Einstein on the train

[uwot]

My main distinction to Einstein is first that ALL POINTS IN SPACE MOVE AT ONE SPEED, BUT DIFFER BY THEIR DIRECTION AND DIMENSION. In this way, matter itself can be determined to BE the 'curves' rather than space itself BEING curved by some undetermined/undefined meaning of mass.

As someone with years of philosophical training, I'm pretty much an institutionalised pedant. There is a lot to unpack in your evidently rich, and apparently plausible theory, but I think it would be fruitful to ensure we understand what the other means by certain terms. First off is 'dimension'. To me, dimensions are simply locations for coordinates. With 3 spatial dimensions, be it Cartesian, radians or whatnot, you can locate a position in space. Throw in time, as measured relative to the number of cyclical events from any t=X, and you can locate any event. From what I gather, you imbue dimensions with some ontological status that I don't rule out, but don't understand.

[Age]

has much knowledge actually been acquired already about what dark energy is
exactly what it actually does and how it actually does this and / or works yet ?

No but knowledge acquisition on dark energy is a work in progress like on many things

Which, IF any knowledge does comes about, then that would really HELP in explaining how the Universe is expanding, correct?

It never ceases to amaze me just how much "time" and "effort" gets spend TRYING TO "find" 'that', which backs up and supports one's ALREADY held BELIEFS and ASSUMPTIONS about what is ALREADY PERCEIVED to be True, Right, and/or Correct.

And so one has to therefore be rather patient while waiting for the gaps to be filled in

LOL, to me, this speaks for itself. Although I am NOT sure that is does for "others".

[Age]

So is believing in any thing superfluous to you ?

Yes because I see no reason to believe any thing at all
So I therefore avoid using the term as much as possible

Okay, is disbelieving in any thing just as superfluous, to you?

By the way, and just out of curiosity, when you quote do you, yourself, re-write what "others" have written, or do you have some computer program or some thing else do it for you?

[surreptitious57]

So is believing in any thing superfluous to you ?

Yes because I see no reason to believe any thing at all
So I therefore avoid using the term as much as possible

Okay is disbelieving in any thing just as superfluous to you ?

Yes because I have absolutely no need for disbelief which is just as superfluous
I am not dogmatic about being right either not even when it is definitely true

[surreptitious57]

Which IF any knowledge does comes about then that would really HELP in explaining how the Universe is expanding correct ?

Any knowledge about dark energy would probably reveal more about it than the expansion of the Universe
For nothing is known about it other than the fact it exists and that it has the property of repulsive gravity

[surreptitious57]

It never ceases to amaze me just how much time and effort gets spend TRYING TO find that which backs up
and supports ones ALREADY held BELIEFS and ASSUMPTIONS about what is ALREADY PERCEIVED to be True

This is certainly one part of the spectrum but there are also those who actively try to avoid this wherever possible
Which is good as dogma is the death of the intellect as it is the point at which free thinking is no longer permitted

[Age]

Which IF any knowledge does comes about then that would really HELP in explaining how the Universe is expanding correct ?

Any knowledge about dark energy would probably reveal more about it than the expansion of the Universe

Obviously.

Any knowledge about God would probably reveal more about It than the other things ALSO.

For nothing is known about it other than the fact it exists and that it has the property of repulsive gravity

To some, for nothing is known about God other than the fact It exists, ALSO.

[Age]

It never ceases to amaze me just how much time and effort gets spend TRYING TO find that which backs up
and supports ones ALREADY held BELIEFS and ASSUMPTIONS about what is ALREADY PERCEIVED to be True

This is certainly one part of the spectrum but there are also those who actively try to avoid this wherever possible
Which is good as dogma is the death of the intellect as it is the point at which free thinking is no longer permitted

Is the dogma that 'the Universe IS expanding' one of those death of the intellect, also?

[Scott Mayers]

My main distinction to Einstein is first that ALL POINTS IN SPACE MOVE AT ONE SPEED, BUT DIFFER BY THEIR DIRECTION AND DIMENSION. In this way, matter itself can be determined to BE the 'curves' rather than space itself BEING curved by some undetermined/undefined meaning of mass.

As someone with years of philosophical training, I'm pretty much an institutionalised pedant. There is a lot to unpack in your evidently rich, and apparently plausible theory, but I think it would be fruitful to ensure we understand what the other means by certain terms. First off is 'dimension'. To me, dimensions are simply locations for coordinates. With 3 spatial dimensions, be it Cartesian, radians or whatnot, you can locate a position in space. Throw in time, as measured relative to the number of cyclical events from any t=X, and you can locate any event. From what I gather, you imbue dimensions with some ontological status that I don't rule out, but don't understand.

The four that you already are familiar with suffices for the point but I also treat each regular path from each point in curves as 'dimensions'. Although I'm not certain exactly of the String theorists particular versions of this, they seem to be doing something similar from what I can tell. (My theory is a kind of 'string' theory but not in loops as I see others, by the way.)

You can think of simply an x-axis line in a Cartesian coordinate system as a dimension as usual. Then anything ON that particular line (y = 0, z = 0, etc) as a distinct dimension. Then something can 'collide' means the points from each of the +/- infinity directions meet up in a "head-on collision", whereas anything in all possible planes from that line may also meet up to the x-axis making it a "side-swipe". The only other type is any set of points that 'follow behind' the point's transition in its direction.

I gave a a very cursory summary on this site a few years ago about my theory. But that would only raise more questions digressing beyond what is needed to follow here. I was just trying to tag some important things as my own at the time. I'll make some drawings and come back. I do most of my personal work offline and off my computer for security reasons.

ADDITION EDIT:

For any GIVEN point in space, X(0), if it is discovered that X(0) and not-X(0) true, there is another point at least somewhere, call it Y(0) that is NOT-X(0). X(0) and Y(0) form a binary relative relationship such that X(0) = NOT-Y(0) as Y(0) = NOT-X(0). This defines a "dimension", we'll call, Dim0.

For any space of two points, they share a common universal space whereby for ANY given point IN THIS DIMENSION, it has exactly two points that is tangent to, on either 'side' of it. This defines a LINE as one such dimension. All dimensions then must have at least a LINE. The reasoning is that if we have a direction of X -> Y, then what is true of this relationship is true of both Y -> X as well as Y -> (not Y nor X). Also, since we have the symmetric truth such that if we begin with Y, when Y, we have a direction Y -> X and so X -> y has to be a direction and so should also have a continuation of that direction whereby X -> (not X nor Y). This makes a line of an infinite set of points in two directions 'perpendicular' (in some other greater world), not just one other unique point.

For another dimension from any line, treat the line as a whole contained in one POINT and repeat the process. That is, label this 'line-as-a-point', X(2), say. Then should something about it contradicts is as being X(2) and not-X(2), define this not-X(2) as Y(2) and we have a new dimension such that X(2) = not-Y(2) and Y(2) = not-X(2). Call this whole space that contains this new dimension and the last, Dim1.

This lacks a graphic bias here and so means we can have a logical infinite number of dimensions. This suffices to define dimensions but may not be the best way of describing it satisfactory to you.

Does this at least answer the question of "dimension" for my perspective that you can understand?

Again, a third dimension from

[uwot]

Does this at least answer the question of "dimension" for my perspective that you can understand?

Gotta admit, I'm struggling. As far as I can gather, you are describing a 'dimension' as any route between two points. Again, correct me if I'm wrong. I think your approach shows the difference in our background. From a philosophical point of view, I get that mathematics can describe "lines", but the question that leaps out is 'Lines in what?' That's ontology for you. It's metaphysics, so superfluous to maths and physics, string theory which you mention, simply posits strings without saying what they are strings 'of'. Or what keeps them vibrating for nearly 14 billion years.
So, matter is curved lines? What keeps them curved?

[Scott Mayers]

Does this at least answer the question of "dimension" for my perspective that you can understand?

Gotta admit, I'm struggling. As far as I can gather, you are describing a 'dimension' as any route between two points. Again, correct me if I'm wrong. I think your approach shows the difference in our background. From a philosophical point of view, I get that mathematics can describe "lines", but the question that leaps out is 'Lines in what?' That's ontology for you. It's metaphysics, so superfluous to maths and physics, string theory which you mention, simply posits strings without saying what they are strings 'of'. Or what keeps them vibrating for nearly 14 billion years.
So, matter is curved lines? What keeps them curved?

First, note Newton's first law and how Einstein adapted this in his theory. Newton's concept treats all change as occurring in only straight lines as "normal". In GR, Einstein added that space can 'curve'. THIS doesn't specify WHAT occurs of things relative to themselves but to matter. So, light, for instance, is treated as following a curved path relative to some mass which is presumed as warping space. This is identical to stating that straight lines are not the ONLY 'normal' paths but that curves are also 'normal' with respect to mass.

What I do is add 'spins' as a dimensional factor by the perspective of those things that move through space. NOW normally things even spinning will still move in straight paths. BUT this is because they are limited to the lowest dimensions they happen to be in until something prevents them from resuming their normal straight-line paths. IF something cannot move in straight lines for ANY reason AND no point in space cannot not move, then a 'spin' factor can be added as a novel dimension in its own right. But the spin is at the level of the points of space themselves. Then the PATH still follows the rules of limitations of things moving in straight lines: nothing can go faster than the speed of 'light'. The speed, not the velocity is conserved.

So even in Einsteins' 'warped' space, light still transitions through it at the same speed but what is 'lost' linearly is gained by 'spin'.

This is just a matter of perspective. But Einstein's theory doesn't concern itself directly with the atomic level of particles themselves AND have a problem explaining how things like electrons don't fall into its nucleus. To me 'warped space' lacks theoretical expansion upon what it nor matter is. Thus, I am saying that mass is what causes the curvature illusively, fit to Einstein's theory BUT that the reality can be explained better and inclusive of matter itself if we treat spin as a factor that occurs in greater dimensions.

Now when something moves inertial, it IS in only one specific dimension even while other dimensions exist. Relative to something moving, it only persists as though that straight-lined path is ALL that exists relative to itself UNLESS something interferes to its transition through space. Then, if 'forced' to change, it takes the SIMPLEST dimensional change UP from where it is in. The optional directions are always perpendicular to the line of its normal path.

BUT, if something is prevented from moving to the first perpendicular direction based upon the forces imposed on such objects, it has to SKIP to the next higher dimension.

Note too that while we think of space as having 3 dimensions ignoring time or other factors assumed to NOT be in this space, it begs why '3' has some significance over binary options. The way I expressed it in the last post, a point itself is a dimension. THEN the second dimension is the line. Then think of the lines as wholes that extend perpendicular to itself to form a plane, this plane would then have for each line, two surrounding lines on either side of it for every line in a given plane. For the next higher dimension, it treats the whole plane as a unit and then a 3-D space is symmetric planes such that for every plane in this 3-D space has the property that it is symmetric in a binary way.

The next dimension up is not 'time' per se but velocity. And this can be expressed as a point jumping OVER a point tangent to it to its 'next' position. The 'points' are actually shells of a spherical locus of points. Because it cannot take all the points in each consecutive sphere outward, each possible point on these exist in independent worlds. But only one of two points (for symmetry) exist to each possible world from each point.

I have models I've created but cannot draw them yet (I need to figure out some graphics programming with more advanced calculus to eventually do this.) What I can do is formulate HOW one can do it for themselves and what the last post does. If you took care and have a good 'graphic' capacity to think of dimensions greater than 3, these are of change themselves in some way. The first kinds of changes are velocity, then acceleration. Then, since curves are also acceleration, this is just another kind of dimension. These are at the level of 'matter' and coexist in our space.

I know that I'm not doing it justice in this explanation as I'd like. I have shown some friends but it is dynamic. That is, I can't just draw merely one static model to represent this but have to present this in time to follow completely until I can find some means to model this using complex dynamic graphics on computers. [But I can try if you are patient. I literally had a lot of time to be able to do this first in my own head beforehand and so don't think I could summarize it simplistically.]

And so to at least the last question, what keeps them moving in curves?...they are moving in 'straight' lines relative to itself but appears as curves to us. Picture the three dimensions of space in just the Cartesian plane, Then to visualize the next SET of dimensions, imagine holding the origin in place and twisting the x, y, and z axis symmetric to each of its dimensions. For just the x, y dimensions, this will appear as two intersecting spirals from the origin perpendicular to each other (orthogonal, is the better word if you know this). [hint: they form what looks like your 'whirlpool' images and what I related to your means of selecting images.]

[surreptitious57]

Is the dogma that the Universe IS expanding one of those death of the intellect also

No because it is not dogma as there is no death of the intellect occurring here
It is however dogmatic not to accept the evidence for the expanding Universe

The evidence provided by cosmic inflation and supernova explosions and red shift and dark energy

[Age]

Is the dogma that the Universe IS expanding one of those death of the intellect also

No because it is not dogma as there is no death of the intellect occurring here
It is however dogmatic not to accept the evidence for the expanding Universe

But who is NOT accepting the evidence for the expanding Universe?

I have yet to SEE any actual evidence for the so called "expanding Universe" YET.

What you said is like saying to a person who is now labelled a "criminal" because they have been found guilty of a crime that you are NOT accepting of the crime and you are also NOT showing any understanding NOR any remorse for the crime as well. But, IF they have NOT committed the crime, then why SHOULD they accept that crime?

Just because some one is NOT accepting of what you call "evidence" of some thing, that does NOT mean they are being "dogmatic", nor does it make your "evidence" actually true nor right. For years people have insisted that God created every thing and the so called "evidence" is in the book. If you just read it, then you will SEE the "evidence" they say, which is EXACTLY MORE or LESS what you are doing here. You have ABSOLUTELY NO evidence that the Universe is expanding. You just say "it is" because it is written in the book, and that if "others" read it, then they will SEE the "evidence" also.

Is it also dogma not to accept the evidence that the Universe can NOT expand? Or does it ONLY go one way? And 'that' way ALWAYS just "happens to be" and "coincidentally" the way that the one who uses the "dogma" word says it is.

The evidence provided by cosmic inflation and supernova explosions and red shift and dark energy

So, the so called "evidence" for an expanding Universe is said to be:

'Dark energy'. Although what 'dark energy' is NO one knows. This sounds very similar to when it is said 'God' is the so called "evidence" for every thing. Although what 'God' is just about NO one knows.

'Red shift'. Although 'red shift' is just colors that appear. The very reason WHY they appear and WHY they just "appear' to be "evidence" that the Universe is expanding can very simply and easily be explained. 'Red shift' is NOT evidence that the Universe is expanding, but 'red shift' is evidence of WHY there is the 'appearance' of expansion of the Universe.

'Supernova explosions'. Now this is the first time I have heard this one. I have for quite some time now been asking people what evidence is there for the Universe expanding assumption/theory? So thank you very much. We are up to five so called "evidences" now, and all the others can very easily and simply be explained away. Anyway, I will have to wait for you to explain the reasons of HOW and WHY 'supernova explosions' are evidence that the Universe is expanding before I respond.

'Cosmic inflation'. Now this is the funniest one. The "evidence" WHY the Universe is expanding because of 'cosmic inflation'. So, in other words, the 'inflation of the cosmos' is evidence for the 'expansion of the Universe'. Is this what you are saying here?

If yes, then some might say that is somewhat 'begging the question'.

The list of "evidences" for an expanding Universe so far are:

1. 'Dark energy', which explains about as much as the word 'God' does.
2. 'Red shift', which is just used as an explanation for an expanding Universe. It is NOT evidence of an expanding Universe, as it is just an 'appearance', itself. The Universe just 'appears' to be expanding, which can so easily and simply be explained.
3. 'Supernova explosions', which is how and why it is evidence for an expanding Universe I will just have to wait and see.
4. 'Cosmic inflation', which is just 'begging the question'.
5. 'olber's paradox', which can very easily and very simply be explained away as simply and easily as the flat earth and the sun revolving are the earth was and can be explained away.

[uwot]

I know that I'm not doing it justice in this explanation as I'd like.

The problem I'm having is that I'm trying to catch up with someone who has worked on this for years and has developed their own jargon - little of which I understand. Maybe we should start right at the beginning. When you talk about lines, curves, dimensions and spins; what are they in?

[surreptitious57]

There was an interesting documentary on yesterday called How Small Is The Universe. Astrophysicists are studying neutron star collisions to determine this by studying the path of photons emanating from them. And in one example a collision billions of light years away found some photons arrived on Earth five seconds before others did. This could disprove the notion that the speed of light is a constant and one possible reason for it is quantum foam distorts the movement of some photons through space by making them move infinitesimally slower than others
As space is compactified and distorted at the quantum level though it appears smooth at the classical level where such detail cannot be seen
The trajectory and speed of light changes when travelling from one medium to another - such as from air to water for example - so this same principle could apply to photons travelling from a vacuum state to a quantum foam one. Which would explain the five second time difference