Egal,

I found a flaw in you reasoning, you write: ''Just to show you that you cannot create a theory in isolation because you will lack of all knowledge to come up with something serious I will attack one of your many flaws. You say: "Since the Universe has a finite volume, it must have the edges (holes)." I don't know how you jump from edges to holes, but the whole is wrong. Compact spaces are spaces that can be covered with finite volumes yet they do not need to have an edge or border because you can approach asymptotically to it without never reaching the border such as in open spaces, e.g. the interval (0,1), finitely enclosed length with no edges''

In other words, you have a mathematical model of continuous compact space without borders; And you are trying to prove that my discontinuous space is wrong just because your mathematical model is continuous and without borders? It is the absurd and senseless statement! In the same way you may try to prove the contrary: continuous space is wrong because your mathematical model is discontinuous. In general, it is absurd to prove the nature of spacetime using mathematical models. Please try to introduce holes in your mathematical model and then borders may appear in your model.

''You lack of basic knowledge of mathematical topology''

Note, that my vacuum holes are NOT topological defects therefore my spacetime with holes has nothing to do with your topological theories. Vacuum holes have totally different properties in comparison with topological defects. Therefore it is absurd to compare your topological theory with my discontinuous spacetime. First try to prove that vacuum holes are topological defects; If you'll prove that holes are topological defects, then you may write about ''lack of basic knowledge of mathematical topology''. My theory has nothing to do with the present topological theories because these theories do not consider holes in spacetime.

Thus, I found a logical flaw in your reasoning: it is absurd to prove that the discontinuous space is wrong just because you have a continuous mathematical model without borders. In general, it is absurd to prove the nature of spacetime using mathematical models of spacetime. For example, please try to prove that spatial atoms does not exist using your mathematical model.

To prove my reasoning wrong please show me an example of physical object finite in volume without borders. All finite in volume objects have borders! Therefore the finite Universe also must have a border at least in form of a point. And the border is another name for vacuum holes because a hole is not a part of the material Universe. The spacetime with holes is discontinuous because a hole is the absence of spacetime. Thus, spacetime is fundamentally discontinuous and have holes because Universe is finite.

If you are not happy with above introduction of vacuum holes then I can offer you another way. Imagine the quantized spacetime consisting of fluctuating spatial atoms dV which appear and disappear. When the spatial atom disappears it creates a vacant place which does not contain spacetime - a hole in spacetime.

You'll NEVER find errors in this theory. Since holes are able to explain gravity, inertia, mass and quantum phenomena in the same model, it is the best proof that the Universe is fundamentally discontinuous.

Constantin

  • [deleted]

  • Post #51

Constantin,

You honestly speak so much nonsense that I find difficult where to start with.

For example, to say that all physical things have borders does not prove that the universe does have borders just as your hole theory cannot call holes everything you want to.

Math is useful in physics to agree on definitions and concepts, if you use your own definition of something continuos then go and convince someone that speaks your language. One of the first signs of people that has no knowledge at all (and who will never be taken seriously) is that they don't even speak the most basic language to communicate (and I'm not only talking about English or a human language, but I'm talking about basic concepts that everybody agrees upon except you).

That the border is a point? I think you have read topological texts without really knowing anything about it. Your theories sound very much as using results in topology (like the border as a point) such as the popular Riemann sphere that I'm sure you have heard about, yet you don't call things by their names and then use concepts just to try to make sense of your crazy theory. Really, take my advice, study a bit more, agree to call things at least with the names that everybody uses and then try to convince someone.

Have you even realized that by putting something in what you call the vacuum it makes that vacuum to be fill by what you have put in that place? So it is not longer vacuum, how would you disconnect something to the universe and put it in such holes? Basically you are suggesting to get out of our physical universe, travel, and get back wherever you want. I guess that's why you call it teleportation and has no basis whatsoever, yet you think it is unflawed and that you can even prove it experimentally.

Let's do an experiment to yourself, let's say that if you manage to succeed you set a date in which you will meet with yourself sometime in the future. If you don't find yourself you will know either that you never made it because you were dead wrong or because you didn't hear me and just kept spitting junk to everybody.

Just to finish, you assume that the universe has empty spaces as if it were a sacred truth (you are ready to accept some truths as sacred e.g. the cosmological principle that today is debatable yet you take other truths as junk and only purposely against your theory), yet physicists are not completely sure whether there are these empty spaces since they are trying to come up with models in which they can re-conciliate quantum mechanics and general relativity by assuming that there is something underlying space, hence not empty as you succinctly assume.

Btw, I don't see how your hole traveling is any different just to saying that someone can go to the 5th dimension, travel, and come back wherever you may want to.

  • [deleted]

  • Post #52

Constantin,

You honestly speak so much nonsense that I find difficult where to start with.

For example, to say that all physical things have borders does not prove that the universe does have borders just as your hole theory cannot call holes everything you want to.

Math is useful in physics to agree on definitions and concepts, if you use your own definition of something continuos then go and convince someone that speaks your language. One of the first signs of people that has no knowledge at all (and who will never be taken seriously) is that they don't even speak the most basic language to communicate (and I'm not only talking about English or a human language, but I'm talking about basic concepts that everybody agrees upon except you).

That the border is a point? I think you have read topological texts without really knowing anything about it. Your theories sound very much as using results in topology (like the border as a point) such as the popular Riemann sphere that I'm sure you have heard about, yet you don't call things by their names and then use concepts just to try to make sense of your crazy theory. Really, take my advice, study a bit more, agree to call things at least with the names that everybody uses and then try to convince someone.

Have you even realized that by putting something in what you call the vacuum it makes that vacuum to be fill by what you have put in that place? So it is not longer vacuum, how would you disconnect something to the universe and put it in such holes? Basically you are suggesting to get out of our physical universe, travel, and get back wherever you want. I guess that's why you call it teleportation and has no basis whatsoever, yet you think it is unflawed and that you can even prove it experimentally.

Let's do an experiment to yourself, let's say that if you manage to succeed you set a date in which you will meet with yourself sometime in the future. If you don't find yourself you will know either that you never made it because you were dead wrong or because you didn't hear me and just kept spitting junk to everybody.

Just to finish, you assume that the universe has empty spaces as if it were a sacred truth (you are ready to accept some truths as sacred e.g. the cosmological principle that today is debatable yet you take other truths as junk and only purposely against your theory), yet physicists are not completely sure whether there are these empty spaces since they are trying to come up with models in which they can re-conciliate quantum mechanics and general relativity by assuming that there is something underlying space, hence not empty as you succinctly assume.

Btw, I don't see how your hole traveling is any different just to saying that someone can go to the 5th dimension, travel, and come back wherever you may want to.

  • [deleted]

  • Post #53

Dear FQXI administration,

I propose to allow for registered users only to post comments because the ghosts like ''egal'' use pseudonyms for revenge and insults only. I'll NOT discuss with the ghosts.

Dear Readers,

All knowledge claims should be open to rational criticism. And so many things need criticism as that is the only way innovation will once again enter these fields and allow mankind to progress. Many theories in physics still require clarification and the criticism allows us to save the money and research time by elimination of false theories. Too many so-called scientists refuse to admit that their precious theory might be wrong and they go so far as to fudge the results of their experiments. These people are not scientists at all.

In my view, the essay contest is a scientific event where scientists are learning about, and criticizing, each others' work. It helps us to verify true theories and to falsify false theories. However some scientists like ''egal'' are afraid of criticism, and they try to take revenge and insult. He wrote: ''you will have to live the rest of your life with what you have written everywhere in this contest''. You see, ''egal'' wants revenge for my critisizm. Meanwhile I can demonstrate that all his claims are wrong (below).

I know that some scientists consider my theory wrong and vice versa, I consider some theories wrong in this contest. Hence, let's analyze each others' work without insults and revenge.

Constantin

    • [deleted]

    • Post #55

    I think egal has not insulted you, he just pointed out with his comment "'you will have to live the rest of your life with what you have written everywhere in this contest''" that you may regret to have written what you have had repeatedly in this contest. You will not win anything with that attitude but more enemies. Science is not only objective (which by the way you are far from it with all kind of personal remarks about people all the time) but it is also about a human enterprise where people have to be open and listen each other. One has also to have a minimal level of understanding of current developments to convince someone else instead of blaming everybody to be fake and false, except you of course. And then claiming that you will save humanity because you have found teleportation... If you someday apply for a grant and the referees google you they will certainly not take you serious, so you are acting against your own will, that makes me think of your holes =)

    • [deleted]

    • Post #56

    OK, let me see if I understood. You say your paper is original because it is all made up by you and only use Wikipedia when you want to cite the current state of science. While others have written their papers knowing their fields by reading and citing authors and then coming up (even if only a bit) with something new (which consequences you cannot measure in the way you do because you could be 100% creative but 100% wrong, as many seem to think).

    • [deleted]

    • Post #57

    Concerning Constantin's claim that I am a ghost and his complains that people don't want to discuss with him using real names, that is very understandable and nowhere in the contest rules nor in the Internet it is an obligation to reveal one's name simply because, as it has been said, one uses real names for serious stuff but it is a shame that Constantin does not learn from what people in good faith tell him and advice him to go first read and learn before writing gibberish.

    Administrator: If you will delete this post because I say that this essay is gibberish, please do delete all Constantin's posts saying that all essays are fake, crap or even plagiarism (see his post saying that most essays are 90% copy/paste from Internet source posted by Constantin on Mar. 17, 2011 @ 07:55 GMT in reply to peter) which is a serious accusation that is often even sued in lawsuit.

      • [deleted]

      • Post #58

      But you don't accept any criticism and you have no proof or basis for your claims while you are neither in a position to evaluate anything nor you have found flaws in others. Your discussion is very amateur, how do you expect to discuss with real people something that is only scifi. Your basic reasoning is: get out of the universe, travel and come back whenever and wherever you want because you will be disembodied of any constraint once outside the universe and of course nobody can take that seriously. Why you don't do so and then come to me and explain me your theory in person, I can give you my coordinates.

      • [deleted]

      • Post #59

      And Constantin has spoken "Therefore, your argument is not valid" and he thinks he has proven that everybody is wrong. (sarcasm, obviously)

      The logical chain of thought of Constantin is:

      a) Nobody knows what happens inside a black hole

      b) Constantin knows what happens in a black hole

      c) Constantin says that black holes are like his vacuum holes

      d) One can just drive to a vacuum hole

      e) Therefore one can travel in time and space

      Very scientific...

      • [deleted]

      • Post #60

      ''most essays are 90% copy/paste from Internet source''

      It is a lie; I say nothing about copy/paste. I wrote about ''papers with 90 percents of Physics information copied from Internet'' and I had explained what it means on Corda's page. I talk about Generally known information or knowledge in physics; for example, the Extended Theories of Gravity, gravitation waves, history of science is physics information or knowledge in physics. For example if you tell about General Relativity, it is not original information because Einstein is the author but not you; even if you change the words, it is the knowledge in physics copied from Internet. I don't say about copy/paste of words but about use of generally known knowledge in physics. It is true that many papers was filled with generally known physics knowledge COPIED from other sources because they are NOT authors of General relativity, quantum mechanics and so on. For example, if you create the new model of gravity then it is a new knowledge that is not copied. Hence if the author tells us about the generally known information from textbooks about GR then we can consider it is a copied physics information or knowledge in physics.

      ''in good faith tell him and advice him''

      I don't need your advices because I saw your wrong essay and your publication list.

      • [deleted]

      • Post #61

      Dear Readers,

      Nobody found errors in this theory. If anyone has specific questions about PHYSICS in this essay, please ask, and I will try to answer them. I'm not talking with ghosts and people that tries to insult me. I discuss the Physics Questions only.

      The pseudonyms ''peter, egal, sidios'' appeared on my page because I criticized the precious essay of a ''very important'' scientist who need money for his new family. Can you guess who it is? I saw the same attacks in the previous 2010 contest. In 2010, I criticized Dr. Corda's essay after that he attacked furiously my pages. Now we have the same picture - recently I criticized Dr. Corda's essay after that my page has been attacked. Therefore I have a suspicion that ''peter'', ''egal'' and ''Sidious'' are Dr. Corda's pseudonyms because Dr. Corda only attacked my page in 2010 in a similar manner. In my view, I'm the first person that criticizes his work. However, his essay is the description of unsuccessful attempt to understand gravity. Also I don't found any important scientific discoveries in Dr. Corda's publication list.

        Dear Mr. Leshan, dears Readers, dear Administrators

        I have been forced to cut in on this cheerless conversation because a friend of mine informed me that Mr. Leshan insists in involve me in his lowest brawls.

        Thus, and I this is REALLY my first and last intervention in Mr. Leshan's page, I clarify what follows:

        1) I am NOT "peter", "egal" and "Sidious" even if I have a suspicion on who "Sidious" could be.

        2) Even if it is true that in the previous Essay Contest I attacked Mr. Leshan page, I realized that it was an error. Now I am absolutely sure that people like Mr. Leshan have to be totally ignored.

        3) I am not interested in Mr. Leshan's Essay and in Mr. Leshan's research, I decided to read the Essays in the order of the Community Rating, thus, as Mr. Leshan Essay is number 157, it will be almost impossible for me to arrive to read Mr. Leshan's Essay.

        THAT IS ALL, THUS, PLEASE MR. LESHAN STOP TO FURTHER BORE ME BY TRYING TO INVOLVE ME IN YOUR BRAWLS, I AM NOT INTERESTED.

        Yours sincerely,

        Christian Corda

        P. S.

        The squalid comment by Mr. Leshan on my family does not deserve reply.

        P. P. S.

        In any case, I am very honoured for the new attacks by Mr. Leshan. It is well known that Mr. Leshan is a person who, as the Scientific Community rejects his strange theories, attacks recognized results. This means that I wrote a good Essay, thus, dear Mr. Leshan, THANKS A LOT!!!

        • [deleted]

        • Post #64

        Dear Constantin,

        I am a little confused about your logic.

        "The Universe is commonly defined as the totality of everything that exists, including all matter and spacetime." This implies the existence of the Universe is Absolute. And "Consequently, outside the Universe is nothing in an absolute sense" implies the Universe exists Relative to nothing, that is, its existence is Absolute.

        Kindest regards,

        Robert

          Dear Robert

          Thanks for the comments. The Universe is all matter that exists and outside of the Universe is nothing. It implies the Universe exists Relative to itself. The matter exists relative to matter. We can exist inside of the Universe only.

          Also, I don't see any sense in the statements: 1) This implies the existence of the Universe is Absolute. 2) Or, this implies the existence of the Universe is not Absolute

          Regards,

          Constantin

          • [deleted]

          • Post #66

          Dear Constantin,

          Sorry I should have defined what I meant.

          By 'Absolute' I mean self-existent and conceivable without relation to other things, and so 'Relative' means 'not-Absolute'. Your first statement implies the Universe is Absolute and conceivable without relation to other things. However, the idea of 'outside' in your second statement means the Universe is Relative because it exists in relation to 'nothing'. But unless you can demonstrate how 'nothing' can be 'something', the Universe is Absolute and the idea of 'outside' is meaningless.

          Kind regards,

          Robert

          Your speculations about the idea of 'outside' in my second statement are wrong: The idea of 'outside' in my second statement do NOT lead to the conclusions like "the Universe is Absolute or Relative because it exists in relation to "nothing." Where you found such erroneous statement? The modern science does not contain such statement and my theory does not contain such statement. Please show me the source of information or references where you found the statements about Absolute and Relative Universe ''exists in relation to other things''. Perhaps it is your own idea that contradicts modern science and contradicts my theory. Therefore, you cannot use this erroneous statement about Absolute-Relative Universe to prove or disprove physical theories. Also I can introduce holes without using the statement 'outside of the Universe'. In this case, your argument about ''the Universe is Absolute'' is outside of our discussion; please invent other arguments.

          2) If you are not happy with the notion ''outside of the Universe'' then I can introduce holes by using the notion of quantized vacuum. The Quantized Spacetime is made of fluctuating spatial atoms dV, which appear, and disappear continually. If the spatial atom disappears, instead appears the vacant place. Since dV (spacetime) disappeared, it mean this vacant place is a hole in spacetime without extent and time.

          3) If you are not happy with the previous introduction of vacuum holes then I can postulate the existence of holes without any introductions; this method uses many theories to introduce new particles and concepts. It is important that a hole is a very useful 'object' in physics because it can explain teleportation, gravitation and quantum phenomena. In this case, your arguments are outside of discussion. The hole theory of gravitation has been checked by Soros Foundation and published in the peer reviewed mainstream Journal. Thus, it is important the existence of holes in Hole Theory of Gravitation but not how we introduce holes.

          4) You wrote about ''the Universe is Absolute or Relative''. Even if the ''Universe is Absolute or Relative'', as you write, it proves nothing. Even if the Universe ''exists in relation to ''nothing'' or something, it proves nothing. The Universe is Matter; Matter move and interact with Matter; vacuum holes are Gravitation that mediates the interaction between material bodies. Therefore your statement ''the Universe is Relative because it exists in relation to ''nothing'' is totally wrong.

          Regards,

          Constantin

          • [deleted]

          • Post #68

          Dear Constantin,

          There is no precedent for your theory, and so I hope you were not offended by my effort to try and understand it. You are correct though the philosophical jargon was unnecessary.

          My 'non-philosophical' reply to your first 2 sentences in your essay is: If you define the Universe as "the totality of everything that exists, including all matter and spacetime", then there is nothing but the Universe. Therefore you cannot logically use the idea of 'outside' to postulate an 'edge of the Universe' if there is nothing else but the Universe.

          How is this relevant to your theory?

          "Thus, a "hole" devoid of matter and spacetime must be the edge of the Universe because it is not a part of the material Universe." If there is nothing else but the Universe then your "hole" cannot exist, not even temporarily.

          Regarding 'the nature of motion', it is possible to explain 'discontinuous trajectories' by appealing to the nature of matter alone.

          Kindest regards,

          Robert

          Dear Robert,

          You write: ''If you define the Universe as ''the totality of everything that exists, including all matter and spacetime'', then there is nothing but the Universe. Therefore you cannot logically use the idea of "outside" to postulate an "edge of the Universe" if there is nothing else but the Universe''.

          1) First, vacuum holes do not contradict the statement ''there is nothing but the Universe''. A hole is nothing - no matter, no spacetime, therefore it is correct that ''there is nothing but the Universe''. If you add a hole (nothing) to the Universe then its matter-energy remain constant.

          2) I can show this statement is wrong ''Therefore you cannot logically use the idea of "outside" to postulate an "edge of the Universe''.

          According to the theory, the Universe is a MATERIAL object composed of matter and spacetime but not a mathematical abstraction. You know that all material objects finite in volume have borders. Since the Universe as a whole also is a real object, it must have a border, at least in form of a point. And the border is another name for vacuum holes. You see, I can logically use the idea of "outside" to introduce an "edge of the Universe.

          To prove me wrong please show me an example of a material object (finite in volume) without borders.

          ''If there is nothing else but the Universe then your ''hole'' cannot exist, not even temporarily''.

          It is not correct. I repeat, if you add a hole (nothing) to the Universe then its matter-energy remain constant, and you can say: ''There is nothing else but the Universe''; Even if the Universe has holes, ''there is nothing else but the Universe''. The hole is nothing.

          You write: ''Regarding ''the nature of motion'', it is possible to explain ''discontinuous trajectories'' by appealing to the nature of matter alone.

          Maybe you know other explanations for discontinuous trajectories. However, my explanation is better because it can explain motion, gravitation, inertia, teleportation and quantum phenomena in the same model. I'm sure that your variant cannot explain, for example inertia. Therefore, my explanation with holes is better.

          Regards,

          Constantin