0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
..... And the distance between any 2 points is always 0..
So you are saying that the diameter of your head is zero.
.... I feel that was meant more as a personal jab than any sort of question or critique.
.... If you do it this way you maintain the universe's since of distance and depth
A: Energy moving forward = MatterB: Energy moving backwards = Space
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'm puzzled by the concept of "backwards" and "forwards" - relative to what?
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.
Space is a divider and is physically there, space is not virtual. Your idea is a no starter, there is no premise for argument.
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.
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.
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
Though your equation looks eerily similar to Euler's equation ei∏+1=0
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?
Quote from: Thebox on 21/10/2015 20:07:51Never 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''.
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.
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.
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 <----- OWhere 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 <.__.- OThe 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).
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.