0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

In my theory, spacetime is neither the 4D Spacetime as it was postulated by Minkowski, nor it is related to Lorentz's 3D alternative with Newtonian time.

The spacetime in my theory is essentially --spacetime, with four essential properties, necessary and sufficient and physically confirmed: , , the length , the time , which are all related as .

My theory is such that one does not need to know any other approach.

The reason why I wrote FEMME was to understand. I have tried to look at things in the ways that current, and previous official/unofficial approaches offered, but none of them offered understanding. Only mind-boggle. Either through mathematical abstractions/complications, or through some new, and also abstract concepts/principles.

Energy and space interact (photon’s propagation is elementary way of that interaction). They cause each other to change (epsilon and mu have higher values within matter, in the vicinity of matter, which i.e. causes photons to bend their path.

Concerning your question: yes, one can assume the existence of aether. But why would one do that, when it is unnecessary? It requires then further expanding, in the way that it is something more than space, that it can move through space, etc.

And most people look at space’s void as “nothing”. And that “nothing” then contains “something”. And the paradoxes begin. I.e., how can “nothing” contain “something”? To me, nothing is really nothing. There, in nothing, cannot exist anything, including space. Space is the special something. Void-like something, which has hidden properties: , , which enable that void-like something to be as it is. How? I don’t have a clue. And when I try to think about that “how”, I only become confused, I can only imagine, but I cannot make any final conclusion.

My approach is not Lorenzian-type approach, because Lorenz treats time as something that is completely independent. And not only because of that, but that is the key point.Minkowski’s idea (that time is intrinsical to space) is, essentially, correct, but everything else is wrong.

In my theory, we havewhere

That what scientists believe to be the black-holes, are massive dense bodies. Black holes cannot exist because they violate the fundamental laws of existence. They are product of imagination, mathematically modeled imagination, which emerged from the GR equations, which do not describe reality precisely, they are an approximation of reality.

Solutions derived in GR are not exact solutions, but approximate solutions. In these solutions, Schwarzschild's radius is the discontinuity point. It is not. It is the minimal possible radius of a body of a given mass, and such body is not black hole.

So you eliminate the singularity and the problems which that would cause, and I'm guessing that you wouldn't be able to detect the difference between your equivalent of a black hole and a black hole. Would I be right in thinking then that you could have an equivalent of a big bang, but without there ever being a singularity? This would be an important technical difference, but would again make no difference to what we're observing.

Zordim, a huge amount of work has gone into this but I have a challenge. What it is, is to do it again without reference to the concept of Force or the concept of Inertia. The reason I ask is that I am reasonably sure mathematics has given both these concepts a respectability they don't deserve, such as mathematics did with the concept of aether. It's all in the spirit of imaginagation over mathematics.

Zordim, can it be claimed, with any degree of certainty, that any object is at rest?