Naked Science Forum
On the Lighter Side => New Theories => Topic started by: talanum1 on 31/08/2020 10:34:07
-
The proof goes as follows:
Number Statement Reason
1 Positively and negatively charged matter particles attracts and exist in
spacetime. Postulate
2 Matter particles must substitute for spacetime events. 1
3 Only spacetime events may substitute for other spacetime events. Postulate
4 Matter particles must be made of spacetime events. 2, 3
QED.
-
That is nonsense.
At best, it's a circular argument and therefore invalid.
-
Space-time is a reference system for observing and quantifying physical and material reality. In this physical reality, time and space always appear to be connected. One way to see this is to separate time and space, and then try to apply the laws of physics as we know.
For example, say we have an object moving in space from point A to point B. However, time will now act apart from these space coordinates. Point A will be now but point B will be yesterday at exactly midnight. This scenario is messed up in terms of the laws of physics, since we do not normally see motion going back in time over a short span of distance. This is not of this universe.
In this universe, time has to stay connected to space in certain ways.Therefor time can only move forward and time has to stay within a range that does not violate the speed of light. The time interval cannot be too small, or else this is not part of the universe. With matter not all things are possible. What is possible needs to stay within specific space-time parameters. If we depart or time breaks away from space, new physics would need to be defined.
-
At best, it's a circular argument and therefore invalid.
What statement is circular and why?
Space-time is a reference system for observing and quantifying physical and material reality. In this physical reality, time and space always appear to be connected
Relevance?
-
Your postulate
Matter particles must substitute for spacetime events.
Is essentially the same as your conclusion
Matter particles must be made of spacetime events.
But it's hard to tell because none of your terms is properly defined.
Your previous attempts at definitions have been unsuccessful
-
Replace line 2 with:
2 Matter particles, whatever they are made of, must substitute for spacetime events. 1.
-
Replace line 2 with:
2 Matter particles, whatever they are made of, must substitute for spacetime events. 1.
That's meaningless.
I got out of bed this morning.
That's a spacetime event.
Do you think it's a proton or an electron?
-
I got out of bed this morning.
That's a spacetime event.
I mean with "spacetime event" the point in space together with a local time at the point.
-
Matter and especially mass is the main reason we have space-time events. If you consider General Relativity, mass controls the local expression of space-time. The more mass you add to any given volume of space, the more space-time curves. The universe is composed of pockets of curved space-time all interconnected by what we call gravity all led by mass.
According to Special Relativity, mass cannot move at the speed of light. Therefore, since mass cannot not be found at the speed of light reference, neither can space-time or gravity as we know it. Space-time becomes discontinuous at the speed of light due to no mass to sustain it. This allows time and space to act independently of each other. One can move in time without space limitations and move in space without time limitations. This unusual set of properties is not a property of matter or mass, since matter and mass sets limits that we call space-time.
If you look at gravitational force, the equations say this goes to infinity. The question is how is that possible, since it would take more time, even at the speed of light, to reach infinity, than mass has been around in the universe. The answer to this mystery is the gravitational force creates acceleration which is d/t/t. Acceleration is one part distance and two parts time, or space-time plus time. It is more than just space-time. This is the intersection of space-time and speed of light reference time, which has no space limitation. To infinity is quite easy, in the speed of light reference since time is not distance dependent. This allows the universe to coordinate in space-time over huge distances, that seem to not apply to space-time.
-
the speed of light reference
You still haven't explained what you think that phrase means.
Why do you keep using it?
-
Here is an argument for "Yes":
Matter follows geodesics in spacetime therefore it respects spacetime. Why should anything not made of spacetime respect it?
-
Matter follows geodesics in spacetime therefore it respects spacetime. Why should anything not made of spacetime respect it?
Why should water respect metal pipes when the metal pipes aren't made out of water?
-
Why should water respect metal pipes when the metal pipes aren't made out of water?
They are both made of spacetime events.
-
They are both made of spacetime events.
You still have not told is what you think the phrase "spacetime event" means.
-
You still have not told is what you think the phrase "spacetime event" means.
Points of space together with time stamps at the points.
-
Moreover: matter respects time.
-
You still have not told is what you think the phrase "spacetime event" means.
Points of space together with time stamps at the points.
Then this is wrong.
Why should water respect metal pipes when the metal pipes aren't made out of water?
They are both made of spacetime events.
Pipes are commonly made from copper, for example.
-
Pipes are commonly made from copper, for example.
And copper is made out of spacetime events.
-
BC got out of bed (bed being a location in space) this morning (a local time of the point).
So you at least seem to have some clue as to what an event is, but him getting up this morning is still not a proton.
BC getting out of bed specifies a set of spacetime events. A proton is made of half a Riemann Sphere, with another half made of left out events. Isn't it neat that an abstract reference to nothing makes a proton?
-
A proton is made of half a Riemann Sphere
No it isn't.
Proof by loud assertion isn't going to work here.
Isn't it neat that an abstract reference to nothing makes a proton?
No.
And copper is made out of spacetime events.
I think you might as well just call it "stuff".
It would be less trouble, and just as helpful.
-
When you come right down to it, doesn't the Universe actually consist of bits of "stuff" with gaps in between them?
In modern Science, we call the stuff "Matter". And the gaps "Space".
These words "Matter" and "Space" sound profound and impressive. More so than "Stuff" and "Gaps" would.
-
These words "Matter" and "Space" sound profound and impressive. More so than "Stuff" and "Gaps" would.
And Talanum1 isn't actually saying anything "profound", so words like "stuff" are more appropriate.
-
It makes more sense that space-time events stem from matter interacting with space-time. For example, the mass/matter of the earth, defines the curvature profile of space-time around and within the earth.This is defined by General Relativity. Changes in space-time is a product or result of the mass and distance between the mass. It is not space-time magically materializing the matter. We never see the earth reappear somewhere else in the solar system due to interference in the space-time grid. The matter and mass keeps space-time in place. The expansion of the universe is based on mass spreading out the space-time profile.
The topic premise, however, is actually consistent with how physics often treats space-time and mass when it comes to Special Relativity; SR. Einstein presented SR with three equations, one each for mass, time and distance. Time and distance affects; space-time, can be directly observed such as through changes in wavelength and frequency of emitted photons. However, mass and relativistic mass cannot be measured, directly, from distant sources. These have to be inferred, indirectly, from energy and photons, which give us space-time readings. This practical limitation for inferring distant mass and relativistic mass creates the impression mass is derived and therefore induced by space-time. This approach has conceptual problems, but it is done anyway due to the necessity of the situation.
This limitation and practical solution to defining the mass and matter of the universe, from observed energy, has led some to assume one can ignore mass and therefore the real universal energy balance, that needs mass, in favor of space-time and relative reference. This has led to other conceptual problems.
Mass needs to come first, but this is impossible to do, in terms of a universal procedure, since we cannot directly measure mass and relativistic mass beyond a certain distance. In the case of the earth, we can measure and estimate the mass by the material compositions and we can also confirm that space-time has conformed as defined by GR. The mass of the moon and objects that are further out, needs to be indirectly inferred based on the earth's mass. Beyond the solar system mass is too far out and it needs to be inferred by GR affects in space-time, with changes in space-time; photons, where we need to start.
Don't confuse applied science, with pure science, since applied science makes use of pure science, but in ways nature did not directly create. This approach can be useful for making synthetic things with free market value, but this is not pure or natural and can lead to conceptual problems, if you assume synthetic is natural.
Let me give you an example, I can make diamonds in the lab in a short period of time using a hot press and a catalyst. This is a common way to make synthetic diamonds. This is not how nature does it even though it uses pure chemistry steps consistent the laws of chemistry. In nature we assume it is done with a natural hot press caused by the earth crust, that takes millions of years instead of an afternoon.
Since I can make hot press diamonds in the lab, in a short time, using an applied extrapolation of pure chemistry, does that means natural diamonds are made quickly and therefore have lower value than the inflated prices? De Beers Diamond Supply will disagree and may send in the goons to clear your head. Theory is not fact, but rather is an educated guess, which can be supported through applied science and lab work that be reproduced, such as for mass production of consistent consumer products. This does not prove natural since plastic bags can reproduced with experiments and they are not natural but applied theory.
-
I would have thought that the Creation of unstable radioactive elements in the heart of stars that leave blackholes in their wake is a better proof. Conservation of energy and all. The fusion of lighter elements needs to be explained in this case. I would look to gravity, under gravitational ENERGY (note its not force) atoms that have a positive potential to regional gravity can be fused, these can be fused further under heavier local gravity to atoms that degrade in lighter gravity. Regardless of the theory, the point is why the black hole? Why the super massive black hole? why the dark matter/energy?
There is alot of energy in an atom, that is as far as we have got, far more that the gravitational force of a star, far more than the fusion of hydrogen. This is why I think your theory is imperfect.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_chromodynamics_binding_energy
-
The fusion of lighter elements needs to be explained in this case.
Are you aware of the Sun?
these can be fused further under heavier local gravity to atoms that degrade in lighter gravity.
Got any evidence?
This whole tread starts of with a false promise to prove something, and goes generally downhill from there.
-
The fusion of lighter elements needs to be explained in this case.
Are you aware of the Sun?
these can be fused further under heavier local gravity to atoms that degrade in lighter gravity.
Got any evidence?
This whole tread starts of with a false promise to prove something, and goes generally downhill from there.
The irony is this topic is consistent with the way main stream physics has to deal with the universal data. This data is primarily based on energy emissions, which are composed of wavelength and frequency; distance and time or space-time. The matter of the universe has to be inferred from the energy emissions connected to only distance and time. In a conceptual sense, matter is made; has to be inferred, from observations of space-time events. This is the wave model of the universe with matter and black holes, nodal and node of an interference grid.
Let me go back to a simple thought example I have done before. Say we have a train moving toward the station, and a man sitting and waiting for the train at the station. If we only use visual evidence it is possible for the man to pretend he is moving with relative velocity V, with the train, since to the eyes motion is relative.
In this case, the assumption that man is moving, although consistent with the eyes and the space-time nature of relative motion, it will cause the real energy balance to get messed up, since a moving train has way more kinetic energy for the same relative velocity. The eyes cannot see this, and since everything is derived from the eye relative data, this absolute energy is not something you can see, but would need to infer.
Say we added another sense, beyond the eyes, that is more appropriate for ascertaining absolute motion, such as the sense of touch; ability to feel motion through motion sensors in the body. A train in motion will not be traveling over an ideal rail system on an absolute flat plane. Instead the imperfections in movement in lateral and vertical directions, will allow us to feel accelerations as the train sways as it travels. The man does not feel this. This extra sense of touch, for mass and inertia, would not allow the visually induced assumption of relative motion, except as a hypothetical example. In the case of physics, the hypothetical is presented as the real, since all we have are our eyes and this is what that exclusive eye data says.
In terms of the universe the visual only approach has led to conflicting observations that appear to contain more energy, than inferred from the original relative reference assumption. We have had to add dark energy and dark matter, neither of which has even been seen in the lab. This are needed for more energy, due to competing visual evidence.
If you look at a concepts like center of gravity, which is mass centric, the universe should have a center of gravity for all the matter of the universe. This may be a moving target. There should be a center of gravity or center to the universe. But gravity is something that is more easily felt by the body. But visual evidence, only, does not allow for any center of the universe since mass is tertiary behind distance and time. The sense of sight, creates a house of mirrors with no center. This is real to the mind, since it is derived from the majority of the data which is only visual data.
-
Got any evidence?
The fusion of lighter elements needs to be explained in this case.
Are you aware of the Sun?
these can be fused further under heavier local gravity to atoms that degrade in lighter gravity.
Got any evidence?
This whole tread starts of with a false promise to prove something, and goes generally downhill from there.
The irony is this topic is consistent with the way main stream physics has to deal with the universal data. This data is primarily based on energy emissions, which are composed of wavelength and frequency; distance and time or space-time. The matter of the universe has to be inferred from the energy emissions connected to only distance and time. In a conceptual sense, matter is made; has to be inferred, from observations of space-time events. This is the wave model of the universe with matter and black holes, nodal and node of an interference grid.
Let me go back to a simple thought example I have done before. Say we have a train moving toward the station, and a man sitting and waiting for the train at the station. If we only use visual evidence it is possible for the man to pretend he is moving with relative velocity V, with the train, since to the eyes motion is relative.
In this case, the assumption that man is moving, although consistent with the eyes and the space-time nature of relative motion, it will cause the real energy balance to get messed up, since a moving train has way more kinetic energy for the same relative velocity. The eyes cannot see this, and since everything is derived from the eye relative data, this absolute energy is not something you can see, but would need to infer.
Say we added another sense, beyond the eyes, that is more appropriate for ascertaining absolute motion, such as the sense of touch; ability to feel motion through motion sensors in the body. A train in motion will not be traveling over an ideal rail system on an absolute flat plane. Instead the imperfections in movement in lateral and vertical directions, will allow us to feel accelerations as the train sways as it travels. The man does not feel this. This extra sense of touch, for mass and inertia, would not allow the visually induced assumption of relative motion, except as a hypothetical example. In the case of physics, the hypothetical is presented as the real, since all we have are our eyes and this is what that exclusive eye data says.
In terms of the universe the visual only approach has led to conflicting observations that appear to contain more energy, than inferred from the original relative reference assumption. We have had to add dark energy and dark matter, neither of which has even been seen in the lab. This are needed for more energy, due to competing visual evidence.
If you look at a concepts like center of gravity, which is mass centric, the universe should have a center of gravity for all the matter of the universe. This may be a moving target. There should be a center of gravity or center to the universe. But gravity is something that is more easily felt by the body. But visual evidence, only, does not allow for any center of the universe since mass is tertiary behind distance and time. The sense of sight, creates a house of mirrors with no center. This is real to the mind, since it is derived from the majority of the data which is only visual data.
So, that's a "No", then.
-
If matter is not made of spacetime, you sit with the problem of how matter communicates with spacetime to warp it. As it is, it is just spacetime communicating with spacetime.
-
If matter is not made of spacetime, you sit with the problem of how matter communicates with spacetime to warp it.
Not really.
The Earth is not made of Mars, but the two are able to communicate.
Why do you post such twaddle?
Do you enjoy getting laughed at?
-
The Earth is not made of Mars, but the two are able to communicate.
They are both made of spacetime events.
Do you have a mechanism whereby matter and spacetime communicates? You don't even know what matter is.
My model explains this.
-
They are both made of spacetime events.
Yes, they are both made of stuff.
That's so obvious that I don't see why you keep repeating it (or using the phrase "spacetime events" rather than the word "stuff").
It's as if you are trying to be obscure.My model explains this.
LOL
You don't seem to understand what an explanation is any better than you understand a definition.
https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=79201.msg598973#msg598973
-
They are both made of spacetime events.
Can you demonstrate this with scientific evidence?
Do you have a mechanism whereby matter and spacetime communicates?
Gravity.
You don't even know what matter is.
From Dictionary.com: "(in physics) that which occupies space and possesses rest mass, especially as distinct from energy."
-
The Earth is not made of Mars, but the two are able to communicate.
They are both made of spacetime events.
Do you have a mechanism whereby matter and spacetime communicates? You don't even know what matter is.
My model explains this.
Nope it doesn't, it could be communication by strings.
-
There is alot of energy in an atom, that is as far as we have got, far more that the gravitational force of a star, far more than the fusion of hydrogen. This is why I think your theory is imperfect.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_chromodynamics_binding_energy
I see nothing at the quote that excludes my model.
-
Do you have a mechanism whereby matter and spacetime communicates?
Gravity.
Quote from: talanum1 on 11/01/2021 15:39:07
You don't even know what matter is.
From Dictionary.com: "(in physics) that which occupies space and possesses rest mass, especially as distinct from energy."
"Gravity" is just a name, I'm asking if you have the actual cogs and gears of how it happens.
You don't know what matter is made of.
-
I'm asking if you have the actual cogs and gears of how it happens.
It's not like you have it either.
You don't know what matter is made of.
Subatomic particles.
-
Subatomic particles.
What are the subatomic particles made of?It's not like you have it either.
I don't need to: it is conceivable that space communicates with space by just touching.
-
space communicates with space
Why would it need to?
Is it sending Xmas cards?
-
There is alot of energy in an atom, that is as far as we have got, far more that the gravitational force of a star, far more than the fusion of hydrogen. This is why I think your theory is imperfect.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_chromodynamics_binding_energy (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_chromodynamics_binding_energy)
I see nothing at the quote that excludes my model.
Because the amount of energy in an atom is far greater than the spacetime events of positive and negative attraction you postulation creates
-
What are the subatomic particles made of?
In the case of protons, they are made of quarks. In the case of truly fundamental particles, such as quarks and neutrinos, they aren't made of anything smaller (as we can best tell, experimentally).
I don't need to: it is conceivable that space communicates with space by just touching.
Something being conceivable does not make it true. In science, you need experiments or observations that allow you to potentially falsify assertions. Have you done those experiments?
-
Because the amount of energy in an atom is far greater than the spacetime events of positive and negative attraction you postulation creates
All of spacetime copied twice could have enough energy.
In the case of truly fundamental particles, such as quarks and neutrinos, they aren't made of anything smaller (as we can best tell, experimentally).
So they are made of nothing. Why then not consider them made of spacetime events?
Something being conceivable does not make it true. In science, you need experiments or observations that allow you to potentially falsify assertions. Have you done those experiments?
I made protons and electrons with my mind - they talk to me telepathically: I know it's not imagination.
Why would it need to?
Is it sending Xmas cards?
If there is a change in matter position, spacetime needs to communicate to change its curvature far from the matter.
-
I made protons and electrons with my mind - they talk to me telepathically: I know it's not imagination.
How are we meant to distinguish this from psychosis?
-
How are we meant to distinguish this from psychosis?
You can only if someone else does the same thing.
-
Do you recognise that your posts don't make scientific sense?
-
Do you recognise that your posts don't make scientific sense?
It would seem not to make sense to you because you believe in point particles or strings.
-
So they are made of nothing. Why then not consider them made of spacetime events?
A lack of a good, scientifically-based reason to do so.
I made protons and electrons with my mind
Evidence please.
they talk to me telepathically
Evidence please. Since when can subatomic particles talk?
I know it's not imagination.
How? Wouldn't you need some kind of physical corroboration in order to know that? If so, then what is this corroboration?
-
Evidence please.
I have evidence but it is subjective.
Evidence please. Since when can subatomic particles talk?
You need to be telepathic to know.
How? Wouldn't you need some kind of physical corroboration in order to know that? If so, then what is this corroboration?
The happenings were outside my head.
-
I have evidence but it is subjective.
So, it's not science then.
Why are you posting here on a science page?
It would seem not to make sense to you because you believe in point particles or strings.
It does not make sense to me because you have not been able to explain it.
But the point I was making is that it is not science.
The fact that it is not science is not a function of my belief in string, or anything else.
It is a function of the inability of anyone to reproduce your findings.
You need to be telepathic to know.
Then, because it is not reproducible, it's not science.
Please stop posting about it on a science page.
-
I have evidence but it is subjective.
Do you have scientific evidence?
You need to be telepathic to know.
So are you saying that your model is not capable of being investigated scientifically?
The happenings were outside my head.
How do you know?
-
Because the amount of energy in an atom is far greater than the spacetime events of positive and negative attraction you postulation creates
All of spacetime copied twice could have enough energy.
.
The energy in a nuclear explosion pails in comparison to the actual energy in a nuclear particle, a uranium atom contains 1000 times the energy in its particles than the fission of the atom and 10000 times the energy of the sun's hydrogen fusion. This would be noticed if fabricated from space time events.
-
So, it's not science then.
It's science: I can tell you how to make particles of your own (Earth does not like this).
How do you know?
I know where I end and the World begins.
So are you saying that your model is not capable of being investigated scientifically?
It can be tested by someone who is also telepathic.
This would be noticed if fabricated from space time events.
How will it be noticed?
-
It can be tested by someone who is also telepathic.
So, no real people can test it.
It's science: I can tell you how to make particles of your own (Earth does not like this).
No
It might be science if you told is something which could work.
-
It can be tested: it predicts the fields will behave differently from that expected of a point, at very close distances from the particle.
Think for yourself: how can a point have more than one property?
-
It can be tested:
Then do the experiment.
-
I know where I end and the World begins.
So then describe for us what it was that convinced you that you were receiving telepathic messages from outside of your own head.
It can be tested by someone who is also telepathic.
First there would have to be compelling scientific evidence that telepathy exists in the first place. People merely claiming to be telepathic is insufficient.
It can be tested: it predicts the fields will behave differently from that expected of a point, at very close distances from the particle.
In what way, specifically?
-
They could tell me things I didn't know.
Telepathy is scientificly proven: the proof is on the Internet.
It will be vectors along curves and it won't go to infinity as you approach zero.
I can prove they aren't points. Proof: Suppose they are points. Then it should be possible to superimpose two of them with the same spin. This contradicts the Pauli exclusion principle.
-
Telepathy is scientificly proven: the proof is on the Internet.
No it isn't, and a lot of lies are on the internet.
Proof: Suppose they are points. Then it should be possible to superimpose two of them with the same spin.
Not a proof; it's a non sequitur.
They could tell me things I didn't know.
Some of the things they told you (and which you posted here) don't make sense.
So you don't actually "know" them. You just think you do.
-
Not a proof; it's a non sequitur.
You see, you got a strong interest in it not being true. It follows: two points can be superimposed (mathematically valid operation). It's done regularly like in lining up two Lorentz frames.
No it isn't, and a lot of lies are on the internet.
See: https://www.whiteoutpress.com/scientists-prove-mental-telepathy-real/
https://www.insidescience.org/video/telepathy-real
https://anomalien.com/scientific-evidence-of-telepathy
https://www.alittlesparkofjoy.com/telepathy
www.yogebooks.com/english/atkinson/1910telepathy.pdf
Some of the things they told you (and which you posted here) don't make sense.
So you don't actually "know" them. You just think you do.
I didn't post anything they told me. What does not make sense?
-
I can prove they aren't points. Proof: Suppose they are points. Then it should be possible to superimpose two of them with the same spin.
I can put two eggs in a box, but it does not follow that I can put two elephants in that box.
There is a rule that stops me.
I can't do that because elephants are too big.
I can't put two electrons in the same place.
There are two rules that stop me.
One reason is the Pauli principle but another is the electrostatic repulsion would be infinite.
So your idea makes no sense.
You say " we could ..." but we can't- for exactly the reason you give- The Pauli principle.See: https://www.whiteoutpress.com/scientists-prove-mental-telepathy-real/
https://www.insidescience.org/video/telepathy-real
https://anomalien.com/scientific-evidence-of-telepathy
https://www.alittlesparkofjoy.com/telepathy
www.yogebooks.com/english/atkinson/1910telepathy.pdf
As I said:
a lot of lies are on the internet.
-
I didn't post anything they told me.
You said this
I made protons and electrons with my mind - they talk to me telepathically
What did they tell you?
-
You said this
Quote from: talanum1 on 14/01/2021 11:18:04
I made protons and electrons with my mind - they talk to me telepathically
What did they tell you?
I didn't include the particles in the list - they are just particles. They told me when other particles tried to bind with them and they told me the other particles think they are imposters.
I can put two eggs in a box, but it does not follow that I can put two elephants in that box.
There is a rule that stops me.
I can't do that because elephants are too big.
If you suppose the elephant are points, you can put them in the box (by the premise and that you can put points in a box). Similarly, for the electrons, you can superimpose them (by the premise and that you can superimpose points).
-
If you suppose the elephant are points,
then you are wrong.
But you still can not superimpose electrons because of the electrostatic repulsion.
You also can not do it because of the Pauli principle.
What you are saying is " we could do an impossible thing, and that is illogical because it is impossible".
The point is that you can't do the impossible thing, so the logic issue can not arise.
-
What you are saying is " we could do an impossible thing, and that is illogical because it is impossible".
The point is that you can't do the impossible thing, so the logic issue can not arise.
It is illogical because it turns out to be impossible. You're not thinking like a Logician.
As I said:
Quote from: Bored chemist on Today at 10:21:46
a lot of lies are on the internet.
You won't believe it unless you experience it for yourself. And you will - after death.
-
You're not thinking like a Logician.
Said the man who thinks protons talk to him by telepathy...
The US constitution doesn't prohibit electrons electrons occupying the same space, and nor does the mathematical behaviour of points.
But the laws of physics do prohibit it.
So it doesn't happen.
And, because it doesn't happen, it doesn't violate those laws.
-
But the laws of physics do prohibit it.
So it doesn't happen.
And, because it doesn't happen, it doesn't violate those laws.
The premise is supposed to suspend the laws governing particles, you just suppose it is points.
-
They could tell me things I didn't know.
Such as?
-
premise is supposed
By whom?
Who supposes that?
-
Such as?
I can't remember, but I did have to look it up in the Dictionary. I just remember I've seen it black on white. I'm talking about old voices (which I believe are persons) not the particles. The particles I know it was outside me since I felt it at a certain position. I can pinpoint where voices come from.
The word "telepathy" exist so it is likely the phenomenon exists.
By whom?
Who supposes that?
Whoever can.
-
The word "telepathy" exist so it is likely the phenomenon exists.
The word "unicorn" exists.
Your logic is deeply flawed.
-
Whoever can.
That makes your original statement a tautology; true, but meaningless.
-
I can't remember, but I did have to look it up in the Dictionary. I just remember I've seen it black on white.
Not particularly compelling evidence, much less that of a scientific caliber.
The particles I know it was outside me since I felt it at a certain position. I can pinpoint where voices come from.
Tactile hallucinations are a thing, so that could still be all in your head.
The word "telepathy" exist so it is likely the phenomenon exists.
By that reasoning, Cthulu also likely exists.
Your argument against particles being points is actually self-contradictory, because your definition of a space-time event is "the point in space together with a local time at the point." But modern physics doesn't require particles to be points anyway. They are just point-like to the extent that we can measure their size, which is limited both by our instruments and the Heisenberg uncertainty principle.
https://www.whiteoutpress.com/scientists-prove-mental-telepathy-real/
The last paragraph on that article states:
As a lifelong believer in ESP, this author noticed there was one major ingredient missing from the successful experiment. The senders needed to be connected to a computer via electrodes attached to the skull. The receivers were similarly connected. And a computer was required to detect the brain activity of one and stimulate brain activity in the other. The piece of the puzzle still missing is the human brain’s ability to stimulate another brain without the help of electrodes and computers. When the world’s scientists figure out how to do that, mental telepathy will truly be a reality.
That's kind of an important thing to miss.
https://www.insidescience.org/video/telepathy-real
As with your first article, this is computer-assisted telepathy, not the psychic telepathy that you seem to claim:
Put all of this together and you have the first demonstration of telepathy: One person concentrates on something in particular, this is read as specific EEG brain activity, that is sent by wire to a TMS wand, and that stimulates another person’s brain and they see a flash of light. That was done back in 2014.
https://anomalien.com/scientific-evidence-of-telepathy
https://www.alittlesparkofjoy.com/telepathy
www.yogebooks.com/english/atkinson/1910telepathy.pdf
It would be preferable to show us some actual papers of peer-reviewed, successfully replicated experiments demonstrating the existence of telepathy. But that's really beside the point, as what you really need to demonstrate is that you, specifically, are telepathic. Can you demonstrate this?
-
The only time that one may super impose two particles, is if the two particles have opposite polarity........and at the same energy level. The superposition will not last long, because the particles are unwinding each other and dissolving into space.........EM emission.
Science calls this a matter, antimatter reaction.
-
The only time that one may super impose two particles, is if the two particles have opposite polarity........and at the same energy level. The superposition will not last long, because the particles are unwinding each other and dissolving into space.........EM emission.
Science calls this a matter, antimatter reaction.
The logical assumption is just that the particles are points with no other laws being supposed. After this assumption, the laws are brought to bear on the situation. Tell me if that is valid or invalid.
But that's really beside the point, as what you really need to demonstrate is that you, specifically, are telepathic. Can you demonstrate this?
I sent you a telepathic message and you responded: you told me not to put thoughts in your head again.
As for the tactile hallucination: it wasn't a physical feeling it was spiritual. You must have felt someone looking at you in the past - it is that power.
I wasn't hallucinating, I heard Earth complain about me making the particles. She put them in my throat.
I remember now: the word I didn't know was "ethereal".
Saying particles are point-like is just like saying they are points.
-
I sent you a telepathic message and you responded: you told me not to put thoughts in your head again.
I don't think that is true.Saying particles are point-like is just like saying they are points.
Not really
-
I sent you a telepathic message and you responded: you told me not to put thoughts in your head again.
Welp, that demonstrates that you're only hallucinating, as I never responded to any such thing. If that's not good enough for you, then why don't we do another test? If you can really send and receive messages mentally, then tell me what number I'm thinking of. It's between 1 and 1,000, so there is about a 0.1% chance that you'll get it right just by guessing.
As for the tactile hallucination: it wasn't a physical feeling it was spiritual. You must have felt someone looking at you in the past - it is that power.
Both of those things can still very much be hallucinations.
I wasn't hallucinating
You have yet to demonstrate that.
Tell me if that is valid or invalid.
Invalid. You can't just take the laws of physics out of the picture and expect to make correct logical deductions about physics.
I heard Earth complain about me making the particles.
Which could still be a hallucination. It sounds like you could have undiagnosed psychosis of some kind. I don't mean that as an insult. You should go see a doctor about it.
She put them in my throat.
Put what in your throat? The particles?
-
This has sunk to new depths of head screwing and make believe and does not belong on a science forum, even in the wacky section.
-
Maybe we can discuss a parallel topic, that is a compromise. Can highly localized space-time events impact point particles that already exist? For example, the outer electrons of larger metallic atoms, can travel at a significant fraction of the speed of light and can thereby display relativistic affects; Relativistic Quantum Chemistry.
For example, the yellow color of gold can be explained as a local time shift, around the outer electrons of gold, such that all all colors that reflect off these the outer electrons of gold will take on a yellowish cast. The outer electrons of gold are in a different space-time reference; SR, than the nucleus of the same atoms. These two references will create uncertainty relative to the electrons and nucleus, since each sees different propagations of space-time events. This makes gold very inert, to most of chemistry, since most chemical space-time frames do not overlap very well with the relativistic frames of the outer electrons of gold. There is uncertainty.
As we go from the outer electrons, to the inner electrons of gold, the electrons move faster and faster, like a skater who pulls their arms in while spinning. These inner electron references are so different from most of outer electron chemistry, that the nucleus cannot easily steal an inner electron nor do these inner electrons have any connection to any physical property of gold we can measure, since they are in their own frame.
These examples do not use space-time references to create particles, but it does use space-time events to manipulate particles that already exist. For example, proton or electron tunneling could be explained by shifts in the local space-time grid, so particles can break out of one expected reference, and enter another reference so it can move to the beat of its own drum. On the other side it exists the space-time induction,
In this case a collection of atoms, such as in liquid water, two overlapping spar-time grids appear, one in the nucleus reference and the other in the electron reference. These two grids can impact their own kind more that the other kind. In the case of water the hydrogen proton becomes very mobile and can even tunnel in pairs. This is very useful for creating and sustaining life, which depends on the free migration of hydrogen protons via hydrogen bonding.
-
Maybe we can discuss a parallel topic, that is a compromise. Can highly localized space-time events impact point particles that already exist? For example, the outer electrons of larger metallic atoms, can travel at a significant fraction of the speed of light and can thereby display relativistic affects; Relativistic Quantum Chemistry.
For example, the yellow color of gold can be explained as a local time shift, around the outer electrons of gold, such that all all colors that reflect off these the outer electrons of gold will take on a yellowish cast. The outer electrons of gold are in a different space-time reference; SR, than the nucleus of the same atoms. These two references will create uncertainty relative to the electrons and nucleus, since each sees different propagations of space-time events. This makes gold very inert, to most of chemistry, since most chemical space-time frames do not overlap very well with the relativistic frames of the outer electrons of gold. There is uncertainty.
As we go from the outer electrons, to the inner electrons of gold, the electrons move faster and faster, like a skater who pulls their arms in while spinning. These inner electron references are so different from most of outer electron chemistry, that the nucleus cannot easily steal an inner electron nor do these inner electrons have any connection to any physical property of gold we can measure, since they are in their own frame.
These examples do not use space-time references to create particles, but it does use space-time events to manipulate particles that already exist. For example, proton or electron tunneling could be explained by shifts in the local space-time grid, so particles can break out of one expected reference, and enter another reference so it can move to the beat of its own drum. On the other side it exists the space-time induction,
In this case a collection of atoms, such as in liquid water, two overlapping spar-time grids appear, one in the nucleus reference and the other in the electron reference. These two grids can impact their own kind more that the other kind. In the case of water the hydrogen proton becomes very mobile and can even tunnel in pairs. This is very useful for creating and sustaining life, which depends on the free migration of hydrogen protons via hydrogen bonding.
That post also
"has sunk to new depths of head screwing and make believe and does not belong on a science forum, even in the wacky section. "
For example, the yellow color of gold can be explained as a local time shift,
No, it can't.
The outer electrons of gold are in a different space-time reference; SR, than the nucleus of the same atoms.
Why?
Same gravity; same speed.
like a skater who pulls their arms in while spinning.
Not really.
More like a skier who's going down hill (and not much like that either).
These inner electron references
What is it with you and the word "reference"?
You seem to stick it randomly into stuff.
These examples do not use space-time references to create particles,
Good... because that's meaningless.
On the other side it exists the space-time induction,
Word salad.In this case a collection of atoms, such as in liquid water, two overlapping spar-time grids appear, one in the nucleus reference and the other in the electron reference. These two grids can impact their own kind more that the other kind. In the case of water the hydrogen proton becomes very mobile and can even tunnel in pairs. This is very useful for creating and sustaining life, which depends on the free migration of hydrogen protons via hydrogen bonding.
More word salad.
-
If you can really send and receive messages mentally, then tell me what number I'm thinking of. It's between 1 and 1,000, so there is about a 0.1% chance that you'll get it right just by guessing.
Your thinking of the number 120.
Welp, that demonstrates that you're only hallucinating, as I never responded to any such thing.
Maybe it's in your subconscious. Please do a search and let me know.
Put what in your throat? The particles?
Yes, the particles. I felt her putting it in.
I wasn't hallucinating because the happenings happened in a coherent sequence and Earth fetched the particles from the correct location.
-
I wasn't hallucinating because...
Yes you were.
-
Yes you were.
It is your word against mine and I am in this body.
-
For peer-reviewed articles see here:
https://stillnessinthestorm.com/2014/09/scientific-evidence-for-telepathy-tha/
-
Yes you were.
It is your word against mine and I am in this body.
Not really.
If you hallucinated something that's not possible, then it's your word against reality.
-
For peer-reviewed articles see here:
https://stillnessinthestorm.com/2014/09/scientific-evidence-for-telepathy-tha/
Ooh!
A hundred papers.
One would be enough if it wa actually correct.
The biggest argument against telepathy is that if it was possible, it would be universal.
It would confer too big an evolutionary advantage to ignore.
Anyone without it would be a second class citizen, and those with would be the ruling elite.
So, are you part of the ruling elite?
-
The biggest argument against telepathy is that if it was possible, it would be universal.
It is universal, it is just that people think they are hallucinating and then automatically relegate it to the subconscious.
-
The biggest argument against telepathy is that if it was possible, it would be universal.
It is universal, it is just that people think they are hallucinating and then automatically relegate it to the subconscious.
Why?
Why would they have done that?
If there was some small group who didn't do that they would take over the world.
Have you?
-
Your thinking of the number 120.
Nope, it was 733. So that's two pieces of evidence against your claimed telepathic powers.
Maybe it's in your subconscious.
That would make your claim, conveniently, non-testable.
Please do a search and let me know.
Do a search? I'm not exactly a PC.
I wasn't hallucinating because the happenings happened in a coherent sequence and Earth fetched the particles from the correct location.
And how do you know that?
It is your word against mine and I am in this body.
Unfortunately, "your word against mine" isn't good enough for science. You have to have something concrete that is open to outside investigation.
It is universal, it is just that people think they are hallucinating and then automatically relegate it to the subconscious.
See, the problem is that your claims are (to an outsider) indistinguishable from a hallucination. Tell us how we, as outsiders, can know that you aren't hallucinating.
-
And how do you know that?
I felt it.
Tell us how we, as outsiders, can know that you aren't hallucinating.
I can just try to send telepathic messages. Hallucinations tend to be isolated, this was a whole series of events.
Why?
Why would they have done that?
They are afraid.
If there was some small group who didn't do that they would take over the world.
Have you?
I can't answer that question.
-
I can just try to send telepathic messages.
You did try.
It failed.
How many times does it have to fail before you accept that it does not work?
-
I can't answer that question.
Why not?
Surely you would know if you ruled the world?
-
They are afraid.
What of?
As I said, these are the people who will be the ruling elite.
-
How many times does it have to fail before you accept that it does not work?
Till my past gets proved wrong. I transferred quite complicated and long messages, like my Doctoral Thesis to Nuremberg University. They dictated it back to me.
Surely you would know if you ruled the world?
I do control people.
What of?
Of seeming unreality.
-
I felt it.
You do know that feelings can be hallucinations, right?
I can just try to send telepathic messages.
It didn't work when you tried it on me.
Hallucinations tend to be isolated
Not for people with psychosis.
Till my past gets proved wrong.
In what sense?
I transferred quite complicated and long messages, like my Doctoral Thesis to Nuremberg University. They dictated it back to me.
When you say "They dictated it back to me", did they do it via a phone call or E-mail? Because it you merely heard it in your head, that could have just been a hallucination. So let me ask again: to an outside observer, how can we distinguish your experiences from hallucinations?
I do control people.
When and how?
-
The proof goes as follows:
Number Statement Reason
1 Positively and negatively charged matter particles attracts and exist in
spacetime. Postulate
2 Matter particles must substitute for spacetime events. 1
3 Only spacetime events may substitute for other spacetime events. Postulate
4 Matter particles must be made of spacetime events. 2, 3
QED.
I have my own theory that particles of matter are composed of space. Take a look at
I can't tell from what you're saying if we think the same thing. Maybe you can tell me after watching my video.
-
I transferred quite complicated and long messages, like my Doctoral Thesis to Nuremberg University. They dictated it back to me.
No, you did not.
-
I can't tell from what you're saying if we think the same thing.
Yes, we are saying the same thing. Why didn't you vote?
In what sense?
Like in: the voices were hallucinations.
When and how?
All the time. They are descendants of creatures created from my brain in a previous life, therefore my brain controls them.
So let me ask again: to an outside observer, how can we distinguish your experiences from hallucinations?
If someone else can also make particles.
-
Maybe we can discuss a parallel topic, that is a compromise. Can highly localized space-time events impact point particles that already exist? For example, the outer electrons of larger metallic atoms, can travel at a significant fraction of the speed of light and can thereby display relativistic affects; Relativistic Quantum Chemistry.
For example, the yellow color of gold can be explained as a local time shift, around the outer electrons of gold, such that all all colors that reflect off these the outer electrons of gold will take on a yellowish cast. The outer electrons of gold are in a different space-time reference; SR, than the nucleus of the same atoms. These two references will create uncertainty relative to the electrons and nucleus, since each sees different propagations of space-time events. This makes gold very inert, to most of chemistry, since most chemical space-time frames do not overlap very well with the relativistic frames of the outer electrons of gold. There is uncertainty.
As we go from the outer electrons, to the inner electrons of gold, the electrons move faster and faster, like a skater who pulls their arms in while spinning. These inner electron references are so different from most of outer electron chemistry, that the nucleus cannot easily steal an inner electron nor do these inner electrons have any connection to any physical property of gold we can measure, since they are in their own frame.
These examples do not use space-time references to create particles, but it does use space-time events to manipulate particles that already exist. For example, proton or electron tunneling could be explained by shifts in the local space-time grid, so particles can break out of one expected reference, and enter another reference so it can move to the beat of its own drum. On the other side it exists the space-time induction,
In this case a collection of atoms, such as in liquid water, two overlapping spar-time grids appear, one in the nucleus reference and the other in the electron reference. These two grids can impact their own kind more that the other kind. In the case of water the hydrogen proton becomes very mobile and can even tunnel in pairs. This is very useful for creating and sustaining life, which depends on the free migration of hydrogen protons via hydrogen bonding.
That post also
"has sunk to new depths of head screwing and make believe and does not belong on a science forum, even in the wacky section. "
For example, the yellow color of gold can be explained as a local time shift,
No, it can't.
The outer electrons of gold are in a different space-time reference; SR, than the nucleus of the same atoms.
Why?
Same gravity; same speed.
like a skater who pulls their arms in while spinning.
Not really.
More like a skier who's going down hill (and not much like that either).
These inner electron references
What is it with you and the word "reference"?
You seem to stick it randomly into stuff.
These examples do not use space-time references to create particles,
Good... because that's meaningless.
On the other side it exists the space-time induction,
Word salad.In this case a collection of atoms, such as in liquid water, two overlapping spar-time grids appear, one in the nucleus reference and the other in the electron reference. These two grids can impact their own kind more that the other kind. In the case of water the hydrogen proton becomes very mobile and can even tunnel in pairs. This is very useful for creating and sustaining life, which depends on the free migration of hydrogen protons via hydrogen bonding.
More word salad.
Study relativistic quantum chemistry and come back to be me. The unique properties of some atoms can be explained using the assumption of special relativity affects on outer electrons. The Schoedrenger equation was written before Einstein's Relativity was mainstream, and did not include it. Relativity was added fifty years later and was found to be good at making predictions where the original equation fails.
-
The unique properties of some atoms can be explained using the assumption of special relativity affects on outer electrons.
Yes, they can.
But not, it seems, by you.
Relativity was added fifty years later and was found to be good at making predictions where the original equation fails.
And a decade or so after that was when I was at Uni, studying chemistry.
Study relativistic quantum chemistry
I did (see above).
.
-
When you say "They dictated it back to me", did they do it via a phone call or E-mail? Because it you merely heard it in your head, that could have just been a hallucination.
It couldn't have been a hallucination: it was too long and detailed and it rhymed with my other work.
-
When you say "They dictated it back to me", did they do it via a phone call or E-mail? Because it you merely heard it in your head, that could have just been a hallucination.
It couldn't have been a hallucination: it was too long and detailed and it rhymed with my other work.
You forgot to answer th equestion.
-
Yes, we are saying the same thing. Why didn't you vote?
I didn't know what you meant by space-time events. what do you mean by the way?
-
I didn't know what you meant by space-time events. what do you mean by the way?
Points of space together with timestamps.
-
Yes, we are saying the same thing. Why didn't you vote?
I didn't know what you meant by space-time events. what do you mean by the way?
It turns out that he means "stuff"- or something.
Why should water respect metal pipes when the metal pipes aren't made out of water?
They are both made of spacetime events.
-
Like in: the voices were hallucinations.
There's no evidence so far that they weren't.
All the time. They are descendants of creatures created from my brain in a previous life, therefore my brain controls them.
A very big claim in need of very big evidence.
If someone else can also make particles.
Tell us how we can detect those particles and then deduce that you created them.
It couldn't have been a hallucination: it
was too long and detailed and it rhymed with my other work.
That does not disqualify it from being a hallucination. People with schizophrenia can have hallucinations that are so realistic they often can't distinguish them from reality. So far, all of your claims are consistent with a hallucination because you have offered no physical evidence to back them up.
-
I believe they are not hallucinations. It will be proven when a letter or email arrives here from one of my contacts.
Tell us how we can detect those particles and then deduce that you created them.
You can't: it is two Hydrogen atoms in my throat. Maybe I can go somewhere where they have a cloud chamber and make some particle in it, while stating: "I made a particle", then there must be a corresponding trail in the cloud chamber.
-
This shows you what a cloud chamber looks like.
How could we spot your contribution?
-
I believe they are not hallucinations. It will be proven when a letter or email arrives here from one of my contacts.
I'm the same way with hallucinating and voices. I use to have strong belief in telepathy. Not right now but it flares up. I use to think that because of Einstein's relativity all the matter in the universe was going to collapse into the center and had some wild stroies with voices from that belief. But just like General Relativity it was all make believe.
I couldn't agree with you more that weight in the atom is made up of dense space medium. You and I are pals. :)
-
I believe they are not hallucinations.
Many schizophrenics don't believe their hallucinations are hallucinations either. Belief is irrelevant. Evidence is what is important.
It will be proven when a letter or email arrives here from one of my contacts.
Not really. There would be no way to prove to us that you sent that information via telepathy. You would need to demonstrate your telepathic abilities in a controlled environment in order to show its existence scientifically.
You can't: it is two Hydrogen atoms in my throat.
Then it isn't open to scientific investigation and therefore isn't science.
Maybe I can go somewhere where they have a cloud chamber and make some particle in it, while stating: "I made a particle", then there must be a corresponding trail in the cloud chamber.
There would be no way to tell that any of the countless particle trails in the chamber were made by you, so that isn't science either.
-
How could we spot your contribution?
The paths must start when I say: "I made a proton". After many correlations the statistics will tell.
-
How could we spot your contribution?
The paths must start when I say: "I made a proton". After many correlations the statistics will tell.
Did you actually see the video?
-
I see how that can be problematic, so we must use shielding.
-
The existence of Anyons proves that electrons aren't points. There would be no difference in electron behavior when they are confined to a plane if they were points.
-
After 3 pages, you haven't apparently got anyone to believe you.
Do you accept that this means you have not offered proof of your assertion?
-
You still have not told is what you think the phrase "spacetime event" means.
Points of space together with time stamps at the points.
They are both relative and not fixed you cant stamp them, the universal post office doesn't have stamps big enough.
-
If matter is not made of spacetime, you sit with the problem of how matter communicates with spacetime to warp it. As it is, it is just spacetime communicating with spacetime.
Gravity warps space time not stuff conversing with itself.
-
The Earth is not made of Mars, but the two are able to communicate.
They are both made of spacetime events.
Do you have a mechanism whereby matter and spacetime communicates? You don't even know what matter is.
My model explains this.
How does your model explain this? Are you trying to say you understand the relationship between gravity and space time? I think einstein actually explains it quite well. You have something to add?
-
How does your model explain this? Are you trying to say you understand the relationship between gravity and space time? I think einstein actually explains it quite well. You have something to add?
If matter is made of spacetime the communication is just by contact of spacetime events. If matter is made of something else you need to specify the cogs and gears that communicate, not just name it as gravity.
-
How does your model explain this? Are you trying to say you understand the relationship between gravity and space time? I think einstein actually explains it quite well. You have something to add?
If matter is made of spacetime the communication is just by contact of spacetime events. If matter is made of something else you need to specify the cogs and gears that communicate, not just name it as gravity.
Naming it "spacetime events" isn't any different.
You also need to explain the "cogs and gears" of "contact".
In normal use the "contact" between two objects is caused by Pauli pressure where two electrons are being forced into the same orbital.
What stops "spacetime events" just passing through eachother?
Also, do you recognise that, since nobody believes you, you have not proved that your idea is right?
-
What stops "spacetime events" just passing through eachother?
Spacetime expands, and this determines how galaxies move. This suggests spacetime is something tangible and therefore events are unlikely to "pass through each other".
-
Could we being mislead, in our considerations, by a mere artefact of language?
The English language allows us to push two separate nouns "Space", and "Time", together.
To form a new compound noun: "Spacetime". And nouns are supposed to denote "things". Therefore, we're lead to believe that the existence of the noun: "Spacetime", means that it's a "thing".
The same thing happens in the German language. Einstein operated in German, of course. I've done no research into what the German equivalent of "Spacetime" is. I'd guess - "Raumzeit"! Neat and pithy!
But suppose he'd been operating in French. The French language is resistant to compound nouns. Generally, it insists that two nouns be separated by a preposition. Usually an "a" or "de". Or at least a hyphen.
What's the French word for "Spacetime"?
-
Spacetime expands
Actually, it's only space that expands. I don't think that time "expanding" even makes sense.
-
What's the French word for "Spacetime"?
According to google, it's "espace-temps".
But suppose he'd been operating in French.
Then he would have used the letter W rather less.
So what?
It's not as if the French are all that bothered about "Le weekend".
Also, the French may bung a hyphen into it, but it's still a compound noun.
https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Espace-temps#:~:text=En%20relativit%C3%A9%20restreinte%2C%20l'espace,de%20m%C3%AAme%20en%20relativit%C3%A9%20g%C3%A9n%C3%A9rale.
Including " En réalité, ce sont deux versions (vues sous un angle différent) d'une même entité."
i.e. "
In reality, they are two versions (seen from a different angle) of the same entity."
-
See: for the idea that everything is made of the hypergraph that is space. See this at 42 minutes into the video.
-
Nobody's going to watch a video that long.
We require verbal pith.
-
I added a timestamp: you don't need to watch the whole video.
I don't know what "pith" means.
-
After seeing this video:
I now think matter is made out of space not spacetime.
They are actually made of a copy of all of 2-dimensional space with one axis multiplied by i.
-
I now think matter is made out of space ...
It can't be- by definition.
-
I now think matter is made out of space ...
It can't be- by definition.
I agree with BC. "Space" must, by definition, be something different from "Matter". Space is the absence of matter.
-
Space is the absence of matter.
That definition cannot be right because it also defines "space" outside the Universe.
The definition: "space = R^3" is better. No matter is mentioned and it is compatible with my model.
-
Space is the absence of matter.
That definition cannot be right because it also defines "space" outside the Universe.
The definition: "space = R^3" is better. No matter is mentioned and it is compatible with my model.
What do we mean by the "Universe"?
Surely it must mean "Everything there is". If so, then how can there be anything "Outside" it, as you seem to imply.
Actually, I think you'd make a better case by asserting that there's no true "Space" at all.
Wouldn't that be supported by Quantum Theory.
As I understand it, QT maintains that Space isn't really empty. It's full of matter particles which continually pop in and out of existence. One moment there's a particle, then it's gone again. Too quick to spot it.
Except, this perpetual popping of particles creates Dark Energy. And this energy drives the accelerating expansion of the Universe.
Well, it's a theory. I suppose. Does it sound credible, you reckon?
-
That definition cannot be right because it also defines "space" outside the Universe.
You must have a wonky definition of "universe".
-
I now think matter is made out of space ...
It can't be- by definition.
I agree with BC. "Space" must, by definition, be something different from "Matter". Space is the absence of matter.
Does space exist within molecular lattices, atoms or nucleons?
-
Does space exist within molecular lattices, atoms or nucleons?
It exists within molecular lattices and atoms, but not inside nucleons.
You must have a wonky definition of "universe".
I believe there is an outside to the Universe, but it is nothing and cannot be described by R^3.
I made a dark matter particle. It interacts only by gravity so Earth cannot put it in my throat.
-
Earth cannot put it in my throat.
Do you realise that when you say stuff like that people stop taking you seriously?
-
I now think matter is made out of space not spacetime.
Based on Einstein you are fully correct.
https://www.discovermagazine.com/the-sciences/einsteins-lost-theory-describes-a-universe-without-a-big-bang
"And so Einstein proposed a revision of his model, still with a cosmological constant, but now the constant was responsible for the creation of new matter as the universe expanded (because Einstein believed that in an expanding universe, the overall density of matter had to still stay constant):"
-
Based on Einstein you are fully correct.
No.
Einstein knew the difference between matter and space.
-
This one made me smile.
sweet stuff.
You have a active imagination talanum