Some remark ( maybe crazy).

[socratus]

=========.
Once N. Bohr said, if a theory was right it had to be
“ crazy “ enough. “ Oh! “- another physicists said,-
“No problem. We will try to create new “crazy“ theories.”
And they made them:
quark theory, big bang theory, anti- virtual particles
theory, many D-spaces and string theories……etc
Where is the end of “crazy“ theories and the beginning
of the logical theory?
Maybe when we understand:
1. Everything began from vacuum T=0K.
2. The Newton/ Einstein’s GT are a local, limited theories.
============..
Simpler question:
What was at first: GT or Nothing ?
========.

[bottomlander]

=========.

Where is the end of “crazy“ theories and the beginning
of the logical theory?

========.

The first substantial Theory-of-Everything will end those crazy mainstream frontier theories whereas based on spacetime foundation.
TOE is the resurrection or beginning of the logical theory.

Unfortunately, as long as the biased contemporary peer review systems persist, crazy mainstream theories will never be stopped, just to be modified. Or else, crazier theories will emerge to tackle new problems.

New experiments and new evidences will first be interpreted along the lines of mainstream. Only when the discrepancies are too obvious then the relevant frontier theory will be amended and be beautified as an updated version. Just like the Big Bang Theory that being amended and amended.

Best Regards. Bottomlander

[dleviwing]

Socratus;
Science news is like the nightly news media; good news is not considered news and only the crazy stuff is presented. Don’t look for real science in the mainstream media; that’s for selling books, not science.

[socratus]

Was Vacuum born from Gravity or Electric fields?
=================

[dleviwing]

Gravity and electric fields are both interactions between quantitative fundamental substance. Vacuum is synonymous with space and thus not the devoid emptiness volume most people imagine.

[N0B0DY]

Just one quick question, Dave. Do you suggest that space moves as matter moves through it, or that matter is recreated over static spatial points?

[dleviwing]

Nobody;
There is Relativity that is just the perceptual geometry of space as if it were devoid of substance and there is Relativity that is the substance of space that warps and bends. Think of space as the atmosphere of the universe; it is the medium of the electromagnetic state of fundamental substance and is sustained by these vibrations; in short, it is just a less dense state of fundamental matter. Novices tend to think space infers a volume devoid of any physical entities; that’s what it used to mean before Einstein redefined it. You may wish to use “void” to refer to that kind of space these days.

BTW: what we call space is made of the same stuff that we call matter.

[N0B0DY]

I believe Einstein to have been quite a rebel when it came to accepting infinities. I have no problems equating matter and space as variable densities, but following the implications of space being the medium that allows for movement, something other than this less dense space would be required for spatial movement - the bending and warping.

We could call this other requirement an even lesser dense space, and this would continue infinitely. Velocity would increase proportionately toward infinity as density decreases toward zero, but the bottom line I was after is wouldn't there have to be an underlying static element, or absolute reference frame, supporting any type of propagation? Even if we decrease density infinitely, isn't the medium always differentiated from the movement?

To be clear, because it becomes very elusive, if we replace the infinite decrease in density with x, wouldn't the only possible medium to differentiate x have to be static?

[socratus]

Was Vacuum born from Big Bang?
=================

[mkirkpatrick]

Was Vacuum born from Big Bang?
=================

No.



regards michael.