uwot wrote: ↑Sat May 04, 2019 1:25 pm
Scott Mayers wrote: ↑Wed May 01, 2019 2:11 pmMy 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.
On the face of it, this looks very like "What we observe as material bodies and forces are nothing but shapes and variations in the structure of space." Erwin Schrodinger. Which to me seems like an entirely plausible position.
As you might notice by this that I share BOTH Einstein AND QM but take Einstein's view that we need to assume no closure on theories that appear 'weird' and so should stick with a more agnostic appeal to those that assert an interpretation as such. On the other hand, I also agree to QM but with the approach of treating the 'probabilities' that appear trustworthy by any formal means to suggest distinct worlds. I believe that my theory will successfully combine the confusion of different interpretations to a more unified one.
uwot wrote:
Scott Mayers wrote: ↑Wed May 01, 2019 2:11 pmI also know that contrary to some, Einstein also held a belief in a Steady State type system OR, given how he took issue with the Copenhagen interpretation in QM, felt that the Big Bang interpretation was similar to the concern of requiring Nature to treat us 'special'. His statement that the Nature (God) doesn't play dice, was to emphasize this point. Why would nature have all possibilities but ONLY select a random SPECIAL of equal potential odds? I always agreed with this thinking and find that a Steady State interpretation is more 'open' to all possibilities by default.
From what I understand, you conjecture that 'space' is constantly creating more 'space' and that the main engine for this drive is intergalactic space. That pretty much was the view of Fred Hoyle at any rate, and if I am projecting that onto you, feel free to correct me. My issue with that is if 'matter' is just "shapes and variations in the structure of space", curves in your case, waves and whirlpools in mine (which reduce to curves, I guess), why aren't those "shapes" part of the process?
I try to express myself uniquely to avoid linking myself to another person's position without appropriate knowledge of the person. So while I might agree to his idea in general, I don't want to claim that I hold anything complete to his own 'theory' without redressing it myself. So...
uwot wrote:Why doesn't 'matter' create more 'space'? So, for sections of the book, I just went along with the idea that it does.
In my theory matter CAN create new space but not from matter colliding. It would be of a higher dimension and the "collisions" would require the literal curves OF their shared dimension to meet within the same paths they are moving in AND in precisely opposite directions. The odds of this occurring is more less probable (though possible AND real) but is NOT the same as what occurs when two particles collide. This needs better understanding of some prior issues that I'd need to prove first.
uwot wrote:
Scott Mayers wrote: ↑Wed May 01, 2019 2:11 pmI do think you did justice FOR the present Big Bang theory without bias and it still shows appropriately (and more fittingly) the perception of how Einstein would have been thinking. What is needed is some argument that at least closes the door on a static interpretation of space. I did this in "The Expanding Universe" thread with an argument I want you to look at. It is here:
viewtopic.php?f=12&t=26470&start=150#p407677. I would like you to look at that small post argument and tell me what you think in light of your own thinking.
The first bits that I would question are:
Scott Mayers wrote:The 'cause' of curves (matter) is when two lines hit head on in EXACTLY opposing directions.
It's a small point perhaps, but what happens in collisions which are not exactly head on?
You might have gotten a hint from the last response. If we imagine ONLY one line as its own dimension, any collision is what occurs should somethings be transmitting from opposing directions by default. But when we add other dimensions, a 'collision' might be interpreted to include something from outside each of their linear dimensions, ....something, say, from the side. I want to be more clear to differentiate a side swipe from a head-on collision. They each can occur but only the 'head-on' variety would be most contradictory should one unique space be unbiased.
To help understand this, if we imagine two points that meet up within the same line from opposite directions, the result of this may cause one point to take a perpendicular turn to the right while the other one to the left.....to remain 'symmetric'. However, because we have more than a plane's dimension, WHICH of the infinite possible planes does this line lie on?
To me, these kinds of 'collisions' that have infinite options, is resolved by having an infinite set of worlds such that EACH option is taken. From the point's perspective, it is not like a pilot in a plane that differentiates uniquely an UP and DOWN orientation. The concept of "yaw" that a pilot might be able to do is also something that has to be considered. A 'twist' of a point spinning in the perpendicular direction of its linear travel could not be differentiated without adding even an infinite more sets of worlds that deal with these possibilities, for instance.
uwot wrote:
Another is:
Scott Mayers wrote:All that is needed in this theory is for empty space to come from nothing. If space IS nothing, this suffices and closes the theory.
The problem is that we can't do any experiments to find out how 'nothing' behaves, because we haven't got any. The space we have to hand is full of fields, gravitational, e/m, Higgs', and awash with neutrinos at least. We may never know whether the big bang (or at least the phenomena which support the hypothesis) occurred in something like the space we are now in, in which case it would be possible to interpret 'out universe' as simply a local phenomenon in some larger 'steady state universe', or all those things really were created
ex nihilo.
Anyway, sorry for the delay getting back. I know there is a lot more to your theory and I think it is worth discussing.
I'm trying to express a theory that is also a 'theorem' for physics. This theory is based on a similar idea that began with Pythagoras where he deemed everything is just number. If I didn't already express it before, given that 'nature' lacks conscious essence as a 'god', whatever reality could 'derive' from (or is 'manifest' a better word?), requires whatever makes up reality to derive from literally nothing at all.
Science, to me is a top-down process that we can INDUCE what reality MAY be. Then we 'guess' at how it operates moving forward, which is a bottom-up guess of the mechanism of reality,....its LOGIC. So while we may not be able to prove scientifically all that is real, we still can only use it as a means to try to guess at the ultimate logic of reality. Reality HAS to have done this without us and so, while we may not AGREE to some common human capacity to be able to prove what reality is with closure, I take issue with this rationale in light of nature being nothing to have proven itself able to manifest it all ....without some apriori science community it had to appeal to by some proof before it addressed its 'presentation' of reality.
So my point that has driven me to my theory was based on this. There HAS to be a complete rationale for Totality (not just our one Universe) AND we should be able to determine HOW reality creates worlds that include ours by some universal rationale or 'logic'.
My theory attempts this. I already am confident it works but it is extremely difficult to prove with any ease. It mixes both Metaphysics with Physics. I can combine the two approaches in a similar way as to the Fundamental Theorem of Calculus that links up derivatives to integration; and similar for the discrete to the continuous.
But it requires exhausting certain logical possibilities to each area of what we 'sensibly' determine about reality in our limited perspective and language.