when not being observed because they could freely jump left and right, but when you began observing you would increase the latent energy surrounding the particles which would decrease the amount of steps a particle could skip and narrow the probability of where it ends up.  This would result in particles acting like waves when not being observed, and seeming to become particles again once you looked, but in reality it was a particle the entire time you simply limited it's capacity to move when you looked at it.  Basically because of the 2nd rule, the 4th rule is able to completely explain the particle-wave duality, and at the same time explain why the particles in large objects do not behave like waves, it is because their energy-mass ratio has become to great to skip steps and can now only move in single quanta steps.

Take this a step further and you can explain quantum tunneling, as two particles begin to collide each of their energy is great enough to keep the other from skipping any steps, but as the weak force tries to push them apart it will actually feed energy into the particles, in cases where one of the particles gains enough energy from this process it will once again be able to skip a step.  This will take it past the barrier of the weak force and allow it to collide with the other particle.

What I find funny is that people are having the greatest trouble accepting the 2nd rule of my hypothesis when I never went into this thinking about distance at all. I simply realized towards the end that by adding the second rule there are so many "spooky" things in physics that became explainable, especially in quantum physics.
Ok, I see what you are thinking now,

You are incorrect in your thinking, if you removed all the energy between the earth and the moon that will leave a void, darkness but still space, space cannot be removed or destroyed, it is everywhere, it is ''godly''.

#### ggimark

• Jr. Member
• Posts: 18
##### Re: Zero Theory
« Reply #15 on: 22/10/2015 16:06:40 »
Ok, I see what you are thinking now,

You are incorrect in your thinking, if you removed all the energy between the earth and the moon that will leave a void, darkness but still space, space cannot be removed or destroyed, it is everywhere, it is ''godly''.
This is the standard way of seeing it but I have to ask, why?  According to Relativity space is not just a static constant, it bends, stretches, contracts, folds, it can be contracted and contorted in a multitude of ways.  All of this implies that space is a very real and physical substance, which means that it is quite possibly just another form of energy.  Now I'm not saying that it would ever be possible to remove space from something, on the contrary I think it would be like trying to remove water from the bottom of the ocean... with your bare hands.  But I do not believe for a second that it is "godly", it has to be simply another form of energy, otherwise it could not have physical properties and then gravity would not exist.  What I have done is define those physical properties in the only way that I could and still maintain consistency with what we know about nature.

These 4 rules allow for both gravity and quantum mechanics to exist not just simultaneously, but hand in hand.  Sure it asks for a leap of faith on the concept of distance being zero, but then it's not actually such a leap when you put it beside the "Zero-energy universe" theory that states our universe has 0 total energy.  This then begs the question that if the universe has 0 total energy could it not also exist in a space the takes up 0 total distance?  And then if there is 0 energy, and zero distance, what would the rules of such a universe be?  My answer to this question are the 4 rules of Zero Theory.

So I would ask this of you, can you create a hypothetical or real life situation that I would be unable to explain with Zero Theory?  It is only 4 simple rules, and barely takes up 262 words, if it is as untenable as people believe than it will not hold up to scrutiny.  I accept all challenges.

#### Thebox

• Neilep Level Member
• Posts: 3154
• Thanked: 44 times
##### Re: Zero Theory
« Reply #16 on: 22/10/2015 18:58:57 »
Sure it asks for a leap of faith on the concept of distance being zero,

That is the point , a distance can never equal zero or it would not be called a distance it would be called a point. The only way to decrease distance between masses is displacement of one or both masses. Space is not something that can be removed or shortened or destroyed, so you are talking about physical impossibilities and in-physical possibilities.  It just can't happen.   I do not think you understood relativity,  space itself does not bend, curve, stretch etc, the forces in and of space, energies in and of space, bend ,stretch ect.

#### Wajideu

• Jr. Member
• Posts: 34
• Thanked: 2 times
##### Re: Zero Theory
« Reply #17 on: 22/10/2015 22:18:48 »
I think you're misunderstanding general relativity a bit. Neither the distance nor the space change. What's different is the curvature of space. In Euclidean geometry, you see things like this:

P <----- O

Where P is a person, O is an object, and the arrow can be seen as the light reflecting off the object so that the person observes it. General relativity is based on Gaussian geometry, which is based on curvature of space:

P <.__.- O

The shortest distance between P and O is still the same, but the actual distance is slightly larger. Einstein postulated that gravity and inertia were the same force, meaning that both could have an impact on the curvature of space and that the closer P is to O, the more 'compressed' (or rather, closer to Euclidean distance) that the measurement of time it takes for the light to reach the person appears (relatively speaking).

#### ggimark

• Jr. Member
• Posts: 18
##### Re: Zero Theory
« Reply #18 on: 23/10/2015 06:03:59 »
That is the point , a distance can never equal zero or it would not be called a distance it would be called a point.
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.

Space is not something that can be removed or shortened or destroyed, so you are talking about physical impossibilities and in-physical possibilities.  It just can't happen.   I do not think you understood relativity,  space itself does not bend, curve, stretch etc, the forces in and of space, energies in and of space, bend ,stretch ect.
For starters here is where physics itself comes into disagreement, Relativity requires that all of space-time by a smooth unbroken fabric at all times, where as quantum physics requires that space-time be subdivided into the tiniest slice possible.  I'm attempting to remedy this situation by stating that space-time is an ocean of energy, simultaneously a single fluid entity, and comprised of a multitude of drops.

Secondly you are contradicting yourself when you you say that "space itself does not bend, curve, stretch..." and then in the same sentence say that "energies in and of space, bend, stretch ect..." everything that exists is energy, E=mc2 tells us that quite plainly.  You can not say that something does not do something but its energy does because its energy is the very thing in question.  The best I can figure it is this, you are defining the word "space" as two completely separate entities in the same word: First an absolute void that does not exist physically, and then secondly an energy that physically exists and fills that void.  You're then calculating distance based on the void, but calculating space based on the energy.  My hypothesis says that the void aspect of space that you imagine does not exist, and instead space and all of its properties belong solely to its energy.

I think you're misunderstanding general relativity a bit. Neither the distance nor the space change. What's different is the curvature of space. In Euclidean geometry, you see things like this:

P <----- O

Where P is a person, O is an object, and the arrow can be seen as the light reflecting off the object so that the person observes it. General relativity is based on Gaussian geometry, which is based on curvature of space:

P <.__.- O

The shortest distance between P and O is still the same, but the actual distance is slightly larger. Einstein postulated that gravity and inertia were the same force, meaning that both could have an impact on the curvature of space and that the closer P is to O, the more 'compressed' (or rather, closer to Euclidean distance) that the measurement of time it takes for the light to reach the person appears (relatively speaking).

This brings us back to my point with TheBox, for starters you bring the same contradiction into play by stating "Neither the distance nor the space change" and then later stating "The shortest distance between P and O is still the same, but the actual distance is slightly larger"  These two separate sets of distance, the shortest distance between P and O, and the distance of the curvature of space between P and O, stem from the exact same concept that I pointed out with TheBox.  You're applying a duality to space, first a static and non-physical void that maintains the shortest distance between P and O, and second, the physical spacial energy that curves between P and O.  Once again I have to state that my hypothesis removes the static void from the equation, and states that space and all of its properties belong to its energy.  That there is no "shortest distance" to any point, only more spacial energy or less spacial energy.

Finally, 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 explainable.  Instead of space curving when it interacts with matter, I say that it can become more dense, just as matter becomes dense.  And instead of accepting that quantum physics can only be accepted but not explained, I change its behavior from "chance" to a particles interaction or lack of interaction with spacial energy.  Basically my hypothesis boils the whole of the universe down to the interaction or lack of interaction between energy in the form of matter, and energy in the form of space.  Because of this I have absolutely no need for distance, and no need for chance.
« Last Edit: 24/10/2015 14:29:01 by ggimark »

#### Thebox

• Neilep Level Member
• Posts: 3154
• Thanked: 44 times
##### Re: Zero Theory
« Reply #19 on: 23/10/2015 06:10:56 »

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.

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.

#### ggimark

• Jr. Member
• Posts: 18
##### Re: Zero Theory
« Reply #20 on: 23/10/2015 06:53:34 »
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.

Also "The dimensions of height, depth, and width within which all things exist and move."

Ok, then I have some questions, if the void exists, where does it end?  Does it end at all?  Would it have been in the universe before the big bang?  Or did it occur simultaneously?  Or after?  When the space between galaxies expands, does the void expand with it?  Or is the whole of time and space pushed further out into the void?  If so this brings us full circle to "does the void have an end?"  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?  If it does not have an end, then what exactly is our universe contained in?  If the void has no end then our universe is infinite and thus singular, all theories that allow for a multi-verse or parallel universes are null and void.  If the void does have an end then it is finite, quantifiable, and thus most likely not a void at all.

Now for another train of thought, if the universe does in fact have a finite distance scale, please explain Quantum Entanglement to me between two particles on opposite ends of the universe.  Also please explain how quantum tunneling is capable of allowing particles to ignoring that distance scale you cling to so fiercely and effectively teleport from one side of a barrier to the other without crossing any of the space in-between.  I also need an explanation for the holographic principal of black holes that allows for all of the information that enters a black hole to exist simultaneously in 2 places at once.  And not two separate copies of the information, but the original actually being both at the event horizon and inside of the singularity at the same time.  These are all very real instances when the universe decides that it simply doesn't care about any standards of distance that we have conceived.

Now my hypothesis works to explain all of these things in conjunction with everything else in the universe.  If you can say unequivocally that I am wrong beyond a shadow of a doubt, then please provide me with a better hypothesis that explains all of these events since surely one must exists if you can be so completely sure that distance is real...

#### Wajideu

• Jr. Member
• Posts: 34
• Thanked: 2 times
##### Re: Zero Theory
« Reply #21 on: 23/10/2015 09:24:53 »
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 line
And 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.

#### ggimark

• Jr. Member
• Posts: 18
##### Re: Zero Theory
« Reply #22 on: 23/10/2015 10:17:59 »
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 line

And 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.

Yes I do understand Relativity, I fully grasp the concept of the shortest distance between any two points being a strait line.  I grasp the concept of curved space creating gravity and time-dilation.  I understand that F=G, sure that's Newtonian gravity but we still use it for the mass majority of our calculations.  I do have to ask though, did you miss the part where I said...
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.

Einstein used curved space-time to explain gravity, where as I have found that you could remove the curvature of space time and replace it with density of space and achieve all of the same results.  Light would still curve in the presence of massive objects, time-dilation would still occur, gravity would still work exactly as it does.  But where this hypothesis shines is in the things it can explain that Relativity cannot, such as achieving a unity with quantum physics that no one has yet come close to...
« Last Edit: 23/10/2015 10:23:04 by ggimark »

#### Thebox

• Neilep Level Member
• Posts: 3154
• Thanked: 44 times
##### Re: Zero Theory
« Reply #23 on: 23/10/2015 11:02:54 »
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?
1. Presently the void ends  as far as we can visual observe, a finite universe, outside of this boundary is speculation although most scientists and some earthly experiments agree it is infinite.

2.see 1

3. Present theory says no, there was nothing, but this is just theory not fact, I believe yes this void was always there and is infinite by some simple logic.

4. see 3, the simultaneous bit is present theory, I believe this is impossible.

5. see 4 and 3

6. Again present theory says yes, I say no by physical observations on earth.

7. yes sort of in my opinion but only time and light pushes out not space itself

8. no end and impossibility in my opinion by earthly observations

9. One possibility see 1

10.  see 1, a space within a space or a space within a solid that is within a space, the only two options.

« Last Edit: 23/10/2015 11:05:38 by Thebox »

#### Colin2B

• Global Moderator
• Neilep Level Member
• Posts: 1914
• Thanked: 123 times
##### Re: Zero Theory
« Reply #24 on: 23/10/2015 13:09:14 »
.. 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.

#### The Naked Scientists Forum

##### Re: Zero Theory
« Reply #24 on: 23/10/2015 13:09:14 »