Post by: guest45734 on 01/04/2018 12:39:57
2) Dark Energy driving the expansion of space and gravity driving the contraction of space is directly due to quantum fluctuations.
Would anyone agree or disagree completely with the above statements or agree in part?
In support of the ideas above the following links may cast some light as to where my ideas grew from.
https://arxiv.org/pdf/physics/0309016.pdf Quantum foam inflow gravity.
https://futurism.com/new-explanation-dark-energy-tiny-fluctuations-time-space/
Can anyone tell me what is wrong with the concept of quantum foam inflow, why is it not taken seriously.
Post by: alancalverd on 01/04/2018 12:50:45
Post by: guest45734 on 01/04/2018 12:59:04
Space is the gaps between stuff.
There are no gaps between stuff which are not occupied by quantum fluctuations.
The reason absolute zero can never be reached is because space is full of quantum fluctuations.
The Casimir effect proves the existence of quantum fluctuations.
I meant to post the following link with the above https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Entropic_gravity
Entropic gravity is also known as emergent gravity it is also based on quantum fluctuations.
Post by: guest39538 on 01/04/2018 13:52:59
Occupied being a clue there, things occupy space and space occupies things. Space is a dimension of nothing, it cannot be created or destroyed , it is timeless and ageless, it cannot be displaced.Space is the gaps between stuff.
There are no gaps between stuff which are not occupied by quantum fluctuations.
The reason absolute zero can never be reached is because space is full of quantum fluctuations.
The Casimir effect proves the existence of quantum fluctuations.
I meant to post the following link with the above https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Entropic_gravity
Entropic gravity is also known as emergent gravity it is also based on quantum fluctuations.
Move a box that contains space from one spot to another, the space in your box in the new spot is not the same space you started with.
Understand that and you will understand space.
Post by: guest39538 on 01/04/2018 13:56:49
real space.jpg (19.04 kB . 740x464 - viewed 9341 times)The box passes through the space and the space passes through the box.
Post by: opportunity on 01/04/2018 14:02:03
The problem more than half a century ago with the idea of gravity and mass, two bodies accelerating towards each other, required the idea of "negative energy" to accomodate for the rise in kinetic energy above and beyond normal gravitational attraction.
I think Dirac answered that question, well, presented a good idea re. negative energy. Space wasn't mentioned other than space being a harbour to a sea of negative energy that had "holes" in it, which 2 years later from Dirac's postulate, the holes, were "filled" with the idea of the "positron", an electron that may as well have had in all appearance the reverse magnetic field to a normal electron owing to the fact the said positronic particle moved in the opposite to a normal electron under the influence of a magnetic field. Interesting to also note that astrophysical observations account for zero anti-matter activity. And yes, there was a lot of argument on the topic at the time.
My point is, "space" "stretching" wasn't a core idea 70 or so years ago, "yet" the Casimir Effect is more often than not related to the idea of "negative energy" I'm thinking when I google the "Casimir Effect".
I'm not making any statements here, so I'm like you, "interested" in the question.
Post by: guest45734 on 02/04/2018 08:22:37
Occupied being a clue there, things occupy space and space occupies things. Space is a dimension of nothing, it cannot be created or destroyed , it is timeless and ageless, it cannot be displaced.
Move a box that contains space from one spot to another, the space in your box in the new spot is not the same space you started with.
Space is expanding, the distance between galaxies is increasing at an accelerating rate, the outer edges of the visiible universe are moving away from us at approx 3c. The surface of space is expanding like the surface of a balloon between galaxies but is contracting around galaxies due to gravity holding the galaxies together.
The only thing that exists in the vacuum of space is quantum fluctuations. Quantum fluctuations must therefore be the source of dark energy and the expansion of space. All virtual particles are also quantum fluctuations including the theorized graviton. There is no point in space that is not occupied by quantum fluctuations.
1) Space is a substance which expands and contracts continuously. This expansion and contraction of space is due to quantum fluctuations constantly appearing and disappearing. The existence of Space is dependent on the existence of matter and quantum fluctuations without which space would not exist.
2) Dark Energy driving the expansion of space and gravity driving the contraction of space is directly due to quantum fluctuations.
I strongly suspect space at the quantum level is dynamic contracting and expanding due to quantum fluctuations. Without quantum fluctuations, space does not exist. In Quantum field theory all things are treated as excitations of the underlying field, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_field_theory I am suggesting that Quantum fluctuations and excitations originate from space and in fact make up everthing in the known universe.
I think Dirac answered that question, well, presented a good idea re. negative energy. Space wasn't mentioned other than space being a harbour to a sea of negative energy that had "holes" in it, which 2 years later from Dirac's postulate, the holes, were "filled" with the idea of the "positron", an electron that may as well have had in all appearance the reverse magnetic field to a normal electron owing to the fact the said positronic particle moved in the opposite to a normal electron under the influence of a magnetic field. Interesting to also note that astrophysical observations account for zero anti-matter activity. And yes, there was a lot of argument on the topic at the time.
My point is, "space" "stretching" wasn't a core idea 70 or so years ago, "yet" the Casimir Effect is more often than not related to the idea of "negative energy" I'm thinking when I google the "Casimir Effect".
Thanks for the interest. Your point ref -ve energy is of interest. I noted a couple of threads on matter anti matter on the forum, which I think missed some points. When electrons and positrons annihilate the result is 2 gamma rays with 511eV of energy. The concept of the zero energy universe is intriguing. Two entangled quantum fluctuations mirroring each other, appearing out of the vacuum, might exactly cancel each other when they disappear, partly explaining the Heisenburg uncertainty principle. Ie there is no temporary violation of the laws of thermodynamics because the sum total of two entangled quantum fluctuations mirroring each other is zero.
A bit of history on Heisenburg https://www.theguardian.com/science/2013/nov/10/what-is-heisenbergs-uncertainty-principle
The zero energy universe from wikipedia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zero-energy_universe
Post by: guest39538 on 02/04/2018 10:34:10
Space is expanding, the distance between galaxies is increasing at an accelerating rate,Quite clearly you are only repeating what it says , this is not your own science or information. It is also not proven fact, the red shift is of bodies , not of space.
Which part of space is made of nothing do you not understand?
Post by: opportunity on 02/04/2018 12:06:31
It's a tough one to debate beyond the current ideas. Disinterested has a point if the red-shift effect is in play and used as the basis for spatial expansion, namely that light is stretched in an otherwise expanding "nothingness".
The only issue I'm not sure about is where Disinterested suggests "I am suggesting that Quantum fluctuations and excitations originate from space and in fact make up everything in the known universe." while in the same context "Quantum fluctuations must therefore be the source of dark energy and the expansion of space".
So, correct me if I am wrong, quantum fluctuations originate from space "yet" quantum fluctuations are the "source" of the expansion of space? So, if space is the chicken that laid the quantum fluctuation egg, the egg makes the chicken expand?
I can see what you're saying scientifically: space gives birth to light which then as light makes the idea of space appear to be "expanding". Yet, and this is the problem, FTL expansion.
Here's another problem: if negative energy is only relevant to the local effects of gravity and an otherwise associated kinetic energy build up, how is negative energy associated to FTL, or even "how" space goes FTL?
Post by: guest39538 on 02/04/2018 12:39:16
The Box, Disinterested is looking for a reason for "nothing", an entity primarily made of nothing, "space", "expand". Disinterested is putting it primarily, the expansion of nothing, to the idea of "quantum fluctuations". He's rightly said that the universe is expanding and local effects keeps "stuff"/"matter" together. The issue is whether quantum fluctations are resposnisble for "nothing" expanding.I have give the answer, but people do not understand the correct answer because they cannot let go of what they were taught.
Defining space - an unknown volume of geometrical points, a volume contains multiple points, the radius r between point is r=0
0+0=X1
In simple terms two adjoined points make up the smallest linear vector there is possible.
I am deadly serious when I say science has lots of things wrong.
Adjoined points of space cannot expand. That would be absurd.
Post by: opportunity on 02/04/2018 12:46:11
Post by: guest39538 on 02/04/2018 12:46:31
Post by: guest39538 on 02/04/2018 12:47:11
I know what you're saying about using grids to map the idea of space. Sometimes though using mathematical "grids" to map space, "empty space", "nothingness", is necessary, yet in light of other features "empty space" "harbours" may be necessary to go above and beyond the idea of the mathematical definition, 3-D, of purely empty space?
I drew it you
Post by: opportunity on 02/04/2018 12:49:46
What does the OP think about these recent posts?
Post by: guest39538 on 02/04/2018 13:01:38
If space is nothing, a point is irrelevant, right, unless defined by another determinant?A point is nothing, it is relevant that a group of points are still nothing , we define it space. A volume of nothing, in the beginning there was nothing, nothing does not mean no space. Because space is nothing.
Post by: opportunity on 02/04/2018 13:12:26
Post by: opportunity on 02/04/2018 13:26:04
Post by: guest39538 on 02/04/2018 13:32:43
Can you elaborate further? If a point is nothing, and space is nothing, and you're creating a volume in space using 4 points, say, it's still nothing, right, despite how you change the point distances from each other, right?You can't change the distance between the points is the exact reason space is not and cannot expand. You could not even stretch the points, all's you can do is stretch the truth. Science does not give absolute answers to most things, I objectively research, diagnose and give the absolute answer.
In simple terms , you can only enclose space by adding a boundary ''wall'' of x,y,z . You can then with imagination expand the imaginary box by expanding the imaginary walls of the box. The space inside and outside the box does not alter.
space1.jpg (19.25 kB . 740x464 - viewed 9183 times)Post by: opportunity on 02/04/2018 13:40:14
Post by: guest39538 on 02/04/2018 13:44:39
According to who or what standard of determining the volume of space and thus distance between points? I know what you're saying, don't get me wrong, yet as I said "space" as "nothing" may be "better" determined by what it "harbours"? Just an idea.I am not sure I understood your questions correctly, could you reword please so I do not give you the wrong answer.
Post by: opportunity on 02/04/2018 13:56:01
Maybe I should ask, "How do you think space expands in the absence of anything else"?
Post by: guest39538 on 02/04/2018 14:03:19
Sure, I said in a previous response "If a point is nothing, and space is nothing, and you're creating a volume in space using 4 points, say, it's still nothing, right, despite how you change the point distances from each other, right?"Space does not expand relative to anything, observation expands relative to space and light.
Maybe I should ask, "How do you think space expands in the absence of anything else"?
[ Invalid Attachment ]
The Hubble red shift observes the light reflecting off an object not of the space. Things are moving away from the centre of observation into more space.
The dots we see in the night sky are the light we are seeing, between those dots it is neither light or dark, it is an illusion that it is dark. It is transparent and clear, nothing.
The distance you perceive by the sources of light is the distant the object is away from you and not the distance of space that goes beyond the observation of the particle boundary.
Post by: guest39538 on 02/04/2018 14:05:32
Post by: guest39538 on 02/04/2018 14:09:41
Post by: opportunity on 02/04/2018 14:10:05
"Space does not expand relative to anything, observation expands relative to space and light."
Are you saying the observor reference, in any nominated position, in view of light in space, views the appearannce of space expanding as by the effect of light?
Or, are you saying, "the observor" is expanding" relative to space and light?
Give me a heads up there.
I think I might know what you're trying to say. Help me here: "the relative distances between focal observed objects in the universe are moving apart, even though our own focal reference is unaltered by the nature of spatial expansion between other focal objects in the universe and that obvious expansion?"
Post by: guest39538 on 02/04/2018 14:14:32
, in any nominated position, in view of light in space, views the appearannce of space expanding as by the effect of light?Yes you got it , because of the inverse and the fact that things moving away from us , observably contract to a point.
Post by: opportunity on 02/04/2018 14:17:06
< This is a side topic question, "I'm looking for a book on the best "metaphors" of all-time.....can anyone help me there?".....cool if can >
Post by: guest39538 on 02/04/2018 14:38:19
"metaphors
Let me put my Einstein head on.
Let us begin in thought with a Rocket at relative rest in respect to the platform. Let us plot a journey travelling away from the Earth and the Sun. Let us set our velocity at the near speed of light creating an observed red-shift of the reflected light of the rocket as we observe .
Let us begin the journey where we observe with our eyes the rocket receding away from us and the Sun. In observation we observe a red-shift of the light being reflected of the rocket. We also observe a visual contraction of the rocket as it recedes further away, where at a given point x, by eye the object is no longer visible or has observable dimensions. The rocket has reached the event horizon of sight point x.
Ok so far in understanding this?
Post by: opportunity on 02/04/2018 14:42:47
Well, so, space is expanding, local effects are in play, nothing has been said from the OP about local gravitational effects and negative energy required there, nothing said also about how space distinct from local effects in stars and planets expands FTL?
Guys, the answer is out there, and we can only find it by these discussions.
You presented the idea of a craft near light speed in space expanding FTL....."can we see that"?...."from Earth lift off of space craft"?
Sounds like an experiment, right?
Why not send a signal at light speed that is traceable, and how that can disappear? Sounds stupid, I mean, how do we trace a signal other than having a reflection to be send the signal back. Point is, your proposition is hard to prove.
Other than that, will the object close to light speed be "altered" as we observe it as it enters the regions of space between local gravtiational phenomena? Is that the question?
Post by: guest39538 on 02/04/2018 14:58:53
I'm assuming because the rocket is no longer visible "real-time" its because the time it takes for light for the transmission of the rocket to get to us, or it went FTL? Help me there.It is not seen because of the transverse of the inverse of the receding object.
[ Invalid Attachment ]
And you are right in they do not discuss.
Post by: opportunity on 02/04/2018 15:02:33
The "transverse of the inverse"...is that a metaphor, or a scientific thing we're not aware of yet?
Post by: guest39538 on 02/04/2018 15:15:58
So, that looks ok, but what's the explanation for what you're proposing, the nature of space and light, that interrelationship?The transverse of an inverse I covered a while ago, it is a scientific thing you are not aware of yet.
The "transverse of the inverse"...is that a metaphor, or a scientific thing we're not aware of yet?
There is no light /space relationship , there is only a light and substance relationship. The only light you see is that of field and substance interaction.
When you send a signal , you are sending that signal through the already existing n-field . Energy is transferred from one body to another by the n-field acting as a conduit .
Back to the rocket for a minute.
Let us now imagine that the observable universe only contains the Sun and the Earth, our senses and perception would declare our universe radius is to the Sun. Now let us imagine our rocket wen beyond the suns radius , we could declare from our rocket that the observable universe is expanding. However , once upon the rocket reaches position x, we then will declare our universe has contracted back to the sun.
Now hopefully you can see the metaphor for your book and I have helped you.
Post by: opportunity on 02/04/2018 15:33:42
Post by: guest39538 on 02/04/2018 15:39:43
Granted you've been thanked 82 times or so now, and granted I haven't been made aware of your pre-required thesis, "yet" where's the OP, right? Have we answered the OP's question? I mean, we can't derail this discussion, right?Most opp's start a discussion then abandon them , they post in boredom I think mostly. The title says what is space? We are discussing what is space and things involving space.
They would tell us if they didn't want us in this thread. The importance of the thread is to learn and discover. There are readers of this thread who may enjoy reading what we are discussing. It is educational all around as long we are discussing somewhere.
Post by: opportunity on 02/04/2018 15:44:21
I fall for everything, that's me.
Post by: guest45734 on 02/04/2018 16:34:32
OP, is this helping your question?Yes
You can't change the distance between the points is the exact reason space is not and cannot expand.
Space is expanding at an accelerating rate between galaxies, the galaxies are in effect in free fall moving away from each other due to Dark Energy(quantum fluctuations). The concept of space expanding is perhaps confusing you, would it be better to state more space is coming into existence between galaxies, giving the effect of inflation like the surface of a balloon.
Gravity is caused by the absorption of quantum fluctuations and space(chicken and egg scenario both are dependent on each other). Inside your boxes if quantum fluctuations are reduced or completely stopped you will have a black hole which would collapse the space inside your box, due to the pressure of the quantum fluctuations outside the box.
Under Relativity as you approach light speed distances are contracted and time slows to a standstill, a photon does not experience time. It is generally accepted that time appears to slow down and distances contract when approaching light speed on the cosmic scale, why do you not accept that at the quantum level space can come into and out of existence continually due to quantum fluctuations, giving the appearance of expanding or contracting space on the cosmic scale.
Post by: guest45734 on 02/04/2018 16:41:17
Most opp's start a discussion then abandon them
I am not most opps, I have not abandoned the subject but there may be a delay between responsesdue to not having continual access to a computer. I generally login once a day, today is an exception.
Do you have a thread on your N field theory
Post by: opportunity on 02/04/2018 16:41:59
Post by: guest45734 on 02/04/2018 16:48:49
Space does not expand relative to anything, observation expands relative to space and light
The distance between most galaxies is increasing at an accelerating rate, those galaxies dont experience an acceleration as they move apart from each other because the space between them is increasing, the galaxies themselves are in effect in freefall and feel no acceleration due to the expansion of space between them.
Post by: guest39538 on 02/04/2018 18:01:55
No, you are just repeating what is written, you are not even thinking for yourself. The space between the galaxies is not expanding, the measurement between the galaxies are expanding. Please try to understand the correct semantics of what things mean.Space does not expand relative to anything, observation expands relative to space and light
The distance between most galaxies is increasing at an accelerating rate, those galaxies dont experience an acceleration as they move apart from each other because the space between them is increasing, the galaxies themselves are in effect in freefall and feel no acceleration due to the expansion of space between them.
I will explain in a simple diagram
space............................galaxy←measurement→galaxy.......................................space.
space...............galaxy←←←←←measurement→→→→→galaxy.......................space
Post by: guest45734 on 03/04/2018 09:53:16
I currently can't dispute what the OP is forwarding.
Thanks.
Post by: guest45734 on 03/04/2018 09:53:37
1) Space is a substance which expands and contracts continuously. This expansion and contraction of space is due to quantum fluctuations constantly appearing and disappearing. The existence of Space is dependent on the existence of matter and quantum fluctuations without which space would not exist.
2) Dark Energy driving the expansion of space and gravity driving the contraction of space is directly due to quantum fluctuations.
I will add
3) There is a possibility of additional dimensions, which may in part explain entanglement and non locality. https://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/1402/1402.4764.pdf
Borrowing from string theory and the membrane concept of space, would anyone agree that the effects of non locality and entanglement might be better explained by stating that all points could be connected by at least one additional unfolded dimension.
Post by: guest45734 on 03/04/2018 09:56:59
The space between the galaxies is not expanding, the measurement between the galaxies are expanding
OK how about this The space between galaxies is increasing due to the expansion of space which increases the measured distance between them.
Do you have a thread on your N theory, I am familiar with a lot of theories but N theory has escaped my attention. M theory is quite interesting.
Post by: guest45734 on 03/04/2018 10:16:17
2) Dark Energy driving the expansion of space and gravity driving the contraction of space is directly due to quantum fluctuations.
3) There is a possibility of additional dimensions, which may in part explain entanglement and non locality. https://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/1402/1402.4764.pdf [nofollow]
Borrowing from string theory and the membrane concept of space, would anyone agree that the effects of non locality and entanglement might be better explained by stating that all points could be connected by at least one additional unfolded dimension.
4) Frame dragging proves that the fabric of space moves, ie the mass energy distribution(quantum fluctuations) of space is disturbed by the movement of the planets. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frame-dragging
Nothing escapes from black holes, (except hawking radiation perhaps) therefore for gravity to work the theorized graviton must flow towards mass not away. The graviton is a virtual particle/quantum fluctuation.
5) Quantum loop gravity allows for the contraction and expansion of the universe through multiple big bangs it may also explain the existence of gamma ray bursts from space. Implying perhaps that Blackholes might actually explode, Hawking radiation allows for the slow evaporation of blackholes could they lose enough mass to allow for a supernovae and the creation of the heavier elements in the universe.
Post by: guest39538 on 03/04/2018 10:16:50
The space between the galaxies is not expanding, the measurement between the galaxies are expanding
OK how about this The space between galaxies is increasing due to the expansion of space which increases the measured distance between them.
Do you have a thread on your N theory, I am familiar with a lot of theories but N theory has escaped my attention. M theory is quite interesting.
The measurement between the galaxies is expanding because the galaxies are moving away from each other.
No space involved , space expanding is really poor wording and an impossibility as shown using points.
Yes there is a N-field thread in this forum section.
Post by: guest39538 on 03/04/2018 10:18:05
1) Space is a substance which expands and contracts continuouslyFields are a substance that expand and contract , not the underlying space.
Post by: guest39538 on 03/04/2018 10:26:49
Let us imagine a R² real coordinate space array that consists of 4 points.
The dimension of the array : x*y
x= 0+0=x1
y=0+0=y1
0=point
so you array looks like this dot → .
Now if the points were to expand, i'e space expanding
00
00
It just so happens there would be space between the expanded points. The dot remains in tact , it has not really expanded, your overlay has expanded.
Post by: guest45734 on 03/04/2018 10:36:46
https://futurism.com/new-explanation-dark-energy-tiny-fluctuations-time-space/ space expands
Post by: guest45734 on 03/04/2018 10:37:24
1) Space is a substance which expands and contracts continuously. This expansion and contraction of space is due to quantum fluctuations constantly appearing and disappearing. The existence of Space is dependent on the existence of matter and quantum fluctuations without which space would not exist.I would like to discuss the above
2) Dark Energy driving the expansion of space and gravity driving the contraction of space is directly due to quantum fluctuations.
3) There is a possibility of additional dimensions, which may in part explain entanglement and non locality. https://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/1402/1402.4764.pdf [nofollow] [nofollow]
Borrowing from string theory and the membrane concept of space, would anyone agree that the effects of non locality and entanglement might be better explained by stating that all points could be connected by at least one additional unfolded dimension.
4) Frame dragging proves that the fabric of space moves, ie the mass energy distribution(quantum fluctuations) of space is disturbed by the movement of the planets. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frame-dragging [nofollow]
Nothing escapes from black holes, (except hawking radiation perhaps) therefore for gravity to work the theorized graviton must flow towards mass not away. The graviton is a virtual particle/quantum fluctuation.
5) Quantum loop gravity allows for the contraction and expansion of the universe through multiple big bangs it may also explain the existence of gamma ray bursts from space. Implying perhaps that Blackholes might actually explode, Hawking radiation allows for the slow evaporation of blackholes could they lose enough mass to allow for a supernovae and the creation of the heavier elements in the universe.
Post by: guest39538 on 03/04/2018 10:49:01
Your N theory does not come up on my searches. Is it based on the standard model of physics or do you have a new theory you would like me to read about. I would like to explore the ideas I put forward in the OP which are loosely based around everything from string theory QFT relativity MOND QLG etc, I have never heard of N theory.https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=71491.0
https://futurism.com/new-explanation-dark-energy-tiny-fluctuations-time-space/ space expands
Stop thinking what you read is exact and the semantics are correct. It is an impossibility for space to expand.
Post by: guest39538 on 03/04/2018 10:51:05
Borrowing from string theory and the membrane concept of space, would anyone agree that the effects of non locality and entanglement might be better explained by stating that all points could be connected by at least one additional unfolded dimension.All points of space are adjoined/connected, all points of energy are adjoined/connected, I have no idea what unfolding dimensions suppose to mean?
Post by: guest45734 on 03/04/2018 12:44:53
Borrowing from string theory and the membrane concept of space, would anyone agree that the effects of non locality and entanglement might be better explained by stating that all points could be connected by at least one additional unfolded dimension.All points of space are adjoined/connected, all points of energy are adjoined/connected, I have no idea what unfolding dimensions suppose to mean?
Are you agreeing that "All points of space are adjoined/connected, all points of energy are adjoined/connected" via a possible additional dimension.
M theory indicates more spacial dimensions exist than the usual 4 dimensional space time.
Having read your N theory thread I understand where you are coming from and do not think N theory has any relevance on this thread. Space is universally accepted to be expanding between galaxies.
Post by: guest39538 on 03/04/2018 13:46:54
Space is universally accepted to be expanding between galaxies.
Accepted does not necessarily mean it is true, objectively it is not true, there is 3 dimensions of space only, time is not interwoven with space.
Post by: guest45734 on 03/04/2018 14:15:24
Space is universally accepted to be expanding between galaxies.
Accepted does not necessarily mean it is true, objectively it is not true, there is 3 dimensions of space only, time is not interwoven with space.
I am going to take the view that since you are the only one disagreeing with my assertions I must be correct.
Post by: guest45734 on 03/04/2018 14:16:01
Quote from: disinterested on Today at 10:16:17
1) Space is a substance which expands and contracts continuously. This expansion and contraction of space is due to quantum fluctuations constantly appearing and disappearing. The existence of Space is dependent on the existence of matter and quantum fluctuations without which space would not exist.
2) Dark Energy driving the expansion of space and gravity driving the contraction of space is directly due to quantum fluctuations.
3) There is a possibility of additional dimensions, which may in part explain entanglement and non locality. https://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/1402/1402.4764.pdf [nofollow] [nofollow] [nofollow]
Borrowing from string theory and the membrane concept of space, would anyone agree that the effects of non locality and entanglement might be better explained by stating that all points could be connected by at least one additional unfolded dimension.
4) Frame dragging proves that the fabric of space moves, ie the mass energy distribution(quantum fluctuations) of space is disturbed by the movement of the planets. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frame-dragging [nofollow] [nofollow]
Nothing escapes from black holes, (except hawking radiation perhaps) therefore for gravity to work the theorized graviton must flow towards mass not away. The graviton is a virtual particle/quantum fluctuation.
5) Quantum loop gravity allows for the contraction and expansion of the universe through multiple big bangs it may also explain the existence of gamma ray bursts from space. Implying perhaps that Blackholes might actually explode, Hawking radiation allows for the slow evaporation of blackholes could they lose enough mass to allow for a supernovae and the creation of the heavier elements in the universe.
I would like to discuss the above
Post by: guest39538 on 03/04/2018 14:19:26
I am not disagreeing with your assertions , I can only show you the objective facts , it is your choice whether you accept the objective facts or continue accepting the subjective view.Space is universally accepted to be expanding between galaxies.
Accepted does not necessarily mean it is true, objectively it is not true, there is 3 dimensions of space only, time is not interwoven with space.
I am going to take the view that since you are the only one disagreeing with my assertions I must be correct.
Post by: guest45734 on 03/04/2018 14:24:20
uote from: disinterested on Today at 10:37:24
Quote from: disinterested on Today at 10:16:17
1) Space is a substance which expands and contracts continuously. This expansion and contraction of space is due to quantum fluctuations constantly appearing and disappearing. The existence of Space is dependent on the existence of matter and quantum fluctuations without which space would not exist.
2) Dark Energy driving the expansion of space and gravity driving the contraction of space is directly due to quantum fluctuations.
3) There is a possibility of additional dimensions, which may in part explain entanglement and non locality. https://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/1402/1402.4764.pdf [nofollow] [nofollow] [nofollow] [nofollow]
Borrowing from string theory and the membrane concept of space, would anyone agree that the effects of non locality and entanglement might be better explained by stating that all points could be connected by at least one additional unfolded dimension.
4) Frame dragging proves that the fabric of space moves, ie the mass energy distribution(quantum fluctuations) of space is disturbed by the movement of the planets. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frame-dragging [nofollow] [nofollow] [nofollow]
Nothing escapes from black holes, (except hawking radiation perhaps) therefore for gravity to work the theorized graviton must flow towards mass not away. The graviton is a virtual particle/quantum fluctuation.
5) Quantum loop gravity allows for the contraction and expansion of the universe through multiple big bangs it may also explain the existence of gamma ray bursts from space. Implying perhaps that Blackholes might actually explode, Hawking radiation allows for the slow evaporation of blackholes could they lose enough mass to allow for a supernovae and the creation of the heavier elements in the universe.
I would like to discuss the above
Post by: opportunity on 04/04/2018 11:58:16
One interesting theory today is the idea of a "holographic universe", which posits space and time to be projections from "lower dimensions" of space, and thus two dimensional space (if there is such a thing).
For instance, take a surface area of a sphere which has within it a volume of space. The surface area of space and it's volume (as a perfect sphere for a wavefront for the progression of e/m from a single point) are always in proportion as the constitutional mathematics of the sphere, surface area and volume. For that theoretical front of the big bang surface area to be considered independent of the volume of space within, one would need to consider other factors. Yet "how" we measure the expansion of the universe is in fact based on what we register of "light" in the volume of space theoretically expanding with the big bang surface area dare I way it "wave-front". What is ahead of that surface area? Is it space? Is there time there? Hawking asked what is more south than south.
The issue isn't really about "space" expanding, it's what defines the volume a surface area contains and what are the mechanics of the surface area. Put it this way, is a mathematical flat plane considered as "space"? Don't we define space as 3-d? Further to this, if we try to create big bang conditions in a lab on a small scale, aren't we saying that space and time (us) can exist outside the point of origin of a big-bang event?
As you can tell, there are still more questions than answers regarding "space" and how we use that in our theories and research, especially in the context of the "big bang" theory.
In defence of theBox, I am not a fan of the idea of space expanding either, because technically "space" is a mathematically defined construct dependent on other things, namely a surface area reference that, in theory, appears to be ever expanding, simply because of how we register the behaviour of light and other e/m features such as the CMBR and red-shift effect, the key "Players" within the surface area manifold we seek to, and understandably so, understand, these as the a-priori of the behaviour of the light within that theoretically expanding surface area front from the theoretical big bang initial event.
Post by: guest39538 on 04/04/2018 12:10:10
I still consider Disinterested has the more relevant idea for one key reason, namely, that in considering a big bang, "did" space exist before the big bang "outside" of the big bang? If it did, did time? If time and space did, isn't that contradictory to the big bang and the idea of spacetime associated to the big bang?Again you are considering this from what you learnt. i understand it is hard to let go of a memory they programmed you to accept for all these years. In this instant it is time, you are not considering what time really is.
Time is a duration of existence that can be measured by having something to time. Before the BB there was space, a n-dimensional volume of points, but there was no time , it was timeless because there is simply nothing to time i.e no ''clocks''(matter).
Time begins when the rudiment observable matter appears in the void giving the void a timing mechanism.
A+B simultaneously manifesting at the same geometrical point of the void is the beginning of time. Before this only Alpha waves were about, which are permeating mono-pole electrostatic charges.
Once by randomness A+B happened to create the first Alpha particle, all the Alpha waves came rushing to this point to create a big bang and expansion of the Alpha particle in a fraction of a second.
Post by: Colin2B on 09/04/2018 23:11:03
Even in New Theories there are limits.
Post by: opportunity on 10/04/2018 04:30:59
Perhaps a warning from you earlier would have been better than cutting out ad-hoc 50% of the effort put in the post.
But that's your call. ;)
The last page rang the moderator bell, I won't post it. Why would anyone tell the world the meds they're on anyway?
Probably a good call by the mod. "Sensitive".
I had the transcript because each time I was alerted to a reply a new tab comes up when I check the reply.......all these tabs. Nothing malicious. "But", hard call. It's a shame a problem-someone can be used as a reason to erase data put in play by other forum members. Hope you're on top of it.
Post by: nilak on 12/04/2018 13:09:41
Regading the OP, I also think of this possibility that quantum fields should require a medium that excitates. Actually I don't see any other possibility.
From the start I'd like to clarify that space and a medium are different things. I think you either use some rules of spacetime or a medium in which the light and matter waves travel. Not sure if you can call what you have described space anymore. It still confuses me as the GR spacetime actually is like a medium.
In this case the medium can occupy a volume of space. This space can be euclidean or you can even use the Minkowsky spacetime but I suppose an euclidean spacetime would be the right option as it would be just for reference.
Wether this medium is static or like a fluid is another question that would need to be answered. If you want to be closer to GR, a dynamic medium would be preferable. In this case the medium would react to let's say the intensity of the field. However, we know that a particle has higher energy when the associated wavelength is smaller. But all particles have invariant rest mass, therefore higher wavelength apear only if there is relative motion between the observer and the particle. We need some math to see if this works, and it is quite complicated from my point of view. Anyway, gravity would be the effect on this fluid. We are dealing now with effects on quantum fields, which GR cannot handle, so it would be required completely new equations to work with these.
If on the other hand the medium is static, gravity could be mediated by quantum particles or just continuous effect between fields.
For now we have a good classical theory for gravity that we can't use because at a fundamental level there is quantum physics, and another problem is we don't have physical interpretation for Quantum physics either.
Post by: Colin2B on 13/04/2018 09:37:05
However, we know that a particle has higher energy when the associated wavelength is smaller. ......, therefore higher wavelength apear only if there is relative motion between the observer and the particle.Relative motion is not necessary.
We are dealing now with effects on quantum fields, which GR cannot handle,I don’t understand what you are saying here. GR can handle quantum fields, but the 2 work at different scales. You wouldn’t use a micrometer to measure a football field.
Post by: nilak on 13/04/2018 13:43:25
However, we know that a particle has higher energy when the associated wavelength is smaller. ......, therefore higher wavelength apear only if there is relative motion between the observer and the particle.Relative motion is not necessary.We are dealing now with effects on quantum fields, which GR cannot handle,I don’t understand what you are saying here. GR can handle quantum fields, but the 2 work at different scales. You wouldn’t use a micrometer to measure a football field.
Why relative motion is not necessary?
A massive particle has invariant mass and if in motion it gets additional energy. The faster it goes the shorter the wavelength. Do you mean we can also take into account a potential energy in some context?
Whether there are conflicts between GR and Quantum physics is debatable, but you may be right.
Here is a different point of view, with more details:
https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/387/a-list-of-inconveniences-between-quantum-mechanics-and-general-relativity
Post by: Colin2B on 14/04/2018 10:12:18
Why relative motion is not necessary?I think you are forgetting gravitational effects. I know you know, because we’ve discussed before.
Here is a different point of view, with more details:As it says in the link “None of this is really a contradiction between general relativity and quantum mechanics. ”
https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/387/a-list-of-inconveniences-between-quantum-mechanics-and-general-relativity
Post by: guest45734 on 14/04/2018 11:11:30
However various inflow concepts are persued by many other people.
From the start I'd like to clarify that space and a medium are different things. I think you either use some rules of spacetime or a medium in which the light and matter waves travel. Not sure if you can call what you have described space anymore. It still confuses me as the GR spacetime actually is like a medium.
In this case the medium can occupy a volume of space. This space can be euclidean or you can even use the Minkowsky spacetime but I suppose an euclidean spacetime would be the right option as it would be just for reference.
Wether this medium is static or like a fluid is another question that would need to be answered. If you want to be closer to GR, a dynamic medium would be preferable. In this case the medium would react to let's say the intensity of the field. However, we know that a particle has higher energy when the associated wavelength is smaller. But all particles have invariant rest mass, therefore higher wavelength apear only if there is relative motion between the observer and the particle. We need some math to see if this works, and it is quite complicated from my point of view. Anyway, gravity would be the effect on this fluid. We are dealing now with effects on quantum fields, which GR cannot handle, so it would be required completely new equations to work with these.
If on the other hand the medium is static, gravity could be mediated by quantum particles or just continuous effect between fields.
For now we have a good classical theory for gravity that we can't use because at a fundamental level there is quantum physics, and another problem is we don't have physical interpretation for Quantum physics either.
The following link may be inline with your views above, it is based on dark energy as the mechanism causing both gravity and and the expansion of the universe, and like MOND and Quantum foam inflow it does not require dark matter.
https://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/hal-01423134v2/document
There is no such thing as a volume of space devoid of quantum fluctuations or matter. Space is not just volume it expands and contracts according to the amount of dark energy or quantum fluctuations.
The concept of the graviton is a theoretical virtual particle/quantum fluctuation. We know quantum fluctuations exist.
I wonder if space can exist without quantum fluctuations. If we think about the BB or Big Crunch (QLG) Space expanded from a singularity and was purely radiation
I have read various articles recently on the subject of non locality and additional dimensions, this allows for information to travel from point a to point b in excess of 10000c which is not possible according to relativity. Can non locality be explained by a additional dimensions connecting point A to B directly or via a wormhole etc.
Post by: nilak on 14/04/2018 12:08:43
Thanks. About the link, yes it explains that there are no contradictions, but some physicist think there are, so it must be some confusion somewhere, I don't know enough of the details so I can't comment on it.Why relative motion is not necessary?I think you are forgetting gravitational effects. I know you know, because we’ve discussed before.Here is a different point of view, with more details:As it says in the link “None of this is really a contradiction between general relativity and quantum mechanics. ”
https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/387/a-list-of-inconveniences-between-quantum-mechanics-and-general-relativity
Regarding gravitational effects I may have made a confusion. It was about what creates gravitational effects, or what makes spacetime to curve or if there is a medium what makes it react. And that should be I suppose the energy of the quantum field. A massive particle has rest energy in a form of mass and also if it has kinetic energy, then it should affect the spacetime. But can gravitational potential energy of a particle taken into account for evaluating how spacetime or presumably the medium is afected? It doesn't sound right.
Post by: guest45734 on 14/04/2018 14:08:29
Why relative motion is not necessary?I think you are forgetting gravitational effects. I know you know, because we’ve discussed before.Here is a different point of view, with more details:As it says in the link “None of this is really a contradiction between general relativity and quantum mechanics. ”
https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/387/a-list-of-inconveniences-between-quantum-mechanics-and-general-relativity
I understand Relativity assumes space to be unchanging volume. It includes the cosmological constant (Dark Energy) to explain away the expansion of space. It does not explain the mechanism behind the apparent expansion(dark energy) and contraction(gravity) of space. The string and quantum theories trying to incorporate gravity ascribe gravity to the theoretical graviton. The the theoretical graviton is thought to cause gravity. If it exists it is a quantum fluctuation ie virtual particle. Space is full of quantum fluctuations (see casimir effect)., there is no where in space that does not have quantum fluctuations. Can space exist without quantum fluctuations.
What is space? It expands and contracts (possibly due to gravitons, quantum fluctuations, dark energy). Could space itself be considered a super fluid that flows and allows quantum fluctuations to pop into and out of existence, does it have additional dimensions allowing non local actions to occur in space (spooky action at a distance). If space is considered to be a super fluid could it explain frame draggingas predicted by einstein https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frame-dragging.
The following is a slightly updated version of the link I posted above ref dark energy inflow, it is based on space as a super fluid. https://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/hal-01312579v4/document
Looking at all the many theories available they may all be partly correct, and explain different aspects of what is observed in space.
Can space
1) be considered a super fluid, by most theories,
2) exist without quantum fluctuations.
3) be multidimensional if non local effects can not be explained in any other way.
4) allow both real and virtual particles to exist in it.
5) expand due to dark energy( possibly caused by virtual particles/quantum fluctuations)
6) contract due mass and gravity( possibly due to the absorption of quantum fluctuations/gravitons)
Edit I found this link indicating non locality is a fact, but it may be able to be explained away via a wave function, I think that is what its conclusion was :) https://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/1402/1402.4764.pdf
Post by: Colin2B on 14/04/2018 19:21:03
I understand Relativity assumes space to be unchanging volume.Most of the problems GR is used to solve take place in none-expanding space. That’s not the same as constant volume. Look at the Schwarzschild metric, if distance changes so must volume!
It includes the cosmological constant (Dark Energy) to explain away the expansion of space.More to stop it expanding or contracting.
But you can take that out or use a different value. See https://map.gsfc.nasa.gov/universe/uni_accel.html
It does not explain the mechanism behind the apparent expansion(dark energy) and contraction(gravity) of space.That depends on what is causing these phenomena, at the moment we don’t know.
Can space
1) be considered a super fluid, by most theories,
2) exist without quantum fluctuations.
3) be multidimensional if non local effects can not be explained in any other way.
4) allow both real and virtual particles to exist in it.
5) expand due to dark energy( possibly caused by virtual particles/quantum fluctuations)
6) contract due mass and gravity( possibly due to the absorption of quantum fluctuations/gravitons)
1) be considered a super fluid, by most theories, - most theories just ignore this. As I said in @jeffreyH thread on inertia, space doesn’t offer any resistance to mass. Problem is how to detect superfluid, how would we know if there were permanent eddies? Best you can say is behaves like it when considersd in specific ways.
2) exist without quantum fluctuations. - that depends whether you consider space and the vacuum to be one and the same, or separate.
3) be multidimensional if non local effects can not be explained in any other way. - depends what you mean by “can”. Do you mean “is” if no other known explanation exists? Not a logical conclusion.
4) allow both real and virtual particles to exist in it. - generally consider it is the field that supports particles, yes both exist but be careful what you interpret virtual particles to be. Fields exist in space.
5) expand due to dark energy - apparently. No comment on cause
6) contract due mass and gravity - it can, no comment on your cause.
Edit I found this link indicating non locality is a fact, but it may be able to be explained away via a wave function, I think that is what its conclusion was :) https://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/1402/1402.4764.pdfYes, that is how the author tries to describe it.
The problem is the one I raised in the entanglement thread. The wavefunction is the description of probability distribution of the particles and those probabilities remain the same whether the 2 particles are in the same room or light years apart. So, you could argue both ways.
Depends whether you believe QM etc describes an underlying reality Eg I send you a playing card, in the post, drawn at random. I can either say that it takes all 52 values until you look at it, or I can say it has a value but we won’t know until you look. The probability of a specific card is the same no matter which description we choose.
There are arguments both ways at the moment. Have a look at this https://arxiv.org/pdf/1205.4636.pdf
Interesting discussion. Won’t be around all the time over next 2 weeks, but will look in when I can.
Post by: nilak on 14/04/2018 21:47:58
Here is my opinion on this:.
Can space
1) be considered a super fluid, by most theories,
2) exist without quantum fluctuations.
3) be multidimensional if non local effects can not be explained in any other way.
4) allow both real and virtual particles to exist in it.
5) expand due to dark energy( possibly caused by virtual particles/quantum fluctuations)
6) contract due mass and gravity( possibly due to the absorption of quantum fluctuations/gravitons)
1. It is more of a terminology matter. If you assume a superfluid, normally it can exist within a volume of space, but you can treat space so that it behaves similarly to a superfluid. In relativity there is no preferred reference frame, therefore this superfluid should be defined in such a way so that it can make the same predictions as relativity does. I'm not sure this could be a problem.
2. I don't think it can. I can only think of space extending to infinity or space could change far away from the known universe like when aproaching a black whole. So I don't think you can have space without any particle field in it with non zero field value. Space and time can't exist separately.
3. You should define what other dimensions you want, space, time, how many and how they work. But normally, because of energy conservation you should not need another dimension as it would allow energy to escape.
4. Don't see a problem
5. I don't know enough about dark energy,
6. You mean mass and energy. You will need to show how it works and if it makes the right predictions. To simulate gravity some scientists use air vacuum tubes and sound. But I've asked some physicist and they say it is not quite how spacetime works. Personally I don't see the problem. Whether you play a movie with time marks or show all the slides at once basically is the same thing.
Post by: guest45734 on 15/04/2018 10:24:14
3) be multidimensional if non local effects can not be explained in any other way. - depends what you mean by “can”. Do you mean “is” if no other known explanation exists? Not a logical conclusion.
3. You should define what other dimensions you want, space, time, how many and how they work. But normally, because of energy conservation you should not need another dimension as it would allow energy to escape.
Some theories suggest wormholes as a means of almost instantaneous information transfer between points in space. Using Occams razor is it not just simpler to assume all points in space can be connected via another medium. This medium might be a dimension which does not include space or time, (it may have a form of meniscus as in a fluid, the reason I suggest meniscus is that once particles decohere, they would normally stay decohered). The concept of space time and relativity breaking down inside a black hole as been around for a long time. If space time ceases to exist inside a black hole, would it need to exist in another dimension, existing alongside space time in normal space, would we even know about it. Could proof of such a dimension be considered to be proven by non locality. http://curious.astro.cornell.edu/physics/89-the-universe/black-holes-and-quasars/theoretical-questions/455-what-happens-to-spacetime-inside-a-black-hole-intermediate
Post by: guest45734 on 15/04/2018 10:27:55
1) be considered a super fluid, by most theories, - most theories just ignore this. As I said in @jeffreyH thread on inertia, space doesn’t offer any resistance to mass. Problem is how to detect superfluid, how would we know if there were permanent eddies? Best you can say is behaves like it when considersd in specific ways.
Does frame dragging as predicted by relativity not demonstrate a fluid effect. Also mass can not be accelerated to light speed, is this not a demonstration of space presenting resistance.
Post by: Colin2B on 15/04/2018 11:18:37
Does frame dragging as predicted by relativity not demonstrate a fluid effect. Also mass can not be accelerated to light speed, is this not a demonstration of space presenting resistance.Frame dragging as predicted by GR is a gravity equivalent of em induction.
Limitation on light speed is part of the energy, mass, momentum relationship.
What would be interesting would be to look at superfluid phenomena and see what might be expected eg if a superfluid is placed in a rotating container instead of rotating uniformly with the container, the rotating state consists of quantized vortices - are there similar effects that might be noticable?
Post by: andreasva on 15/04/2018 12:59:21
Post by: andreasva on 15/04/2018 13:25:33
What is space? It expands and contracts (possibly due to gravitons, quantum fluctuations, dark energy).
Evidence only suggest energy is capable of expanding or contracting. There's no evidence space itself has any malleable properties. And there never will be either. Space is not quantifiable, because it is always infinite in nature. Space is homogeneous. Energy is heterogeneous.
Post by: guest45734 on 15/04/2018 13:35:52
What would be interesting would be to look at superfluid phenomena and see what might be expected eg if a superfluid is placed in a rotating container instead of rotating uniformly with the container, the rotating state consists of quantized vortices - are there similar effects that might be noticable?
Is this the sort of thing you are thinking of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superfluid_vacuum_theory
Post by: guest45734 on 15/04/2018 13:42:14
There's no evidence space itself has any malleable properties.I might ask you what a quantum fluctuation or virtual particle is, how do they manifest themselves in space. All things and forces are contained within space, if you zoom into a volume of space it is full of quantum fluctuations without which space as we understand it would not exist. Space is full of quantum fluctuations it is not empty nothingness. No virtual particles = no space = no gravity= nothing. Nothing has no dimensions it is nothing.
Post by: andreasva on 15/04/2018 14:16:52
I might ask you what a quantum fluctuation or virtual particle is, how do they manifest themselves in space. All things and forces are contained within space, if you zoom into a volume of space it is full of quantum fluctuations without which space as we understand it would not exist. Space is full of quantum fluctuations it is not empty nothingness. No virtual particles = no space = no gravity= nothing. Nothing has no dimensions it is nothing.
That's the point I'm making. Only energy can transform into other states. That's all that's ever been proven. The "space" we observe is 100% energy. When you zoom in, you're simply zooming in to more energy. The quantum fluctuations are derived from energy. Space is the underlying substrate that we exist within. It's not nothing, it's an infinite void. That's something.
Post by: andreasva on 15/04/2018 14:48:40
I might ask you what a quantum fluctuation or virtual particle is, how do they manifest themselves in space.
I think these particles may represent dimensional collapse.
Post by: guest45734 on 15/04/2018 15:05:00
I might ask you what a quantum fluctuation or virtual particle is, how do they manifest themselves in space.
I think these particles may represent dimensional collapse.
Please expand on your above answers, are you referring to the vacuum https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vacuum_state
Are you familiar with the zero energy universe. You maybe familiar with the zero energy universe concept https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zero-energy_universe . Energy can not be created or destroyed from the law of thermodynamics. -ve energy + +ve energy = 0 . If -ve energy and +ve energy are out of phase would they not just appear as the same thing in normal space. Do you think the Heisenburg uncertainty principle applies in any way https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uncertainty_principle etc
When you state dimensional collapse, how do you view those dimensions? Space + time + something else? perhaps
Post by: andreasva on 15/04/2018 16:14:21
Please expand on your above answers
What I'm suggesting is an idea that no one really likes as near as I can tell, yet, with everything I've contemplated over the past 30+ years, it's the only answer that makes sense to me logically. I'll explain it, but understand it is not conventional, and probably considered ridiculous in some peoples eyes. I could also be horribly wrong. I don't know, but it makes logical sense to me.
When I look at space from the standpoint of an infinite void, I have to question the entire notion of the way we view the entropy of the universe. Where is a condense point of energy going to exist in a void before our understanding of space and time existed? It would have no preference to any particular scale. The void would have no properties that would allow anything to "condense" within it either. It could scale up or down, and that would be about it. Only the presence of energy allows energy to exist in different states, condensed or otherwise. A condensed point of energy in a void is an impossibility. How could something like this explode into a big bang within a void? It wouldn't, in my opinion. It would just keep on condensing eternally, because nothing could ever act upon it to stop it from condensing. The possibility of a universe existing without energy to act upon it becomes nonsensical in my view.
I think you have to reverse the entire process, and consider the possibility that our universe came into existence from the opposite end of the spectrum as which we currently perceive. It was created all at once from the maximum scale it would ever be. We are not expanding, we are falling into the void of space. Our universe's beginning was formed from dimensional collapse, much like I'm suggesting in a quantum fluctuation, and we are still collapsing at a constant rate. All the galaxies we view are pretty much where they were when this all began, aside from incidental local motion due to gravitational effects. The space that we contemplate in physics today is unbound energy. Mass is bound energy. They are inherently different, but equal and opposite in physical properties.
For a lack of a better word, matter is collapsing inwards at a constant rate, probably defined at C. The distance gained between distant galaxies over time is derived from a scaling effect. I'm also guessing that the rate of collapse follows inverse square laws, so the rate of collapse was different the further back in time you go. I'm also guessing the the energy density in the unbound energy of space increases over time.
This would most closely be equatable to a zero energy or sum universe.
I don't know how any of this can be proven, or verified. It would basically fit all of the exact same observations and theories we have already assigned to inflation or expansion, because it is the inverse state of what we think is going on now. The real issue is obtaining proof. Everything we use to detect the universe is based on energy. Energy can only be used to detect other energies. If all energy is collapsing at the exact same rate, it would all appear static when compared to other energy. We would view upper and lower limits at any given point in time, and these limits wouldn't change over time, even though everything was changing over time. Everything would check. We're bound to a perspective which could contradict the reality of what's actually happening.
As I've said before, physics see's all these elements of physics as static, because they are predictable. A hydrogen atom is about x in size, with an energy of y. They always remain about the same when we compare them to other elements. If the entire universe were falling into a void, how would we know?
I just think all this stuff has to be headed in a direction. The energy has to be put to work to be experienced. The idea that everything was created 13.8 billion years ago and has just been hanging out in a somewhat unchanged state, seems unlikely to me. We are not going to fly apart at the speed of light due to our perspective of acceleration. We aren't accelerating or expanding anywhere in the conventional sense. At best, we'll simply blip out of existence some day, and the whole process will start anew.
Removing the concept of "space" from physics is really simple, honestly.
Does that have any impact on any of the formula's in physics? Of course not. That minor little change only changes our perspective of the universe, but it doesn't change what we've already accepted as mathematical truths in physics.
My 2 cents on the universe...
Post by: andreasva on 15/04/2018 19:51:38
When you state dimensional collapse, how do you view those dimensions? Space + time + something else? perhaps
energy + time. I see our universe as a sealed biosphere more or less. It's a hard defined physical dimensional state with an outer wall, similar to an atom. I think it's also important understand what the "collapsing" state represents. I think it's more closely related to simple motion. Matter travels inwards, so it's not really collapsing in the literal sense of the word. In a true 3-dimensional state we can move 3-dimensionally. This includes inward and outward motion in addition to the more commonly understood linear motion that we easily perceive. As long as we maintain coherence in motion relative to other matter, we perceive all matter as static relative to 0 as a base state. I think matter is more like an inverted wave traveling inward. I consider light moves along a tangent to inward motion, possessing both inward and outward properties of motion simultaneously. It's propelled by a constant state of collapse, much like pressing your hand against a bouncing ball, but with no bottom limit. That's where the particle wave duality comes into play. It is physically both states at once.
Space has no definable physical dimensions, because space is infinite, so it's not really a part of our physical dimension. We exist within space in the form of energy. Energy is what defines the physical structure and substance of the space we perceive, and time defines the entropy of this energy.
Post by: andreasva on 15/04/2018 20:19:07
Post by: guest45734 on 16/04/2018 07:25:09
Sticking with the current laws of physics, energy can not be created or destroyed. This would imply that the zero energy universe concept must be going in the correct direction (+E) + (-E) = 0. You point out that the entropy of the universe is increasing. Quantum fluctuations in space with exactly opposite characteristics may cancel out out leaving a zero energy increase situation, but what would happen if the quantum fluctuations were on occasion separated preventing a cancellation the entropy of space would increase.
To try and define the universe as finite, is a nonsense, To know what is over the edge of the expanding visible universe is something we may never know, and so can be defined as infinite ie an unattainable thing. Space as just a volume is also a nonsense, in any vacuum it is full of quantum fluctuations (see Casimir effect for proof). Absolute zero can never be reached because of these quantum fluctuations, space does not exist without them. The concept of spacial dimensions is from relativity 4D space and time.
I have to go
Post by: andreasva on 16/04/2018 12:38:36
You point out that the entropy of the universe is increasing.
Mass-energy and time-energy (aka space-time) is the same energy, but existing in different states, in my view. As mass-energy density falls(entropy -), time-energy density rises(entropy+). The falling energy density in mass (relative to the overall universe) is seen in the separation of galaxies, and the increase in time-energy density (relative to matter) is seen in the distance gained between galaxies. That's what I suspect anyway. Overall the sum of our entire universe is collapsing or falling inward. And as I suggest above, light and matter are both traveling at C. Linear motion is outward motion, and when a body is at rest, it is traveling in an inward motion. No motion, no energy. It's the constant motion of everything that allows a universe to exist. Energy at work.
Post by: andreasva on 16/04/2018 13:06:29
but what would happen if the quantum fluctuations were on occasion separated preventing a cancellation the entropy of space would increase.
Had a thought on this, which could make sense. I suggested that the process is following inverse square laws. In the early universe, I suspect matter dominated every point in space. It quickly receded inward giving rise to time-energy between the gaps. It would make sense that number of QF's would also rise with the rise of time-energy, possibly slowing the process down over time as time-energy density increased. I think what would be more important would be the ratio between successful QF's and unsuccessful QF's.
Post by: andreasva on 16/04/2018 15:18:31
To try and define the universe as finite, is a nonsense,
Yes, I agree, but I also think a clearer definition of infinite and finite is in order. Space, energy, and time are infinite. There's no doubt in my mind. What is finite is states of energy. Anything that has a beginning cannot be defined as infinite. Our universe, which is made of energy, had a beginning, and could be viewed as a state of energy, therefore, our universe, or our perception of our universe, is finite. Life is finite. Matter is finite. Gravity is finite. Light is finite. I think most importantly though, our perspective of the universe is finite. Infinity implies a dimensionless state with no definable beginning or end. Because all the elements in our universe are dependent upon one another to exist, all of these states of energy had a beginning, and will eventually come to an end. Even light, which is considered infinite, cannot last forever, because the universe will not last forever. That does not rule out the possibility that our universe will undergo a reset of sorts. But, everything that we observe and experience now, will eventually come to an end. That end might mark the beginning. Beyond our perspective of the universe, of course there's more. Infinity is a pretty damn big place. So, if we're talking about an all inclusive universe including things beyond our "perceived" universe, I agree, defining the sum total of everything as finite is total nonsense. We're an infinitesimal cog in a much larger machine.
Post by: guest45734 on 16/04/2018 18:03:38
Mass-energy and time-energy (aka space-time) is the same energy, but existing in different states, in my view. As mass-energy density falls(entropy -), time-energy density rises(entropy+).2nd law of thermodynmics entropy always increases, (except in a couple of exceptions)
https://www.quora.com/The-entropy-is-increasing-but-the-energy-of-the-universe-is-constant-How
I suggested that the process is following inverse square laws.Yep that is inline with newtons laws.
In the early universe, I suspect matter dominated every point in space.Nope Even the big bang theory stipulates the early universe was quantum fluctuations matter did not come into existence until the universe was expanding. However I tend to lean towards a zero energy universe as I indicated above, which does not preclude one or several Big Bangs.
Quote from: disinterested on Today at 07:25:09
To try and define the universe as finite, is a nonsense,Yes, I agree, but I also think a clearer definition of infinite and finite is in order. Space, energy, and time are infinite. There's no doubt in my mind. What is finite is states of energy. Anything that has a beginning cannot be defined as infinite. Our universe, which is made of energy, had a beginning, and could be viewed as a state of energy, therefore, our universe, or our perception of our universe, is finite. Life is finite. Matter is finite. Gravity is finite. Light is finite. I think most importantly though, our perspective of the universe is finite. Infinity implies a dimensionless state with no definable beginning or end. Because all the elements in our universe are dependent upon one another to exist, all of these states of energy had a beginning, and will eventually come to an end. Even light, which is considered infinite, cannot last forever, because the universe will not last forever. That does not rule out the possibility that our universe will undergo a reset of sorts. But, everything that we observe and experience now, will eventually come to an end. That end might mark the beginning. Beyond our perspective of the universe, of course there's more. Infinity is a pretty damn big place. So, if we're talking about an all inclusive universe including things beyond our "perceived" universe, I agree, defining the sum total of everything as finite is total nonsense. We're an infinitesimal cog in a much larger machine.
You are not being consistent either the universe is infinite or finite, we can never observe the limit, therefore it is arguably infinite. What limit would you state as the finite measurable limit, then what do have beyond that.
Quantum loop gravity allows for repeated big bangs and big crunches.
Light does not experience time or distance, from a photons perspective time and space do not exist. Also energy can not be created or destroyed it just changes form.
Being part of a cog in a much bigger machine, I want to understand exactly what space is. Looking at vacuum energy reinforces some of what I have been trying to discuss here is one link on the subject https://www.researchgate.net/post/Does_vacuum_energy_really_exist there are many much better.
Colin suggested superfluids would be good to look at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superfluid_vacuum_theory does anyone have an opinion on space as a superfluid.
Post by: andreasva on 16/04/2018 20:56:48
Nope Even the big bang theory stipulates the early universe was quantum fluctuations matter did not come into existence until the universe was expanding.
I'm starting at maximum expansion or scale. Energy collapsed inward to form the universe. What it looked like, I don't know for sure. I've contemplated the beginning of the universe based on a potential end to our universe. One single black hole representing all the mass energy in the entire universe, surround by time-energy. That's the end, and the beginning of the next cycle.
However I tend to lean towards a zero energy universe as I indicated above, which does not preclude one or several Big Bangs.
I lean the same way. I also consider the possibility that our universe perpetually repeats itself.
You are not being consistent either the universe is infinite or finite, we can never observe the limit, therefore it is arguably infinite. What limit would you state as the finite measurable limit, then what do have beyond that.
Honestly, I think we could possibly be a quantum fluctuation within another greater universe, and so on and so on. Not clear to me however. Just a curious thought.
We do observe a pretty clear beginning. I think that's pretty undeniable, although arguable to some I suppose. As long as we can determine we had a beginning with reasonable certainty, our universe is finite by default in my view. That's my rational behind the statement. Anything that has a beginning is finite, regardless of whether or not we can see the edge of the universe. So yes, arguably so.
Light does not experience time or distance, from a photons perspective time and space do not exist. Also energy can not be created or destroyed it just changes form.
It's not clear to me what a photon experiences from its perspective. Stopped time doesn't necessarily imply 0 time, and I'm not sure what that says about distance. Not sure I really feel like getting into time discussions though. I'm not implying energy is being destroyed by any means. Quite the opposite.
I want to understand exactly what space is.
I've spent too long thinking about space. Strip out all the energy in your mind, and what's left is raw space. What do you see? I see an infinite dimensionless void. A contradiction of scale, where space is as infinitely vast looking outward, as it is looking inward. I see the possibility of motion. We exist somewhere between this contradiction of scale. That's what I keep coming back to.
Post by: guest45734 on 17/04/2018 07:18:22
Quote from: disinterested on Yesterday at 18:03:38
Nope Even the big bang theory stipulates the early universe was quantum fluctuations matter did not come into existence until the universe was expanding.
I'm starting at maximum expansion or scale. Energy collapsed inward to form the universe. What it looked like, I don't know for sure. I've contemplated the beginning of the universe based on a potential end to our universe. One single black hole representing all the mass energy in the entire universe, surround by time-energy. That's the end, and the beginning of the next cycle.
Quote from: disinterested on Yesterday at 18:03:38
However I tend to lean towards a zero energy universe as I indicated above, which does not preclude one or several Big Bangs.
I lean the same way. I also consider the possibility that our universe perpetually repeats itself.
You appear to be hinting at Quantum loop gravity, do you adhere to this theory/idea.
To try and keep things really simple if we look at space. Zooming out space has volume which extends to infinity as far as we will ever know. Space can be distorted according to relativity. Zooming in it has a grainy structure and is it is full of quantum fluctuations and matter. Under String theory space has a membrane with more than just the 3 Spacial and one time dimension we are familiar. The holographic principle projects 3D space onto a 2 Dimensional membrane.
I posted this early but it was moved, If space has a membrane which has surface tension, the membrane of space time can take on many fundamental shapes such as waves, corpuscles, menisci, vortices, agglomerates, and foams. It is suggested that these basic shapes can be arranged in atoms, molecules, and matter. In other words, everything in the universe may be manufactured from the fabric/membrane of space time itself. Matter and energy are connected in a virtual membrane at the interface of observed time.
The observed time passing is affected in a gravitational field or under acceleration. This may may be due to quantum foam effects/dark energy effects both of which are a result of quantum fluctuations in the membrane of space.
Trying to be philosophical, and buy into your infinte and finite space concepts could a dimension exist in the membrane of space that has the potential to connect all points in space. This is possibly in la la land, but it is worth considering. Another way of considering this is that for a photon or particle travelling in 3D space, space does not exist so all photons would exist in the same space and could maybe again be connected directly when they are entangled, until they decohere.
Post by: guest45734 on 18/04/2018 09:18:59
Ref Hawking radiation and matter appearing out of quantum fluctuations something that caught my eye from the following link was https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hawking_radiation
An alternative view of the process is that vacuum fluctuations cause a particle–antiparticle pair to appear close to the event horizon of a black hole. One of the pair falls into the black hole while the other escapes. In order to preserve total energy, the particle that fell into the black hole must have had a negative energy (with respect to an observer far away from the black hole). This causes the black hole to lose mass, and, to an outside observer, it would appear that the black hole has just emitted a particle. In another model, the process is a quantum tunnelling effect, whereby particle–antiparticle pairs will form the vacuum, and one will tunnel outside the event horizon
Quantum Blackholes also exist could they also produce matter UMMMM? https://newatlas.com/quantum-black-holes-singularity/29242/
Post by: opportunity on 18/04/2018 12:05:51
The problem with the dialogue of that erased material is that someone said space existed separate to "time".
Think of this: can time exist without space?
Steady on that thought.
Now try this......"can space exist without time"?
The problem with the erased material was the argument that space could exist beyond time, beyond the hypothetical big bang, as though it was, space, already present before the big bang.
The conundrum in that argument was the idea if "those" who believe both space and time didn't exist before the big bang, then why would we attempt "small-scale" big-bang experiments in a lab if indeed the a-priori of a big bang states that nothing exists beyond, "beyond" "outside", any notion of a big-bang.
Think of it this way, if science is serious about conducting experiments to replicate the big bang in a research lab environment, then clearly time and space already exist outside that big bang event that has yet to happen in that experiment, yet has already happened in theory on a large scale.
I suggested that the experiment was doomed to fail based on all modelling because all modelling states nothing existed before the large scale "big bang" event.
So, "what is space? It's a tough question. If it is tied in with time, then "time" as a descriptor needs to be included in the description of space.
Post by: guest45734 on 18/04/2018 12:39:44
So, "what is space? It's a tough question. If it is tied in with time, then "time" as a descriptor needs to be included in the description of space.
I have no problem with space time, I just think there is more to space time than just the basic 4 dimensions.
I have been taking a double take on Hawking radiation. A analogue to a black hole has been created in the lab demonstrating Hawking radiation might in fact be proven to exist at least in principle https://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/1510/1510.00621.pdf
One of the things that had escaped my gaze ref Hawking radiation is that the particles escaping a black hole are entangled with those inside the black hole.
How can information be transferred out of a Black hole and still be entangled with a particle inside a BH? Wormholes within wormholes? An additional membrane which everything exists on without space or time? Do any clever people have some insight.
Space can not exist without quantum fluctuations. Can quantum fluctuations exist in a black hole ie do black holes absorb space time. If Quantum fluctuations can be prevented from coming into existence in an volume of space would you have a black hole?
Post by: opportunity on 18/04/2018 13:09:08
Post by: guest45734 on 18/04/2018 14:51:24
Hey.....don't forget trying to replicate the Big Bang in a lab when nothing in theory existed before the big bang :o
I have created many Big Bangs in the lab. Mostly by pushing the edges of what semiconductors can do :)
However you might not have noticed that whilst I am aware of Big Bang theory I do not accept any big bang as the beginning of the universe. Big Bangs from Super Novas produce most of the heavier elements. If a Black Hole was to explode it might produce a few heavier elements also, I suspect that it would be mainly radiation. The reason I state this is that the laws of thermodynamics must apply inside a black hole. That means as pressure increases so does temperature, which in turn causes the breakdown of all matter inside a black hole into radiation. To guess what happens next just check out the Big Bang.
The thread is about what space is. I mentioned Black holes and Hawking radiation because one is an extreme case of gravity which to my mind disproves the existence of the graviton as the source of gravity. Gravity is caused by mass/energy inside the blackhole, the theoretical graviton is a boson, which would need to leave the centre of a BH and escape to the event horizon, bosons cant do that. Gravity is caused by the absorption of space which only exists due to quantum fluctuations. Hawking radiation not only gives a possible way the early matter in the universe was created from Quantum fluctuations, but also through the entanglement of particles at both sides of the event horizon, of a BH some insight into what space is.
I have a half baked idea that an additional dimension exists which particles(bosons and maybe fermions) can exist in like a singularity connecting all points in space. String theory suggests many more dimensions exist so me just thinking of one extra dimension is no biggy. Wave particle duality might suggest that waves exist in this additional dimension but manifest themselves as particles in space time dimension. Hey Ho :) . I will head off and read up on QFT. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_field_theory
Post by: opportunity on 18/04/2018 15:28:33
And now we want to do new "big bang stuff"?
In a lab?
Like we exist as a future in a lab before all this possible new big bang stuff we're trying to create?
echo....echo.............echo....................echo..............................
How can you start a conversation saying you've reproduced the big bang already.....already.........already...................already........................................already......................................... .....
Right?
Post by: Colin2B on 19/04/2018 07:51:33
[Wave particle duality might suggest that waves exist in this additional dimension but manifest themselves as particles in space time dimension. Hey Ho :) .I might have thought the opposite.
Waves certainly exist in the 4d world we seem to exist in, but I’ve always viewed the particle side as an effect/property due to the ability of the wave/field being able to transfer energy in the form of momentum.
Are there any other ways the extra dimensions might show up?
Post by: guest45734 on 19/04/2018 08:33:37
I might have thought the opposite.
Waves certainly exist in the 4d world we seem to exist in, but I’ve always viewed the particle side as an effect/property due to the ability of the wave/field being able to transfer energy in the form of momentum.
Are there any other ways the extra dimensions might show up?
Why not assume another dimension/membrane exists which connects all points in space time. Non Locality suggests this is probable. Hawking radiation if it exists suggests this also. It is OK to state spooky action at a distance and offer no explanation. Why not state the obvious, particles can connect via another dimension and act as one, without passing information through space time.
QLG suggests a Big Bang was not the start of the universe and all matter. Hawking radiation demonstrates a way matter can appear from the vacuum at the event horizon of a Black Hole. This allows BH's to evaporate over time, what happens to a BH when its mass drops below about 3 solar masses. BH's during their life time most likely turn any matter it sucked in to it, into radiation, the BB started with radiation and a explosion. Super Novaes explode at lower masses at around 1.44 solar masses https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supernova. Smaller BH's give off more xrays from?? their accretion disc than bigger black holes ie they lose energy and mass faster.
Does anyone have a really good link or book/pdf on Quantum Electrodynamics. I googled it to death yesterday and would like to understand it better.
Edit I stumbled onto this link Hawking radiation is not produced at the black hole horizon. http://backreaction.blogspot.co.za/2015/12/hawking-radiation-is-not-produced-at.html
It may be correct, for every argument some one will develop a counter argument.
Post by: Colin2B on 19/04/2018 09:32:48
Feynman did a popular book on qed which will be on amazon. Depends what level you want to start at.
Post by: guest45734 on 19/04/2018 11:12:02
I don’t yet see enough evidence for non-locality.
Feynman did a popular book on qed which will be on amazon. Depends what level you want to start at.
I guess it depends on how much evidence you need for non locality, the jury is still out.
All things Feynman are worth reading.
I did find some links to pdfs FOC on arxiv for QFT Sting Theory on QLG
Others might like a read it depends on the level you want to go to, some of these linkss are quite heavy.
https://arxiv.org/pdf/hep-th/9912205.pdf
https://arxiv.org/pdf/hep-th/9905111.pdf
https://arxiv.org/pdf/1001.4188.pdf
These links will keep me quite for a while. Does anyone have something on QED
Edit found this written by Feynman https://ia800503.us.archive.org/11/items/ost-physics-feynman-quantumelectrodynamics/Feynman-QuantumElectrodynamics.pdf
Post by: guest45734 on 20/04/2018 08:47:09
I don’t yet see enough evidence for non-locality.
Non Locality has been proven many times by many different research groups. Do you just not like the concept of spooky action at the quantum level regardless of the evidence. Googling proof of non locality throws up many pages of results confirming non locality is fact. Quantum cryptology relies on non locality for secure communications.
Including an extra dimension via a membrane connecting all points in space is no big deal
Edit Here is a link claiming proof of non locality https://phys.org/news/2015-11-nist-team-spooky-action-distance.html
Post by: Colin2B on 22/04/2018 09:09:37
Including an extra dimension via a membrane connecting all points in space is no big dealIt is if it isn’t real.
However, this is new theories and happy to discuss what experiments might be set up to test it.
Post by: guest45734 on 22/04/2018 13:10:28
Just reading the paper mentioned, will reply when fin.
I would like to know what you think. My opinion on the matter is that there is a lot of nonsense around and it is hard to pick out the wheat from the chafe.
I am guessing that you adhere perhaps to the wave function explanation of entanglement, or maybe put quantum fluctuations down to the heisenburg uncertainty principle. https://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/1402/1402.4764.pdf
Faster than light communication IF in fact it does happen MAY be via another dimension. Alternative ways of viewing space are on almost every science site I visit, and lets face it they are all just theories. The holographic viewpoint is interesting, projecting 3D space onto a 2D sheet which could be viewed as a membrane. The idea of additional dimensions is not a new idea a 5 D model based on relativity was proposed a long time ago to unify electromagnetism with gravity.
If you want to discuss/develop a SIMPLIFIED theory of everything based on what space is we could start by Applying the KISS principle (keep it simple stupid)
Viewing the expansion and contraction of space (dark energy and gravity) to be driven by quantum fluctuations, which are due to wave functions which exist on the membrane of space, similar to string theory. We can start a build a theory of everything with space as the substance which everything comes out of. Could everything in the universe be put down to electromagnetic waves.
Looking at the Casimir effect we know Quantum fluctuations exist and can be limited in their bandwidth. IF they are a result of travelling waves. Are they absorbed by mass, certainly they are blocked by metal plates. Could a planet block waves of a certain bandwidth or absorb them and create a gravitational effect. The Quantum foam inflow theory by Cahill would sugggest so, also the dark energy inflow also suggests the same if dark energy is viewed as quantum foam.
If you would like to bounce some ideas around based loosely around actual physics NOT nonsense I can come up with some ideas to discuss. One thing I am still not 100% convinced about is non locality, I think understand how it works, using wave functions. (But I can quite happily insert an additional dimension for faster than light communication :) )
Post by: Colin2B on 23/04/2018 12:48:04
Non Locality has been proven many times by many different research groups. Do you just not like the concept of spooky action at the quantum level regardless of the evidence.sorry, I was in a rush when I posted, I should have said i don’t see enough evidence in the non-locality experiments to suggest any instantaneous or ftl transfer of information.
The results are explained by the probabilities of the wave functions. To quote the article: “The NIST experiments are called Bell tests, so named because in 1964 Irish physicist John Bell showed there are limits to measurement correlations that can be ascribed to local, pre-existing (i.e. realistic) conditions. Additional correlations beyond those limits would require either sending signals faster than the speed of light, which scientists consider impossible, or another mechanism, such as quantum entanglement.”
And the NIST paper: “Quantum mechanics at its heart is a statistical theory. It cannot with certainty predict the outcome of all single events, but instead it predicts probabilities of outcomes. This probabilistic nature of quantum theory is at odds with the determinism inherent in Newtonian physics and relativity, where outcomes can be exactly predicted given sufficient knowledge of a system.”
If you read the NIST paper you will see that they have demonstrated that QM is unlikely to be governed by local realism and hidden variables. They have eliminated a number of loopholes including the possibility of sub-liminal communication, however, that does not imply -nor do they claim - super-liminal communication.
There is a difference between making a measurement that forces the particle to be in a particular state, vs forcing an entangled particle into a particular state which breaks the entanglement. Those are not the same thing, one is a measurement, the other is a change of state followed by a measurement. When people talk about using entanglement for faster-than-light communication, what they want is a measurement procedure that forces a particular outcome. You need to look carefully at quantum computing to realise it does not require the latter.
Yes, you are right that I lean towards a wavefunction explanation in that the behaviour of the entangled particles can be described by the probabilities of the combined wavefunction. The problem is, as you will see from threads on this forum, many people have real difficulties understanding probabilities, even simple ones like a pack of cards. Add to this the metaphors eg many worlds, and calculations eg all paths, and the average punter begins to extend to a reality that doesn’t exist. Yet many of these concepts are applicable to the classical world eg you can work out the trajectory of a cannon ball by assuming it takes all paths. Also I can take a playing card at random from a deck, post it to you without looking and assume that it is in a superposition of 52 states until you look at it when its wavefunction collapses and we know its position and state. The problem is that the quantum world is far more complex.
Yes, happy to discuss hidden dimensions, rather tied up this week but should surface early next week.
Post by: opportunity on 23/04/2018 12:55:45
For those who want to know how space works, take your time to consider why time would bullit in a 3-d.....why not 2-d....why 3-d?
Post by: captcass on 23/04/2018 23:38:05
It is an impossibility for space to expand.Spacetime has two aspects, space and time. One does not exist independently of the other and the two aspects must maintain a proportionality to maintain c. The length of a meter must shorten when the rate of time increases to maintain c. Likewise, it must get longer when time slows. In Relativity, the Lorentz contractions, shorter meters, are associated with slower time, which seems paradoxical, but it is not. It is just that the differences in rates of time are so small, the effect is too small to matter relative to the size of the Lorentz contractions.
Being spiritual and believing in a spiritual "Cause of Causes", I believe spacetime is the result of being aware of oneself existing "here", space, and "now" which is time. The passage of time forces space to evolve forward and is the primary force of the universe. The relative lengths of meters expand and contract with random fluctuations in the rate of time allowed by HUP.
Considering Einstein's fundamental metric to represent a null gravitational field being evolved forward at a constant rate, or constant rate of acceleration, the random fluctuations in time create dilation gradients, i.e., gravitational fields within the spacetime (quantum) continuum, that result in the dynamics of General Relativity. I have been considering that perhaps the apparent dimensionality of time in a dilation gradient creates the impression of depth in space.
Though space expands and contracts with changes in the rate of time, it is not possible to create more space. You would also have to create more time as the two are just different aspects of the same thing. This is one of the big flaws in how the expanding universe is being conceptualized. If more space is being manifested, how is the "more" time being manifested?
Post by: guest45734 on 29/04/2018 15:22:20
Spacetime has two aspects, space and time. One does not exist independently of the other and the two aspects must maintain a proportionality to maintain c. The length of a meter must shorten when the rate of time increases to maintain c. Likewise, it must get longer when time slows. In Relativity, the Lorentz contractions, shorter meters, are associated with slower time, which seems paradoxical, but it is not. It is just that the differences in rates of time are so small, the effect is too small to matter relative to the size of the Lorentz contractions.
Being spiritual and believing in a spiritual "Cause of Causes", I believe spacetime is the result of being aware of oneself existing "here", space, and "now" which is time. The passage of time forces space to evolve forward and is the primary force of the universe. The relative lengths of meters expand and contract with random fluctuations in the rate of time allowed by HUP.
Considering Einstein's fundamental metric to represent a null gravitational field being evolved forward at a constant rate, or constant rate of acceleration, the random fluctuations in time create dilation gradients, i.e., gravitational fields within the spacetime (quantum) continuum, that result in the dynamics of General Relativity. I have been considering that perhaps the apparent dimensionality of time in a dilation gradient creates the impression of depth in space.
Though space expands and contracts with changes in the rate of time, it is not possible to create more space. You would also have to create more time as the two are just different aspects of the same thing. This is one of the big flaws in how the expanding universe is being conceptualized. If more space is being manifested, how is the "more" time being manifested?
I just noticed your post.
How could I weave your Spiritual cause and causes into a discussion on what space is.
This is the new theories forum :) and I am bored.
Playing with a couple of ideas from relativity, QFT, and twisting them a bit.
All things are connected to a certain extent via the wave function. This is demonstrated via entanglement, spooky action at a distance and wave particle duality double slit experiment, and possibly a few other instances as well.
The wave function from QFT and the photon using Lorentz transformation do not experience time or space, until something interacts with them and the field collapses. This is akin to an additional dimension which does not experience space or time connecting all points in space and time.
In the beginning there was no time and no space, on fields which created quantum fluctuations/foam in space time which caused the expansion of space time (dark energy). These quantum fluctuations occasionally interact gaining enough energy to become a fundamental particles. These fundamental particles then accumalate into huge clouds of gas nebulae which form into stars which eventually burn out and collapse causing a super novae creating the heavy elements which form into planets etc. Some of these suns form into black holes on collapsing and compress the matter in them until the matter becomes so hot it breaks down into radiation, which then is released as a Big Bang creating more elements.
All of the elements and particles ever created are still connected by the field and can become entangled and then act as one particle until they decohere.
Spiritually could people be aware of the additional field dimension and be connected.
See I said I was bored :) Is this complete crap, partial crap, good crap, just crap etc.
Post by: captcass on 29/04/2018 17:40:51
How could I weave your Spiritual cause and causes into a discussion on what space is.Consider Einstein’s Fundamental Metric, which can be considered the basis of the tensors describing a null gravitational field::
X Y Z T
X -1 0 0 0
Y 0 -1 0 0
Z 0 0 -1 0
T 0 0 0 +1
A particle moves in a straight line in this Fundamental Metric, where there is no time dilation; where the time-time element g44 = +1, which is an invariant 1 s/s rate in all frames, the same rate we each experience in our inertial frame as we evolve along our worldline. Though a useful tool in GR, Einstein admits this metric most likely cannot exist in finite space. If it did, there would just be a single, infinitesimal, particle, and it would have a zero velocity, regardless of the X, Y, Z components of the metric, as there would be nothing to relate its motion to. Space would appear flat and have no dimensions as there would be nothing else to relate distance to. He considers this situation to be in vacuo. In saying this state probably cannot exist in a finite region, he is confirming my conjecture that the spacetime continuum is energetic. It cannot be otherwise. The spacetime continuum is the quantum continuum.
Because no motion would be apparent in the Fundamental Metric, it can be reduced to just the time-time element, g44, which is simply TT = 1. An observer existing in this state would only be aware of time passing. The observer’s space would be evolving forward with time, but that would be undetectable. I call this the IATIA state: “I Am That I Am”. This will raise some objections, but it must be noted that our reality is an illusion being manifested out of superposition waveforms that only take on forms that are dependent on an observer being present. Again, as per Einstein, “Reality is merely an illusion, albeit a very persistent one.”.
The IATIA state is a horrible state of being. The worst thing we do to people is to put them in solitary confinement.
Fortunately, it can imagine light and manipulate the light to create worlds that it can incarnate itself into, “losing” itself to escape its eternal loneliness and pass its eternity. All life forms are just different points of view, different perspectives for that single awareness. Hence, we are all one in it and we are all its children and, hence, in faith we have divine power and miracles occur..
The fact that we are all one in it explains non-locality. Alice and Bob are each the center of their own universe, their own local reality, as per relativity, but those universes are just different points of view for the One harmonizing all of those universes and Alice and Bob are one in that One.
Instead of a quantum foam, I see random fluctuations in time that create dilation gradients, and their associated relative densities in space, and the dynamics of General Relativity. By this I mean the dilation gradients result in the dynamics in time that manifest the apparent evolution of events as described by General Relativity.
Post by: guest45734 on 30/04/2018 11:02:03
Though a useful tool in GR, Einstein admits this metric most likely cannot exist in finite space. If it did, there would just be a single, infinitesimal, particle, and it would have a zero velocity, regardless of the X, Y, Z components of the metric, as there would be nothing to relate its motion to. Space would appear flat and have no dimensions as there would be nothing else to relate distance to
OK
Still your mind, have a Zen moment.
Think of non locality and the field, be calm, close your eyes. :)
Zooming in to a time before anything ever existed, space does not exist in the form we understand it, its dimensions are undefined, time is meaningless, lets call this the field dimension. Energy can not be created or destroyed, therefore the energy in the field dimension is the source of the original quantum fluctuations causing the expansion of space(and quite possibly it is infinite). Something happened to cause quantum fluctuations from the field dimension to cause the expansion of space time as we know it, maybe it radiated enough energy to cause a big bang, or perhaps it happened more slowly, various theories are extant already to drive people insane. Today space time exists along side the original undefined field dimension, this field dimension allows all points in space to be connected to a certain extant, it explains non locality, wave particle duality, and who knows remote viewing, which is currently being talked about on another science forum. Bearing this in mind, and the level of some of the posts on science forums, please do not take what I have written here too seriously. However I do not think I am a million miles from the truth, by describing a field dimension as being dimensionless, which connects all points in space time.
Post by: puppypower on 30/04/2018 11:43:30
If we traveled at the speed of light, the universe would appear contracted to a point-instant. As such, space would not appear to exist. There would be nothing to discuss. Since the speed of light is the same in all references, that is the gold standard in terms of a universal reference. Space does not exist in the universal ground state reference of C. It only exists in the silver and bronze level inertial references.This tells us that space is a reference artifact.
Post by: guest45734 on 30/04/2018 15:12:13
As such, space would not appear to exist. There would be nothing to discuss
Before any big bang or unfolding of space time, space and time did not exist. But the laws of physics must still apply, energy can not be created or destroyed. How interesting is that, it is well worth a discussion. You partly cover what I have alluded to in your next statement
Since the speed of light is the same in all references, that is the gold standard in terms of a universal reference. Space does not exist in the universal ground state reference of C. It only exists in the silver and bronze level inertial references.
I would argue space time is a bolt on to the original field dimension rather than an artifact
This tells us that space is a reference artifact
If we try for amusement 5 dimensions one where space and time are irrelevant and are occupied only by fields connecting all points in space in time then the rest is history with space and time which we are familiar with.
If the field dimension is assumed to connect all other points in space time, it allows for non local actions. In addition to this the field dimension which caused the first big bang maybe, still exists and is the reason for the Heisenburg uncertainty principle, which predicts the production of quantum fluctuations. Zero point energy is the lowest energy any QM system can have. etc etc la la https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zero-point_energy
Post by: guest39538 on 30/04/2018 16:00:46
Before any big bang or unfolding of space time, space and time did not exist.
Space did not exist , really ?
So please tell me all about how the big bang was created from the centre of a solid ?
If space did not exist it was occupied by a solid. A point has a surrounding or you can't have a point.
Post by: guest39538 on 30/04/2018 16:03:15
Consider Einstein’s Fundamental Metric, which can be considered the basis of the tensors describing a null gravitational field::Thank you for sharing that, I never knew that is all the stress tensors was , that's easy enough to follow thanks.
X Y Z T
X -1 0 0 0
Y 0 -1 0 0
Z 0 0 -1 0
T 0 0 0 +1
Post by: captcass on 30/04/2018 18:05:00
I never knew that is all the stress tensors was ,Sorry, this is not the stress tensor. There are 2 tensors in the field equations, Einstein's tensor and the stress-energy-momentum tensor. Einstein's tensor only contains spacetime elements, i.e., x,y,z and t, and is the actual description of the evolution of events that "describe" the "effects" of gravity. In his 1915 paper he notes that the theory of relativity does not require the stress-energy tensor. He adds it because our science requires a conservation of energy and the Einstein tensor contains no energy elements. So he came up with his constant, 8πG/c4, and then scaled that using the same time elements he uses in the Einstein tensor, T00,. In other words, Einstein's tensor describing gravity does not require the stress-energy tensor and the stress-energy tensor is meaningless without the corresponding Einstein tensor. This is why I do not even consider any energy components in my paper, only relativistic effects in time. Einstein calls the time elements his "energy components". It is all driven by apparent differences in rates of time. The fundamental force of the universe is the passage of time, as it forces all space to evolve forward, and when dilation gradients are introduced we also see the apparent evolution of events down the gradient, the gravitational direction of evolution. Although relativistic, it is an irresistible force in time just like the fundamental direction of evolution. This is why gravity only has one direction and why it overpowers all the other forces, even though it seems so weak.
Post by: guest39538 on 30/04/2018 19:53:14
Thanks for the explanation, I see in pictures, I got all the information I needed from your picture. Thanks again , I will step out this thread not to spoil it.I never knew that is all the stress tensors was ,Sorry, this is not the stress tensor. There are 2 tensors in the field equations, Einstein's tensor and the stress-energy-momentum tensor. Einstein's tensor only contains spacetime elements, i.e., x,y,z and t, and is the actual description of the evolution of events that "describe" the "effects" of gravity. In his 1915 paper he notes that the theory of relativity does not require the stress-energy tensor. He adds it because our science requires a conservation of energy and the Einstein tensor contains no energy elements. So he came up with his constant, 8πG/c4, and then scaled that using the same time elements he uses in the Einstein tensor, T00,. In other words, Einstein's tensor describing gravity does not require the stress-energy tensor and the stress-energy tensor is meaningless without the corresponding Einstein tensor. This is why I do not even consider any energy components in my paper, only relativistic effects in time. Einstein calls the time elements his "energy components". It is all driven by apparent differences in rates of time. The fundamental force of the universe is the passage of time, as it forces all space to evolve forward, and when dilation gradients are introduced we also see the apparent evolution of events down the gradient, the gravitational direction of evolution. Although relativistic, it is an irresistible force in time just like the fundamental direction of evolution. This is why gravity only has one direction and why it overpowers all the other forces, even though it seems so weak.
Post by: guest45734 on 01/05/2018 11:54:38
This is why I do not even consider any energy components in my paper, only relativistic effects in time.
Have you posted your paper?
Post by: jeffreyH on 01/05/2018 12:30:12
Just reading the paper mentioned, will reply when fin.
If you want to discuss/develop a SIMPLIFIED theory of everything based on what space is we could start by Applying the KISS principle (keep it simple stupid)
Viewing the expansion and contraction of space (dark energy and gravity) to be driven by quantum fluctuations, which are due to wave functions which exist on the membrane of space, similar to string theory. We can start a build a theory of everything with space as the substance which everything comes out of. Could everything in the universe be put down to electromagnetic waves.
The idea of quantum fluctuations being connected to both inertia and the expansion of the universe is another way of looking at things. With the vacuum containing negative energy which is preventing more particles from coming into existence. In my view inertia requires a condensate in which to operate. Any action causes an imbalance in the condensate.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dirac_sea
Post by: puppypower on 01/05/2018 13:52:35
And the NIST paper: “Quantum mechanics at its heart is a statistical theory. It cannot with certainty predict the outcome of all single events, but instead it predicts probabilities of outcomes. This probabilistic nature of quantum theory is at odds with the determinism inherent in Newtonian physics and relativity, where outcomes can be exactly predicted given sufficient knowledge of a system.”
Statistics is a simplification method and not a statement of fact. For example, say you had a complex system that only a few people in the world could break down into all its steps and infer deterministic results. The average person may not be able to do this, but they could still work on this project, by assuming it is a statistical system. It is a way to simplify the complex and still get good results.
Dice and cards, which are often used to help explain odds, are man made things. In other words, try to explain probability to a new person, without using any man made things like cards to dice. We can point to variations in natural things, but this is small compared to what natural things have in common; there is a higher percent of deterministic.
Dice obey statistics,because the six sides are equally weighed in terms of natural potentials; mass, charge, energy, etc., The difference has to do with superficial print patterns, which are a manmade and subjective elements. They are not a source of natural potential beyond the imaginations of humans.
Take a deck of cards and erase all the faces. Now every deal in this version of poker will be five of kind. What happened to the probability, when the manmade is gone? The only thing that has changed are the subjectivity pattern that weigh nothing in terms of the draw. None of the physical parameters have changed. It is an illusion that fools the best of them. Don't get me wrong, this is a useful tool, but a tool does not build the house by itself.
Let me give you a good practical example, in science. In Biology and Biochemistry, it has been known for 50 years or more that proteins fold with exact folds. When a protein is synthesized in the cell, it starts to pack and fold all the way to a final shape. Similar chemical composition proteins always fold the exact same way; perfect copies in 3-D space.
For several decades before this observation, and for many decades after this experimental observation, to the present, biology still assumes a statistical explanation for this deterministic event, where the probability equals 1.0. The statistical dogma is placed before common sense. It is still assumed and taught that thermal vibrations in the water, will cause random events, which result in average folds. This is not even real, in terms of experiment, but is still the convention in terms of explanation. This is true in all of science. This example was the easiest to see.
What it comes down to, is not many people can see the logic behind this deterministic protein observation. On the other hand thousands of workers can get you close to this result, if we accept statistics as a dogma of science. It may be a union thing. The bias of a random universe assumption, prevents reality from being explained almost to the point of censorship.
Dr. John Grant Patterson.
Quote
One is reminded here of the problem of protein folding. As I have pointed out elsewhere (Watterson, 1997), that problem also arises from applying classical theories, since they predict an average, not a unique fold. That these questions remain unsolved still today after 50 years of intense research effort, highlights a two-fold failing of statistical methods: firstly, they did not predict the existence of a stable folded state, and secondly, once given as an experimental fact, they cannot explain it.
This divergence may seem to be off the topic of space, but until the statistical magic trick is seem through, it is hard to advance in a logical way. Everyone is expecting a jackpot in the science casino by pulling a lever.
Post by: guest45734 on 01/05/2018 15:39:42
With the vacuum containing negative energy which is preventing more particles from coming into existence. In my view inertia requires a condensate in which to operate. Any action causes an imbalance in the condensate.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dirac_sea
The Dirac sea refers to particles, these particles are virtual particles ie not real but are the result of the underlying field. Viewing the vacuum field as a reflection of the quantum fluctuations appearing in space time as a result of the HUP.
I tend to have an idea whereby there is a dimension connecting all points in space time, partly as a result non locality and entanglement. Overlaying this idea over the vacuum will keep me interested for a while.
Post by: captcass on 01/05/2018 15:46:14
Have you posted your paper?Sorry, yes. I thought I was in the Hubble Shift thread where I have a link. Here it is: http://vixra.org/abs/1804.0109 .
Post by: guest45734 on 03/05/2018 14:10:12
Have you posted your paper?Sorry, yes. I thought I was in the Hubble Shift thread where I have a link. Here it is: http://vixra.org/abs/1804.0109 .
HI read your paper it lacks some maths. As I mentioned above I have an inkling that we do not exist in just 4D space time, I have taken a bit of time reading up on various theories. Too many to post here. I have a dislike of singularities in black holes and in the big bang theory. The following link uses the holographic principle and just 5 dimensions. The Big bang may not have happened but the effects we observe as the BB may be the result of a white hole https://arxiv.org/pdf/1309.1487.pdf . http://bigthink.com/paul-ratner/why-the-braneworld-theory-says-our-universe-began-from-a-white-hole https://scitechdaily.com/universe-may-emerged-black-hole-higher-dimensional-universe/
Extra dimensional theories abound?
So with additional dimensions of space to explain non local effects as seen in entanglement, and additional dimensions to explain the observed universe without a big bang. Things are likely connected or coming together.
Post by: captcass on 03/05/2018 17:36:21
As I mentioned above I have an inkling that we do not exist in just 4D space time,I am saying the same thing. The 5th Dimension (besides being a great rock group) is the spiritual dimension. Carl Jung's "oversoul" taken a step higher. We are just different points of view for a single entity. It harmonizes the points of view so they fit together properly in the grand scheme. Alice and Bob get the instantaneous results they do simply because that is how it works. Their points of view have to be harmonized, just as the EP has to apply and c has to be a constant. Harmonization.......
We see this in our lives all the time in what are called "synchronicities", which are coincidences that are just too coincidental to be mere coincidences. Really, it is happening all the time but we just take it for granted and don't see it because it is happening all the time. Sailors awake at sea when the engine stops....
We accept the fact that c is a constant, regardless of the velocity of the emitting source. Why? It is necessary for the puzzle parts to fit together and we know it is tested and true. When does it make sense? Only when there are observers. It is a necessary aspect for the universe to be observed the way it is. No observers = who cares?
In fact, I think it is safe to say it is widely accepted that the probability of all the constants being what they are so the universe can even exist as it does is nearly "0". Yet here we are, parts of the universe discussing where the universe comes from.
When considered from the spiritual point of view, however, the EP, the constancy of c, non-locality and harmonization, make sense and this particular type of universe becomes highly probable.
For some reason, the living aspects of the universe don't want to see life itself as part of the universe........ :) Oh, that's right, the Creator is LOSING Itself here...... :)
HI read your paper it lacks some maths.I know. I am just beginning to try to find data for galactic mass distributions versus velocities, but the data I am finding is not definitive and is contaminated with Dark Matter estimates. It is further complicated by the mass being concentrated in arms and bars instead of being evenly distributed. If anyone can help with this it would be much appreciated.
Post by: guest45734 on 04/05/2018 09:52:16
I know. I am just beginning to try to find data for galactic mass distributions versus velocities, but the data I am finding is not definitive and is contaminated with Dark Matter estimates. It is further complicated by the mass being concentrated in arms and bars instead of being evenly distributed. If anyone can help with this it would be much appreciated.
You might want to start by reviewing what has already been done. Kaluza Klein uses 5 dimensions https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kaluza%E2%80%93Klein_theory and puts dark matter into another dimension https://arxiv.org/abs/1702.02949 Theories increasing the number of dimensions open opportunities for explaining the weird stuff, spooky action etc Extra dimensions in space leads me to me think space is way more complicated than I originally suspected.
Post by: puppypower on 04/05/2018 12:13:36
As another example, electrons define the bulk of the space around atoms. Two electrons can occupy the same orbital space, but only if they have opposite spins. However, orbital space is not a point, but a volume, so there is extra space built in, so these two particles can never fully overlap. If electrons were pure waves, the needed space would go down. The higher density; less space requirement, would impact gravity, which would cause space to decrease via GR. A particle to wave conversion can lead gravity. A wave to particle conversion can oppose gravity.
Pressure, such as induced by gravity, causes particles to move closer; increases their density. This is a paralleled by space-time contracting, where space decreases; contracts, due to General Relativity. The pressure can also result in phases changes associated with different particle states, with less space requirements.
The primordial atom of the Big Bang theory, was a singularity; one particle. If we look at the second law, since entropy has to increase, two or more particles would eventually form; primordial atom splits. Since two particles cannot occupy the same space; they need to add space to exist. Space is needed for the second law. The added space, in turn, added time, due to the delays induced by the added space between connected things; waves.
One interesting observation about gravitational pressure, particle phases, and General Relativity is although space goes in the same direction, with respect to material phases; get denser, and relativistic distance, time does not go in the same direction. General Relativity; center of gravity, causes time to slow, whereas the vibrational frequencies of the particles phases increase; faster time. It is as though average time stays narrower.
If we look at Special Relativity, space-time contracts with velocity, however, I have never read anywhere that says that materials will undergo pressure induced phases changes at velocity near C. The space ship does not implode near C forming new phases. As such, GR and SR differ by pressure, with only GR having pressure. The result is SR changes relative space, but not absolute space, as does GR.
Post by: guest45734 on 04/05/2018 18:52:54
Therefore, a conversion of waves to particles will need to add space. Dark energy waves, condensing into dark energy particles, will add space.Can you quote a paper to back this up,citation required!
As another example, electrons define the bulk of the space around atoms. Two electrons can occupy the same orbital space, but only if they have opposite spins. However, orbital space is not a point, but a volume, so there is extra space built in, so these two particles can never fully overlap. If electrons were pure waves, the needed space would go down. The higher density; less space requirement, would impact gravity, which would cause space to decrease via GR. A particle to wave conversion can lead gravity. A wave to particle conversion can oppose gravity.Are you mixing virtual and real particles?
Post by: captcass on 04/05/2018 22:00:58
Theories increasing the number of dimensionsWe have found the universe to be logical, which has brought us to relativity. I am not a fan of dimensions we cannot imagine. This is why I sought alternatives to Dark Matter and Dark Energy. Either things are not logical and extremely complicated or we are misunderstanding what we are seeing. Occam's razor applies. We have been misunderstanding what we are seeing...
We can never find a deterministic solution because we have free will and there are also random deviations from any expected path. Only possibilities exist. .
Also, we cannot control the outcome of a roll of the dice, but we can know WHEN to roll them to get a specific result. The same with the toss of two coins to get the desired head/tail combination result. I know this because I can do it.
A similar effect is used to "force" a particle into two states. I don't have the link on this computer, but a particle is tapped upwards with a laser. At some point it exists in superposition in that it can be left to fall back down, or given another tap to send it higher. At just the right instant it is tapped with the laser and it exists in both states, falling and moving upwards. The upward moving particle is then tapped with a laser accelerating it downward and the rates of time of the two particles are measured to find the difference. This is a proof of gravity's effect on the rate of time.
Knowing WHEN to act accommodates the desired outcome. With the dice and coins, it is possible to FEEL when to release them to see the desired results. I will let the reader guess what the feeling is, but will reveal that it is in the hand.... :) . If you want to try this, don't pick the number yourself, have someone else do it. Then shake the dice in your hand until you feel ......
Here is the link for the particle in superposition confirming gravity's effect on time: https://physicsworld.com/a/gravitys-effect-on-time-confirmed/
Post by: guest45734 on 06/05/2018 12:28:43
I am not a fan of dimensions we cannot imagine.Here are two Ted videos on extra dimensions one string theory and one on 8 dimensions.
https://www.ted.com/talks/brian_greene_on_string_theory#t-11542
https://www.ted.com/talks/garrett_lisi_on_his_theory_of_everything
to Dark Matter and Dark Energy. Either things are not logical and extremely complicated or we are misunderstanding what we are seeing. Occam's razor applies. We have been misunderstanding what we are seeing...I am not a fan of dark matter either, and until it is detected, it does not exist.
Dark Energy I have a few ideas I am playing with.
We can never find a deterministic solution because we have free will and there are also random deviations from any expected path. Only possibilities exist. .At the quantum level a deterministic answer can not be arrived at because it is too complicated so we use probability theory to predict what might happen.
I was feeling lucky last friday and won £100 on the premioum bonds :)
YUP It is well established gravity affects time, otherwise the GPS system would not be so good. Time dilation happens, it is all relative in 4 dimensions :) However things become interesting and seem to make more sense by adding more dimensions.
For instance I dont like the singularity in big bang and black hole, however relativity via 5 dimensions and Kaluza Klein predicts white holes as well as black holes. Could the BB be a white hole. What result might this additional dimension have. Could the current expansion of space be due to a white hole driving the expansion of space ie the could original BB be still unfolding. Could the Quantum fluctuations in space be driven from a higher dimension rather than the HUP.
Post by: captcass on 06/05/2018 17:30:26
I was feeling lucky last friday and won £100 on the premioum bonds :)"Feeling" lucky is actually a form of faith that works. Of course, you actually have to be feeling lucky, not just thinking you are feeling lucky. I had a great winning streak in a casino in Djakarta one day while I was fasting and praying, preparing to wash my hands in acid. Not to tell that whole story, I did it without harm, with faith, and burned the heck out of them the next day when I did it with doubt. I was an atheist at the time (1972).
They know this in casinos so if you have a streak at a 21 table, say, they will change dealers or bring in someone who argues with the dealer, or try to find another way to break your composure and feeling of faith.
This is not the feeling I was talking about with the dice, though. That is an actual feeling, i.e., hot, cold, tingly, numb, heavy, light, etc.....
I think I am getting off topic here, though......
Back to dimensions....
People consider time to be a dimension, but I don't see it that way, I look up and see time going faster, so I see a dimensionality in time over space, not another dimension. I have a very strong feeling that the dimensionality we see in space is due to effects in time but cannot see the answer yet. Both time dilation and the fact that light has a speed is sure to play into it, but I can't get there yet.
The continuum itself has no depth. It is just an evolving energy field like an oil slick on water being gently heated from below.
I don't think we need to look into other dimensions trying to make ridiculous propositions like the BB, Dark Matter and accelerating expansion of the universe work. Especially when you consider the physicality aspect all begins with virtual "particles" that are only waveforms. "Now you see it, now you don't", does not require another hidden dimension in a spiritually based universe. It is all just virtual events in spacetime.
Move your arm. The universe just evolved forward FOR you. No matter how closely you hold an object to your eye, it is still in the past. It preceded your evolution. It has to in order to make sense to you. You can't evolve forward first and then the pencil and then the tv, and then the tree in the yard, etc. It has to evolve forward first, the farther it is, to make sense to us. Our skin evolves forward before our bones do.
One of the biggest problems I see is that people are not looking at the continuum, they are seeing objects moving through space. We sort of picture the continuum in QM, but then go back to objects moving through space in cosmology. There is no space ahead of the evolving continuum to move into. That is an illusion. It is just an energy field that has the perception of depth within it in both the space and time aspects.
Post by: captcass on 06/05/2018 19:31:35
The continuum itself has no depth. It is just an evolving energy field like an oil slick on water being gently heated from below.The oil is space and the passage of time is the heat.
Post by: guest45734 on 07/05/2018 07:46:46
The continuum itself has no depth. It is just an evolving energy field like an oil slick on water being gently heated from below.
Nice Analogy it sounds like space being full of quantum foam https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_foam
Space may have a connection to the wave-particle duality. Waves can overlap; add, subtract and even cancel, but particles cannot occupy the same space. Therefore, a conversion of waves to particles will need to add space. Dark energy waves, condensing into dark energy particles, will add space.
I reckon this is pretty much guaranteed, generalizing dark energy which is made up from quantum foam causing the expansion of space.
Could those fluctuations come from a hidden dimension ie 5th dimension.
Maybe a white hole could cause the expansion of space https://www.gaia.com/lp/content/white-hole-theory/
Post by: captcass on 08/05/2018 00:09:35
Nice Analogy it sounds like space being full of quantum foamThey shouldn't be trying to make it uniform throughout spacetime. They do this because they are locked into the BB. All of space evolves forward due to the passage of time, but we see the foam occurs in time dilation pockets which center around a black hole when well developed. This suggests that these areas are pitted with time dilation pits where the elementary particles form. We know that once they form there is time dilation pitting because the particles have mass.
I came up with a 1 s/s difference in the rate of time for my Hubble constant derivation because we have 2 event horizons where we find a transition from timelike to spacelike. At the event horizons of black holes and at the limit of perception at ~13.9 Gly, we see transverse velocity approach 0 while recessional velocity appears to approach c. As the rate of time appears to approach 0 at a black hole event horizon, I figured it did as well where we see a recessional velocity approach c in the other direction, looking outward. It turns out that this 1 s/s difference works to derive the Hubble constant.
It appears we are accelerating away from the past looking outwards, but because we are evolving down gradient towards the black hole at the center of the MW, we are looking into the future in that direction. In both directions there is a limit of relativity when the difference in the rate of time is 1 s/s. Looking outward is the past time cone. Looking inward is the future time cone. At the event horizons we shift from timelike to spacelike.
For those just joining the thread, the Hubble shift derivation can be found in my paper "General Relativity: Effects in Time as Causation" here: http://vixra.org/abs/1804.0109
This means new matter (quantum foam) forms around and evolves into time dilation pits..
In terms of QM, looking outward it appears that past possibilities have narrowed down to where we are in the present, and looking inward towards the black hole we see our future possibilities narrowing......
Post by: guest45734 on 08/05/2018 13:53:39
can be found in my paper "General Relativity: Effects in Time as Causation" here: http://vixra.org/abs/1804.0109
I agree with Einstein “Reality is merely an illusion, albeit a very persistent one.”
Almost everyone would agree the time dimension exists. Under relativity time slows as gravity potential is increased. In a black hole time may in actual fact stop. Also at light speed from a photons point of view time stops and distance > 0. If the time dimension is stopped moving forward, does space disappear. Is the perception of space dependent on time in your theory :)
I was looking at another thread this morning ref BH's and dark energy and not knowing what the Fecund universe was I had to google it https://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fecund_universes
I suspect it is bit like a lot of people do on science forums, speculate when we do not know for sure. I do not buy into the multiverse speculations/theories, but see know reason why we should not have extra dimensions, where space is defined differently, connected to our spacial dimensions.
If the big bang did originate from a white hole, which gains its energy from a black hole, which converts matter back into energy that escapes a black hole as dark energy, then we have a loop that will go on for ever, with existing black holes feeding the expansion of space through dark energy released in a possible higher dimension, connected to all of space time perhaps.
If there is another dimension that could transmit long range forces further than gravity it might not become apparent until the strength of gravity was reduced nearer the edges of solar systems, and would give the appeaarence of dark matter ie another force not related to distance but only to mass/energy. This force could unrestricted by distance slow the acceleration of the universe and maybe counter the effect of zero energy which is 10^120 greater than that required to explain dark energy.
Post by: captcass on 08/05/2018 20:16:50
Almost everyone would agree the time dimension existsCalling it a dimension makes it invisible. Giving it dimensionality makes it visible. Space is not a dimension. It is one aspect of spacetime. The same holds true for time. We see 3 dimensions in space and 1 dimension in time. The dimension in time is due to dilation. Without dilation time is dimensionless and this takes us back to Einstein's Fundamental Metric and the IATIA state where space also loses dimensionality when time does.
If the big bang did originateI do not believe in the BB. If my Hubble shift derivation is correct then the universe is not expanding and there is an acceleration aspect involved in the passage of time. That acceleration prevents big crunches (and bangs) and infinitely expanding universes when it is added into the time elements of Einstein's field equations.
As above, I see the past looking outward and the future looking into a black hole. The black hole is just due to the difference in the rate of time. At the event horizon you would still have a tick rate of 1 s/s and a meter equal to a meter and your surroundings would appear normal. The EP applies everywhere. Einstein thought you could harmlessly drive a truck through a black hole and I concur. It is only a visual effect based on different rates of time
Post by: guest45734 on 09/05/2018 11:17:04
I do not believe in the BB. If my Hubble shift derivation is correct then the universe is not expanding and there is an acceleration aspect involved in the passage of time. That acceleration prevents big crunches (and bangs) and infinitely expanding universes when it is added into the time elements of Einstein's field equations.
I notice at the end of your paper, that you may be religious. Did you know the BB was originally developed by a Catholic Priest and is approved by the Pope himself. Here is some wiki history on the expansion of space and hubble constant https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_Big_Bang_theory
Everybody has difficulties with the BB singularity and BH singularities, maybe they are one and the same. Maybe a BB from a White hole is linked to BH's everywhere and is happening all around us in another dimension :) As you must be aware relativity does not preclude additional dimensions, and attempts have been made in the past to unite EM and gravity via the addition of just one more dimension to relativity.
If space is not expanding, and the red shift from distant stars can be explained by your theory. Can you also explain Blue shift and put my mind at rest about the Andromeda Galaxy which is approaching the milky way at approx 0.3c if I remember correctly?
Outside of a static universe what is there, another universe/ multiverse or undefined space.
Space time inside a BH is undefined or ceases to exist as we know it, if time stops, space time ceases to exist. Outside a static universe do you envisage a place where space time does not exist.
Looking at all the responses from all who have posted on the thread there appears to be a lot of different views. I am going to do a basic summary for amusement on views where people agree and add some other bits for fun.
Post by: puppypower on 09/05/2018 12:11:57
Since the pressure is higher in the container, than in the room, say I cut an opening in the container. to release the pressure. The expansion of the gas into the room, will be endothermic; the gas will cool. If we used an IR based camera to view the escape of the gas, we would see what appears to be a red shift as the gas and container cools, even if the container remains stationary.
In classical and practical thinking we can easily prove this in the lab. Modern thinking is not practical nor is it easy to prove, yet everyone prefers that.
The classical view suggests that space is a void. It is not a thing, but rather it is the lack of things. What we see as expanding space-time is connected to adding time, to the void of space. This is due to the addition of particles, such as the expanding gas, that seeks to occupy all the available space. There is potential for space-time to occupy void space. This is driven by entropy.
Time has the property of spontaneously moving in one direction; to future. In this sense, time does not behave like a wave, since a wave cycles, while time does not. We use clocks to measure time. The problem is clocks cycle, and this not how time behaves.
A clock behaves more like energy waves, but it does behave the way time behaves. Energy waves and clocks will both cycle; return to 12 noon every day or top of the sine wave. Time, on the other hand, reaches 12 noon on May 9, 2018 only once in eternity. We can never go back, like a wave or like the clock can. The wrong tool is being used to measure time. It biases the perception of time so it appears to conceptually behaves like energy.
Time actually behaves more like entropy, than it does like energy. The entropy of the universe, according to the second law, has to increase. Like time, entropy of the universe moves in one direction; increase. In the container example, the expansion of the material inside the container, into the space of the room, is driven by entropy. This is bringing entropy/time into the void of space, outside the container; pressure, to make space-time/entropy. It also causes a red shift looking affect as entropy absorbs energy.
Say we measured distance with a thermometer. We are using a tool that behaves differently that the phenomena we are trying to measure. How will that impact theory of distance? We may still be able to correlate what we observe, but we will need a long winded way to connect dots that do not connect, naturally.
The clock time error is a big booboo in science.
Post by: guest45734 on 09/05/2018 13:52:57
Time has the property of spontaneously moving in one direction; to future. In this sense, time does not behave like a wave, since a wave cycles, while time does not. We use clocks to measure time.
I dont think anyone would have a problem with this.
Time has the property of spontaneously moving in one direction; to future. In this sense, time does not behave like a wave, since a wave cycles, while time does not. We use clocks to measure time.I do not think anyone has a problem with this.
The problem is clocks cycle, and this not how time behaves.GPS is quite accurate, it uses multiple clocks. If time dilation was not taken into account GPS would be useless. We measure time with clocks relative to our location. Once you start accelerating or move a clock into a different gravitational field time dilation is affected.
Post by: captcass on 09/05/2018 17:51:24
you may be religious. Did you know the BB was originally developed by a Catholic Priest and is approved by the Pope himselflol. What do they know? They have people worshiping people instead of the one Jesus worshiped and said to worship. My definition of worship is to love. The Romans deified Jesus. They made him a god instead of the humble man he was. If you read the last, "Origin of Spacetime", section of my paper, you will read what he taught.
I differentiate between "religion" and "spirituality". Religion is what we do or don't do for our health and the health of the community. If you brush your teeth regularly, you do so religiously and have religion. Spirituality is knowing and loving your greater self within. Jesus, "The Kingdom of Heaven is not found looking over there, or over there. The Kingdom of Heaven lies within you", "the Kingdom of Heaven is at hand" (right here)......
Everybody has difficulties with the BB singularity and BH singularities, maybe they are one and the sameI see the singularity as the IATIA state. As I said above, our worldline is evolving forward towards the BH at the center of the MW. So This is the future of the universe as we would observe it, should we be around that long. As we evolve in that direction, towards the 1 s/s event horizon, galaxies at the outer edge of our perception will keep disappearing beyond the 1 s/s event horizon.
Can you also explain Blue shift and put my mind at rest about the Andromeda Galaxy which is approaching the milky way at approx 0.3c if I remember correctly?The closer objects are, the greater the lateral displacement when we shift our heads. Farther objects shift less with a change in perspective. Consider a line of telephone poles. If you look down the line and shift your head, the closer pole seems to shift much more than the farther pole. The point at infinity doesn't shift at all.
All the galaxies have their own direction of evolution which we call "peculiar" motion. It is always relative to something else, of course. But as distance increases, that lateral motion is less perceptible.and as the frames grow older and slower as recessional velocity appears to approach c, lateral velocity approaches 0.
Closer galaxies, like Andromeda, can have peculiar motions towards us, hence the blue shift. When the apparent recessional velocity exceeds any peculiar velocity towards us, we go from a blue to a red shift.
I'll resume shortly. I have to go to work.
Outside of a static universe what is there, another universe/ multiverse or undefined space.The universe appears to be eternal. Older frames slip from view at the outer edges, while we evolve forward towards the apparent slower time of the BH. Each galaxy represents this so each galaxy can be seen as a different direction of evolution of the universe of sorts, a branching. What lies beyond each event horizon, inner and outer, is spacelike and beyond the limit of relativity. If you travel there, you will find everything "normal", but it has no bearing on us. So if you consider the limit of relativity of 1 s/s to be the "edge" of the universe, then they constitute other universes, but only from this perspective. As you approach an event horizon, it shifts away from you as the dilation gradient shifts, so your individual universe always seems infinite. If there are no BB's or BC's, as indicated when the acceleration manifesting the Hubble shift is added to Einstein's field equations, then if you want to maintain a conservation of energy, energy is being recycled.
Space time inside a BH is undefined or ceases to exist as we know it, if time stops, space time ceases to exist. Outside a static universe do you envisage a place where space time does not exist.
When the acceleration is added to the field equations it seems to indicate a spiral motion as geodesics converge. This seems to agree with what we see throughout the universe.
We see spirals In GR without the acceleration, too, but the geodesics either converge in a BC or expand to infinity. With the acceleration neither is possible. The spiral just gets tighter and keeps folding over on itself.
Outside a static universe do you envisage a place where space time does not exist.No. I begin with a spiritual Cause of Causes in the IATIA state. There is but one such and it is eternal. Spacetime is therefore eternal. Though possible, I do not think universes come and go. I think the Creator prefers distraction, hence the universe..
As the rate of time seems to → 0 at both 1 s/s event horizons, inner and outer, the length of a meter has to → ∞ to maintain c. Thus we are looking off into a spacetime → , but never reaching, eternal ∞
Post by: guest45734 on 13/05/2018 09:04:06
"The Kingdom of Heaven is not found looking over there, or over there. The Kingdom of Heaven lies within you", "the Kingdom of Heaven is at hand" (right here)......
The thread being about space (Heaven) . Trying to get to grips with exactly what space is, I suppose is trying to understand the mind of god. All matter came out of space it conducts all known forces, it is not as straight forward as people assume. There is more to it than meets the eye. There are more than just space time dimensions according to various theories, wormholes and multiverses IF they exist, exist outside of space time. I can think of no reason why areas of space can not be entangled, but can think of no way entanglement of space could be detected, except perhaps via an additional long range force to be added to EFE to explain away dark matter.
If a Black hole is in the future and a white hole in the past. Space time is in the middle and rapidly changing shape. The expansion we perceive is quite possibly due to the fact we exist inside the event horizon of a white hole, in an expanding universe. Black holes cause the contraction of space time, whilst white holes causing the expansion of space time. The wormhole existing between a black hole and a white hole could easily be described as an additional dimension that is connected to all points in space which expands uniformly at a constant pressure. If all points in space time are connected then what ????? :)
Post by: captcass on 13/05/2018 16:57:01
I suppose is trying to understand the mind of godIf you would know God, know your self. Everything I have posted so far is consistent with both the spiritual Cause of Causes and what we see with our science. The universe is being manifested for YOU, evolving forward for YOU, otherwise you wouldn't exist. You are who you are because the Creator wants to be you. :) .
You are not seeing the evolving continuum. My Hubble shift derivation proves the universe is not expanding. It is just an evolving continuum with a slight acceleration. Older, slower frames just fade from view, become spacelike, when the difference in the rates of time reaches 1s/s.
The black holes are just the same 1 s/s difference, but in the direction we are evolving towards. It is receding as we approach it, just as the older frames seem to be receding.
Older frames are divergent while the frames ahead appear convergent, as per gravity and GR. Because of the acceleration factor that produces the Hubble shift, the future frames can never converge and we see the spiraling into the black hole instead of a BB singularity.
Just like at the event horizon of a black hole, time appears to stop at the edge of the observable universe where objects appear to recede at c. Hence the 1 s/s difference yields the Hubble constant.....
Post by: guest39538 on 10/06/2018 14:02:32
[ Invalid Attachment ]
Post by: Colin2B on 11/06/2018 10:04:35
Can anyone tell me what is wrong with the concept of quantum foam inflow, why is it not taken seriously.Sorry, not had much spare time recently so haven’t replied on your question.
It isn’t taken seriously because the problems are mainly around the assumptions that it depends on:
Cahill assumes an absolute motion of earth in space, which he claims to have detected and measured, and this is disputed.
He claims MM experiment did detect absolute motion but the small fringes were ignored as noise.
Repeats of the experiment using modern, more accurate equipment and vacuum have shown no fringes.
He claims MM experiment can detect gravitational waves which is disputed because it wouldn’t be sensitive enough.
He requires speed of gravity to be far greater than speed of light which doesn’t align with current measurements.
He claims to have detected absolute motion of earth relative to space with zener diodes. Attempts to replicate this have failed and suggest he was seeing effect of local em interference.
The maths in his paper has been heavily criticised.
He claims that the basic tenets of relativity are incorrect:
- The laws of physics have the same form in all inertial reference frames.
- Light propagates through empty space with a definite speed c independent of the speed of the source or observer.
- In the limit of low speeds the results should agree with Newtonian gravity.
In other words, he doesn’t have a lot of street cred.
Post by: captcass on 17/06/2018 02:05:28
I realized 2 days ago that what I describe regarding gravity has deeper meaning. I originally wanted to show the evolutionary aspect but also wanted to show it created energy, but thought that was out of reach. I was wrong and had a "duh" moment. Energy is created as Ek = 1/2 mv2. I therefore modified the paper to include this:
"Dilation creates a density at the faster end due to length contraction necessary to maintain c, and there is an increase in energy and pressure due to an increase in frequency. As the motion and densities appear when a dilation gradient is introduced, we see the creation of energy. Gravity then magnifies that energy by evolving the density down gradient into slower areas of time, giving the photons a greater relative frequency, energy and, therefore, mass. They also appear to increase in velocity, as below."
The manifestation of real energy from potential energy was the last step I needed. Once energy is manifested it can be converted to any form.
The updated version #8 is now up online at: http://vixra.org/abs/1804.0109
Post by: captcass on 22/06/2018 05:42:00
One of my daughters is giving me my first grandchild tomorrow, a girl, and I learned tonight from other daughter, who is in town for the birth, that she will be giving me my second next January.
When I got home from dinner with them, I had an email from the Editor-in-Chief of the journal I mentioned above, after it had already been approved by an Executive Editor, that he had aproved it and had forwarded it on to two other specialists in fields they, themselves, weren't expert in, to check technical details, etc. He said it usually took 2 -3 weeks for them to respond.
Both of them are active professors at top notch US universities and the Editor-in-Chief is a world renowned astrophysicist at an ivy league school. The Executive Editor is world renowned in fluidics and cosmology.
I am not putting up the latest version yet on vixra as that might be published in the journal and they should now have first dibs.
I can tell you that I finally woke up to the fact that the kinetic energy is simply translated into thermal energy in the center of a spherical dilation pit where the GDE impedes on itself from all directions, duh, so I have now gone from kinetic to thermal energy manifestations.
The other major change is that I have switched from black holes to MECOs. With black holes I didn't have solid evidence of the empty space, but the MECO (Magnetic Eternally Collapsing Object) Rudolph Schild and team discovered, where the "black hole" in a quasar was supposed to be, has a 4,000 AU diameter empty space within it, making the empty space a property of MECOs. This confirms my theory at what was the black hole, and is now the MECO, end.
Cheers, I say, Cheers on this solstice night! :)
(This was copied from the Hubble Shift thread.)
Post by: pasala on 24/06/2018 15:54:35
2) Dark Energy driving the expansion of space and gravity driving the contraction of space is directly due to quantum fluctuations.
Basic question, can you tell me how dark energy is driving the expansion.
Psreddy
Post by: guest45734 on 26/06/2018 23:13:31
Sorry, not had much spare time recently so haven’t replied on your question.join the club, its called pressures of work and other priorities.
Cahill assumes an absolute motion of earth in space, which he claims to have detected and measured, and this is disputed.I havnt seen this claim in his papers.
He claims MM experiment did detect absolute motion but the small fringes were ignored as noise.The MM experiment assumes we are moving through an ether, what has that got to do with cahills paper. Frame dragging has been experimentally proven in space due to the earths spin suggesting if anything an ether if it exists is being dragged by the earths spin.
Repeats of the experiment using modern, more accurate equipment and vacuum have shown no fringes.
He requires speed of gravity to be far greater than speed of light which doesn’t align with current measurements.
Dark matter does not align with current observations, an additional force might do away with the need for dark matter. Mond is barking up the same tree.
He claims to have detected absolute motion of earth relative to space with zener diodes. Attempts to replicate this have failed and suggest he was seeing effect of local em interference.Frame dragging is part of Einsteins theories and has been proven to occur regardless of Cahill and Zener diodes. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frame-dragging
The maths in his paper has been heavily criticised.Which part of the maths in which papers have been critisized and by whom.
He claims that the basic tenets of relativity are incorrect:I think you may have glanced at some different papers to me. The general concept is plausible even if his math is flawed.
In other words, he doesn’t have a lot of street cred.I am guessing the guys suggesting dark energy is due to quantum foam dont have street cred either, or if it comes to it. Einstein with the idea of white holes must be a bit of a numpty, especially when he and his mates introduced EPR bridges and a month later came up with ER bridges and white holes. Both ER Bridges and White holes suggest an extra connecting dimension.
Post by: Colin2B on 27/06/2018 15:15:43
Post by: guest45734 on 27/06/2018 19:05:30
neither agreeing nor disagreeing just quoting a few of the ones mentioned in conversations around the community.
I neither agree or disagree with him either, but do note others seem to be barking(mad) up the same tree. The Dark energy concept as quantum foam is along the same lines.
The truth is no one knows, and very few are prepared to discuss what space is, at the quantum level or the cosmic level.
EFE use ER Bridges Quantum mechanics can use EPR bridges they are both likely the same thing. Einstein and co must have had EPR bridges in mind when he wrote his paper on ER bridges one month after he and colaborators posted about EPR bridges.
Could we exist in a wormhole which is expanding in all directions of space time? unlikely but interesting to think about and ask questions about. with no edge to space time, how many additional dimensions may lay hidden from our view.
Post by: captcass on 27/06/2018 22:41:30
Could we exist in a wormhole which is expanding in all directions of space time?In my paper mentioned above I have shown we are evolving between two event horizons where time seems to stop due to time dilation. One at ~13.9+ Gly and the other at the event horizon of the MECO at the center of the galaxy.
There is no Dark Energy and the continuum is not expanding. It is just time dilation in both directions, the one we are leaving behind, and the one we are evolving towards.
Post by: guest45734 on 28/06/2018 17:06:06
Could we exist in a wormhole which is expanding in all directions of space time?In my paper mentioned above I have shown we are evolving between two event horizons where time seems to stop due to time dilation. One at ~13.9+ Gly and the other at the event horizon of the MECO at the center of the galaxy.
There is no Dark Energy and the continuum is not expanding. It is just time dilation in both directions, the one we are leaving behind, and the one we are evolving towards.
Page 4 of your paper you appear to agree one of the speculatve ideas I put forward in earlier posts. An additional non space time dimension exists allowing connection to all points in space time regardless of distance akin to a wormhole. The expansion of space time is happening from our perspective, you claim it isnt, and modify einsteins field equations to suggest otherwise. You correctly point I think that, the hup, entanglement, and wave particle duality can be better understood via the additional dimension. Efe look at fields not at what causes them at the quantum level. Space at thequantum level is grainy, which allows weird quantum things to occur. The epr bridge is similiar to an er bridge, at a different zoom level. Plank length blackholes may be connected via epr bridge to a mini whitehole. So either we are inside a wormhole between two event horizons, or we could be on the surface. Both of which give the appearance of an expanding space time.
Galaxies at the outer edge of the universe are movi g away from us at around 3c. This does not violate relativity because they are not mo I g through space, space is expanding between us and almost everyother galaxy in the universe. For want of a better anolagy they are in freefall and feel no acceleration wrt any other galaxy.
I have a tendency to fit equations to observations not the other way around. Space time is observed to be expanding so I do think you may be barking up the wrong tree in an expanding universe.
Do you have the einstein paper you are qouting in your paper, to post alongside your link.
I understand einstein was not religious other than stating goddoes not play dice with the universe. He may have modified your god statement atthe end of your paper to god is in everything. The god particle I think must originate from space with n dimensions, understand what space is and you might understandthe mind of god maybe 😉
Post by: captcass on 28/06/2018 18:45:06
Space time is observed to be expanding so I do think you may be barking up the wrong tree in an expanding universe.There is much wrong with what you say, but I will just focus on this as I cannot copy my whole paper here.
The universe appears to be expanding. That doesn't mean it is expanding, as the red shift can also be explained through time dilation, as in my paper.
I do not alter Einstein's equations, I merely add the acceleration that creates the dilation effect to the equations, which eliminates illogical Big Bang singularities and infinite expansions, returning us to a logical universe, rather than the illogical one people are trying to grapple with that ignores the acceleration.
My theory does not alter Relativity, it completes it through an understanding of the time aspects and a proper understanding of the continuum..
Post by: Colin2B on 02/07/2018 14:32:37
I neither agree or disagree with him either, but do note others seem to be barking(mad) up the same tree.The difference is that quite a few of these ‘others’ are offering reasoned arguments that are not full of holes. Anyone can come up with an idea that x happens due to y, but very few pur forward a credible argument to support their ideas.
Post by: guest45734 on 05/07/2018 17:52:20
these ‘others’ are offering reasoned arguments that are not full of holes
A bit like the concept of the graviton which is a boson escaping a BH, and the concept of dark energy driving the expansion of space having nothing to do with gravity when it comes into contact with mass
Black holes, worm holes and white holes are based on Einsteins field equations. Exotic energy is required to maintain a worm hole, dark energy drives the expansion of space and appears to be the opposite of gravity and as I think Captcass above mentioned we could exist in a wormhole between the event horizon of a primordial BH and a WH.
:) We may well exist in a worm hole which would collapse around us, but is being maintained by the continual production of dark energy from the BH, in another dimension :)
Post by: captcass on 05/07/2018 18:10:28
I think Captcass above mentioned we could exist in a wormhole between the event horizon of a primordial BH and a WH.No. In my paper I say we exist in an eternally evolving continuum that appears to exist between two event horizons where time appears to stop due to time dilation. Looking outward the dilation is created by the 2.2686*10-18 s/s acceleration in proper time we all experience in our inertial frames. Looking inward towards the MECO (black hole) at the center of the galaxy the dilation is due to apparent mass accretion. I do not mention, nor do I believe in, "White Holes".
Post by: guest45734 on 05/07/2018 18:22:21
I think Captcass above mentioned we could exist in a wormhole between the event horizon of a primordial BH and a WH.No. In my paper I say we exist in an eternally evolving continuum that appears to exist between two event horizons where time appears to stop due to time dilation. Looking outward the dilation is created by the 2.2686*10-18 s/s acceleration in proper time we all experience in our inertial frames. Looking inward towards the MECO (black hole) at the center of the galaxy the dilation is due to apparent mass accretion. I do not mention, nor do I believe in, "White Holes".
What constitutes your event horizons in your paper. EFE's indicate a BH could produce a WH, do you disagree with this part of the EFE's. Exotic energy is required to keep a worm hole open, this could be portrayed as dark energy.
I will have to have a read up on MECO Black holes as I have never heard of them before. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magnetospheric_eternally_collapsing_object
Post by: captcass on 05/07/2018 19:27:27
What constitutes your event horizons in your paper. EFE's indicate a BH could produce a WH, do you disagree with this part of the EFE's.I make that clear in the paper and gave you an abbreviated answer in my last post. In a dilation gradient, when time appears to slow by 1 s/s between frames, the rate of time = 0 and time appears to stop, which is the event horizon, and the transition point from timelike to lightlike to spacelike. We see this looking outwards at the cosmological horizon, and inwards at the MECO.
My paper completes EFE's by adding the above mentioned acceleration (which manifests the Hubble shift) to his time elements. This then prevents the formation of singularities or infinite expansions, as per my paper, by slightly distorting the geodesics.
I suggest you read Rudolph Schild and Darryl Leiter's paper on MECO's as it was Schild's team that discovered them. He suggested the change to my paper as I was just speculating a black hole was empty space, but his team confirmed it. This is the link: https://arxiv.org/abs/0806.1748
Post by: Liz888 on 12/07/2018 08:59:49
Post by: captcass on 03/12/2018 04:38:13
Three months ago the Editor in Chief agreed to publish the paper. The hold up is on how. As you can imagine, there is a lot of controversy. Bangers are having a hard time with concepts in time.....
There are now 2 individuals supporting it and 2 not.......the 2 not did not provide demonstrable reasons why it does not work. It went back, I understand, to them, and perhaps to more, to see if anyone could find a demonstrable way to disprove it.
As I say, it has now been 3 months since then......
I am encouraged in that 3 months have now passed, regardless of the number of reviewers.....
I would remind readers of the current online version to just replace MECOs for black holes (https://arxiv.org/abs/0806.1748) and understand that I also specify in the final, journal, version that the forces at the center of a spherical dilation pit translate the kinetic energy created by dilation into thermal energy.
The link, again, is: http://vixra.org/abs/1804.0109
This version now has 99 downloads.
Thanks again for being patient.
Post by: mad aetherist on 04/12/2018 00:22:41
1) Space is a substance which expands and contracts continuously. This expansion and contraction of space is due to quantum fluctuations constantly appearing and disappearing.I dont like the idea that space is a substance -- i think that space is a void, ie that should be the definition.
Also i dont like the idea of a void expanding or contracting.
I am ok with quantum fluctuations etc, but i think that we-u should think of these as existing in space -- ie i dont think that the quantum fluctuations should be thort of as defining space or being space or forming space -- space is (should be) a void.
The existence of Space is dependent on the existence of matter and quantum fluctuations without which space would not exist.This sort of thinking is dangerous -- your-my brain might explode. Would space (the empty void) exist if nothing else (quantum stuff) existed? This is a bad question. It overlooks the existence of subquantum stuff, ie stuff that is not void & not subquantum. But it then leads to the question of whether space (void) would exist if nothing else (quantum & subquantum stuff) existed? Keeping in mind that everything we feel & see is quantum -- including radiation (ie em radiation), & free photons (eg light), & confined photons (eg electrons & quarks etc). And subquantum stuff would include say aether & aetherons & quantum foam & dynamic space etc. Gravity is not included as a thing here -- gravity is a process of the aether (it is due to the acceleration of the flow of aether). Strictly speaking quantum stuff is also a process of the aether because all quantum stuff is due to photons, & photons are a vibration or spin or something of the aether.
A related question is whether space (void) is infinite. BigBangers say no.
A related question is whether space (void) existed before the BB. BigBangers say yes (i think).
2) Dark Energy driving the expansion of space and gravity driving the contraction of space is directly due to quantum fluctuations.There is no dark energy, there is no expansion of space. There is no contraction of space (void) & no contraction of space (aether) & no contraction of space (pulsating somethings or others).
Would anyone agree or disagree completely with the above statements or agree in part?
In support of the ideas above the following links may cast some light as to where my ideas grew from.There is nothing wrong with the concept of quantum foam inflow.
https://arxiv.org/pdf/physics/0309016.pdf Quantum foam inflow gravity.
https://futurism.com/new-explanation-dark-energy-tiny-fluctuations-time-space/
Can anyone tell me what is wrong with the concept of quantum foam inflow, why is it not taken seriously.
It is not taken seriously because to do so would destroy the credibility of modern Einsteinian science. It would expose the censorship & bullying etc by the Einsteinian mafia that controls modern science in this current Einsteinian Dark Age. But change is coming.
Post by: mad aetherist on 04/12/2018 00:36:19
In the OP I referred to quantum inflow gravity by R Cahill, I gave a link to his paper, I have found this link refuting his claims https://arxiv.org/pdf/gr-qc/0407059.pdf.T D Martin points out an error in Cahill's equations. Martin might be correct. But (1) that does not mean that quantum foam inflow into matter does not exist & (2) it does not mean that the acceleration of that inflow does not exist, & (3) it does not mean that that acceleration is not the cause of gravity. (4) Martin does not show that anything in Cahill's paper re Process Physics is wrong or silly, except for Cahill's equations (& here Martin might be wrong)(i havent looked at the equations).
However various inflow concepts are persued by many other people.
Martin says that the simple superposition of flow (eg background aether wind) & acceleration of flow (eg aether inflow into a sink, eg Earth) is a problem in Cahill's theory. No it aint.
When Cahill says quantum foam he of course means aether. When Cahill says dynamic space he of course means aether.
It is unfortunate that Cahill says quantum foam, he should of course say subquantum foam. Aether is subquantum.
On the other hand if the foam is quantum then that rules out aether, & this then allows the foam being made of quantum stuff coming in & out of existence or something in a way that gives a nett zero something or other (eg virtual particles), which gives the appearance of a void, but is actually full of energy or potential energy. But that is unfortunate. It leads to threads like this thread.
Post by: mad aetherist on 04/12/2018 01:21:39
Just an update;...Mightbe that em fields dont always travel at the same speed as light, in which case some BHs might have an external magnetic field.
Three months ago the Editor in Chief agreed to publish the paper. The hold up is on how. As you can imagine, there is a lot of controversy. Bangers are having a hard time with concepts in time.....
There are now 2 individuals supporting it and 2 not.......the 2 not did not provide demonstrable reasons why it does not work. It went back, I understand, to them, and perhaps to more, to see if anyone could find a demonstrable way to disprove it.
As I say, it has now been 3 months since then......
I am encouraged in that 3 months have now passed, regardless of the number of reviewers.....
I would remind readers of the current online version to just replace MECOs for black holes (https://arxiv.org/abs/0806.1748) and understand that I also specify in the final, journal, version that the forces at the center of a spherical dilation pit translate the kinetic energy created by dilation into thermal energy.
The link, again, is: http://vixra.org/abs/1804.0109
This version now has 99 downloads.
Thanks again for being patient.
Or the external effects are due to gravity (if gravity travels at much more than c), eg some sort of tidal effect (ie not magnetic).
Post by: myuncle on 06/12/2018 23:52:14
time=movement of every single atom in the universe
eh, what do you think?
Post by: captcass on 07/12/2018 00:24:44
h, what do you think?I think you should read the paper linked in Reply #156 above. Time evolves space forward. This is not a direction IN space, but the direction the continuum as a whole, i.e. ALL space, is evolving in in situ.. It is the direction of time, which is why the time element could be added to Eintein's Fundamental Metric along with the standard x,y,z spatial axis. As noted above, when a dilation gradient is introduced we also see an evolution down the dilation gradient which is the gravitational direction of evolution General Relativity describes. It is a secondary, relativistic, direction of time. GR describes the resultant of the Fundamental and Gravitational directions.
Post by: myuncle on 07/12/2018 03:21:48
along with the standard x,y,z spatial axis.
and that's how atoms and particles move, in every direction. The x,y,z coordinates are just a human representation to keep track of these movements.
Post by: captcass on 07/12/2018 04:07:09
and that's how atoms and particles move, in every directionNot so. I really don't want to get into particles, which are actually all virtual representations of superposition waveforms, but electrons have only two possible orientations, up or down. In spin, we talk of hot/cold, black/white and hard/soft. These are just different orientation spins around the 3 axes. But they are each either/or. There is no in between. Also, neither pair affects any other pair. Cold has nothing to do with hard/soft, etc.
As all "particles" are waveforms, they are "events" in space being evolved forwrd (as above) by time.
Post by: myuncle on 07/12/2018 12:16:28
and that's how atoms and particles move, in every directionNot so. I really don't want to get into particles, which are actually all virtual representations of superposition waveforms, but electrons have only two possible orientations, up or down. In spin, we talk of hot/cold, black/white and hard/soft. These are just different orientation spins around the 3 axes. But they are each either/or. There is no in between. Also, neither pair affects any other pair. Cold has nothing to do with hard/soft, etc.
As all "particles" are waveforms, they are "events" in space being evolved forwrd (as above) by time.
I hope you are joking. The charge of electrons is a total different discussion. In space the electrons, like any other particle, can move in any direction.
Post by: captcass on 07/12/2018 16:50:39
The charge of electrons is a total different discussionYou are correct. I didn't mean to conflate the two. I agree they can move in any direction. They cannot, however, spin in any direction.
I was trying to make the point that when you look at an object, say a chair, that the "particles" (events) that make it up are evolving in situ. They are not evolving through a pre-existing space along the x,y,z axes. They are evolving in the forward direction of time. They also evolve "through" space along the x,y,z axes when an external force is applied to shift their position within the continuum, as in when we move the chair.
"Particles" aren't even there until we observe them. Until we do they are only evolving waveform probabilities.
Post by: myuncle on 07/12/2018 17:45:14
The charge of electrons is a total different discussionYou are correct. I didn't mean to conflate the two. I agree they can move in any direction. They cannot, however, spin in any direction.
I was trying to make the point that when you look at an object, say a chair, that the "particles" (events) that make it up are evolving in situ. They are not evolving through a pre-existing space along the x,y,z axes. They are evolving in the forward direction of time. They also evolve "through" space along the x,y,z axes when an external force is applied to shift their position within the continuum, as in when we move the chair.
"Particles" aren't even there until we observe them. Until we do they are only evolving waveform probabilities.
ah ok, I understand what you mean. You mean that the particles evolve constantly: they move, change, they decay, etc. But I prefer not to talk about time direction, only movement has a direction. The concept of direction of time is too philosophical, because in this is a concept of a flowing thing. In fact nothing is flowing. Is just that these particles when they are moving (planets, things, light, etc), we interpret these movements as events, our brain allow us to make sense of these change, and we interpret them as "events", as "facts". And every animal has this skill. Some movements are more constant than others (planets orbiting the sun, hourglass, clocks), and we interpret these movements as constant events (or time...), but phisically speaking these particles they are just behaving the way they are supposed to.
Post by: captcass on 07/12/2018 19:38:39
these particles they are just behavingFirst, there is no such thing as a particle. There is only particle-like behavior. Second, "behaving" is action over time.
Time flows and this is the primary force of the universe. "Events" consist of densities in the spatial aspect being evolved forward (in the time direction) by time.
It is impossible to not talk about the time direction as it is the "energy components" (Einstein's words) of Einstein's Tensor. As I noted above, it determines the gravitational direction of evolution.
In my paper I note:
"Dilation creates a density at the faster end due to length contraction necessary to maintain c, and there is an increase in energy and pressure due to an increase in frequency. As the motion and densities appear when a dilation gradient is introduced, we see the creation of kinetic energy. Gravity then magnifies that energy by evolving the density down gradient into slower areas of time, giving the photons a greater relative frequency, energy and, therefore, mass. They also appear to increase in velocity."
In the final version being published in the journal I also note that in a spherical dilation pit, the forward evolution is impeded in all directions at the focus of the pit and that this translates the kinetic energy into thermal energy.
I would ask that you read my paper before we discus this further so I do not have to re-write it here. :) It is only 21 pages.
Post by: myuncle on 07/12/2018 19:54:31
First, there is no such thing as a particle.
Are you saying they don't exist? If particles don't exist, I think I can't carry on with the discussion.
from wiki
"In the physical sciences, a particle (or corpuscule in older texts) is a small localized object to which can be ascribed several physical or chemical properties such as volume, density or mass. They vary greatly in size or quantity, from subatomic particles like the electron, to microscopic particles like atoms and molecules, to macroscopic particles like powders and other granular materials."
Post by: captcass on 07/12/2018 20:17:25
Are you saying they don't exist?They don't exist as a "thing". They are evolving events. An electron is neither a particle nor a wave. It is an electron, which can display both properties depending on how we observe it.
This is why I don't like discussing particles. Of course we consider a ball to be a "particle" for practical purposes, but it is not. It is an interaction of the waveform probabilities within the continuum. When you are not looking at your ball, it doesn't even exist for you.
We can never find a way to formulate absolute quantum determination because our actions, including thoughts, hopes, expectations and observations, affect the next instant’s manifestation of events.
For instance, I have a sea glass business and would ocean kayak to my favorite collecting site. I landed at the beach one day and found two marbles right next to each other right next to my kayak. They were just plain, colorless, well frosted, marbles but marbles are rarer than reds (which are 1 in 5,000 pieces) and to find two right next to each other is remarkable.
So I said, "Lord, (the Creator is neither male nor female, but this is how I address It) thank you. I sure would like to find a red marble, though. I've got a blue one, and I thank you, but I sure would like to find a red one. Please, Lord?"
I put that thought aside and went back picking and after about 2 hours I was tired and it was time to go tide-wise, but there was just a little more beach to cover, so I decided to just make a quick pass and see if I could spot anything big just lying on top. Normally I would walk very slowly, looking for the gems amongst all the other glass.
Just before I got to the end there was this huge red marble. It's 15/16ths of an inch in diameter. It is a beautiful blood red with a white swirl that forms a wave. Click on the link below to view it.
http://captcass.com/images/Red%20Marble%20cropped.jpg (http://captcass.com/images/Red%20Marble%20cropped.jpg)
I rolled my eyes up and went, "Lord!, Oh God! Dear Lord, etc." Then, when I bent down to pick up the marble, there were also two pieces of jewelry quality RED glass, one on either side of the marble. I went, "Oh, Lord! Dear God!, etc.” a bunch more and danced around with tears in my eyes. This is how the Creator talks to me. The two red pieces, to me, were the Creator saying the marble was not a coincidence, that I asked for red and got red. The odds of finding all three together are just too vast for it to be otherwise.
I would also note that I had only pictured a small, regular sized red marble when I asked. I find the Creator always gives us a much better version of what we ask for than what we imagined. I believe this is because the Creator has a by far greater imagination than we do.
The point here is that neither the marble, nor even that section of beach it lay upon, existed for me until I observed them and all the superposition possibilities collapsed into my reality, which was partly determined by my wishes, faith and expectations. This eliminates the possibility of the formulation of an absolute quantum determination.
It is also why I don't like discussing "particles". :)
I don't include the above in my paper because it is indeterminate. I do explain non-locality, however, which also reinforces the indeterminate property. In brief: what Alice and Bob see depends on each other because all points of view have to be harmonized in a continuum.
Post by: myuncle on 07/12/2018 22:21:07
Are you saying they don't exist?They don't exist as a "thing". They are evolving events. An electron is neither a particle nor a wave. It is an electron, which can display both properties depending on how we observe it.
This is why I don't like discussing particles. Of course we consider a ball to be a "particle" for practical purposes, but it is not. It is an interaction of the waveform probabilities within the continuum. When you are not looking at your ball, it doesn't even exist for you.
We can never find a way to formulate absolute quantum determination because our actions, including thoughts, hopes, expectations and observations, affect the next instant’s manifestation of events.
For instance, I have a sea glass business and would ocean kayak to my favorite collecting site. I landed at the beach one day and found two marbles right next to each other right next to my kayak. They were just plain, colorless, well frosted, marbles but marbles are rarer than reds (which are 1 in 5,000 pieces) and to find two right next to each other is remarkable.
So I said, "Lord, (the Creator is neither male nor female, but this is how I address It) thank you. I sure would like to find a red marble, though. I've got a blue one, and I thank you, but I sure would like to find a red one. Please, Lord?"
I put that thought aside and went back picking and after about 2 hours I was tired and it was time to go tide-wise, but there was just a little more beach to cover, so I decided to just make a quick pass and see if I could spot anything big just lying on top. Normally I would walk very slowly, looking for the gems amongst all the other glass.
Just before I got to the end there was this huge red marble. It's 15/16ths of an inch in diameter. It is a beautiful blood red with a white swirl that forms a wave. Click on the link below to view it.
http://captcass.com/images/Red%20Marble%20cropped.jpg (http://captcass.com/images/Red%20Marble%20cropped.jpg)
I rolled my eyes up and went, "Lord!, Oh God! Dear Lord, etc." Then, when I bent down to pick up the marble, there were also two pieces of jewelry quality RED glass, one on either side of the marble. I went, "Oh, Lord! Dear God!, etc.” a bunch more and danced around with tears in my eyes. This is how the Creator talks to me. The two red pieces, to me, were the Creator saying the marble was not a coincidence, that I asked for red and got red. The odds of finding all three together are just too vast for it to be otherwise.
I would also note that I had only pictured a small, regular sized red marble when I asked. I find the Creator always gives us a much better version of what we ask for than what we imagined. I believe this is because the Creator has a by far greater imagination than we do.
The point here is that neither the marble, nor even that section of beach it lay upon, existed for me until I observed them and all the superposition possibilities collapsed into my reality, which was partly determined by my wishes, faith and expectations. This eliminates the possibility of the formulation of an absolute quantum determination.
It is also why I don't like discussing "particles". :)
I don't include the above in my paper because it is indeterminate. I do explain non-locality, however, which also reinforces the indeterminate property. In brief: what Alice and Bob see depends on each other because all points of view have to be harmonized in a continuum.
ehm, what can I say, great story bro.
Post by: captcass on 07/12/2018 22:35:43
ehm, what can I say, great story broThanks. I have lived in that world for 45 years. Now I can finally describe the effects that manifest it. Here are 2 other brief stories that demonstrate the same thing:
The Girl and Reds
One day there was a girl about age 8 or 9 at the beach. She was only looking for reds (1 in 5,000 pieces). In 2 hours, she found 9 reds, whereas I, who was looking for whatever, would find a red every 3 or 4 months.At one point she came running up to me and starting talking to me and as we were finishing up she looked down and picked up a beautiful red right from right between my feet.
I wanted to strangle that poor little girl. :)
Children tend to find what they are looking for because they believe they can.
A Stranger’s Faith
I began my business by selling on the headlands. One day a man came down and asked me where to look. I told him there was a slag pile in the cove next to me and that because it replenished the beach he might find something rare like a red.He came back in about 15 minutes with a beautiful red and asked me where else he could look. Knowing what was happening and laughing to myself, I told him he could go to the beach behind me and that there was much more glass there and maybe he could find something even rarer, like a grape purple, which are 1 in 10,000 pieces.
He came back in about 20 minutes with a beautiful grape purple. I found about 1 a year. :)
He simply believed what I told him, as would a little child. Sound familiar?
Post by: captcass on 29/03/2019 15:01:55
You asked why he isn’t taken seriously. These are some of the reasons, but I’m neither agreeing nor disagreeing just quoting a few of the ones mentioned in conversations around the community.Hey Colin2B. I see this has been marked as the "best answer" for this topic on 3/3/19 and, for the life of me, cannot see why. Who were you replying to with this in your reply #145 and who would have marked it as "best answer"?
As for my paper, it is still with the reviewers. It has been a long winter of waiting. I have gotten 2 grandchildren and a whole set of new teeth during the wait. :) They are looking for anyone who can demonstrate it is wrong before publishing it as peer reviewed. As it went to reviewers last June, I am encouraged since no one has yet been able to do so. For those interested, the link for the pre-MECO version is http://vixra.org/abs/1804.0109. I am still reserving the final MECO version that is going to be published in the journal, one way or the other, (peer reviewed or as a commentary) for the journal.
Post by: captcass on 28/05/2019 16:07:01
In his Acceptance, the Editor-in-Chief said:
"Your manuscript is basically a re-think and re-write of the application of the Einstein theory to our cosmological Universe. In traditional discussions of the same material, the literature is based upon a clear distinction of the experience of the local observer and a hypothetical distant observer, with the two related to one another by Lorentz transformations. Your treatment is basically the theory from the view-point of just the distant observer (though with exceptions). I plan to accept this paper because this change in viewpoint may be easier for some readers to understand....."
Post by: captcass on 29/07/2019 21:50:11
Hello Colin2B. It is with great pleasure that I can now announce, after slightly more than a year, that the final version of my paper, "General Relativity: Effects in Time as Causation", has been accepted by the journal.Hey Colin2B. The paper was published today in the Journal of Cosmology, Vol 26. I know this because I am also the new Assistant Editor and Assistant Webmaster of the journal.
Go figure! :)
The final version, which replaces black holes with MECOs and clarifies a few more points can be found here: http://journalofcosmology.com/JOC26/General%20Relativity%20and%20Effects%20in%20Time%20as%20Causation%20JofC.pdf
As the paper deals with spacetime as a whole, and not just the Hubble shift, I will now be shifting this thread to the "What is Space?" thread for any further discussion.
Thanks for your support, Colin2B.
Cass
Post by: captcass on 19/09/2019 15:30:57
"Journal of Cosmology Publishes the First Peer-Reviewed Paper Originating the Universe With an Eternal Creator
The paper also claims to do much more, answering some of physics most perplexing problems, and if accepted will chart a whole new course ahead.
Press Release - updated: Sep 10, 2019
SAN DIEGO, September 10, 2019 (Newswire.com) - The peer-reviewed Journal of Cosmology has announced that it has published what is bound to be a hotly debated paper by Capt. Joseph H. (Cass) Forrington, a Cum Laude graduate of the United States Merchant Marine Academy at Kings Point, New York, that describes a cosmological model that originates the universe with an eternal Creator, something that has been a long-standing taboo in peer-reviewed science journals.
The model also appears to complete General Relativity by deriving the Hubble constant as a 2.2686*10^-18 acceleration in the rate of "proper" time, rather than as an acceleration due to an expansion of space, eliminating Big Bangs and "Dark Energy."
The model describes gravity as an evolutionary force in time and solutions are also provided for quantum non-locality and galactic rotation velocities by describing the astrophysical motions in terms of the evolving quantum spacetime field and is, therefore, recommended reading for both quantum and astrophysicists.
The paper, "General Relativity: Effects in Time as Causation," can be found in the Journal of Cosmology, Vol. 26, #21."
The link is: http://journalofcosmology.com/JOC26/General%20Relativity%20and%20Effects%20in%20Time%20as%20Causation%20JofC.pdf
Post by: captcass on 05/10/2019 20:49:58
Vol. #27: "Time Dilation Cosmology in the Evolving Spacetime/Quantum Continuum: General Relativity & the Hubble Shift"
Post by: captcass on 31/05/2020 23:23:22
Post by: captcass on 12/06/2020 16:34:45
In the meantime, my paper can still be found in its original location at http://www.journalofcosmology.com/JOC26/General%20Relativity%20and%20Effects%20in%20Time%20as%20Causation%20JofC.pdf
Post by: puppypower on 13/06/2020 14:15:51
Post by: Kryptid on 13/06/2020 17:14:55
Through a microscope we will get the impression that this space is expanding, while through the telescope this same space will appear to contract.
That doesn't make any sense. What evidence do you have to support that claim?
Post by: talanum1 on 13/06/2020 17:51:29
Post by: puppypower on 14/06/2020 14:25:09
Through a microscope we will get the impression that this space is expanding, while through the telescope this same space will appear to contract.
That doesn't make any sense. What evidence do you have to support that claim?
In the world of relative reference, a microscope creates the impression that there is more separation or space between things, while allowing us to see smaller and smaller details. If I have a salt tablet, it looks solid with no space inside itself. If we use a powerful microscope, I can now see that the salt ions have lots of space between them. Solid was only relative to my POV without the microscope. The microscope creates a relative reference with more visible space. I have added space relative to the first relative reference.
If I had a microscope focused on the primordial atom, and I increased the magnification, it would appear to expand. This is the microscope version of the BB. We currently assume the entire universe was originally contained in the primordial atom. I use my microscope to see the spaces between, that lets us know this is the entire universe and not a single thing thing with no space.
As we magnify it more, more detail and inner separation in space will appear. We start to notice the uniform looking primordial atom, of earth reference, is not perfectly symmetrical or uniform. Inflation can be simulated by zooming in very quickly. The speed of light is not violated. In the world of relative reference, there is no preferred reference, correct? The earth reference and what the human eyes can see, is just another relative reference that cannot see everything.
What is interesting is when we discuss the early universe, we also discuss the formation of matter and particles as the universe expands. This is the visualized microscopic part of the expanding primordial atom. These tinny details can only be seen if we zoom in. We need the correct reference to see enough space, to make the tiny stand out. Once we do that, we then need to equate the earth telescopic reference with the microscope particle reference, in a world where reference is considered relative and not absolute.
When we use telescopes and microscope, we will get relative reference and motion in space, but not in time. Thing can appear to be get larger or smaller, move toward or away, relative to our reference, but the flow of time does not change. We are adding distance potential to space-time, without the time being added. The result is our relative reference cannot maintain energy conservation, since energy needs time to act. This is an artifact of all relative references. This why dark energy was added.
Post by: captcass on 14/06/2020 15:07:53
Post by: Colin2B on 14/06/2020 15:56:22
COVID bored are we? :oNo, this is normal for this poster. He’s not suffering COVID induced delusions ;)
Post by: Travis Tremlee on 21/06/2020 12:19:14
The faster one moves through space, then the slower they move through time. The total movement through space-time is a constant.
Distance between objects is described by a metric which is the good old Pythagorean theorem in its various forms.
x²+y² = z² in two dimensions...
We perceive separation between objects and attribute the void between the things as a space.
If space is a dynamic then it is always changing. Time is also change.
Post by: captcass on 21/06/2020 15:42:47
If space is a dynamic then it is always changing. Time is also change.As I previously noted in this thread, spacetime is a single thing with two aspects, space and time. Time evolves space forward, making time the fundamental force of the universe.
We begin with the dark void of the space aspect of spacetime being evolved forward by the time aspect of spacetime. But what direction is forward? It is the forward direction of time and, since time has no depth, even though we see 3 dimensions, the spatial aspect actually has no depth. We are just seeing, and are part of, an evolving energy field; the spacetime continuum.
When a time dilation gradient is introduced, several things happen. At the faster end of the gradient the space must contract so the speed of light, a constant, is maintained.
Also, because time is going faster there, the frequency of any photons of light is higher, which increases energy and pressure. Together, these effects create a density, or “event”, in spacetime.
Because the next instant appears to begin first in the faster time area, we now also see an evolution of such events down the time dilation gradient. This is gravity and it is why gravity only has one direction and why gravity overpowers all the other forces so easily, even though it appears to be so weak: it is an irresistible evolutionary force in time.
We have no definition for energy. We merely define it as the ability to perform work and one form of energy can be transformed into other forms; chemical energy can be converted to heat energy which can be converted to mechanical energy, etc.
The fundamental energy of the universe is the energy of time evolving space forward. The evolution of an event down the dilation gradient is the manifestation of kinetic energy from this fundamental energy.
Throughout the universe we see spherical time dilation gradients, or pits. When a standing wave forms in the Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation, a wave that doesn’t fluctuate up and down, we get a tiny density, as I just described, that forms the center of a spherical dilation pit. Once one of these forms, others are induced to form nearby.
As the gravitational direction of evolution has nowhere to go at the focus of the pit, it shatters and spins off in two opposite directions. These spins, or events, form the two primary “particles” that re-combine to make up all the matter of the universe, the electron and the up quark. When they combine, they form the first combination of the two, called a down quark. A proton, the center of a hydrogen atom, is made up of 2 up quarks and 1 down quark, and since a down quark is a combination of an up quark and electron, we can say the proton is really a combination of an electron and 3 up quarks. When another electron is attracted to, and captured by, the proton, we have a hydrogen atom, the primary element.
As other pits develop into hydrogen atoms we get a cloud of hydrogen gas, a nebula, and the evolution of these events evolve towards the centers of the larger of them and we see densities accumulate and grow in size, energy, and pressure as the gravitational direction of evolution impedes on itself from all directions at the focus of the spherical pit.
As the density grows at the center of the pit, we see pressure build and the kinetic energy we saw manifested in the dilation gradient is now transformed into heat energy and we end up with the hydrogen fusion that forms a star and forces the protons and electrons to combine to form all the other elements that make up all the matter of the universe.
Now, this is a very simplified explanation because each direction we see has its opposite; up/down, left/right and forward/backward. For this reason, we have what scientists call different colors and flavors of quarks and electrons have their opposite in positrons.
Post by: Kryptid on 21/06/2020 17:42:47
since a down quark is a combination of an up quark and electron
Citation needed.
Post by: captcass on 21/06/2020 19:50:41
Citation needed.I learned this years ago studying quantum physics. I just don't have the time to go find a source. I'll let the curious do that.
When an electron, charge -1, combines with an up quark, charge +2/3, we get the charge of a down quark, -1/3.
3 up quarks, 3*(+2/3) = +2, plus 1 electron at -1 = the +1 charge of the proton.
What follows are some simple 2 dimensional images of how the opposite spins of electrons and up quarks allow them to combine to form larger "particle" events. Like spins repulse strongly, hence, electrons repulse electrons, protons repulse protons, etc. I stress that these are just 2 dimensional representations.
If the diagrams don't show, please click on them and choose "reload".
Down Quark:
(https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.captcass.com%2Fimages%2FNSDownQuark.jpg&hash=22b71650a0cf010312c6fbf94ac58e27)
Proton:
(https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.captcass.com%2Fimages%2FNSProton.jpg&hash=31ee81c3cf26ebc383e0d5563d83bad2)
Neutron:
(https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.captcass.com%2Fimages%2FNSNeutron.jpg&hash=fe088138d8b6a4450cb80024da0de6fd)
Oxygen Nucleus - Electrons/Up Quarks
(https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.captcass.com%2Fimages%2FNSOxygenEU.jpg&hash=fe38dd2a344ec78fc3ed2f8e92c4c5cc)
Oxygen Nucleus - Protons/Neutrons:
(https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.captcass.com%2Fimages%2FNSOxygenPN.jpg&hash=2ddf65cdf999f356c0edfbccb8950fdc)
Post by: Kryptid on 21/06/2020 23:08:42
I learned this years ago studying quantum physics. I just don't have the time to go find a source.
I'm skeptical that such a source was reputable.
When an electron, charge -1, combines with an up quark, charge +2/3, we get the charge of a down quark, -1/3.
And what force is it that binds the electron to the up quark? It can't be the electromagnetic force, or the proton would be even larger than a hydrogen atom. It can't be the strong nuclear force, because the electron doesn't interact via the strong nuclear force. The weak nuclear force doesn't form bound states and the gravitational force is far too weak.
Post by: captcass on 21/06/2020 23:42:25
And what force is it that binds the electron to the up quark?First, I must say I am not a particle physicist. All my work is limited to effects in time. These are just concepts I was toying with about 10 years ago, but they have recently come up in a discussion I was having with an astrophysicist on the nature of the CBMR....
Speaking at the quantum level, where "particles" only exist as probabilities and possibilities, none of this really matters at all. "Reality" collapses around us as we live in, and observe it.
To answer your question, however, they are conjoined in their spins.
Remember, I am saying the forward gravitational direction of evolution is splintered in the focus of a spherical pit. This creates the spins of the 2 "particle" events. (Particles do not exist, just evolving events). As they are opposite spins (the opposite charges reflect the opposite spins) in the spatial aspect, they are drawn to each other as the gravitational direction tries to recombine. Once the spins conjoin they are naturally held together as they share a common side.
As the up quark's charge is only a 2/3rds fraction of an electron's, it appears there is a preferred direction of spin when the gravitational direction splits. This is most likely due to the effect of the fundamental direction of evolution.
Post by: Kryptid on 22/06/2020 01:22:30
Speaking at the quantum level, where "particles" only exist as probabilities and possibilities, none of this really matters at all.
Yes it does. Forces are required to put a pair of particles into a bound state.
To answer your question, however, they are conjoined in their spins.
Spin is not an attractive force.
Another problem with your idea is that it violates conservation of lepton number. Take the decay of the neutron as an example. If the neutron was merely a proton plus an electron (because it contains one more down quark than a proton), then you would expect it to decay into just a proton and an electron. But, in reality, it also decays into an antineutrino. This is needed to conserve lepton number (because protons and neutrons have a lepton number of zero, and something has to be present to balance the net lepton number of the produced electron). The production of the antineutrino breaks conservation of lepton number in your model, but it doesn't in the Standard Model. So the Standard Model is preferred to yours.
Post by: captcass on 22/06/2020 03:19:44
Forces are required to put a pair of particles into a bound state.
Spin is not an attractive force.As I noted, I am not a particle physicist. I am not saying spin is an attractive force. In this case it is actually gravity I am talking about. The gravitational direction of evolution. The spins are in the spatial aspect. Gravity overpowers all the other forces as it is an irresistible evolutionary force in time.
Standard Model is preferred to yours.The Standard Model is a flop. The quantum world is where it is at, and absolute quantum determination is impossible because we affect the next instant through our actions, wishes, prayers and expectations. It is a world of light, not particles. We can only study how it presents to us, and that is never definite. That is why I don't like to get too deeply into discussions about "particles". Sure, we can use physics to manipulate our world and understand how it "appears" to work based on how it "usually" manifests for us, but we thought Classical physics was absolute, and now know it isn't.
To illustrate, I like to share some "quantum tales":
I live in Fort Bragg, Ca., which has three beautiful Glass Beaches, and in 2009 I established the now world-famous Sea Glass Museum.
As I noted earlier, “particles” don’t actually exist. They are merely evolving events in spacetime. And until we actually look at them, they really only exist as probabilities and possibilities in the quantum, or spacetime, continuum. They don’t “collapse” into our reality until we look at them.
Fort Bragg has 3 glass beaches, Site 1, Site 2, and Site 3, commonly referred to as “Glass Beach”, that were town dump sites during different time periods, 1906 to ‘43, 1943 to ‘49 and 1949 to ‘67. Most of the sea glass in my museum comes from Site 1.
I couldn’t walk into this beach because there was a mill on the headlands and trespassing was forbidden, so I had to use an ocean kayak to get to this beach.
I landed at the beach one day and found two marbles right next to each other right next to my kayak. They were just plain, colorless, well frosted (so very old), marbles but marbles are rarer than reds (which are 1 in 5,000 pieces) and to find two right next to each other is remarkable.
So I said, "Lord, (the Creator is neither male nor female, but this is how I address It) thank you. I sure would like to find a red marble, though. I've got a blue one, and I thank you, but I sure would like to find a red one. Please, Lord?"
I put that thought aside and went back picking. Normally, I would walk very slowly, up and down the beach, looking for the gems amongst all the other glass, and it took me about 2 hours to walk from where I landed my kayak to nearly the end of the beach. I was tired, and it was time to go tide-wise, but there was just a little more beach to cover so I decided to make a quick pass to see if I could spot anything big just lying on top.
Just before I got to the end there was this huge red marble. It's 15/16ths of an inch in diameter. It is a beautiful blood red with a white swirl that forms a wave.
(https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.captcass.com%2Fimages%2FNSRedMarble.jpg&hash=52526cec1dc198bc7d56343ba5c6b52d)
I rolled my eyes up and went, "Lord! Dear Lord!, etc." Then, when I bent down to pick up the marble, there were also two pieces of jewelry quality RED glass, one on either side of the marble. I went, "Oh, Lord! Dear Lord!, etc.” a bunch more and danced around with tears in my eyes. This is how the Creator talks to me. The two red pieces, to me, were the Creator saying the marble was not a coincidence, that I asked for red and got red. The odds against finding all three together are just too vast for it to be otherwise.
I would also note that I had only pictured a small, regular sized red marble when I asked for one. I find the Creator always gives us a much better version of what we ask for than what we imagined. I believe this is because the Creator has a by far greater imagination than we do.
The point here is that neither the marble, nor even that section of beach it lay upon, existed for me until I observed them and all the superposition possibilities collapsed into my reality, which was partly determined by my wishes, faith and expectations. Scientifically speaking, this eliminates the possibility of the formulation of an absolute quantum determination in Quantum Physics, and eliminates the Standard Model as being viable.
My second tale is of a little girl and red pieces of Sea Glass.
One day I got to the beach and there was a man and woman with their daughter at the beach. She was about age 8 or 9 and she was only looking for reds, which, as I noted earlier, are about 1 in 5,000 pieces. In 2 hours, she found 9 reds, whereas I, who was looking for whatever, would find a red every 3 or 4 months.
At one point she came running up to me and starting talking to me and as we were finishing up she looked down and picked up a beautiful red right from between my feet.
I wanted to strangle that poor little girl, but of course I just ooohed and aaaahed, and later that day I found one of my own.
Children tend to find what they are looking for because they believe they can. They have faith.
This is the third tale and it is about a stranger’s faith.
I began my business by selling on the headlands. One day a man came down and asked me where to look. I told him there was a slag pile in the cove next to me and that because it replenished the beach he might find something rare there, like a red.
He came back in about 15 minutes with a beautiful red, a piece I would sell for about $150 if made into jewelry, and asked me where else he could look. Knowing what was happening and laughing to myself, I told him he could go to the beach behind me, Site 2, and that there was much more glass there and maybe he could find something even rarer, like a grape purple, which are one of the rarest of colors, about 1 in 10,000 pieces.
He came back in about 20 minutes with a beautiful grape purple. I found about only 4 in 10 years of collecting.
He simply believed what I told him, had faith, like the little girl with the reds: the faith of a child. Does this sound familiar to you?
My quantum tales are meant to show how the Creator, our Greater Selves, is evolving each of our individual universes forward for each of us. When I move my arm from here to there, my universe evolved forward for me so my arm ended up where I wanted it to be.
This is happening for each of us every instant, even though we are unaware of it. It doesn’t matter whether we know it or not, as the Creator simply loves each of us and does it for us. This is because it is the Creator's (there is only One, call it the Universal Cosmic Consciousness if you like) awareness of being Here, Now, is the origin of spacetime. It exists in a dark void, eternally alone, "I Am That I Am"...that I am, that I am, that I am....
This is a horrible state of being. The worst thing we do to people is put them in solitary confinement. Fortunately It can imagine light and can create worlds out of that light, to incarnate Itself into to escape Its eternal loneliness and pass Its eternity. All living things are that. This is why we all hate boredom and fear loneliness. We are all Its children and we are all one in It. (This explains non-locality as It has to harmonize all points of view, no matter how distant and, hence, Alice and Bob are as entangled as the "particles" they are observing).
However, if you know it is this materialization is happening for each of us, you have an advantage, in that you can ask for, and get, your red marble.
Seek and you shall find, ask, and you will receive, as in my quantum tales. This is because in Faith, we have Divine power.
I would add one more note. The most important other to one alone is a loving other and, hence, It makes us male and female and has us participate in the creation by having children. ALL of US, all living things, are simply more of us coming forth from within us, and it all begins with One. Division resulting in multiplication.
Keep taking the square root of ANY number, decimal or whole, and what do you approach? 1.....It all begins with....One.
Post by: Kryptid on 22/06/2020 04:38:24
As I noted, I am not a particle physicist. I am not saying spin is an attractive force. In this case it is actually gravity I am talking about. The gravitational direction of evolution. The spins are in the spatial aspect. Gravity overpowers all the other forces as it is an irresistible evolutionary force in time.
Gravity is far too weak on the subatomic scale to bind an electron to a quark.
The Standard Model is a flop.
Then your model must be a flop too, since at least the Standard Model doesn't require such a violation of lepton number (or at least B-L, baryon number minus lepton number) in order to account for observations.
As I noted earlier, “particles” don’t actually exist.
Yet we have no problem detecting things that are consistent with what are called "particles" by the Standard Model.
Post by: captcass on 22/06/2020 05:39:42
Gravity is far too weak on the subatomic scale to bind an electron to a quark.The big mystery, since Einstein, has been why gravity overpowers the other forces so easily, even though it appears to be so weak. I explain that.
Then your model must be a flop too, since at least the Standard Model doesn't require such a violation of lepton number (or at least B-L, baryon number minus lepton number) in order to account for observations.I am claiming nothing past causation. After that it is "physics", even "quantum physics", that "seem" to describe what we see, "usually", based on "probabilities".....
The Creator, the UCC, allows Itself to manipulate the creation, so It can play with what It has created. This greatly enhances Its experience as incarnate.
Post by: Kryptid on 22/06/2020 06:13:12
The big mystery, since Einstein, has been why gravity overpowers the other forces so easily, even though it appears to be so weak. I explain that.
That isn't a mystery. There are two reasons why gravity dominates the large-scale Universe: (1) it has an infinite range, and (2) it only has one kind of charge, so it can't be canceled out. Although electromagnetism also has an infinite range, it has two charges which cancel out to make bulk matter effectively neutral. The strong and weak nuclear forces are short-ranged. But gravity only dominates the large-scale Universe. It is extraordinarily weak between individual subatomic particles.
I am claiming nothing past causation.
You claimed that down quarks are up quarks plus electrons, which is wrong because it leads to violation of conservation of lepton number.
Post by: captcass on 22/06/2020 15:16:30
ou claimed that down quarks are up quarks plus electrons, which is wrong because it leads to violation of conservation of lepton number.As I noted, I learned this while studying quantum physics.
I also don't get into particle physics for the reasons I noted above.
You also clearly don't understand gravity.
I suggest you read my paper:
http://journalofcosmology.com/JOC26/General%20Relativity%20and%20Effects%20in%20Time%20as%20Causation%20JofC.pdf
I have said all I intend to say about "particles". This thread is about space....
Post by: Kryptid on 22/06/2020 22:15:20
As I noted, I learned this while studying quantum physics.
Then you learned wrong. I guarantee you that whatever source you learned that from was either non-reputable or was based on misunderstandings.
You also clearly don't understand gravity.
I understand it well enough to know that it doesn't bind electrons and up quarks into down quarks.
Post by: captcass on 22/06/2020 22:50:49
Then you learned wrong. I guarantee you that whatever source you learned that from was either non-reputable or was based on misunderstandings.I really don't want to go back and forth on this. I will just note that, from Wikipedia, "Niels Bohr was notably opposed to this (Pauli's) interpretation of beta decay and was ready to accept that energy, momentum, and angular momentum were not conserved quantities."
I would also note that the combination of two particles does not predict what will happen when they decay or are shattered in a collider.
As per gravity, you are not seeing what it is, and that it acts at every level when there is a density, even a point (particle) event.
Post by: Kryptid on 22/06/2020 23:34:26
I really don't want to go back and forth on this.
Then do us both a favor and don't make statements that violate the laws of physics.
"Niels Bohr was notably opposed to this (Pauli's) interpretation of beta decay and was ready to accept that energy, momentum, and angular momentum were not conserved quantities."
Bohr turned out to be wrong about that. We know that they are conserved quantities thanks to Noether's theorem.
I would also note that the combination of two particles does not predict what will happen when they decay or are shattered in a collider.
It may not specify the exact particles, but it does predict what kind of decays are allowed: they have to satisfy conservation laws. Decay paths that violate conservation laws are forbidden.
As per gravity, you are not seeing what it is, and that it acts at every level when there is a density, even a point (particle) event.
I never said that it isn't present at the subatomic level, only that it is too weak to explain the existence of the proton or neutron by binding electrons to quarks.
Post by: captcass on 23/06/2020 00:01:35
Post by: Kryptid on 23/06/2020 00:14:58
You are welcome to your opinions.
What I have said isn't an opinion. That's like arguing that, "the Earth is round" is an opinion.
Post by: captcass on 23/06/2020 00:40:12
There are those who do not believe energy has to be conserved, especially at the quantum level where "Particle" events just pop into and out of existence.
So, you are welcome to your theories and opinions.... ::)
Post by: Kryptid on 23/06/2020 00:45:11
You quote theories as fact
Don't mistake a theorem for a theory. Theorems, unlike theories, are necessarily true so long as their baseline assumptions are true. That's what Noether's theorem is (which is about conservation laws). So long as as the local space is static, Noether's theorem holds.
There are those who do not believe energy has to be conserved, especially at the quantum level where "Particle" events just pop into and out of existence.
That doesn't violate conservation of energy because the total energy of the system remains constant.
Post by: captcass on 24/06/2020 20:15:17
After my paper was published in the Journal of Cosmology, I became the webmaster, Public Information Officer and acted as the defacto managing editor, receiving and screening papers before I forwarded them to the Editor-in-Chief and Executive Editor.
Unfortunately, the Executive Editor, Carl Gibson, who is in his mid-80's, is having what one could politely call "end of life issues". As the server account where the journal is hosted is in his name, he has managed to gain total control of the journal and has begun deleting papers he feels do not belong in the journal, even though the papers went through the review process and the authors had paid their Reviewer and Publication fees.
Needless to say, this is causing great consternation for the Editor-in-Chief, Rudloph Schild, who is struggling to find a solution to the problem.
I have been targeted by Carl because I refused to post a political rant by him, at the insistence of Rudolph Schild, who, of course, does not want political papers in the journal. It is currently the only paper in Vol. 27, which used to be dedicated to my model of the universe.
Today he had his new assistant webmaster change the name of my paper so the remaining links to it in Vol. 26, where it first appeared, do not work.
6/26 update:
They restored my link within the journal on 6/26. The new link is http://journalofcosmology.com/JOC26/General_Relativity_and_Effects_in_Time_as_Causation_JofC.pdf
The paper can always be found through a link from my thetruecosmology.com site and directly through this link here: https://www.thetruecosmology.com/General%20Relativity%20and%20Effects%20in%20Time%20as%20Causation.pdf. This is the pre-journal version which contains spiritual verbiage in the "Origins of Spacetime" section that Prof. Schild had me remove or modify for the journal version.
I am asking everyone to not trash the Journal of Cosmology due to these problems, but I suggest no one send in fees or submit papers until the situation has been resolved. It is a sad situation, more than anything else, and all papers will be restored once the situation is resolved.
Post by: Annabelle on 14/07/2020 08:26:02
Post by: captcass on 09/09/2020 18:28:28
This is a significant paper and the Editors at the Journal of Cosmology desperately wanted it back, but everything came to a halt at the Journal of Cosmology due to the issues with the Executive Editor.
I finally told Frank I would put it up on my thetruecosmology site and do a press release for him (my astrophysicist/astronomer email list is extensive, as is my newspaper editor list).
When he said OK, and I thought about it, I thought his paper would be better in a journal so I began the Journal of Modern Cosmology on 8/28, to Explore Alternatives to the Big Bang, LCDM/CDM and Standard Model Cosmologies. It is peer reviewed and free and open access to all. I began it with just the latest version of my paper and Frank's paper as they were both peer reviewed and accepted by the Journal of Cosmology. The new journal can be found here: https://www.journalofmoderncosmology.com .
I have also done a 36 minute video explaining some of the aspects of my model. https://www.thetruecosmology.com .
Post by: captcass on 08/03/2021 03:00:19
Since orbital velocity, VO, = √(GM/R), the time dilation formula for orbital velocities is derived from the gravitational time dilation formula,
T0 = T√1 – (2GM/Rc2) by substituting VO for GM/R, i.e.:
T0 = T√1 – ((2/c2)(VO)), resulting in:
VO = √2*√((Tc2 – T0c2)/2T)), where T is the distant observer’s invariant rate of universal time, T0 is the rate of time of the coordinate point within the pit, and √2 is the gravitational acceleration factor.
This formula gives exact results for the planets and also applies to spiral galaxies, as I now explain in my paper in the Galactic & Planetary Orbital Velocities section on the thetruecosmolgy.com site.
3/16/21 Update: I just figured out yesterday that this formula (√2*√((Tc2 – T0c2)/2T))/(√3) gives the Sun's galactic rotation velocity, so this is the correct formula for galactic velocities. I used the Sun's surface dilation factor for the solution.
I explain the significance of √2 and √3 in the paper, which is at http://www.thetruecosmology.com.
5/3/21 Update
I updated the paper to reflect the fact that since T = 1, the equations reduce to:
V = √(c2 – T0c2) for planetary orbital velocities and,
V = √((c2 – T0c2))/(√3) for galactic rotation velocities
5/15/2021 Update
The planetary formula also works for moons when the planet's dilation gradient is used.
Also, I updated the paper to show that a spiral galaxy is a "Cosmic Hurricane", a vortex in time that spins the CMB, generating the MECO's magnetic field and generating gravity waves in accordance with the Fibonacci sequence. The spiral arms are densities where time is slower and the spaces between the spirals are faster time. This is also true of a hurricane on Earth, where the bands of rain, which also follow the Fibonacci sequence, are also densities with slower time than the spaces between the bands. So, what we are seeing is systems within systems within systems based upon the Fibonacci sequence.
5/23/2021 Update
For cometary velocities, it is necessary to derive the time dilation velocity formula from the Vis-Viva equation, which is:
VOc = √((2*(c2 – T0c2) – (c2 – T0αc2))
Where T0 = the rate of time factor for “r” in the Vis-Viva equation and T0α = the rate of time factor for a distance equal to the length of the semi-major axis, α.
Since this is the derivation for the Vis-Viva formula, it is the exact solution for any stellar system body when using the dilation gradient of the central mass of the stellar or planetary system.
5/26/2021 Update:
Now that we know that √(GM/r) = √(c2 – c2T0), we can make that substitution in other equations.
Deriving the gravitational force, in Newtons, through time dilation, we use Newton’s equation: F = G(M1m2)/r = (GM1/r)*(m2/r) = (√(c2 – c2*To)2*(m2/r) = ((m2)(c2 – c2To))/r, where To is the rate of time factor for the coordinate mass, m2. Of course, the equation works in the obverse for the other mass, M1.
Post by: captcass on 27/05/2021 18:13:58
If you have previously downloaded my paper, be sure to hit the refresh button after downloading it again to be sure you are getting the current version and not the cached one on your computer.
Since 3/8/21, when I sent them the first formula,75% of the astrophysicists/astronomers in the world's English-speaking universities have now downloaded my paper
6/5/21 Update:
As of today, 100% of the astrophysicists/astronomers on my list have downloaded the paper; 82 % completely, and the rest partially.