• [deleted]

  • Post #73

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

  • [deleted]

  • Post #75

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

Dear Robert,

You write: ''a ''material object finite in volume WITHOUT BORDERS'' is the Earth - where exactly does the atmosphere end?'' If you don't know where exactly does the atmosphere end then the Earth is not finite in volume and your example is wrong; I remind you that we are talking about objects with finite volume.

You write: ''Therefore, the Universe has no ''outside'' (holes) because it is impossible for non-existence to exist''. However, the opposite is wrong: According to your idea, if non-existence can exist then the Universe may have ''outside'' (holes). If outside of the Universe exists something then it is a part of Universe. Hence, the Universe can have borders only if ''outside'' exist nothing (non-existence). Therefore, your statement is self-contradictory and proves nothing.

The entire Universe is a big material object. Do you agree that the Universe is a collection of material particles? All quantum particles have borders and can ''contact'' each other. However, the first and last particles in this collection do not have ''neighbors'' because the number of particles is finite. Therefore, the first and last particles in the Universe contact with NOTHING (holes) because they do not have neighbors. All finite collections of particles must have ''borders''.

You see, all your questions are self-contradictory and senseless. If you want to continue discussion then please show me an example of an object finite in volume without borders.

Regards

Constantin

  • [deleted]

  • Post #77

Dear Constantin,

This will be my last attempt to bring you back to reason.

Can non-existence exist? No, because it is a contradiction. Hence, to claim there is the existence of non-existence 'outside' the Universe is meaningless, and 'holes' cannot exist.

Kindest regards,

Robert

Dear Robert,

We can observe holes really because of the existence of the speed of light. It is the maximum speed at which all energy, matter, and information in the universe can travel. Holes in spacetime appears when a particle disappears. If the hole appears, it is filled as soon as possible by surrounding particles because it is the absolute void. However, the speed of motion of these particles is limited by the speed of light therefore the lifetime of hole is non-zero. The environment cannot fill a hole instantly because its particles must move faster than light to fill the hole instantly. Hence, the holes' lifetime is non-zero and holes really exist a short time due to the existence of the maximum speed at which all energy, matter, and information in the universe can travel.

Regards,

Constantin

  • [deleted]

  • Post #79

Dear Constantin,

If there is nothing else but the Universe then the Universe has no choice but to exist. Now, you are saying that it is possible for a portion of that (which has no choice but to exist) to not exist. But since the Universe has NO choice in the matter of its own existence, a "hole" cannot exist.

Kindest regards,

Robert

  • [deleted]

  • Post #80

Dear Constantin,

Since "holes" are causeless, what 'hole theory' is really saying is that the Universe CAN choose to not exist within certain portions of itself. But that is impossible if the Universe has NO choice but to exist.

Kindest regards,

Robert

  • [deleted]

  • Post #81

Robert,

You are wasting your time. Constantin theory is hopeless, and he doesn't manage to see beyond his very narrow world of intricate void words. Constantin thinks he can even explain UFOs with his theory.

  • [deleted]

  • Post #82

As simple as this. Do you agree time is part of the universe right? So tell us Constantin, where does a second end and a new one starts?

No, particles may not have edges, I remind you that particles also behave as waves... Plus, you avoid all the theory that doesn't fit your little nonsense theory, for example, Hilbert space. Particle touch each other? space between particles? you only use the part of the theory that better suits you to come up with nonsense claims.

Sure, you will reply saying: 'show me a physical object with no borders' I'm doing it! Then you will say 'wrong' and you will wrap up with 'senseless', you are so predictable...

    • [deleted]

    • Post #83

    Dear Peter,

    I have done my very best (to no avail) to show Constantin that his use of 'nothing' is self-contradictory.

    The non-contradictory way to reason with 'nothing' ironically leaves nothing of Constantin's theory:

    If a volume of spacetime COULD disappear it would leave nothing, hence a volume of spacetime CANNOT disappear. Equally if 'outside' the Universe is nothing, then the Universe has no 'outside'.

    Regards,

    Robert

    • [deleted]

    • Post #84

    Dear Constantin,

    If a cosmic-scaled quantum hole did exist, how would it affect the topology of spacetime? Certainly we see cosmic-scaled structure - great "voids" and "clusters", but a cosmic-scaled quantum hole should be different from a cosmic void - you shouldn't be able to "see" through it (because nothing exists for electromagnetic radiation to travel through). Would we have any sort of "spacetime lensing"? Considering the relationship between gravity and spacetime curvature this may be similar to the opposite of gravitational lensing because any sort of cosmic-scaled quantum hole must have an effective boundary curvature.

    Have Fun!

      • [deleted]

      • Post #85

      peter (Dr. Corda),

      Since you are not able to prove my theory wrong then stop using the unproven declarations like ''nonsense'', without any proofs.

      ''So tell us Constantin, where does a second end and a new one starts?''

      We talked with Robert about borders. How I can prove for Robert that all finite in volume objects must have borders? For this purpose, I INVENT different ABSTRACT models in order to show for Robert that all finite objects must have borders. I want to show the simple idea - all finite collections of elements/points/numbers/dV-particles must have borders because the first and last element in this collection does NOT have neighbors. It is a very simple idea that all finite objects must have borders.

      ''No, particles may not have edges, I remind you that particles also behave as waves.''

      1) The word ''particles' mean spatial atoms dV in this example because at the end of the Universe is spacetime only. In my theory the spatial atoms dV are material particles which possess energy and interact with usual elementary particles.

      2) I repeat that I invented this ABSTRACTION with the finite group of particle in order to illustrate for Robert an example how a finite object can have borders. It is true that all finite collections of points must have borders because the first and last point does not have neighbors.

      3) Remember, in my theory microscopic particles have the wave properties in the presence of holes only. If the Universe is not discontinuous and without holes then microscopic particles do NOT have the wave properties. Since I talked with Robert how to add holes to the CONTINUOUS Universe in order to make the Universe discontinuous, therefore my abstract model was correct - the wave properties appear after introduction of holes only.

      In general, I often use abstract models to build a physical theory. For example, (in my post Feb. 19, 2011 @ 11:14 GMT), to introduce holes I examine first the continuous Universe - it is the abstract model (where particles do not have quantum (wave) properties). Then I introduce holes after that the Universe becomes discontinuous - it is the real model (where particles have the quantum (wave) properties). Hence, if I'll speculate about the properties of the continuous Universe without holes then you'll show the same accusations.

      ''Sure, you will reply saying: 'show me a physical object with no borders'' I'm doing it!''

      No, I can introduce holes without ''physical object with no borders''. For example, I can introduce holes using the notion of quantized vacuum - when dV disappears then appears a hole. Finally, I can postulate the existence of holes without any introductions like ''borders''. Many theories use postulates to postulate the existence of new particles and concepts. It is important that holes are able to explain gravitation, teleportation and quantum phenomena but not how we introduce holes. Hence, to prove the Hole Theory wrong you must prove wrong the hole theory of gravitation, Hole Teleportation and quantum phenomena.

      Dear Robert Spoljaric,

      You write: ''If a volume of spacetime COULD disappear it would leave nothing, hence a volume of space-time CANNOT disappear''. It is not correct statement. Maybe you'll forbid the motion of air molecules because a molecule continually leaves its place and create a hole (a place without air molecules). The hole vacuum is a similar phenomenon - the dV continually leaves its place and create holes. Robert, if you forbid the motion of dV then you'll obtain the static ether or aether. The elementary volumes dV cannot move mechanically because the background space-time does not exist. These dV can move by jumping only. In addition, please read again my essay - It is the main statement of Hole Theory that ALL particles appear and disappear continually. You cannot forbid the main statement (postulate) of Hole Theory without any reasons. Also I can show you a lot of phenomena where particles create holes, for example the electric current: an electron leaves the atom and creates a ''hole''.

      You write: ''Equally if ''outside'' the Universe is nothing, then the Universe has no ''outside''

      It is a wrong statement because the opposite is wrong; If ''outside'' the Universe is something, then the Universe has no ''outside.'' Yes, if ''outside'' the Universe is something then this something is the part of the Universe and the Universe cannot have borders. Therefore, your statement is self-contradictory and wrong; You see, the opposite to your statement also don't allow the border. The Universe can have the border only if ''outside'' the Universe is nothing because the ''nothing'' is not a part of the Universe. Thus, my statement is correct.

      You see, all your questions are wrong. To prove my introduction of holes wrong you must find an example of body with finite volume WITHOUT BORDERS.

      Regards,

      Constantin

      • [deleted]

      • Post #87

      Dear Constantin,

      Can 'nothing' exist? Unless 'nothing' CAN exist, a volume of spacetime CANNOT disappear, that is, it has NO choice but to exist.

      A "hole" means 'nothing' can exist. So 'nothing' is something - contradiction.

      Kindest regards,

      Robert

      • [deleted]

      • Post #88

      Dear Constantin,

      Just to clarify.

      Are 'the dead' living? If they're living then they're not dead.

      Does 'nothing' exist? If 'nothing' exists then it cannot be nothing, and so it is something - contradiction.

      Kindest regards,

      Robert

      Dear Dr. Cosmic Ray,

      If a cosmic-scaled quantum hole did exist, it must bend spacetime in the same way as a massive body. I agree, you shouldn't be able to "see" through a cosmic-scaled quantum hole (because nothing exists for electromagnetic radiation to travel through). However, this cosmic-scaled quantum hole must collapse as soon as possible because it is the absolute void. Hence, the lifetime of the cosmic-scaled quantum hole is very short because it collapses with the speed of light. In addition, the hole possesses energy therefore the hole's collapse looks as a big explosion. About "spacetime lensing" - it is very difficult to observe the "spacetime lensing" because the hole's lifetime is very short. In my view, such large holes can be associated with extremely energetic explosions that have been observed in distant galaxies as flashes of gamma rays (Gamma-ray bursts).

      Sincerely,

      Constantin

      • [deleted]

      • Post #90

      Dear Readers,

      This peter's (Dr. Corda's) post is not criticism; Instead, Dr. Corda wants revenge for my criticism therefore he writes insults and senseless, unproven declarations on my page. Imagine, I'm the first person who criticizes his work, so he is furious and wants revenge. The same events happened in 2010 contest - I published criticism on Dr. Corda's page after that Dr. Corda attacked my page with insults and threats.

      The appearance and strange behavior of Robert Spoljaric fits in this scheme. I saw the long conversation of Dr. Corda with R. Spoljaric on Mar. 28; Also I know about the conversation between Dr. Corda and R. Spoljarice by e-mail. And in the same day Mar. 28 Robert appeared on my page. Hence, I have a suspicion that Dr. Corda asked Robert to attack my page by e-mail. This is proved by the fact that Robert's behavior is very strange; It's not like curiosity or a desire to find an error; Instead, Robert stubbornly repeats many times the same senseless questions. It seems that he simply makes the Dr. Corda's work. You see, Robert told Dr. Corda (Apr. 4, 2011 @ 11:37 GMT): ''I have done my very best (to no avail) to show Constantin that his use of ''nothing'' is self-contradictory''. It seems Robert reports on assignments for Dr. Corda.

      Dear Robert,

      You repeat the same questions. I gave you a detailed answer already. Your statements about dead-living is non-physical, we talk about existence.

      ''Does ''nothing'' exist? If ''nothing'' exists then it cannot be nothing, and so it is something - contradiction.

      Yes, nothing exist, nothing is zero; Why zero cannot exist? For example, the photon does not age, for the photon time stops, for a photon time is frozen. From this point of view, the photon is similar to vacuum hole - both objects do not age. Does the photon exist? You see, we can observe the objects frozen in time. At the center of a black hole as described by general relativity lies a gravitational singularity, a region where the spacetime curvature becomes infinite; in other words, in a BH time stops and the gravitational length contraction becomes infinite - it is an object very similar to vacuum hole. Do Black holes exist? Vacuum holes are very similar to Black holes; Since BH exists therefore vacuum holes also can really exist.

      2) If a hole appears in the Universe then it is filled as soon as possible by particles of environment. However, the speed of motion of these particles is limited by the speed of light therefore the hole's lifetime is non-zero. Meanwhile, we can observe only the real particles which fills the hole. We never can observe the naked hole. The vacuum hole is always dressed by surrounding particles. Since you cannot observe the naked hole then you cannot say if a hole exist or not. We can observe only the real particles that fill the hole.

      3) the vacuum holes are very important objects for gravitation. Near the massive body appears a time dilation and length contraction effect. Such phenomenon has the only explanation - the massive bodies emit a flux of holes which curve the spacetime. The vacuum hole is the only ''particle'' in physics able to explain the time dilation and length contraction effect near a massive body. If we increase the concentration of holes it leads to time dilation and length contraction because in the limiting case, when space is composed of holes only, the distance between every two points is zero and time stops.

      Sincerely,

      Constntin

      • [deleted]

      • Post #92

      Dear Constantin,

      Remember we limit hole theory to the Universe - one universe rather than a multiverse.

      1) Your theory is seriously flawed if you keep ignoring the contradiction that if 'nothing' exusts it cannot be nothing. Why? Because if you remove that contradiction then you have no theory. (Why can't zero apples exist?)

      2) The difference between a hole and BH singularity is that their is no mechanism to explain why a hole appears in the first place.

      3) No doubt there are non-contradictory theories being proposed by others to explain the effects you mentioned, and much more.

      That my friend is why I see no theory in hole theory.

      Kindest regards,

      Robert