The Thing That Is Space-Time by Don Limuti

Dear Don,

1. "Does life emerge from the universe or does the universe emerge from life. I am in the vortex of the snake eating itself (Ouroboros)" If there was no consciousness what would be the "universe"? The origin of the"self-awareness" of reality is consciousness in my perception. This self-awareness is limited by both the time and space dimension that emerge from Total Simultaneity (where there is no time and no space ALL "parts" to form an event are simultaneous. So I put the primal cause in Total Consciousness that is a property of Total Simultaneity. Indeed if you don't do that the Ouroboros is created...

2. Dark matter and energy may be the result of the same kind of fluctuations at the border of the Before Planck Area (TS), what exactly it is? I don't' know, both you and I are thinking about solutions, but maybe both of us are wrong and maybe one of us is right.

3.Maybe I am just too stupid to understand you, but in my view when there are different masses involved there are different "particles". I can understand that the wavelength may differ with distance, but how does that influence mass? A wave is a wave (probability). Are you implying "collapse" of the wavefunction?

4.I do the same with the limits of emerging reality: the Planck length and time. I think that your problem with the "bundle" is the amount of Planck lengths and HOW those are connected to create a "flow". Here the factor TIME is looking around the corner...Furthermore, I think that if gravitons have mass (and maybe they have), then their top-speed is C, which could be the speed of your wave-form. Am I right?

I fully agree with you that we have a great game in this quest, in my model I even am looking to try to describe this divine goddess in a scientific way....

best regards

Wilhelmus

Don,

While I should read it several times, my experience with harmonics is not deep enough to fully connect with the evidence.

That said, there is a sense of getting the bigger picture.

My sense though, is the whole Big Bang/expanding universe is a dead end.

That what Hubble discovered, with redshift, was evidence of Einstein's original Cosmological Constant. That it is a balance, or opposite side of the cycle, to gravity, that explains why space is "flat" and the universe is neither collapsing or expanding, but is simply infinite space.

Consider the rubber sheet and ball analogy for gravity and the curvature of spacetime; What is the shape of the sheet, if there is no ball? Presumably it is flat. Yet if you put that ball onto it, what is the logic of it simply creating a dimple? Wouldn't that assume some underlaying force, pulling the ball down?

Wouldn't a more useful and accurate analogy be that this rubber sheet is over water; Such that while the ball pushes the sheet down, the sheet reacts by being pushed up an equal amount in the areas where there is no ball. Now since we can only detect light from sources very far away, by the necessity of it crossing the most empty and thus upward pushed areas of space, that redshift is evidence of this balance of gravity/CC.

Thus this "stretching" of space is canceled out and balanced by it being gravitationally contracting into gravity wells, most notably the galaxies.

This was actually my first insight, from a completely outsiders point of view, that cosmology was overlooking the obvious. It was reading Hawking's A Brief History of Time, when it first came out, in '89, that he made the point that it was theorized the expansion and gravity were balanced. Omega=1, was the term he used. While his assumption was this meant the rate of expansion was neither increasing or slowing and thus flat, from my simple minded view, it seemed to be more of a cosmic convection cycle, where what was pushing out was the opposite side of the cycle from what was pulling in and they were naturally balanced, by being opposite sides of the same cycle.

In the mid '90's I was discussing this on the old NYTimes Mysteries of the Universe section of their forums and had developed some idea of it being some dynamic of what was falling into black holes was emerging or being matched by a vacuum fluctuation between galaxies and one of the other participants, mention that it could be much more effectively explained by the basic relationship between light and mass and had been doing graduate studies in cosmology when it occurred to him. When he presented it to his adviser, it was suggested he might want to get into some other field, if he wanted any career advancement.

As I pointed out in my essay, using the premise of spacetime to explain redshift otherwise completely overlooks the idea of time and distance, clocks and rulers, being dilated equally, thus light always being measured at C, because if it is redshifted, then the speed of light is not increasing to match the ruler. This was all proposed as a patch to explain why we appear at the center of this expansion and since we are at the center of our point of view, an optical cause for redshift, rather than actual recession, would be something worth exploring.

Regards,

John

Hi Don,

When I was preparing my essay for the essay contest, I had to think sometimes at your presentation of the Zeno's paradox. I also went sometimes to your website. The reason is because I wanted to derive the observable properties and their quantification by simple 'physical' symmetry transformation. And certainly there is a relation between measuring a distance as difference of location as a symmetry invariant measure under translation and the measuring of a distance by measuring the time to move from one place the other (as time dependent) symmetry transformation.

However I did not find a consistent framework. So I limited myself to explore, what can be know under symmetric constrains of the laws. Still I tried to defend a Copenhagen view on quantum mechanics. I wonder, what you think about.

To discuss your essay. I like the way you combine the Plank-Einstein equation with Newtons law. I remember how my physics professor used a similar reasoning to heuristically derive the electro magnetic interaction strength. I was quite impressed by the simplicity of the argument and wondered, whether a precise derivation of the EM or other forces was possible. The critical part in your essay is in my opinion your section A. In my opinion you make a pretty non standard use of a connection of the eigen modes and the number of photons. That needs a better justification, since it is your starting point of the discussion.

Hope you find the time to read and comment on my essay, although it won't reflect your opinion on quantum mechanics. I belief I show a pretty new way on how one can see physical concepts.

Best wishes

Luca

Dear Don Limuti, you have a beautiful essay. Numbers are fundamental to mathematics, sounds are fundamental to language, bits are fundamental to information processing, atoms are fundamental to ordinary mass, and cells are fundamental to living things.On the basis of identity of space and matter Descartes Foundation for fundamental theories is the physical space which is matter and which is moving. Look at my essay, FQXi Fundamental in New Cartesian Physics by Dizhechko Boris Semyonovich Where I showed how radically the physics can change if it follows the principle of identity of space and matter of Descartes. I hope you will not leave without attention to this principle and appreciate good New Cartesian Physics for his radicalism

Sincerely, Dizhechko Boris Semyonovich.

Dear Don Limuti, I sure to reference your essay in New Cartesian physics. To say that space and matter consist of mass is the same thing, that to say the space, which matter, moves, because according to the formula of mass-energy equivalence , mass is the energy of motion. Time is a synonym for the movement. For thinking that we ought to praise each other. Look at my page,

FQXi Fundamental in New Cartesian Physics by Dizhechko Boris Semyonovich Where is the principle of identity of space and matter of Descartes. I hope you will not disregard this principle.

I wish you success in the contest.

Sincerely, Dizhechko Boris Semyonovich.

Hi Prof Don Limuti

Very good work ......." All of a sudden Space-Time became a thing that had properties. This essay will focus on an aspect of light (electromagnetic radiation) and show that it has a fundamental aspect that can be interpreted as a quantum mechanical particle having mass. It will be argued that accumulations of this fundamental precursor of the photon on a large scale creates Space-Time with its curvature (aka gravity). This quantum mechanical particle will be called a graviton." Best wishes to your paper...

Here in my essay energy to mass conversion is proposed................ yours is very nice essay best wishes .... I highly appreciate hope your essay ....You may please spend some of the valuable time on Dynamic Universe Model also and give your some of the valuable & esteemed guidance

Some of the Main foundational points of Dynamic Universe Model :

-No Isotropy

-No Homogeneity

-No Space-time continuum

-Non-uniform density of matter, universe is lumpy

-No singularities

-No collisions between bodies

-No blackholes

-No warm holes

-No Bigbang

-No repulsion between distant Galaxies

-Non-empty Universe

-No imaginary or negative time axis

-No imaginary X, Y, Z axes

-No differential and Integral Equations mathematically

-No General Relativity and Model does not reduce to GR on any condition

-No Creation of matter like Bigbang or steady-state models

-No many mini Bigbangs

-No Missing Mass / Dark matter

-No Dark energy

-No Bigbang generated CMB detected

-No Multi-verses

Here:

-Accelerating Expanding universe with 33% Blue shifted Galaxies

-Newton's Gravitation law works everywhere in the same way

-All bodies dynamically moving

-All bodies move in dynamic Equilibrium

-Closed universe model no light or bodies will go away from universe

-Single Universe no baby universes

-Time is linear as observed on earth, moving forward only

-Independent x,y,z coordinate axes and Time axis no interdependencies between axes..

-UGF (Universal Gravitational Force) calculated on every point-mass

-Tensors (Linear) used for giving UNIQUE solutions for each time step

-Uses everyday physics as achievable by engineering

-21000 linear equations are used in an Excel sheet

-Computerized calculations uses 16 decimal digit accuracy

-Data mining and data warehousing techniques are used for data extraction from large amounts of data.

- Many predictions of Dynamic Universe Model came true....Have a look at

http://vaksdynamicuniversemodel.blogspot.in/p/blog-page_15.html

I request you to please have a look at my essay also, and give some of your esteemed criticism for your information........

Dynamic Universe Model says that the energy in the form of electromagnetic radiation passing grazingly near any gravitating mass changes its in frequency and finally will convert into neutrinos (mass). We all know that there is no experiment or quest in this direction. Energy conversion happens from mass to energy with the famous E=mC2, the other side of this conversion was not thought off. This is a new fundamental prediction by Dynamic Universe Model, a foundational quest in the area of Astrophysics and Cosmology.

In accordance with Dynamic Universe Model frequency shift happens on both the sides of spectrum when any electromagnetic radiation passes grazingly near gravitating mass. With this new verification, we will open a new frontier that will unlock a way for formation of the basis for continual Nucleosynthesis (continuous formation of elements) in our Universe. Amount of frequency shift will depend on relative velocity difference. All the papers of author can be downloaded from "http://vaksdynamicuniversemodel.blogspot.in/ "

I request you to please post your reply in my essay also, so that I can get an intimation that you replied

Best

=snp

Dear Don Limuti

Thank you for the nice analyzing reply...and nice blessings on my essay...

You are exactly correct saying "Einstein never got a Nobel prize for relativity, but after " verification" of bending of light rays near Sun.

You are correct again ..about atomic theory... and for your wonderful words..."

The individual being is Brahman...."

Best

=snp

Dear Don Limuti

I gave 10 for your wonderful essay it was 6.1 and after 10 it became 6.5

Best wishes to your essay

=snp

Don Limuti

Thanks for an essay with many new and interesting ideas. It was stimulating toread it. However, it is very difficult for an amateur, as I am, to decide the value of these ideas.

I agree to your statement that physics is far from complete.

I do not completely understand how black matter, at half the radius of Mercury, can have the same period as Mercury?

With the best regards from _____________ John-Erik

Don Limuti

You are right regarding that particles is the best way to explain gravity. However, you could also point out that Fatio also said so 300 years ago.

Best regards from _____________ John-Erik Persson

Hi Don

I am really happy to meet you here again and I am so thankful for your high opinion to my work. But I was thinking till now that you are only a witty critics of our unhappy science that deviated from right way. Excuse me, because I see now you have suggested your own serious approach to greatest mystery of gravity. This very intrigued to me, moreover I am also felt myself as a good friend of not ordinary Dr Roger Penrose!

So, you can be sure - I will carefully read and properly rate your nice work after small time! Best wishes my dear!

George K.

Dear Don,

I have completed study your work and I have made my high duty as I promised (but it is not very important in my view, as they do not preparing prizes for us!)

I can say you many nice words on your work, but both we are critics and we well realize that honest criticism are much more preferable than many empty favorable words. Your approach can be interesting for specialists, of course, as an alternative way to construct gravity theory. But, if this can have some value for you, my opinion is that we need try to understand in first the essence (or, the physical nature) of gravity phenomenon. I mean - how to connect (to derive) the gravity parameters from known to us forms of materia?

In other words it means - how to get the value of Cavendish constant (gamma = 6.72 x 10^-11) from basic natural constants (c, h, pi, a=1/137).

The matter is there existing already huge quantity of different interpretations, connected with the field, with the ether, with the distorted space-time, with Mach principle, with hypothetical gravitons, or without that, etc. What is interesting here - in all of different kinds of interpretations have used this experimentally opened constant - without asking from where it comes and why it is this much and not other? (and here is the whole mystery of gravity!) And all of this theories has brought to almost the same quantitatively results! But, as a logical people, we can just conclude from aforesaid that actually we have deal with the different names of a same thing, which we can't yet understand how need to name correctly! So, What can I say you better than only that I already saying in my works! Just try to look those (from at last reference) in any best for you time.

Best wishes,

George Kirakosyan

Dear Don,

Here we are again all together.

I like your graviton.

Your Essay is really entertaining. You deserves the highest score that I am going to give you.

I hope that my modest achievements can be information for reflection for you.

Vladimir Fedorov

https://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/3080