Post by: ggimark on 19/10/2015 06:24:07
Zero Theory:
1st Rule:
All of Space and Matter is comprised of the same energy
A: Energy moving forward = Matter
B: Energy moving backwards = Space
C: The interaction between these two energies = Mass
D: Should energy collide with an object which it cannot move through, reflect off of, or be absorbed by it will
reverse
2nd Rule:
The diameter of the universe is 0. And the distance between any 2 points is always 0.
A: However any amount of the two types of energy can exist between 2 points.
3rd Rule:
All objects with mass must exert energy greater than the total energy they interact with to move past said
energy.
A: Mass-less objects may move unencumbered in a vacuum because the energy density is not great enough to force an
interaction.
B: Mass-less objects have no speed, as long as they are not forced to interact with dense energy they will always
move from any point to any other point instantaneously.
C: As energy increases the interaction between energies also increases, this creates a greater density in both
Matter and Space. As density increases mass-less objects passing through will begin to interact and no
longer move unencumbered.
4th Rule:
The energy of a particle allows it to move beyond any number of other particles so long as their combined energy
is not equal to or greater than the original particle.
A: This creates a zone around every particle in which it can exist at any given point.
B: The greater the energy surrounding a particle, the smaller this zone becomes.
Post by: Colin2B on 19/10/2015 09:02:40
..... And the distance between any 2 points is always 0..So you are saying that the diameter of your head is zero.
Post by: ggimark on 19/10/2015 11:14:48
So you are saying that the diameter of your head is zero.Why yes in fact that would be what the 2nd rule states. Though I feel that was meant more as a personal jab than any sort of question or critique. But can you tell me why it makes more since to believe that distance exists instead of simply defining it as the collection of energy between two points? If you do it this way you maintain the universe's since of distance and depth but at the same time remove the "spooky action at a distance" that quantum entanglement entails. To the entangled particles there could be an immense quantity of energy between them, but simultaneously they would remain right next to each other.
Further more if you viewed it from the perspective of the singularity of a black hole the same would apply, all of its energy exists in a point infinitesimally small, basically with a diameter of 0, so there would be no distance between any two points inside of it, yet there could be immense quantities of energy.
Post by: Colin2B on 19/10/2015 17:34:05
.... I feel that was meant more as a personal jab than any sort of question or critique.More a sense of puzzlement
.... If you do it this way you maintain the universe's since of distance and depthbut you don't, you have removed the sense of distance and replaced it with something you havent really defined.
If I travel from here to the end of my road I travel a distance. The energy I use varies with the method of travel.
Measurement of some forms of energy also uses distance, so removing it is of little help.
Also energy cannot move forwards or backwards if there is no distance.
I don't think you are explaining your ideas very well, as there must be something in your mind that makes sense to you, but not to me.
Post by: Bill S on 19/10/2015 19:16:45
Quote from: ggmark
A: Energy moving forward = Matter
B: Energy moving backwards = Space
I'm puzzled by the concept of "backwards" and "forwards" - relative to what?
Post by: ggimark on 20/10/2015 02:02:16
but you don't, you have removed the sense of distance and replaced it with something you havent really defined.The way I imagine it is this, if you take two points that are foot apart, then that foot is filled with energy that makes them appear to be separated, in my hypothesis if you removed all of the energy between the two points, both spacial and matter, then the two points would be right next to each other. They would not have physically moved, but they would also no longer be separated. Alternately if you added more energy between them they would appear further apart yet they still wouldn't have moved. In both of these scenarios the distance between them never changed, only the quantity of energy between them.
If I travel from here to the end of my road I travel a distance. The energy I use varies with the method of travel.
Measurement of some forms of energy also uses distance, so removing it is of little help.
Also energy cannot move forwards or backwards if there is no distance.
And as for the method of travel changing the amount of energy used, that also comes down to the fact that some forms of travel are more efficient than others. But in all forms of travel you must add to your output energy to move from point a to point b. What I'm saying is that the reason for this requirement is not because of the distance of empty space that we must traverse, but because of the energy between us and our destination that we must overcome.
And why exactly can't something move backwards or forwards with no distance? A photon only ever moves in one direction, it can be reflected but to the photon it never stopped moving strait forward, and it never stops unless it is absorbed by something. So let me ask this, if you could trap a photon, would the photon stop trying to do the only thing it knows how to do? Or to the photon would it still be moving forward?
I'm puzzled by the concept of "backwards" and "forwards" - relative to what?Relative to the formation of the universe. Forward in 3 dimensions would be outwards in all directions, and backwards in 3 dimensions would be inwards from all directions. And an interesting facet of this hypothesis is that it does not require that space-time have been a separate entity that came from the formation of the universe at the moment of the big bang. This theory states that even with all the energy of the universe existing as one type at the moment of the big bang, spacial energy would be the very first creation at the moment that energy was unleashed. As energy attempted to move outwards and could not pass through, reflect off of, or be absorbed by the space outside of our universe, it would be forced to reverse and thus create space.
Post by: guest39538 on 20/10/2015 08:05:54
The way I imagine it is this, if you take two points that are foot apart, then that foot is filled with energy that makes them appear to be separated, in my hypothesis if you removed all of the energy between the two points, both spacial and matter, then the two points would be right next to each other. They would not have physically moved, but they would also no longer be separated. Alternately if you added more energy between them they would appear further apart yet they still wouldn't have moved. In both of these scenarios the distance between them never changed, only the quantity of energy between them.
Hello, no, if you remove energy from the space between masses, there would be no gravity mechanism, so objects would not be close to each other. if you remove the space (distance) from between the masses, ''that makes them appear to be separated'', the objects have to physically move. Space is a divider and is physically there, space is not virtual. Your idea is a no starter, there is no premise for argument.
Post by: ggimark on 20/10/2015 08:42:40
Space is a divider and is physically there, space is not virtual. Your idea is a no starter, there is no premise for argument.Umm, I know, I agree that space is physically there, I even defined it as physical energy no different than the energy that comprises matter, all I did was remove distance between things, and instead said that space itself is what separates and divides, I never defined space as virtual, in fact I made it even more physical than some other theories. What i defined as virtual is distance and that it is the very physical properties of space that create the illusion of distance.
Further more anything on earth can be argued, I never said I was right, just that I had a hypothesis, and whether right or wrong the essence of science is to think outside of the box because thinking about the universe differently is what has always led to discoveries... Everyone said the moon flew around the earth, but Newton said "What if it's falling?"; everyone knew that electricity and magnetism were separate, Faraday said "What if they're just two halves of the same thing"; everyone knew that space was just emptiness until Einstein asked "What if space curves?" To say that an idea isn't worth arguing because you don't like it, or because it doesn't fit conventional wisdom, is the most unscientific thing you can possibly do.
Post by: guest39538 on 20/10/2015 22:43:07
Further more anything on earth can be argued, ?"
Not quite true, axioms cant be argued but I have not asked you to defend yourself , it is only a discussion and this forum is quite brilliant at allowing freedom of thought , we cant just simply remove space . However for some reason I think I know what is confusing you and why you have made something simple sound complex. You are saying distance is virtual, I understand why you are saying this I think.
You see that far could really be near?
If that is the case then yes of cause, it is scaling, the entire universe we know is scaled by ourselves on the earth's scale.
Post by: ggimark on 21/10/2015 03:39:18
Not quite true, axioms cant be argued but I have not asked you to defend yourself , it is only a discussion and this forum is quite brilliant at allowing freedom of thoughtWe'll simply have to fundamentally disagree that axioms can't or shouldn't be argued, I mentioned 3 that were successfully argued against in the last 400 years, but I do know where you're coming from. As for the theories of Relativity and Quantum Mechanics they work for so much of the universe that challenging them is almost silly. However it is in the ways that they do not work that baffles and hampers us, especially how they do not work together. Now this could simply be that we are missing just a few pieces of the puzzle and in time we may be able to find those last few pieces and finally complete our image of the cosmos. There is a scary possibility, even as small as it is, that the reason for their downfall is that we got it wrong, that our view of the universe is not simply incomplete but fundamentally flawed. Now enough people accept Relativity and Quantum Mechanics and that is a good thing because they have taken us so far, but there must also be people who are thinking outside the box, playing devils advocate so to speak because there might just be something else that can take us even further.
...we cant just simply remove space.I do agree with this, I believe the confusion arises because I have separated the concepts of space and distance being the same thing. Which considering that Relativity does the exact same thing I didn't think this would be such a stretch. In Relativity space can be bent, stretch, and contract. All of these change the distance involved but not the space, so to Relativity space and distance are not the same thing and not actually bound in any way. What I have done is to go a step further and say that space may not be a solid fabric that is stretched, bent, or contracted, but rather energy and particles. The concentrations of these particles would become dense in the presence of matter, and very thin where there is none.
You say that far could really be near?And yes that is what I'm saying, I am taking it slightly further than that, but basically yes.
Post by: guest39538 on 21/10/2015 09:38:12
And yes that is what I'm saying, I am taking it slightly further than that, but basically yes.
Distance is very easy to understand, is there any need to look at it any further?
We know that scaling is exactly that, we know 1000 miles could relatively be 1 cm .
If I was to enlarge you by an X amount a times, you could touch the moon and the moon would have relatively no distance from you. I like your thinking but think it is sort of a pointless conversation subject.
I want to pinch your title lol, I do have a zero theory ,it involves light propagating through space, sort of 0+1=E
Post by: ggimark on 21/10/2015 11:28:54
Distance is very easy to understand, is there any need to look at it any further?
We know that scaling is exactly that, we know 1000 miles could relatively be 1 cm .
If I was to enlarge you by an X amount a times, you could touch the moon and the moon would have relatively no distance from you. I like your thinking but think it is sort of a pointless conversation subject.
Well if distance is what we see it to be then no of course there's no reason to look at it any further. But in this scientific age absolutely nothing has ended up being what we thought it was in the beginning. The earth was thought to be flat because where ever we looked it seemed flat, we believed the sun revolved around the earth because when you look that is how it appears, for the longest time we had absolutely no clue that light was a self propelling wave, we never imagined their were invisible lines of force surrounding every magnet, and once we did then we didn't believe that those same lines of force accompanied electric currents. We didn't think that light could possibly have a constant speed because nothing else we had ever seen did. We didn't imagine that space could possibly be deformed or change shape because after all when we looked at it it was just empty and how could something that is empty have any form. We assumed that time was a strict progression of events, but actually from a non-linear, non-subjective viewpoint it's more like a big ball of wibbily wobbly time-y whimy stuff... Wait, that lost ones from Doctor Who... Where was I, oh yeah, we thought that time was a constant flow always ticking by at exactly the same rate for everyone everywhere because that is what we had always observed but now we understand it to be relative and different depending on where you are and how fast you are traveling.
Basically in the history of science we have challenged every single convention that we ever believed; the earth, the orbits of the planets and stars, what the sun is made of, the nature of space, electricity, magnetism, light, matter and even time itself... and every single time what we held to be true was actually completely wrong. The only convention we have never challenged is the nature of distance, and since we have a 100% track record of being wrong so far, it's quite possible that our age old belief that we "know" the nature of distance because we can "see" it, is completely wrong as well.
And as for why we should look at it any further, with every one of those other conventions that we challenged, the wealth of knowledge and advancement that came from learning the truth was incalculable, so it stands to reason that this would be no different.
Where my hypothesis differs from scaling is it is stating that an atom on the moon, may in fact be no closer to the moon than the sun is to the moon. The only difference between the two comparisons would be the quantity of energy between them.
I want to pinch your title lol, I do have a zero theory ,it involves light propagating through space, sort of 0+1=EHahaha, yeah it is a pretty catchy title isn't it, ironically it is not named after my second rule that everyone has so much trouble with. Though your equation looks eerily similar to Euler's equation ei∏+1=0
Post by: guest39538 on 21/10/2015 20:07:51
Though your equation looks eerily similar to Euler's equation ei∏+1=0
Your post is an interesting premise for argument.
I made my equation up lol, I will have to lookup Euler's equation now, I am a bit maths illiterate. I just thought to myself the Photons have no net charge in space, so 0+1=q or 0+F=q.
Never mind though, so in your theory you are suggesting that distance is an amount of energy between masses? if so what about the space behind the energy? and isn't anything between anything a distance between?
Post by: ggimark on 22/10/2015 05:53:30
Never mind though, so in your theory you are suggesting that distance is an amount of energy between masses? if so what about the space behind the energy? and isn't anything between anything a distance between?
The difference would be that my hypothesis states that if you take the earth and the moon, and were somehow able to remove all of the spacial energy between them, and at the same time keep any new spacial energy from filling the void you created, then the earth and the moon would be touching each other because they would no longer be separated.
But where this rule actually get's interesting is on a much smaller scale, because it also creates the possibility that if something has a high enough energy but a low enough mass, it could actually begin skipping points in space. So that the object would no longer only move 1 quantum at a time, but could move 2 quantum's, or 3, or 4 but skip all of the steps between depending on its energy to mass ratio. And not just forward but also left or right. Which is exactly what the 4th rule states that particles will do because they have a high enough energy but a low enough mass.
This would have a two fold effect, 1 it would make particles take on the appearance of a probability wave when not being observed because they could freely jump left and right, but when you began observing you would increase the latent energy surrounding the particles which would decrease the amount of steps a particle could skip and narrow the probability of where it ends up. This would result in particles acting like waves when not being observed, and seeming to become particles again once you looked, but in reality it was a particle the entire time you simply limited its capacity to move when you looked at it. Basically because of the 2nd rule, the 4th rule is able to completely explain the particle-wave duality, and at the same time explain why the particles in large objects do not behave like waves, it is because their energy-mass ratio has become to great to skip steps and can now only move in single quanta steps.
Take this a step further and you can explain quantum tunneling, as two particles begin to collide each of their energy is great enough to keep the other from skipping any steps, but as the weak force tries to push them apart it will actually feed energy into the particles, in cases where one of the particles gains enough energy from this process it will once again be able to skip a step. This will take it past the barrier of the weak force and allow it to collide with the other particle.
What I find funny is that people are having the greatest trouble accepting the 2nd rule of my hypothesis when I never went into this thinking about distance at all. I simply realized towards the end that by adding the second rule there are so many "spooky" things in physics that became explainable, especially in quantum physics.
Post by: guest39538 on 22/10/2015 13:10:28
Ok, I see what you are thinking now,Never mind though, so in your theory you are suggesting that distance is an amount of energy between masses? if so what about the space behind the energy? and isn't anything between anything a distance between?
The difference would be that my hypothesis states that if you take the earth and the moon, and were somehow able to remove all of the spacial energy between them, and at the same time keep any new spacial energy from filling the void you created, then the earth and the moon would be touching each other because they would no longer be separated.
But where this rule actually get's interesting is on a much smaller scale, because it also creates the possibility that if something has a high enough energy but a low enough mass, it could actually begin skipping points in space. So that the object would no longer only move 1 quantum at a time, but could move 2 quantum's, or 3, or 4 but skip all of the steps between depending on it's energy to mass ratio. And not just forward but also left or right. Which is exactly what the 4th rule states that particles will do because they have a high enough energy but a low enough mass.
This would have a two fold effect, 1 it would make particles take on the appearance of a probability wave when not being observed because they could freely jump left and right, but when you began observing you would increase the latent energy surrounding the particles which would decrease the amount of steps a particle could skip and narrow the probability of where it ends up. This would result in particles acting like waves when not being observed, and seeming to become particles again once you looked, but in reality it was a particle the entire time you simply limited it's capacity to move when you looked at it. Basically because of the 2nd rule, the 4th rule is able to completely explain the particle-wave duality, and at the same time explain why the particles in large objects do not behave like waves, it is because their energy-mass ratio has become to great to skip steps and can now only move in single quanta steps.
Take this a step further and you can explain quantum tunneling, as two particles begin to collide each of their energy is great enough to keep the other from skipping any steps, but as the weak force tries to push them apart it will actually feed energy into the particles, in cases where one of the particles gains enough energy from this process it will once again be able to skip a step. This will take it past the barrier of the weak force and allow it to collide with the other particle.
What I find funny is that people are having the greatest trouble accepting the 2nd rule of my hypothesis when I never went into this thinking about distance at all. I simply realized towards the end that by adding the second rule there are so many "spooky" things in physics that became explainable, especially in quantum physics.
You are incorrect in your thinking, if you removed all the energy between the earth and the moon that will leave a void, darkness but still space, space cannot be removed or destroyed, it is everywhere, it is ''godly''.
Post by: ggimark on 22/10/2015 16:06:40
Ok, I see what you are thinking now,This is the standard way of seeing it but I have to ask, why? According to Relativity space is not just a static constant, it bends, stretches, contracts, folds, it can be contracted and contorted in a multitude of ways. All of this implies that space is a very real and physical substance, which means that it is quite possibly just another form of energy. Now I'm not saying that it would ever be possible to remove space from something, on the contrary I think it would be like trying to remove water from the bottom of the ocean... with your bare hands. But I do not believe for a second that it is "godly", it has to be simply another form of energy, otherwise it could not have physical properties and then gravity would not exist. What I have done is define those physical properties in the only way that I could and still maintain consistency with what we know about nature.
You are incorrect in your thinking, if you removed all the energy between the earth and the moon that will leave a void, darkness but still space, space cannot be removed or destroyed, it is everywhere, it is ''godly''.
These 4 rules allow for both gravity and quantum mechanics to exist not just simultaneously, but hand in hand. Sure it asks for a leap of faith on the concept of distance being zero, but then it's not actually such a leap when you put it beside the "Zero-energy universe" theory that states our universe has 0 total energy. This then begs the question that if the universe has 0 total energy could it not also exist in a space the takes up 0 total distance? And then if there is 0 energy, and zero distance, what would the rules of such a universe be? My answer to this question are the 4 rules of Zero Theory.
So I would ask this of you, can you create a hypothetical or real life situation that I would be unable to explain with Zero Theory? It is only 4 simple rules, and barely takes up 262 words, if it is as untenable as people believe than it will not hold up to scrutiny. I accept all challenges.
Post by: guest39538 on 22/10/2015 18:58:57
Sure it asks for a leap of faith on the concept of distance being zero,
That is the point , a distance can never equal zero or it would not be called a distance it would be called a point. The only way to decrease distance between masses is displacement of one or both masses. Space is not something that can be removed or shortened or destroyed, so you are talking about physical impossibilities and in-physical possibilities. It just can't happen. I do not think you understood relativity, space itself does not bend, curve, stretch etc, the forces in and of space, energies in and of space, bend ,stretch ect.
Post by: Wajideu on 22/10/2015 22:18:48
P <----- O
Where P is a person, O is an object, and the arrow can be seen as the light reflecting off the object so that the person observes it. General relativity is based on Gaussian geometry, which is based on curvature of space:
P <.__.- O
The shortest distance between P and O is still the same, but the actual distance is slightly larger. Einstein postulated that gravity and inertia were the same force, meaning that both could have an impact on the curvature of space and that the closer P is to O, the more 'compressed' (or rather, closer to Euclidean distance) that the measurement of time it takes for the light to reach the person appears (relatively speaking).
Post by: ggimark on 23/10/2015 06:03:59
That is the point , a distance can never equal zero or it would not be called a distance it would be called a point.Umm, that's kind of what I'm getting at, my theory is stating that distance does not exist. I'm not using space as a measurement of distance, I'm saying space creates an illusion of distance that does not actually exist, that the universe does in fact exist in a point.
Space is not something that can be removed or shortened or destroyed, so you are talking about physical impossibilities and in-physical possibilities. It just can't happen. I do not think you understood relativity, space itself does not bend, curve, stretch etc, the forces in and of space, energies in and of space, bend ,stretch ect.For starters here is where physics itself comes into disagreement, Relativity requires that all of space-time by a smooth unbroken fabric at all times, where as quantum physics requires that space-time be subdivided into the tiniest slice possible. I'm attempting to remedy this situation by stating that space-time is an ocean of energy, simultaneously a single fluid entity, and comprised of a multitude of drops.
Secondly you are contradicting yourself when you you say that "space itself does not bend, curve, stretch..." and then in the same sentence say that "energies in and of space, bend, stretch ect..." everything that exists is energy, E=mc2 tells us that quite plainly. You can not say that something does not do something but its energy does because its energy is the very thing in question. The best I can figure it is this, you are defining the word "space" as two completely separate entities in the same word: First an absolute void that does not exist physically, and then secondly an energy that physically exists and fills that void. You're then calculating distance based on the void, but calculating space based on the energy. My hypothesis says that the void aspect of space that you imagine does not exist, and instead space and all of its properties belong solely to its energy.
I think you're misunderstanding general relativity a bit. Neither the distance nor the space change. What's different is the curvature of space. In Euclidean geometry, you see things like this:
P <----- O
Where P is a person, O is an object, and the arrow can be seen as the light reflecting off the object so that the person observes it. General relativity is based on Gaussian geometry, which is based on curvature of space:
P <.__.- O
The shortest distance between P and O is still the same, but the actual distance is slightly larger. Einstein postulated that gravity and inertia were the same force, meaning that both could have an impact on the curvature of space and that the closer P is to O, the more 'compressed' (or rather, closer to Euclidean distance) that the measurement of time it takes for the light to reach the person appears (relatively speaking).
This brings us back to my point with TheBox, for starters you bring the same contradiction into play by stating "Neither the distance nor the space change" and then later stating "The shortest distance between P and O is still the same, but the actual distance is slightly larger" These two separate sets of distance, the shortest distance between P and O, and the distance of the curvature of space between P and O, stem from the exact same concept that I pointed out with TheBox. You're applying a duality to space, first a static and non-physical void that maintains the shortest distance between P and O, and second, the physical spacial energy that curves between P and O. Once again I have to state that my hypothesis removes the static void from the equation, and states that space and all of its properties belong to its energy. That there is no "shortest distance" to any point, only more spacial energy or less spacial energy.
Finally, both of you seem to believe that I'm laboring under some delusion that my hypothesis conforms to General Relativity. Believe me when I say I am under no such misconception. My hypothesis instead seeks to challenge Relativity and actually places it more into the domain of quantum physics, while at the same time removing quantum physics from the realm of the spooky and explainable. Instead of space curving when it interacts with matter, I say that it can become more dense, just as matter becomes dense. And instead of accepting that quantum physics can only be accepted but not explained, I change its behavior from "chance" to a particles interaction or lack of interaction with spacial energy. Basically my hypothesis boils the whole of the universe down to the interaction or lack of interaction between energy in the form of matter, and energy in the form of space. Because of this I have absolutely no need for distance, and no need for chance.
Post by: guest39538 on 23/10/2015 06:10:56
Umm, that's kind of what I'm getting at, my theory is stating that distance does not exist. I'm not using space as a measurement of distance, I'm saying space creates an illusion of distance that does not actually exist, that the universe does in fact exist in a point.
This is why you are completely wrong, because distance does exist and will always exist. There is no contradiction when i say space itself does not bend of stretch, do you know what space means?
''a continuous area or expanse which is free, available, or unoccupied.''
Remove all the energy from space and you are left with?
A void of space.
Energy is not space, space has energy in it, there is a big difference there.
Post by: ggimark on 23/10/2015 06:53:34
This is why you are completely wrong, because distance does exist and will always exist. There is no contradiction when i say space itself does not bend of stretch, do you know what space means?
''a continuous area or expanse which is free, available, or unoccupied.''
Remove all the energy from space and you are left with?
A void of space.
Energy is not space, space has energy in it, there is a big difference there.
Also "The dimensions of height, depth, and width within which all things exist and move."
Ok, then I have some questions, if the void exists, where does it end? Does it end at all? Would it have been in the universe before the big bang? Or did it occur simultaneously? Or after? When the space between galaxies expands, does the void expand with it? Or is the whole of time and space pushed further out into the void? If so this brings us full circle to "does the void have an end?" If so does that mean the edges of our universe are being smashed against the end of this spacial void as the space between galaxies expands? If it does not have an end, then what exactly is our universe contained in? If the void has no end then our universe is infinite and thus singular, all theories that allow for a multi-verse or parallel universes are null and void. If the void does have an end then it is finite, quantifiable, and thus most likely not a void at all.
Now for another train of thought, if the universe does in fact have a finite distance scale, please explain Quantum Entanglement to me between two particles on opposite ends of the universe. Also please explain how quantum tunneling is capable of allowing particles to ignoring that distance scale you cling to so fiercely and effectively teleport from one side of a barrier to the other without crossing any of the space in-between. I also need an explanation for the holographic principal of black holes that allows for all of the information that enters a black hole to exist simultaneously in 2 places at once. And not two separate copies of the information, but the original actually being both at the event horizon and inside of the singularity at the same time. These are all very real instances when the universe decides that it simply doesn't care about any standards of distance that we have conceived.
Now my hypothesis works to explain all of these things in conjunction with everything else in the universe. If you can say unequivocally that I am wrong beyond a shadow of a doubt, then please provide me with a better hypothesis that explains all of these events since surely one must exists if you can be so completely sure that distance is real...
Post by: Wajideu on 23/10/2015 09:24:53
- A straight line is the shortest distance between 2 points in space.
- Any curved line will travel a longer distance than a straight line.
- The more curved a line between two points is, the longer the distance of the line
- If can be inferred that the closer two points are to each other, less curvature there is between them.
- Gravity and inertia are the same force.
- All objects with mass have gravity.
- Gravity affects how an object travels along a spacial curve.
Time compression / dilation is the result of traveling along these curves. The longer the curve between you and an object, the more time it takes for the light bouncing off the object to reach you. The shorter the curve between you and the object, the closer it is to becoming a straight line. There's a limit to how dilated or compressed time can be.
Post by: ggimark on 23/10/2015 10:17:59
Okay, my statement apparently went over your head, so I'll try again.
A straight line is the shortest distance between 2 points in space.
Any curved line will travel a longer distance than a straight line.
The more curved a line between two points is, the longer the distance of the line
And for general relativity:
If can be inferred that the closer two points are to each other, less curvature there is between them.
Gravity and inertia are the same force.
All objects with mass have gravity.
Gravity affects how an object travels along a spacial curve.
Time compression / dilation is the result of traveling along these curves. The longer the curve between you and an object, the more time it takes for the light bouncing off the object to reach you. The shorter the curve between you and the object, the closer it is to becoming a straight line. There's a limit to how dilated or compressed time can be.
Yes I do understand Relativity, I fully grasp the concept of the shortest distance between any two points being a strait line. I grasp the concept of curved space creating gravity and time-dilation. I understand that F=G
, sure that's Newtonian gravity but we still use it for the mass majority of our calculations. I do have to ask though, did you miss the part where I said...both of you seem to believe that I'm laboring under some delusion that my hypothesis conforms to General Relativity. Believe me when I say I am under no such misconception. My hypothesis instead seeks to challenge Relativity and actually places it more into the domain of quantum physics, while at the same time removing quantum physics from the realm of the spooky and unexplained.
Einstein used curved space-time to explain gravity, where as I have found that you could remove the curvature of space time and replace it with density of space and achieve all of the same results. Light would still curve in the presence of massive objects, time-dilation would still occur, gravity would still work exactly as it does. But where this hypothesis shines is in the things it can explain that Relativity cannot, such as achieving a unity with quantum physics that no one has yet come close to...
Post by: guest39538 on 23/10/2015 11:02:54
1.Ok, then I have some questions, if the void exists, where does it end?1. Presently the void ends as far as we can visual observe, a finite universe, outside of this boundary is speculation although most scientists and some earthly experiments agree it is infinite.
2. Does it end at all?
3.Would it have been in the universe before the big bang?
4. Or did it occur simultaneously?
5.Or after?
6.When the space between galaxies expands, does the void expand with it?
7.Or is the whole of time and space pushed further out into the void?
8. If so this brings us full circle to "does the void have an end?"
9.If so does that mean the edges of our universe are being smashed against the end of this spacial void as the space between galaxies expands?
10. If it does not have an end, then what exactly is our universe contained in?
2.see 1
3. Present theory says no, there was nothing, but this is just theory not fact, I believe yes this void was always there and is infinite by some simple logic.
4. see 3, the simultaneous bit is present theory, I believe this is impossible.
5. see 4 and 3
6. Again present theory says yes, I say no by physical observations on earth.
7. yes sort of in my opinion but only time and light pushes out not space itself
8. no end and impossibility in my opinion by earthly observations
9. One possibility see 1
10. see 1, a space within a space or a space within a solid that is within a space, the only two options.
Post by: Colin2B on 23/10/2015 13:09:14
.. a distance can never equal zero or it would not be called a distance ..It could be an observer effect.
Elsewhere you argue that a circle is an observer effect, but a circle is made up of distances. The definition is of a point moving at a fixed distance from a centre. It would seem reasonable to assume that if shapes and waves are observer effects then distance is as well.
Post by: guest39538 on 23/10/2015 14:05:20
.. a distance can never equal zero or it would not be called a distance ..It could be an observer effect.
Elsewhere you argue that a circle is an observer effect, but a circle is made up of distances. The definition is of a point moving at a fixed distance from a centre. It would seem reasonable to assume that if shapes and waves are observer effects then distance is as well.
That would be an invalid assumption, voids have no physical presence of anything but a volume of space and dimensions.
A circle yes,
''In science, the term observer effect refers to changes that the act of observation will make on a phenomenon being observed''
A circle is in the void
Post by: Colin2B on 23/10/2015 14:10:17
A circle is in the voidSo you think Stonehenge and the plate on your table and the wheels on your car are all in a void?
If circles are in the void distance could be as well.
Post by: guest39538 on 23/10/2015 14:34:31
A circle is in the voidSo you think Stonehenge and the plate on your table and the wheels on your car are all in a void?
If circles are in the void distance could be as well.
By definition a void does not mean without space, and spaces have a distance,always have,always will.
Even light and CBMR is in this void making it not a void.
Post by: Colin2B on 23/10/2015 23:41:47
Umm, that's kind of what I'm getting at, my theory is stating that distance does not exist. I'm not using space as a measurement of distance, I'm saying space creates an illusion of distance that does not actually exist, that the universe does in fact exist in a point.I think is not surprising that this is the first thing people are questioning. Distance is so fundamental to our understanding and description of the world around us. Even the box with his strange idea of circles only existing in a void cannot conceive of a world without dimensions.
I must say that if it an illusion it is a pretty convincing one and has fooled a lot of people for a very long time.
Given its very ingrained nature, I can't see you getting past this point.
It also seems quite radical just to explain a few minor anomalies. It will be interesting to see how develop your theory to explain all aspects of what we observe and whether you can build the maths to explain your theory without using distance. For example you are already using words such as forwards, backwards, move, beyond, all of which rely on there being a concept of distance and have no meaning in a point universe.
Post by: ggimark on 24/10/2015 05:54:43
By definition a void does not mean without space, and spaces have a distance,always have,always will.
Even light and CBMR is in this void making it not a void.
The quantum world is also in this void of yours, so can you explain how the orbit of an electron behaves the way it does in this void? In an atom the electron orbiting a nucleus jumps between different orbits, and by jumps I mean it teleports instantly from one orbit to another orbit without touching any of the "distance" in between, this is where we get the term "quantum leap" from. How are electrons able to defy traveling distance if they are in fact inside of a void that defines a set distance?
I think is not surprising that this is the first thing people are questioning. Distance is so fundamental to our understanding and description of the world around us. Even the box with his strange idea of circles only existing in a void cannot conceive of a world without dimensions.
I must say that if it an illusion it is a pretty convincing one and has fooled a lot of people for a very long time.
Given its very ingrained nature, I can't see you getting past this point.
It also seems quite radical just to explain a few minor anomalies. It will be interesting to see how develop your theory to explain all aspects of what we observe and whether you can build the maths to explain your theory without using distance. For example you are already using words such as forwards, backwards, move, beyond, all of which rely on there being a concept of distance and have no meaning in a point universe.
I do agree with you Colin, it is quite radical, and I may be completely wrong. And I do concede that forward and backwards are not the best words to use considering that I am removing distance. But it is very difficult to describe opposing forces without using direction in their description. The base principle is that spacial energy is behaving in a manner that is opposite to the energy of matter, and the interaction between these opposed forces generates the universe we see today, such as mass and gravity.
The reason why I have chosen to pursue this abstract train of thought though is because of its potential to bring order and reason into the quantum world that we can not see. Instead of saying that a particle acts as both a wave and a particle just because it does, it is able to apply a cause to the effect. As well as give an explanation for the mechanics behind quantum tunneling. And most importantly doing all of these things at once, with relatively simple rules that boil down to (Matter either interacts with space or it does not, and this is what occurs when it does one or the other.)
As for these matters being minor anomalies, this is where it's just a simple difference of opinion. To me, I tend to believe that the small anomalies are what make or break things. For instance, if I had a marathon runner and I stated "This marathon runner will run 50 kilometers a day in exactly 5 hours, without ever stopping or slowing, 7 days a week, 365 days a year." So we tested this theory for 365 days, and every day he ran 50 kilometers in exactly 5 hours without stopping or slowing, except every second Tuesday he stopped halfway and got a drink of water before finishing his run. Could I say that my original statement was true? No I would have to amend it to "but he gets a drink of water every second Tuesday which adds *blank* amount of time". So then I have to calculate how much time he takes on every second Tuesday with his water break. But what happens if I calculate each of his water breaks and find that he usually takes exactly 30 seconds to drink his water, but on every 3rd water-break he takes 60 seconds and every 12th water-break takes 42 seconds.
I could keep going but this is running long anyways, the basic point is this, sure the water-breaks were small anomalies, but they completely changed everything I held to be true, just because my original theory worked exactly for 13 out of every 14 days it could not explain the 14th. And if I needed to be as accurate as possible even the 14th day had anomalies I would have to further define. And then if you started asking the question "why does he need a water break on that day but no other?" and "why is the water break usually consistent but then suddenly changes as well?" My original theory is no where near sufficient to answer any of these questions.
My whole point with this long analogy is that Relativity is basically the 339 days that always do what we expect, but then on the other 26 days we looked at really small stuff and we were like "Whoa! This doesn't do what we expected" But the 339 days really worked well so instead of changing the original theory completely we just added an addendum that on those 26 days the runner behaves differently. However when we tried to explain what was different about those 26 days we found that there were even more anomalies in those days. So eventually we laid out a set of rules for the day on which each of those anomalies would occur and said "there it's fixed." And then when asked "well why do those anomalies happen that way our answer was basically "well that's simple, the answer to your question is... you're not allowed to ask that question." But in all of this we never thought to ask "What makes a runner get thirsty?" It's not a perfect metaphor, but it is pretty close.
All of this said, I have to thank you Colin for being willing to think outside of the box and look at my hypothesis as something interesting instead of just dismissing it outright because you don't agree with its premise. And especially for defending parts of that premise in my absence even without fully accepting it.
Post by: sam7 on 24/10/2015 09:33:26
I know it sounds pedantic, but it's actually quite important if you want people to take you seriously.
Post by: guest39538 on 24/10/2015 11:23:43
The quantum world is also in this void of yours, so can you explain how the orbit of an electron behaves the way it does in this void? In an atom the electron orbiting a nucleus jumps between different orbits, and by jumps I mean it teleports instantly from one orbit to another orbit without touching any of the "distance" in between, this is where we get the term "quantum leap" from. How are electrons able to defy traveling distance if they are in fact inside of a void that defines a set distance?
Can I explain the electron transporting from one point to another without travelling through a distance? yes
Can science explain,no
It would just be my logical opinion if I told you.
Post by: ggimark on 24/10/2015 14:33:42
It's is a contraction if 'it is'. Its is the possessive form, which is the one you want.
I know it sounds pedantic, but it's actually quite important if you want people to take you seriously.
Thank you Sam, I mean it, I did not realize how many times I had misused the contraction until I went back specifically looking for it. They all should be fixed now.
The quantum world is also in this void of yours, so can you explain how the orbit of an electron behaves the way it does in this void? In an atom the electron orbiting a nucleus jumps between different orbits, and by jumps I mean it teleports instantly from one orbit to another orbit without touching any of the "distance" in between, this is where we get the term "quantum leap" from. How are electrons able to defy traveling distance if they are in fact inside of a void that defines a set distance?
Can I explain the electron transporting from one point to another without travelling through a distance? yes
Can science explain,no
It would just be my logical opinion if I told you.
So what is your logical opinion?
Post by: jeffreyH on 24/10/2015 14:55:32
Okay, my statement apparently went over your head, so I'll try again.And for general relativity:
- A straight line is the shortest distance between 2 points in space.
- Any curved line will travel a longer distance than a straight line.
- The more curved a line between two points is, the longer the distance of the line
- If can be inferred that the closer two points are to each other, less curvature there is between them.
- Gravity and inertia are the same force.
- All objects with mass have gravity.
- Gravity affects how an object travels along a spacial curve.
Time compression / dilation is the result of traveling along these curves. The longer the curve between you and an object, the more time it takes for the light bouncing off the object to reach you. The shorter the curve between you and the object, the closer it is to becoming a straight line. There's a limit to how dilated or compressed time can be.
What are your thoughts on inertia and wavelength?
Post by: guest39538 on 24/10/2015 15:24:52
So what is your logical opinion?
The observation of the electron position A is not the same electron observation as position B. They are different electrons.
Post by: ggimark on 24/10/2015 16:47:12
So what is your logical opinion?
The observation of the electron position A is not the same electron observation as position B. They are different electrons.
So you're saying that you believe electrons essentially clone themselves? Take a hydrogen atom for instance, it only has 1 electron to begin with, so it would effectively have to simultaneously clone itself in a different orbit and destroy itself in its current orbit. So the new electron would be a clone. However both the cloning and the destruction would require energy, which does work for increases in orbit, since each uptick occurs when the electrons energy increases. However decreases in orbit are accomplished when the electron loses energy which doesn't allow for it to use that energy to clone and destroy itself.
Post by: guest39538 on 24/10/2015 17:56:33
So you're saying that you believe electrons essentially clone themselves? Take a hydrogen atom for instance, it only has 1 electron to begin with, so it would effectively have to simultaneously clone itself in a different orbit and destroy itself in its current orbit. So the new electron would be a clone. However both the cloning and the destruction would require energy, which does work for increases in orbit, since each uptick occurs when the electrons energy increases. However decreases in orbit are accomplished when the electron loses energy which doesn't allow for it to use that energy to clone and destroy itself.
I am saying that there is no proof a hydrogen atom has one electron, that is a theory, I am not saying clones, I am saying it is a different electron altogether than the original viewed.
Post by: ggimark on 24/10/2015 21:14:40
I am saying that there is no proof a hydrogen atom has one electron, that is a theory, I am not saying clones, I am saying it is a different electron altogether than the original viewed.
Ok, pretty outside of the box theory but obviously I'm not in any position to complain since I'm the guy that wants to invalidate the concept of distance... However you then need to explain the absorption and subsequent expulsion of photons by the electrons because by this standard the electron in low orbit would have to absorb photons, but the electron in high orbit would be responsible for emitting photons. How is the energy between electrons transferred to explain spectral lines?
Post by: jeffreyH on 24/10/2015 23:28:49
Post by: ggimark on 25/10/2015 07:34:00
You cannot have velocity in a point universe without distance. Therefore you cannot have kinetic energy. You also cannot have any types of wave in a point universe. So ultimately you have zero energy in a point universe. I would imagine that gives zero probability that this hypothesis is correct.
For starters it is quite possible that velocity doesn't exist in the first place. According to Quantum Mechanics particles do not move, they jump one quanta at a time, they disappear from one location and reappear in the next location. So in fact everything in the universe that you see moving, is in fact disappearing and reappearing in a slightly different location countless times per second. If you delve into Maxwell's equation that is exactly what an electromagnetic wave does. It self propels itself through space by appearing slightly ahead of itself and disappearing from it's current place. This means that on the atomic level, absolutely nothing ever "moves".
And as for waves being unable to exist inside a point universe, that is something that I am completely fine with. My hypothesis demonstrates how a particle could take on the illusion of a wave without ever being a wave. It even matches perfectly with the spectrum of light, let's just take the visible spectrum for instance, blue having the shortest wavelength and the least energy, and red having the longest wavelength and highest energy. In my hypothesis a particle of light doesn't actually have a "wavelength" however it's total energy dictates how many quanta it can skip past at any given time. The lower its energy the fewer steps it can skip, and vice versa. This matches up exactly with the observed universe and effectively eliminates the need for particles to be waves, but it does allow for them to appear to behave as waves.
As for the universe having zero energy, that is actually entirely possible and as I pointed out in a previous response, according the the Zero Energy Universe theory it is precisely the case. And I am perfectly fine with the universe having zero energy because a universe with zero energy would make it completely plausible that it is also a universe with zero distance.
You say my hypothesis has zero probability of being correct, this is a statement you cannot make without providing something to disprove at least one facet. Without providing some type of observational evidence against it you can in no way unilaterally dismiss it. On the contrary, so far I have been the one able to refute all the arguments against it by simple explanation of its mechanics that match with the observed universe as we know it. Which means that for the moment, from a logical standpoint, there is a higher "probability" that you are wrong than that I am.
Post by: jeffreyH on 25/10/2015 13:15:59
Post by: Colin2B on 25/10/2015 15:06:13
Post by: Ethos_ on 25/10/2015 15:54:32
Stating that the universe has zero diameter and that distance between any two points is always zero defines your perception of reality as an existence void of any dimensions what so ever. Yet you use terms like distance, points, forward, backward, and between. Until you can define your theory without using terms that contradict your initial premise, your theory has ZERO plausibility.
Zero Theory:
1st Rule:
All of Space and Matter is comprised of the same energy
A: Energy moving forward = Matter
B: Energy moving backwards = Space
C: The interaction between these two energies = Mass
D: Should energy collide with an object which it cannot move through, reflect off of, or be absorbed by it will
reverse
2nd Rule:
The diameter of the universe is 0. And the distance between any 2 points is always 0.
A: However any amount of the two types of energy can exist between 2 points.
Post by: ggimark on 26/10/2015 10:07:20
So how does a quantum jump happen? It requires a location. Therefore each quanta must be positioned in a set of unique locations. If not then all quanta overlap. You have no distinction between them. They are all one thing. If you can show how to remove the spatial dimension from a quantum jump then I may take notice.Well let me ask you this, do you believe that there is distance inside of the singularity of a black hole? Or do you believe that all of the quanta within the singularity overlap? I personally do not believe that they overlap, and yet their overall diameter is infinitesimally small or basically zero. Yet there would still be energy at it's edge, energy at its center, and energy in-between, but on the whole there would be no distance between any of these points. I see absolutely no reason why our universe should not exist in a similar state since, the laws of our universe allow such a thing to exist so it makes since that our universe itself could exist in a similar state.
Let's take a hydrogen atom with its single orbiting electron as an example. Between the nucleus and the electron is mostly empty space. I believe that each quanta of that space is actually another particle, so that when the electron gains or loses energy it jumps between those particles. This results in a quantum leap that results in the electron seeming to skip over empty space.
How would you explain what is responsible for our perception of distance?The same way I account for our inability to see neutrinos, if our senses did perceive neutrinos we would essentially be blind because there are so many of them whizzing around us that we would not be able to see anything else. Biology does not evolve to perceive the universe as it is, biology evolves to perceive the parts of the universe that are beneficial to biology and nothing more. And in fact our senses are the worst possible scientific instruments imaginable, we do not see most of the light in the universe, we barely hear a tiny fraction of the sounds that are all around us. Even our sense of smell, taste, and touch are abysmal at telling us the true breadth and width of everything we interact with on a daily basis. Or perception of the universe is actually nowhere close to a true representation of almost anything about the universe, so why would this be any different?
But if you want me to quantify an explanation of distance and why you would perceive it as such I would put it this way. If you took two particles each the size of one quanta that seemed 10 quanta apart, I would say that that instead of looking at 2 particles, you were actually looking at 12 particles. The extra 10 particles are spacial particles, no less real than your original 2. Now if one of your two matter particles makes a quantum leap that makes it appear closer to the other particle, you would now have 9 spacial particles between the two, but the 10th particle would still be there, it is now simply on the other side. To me the distance between the two particles never changed, just the energy between them.
Stating that the universe has zero diameter and that distance between any two points is always zero defines your perception of reality as an existence void of any dimensions what so ever. Yet you use terms like distance, points, forward, backward, and between. Until you can define your theory without using terms that contradict your initial premise, your theory has ZERO plausibility.This brings me back to one of my other questions, is the singularity of a black hole a point? Is it 3 dimensional? Or is it both? I am arguing that it is both, that even though it is infinitesimally small, and even with a diameter of zero, it still has an edge, a center, and an in-between. And I see absolutely no reason why our own universe could not exist in a similar state.
Post by: Wajideu on 27/10/2015 22:48:52
What are your thoughts on inertia and wavelength?My thought on inertia is that it's the result of velocity across a higher-dimensional axis, which would also explain gravity. This is actually part of my theory I posted a few days ago (http://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=60870.msg469793#msg469793).
I'm not sure what you mean though when you ask me what my thoughts on wavelength are. (the wavelength of what exactly?)
Post by: guest39538 on 01/11/2015 11:35:21
You need to change your title slightly,
The zero distance theory of perceived distance.
You are trying to explain that if we removed the energy between point A and point B the length of distance will perceivable contract between the two points. This is correct, light intensity and radius playing key roles in sight. However the distance remains , just without light, dark space being ''opaque '' to sight.
added- however it is not new theory, it is something we already know the physics of.
Post by: ggimark on 02/11/2015 00:46:54
Every now and again something just comes to me, I can't explain this something it just happens, a few minutes ago that something just happened, I have no idea why the idea just came into my head, then you and you post came into my head, I now understand exactly in detail, you are absolutely correct, I now see your thoughts better than yourself, maths can explain your idea, I have had the same idea but described differently, your idea enlightened me, thank you, I have now clarity of my thoughts on the same idea and now do have a picture of everything.
You need to change your title slightly,
The zero distance theory of perceived distance.
You are trying to explain that if we removed the energy between point A and point B the length of distance will perceivable contract between the two points. This is correct, light intensity and radius playing key roles in sight. However the distance remains , just without light, dark space being ''opaque '' to sight.
added- however it is not new theory, it is something we already know the physics of.
Yes yes yes, I'm so happy that someone finally got what I was trying to explain! And I completely believe that this can be explained in mathematical form. I do agree that your title is a much better description of the theory as a whole, though my title was actually kind of a nod to my original attempt to reconcile the zeros that pop up in the mathematics of black holes while at the same time describing the theory that was born from pursuing that train of thought.
I also completely get what you're talking about when something just pops into your head and everything begins to fall into place because of it. This theory was exactly that for myself. I spent about 3 months strait thinking about and rethinking black holes day after day without ever making any progress at all. Then one day while driving I had a single crystallizing thought that made everything fall into place and within a few hours I had worked out most of what ended up in my theory. Basically my brain accomplished in just a few hours more than it had in the 3 prior months combined.