0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

..... And the distance between any 2 points is always 0..

So you are saying that the diameter of your head is zero.

.... I feel that was meant more as a personal jab than any sort of question or critique.

.... If you do it this way you maintain the universe's since of distance and depth

A: Energy moving forward = MatterB: Energy moving backwards = Space

but 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'm puzzled by the concept of "backwards" and "forwards" - relative to what?

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.

Space is a divider and is physically there, space is not virtual. Your idea is a no starter, there is no premise for argument.

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.

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.

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

Though your equation looks eerily similar to Euler's equation e^{i∏}+1=0

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?

Quote from: Thebox on 21/10/2015 20:07:51Never 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.

Ok, I see what you are thinking now, 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''.

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.

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.

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 <----- OWhere 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 <.__.- OThe 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).

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.

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 lineAnd 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.

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.

1.Ok, then I have some questions, if the void exists, where does it end?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?

.. a distance can never equal zero or it would not be called a distance ..

Quote from: Thebox on 22/10/2015 18:58:57.. 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.

A circle is in the void

Quote from: Thebox on 23/10/2015 14:05:20A 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.

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.

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?

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.

Quote from: ggimark on 24/10/2015 05:54:43The 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? yesCan science explain,noIt would just be my logical opinion if I told you.

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 lineAnd 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.

So what is your logical opinion?

Quote from: ggimark on 24/10/2015 14:33:42So 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.

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.

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.

Zero Theory:1st Rule: All of Space and Matter is comprised of the same energyA: Energy moving forward = MatterB: Energy moving backwards = SpaceC: The interaction between these two energies = MassD: Should energy collide with an object which it cannot move through, reflect off of, or be absorbed by it will reverse2nd 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.

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.

How would you explain what is responsible for our perception of distance?

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.

What are your thoughts on inertia and wavelength?

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.