| Re: An Idea
A few comments or questions regarding your post Nobody
Pat,
It could only be an apparent insight because you'll notice that RP refers us to an apparent static field, whereas I refer us to an apparent expansion. It is the gist of our argument, but I can lean to his side based on how I interpret his explanations on gravity; there would be an exponential increase between the variable densities of the macro/micro systems while the densities can never be permitted to change, otherwise the observable stuff would disappear from under our noses.It wouldn't disappear. It would just get farther and farther away.
What I don't agree with is the reference to a priori spacetime and uniformly distrubuted "matter" existing just because it is observed, Observations are one of the best forms of evidence that CBR does exist uniformally throughout the universeso I focus on the relative process that essentially creates an infinite number of isotopes or atomic configurations with the condition that only a finite number of relational spacetime configurations are observable. There can be no literal expansion of a finite universe because existent space can't expand into a non-existent void; Why non-existent. While there is no thing in the void, by definition, the void can still exist. Once space/time invades or occupies it however that portion would now become space/timeand in an infinite universe, space can't expand into itself in any direction because it would expand in every direction, the effects of which would exactly counter any possible expansion/motion.
So the only way I see us having our localized spacetimes is if we arbitrarily extract our timeframes from the absolute frame. We then go from zero intervals, to one-second intervals, to two-second intervals, etc., and space is created proportional to these intervals. The same would apply regardless of the length/size of the intervals also, whether they be reduced to planck units or infinitely less.[/quote]
Best to you,
Pat  |