[guest39538]

I sometimes feel like I am living an alternative reality to everybody else.  I listen and listen for correctness but seemingly ''things'' are logically flawed. I hear these stories about reality which to be honest are sometimes absurd.
One can only imagine why yourselves seem to be blinded to reality.
Let me try to correct you, let me try to take you into logical imagination , although for this you will need too open up your minds and forget your subjective education.


I and you are going to take a journey back in time, I and you are going to forget all that we know and take a complete ''look'' at the blank canvas of no prior knowledge and consider the ''if'' , trying to logically put ''if'' into axiom perspective.


Firstly we need to look at and consider what an actual blank canvas is, we must be sure in our minds that we are being objective when considering the facts of the blank canvas. To be sure we understand  our starting point without missing out any intricate details.


In my mind a blank canvas has dimensions but not necessarily light, a similarity to the ''picture'' in our minds, when our eyes are closed.  So how do we define the blank canvas? are we to define it as, in the beginning there was nothing just because in the ''picture'' in our minds of the blank canvas we can see nothing?  or are we to define it as a volume of blank canvas ? because the lack of vision or insight does not necessarily mean there is nothing there, it just means our minds cant see anything so promote the idea of nothing being the blank canvas picture in our minds.
Would it not be true to presume that both of the above could be equally true and in the beginning there could of always been space that existed before any creation of energy or matter?




There is no evidence either way in reality , but is it not true that for any motion or event to occur there has to be space for the motion or event to occur in?


So in reality if we look at the above logic, the reality tells us that space must have existed before any event to occur and I feel on the above logic alone we can consider this to be an axiom and true to reality unless anyone can give any viable argument of how anything can happen without space to happen in?


The truth is there is only matter and  space that exists, matter can not exist without a space to exist in.

[nilak]

I and you are going to take a journey back in time, I and you are going to forget all that we know and take a complete ''look'' at the blank canvas of no prior knowledge and consider the ''if'' , trying to logically put ''if'' into axiom perspective.

That is my conclusion  as well, after developing my concept. We need to go back and reevaluate the basic principles that the big theories lie on. For example, the reasons for the  Equivalence Principle, is it really correct? Or the equation E=hf, is it really no way around it? If these two are wrong, then these theories are really in big trouble.

The problem is that if we have something we need to master the language of current physics to better describe our own concepts.

[guest39538]

I and you are going to take a journey back in time, I and you are going to forget all that we know and take a complete ''look'' at the blank canvas of no prior knowledge and consider the ''if'' , trying to logically put ''if'' into axiom perspective.

That is my conclusion  as well, after developing my concept. We need to go back and reevaluate the basic principles that the big theories lie on. For example, the reasons for the  Equivalence Principle, is it really correct? Or the equation E=hf, is it really no way around it? If these two are wrong, then these theories are really in big trouble.

The problem is that if we have something we need to master the language of current physics to better describe our own concepts.

The problem is science thinks we are quacks and are not really interested because today's science is really only about making money by invention or other means.  Concepts like ours have no monetary value.
If I or you was to discover lets say ''anti'gravity'' , the crowds would flock around /

We are actually wasting our precious ''time''.


What one realises when studying science, it is seemingly based around Einstein although Einsteins ideas have more flaws than a multistory.  It is nice and elegant of MR E, but he took time for granted being the ticking of a clock, where as Newton thought more on the correct lines of absolute time, However the only work we should really consider to be truth , Is Minkowski's interwoven space-time when considering time. They cant understand the subtle difference between timing something and actual time. But of cause we are classed has noobs.


As for equivalence, maths is the only equivalent.