0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

I don’t yet see enough evidence for non-locality.

Including an extra dimension via a membrane connecting all points in space is no big deal

Just reading the paper mentioned, will reply when fin.

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.

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?

How could I weave your Spiritual cause and causes into a discussion on what space is.

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

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

Before any big bang or unfolding of space time, space and time did not exist.

Consider Einstein’s Fundamental Metric, which can be considered the basis of the tensors describing a null gravitational field:: X Y Z TX -1 0 0 0Y 0 -1 0 0Z 0 0 -1 0T 0 0 0 +1

I never knew that is all the stress tensors was ,

Quote from: Thebox on 30/04/2018 16:03:15I 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/c^{4}, and then scaled that using the same time elements he uses in the Einstein tensor, T^{00},. 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.

This is why I do not even consider any energy components in my paper, only relativistic effects in time.

Quote from: Colin2B on 22/04/2018 09:09:37Just 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.

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.”

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.

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

Have you posted your paper?