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).
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.
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.
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...
''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.
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!!!
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
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
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
Dear Constantin,
Thanks for the clarification.
So a 'hole' is nothing, and this 'nothing' depends upon the Universe having a border. A material object finite in volume has borders, but that object is within the Universe. Is the Universe within something to have a border? Not if there is nothing else but the Universe.
Kindest regards,
Robert
Dear Robert,
Criticizers are welcome on my page. You write: ''A material object finite in volume has borders, but that object is within the Universe''. The Universe also is a material object that is within itself (within the Universe). Imagine the Universe as an object suspended in absolute void (hole). Since a hole does not have extent, therefore the distance between every two points on ''external surface'' of the Universe is zero. It means that the external surface of the Universe collapses to a point. It means the Universe is within itself (within the Universe). The extension and duration exist inside of the Universe only.
In addition, I can prove the existence of holes experimentally by help of two atomic clocks. Since a hole do not have extent and time therefore near the source of holes must appear time dilation and length contraction effects. Hence, we place one clock near the source of holes and another is control clock. If the first clock ticks slower then it will be the proof that holes really exist in the Universe.
Regards,
Constantin
First, my essay do not mention about black holes therefore your notes are outside of the essay' topic. Also, your logical chain is wrong - I never said such fantasy.
Dear Constantin,
Before we get to the physics we have to sort out the metaphysics.
Firstly, if there is nothing else but the Universe then there is nothing 'outside' because an 'outside' cannot exist. Therefore, as a "hole" implies an 'outside' a "hole" cannot exist.
The common definition of the Universe that you give is *very* powerful, and implies the following for 'the Universe within the Universe' idea? If the 'void=hole=nothing' existed, and the Universe is defined as 'the totality of everything that exists', then that 'void=hole=nothing' is 'inside' the Universe. So if the 'void=hole=nothing' has any affect upon the Universe then that 'void=hole=nothing' is 'something' - contradiction. And if the 'void=hole=nothing' has no affect upon the Universe then we can ignore it as superfluous.
Unless you wish to reconsider using 'the Universe', the metaphysics invalidates the physics.
Kindest regards,
Robert
Dear Robert,
You write: ''Firstly, if there is nothing else but the Universe then there is nothing ''outside'' because an ''outside'' cannot exist''. Your statement confirms the existence of holes. Really, if there is nothing else but the Universe then there is nothing ''outside'' - it is correct, outside is nothing (holes). Thus, your reasoning proves the existence of holes. You see, your speculations confirm the existence of holes.
You write: ''because an ''outside'' cannot exist'' - you are right, a hole is non-existence because a hole do not have extent and TIME. You write: ''as a ''hole'' implies an ''outside'' a ''hole'' cannot exist'' - the hole is another name for outside therefore your statement is senseless.
You write: ''then that ''void=hole=nothing'' is ''inside'' the Universe''. In fact, the universe is a mixture of material particles and holes therefore the question who is outside and who is inside do not have sense. We must analyze every particle of the Universe. In fact, all material particles are finite and have borders; all particles contact holes.
Our discussion must be honest: If you require an answer to your questions then you must answer my questions also. I gave you a question and I do not see the answer. To prove my statements about ''outside'' wrong, please show me an example of a material object finite in volume WITHOUT BORDERS. Thus, since all material objects finite in volume have borders then the Universe must have borders (holes).
Since you are NOT able to answer the above question then the discussion about outside is CLOSED. If you show me an example of a material body without borders then we can continue the discussion about ''outside''. My statement about ''outside' can be wrong only if you show me an example of body without borders. Since you are NOT able to show me an example of body without borders then the Universe must have borders (holes). Please invent other arguments and errors.
Regards,
Constantin
Dear Constantin,
The reason I did not respond to your request is that it is immaterial to the dialectic, since an object in the Universe is not the same as the Universe itself. But to keep you happy, a 'material object finite in volume WITHOUT BORDERS' is the Earth - where exactly does the atmosphere end?
So we continue. :)
Let us not forget that everything we are discussing is from your essay or posts. My part in this dialectic is to use reason. For example, 'a hole is another name for outside' and 'a hole is non-existence', and previously you said that 'a hole is nothing', so 'nothing is non-existence'. In your essay you tell us 'outside the Universe is nothing (non-existence) in an absolute sense'.
Now, your claim that 'a hole is non-existence' is self-contradictory. How can non-existence exist? Therefore, the Universe has no 'outside' (holes) because it is impossible for non-existence to exist.
Good luck in the future. :)
Kindest regards,
Robert
