[alancalverd]

No one likes to be wrong, and most certainly no one gets excited about being wrong.  Humility, embarrassment, shame, defeat.  Those are emotions more common to failure.

Only if you are a parasite whose salary depends on never admitting to being wrong. Real people do useful work which occasionally goes wrong (bridge collapses, plane falls out of the sky....) because one of our assumptions was wrong. As a responsible scientist/engineer/aviator/parent I'd rather discover and publish the fault in my assumptions than ascribe the failure to a malevolent deity. Science is all about challenging commonly-held assumptions.

[andreasva (OP)]

Wrong. You are confusing physicists with parasites like priests, politicians and philosophers. Even worse - they try to persuade you to defend what they would like you to believe.

Eddington said that the student of physics must become accustomed to having his common sense violated five times before breakfast, to the extent that if he diffused through the floor and rematerialized in the cellar, he would simply regard it as an observation of a very rare phenomenon. And that's just nonrelativistic quantum mechanics - the starting point for physics.

Please, enough of this subjective nonsense on this thread.  It is a waste of time and energy on all sides.  Everyone is right, okay?

[alancalverd]

OK, here's some pure objectivity.

Distant objects generally have larger redshifts than near ones

Rotating galaxies do not disintegrate

Every phenomenon predicted by relativity theory to date has turned out to be experimentally correct to a high degree of confidence

F =Gm₁m₂/r², likewise

The cosmic microwave background has an effective temperature of about 3K

All you have to do is to propose a model that explains all the above.

[andreasva (OP)]

All you have to do is to propose a model that explains all the above.

I'm getting to that. 

I'm also not invalidating any standing theory.  They are all mostly correct.  I agree with all the above mentioned observations.  I agree with Einstein.  The man was right on so many levels it's uncanny. 

I am not tearing down the foundation of physics as we understand it, contrary to what you might believe at the moment.

And please try to tone it down a notch.  I am not here to denigrate anyone.  Please be respectful, and try and reciprocate.  I fully admit, I could be wrong.  I don't know the answer. 

For now, I have to work.  I'll get back to this thread as soon as I can find the time. 

Universe comes second for me.

[Ve9aPrim3]

@Colin2B
I can see what he's saying.  We can't see 360 degrees around an object, physically. 

I was replying to his very specific, but incorrect,  statement that we can “perceive only 2 out of 3 spacial dimensions at any given moment”. That’s not the same as being able to see all sides of an object.
We clearly percieve height, width and distance to an object. Obviously, anyone who lacks binocular vision will be unable to percieve the depth dimension.
It’s true that light travels in straight lines and if you work out those lines you can see how depth perception works and allows us to see more of an object than a single eye would - effectively  looking around the side - you can show this by looking at a cube and alternately closing one eye, then opening it and closing the other.

I must disagree with that statement simply because I don't have (360°)³ vision. Auditory maybe, and touch is 100% 1D.  All of these combined is what allows our brain to interpret the universe around us in 4D. Vision itself is nothing more than a series of rapidly changing 2D images on the retina. The brain interprets the signal and creates 3D images for us in any given Plank second. Beyond that, our spacial reasoning and consciousness is what allows us to perceive time as a series of events, like watching a film. Otherwise we'd be about as animated as a grain of sand.

Light waves (and for that matter, ALL waves) travel uniformly as a 3D wave expanding through Time (4thD) from a single origin point |0|. (Zero Point). The infinitesimal spec of quantum space where the "ball gets rolling". Once the signal is created. it rolls out through time in a (360°)³ waveform until it is perceived. At which point, the wave becomes a perceivable vibration. A photon, a sound, a feel.

[Ve9aPrim3]

OK, here's some pure objectivity.

Distant objects generally have larger redshifts than near ones

Rotating galaxies do not disintegrate

Every phenomenon predicted by relativity theory to date has turned out to be experimentally correct to a high degree of confidence

F =Gm₁m₂/r², likewise

The cosmic microwave background has an effective temperature of about 3K

All you have to do is to propose a model that explains all the above.

I propose that the Math is "inside out" so to speak. We are only observing space as it once appeared eons ago. If we were to instantaneously travel to the farthest edges of the perceive universe, we'd arrive at a point in the "NOW" and not the "THEN". Looking back to Earth would only look like the edge of the universe again. Overlapping these two discrepancies would then result in a 4D shadow of real time spacetime.

[andreasva (OP)]

Before we start to head off on too much of a tangent, let me briefly explain a core piece of what I consider to be most probable.

t=e

What that means exactly, definitely goes further than I can manage on my own.

BUT

Einstein was right, but I think he made a slight clerical error in the labeling.

spacetime is a myth

time-energy is real

time-energy is unbound energy and flows like an ocean.  It has density and currents, and properties similar in nature to it's counterpart, mass-energy.  I think they are inversely equivalent or inversely proportionate.  Wherever mass energy exist, time-energy gets pushed out.

C is the threshold between mass-energy and time-energy.  Light rides that threshold between bound and unbound energy.  It is both a wave and a particle.  When v=c, t=1, and m=0.  I know, mass increases with acceleration.  It is a conflict I do not understand, and cannot explain.  I'm not even going to try.  That's a puzzle for someone else to solve, if they are so inclined.  Maybe that's why matter can't reach C?

time-energy is attracted to itself.  It is the vacuum of space. 

We can even detect the various densities, both physically, and mathematically.  We do it everyday.

Time dilation.

The higher the time-energy density, the faster the clock.  The lower the time-energy density, the slower the clock.  We physically see the energy density in time within gravity wells.  Satellites orbiting Earth, for example.  We have to compensate using SR periodically, or the entire GPS system gets out of whack.     

It's more likely that gravity emanates from time-energy, rather than mass-energy.  It acts more like a galactic weather system.  But, I'm not trying to go there at the moment.

The evidence is right in front of our face, and has been for a very long time.

This is in my very humble opinion of course. 

Once you detach the universe from space, it's far more palatable to have a finite universe, within an infinite space.  We're made of energy, and traverse energy, and that's all we can see, feel, touch and experience.  Space is not directly part of our reality.  We (energy) are finite, where space is infinite.         

[Colin2B]

You would be the first person in 25 years to abandon the notion of a fixed scale of atoms in all these years. 

I’m surprised, I thought this was common knowledge.
Whoever wrote your table believes there is no fixed size of atom:

Sciences text book definitions.
Hydrogen = 120pm / Atomic Radius - 53pm
Oxygen = 152pm / etc
Lithium = 182pm / etc
Carbon = 170pm / etc

They are within the range I quoted:

Size of atoms does vary between about 0.1 to 0.5 nanometers, measured by looking at the separation of nuclei in the solid state.

Obviously free atoms have a larger diameter.

Is mass a relative perspective, or reality?  That's the real question I'm asking here, isn't it? 

I’m afraid my views are tainted by experiment and observations, so probably won’t be helpful to your discussion.

If something can't be explained in plane English, then the answer is more likely unknown. 

I prefer plain english where possible, but words and maths are descriptive only if someone has the vocabulary (and understands the meaning of that vocabulary) otherwise the descriptions can be extraordinarily long winded.

Paradoxes are born of false reasoning somewhere in the problem. 

Or the lack of understanding that there is no paradox in the answer.

Anyway, enjoy your new theory thread. I’ll post something on atoms and we’ll see what comes up.

[andreasva (OP)]

I’m afraid my views are tainted by experiment and observations, so probably won’t be helpful to your discussion.

I guess I would agree on the former, but completely disagree on the latter. 

I know the odds of someone like me having anything to contribute to science is beyond remote, and beyond comprehension on some levels.  1 in 7.6 billion at best.  And I know I have a terrible time conveying my thoughts into anything even remotely resembling physics.   I lack math, and terminology, and everything proper to even attempt such an endeavor.  I've never even stepped foot in a physics classroom, or read a single theory cover to cover, much less understood the supporting details in the symbols and math.  I've never been to college either.  My education comes from men exactly like you, explaining things in plain English over the past 25 years.  I was a pretty good programmer at one point in my life, and that's about it.  I know logic.  I am going to make a claim here though, regardless of the odds and my lack of understanding in the details, or my lack of education. 

I am right. 

Why?  Because it's simple, as it should be.  If you would give it chance and play with a few numbers, I think you'll find it impossible to disregard as the naivety of some random idiot on the Internet.  Really, it's not disprovable.

Mass-energy converts to time-energy.  As mass-energy deflates, time-energy inflates.  It's a rising frequency versus a falling frequency.  Mass frequency is rising over time as the volume falls, and time frequency is falling over time as the volume rises.  The universe is based on equal and opposite states of energy.

We aren't moving anywhere, other than local attraction through gravity. 

The density in the time-energy field rises over time.  A distant galaxy 3.3 million light years away existed in a lower time-energy density back then.  As the light traveled across the universe over all that time, it stretched out the wave length of light as it battled a rising tide of time-energy density.  It is further away, but the distance is not derived from the actual motion of galaxies moving outwards and away from each other.  The time-energy that we traverse now is denser.     

When we first predicted the redshift from distant galaxies, we expected a number between 67kps and 69kps max, for expansion.  Reality tells us it's more like 72kps through actual observations.  We were wrong, because we were making the prediction based on the wrong assumption.  The laws of motion.  We assumed we were expanding from an ancient big bang, and that galaxies were motoring outward into uncharted space.  Body in motion, stays in motion, etc, etc.  It's not the way it works.  When the prediction failed, then we began to add more theory to compensate for the discrepancy.  Now we're finding out that the disparity is even greater, and we're getting ready to add more theory to keep supporting the first failed prediction.  It's wrong, plain and simple, and no amount of theoretical guess work is going to correct it.   

We're just swapping energy back and forth.  Space isn't part of the equation.  There is no space-time.  It's all energy.  And no one is really wrong in principle.  Science is close, but they're missing a tiny little piece of information.  It's the difference between space-time and time-energy.  There is no ethereal temporal dimension of time.  Space is infinite, energy is not.

One tiny little labeling error throws the entire universe out of perspective.  That doesn't make anyone wrong, just a little misguided in interpreting the observations.   

We are not expanding. 

[andreasva (OP)]

I propose that the Math is "inside out" so to speak. We are only observing space as it once appeared eons ago.

Yes, I agree with this statement.  We're looking at an inverted view of reality.  Light was traveling through a lower energy density eons ago. 

I don't know about your dimensional views on reality.  I don't think I agree with a holographic viewpoint. Too complicated.  The universe is too simple.  Space+Time+Energy = Reality.  It's a very simple recipe, but highly complex in flavor.  We can sure make a mean salad with it. 

[syhprum]

I don't think Galileo ever came near being executed or tortured me was on good terms with the pope but rather misunderstood how far he could go in promulgating his heliocentric theory, after he agreed to desist from publication he lived out the rest of his life under comfortable house arrest.

[andreasva (OP)]

I don't think Galileo ever came near being executed or tortured me was on good terms with the pope but rather misunderstood how far he could go in promulgating his heliocentric theory, after he agreed to desist from publication he lived out the rest of his life under comfortable house arrest.

Wish I had never included this in the thread.  Definitely a mistake. 

[andreasva (OP)]

time-energy density illustration.  I know it's a bit rudimentary, but it is exactly what we observe.  To disprove what I'm suggesting, would be to disprove Einstein.  Like it or not the logic is undeniable.  Time has a physical impact on matter.  Only energy has been proven to have a physical impact on matter.  Time has to be energy.  That's exactly what the physical evidence demonstrates, regardless of likes or dislikes of what I'm saying here.  We have proof through observations.         

[andreasva (OP)]

So here's what I think went wrong with the Mickelson Morley experiment, and any other experiment that's attempted to detect a medium.  Call it an aether, or whatever.  The time-energy I reference is an opposing energy.  Experiments hypothesize it is the same energy. The very instrument science is using to detect the energy, is repulsing the very energy it is trying to detect.  It doesn't see anything, because it isn't there, physically.  Mass-energy and time-energy oppose each other in an equal and opposite manner.  You can't use mass-energy to detect time-energy directly.  We do detect it indirectly through time, but, Einstein already slapped a label on time, and called it space-time.  Now we have to prove Einstein is wrong, to prove Einstein was right all along.  It's a conundrum.

I'm also suggesting we see the density change in time-energy indirectly through light over time in the redshift.  Density alters the color temp of light through different mediums.  It's petty well established physics.  If energy density was increasing in the time-energy field, slowing light down, it would shift. 

I would not be surprised at all if this was intentional by the man himself.  To prove him wrong, we would have to prove him right.  He's right either way, again.  The man was brilliant, he was also a character, and somewhat of a card.       

[opportunity]

You're talking about a time that was under the major pump of tech development.

WW1, WW2.

Going from steam to flight to jet to nuclear, all in the context of "war".

Is the Earth flat in that context?

By holographic definition of time-space, maybe, but in the context of war?

[andreasva (OP)]

Possible experiment, although I'm certainly not qualified to design such a thing, and I have no idea if it would work or not.   

From far out in space, surround a section of space in a large spherical container of some sort with a known mass weight.  Then compress that down to manageable scale, and bring it back to Earth and weigh it. 

The theory being, we are trapping a different time-energy density which may be repelled somewhat on Earths surface deeper into the gravity well. 

I just don't know if we have enough variation in SR/gravity to see any difference.  Thay's why I think we'd need to gather a fairly large amount and compress it down.  Not sure if we can even trap the energy, considering our instruments and devices would be pushing that time-energy away. 

Anyway, just a random thought.... 

[guest39538]

My question is about the perspective on the universe.  Which is the valid way to look at, through expansion of space, or deflation of energy?  It's a reciprocal problem.  Either view appears to be a valid interpretation with current evidence, in my view.  I can't tell which is which.

Neither , an inflation of energy and an inflation of observation.

[andreasva (OP)]

Is the Earth flat in that context?

It's a hyperbole, and I regret the way I began this thread.  It was a mistake.

My actual context has nothing to do with a Flat Earth, other than to show the evolution of our ignorance in understanding the universe.  Unfortunately, I don't feel like starting a new thread to discuss the basis of what's being discussed at the moment. 

[andreasva (OP)]

Neither , an inflation of energy and an inflation of observation.

Old statement in the thread.  Somewhat meaningless at this point.  Although I'm not clear on the meaning or intent of your response. 

[guest39538]

Which is the valid way to look at, through expansion of space, or deflation of energy?

You asked a question , which I answered .

Which is the valid way to look at, through expansion of space, or deflation of energy?

The valid way to look at it is the objective answer I gave you.