Alternative Models of Reality

Steve Agnew

I agree that the aether universe mass is evolving however, that aether universe is decaying at 0.26 ppb/yr not growing at 7.1e-27/yr, which is the 2.25e18 kg/s / 1e52 kg in years. Although an expanding versus a shrinking universe is just a matter of phase, a shrinking universe seems more like the attractive force universe that we now have.

Plus there is plenty of evidence for the 0.255 ppb/yr decays of matter and time periods. The shrinking universe has a cold beginning and temperature does have meaning without space. Mean time delays between particles bound into an object with photon exchange also express temperature quite nicely without resort to a Cartesian space.

Instead the CMB at 0.9991c just this side of the event horizon at c in the expanding universe being 3,000 K and redshifted to 2.7 K, the shrinking universe CMB comes from an extremely cold epoch that is just a fraction of a degree K and is blue-shifted to 2.7 K by the lens of time. Although the expanding universe also has a time lens due to the stretching of light in spacetime, it is a relatively small effect. The shrinking universe is closed by c and therefore defined by its time lens since c, h, and alpha all vary in time.

The singularity of the event horizon just beyond the 0.9991c CMB in the expanding universe defines the wall of the shrinking aether universe. This turns out to be a nice way to begin and end the aether universe...to begin in ice and end in fire...

Steve Agnew

If you wondered why I like Larmor's book, take this quote for example.

"In questions of this kind the most fruitful source of progress is perhaps the process of mutual approximation of different standpoints; any single attempt at effective adaptation of fundamental conceptions must involve detail that is only provisional, and leave points of difficulty unsolved or imperfectly analyzed, while in many cases it will originate more problems than it settles." [Joseph Larmor, Aether and Matter, 1900]

I has taken me years to recognize that the universe is actually made of discrete aether and so now I feel a kinship with a lot of scientists who hung on to the notions of aether. Augmenting spacetime with the discrete aether of aethertime allows all of the math of GR spacetime to work fine close to certain limits known as event horizons, where now aethertime math completes our quantum universe.

Richard Lewis

Hello Steve,

Thank you for your comment but I had hoped to make it clear that I do not propose that space is filled with aether. I am talking about waves in spacetime itself.

Consider the concept of gravitational waves. These are waves in spacetime but no-one is suggesting that an aether is required for gravitational waves to propagate.

My proposition is that light waves are similar to gravitational waves but at a higher frequency. This proposition is supported by solutions to the GR equations for wave propagation at the speed of light. (Ref: book by Paul Dirac: Relativity. Chapter on gravitational waves).

Richard

Richard Lewis

I came across this interesting paper which caught my attention:

H2 as a dark matter candidate

The opening paragraph:

One of the driver to propose cold H2 as a dark matter candidate is our increasing knowledge about evolution of galaxies along the Hubble sequence (e.g. Pfenniger, Combes & Martinet, 1994). Because of spiral waves and bars, galaxies progressively concentrate their mass towards the center, and the late-type galaxies evolve to early-types in the sequence. Besides, HI observations of rotation curves have shown that the fraction of dark matter in the total mass is larger in late-type galaxies: therefore, some of the dark matter must be transformed into stars during evolution (cf Pfenniger, this conference).

End of quote:

This fits well with the approach to galaxy formation put forward in the Spacetime Boundary model.

The evolution of the universe

The idea is that galaxies are formed when the stored energy in the fabric of spacetime is suddenly released accompanied by a huge burst of gamma rays and the formation of a central black hole. As well as gamma rays emitted at the speed of light there is the formation of looped gamma rays in the form of neutrons.

The unification of physics

These decay into protons and electrons which combine to form hydrogen atoms and then hydrogen molecules.

So we are left with a central black hole and an expanding spherical region of hydrogen gas. This gas condenses into stars but in a typical galaxy less than a fifth of the hydrogen has formed visible stars and the remaining four fifths is in the form of hydrogen gas in its lowest energy state.

So the idea that dark matter is hydrogen gas put forward in the above referenced paper fits very well with the spacetime boundary model.

Richard

Steve Agnew

Certainly it is desirable to use ordinary matter like cold hydrogen instead of cold dark matter. The problem is that cold hydrogen will behave differently than CDM behaves and so the papers that you cite "fix" the cold hydrogen so that it is only cold hydrogen as a convenient name...you guessed it, aether.

Although this approach assiduously avoids the aether term, filling space with special particles that obey special laws is really filling space with aether.

Steve Dufourny

PV=nRT my friends and of course more my équations about sphères,and truth appears...insert my équations

Akinbo Ojo

Please how is cold hydrogen to be differentiated from non-baryonic cold dark matter? Second, assuming cold hydrogen is the candidate, would it be abundant in earth's atmosphere? If not, why not?

Akinbo

Steve Dufourny

Hello Mr Ojo,

If we take a kind of BEC ,in a kind of absolute zero,I doubt that hydrogen is the same than dark matter.

The number of entangled sphères is diffrent considering evolution.

The only one thing that I see is that they does not turn these entangled sphères.But you are right considering that it is all composed by sphères,so let's speak about sphères for the comparison and not H.Just a thought.

The number of sphères and their volumes become very relevant when we compare with the rotations proportional with mass and temperature and velocities of spinal and orbital rotations.That is why my équations if they are correct can help in all humility of course.

Best Regards

Steve Dufourny

In logic, quantum entanglement is like a foto of our universal sphere, but more the encoding of informations, if we respect the line of electromagnetism, the volumes of entangled sphères is relevant around our électrons perhaps considering dar matter,with of course a lot of kind of black particles correlated with the volumes where they come from,the last black particles are from the central black sphere of our universal sphere.Just a thought.In this line of reasoning ,the most important cosmological sphere,the central BH implies the smallest quantum sphères.It is intriguing about their linear velocities in a pure spiritual point of vue.

Regards

Steve Dufourny

Landay and London shall agree about the extrapolation of He 1 and 2 :)The superliquid appears if and only if the numbers of entangled sphères is respected.The statistical analyze so become relevant if and only if the number is respected.the temperature and my équations show the road...

Steve Dufourny

Landau sorry,but let's continue with the black body radiation and so the encoding of evolution with temperature .....:)

Akinbo Ojo

There is an error in the numbers in my hypothesis. It should correctly be:

The Universe has been increasing in mass and radius from an initial zero value to its current and still increasing size at a rate 6.75 X 1026kg per metre change in radius, which also amounts to about 2.02 X 1035kg per second.

Thanks Austin, for your fresh perspective. In some models of your type temperature at the nodes will be infinite due to the presence of bosons. In my model temperature is zero because there is no matter-energy at the nodes. My hypothesis can be time reversed to give a picture for a Big crunch and this is somewhat similar to Steve's viewpoint. That Big crunch also ends with zero temperature so removing paradox of what temperature is at the nodes (initial and final).

At a time it was taboo to say the universe's mass was increasing. I have been saying so since 2008 (arXiv). It is good that this army is growing with your statement, "I agree that the universe is increasing in mass, which is zero at the nodes". However, once you admit that, an inflationary process becomes unnecessary because inflation was invented to cure the Big bang of its near infinite density at the beginning. But if the universe's mass was many orders of magnitude less than the current ~1052kg, inflation becomes unnecessary at the era it was introduced. Nice exchanging this correspondence.

Regards,

Akinbo

austin fearnley

Akinbo

Steve recently mentioned that there could be temperature without a metric. I do not see how that is possible as temperature measures heat and heat requires motion and motion requires a space metric. But it may be trickier and I will need to think and read up. Also the bosons at the node are all occupying one BEC state which again does not indicate motion or heat or temperature. Until the space becomes larger the reduced spatial states allowable may also keep down motion, heat and temperature. Not too sure about that though, away from the node.

I do not think you are disagreeing with me about there being no matter at the nodes. I have used the word "matter" but that word is usually reserved for fermions. Perhaps I should say preon"content" to distinguish from fermion matter. Whether you get fermions or bosons depends how the preons are combined. SUSY is a method which tries to unite fermions and bosons but I unite the two forms by them sharing preon content. And also the mass of a particle depends on the particular combination of preons. Some combinations of preons can give speed c while some combinations cannot. Hence mass will not be a constant in the universe. Energy is another aspect and is one that I find more difficult. At the node, if the bosons are all massless then there can still be energy from the momentum. However, if the universe is just one massless boson at the node then it will not have any momentum, and no metric too. Near the end node, in Penrose's CCC, the photons have zero momentum because their frequencies become very low as their wavelengths tend to infinity.

Since at the node my model is zero mass in no metric, I do not maybe have a requirement for inflation, but I do have a mechanism for inflation. The mechanism is the self-sustaining fission of high generation fermions into lower generation fermions. This is possible because there is a universe-worth of preon content available at the nodes. The mass defect for binding elementary particles within elementary particles will be very large so that there is an immense exponential increase possible in mass as the higher generations disappear.

There is more on my preon model at vixra if you are interested. Just google my name and 'preons' and it should be top of the search page.

Nice exchanging views with you again. I did so briefly a few years back also.

Regards,

Austin

Steve Agnew

Yeah baby! Now you are cooking with gas...

Akinbo Ojo replied on Aug. 24, 2015 @ 10:05 GMT as "The Universe has been increasing in mass and radius from an initial zero value to its current and still increasing size at a rate 6.75 X 1026kg per metre change in radius, which also amounts to about 2.02 X 1035kg per second."

This then amounts to a mass gain of 0.64 ppb/yr as compared with a loss of 0.26 ppb/yr for the aethertime shrinking. You are definitely in the right ballpark. The gain versus loss is a phase problem and there is always a factor of ~two or so in the topology of the universe. In my universe, it takes two trips around to get back to the same place.

Steve Agnew

Of course, what I said is that there could be a temperature without space, but there does have to be a metric and time delay and aether exchange represent object separation and action without motion.

austin fearnley replied on Aug. 24, 2015 @ 14:40 GMT as "Steve recently mentioned that there could be temperature without a metric. I do not see how that is possible as temperature measures heat and heat requires motion and motion requires a space metric. But it may be trickier and I will need to think and read up. Also the bosons at the node are all occupying one BEC state which again does not indicate motion or heat or temperature. Until the space becomes larger the reduced spatial states allowable may also keep down motion, heat and temperature. Not too sure about that though, away from the node."

Heat is energy and simply means the energy transferred from one object to another. In other words, heat is simply a specific kind of aether exchange in spacetime, but is really like any other kind of energy exchange.

Akinbo Ojo

Is this worth dragging further... when you say, "energy transferred from one object to another", this supposes we are not dealing with one object. That being the case the objects are 'separated'. How come then the statement that this sort of scenario still permits saying "...without space"? Separation is space.

Confused in Lagos,

Akinbo

Steve Agnew

In aethertime, it is time delay that separates objects from each other and space is a consequence of time delay. This is why no one has yet been able to get an aether theory to work for making predictions of object motion...everything is backwards. Motion is kinetic energy and so in aethertime, motion is inertial matter as aether exchange. Temperature is just a state of set of objects with time delays and aether exchanges and so temperature has a straightforward interpretation in aethertime without space and motion.

This allows the reinterpretation of the CMB temperature at 2.7 K and z = 1089 from 3000 K for an expanding universe to the very cold 0.64 K in the shrinking aethertime. The aethertime origin is cold and its destiny is hot while spacetime's big bang is a hot origin and destiny is a cold expansion to nothing.

Steve Agnew

Need a break from all the hype?

The CMB temperature in aethertime is due to the ionization of hydrogen in that epoch; 0.64 K. In the present epoch, hydrogen ionization is 13.6 eV, which is a lot hotter than the CMB; 158,000 K. So the surface of a black hole in the present epoch will be clamped to the temperature or energy of hydrogen ionization, which corresponds to the Lyman series of UV bands for hydrogen.

In fact, Lyman alpha blobs are large clouds of gas seen at z>2 that are associated with galactic active nuclei. One at z = 6.6 is called Himiko and looks like a young galaxy forming around a black hole very early in the universe. So in aethertime, the same hydrogen ionization shows up for black holes in the present epoch as well the glow of the CMB.

That's really cool...

Steve Agnew

Enter yet another aether paper without the aether name, Shu's universe filled with a pressure-free dust...

Cosmological Models with No Big Bang

So, instead of dark energy, this paper uses pressure-free dust to explain the supernova data. Since the paper develops the aether concept pretty thoroughly (without using the word of course), c varies over cosmic time, which is a key result of most aether models including aethertime.

However, there are many pathologies introduced by filling space with aether or pressure-free dust or incompressible waves of any kind. However, augmenting space with aether seems to get to the same place by avoiding the conundrums of infinite divisibility and pushing the singularities out to where they belong at the edge of the universe.

The really odd thing about dark matter and dark energy is that while they are really both augment spacetime with special forces that behave in special ways, dark matter and dark energy do not use the aether moniker.

Also, continuous space, motion, and time are obviously limited notions and do not describe all objects in the universe. But instead of augmenting space with an aether, dark matter and dark energy are both made to fit into the limited notions of continuous space and motion.

Akinbo Ojo

This is why I have a soft spot for Einstein. He has a deeply inquisitive mind, by far different from his followers.

Here are some excerpts from his 1920 Leiden lecture: 'Ether and the Theory of Relativity'

"More careful reflection teaches us however, that the special theory of relativity does not compel us to deny ether."

"But on the other hand there is a weighty argument to be adduced in favour of the ether hypothesis. To deny the ether is ultimately to assume that empty space has no physical qualities whatever. The fundamental facts of mechanics do not harmonize with this view. For the mechanical behaviour of a corporeal system hovering freely in empty space depends not only on relative positions (distances) and relative velocities, but also on its state of rotation, which physically may be taken as a characteristic not appertaining to the system in itself. In order to be able to look upon the rotation of the system, at least formally, as something real, Newton objectivises space. Since he classes his absolute space together with real things, for him rotation relative to an absolute space is also something real. Newton might no less well have called his absolute space "Ether"; what is essential is merely that besides observable objects, another thing, which is not perceptible, must be looked upon as real, to enable acceleration or rotation to be looked upon as something real."

his closing paragraph: "Recapitulating, we may say that according to the general theory of relativity space is endowed with physical qualities; in this sense, therefore, there exists an ether. According to the general theory of relativity space without ether is unthinkable; for in such space there not only would be no propagation of light, but also no possibility of existence for standards of space and time (measuring-rods and clocks), nor therefore any space-time intervals in the physical sense . But this ether may not be thought of as endowed with the quality characteristic of ponderable media, as consisting of parts which may be tracked through time. The idea of motion may not be applied to it."

A truly great thinker albeit, now misrepresented by latter day followers, just as latter day religious people now misrepresent the founders of their religion by their practices.

Akinbo

Steve Agnew

Very nice to hear from Al. Selective interpretation of past stories is more to the point, not really misintrepretation. After all, Al could have built his GR on aethertime instead of spacetime and then his talk would have changed into this:

"Recapitulating, we may say that according to the general theory of relativity aether is endowed with physical qualities; in this sense, therefore, space also exists. According to the general theory of relativity aether without space is unthinkable; for in such aether there not only would be no changes that we call light, but also no possibility of existence for standards of aether and time (measuring-masses and clocks), nor therefore any aethertime intervals in the physical sense. But space may not be thought of as endowed with the quality characteristic of ponderable media, as consisting of parts which may be tracked through time. The idea of aether exchange may not be applied to space."

Bud Rapanault

Like Akinbo I also greatly admire Einstein as a thinker but the two paragraphs quoted illustrate where he went quite wrong. Those two paragraphs represent a philosophical argument for a scientific proposition, the existence of an aether, which is not borne out by empirical analysis. Science rests upon empiricism; it is the empirical imperative that separates science from all other modes of human inquiry. If the existence of an aether cannot be empirically demonstrated, then there is no scientific basis for the claim that it exists.

Einstein's entire discussion is problematic because it assumes the existence of something he calls 'empty space' that, like the aether, cannot be demonstrated to exist but must be argued into existence philosophically. This was in my opinion Einstein's greatest mistake. Here the great insight of Special Relativity, the absence of an aether and therefore of a universal reference frame, is squandered for the mathematical convenience of an empty space with physical properties.

The argument "...what is essential is merely that besides observable objects, another thing, which is not perceptible, must be looked upon as real..." is similar in nature to a Prime Mover argument in as much as it leads logically to an infinite regression. The question becomes, if what is observable must rest on something that is not observable, then what must the unobserved "entity" in turn rest on. If the argument is that the unobserved component is fundamental and sufficient in itself. then the counterargument (upon which science relies) is that what can be observed has just that property of sufficiency and therefore the imperceptible entity itself is superfluous.

Einstein had it right the first time, in Special Relativity. The zombie idea of an aether should be re-interred with a stake driven through its heart.

Steve Dufourny

Hello Mr Rapanault,

I agree, that said it was a beautiful idea.A kind of pilot wave of Bohm from a primordial cause.

I see this aether, not like a lumin.Aether, but just like a gravitational spherical wave from a center.If this gravitational spherical wave is a reality, so it is from the central sphere of our universal sphere.It is just an information, a wave,a primordial wave simply, very speed and which connects all things Inside this Universe.

In all case I respect the pragamatism of several scientists, but personaly I am christian and I beleive in God.And it is the only way for God to inform us , this gravitational aether.This entropy creates a logic , areality after all and the mass increases,evolves, improves.It is my choice tobeleive in this entropy,I respect the choice of persons who don't beleive in God that said.

This gravitational aether will never appraoched due to its incredible speed,but I like to think about it .It isjust an universal faith.If God creates a sphere with sphères, so there are reasons above our human interprétations.If the spherisation imrpovement is a reality, so we can extrapolate the wonderful future.It is not a reason to beirrational and not deterministic.It is just a kind of beleifs.After all, many of our past thinkers had thisuniversal faith,perhaps that even it is the secret of the generality.But I agree that the devil is in détails :)

John Cox

Bud,

While I differ with Akinbo as to *the aether*, I am committed to 'each to their own' both metaphysically and philosophically.

I think where there exists much misconception in regards Einstein's utterances, lies both in transliteration from the original dialect he preferred as well as the more modern idioms expressed these days. It was a century ago that most of what he said, is now interpreted from a persuasion grossly influenced by the prejudice in QM to prop up the entirely philosophic assumption of absolute time.

By *must be looked upon as real* I do not read as material, but rather existential. In the sense of a priori, lack of existence is The Void. And something which the inherent animal instinct of self preservation is simply and strictly incapable of comprehending. Really, it would not be a very successful species which could accommodate any idea of not existing in its survival instinct. Yet physically we must intellectually abstract some idea of The Void to distinguish between the material world which would include field volumes, and an absolute nothingness. It has always seemed a bit conveniently ad hoc for QM to assume absolute space and time as an infinite measure paradigm, and then say that neither is real.

In the classical mind of the era when modern relativistic thought culminated into formalized theoretical discourse, it was considered profound to embrace an idea that time and space not only were existential beyond the mathematical artifice, but mutually pliable. And by treating spacetime as existential, there is the real relationship that suggests the only difference is that which exists between the mathematically finite determinability of rectilinear measure, and the mathematically infinite indeterminability of curvilinear measure. I find it instructive of the meanings of terminology of the era to struggle with Russell, Eddington, Fitzgerald and others. It is what they meant by * choice of geometries *.

Which brings me to that point which is really at the heart of objections to modern relativity, the solution to Galileo's relativity where an object falling from the masthead of a passing ship follows both a straight line and a curved line. Something has to give, and people like to think of having all the time in the world.

The oft stated objection to SR is in the reversibility of the mathematical function inherent to any equality, and a direct application of that to physical time reversibility. (I object to that interpretation, also.) BUT, here is why... when Einstein gushed about his epiphany of imagining himself riding on a beam of light and Time *stopped*, it is only so in the experience of the hypothetical observer travelling at light velocity. So time does NOT follow a metric which would equate in the reversibility of a mathematical equality as time extending at light velocity for a body at relative rest and slowing to an extension rate of zero at light velocity. Yet that is how it commonly gets applied. Physically, where SR and GR can agree is when the time metric is recognized to be one where the closer one gets to light velocity, the nearer one is to the limit rate at which time can extend. At relative rest, time extends at a nil rate. And that is perhaps where we should look for a *quantum gravity* rationale. Cordially, jrc

Steve Dufourny

I d like to change your point of vue :)

Newton had thought also about a gravitational aether.

Here is my humble point of vue.

If we take the center of Universe, let's assume that it is black sphere,the biggest volume.Let's admit that the Big Bang is from there with a spherical expansion accelerated.Let's correlate with Dark energy,a gravitational aether, primordial.Let's consider that this central sphere have created the protons, the bosons and gravitons.Let's assume the linear velocity of produced gravitons above c.Let's consider a correlated wave ,the gravitational spherical universal aether.If now we assume a decreasing of spherical volumes for the BH,between this central BH and the centers of galaxies,BH also.So the waves decrease their velocity and the gravitons produced, them, increase their spherical volumes.The aether is gravitational so and have many fréquences and waves spherical.The lumin.Aether is not rational because it is not from the center of our universe and also the SR says us that c is the maximum for bosons and electromagnetic waves.The gravitational aether is so better and more rational.

Regards

Thomas Ray

"At relative rest, time extends at a nil rate."

Relative to what, John? The idea of an absolute speed of light that cannot be reached is the negation of absolute time.

Einstein considered "relativity" a poor name for a theory of the absolute, but the name stuck.

At any rate, motion can't be absolutely relative without giving up locality. That's why quantum theory assigns nonlocal events a mysterious quality -- all measurement in the quantum domain is local, and the outcome is nonlocal.

Einstein already solved this, with time reversibility. This is unacceptable to empiricists, but it's the only way that special relativity can be consistent with quantum mechanics, and with local realism.

The only mystery remaining is how to distinguish reversed time from "normal" time. And Hawking solved that one.

Bud Rapanault

John,

Thanks for the thoughtful reply. Your point about the difficulty of understanding Einstein's meaning given the cultural and linguistic divide is well taken. However Einstein clearly states "according to the general theory of relativity space is endowed with physical qualities" which means that space itself is a physical entity, doesn't it? I also must confess that I did not quite follow the distinction you appear to be making between 'material' and 'existential'. Perhaps you can elaborate a bit.

My approach to the question of space and time is to abjure a philosophical inquiry in favor of scientific empiricism. On that basis, space and time clearly cannot be demonstrated to exist in and of themselves but rather can at best be seen as characteristics of matter/energy systems. Those characteristics have been abstracted into the concepts of space and time by humans and thence reified and projected back onto the physical realm. This suggests that the concepts of space and time are fundamentally irrelevant to, and likely inhibit, a proper theoretical analysis of physical reality. In short they are excess baggage.

In saying this I am not attempting to assert a 'fact' about reality so much as I am suggesting that a model based on the assumption that space and time are characteristics of matter/energy behavior has some potential to further our understanding of the matter/energy systems that permeate the cosmos. Best,

Bud

Steve Dufourny

Let's laugh a little , it is good for health, still an atheist master in empirism :)

any reference frame, a beautiful island without coherence ,entity and what also

without singularities and also perhaps the finite systems? finite in their numbers do not exist.An infinity in fact you see all that laugh is good for health.

Empirically yours dear all thinkers

one says that time is reversible

andother says that universe is infinite

an other that FTL is possible with electromagnetic waves

after it is the warp drive

and after ???

Laugh is very good for health and also vanity of vanities dear thinkers, allis vanity.

John Cox

Bud,

Very good and sane points, and I appreciate your stating it as a pragmatic paradigm rather than fact of reality.

My distinction between existential and material might best be described as energy being the materialization of spacetime, though I don't think we can separate space, time, and energy fundamentally. Matter itself in my scheme of things is when despite the profoundly transient nature of the continuum in continuously replenishing itself, the resultant energy is confined to a locality by there being a limit to the speed of time that is equivalent to light velocity. So in relation to that total field volume which would reach a minimum density at an empirical limit of cohesion (connectivity) and thus gravitational influence at a finite radial distance in a theoretical free rest mass, what we observe as the material particle is a central core at a density of energy which is great enough to exhibit inelastic properties. I further hypothesize that for a particle to exhibit inertia some portion of the total energy must exist as the greatest density, constant across a finite core volume, that is in a universal proportion to the total energy quantity. (I=ec^2) In answer to Tom's pointed question, it is in that central inertial core volume that the speed of time is nil. And I say nil, because we can't say there is absolute rest without also accepting absolute space and time. From the radial length of the inertial core horizon, outward to the limit of gravitational connectivity, the speed of time increases as a factoral function of light velocity to the limit where it is equivalent to light velocity and therefore the spatial volume does not need to continue to expand to infinity because it is the spatial extension that *stops* not time. Call it the Fifth Dimension, if that helps. Best, jrc

Thomas Ray

"In answer to Tom's pointed question, it is in that central inertial core volume that the speed of time is nil. And I say nil, because we can't say there is absolute rest without also accepting absolute space and time."

There is no absolute rest state, by the uncertainty principle. That doesn't mean that spacetime is not absolute. It means that time and space do not exist independently.

John Cox

Tom,

Thanks for the qualifying remarks, and I might add for the purpose of distinguishing from the purely philosophic, that mathematically what is meant by 'absolute' is the capability to obtain an absolute value from given parameters. Best, jrc

Thomas Ray

This is what makes reversibility imperative. With an independent time and space, the world is only accidental. With reversibility encoded in the initial condition, every point is self-similar to every other, and there is coherence.

Because a point in complex analysis is in fact a line, this self similarity extends to the extremes of the universe via imaginary time.

Steve Dufourny

I am sorry but I must insist about time like irreversible.Our second law of thermo shows us the road of entropy and its Arrow of time.Ask to Eddington please.

We cannot accept that time is symmetric , it is assymetric.Our procees in thermo prove that.The stochastic analyse must be rational when we speak about violations of CPT .The CP violations are just when we utilise a desintegration or when we change so the charges.It is not really a violations of pure symmetries.The time is correlated with the thmodynamic and its irreversibilities.

If now you insert the algebras of Clifford or others with a pure 3D ,and that the time is bad utilised in the symmetries of reversibility, so it is just due to bad parameters inserted in the calculations correlated with the principles of thermo.Time is a duration correlated with entropy.You cannot utilise several false recurrences implying paradoxs like the demon of Maxwell.If it was true avout the violation of the assymetry of time, so it is the same that saying second law of thermo is false.That has no sense respecting the Arrow of time of entropy in its pure irreversibility.ENTROPY INCREASES !!!

You uses badly the Tools ofmaths without respect of foundamental laws.

Eddington, Maxwell and Clausius d laugh really !!!

Thomas Ray

Sorry, Steve, but Hawking radiation contradicts everything you say.

Steve Dufourny

I beleive strongly that your main errors is about the interpretation of CPT Theorem and the violations of symétries.It is just due to utilization of numbers , imaginaries implying false rotations, probably the sense in your cases.

And the Lorentz invariances in all that???

All these errors imply a false interpretation of the Minkowski space time and its irreversible laws.

Steve Dufourny

Tom, the radiations of Hawking ara just ejections of gravitons and correlated gravitational waves.I don't see a problem in the analyse of entropy of BH.The second law is respected.It is just the same that the ejections of our sun.It is a process linked with its intrinsic properties of nuclear rections by fusion.

If the BH are composed by particles above our lectromagnetism and thermo.That does not mean that our laws disappear about matter and energy so entropy.

I don't see the radiations of Hawking inserting CPT violations.The BH has a volume, a charge, a density, an intrinsic entropy, a time assymetric correlated with thesecond law.It is just that we must insert other parameters about gravitational énergies instead of electromagnetism énergies.I don't see the necessity to have a time reversibility for a better understanding of what is a BH.It is not a door or a time machine giving us a parallel universe and the anti matter is not a problem also.It isjust a sphere with several rules,the increase of entropy respecting the arrowof time is essential so.iTs intrinsic dynamic respects the invariances of Lorentz, the secondlaw of thermo and also the CPT theorem at my humble opinion.I beleive strongly that it is a better road to understand the rules and properties of our BH.

The space time is deterministic and empiric.

I am persuaded that the main error is in the utilisation of geometrical algebras and their meanings about time and entropy.

It is logic in fact.

Regards

Thomas Ray

Here is what Vesselin Petkov says about it, and with which I agree:

"All physicists would agree that one of the most fundamental problems of the 21st century physics is the dimensionality of the world. In the four-dimensional world of Minkowski (or Minkowski spacetime) the most challenging problem is the nature of the temporal dimension. In Minkowski spacetime it is merely one of the four dimensions, which means that it is entirely given like the other three spacial dimensions. If the temporal dimension were not given in its entirety and only one constantly changing moment of it existed, Minkowski spacetime would be reduced to the ordinary three-dimensional space.

"But if the physical world, represented by Minkowski spacetime, is indeed four-dimensional with time being the fourth dimension, then such a world is drastically different from its image based on our perceptions. Minkowski four-dimensional world is a block Universe, a frozen world in which nothing happens since all moments of time are given 'at once', which means that physical bodies are four-dimensional worldtubes containing the whole histories in time of the three-dimensional bodies of our everyday experience. The implications of a real Minkowski world for physics itself and especially for our world view are enormous." ~ Vesselin Petkov, Ed. Relativity and the Dimensionality of the World, Springer, 2007

Thermodynamics, quantum mechanics, Bell's theorem are valid in the domain of information theory. The cosmic code belongs to cosmology.

Steve Dufourny

It is a choice to think in this road where the violations of CPT symmetry are a reality.

My choice is to think in a Copenaghenian way.It is the same with the quantum entanglement and the spooky at distance.It was just a extrapolation of beleifs by Einstein considering two states like on, dépendent.Copenaghen says us that these states are not dépendent.It is still a choice to think in two ways.

If it was the case Tom,we could teleportate a quantum particle without a point of departure and a point of arrivals?How is it possible considering that we must reencode the entanglement without informations.The lumin aether has no answer,andif it exists an aether it is gravitational,so the electromagnetic waves are not sufficient.In all the cases, it is not possible and I don't speak about this second law of thermo furthermore.

Regards

John Cox

Tom and Steve,

Petkov puts his finger on the very bone of contention, Minkowski spacetime IS frozen! But I think it was Minkowski himself whom early on stated that (because) we have no way of knowing if the scales of time and space are different, we just assume them to be the same. That pretty much assures a mathematical freeze-up. Maybe its time we pull our stick out of the mud and go on.

I just went back to June 7, 2013 and my first post to this forum in the blog: Evolving Time's Arrow. I'll reiterate but if you preset [order posts to] most recent first; and go to articles and the Title, it was the last posted to that thread. The conjecture goes like this:

The scale of a span duration in the dimension of time and that of a span of distance in the dimension of space are set by the initial condition of an intersection of the two. A span of time comparatively shorter than a span of distance will induce the time parameter to extend to equalize with space. But that in turn will induce the spatial length to respond by lengthening, and that initiates a 'leap-frog' condition of co-dependent extension until the differing lengths reach a self-replicating ratio such as the Golden Mean at light velocity. If equally commensurate spans of time and space were to intersect, time would not be induced to extend but would exist as a static appearance of space. An intersection of a longer span of time with a shorter one of space, would induce time to successively shorten in an annihilation leap-frog sequence. Physically, we obtain an Arrow of Time, but with a rationale that also permits localized apparent reversibility for potentially brief enough durations in proper time to account for laboratory observations in particle research which indicate such.

As to any objection as to why the temporal dimension should be initially responsive rather than the spatial, permit me to reduce our choice of geometries to the simplest; we need three axes to determine that a change in volume of a sphere is uniform but only one time dimension which can coexist on each spatial axis. Begging a 3:1 advantage, time moves more freely than space. It is dynamic, not frozen. The difference between rectilinear space and curvilinear space is the origin of energy.

Heck! If we are to admire the likes of Einstein, Minkowski, Bohr, Heisenberg et al, as bold creative thinkers, why can't we go beyond what they left unfinished and be bold ourselves? There is a zany spoof on TV called The Big Bang Theory and in one episode Leonard finally gets the nerve to ask Penny for a date and while at dinner they ask the usual "what's new?" questions and Leonard (an experimental physicist) replies, "Nothing. Physics hasn't discovered anything new in eighty years." How tiredly true. It's just gotten unGodly complicated. :-) jrc

Steve Dufourny

You make me more crazzy that I am Mr Cox.:)and you also Tom, you make me crazzy.

Universaly yours

Thomas Ray

"Begging a 3:1 advantage, time moves more freely than space. It is dynamic, not frozen. The difference between rectilinear space and curvilinear space is the origin of energy."

The origin of inertia, John. What is it you think I've been arguing? The Minkowski spacetime metric - is symmetrical to - - - . One can choose either either side, and it will always revert to the other within 7 steps of an 8 dimension geometry (the Joy Christian framework). Because we experience the 3-sphere as a 4 dimension projection of that framework, the 3-sphere is our measurement basis.

This is the random walk algorithm of time I described.

John Cox

Tom,

I thought you might find agreement in that, though no doubt at a much deeper level than my own humble intuition. Thanks for more instructive insight of your methodology. You argue that while you agree with Petkov's summation of Minkowski spacetime producing a 'snap-shot' of the universe in which 'all moments in time happen at once'; when subjected to projection in an 8 dimensional topological measure space, each moment can be extracted in its own proper time (?).

Keeping in mind that at my level of play I have to be reminded that the strict technical definition of 'metric' is a square matrix set of signs, the assumption that the operational scales of time and space are identical would make the Minkowski metric simply a basis, wouldn't it? Patience, :-) jrc

Steve Dufourny

You prefer so Tom, the works of Lisi and Joy instead of mine :)

I am sad that you prefer the anti thesis instead of rational proportions.

:)what a world ,violations of foundamentals everywhere.

Regards

Steve Dufourny

I found where come from your errors.

It is just due to a bad interpretation of several theories.The Kaluza Klein theory , the Minkowski space time,the lie algenbras and the Clifford algebras more the M Theory.It is just due to a bad understanding of what are the dimensions.The extradimensions are just misunderstood where we loose our proportions at the planck scale.The link between electromagnetism and gravitation is so bad interpreted.The violations are just due to several errors in the utilisations of symmeries due togeometrical algebras.The violations of bell's inequalities, it is the same.The second law ofthermo can be respected even for the bridge between electrom and gravitation.The vectors must be well analysed after all.The proportionswith the 3d sphères are essential and thegeometricalalgebras must respectthese essentials for a correct analyseofproportions.The cinetic energy can be linked with the Arrow of time, irreversible and the increasr of entropy.The phases of encoding electromagnetic or gravitational can follow the rational roasd of thermo.It is just that we have a kindof bridge between these tow kindof energy.If the symmetries and vectors and dimensions are bad utilised, so we have problems in the calculations of these said 3D proportions.The spacetime is just a tool ,and time is not really a dimension.It is a duration in one sense.If tou cansider extradimensions at the planck scale, it is always in meter even with tori or others.

My model of spherisation with 3D sphères respect allthese universalproportions, essential respecting our laws.They turn so they are and the encoding of informations, bosonic or gravitonic can be rational and empiric.I don't see a necessity to have extradimensions, we have our mesures after all andit is essential for the calculations of what is entropy.

The lie algebras or Clifford algebras must be utilized in respecting the physicality and its proportions.The Arrow of time and the entropy like chief of orchestra.The spherical volumes and the finitenumber for the uniqiuenss serie must be an essential at my humble opinion.If not we have not the good proportions in the calculations of what is entropy and massin increasing due to encodings of evolution.The phases , thecinetic energy, the mass, the density, the volume, the charges,....All these proiportions are universal respecting thesecondlaw of thermo and the invariances oflorents, the CPT symmetry and bell's inequalities.

In conclusion, we cannot extrapolate what we want with the geometricalalgebras,and the conclusions must be empiric,the rest is vain.

Don't forget that the gravitational energy is also an energy, so the secondlaw is important.Even ifit different than electromagnetism, it is an energy also Under the law of an Arrow of time irreversible.How can you have a phase of encoding if this arrowof timeis not respected considering the increasing of entropy and mass???

Steve Dufourny

Let's take our BB and the evolution on this arrow of time at universal scale purely linked with the quantum scale

I see personaly the Big Bang in a spherical accelerated expansion correlated with inflation and the dark energy.Let's imagine a central BH to our universal sphere.Let's imagine that it is the biggest spherical volumles and that this central sphere has caused the big bang and that also it produces gravitons(the smallest spherical volumes).So we can correlate with the gravitational universal spherical aether wave and its maximum linear velocity. The aroow of time is irreversible respecting the second law in thermo, so it can be correlated with the entropy in increasing and the correlated mass due to phases of encoding of bosonic informations and gravitonic informations.These informations are encoded in our nuclies, coded also from this BB.If we see the quantum uniquenss and its entangled sphères like a relative foto of our universe and its cosmologicalspheres, so we have a finite number and it becomes relevant considering the proportions of encoding respecting this entropy increasing.The mass, the density , thevolumes , the cinetic energy, the spin, the orbital motons,the charges of sphères can show us theroad of constants ,spherical and correlated proportions.We don't need violations to encircle our BB and evolution after all, all the proportions can be calculated withnempirism .

[deleted]

Here is a globalpoint of vue.

Let's take the sphere homology of Poincarré and the 3SPHERE.Even with the geometricalalgebras and the M Theory and the KK theory,we rest in 3D evenwith thehomeomorphism.It is how you interpret the different forms implied by this homeomorphism.If furthermore the rotations and the symmeties or the imaginary numbers are utilised in a geometrical algebras wanting to show us the road of physics at planck scale.The choices of domains are essential.

The dimensions rest always in the 3sphere at all scales, planck scales, quantumscales and cosmol scales.If not, we cannot have the good proportions about the foundamental calculations of what is gravitation linked with mass and entropy on a pure irreversible Arrow of time.

The shape of our universe needs of this spherisation and sphères for the rotations of evolution considering the increase of entropy linked with the phases of encodings.If the spherical volumes are not well understood, we cannot have good results.

There are really a problem in the categories of space when I analyse the whole of the works in geometricalalgebras.It is evident that the problem is topologic and about the sysmmetries and breaking of foundamentals.That is why these works imply so many confusions in the understanding of this universallink between electromagnetism and gravitation.The sense of rotations and the spherical volumes can answer to this bridge between electrom and gravitation at all scales, planck scale, quant scale and cosml scale.It is evident at my humble opinion.The good way is torespect the 3D sphere in a minlowski space time respecti,ng the 3D insertions of other 3D sphères with a time like constant of evolution correlated with an irreversible Arrow of time correlated with this increase of entropy.It is not possible in an other way it seems.Really the roations and sphères are necessary.The dark matter can be understood with these universal spherical volumes.And dark energy also.They are also in the quantum world this dark energy and dark matter,theaim is tofind where with the entangled sphères encoding other sphères, bosonic and gravitonic.The link with the cosmological sphères is very relevant when we consider a finite number and thespherical volumes.

John Cox

Steve,

Sorry, but I really don't follow what you are trying to say. Other than its obvious you do not understand Tom's efforts are towards maintaining the necessary mathematical symmetry ( just like 3+4=7 is symmetrical to 7-4=3 ) to ensure integrity in a multi-dimensional complex analysis, while still producing a progression that correlates to an Arrow of time relativistically connected not only between localities in one scale, but transcendent across all scales. So reversibility in complex analysis means computational compatibility, not physical time running 'backwards'.

Consider how you might be sitting at ease at a lunch counter, and how fluid your bodily movements are as you raise a glass of water (or wine is nice) without bumping your neighboring patron. You don't even think of the geometric calculations going on in your mental processes. Perhaps they emerge from a form of mathematical relationships that we haven't yet invented! But what we have to work with currently in spatial/temporal analysis is an orthogonal intersection of three complex planes, creating eight (8) octants of a spherical zone. Now... we can't refer to a point behind us in relationship to a point in front of us as if there was a straight line connecting the two that bisects the center point of the intersecting planes. That would make everything behind us upside down and backwards like light squeezing through a lens. So we have to assign a system of what direction we rotate when we go from one octant to another in locating a point so that if a point is behind us we can call it a minus (-) but still keeping a basic orientation to what is directly above us as a plus (+). And then this system extends to each of the eight octants in relation to any other. Oh Yes! it is complex analysis! But that is the best we have to work with. The non-commutative algebras that become necessary to keep the rotation (not physical, but systemic) all going the same directions without conflicting require using negative values, but that means that multiplying a (+) and a (-) will always produce a (-) product and multiplying either a (+) and a (+), or a (-) and a (-), will produce a (+) product. Reversibility of the time parameter simply means checking that the resulting (+) or (-) product is allowable in that point's location in relation to the co-ordinates on the quadrants of the planes that it correlates to. Imaginary time is not time that is simply 'imagined', but is called imaginary because of the use of the 'imaginary number' (i) making sign reversal possible and the analytical rotational scheme intact so that some things don't wind up being upside down and/or backwards at their location correlated to points on the complex planes.

What I was saying in dredging up a conjecture that disputes the assumption of the operational scales of time and space being identical, is that such an assumption being non-differentiated produces a static picture of 'all moments in time happening at once'. So while analytically while one time measurement applies to three spatial measurements, does endow time with a dynamic nature, we also must treat the special case of the scale of a span of time and the scale of a span of space being equal as a baseline value that may or may not exist naturally. Cordially, jrc

Steve Dufourny

Any universalmeaning, just a pub for some friends violati,g our foundamentals.Id you don't understand , so return at school of foundamentals.But perhaps you prefer to study the works of lisi and Joy and Tom.

Your associativity, you commutativity are ruin of souls.The rest is vain.

What I say is simple, you don't understand the generality of our universe and its foundamentals.

Study what is the geomatrical algebras correlated with rational physics please before pondering these stupidities of anti thesis of nothing for nothing.

It is ironical you know for me.

Regards

Steve Dufourny

The toe is found Mr Cox, but apparently you see in the bad sense !The rest is vain and my answer is an extremelly simple answer !

If now these maths are given at shool, so where are we going ????In a wall of irrationalities, subjectivities and ironies !

Steve Dufourny

We are on a wonderful Platform and the rule of this kind of Platform is to be in respect of empirism and determinism.If people , scientists, students,..read these posts, so the post must be rational and not irrational where so many violations of our laws are put into practice.We are not on Platform of sciences fiction it seems to me.The physics must be foundamental in all centers of interests.The rest is vain.In my theory, if it exists errors I will imporve it in respecting still this empirism.If I must change several things, I will do it in respect of these foundamentals.I don't see thiscompôrtment in these extradiemznions and bad interprétations of our mathematical laws.I beleive strongly that several persons confound really the computing, the maths and the physics.I am for the free thinking , but there there are limits frankly?What is this irrational circus???? These things cannot be teach at universities, it is not logic.

After this ,with all these posts , irrational, Fqxi is going to have a bad reputation about the foundamentals;

Speak about the creation of a space ship forexmple or the thermo or the dark matter and the gravitation, or the protons and why they don't decay or this or that in respecting our laws but please stop all these stupidities of reversible time or time machine or warp driveor this or that.It is not acceptable for the rational sciences community.

Regards

Steve Dufourny

Your skills to both of you are relevant, so please be rational and focuson better analyses.The generality is essential and don't say me that the evil is in détails please, you make me crazzy with all this time lost.

Thomas Ray

"You argue that while you agree with Petkov's summation of Minkowski spacetime producing a 'snap-shot' of the universe in which 'all moments in time happen at once'; when subjected to projection in an 8 dimensional topological measure space, each moment can be extracted in its own proper time (?)."

Well ... we can't measure in 8 dimensions. We can infer the history of an event in 8 dimensions by the effect it has when we process the information. And what we find when we subject this information to a number-theoretic process is the real projective plane. That is the crux of my research into Sophie Germain primes. As Petkov avers, "... physical bodies are four-dimensional worldtubes containing the whole histories in time of the three-dimensional bodies of our everyday experience."

If the structure of spacetime is embedded in all physical bodies, why isn't all information immediately available? If it takes four dimensions to encode three dimensional information in an ordered sequence, what does it take to decode and re-encode? This is why reversibility is imperative -- and where complex analysis (imaginary time) enters. Because the real projective plane, RP^2, cannot be embedded in 3 dimensional space, we need the notion of a nonzero topological torsion to induce a "twist" to reverse the momentum. Appealing to symmetry, we find the metric - - - just as effective a description of Minkowski space as - .

Of course, Joy Christian has already explained this, and it's borne out by observation, but not enough quantum theorists are apparently well enough trained in topology to understand this. They don't accept S^3 as a real physical space. They would rather accept the ad hoc assumptions of a multiple connectedness, entanglement and non locality than admit reversibility.

That's why I'm intent on giving a number-theoretic version of events -- with only the proven assumption of simple connectedness. The arrow of time is preserved in the real projective plane, so the world appears just as we perceive it forward in time -- and imaginary time restores the symmetry that makes the world comprehensible. Because the mathematical models of conventional quantum mechanics are only empirical, they are of course validated by empirical means.

Quantum computing will advance when it loses the superfluous assumption of entanglement, which also motivates my number-theoretic framework. To make it tractable to a discrete algorithm, I defined time as a random walk.

"Keeping in mind that at my level of play I have to be reminded that the strict technical definition of 'metric' is a square matrix set of signs, the assumption that the operational scales of time and space are identical would make the Minkowski metric simply a basis, wouldn't it?"

The operational scales are identical in the low-energy range, not at the relativistic. That's another discussion.

"Patience, :-) jrc "

C'mon. You're doing great!

Sill in [link:https://www.researchgate.net/publication/281283753_A_recursive_sequence_of_Sophie_Germain_primes_mimics_physical_chirality_in_spacetime] draft form but a pretty fair refection of my research so far.

Thomas Ray

The links in my last post don't work.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Real_projective_plane

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/281283753_A_recursive_sequence_of_Sophie_Germain_primes_mimics_physical_chirality_in_spacetime

John Cox

Well Steve,

Then explain how you make any measurement in your universe of rotating spheres so that one measurement agrees with another. Solid geometry is very nice if you are looking at one orb and paint a little dot on it so you can watch it turn in relation to your direct gaze. So your dot is moving across your sight from your left to right, fine. But then you turn around and look at another orb and the paint dot is also moving across your sight from your left to right. But now behind you, your dot is going the other direction. Which is right? Where have you left me? how do I know from your casting about and looking at things that there is any measurable connection that can be verified. What you are calling *fundamental* is chaos. There is an equal chance that at any time you will redirect your gaze and reinvent the world.

That is why we are stuck with multi-dimensional complex analysis, and the conventions of the system that assign the position of the fourth sign as the time parameter. So that there can be a consistent measurement schemata that can then be referred to from any vantage point without changing to a different starting point. Every time you shift in your observation, it breaks with the previous measuring tabulations, and that reduces to *nonlocality* and absolute probability. The very conditions you oppose. Schooled! jrc

Steve Dufourny

I amd reaming in live there.An extremelly simple team of irrationalists.A twist reverse for tori inserted in a 8 sphere with a little of geometrical algebras of lie and Clifford with several broken symmetries because we see in the sky the patience of the eight team. New York Wake up, their anti thesis is a joke in 12 KK theory of bell inequalities and lorents whosays to Maxwell that the demons are everywhere opening the doors of violations.Of course Copenaghen cannot be rational and the commutative associative imaginaries say to numbers that ET has invented a time machine ti travel in the many worlds in reverse of all things.Because the antimatter says that 8 is the best number.After ironman so has understood entropy and how is theplanck scale because it exists not 7 dwarfs but 8 .

Serious questions

What is the form of a proton?

What is the nature and the form of an information,bosonic or gravitonic?

Steve Dufourny

and what? with your well ?

You make just a pub for your team of business man, you are nor general, you don't understand entropy, you don't respect the principle of uniquenss,you focus on irrationalities with your friends like a team obliged to conctinue on this road.

You are just a teamof comics , jealous and frustrated like many scientisqts.Mine , my theory is innovant, not your works and the works of your friends with all your poiliteness.You are still one of pseudo scientists trying to make innovations for recognizings.Me no , I just share an important discovery, it is not your case .And the universal faith and the humility and the vanity has nothing to do with my words.It is just an evidence, but perhaps you are jealous.Succeptible also.It is logic.

You are like your friends, a chaoticalthinker without rationalism.

Me I respect our FOUNDAMENTAL BOOKS.But perhaps you prefer the book of economy or a book about the violations due po geometrical algebras bad utilised?Or perhaps a book in french, I will send you my poems in french about entropy and its Arrow of time and an other about the vanity and thelack of generality, the last will be about the humility in front of this entropy andits universal love.

You are a chaotic thinker, stop it isnot your road, you are not made for that .Even with your rage and vanity.

And if you want to mesure correctly, utilise the good proportions in respecting thesecond law of thermo ^please before pondering an ocean of stupidities in physics.

To you chaos man,well he said

Steve Dufourny

It is tiring to see so many pseudo sciences.I don't understand you ?It is sad in fact ,really I am not laughing,it is sad.If the sciences community is on this road, so it is serious the problem,we are not in sciences but in business.Or the other possibility is the human comportment,I don't know.All the times I search the foundamental in sciences, sciences are rational and empiric.The physics, the chemistry, the biology, the cosmology ,the geology or this or that ,maths them are a tool invented by humans, and the utilisation must respect several physical laws.All our sciences teached at universities or in the good books are always deterministic if they are recognised by the global sciences community.I am agronomist , not a physicist, I class the animals and vegetals since more than 20 years, I classed a lot of things in sciences and always I have seen correct 3D proportionalities.The theoretical physics must have these foudamental extrapolations of the mind and the general hypothesis.The intuitive logic can appears in its pure generality.

Don't say me that gravitons,3spheres produced by a cosmol black 3sphère are irrational in being encoded in the protonic entanglement composed also of dark matter .Don't say me that I have not found the gravitation if I liknk with the rotations orbitals,spinal and in inserting the volumes, thecharges, this and that respecting the increasing of entropy in one sense of time assymetric?

Why universe should be an other thing than a sphere ?

Why our particles also ?It was simply the best form for the encoding of evolution of this mass Inside a finite evolutive sphere.Itis evident in fact,I am surprised sometimes to see that several have difficulties to accept this simple evidence of spherisation and sphères.I am not better than you or others.I have just found an interesting and relevant generality considering our Universe and its intrinsic laws of evolution of matter energy encoding.I have studied a lot to find this generality you know,it is not Fallen from thesky in one day you know.I just share it in a total transparence and I study in the same time when I don't know well a matter.I encode only the foundamentals.When I see a kind of problem of rationality, I say it simply.If in my theory I have made errors, I will accept and I will imrpove.My équations have Evolved, I just search the universal link entropy /matter.How are the encodings energy matter simply and i beleive strongly that sphères are essental at all scales.It is even the only possibility for the universal rotations and motions and encodings.If one of 2 équations must be imrpoved or are false , I will accept and I will try to understand where I have made an error.If it is true about the constant mlosV so it becomes relevant to consider it for the universal corrélations.

I just share a discovery after all, nothing of +.I d like to improve and to test and to evolve still in this theory.But with good tools, not irrational Tools?

Thomas Ray

Steve, you know you could open a new thread for your ideas. You're not getting support for them here.

John Cox

Tom,

Ahhh... very interesting layout of ideas in your last post. That's very helpful. I didn't have any luck getting to either your current draft form, or the link to the *real projective plane* but do have in my reader, your paper of Recursive Sophie Germain Primes. I may have to bother you for a new link if I can't solve a problem with my reader cache, Microsoft dupped me into an unnecessary 'update' that erased my reader content page! What's so user friendly about that I don't know.

Okay, scales at relativistic levels are a good topic for another entire discussion. Just let me hint that I see good arguments to ground the notion of a non-zero torsional 'twist' in a metaphysical argument there. All very symmetric, I assure you.

And, thanks for the encouragement. I find it necessary to gain an understanding about what a mathematical regimen is in a conceptual sense, before I can hang onto the collection of nuts and bolts that are used in actually assembling the math in practical calculations. And I'm getting old and a bit too lazy. I don't think, however, that its good enough in physics to just generalize rhetorically about what is after all the product of other people's maths. Too much perspiration goes into it, for me to claim the inspiration in just talking about it. As always, jrc

Akinbo Ojo

Dear Bud, et al,

I have been on vacation hence this belated response to comments. In my humble opinion, I think it is wrong to claim that whatever cannot be observed directly is superfluous. Observation being of two varieties, one those things that can be physically observed by the senses, in the human situation possibly enhanced by instruments and those things that can only be apprehended by intuition and found to be in conformity with known physical law. Matter and waves are of the first variety, while Gravity, Action-at-a-distance, forces, etc are also observations that are real and cannot be discarded by science and categorized as "zombie ideas" or only "argued into existence philosophically". Matter cannot be used as the only definition of what substance is. Substance is anything that can act and can be acted upon. Substance is anything that can move. That is the point.

In apprehending the substantial nature of Space we must be broad in our definition of what "moves" means, and what "acted upon or can act mean".

In Bud, calling Einstein's statement, "...what is essential is merely that besides observable objects, another thing, which is not perceptible, must be looked upon as real...", problematic and a mistake, it will be useful to understand the basis for the statement, which is principally a recap of Newton's own conclusion from his famous globe thought experiment, which description I simplify here:

Imagine two globes at a fixed distance apart, seen by an observer to be rotating about their common centre of mass. Relative to each other there is no absolute or relative motion, yet a force exists between them related to their motion and calculated by mrω2. If the observer were to vanish will this force also vanish? If not, during the time the observer has vanished and before reappearing again, relative to what were the globes moving at angular velocity ω? And if you say, the force vanishes when the observer vanishes then would the moon also no longer orbit the earth if there is no observer? I don't think you will take that route.

Mach chose the non-vanishing reference during that period of observer disappearance as the fixed stars, while Newton chose a Space that has properties.

Other grounds to prove the existential nature of space stem from the behaviour and properties of Light. Light is a transverse wave, and a wave must be waving in something that can move or vibrate, if not it cannot be propagated. In spite of the unresolved theoretical difficulties, Einstein pointed this out in this lecture. More on this if requested.

Even within General relativity, Space when married with time in an ad hoc union called 'Space-Time' exists and is said to vibrate as gravitational waves. Space-Time can act on matter and can be acted upon by matter, in which case it is substantial. However, how a union can be substance and Space a component of the union is denied a substantial nature by modern day Einstein followers is what I think is corrected by this 1920 Einstein lecture at Leiden.

The term, "aether" has fallen into disrepute and any mention of it provokes an instantaneous rejection. Tom doesn't like it, neither does JRC and Steve Agnew. I would refrain therefore from using it. But I can discuss more the idea that Space is substance as Einstein suggested in this lecture.

Regards,

Akinbo

« Previous Page Next Page »