Gravity and space - Page 4

davidgow77 · 04-05-2005, 07:49 PM

If you are looking at nothing and summise that this also means "no time" then the separation of it is philosophically inevitable. It must happen, so to speak, because notihing exists where there is no time. There is no cause to the separation because any identifiable stage after separation is still essentially a manifestation of nothing, and is simply reperesented as positive and negative aspects of zero (nothing).

DG

zeroca · 03:10 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by GUILLE

What caused the separation of nothing?

I’m never bored of it, because it helped me once and will help me again, and in a good working environment it can help the whole mankind.

The reasons of separation, i.e. initial impact, which caused it and answer to the question why it happened (direct quote from my former site):

Quote:

The main rule, regularity that caused arising of the world from nothing was the "weakness" of nothing (i.e. of zero, i.e. of absolute), the probability of which to remain unchangeable (undivided) equaled to 0.5

And if nothing existed before the birth of the world and the arising of the world is splitting of zero into two equal opposite parts, then why did a division arise within "nothing"? It hadn't realized itself before division, had it? And even didn't "get" anything after it? It distributed within itself the opposite phenomena to the different places of the space (gravitation-to one place, and the space empty of it-to another) and to the different moments of the time, i.e. arranged several opposite phenomena one after another during the time (for instance: spring-autumn, summer-winter etc.), i.e. this process began to last during the time. What forced "nothing" to split into two opposite parts? What initial impact? impulse? and what was the reason? By Then there wasn't any of them, was there? and it was easier for it to remain zero? Again the same word- regularity!!! It's more than "nothing" and more than the universe with its attributes, having been created from the same "nothing";
Probability-it's a regularity too, and the probability, that "everything" would have remained within "nothing" as it had been, or "anything" would have changed equaled to 50-50%, that's to say that the probability that zero would have remained in itself unchangeable (without division) didn't equal to 1, but equaled to 0,5. I.e. zero had two possibilities: 1.that "everything" would have remained as it had been-unchangeable (but the mentioned condition of it didn't last during the time), or 2."anything" would have changed (let's call it a possibility of change), and the change definitely meant its splitting into two opposite parts (because the change of the other kind within it is impossible) If we call the probability of something, that equals to 1- "steadfastness", (for instance, probability of falling out of six on a dice, on each side of which is inscribed six) and the above quality of zero-"weakness", we can say that the latter (the weakness) caused the birth of the world (i.e. zero included the code of the birth of the world in itself and there hadn't been necessity to force it "from the outside").

The truth’s that it was created 5-6 years ego, when my English was too bad, I almost didn’t know it, but anyway it’s legible enough for reading...

AntonioLao · 04-06-2005, 03:01 PM

before each of us is born we were all nothing. If i am the only person alive in the whole wide world i'm still nothing. But if i meet another person (this person was also nothing before the meeting) both become somethings. If i'm the only person posting in this forum then i am nothing but when i received a reply then both sender and responder become somethings created from nothing.

if n-dimensional space is made of n number of disconnected points, all of zero-dimension, then n-space is just nothing but once two points are connected then the space becomes 1D. When 3 points are connected, the space becomes 3D; when 4 points are connected, the space is 6D; when 5 points are connected, the space 10D; when 6 points, space is 15D; when 7 points, 21D; when 8 points, space is 28D. The formula is given for n points

$D=\frac{(n(n-1)}{2}$

where D is the dimension or connections.

Guille · 04-06-2005, 03:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by AntonioLao

before each of us is born we were all nothing. If i am the only person alive in the whole wide world i'm still nothing. But if i meet another person (this person was also nothing before the meeting) both become somethings. If i'm the only person posting in this forum then i am nothing but when i received a reply then both sender and responder become somethings created from nothing.

I must disagree. If you think about it, if you are the only one posting in this forum then you ARE something, becuase only things that ARE can do ARE things. And you ARE posting in this fourm, so you ARE. from the sense to be. You don't need someone to reply so that you become something or somebody, you just need to post.

davidgow77 · 04-06-2005, 04:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by AntonioLao

The formula is given for n points

$D=\frac{(n(n-1)}{2}$

where D is the dimension or connections.

Surely this means that we have infinite dimensions of space, where the n-points represent points 1 planck length apart (although it must be noted that this would result in a matrix where all points were equidistant from eachother, and where there could be no gaps between the points.... in other words a plenum). Surely then, space is n-dimensional, which would lead me to believe that it is matter which is 3-dimensional (not space) and that the n-dimensions of space warp and curve around the matter, giving the illusion of 3-d space. This would mean that Einstein's statement that "matter tells space how to curve, and space tells matter how to move" must be right.

DG

AntonioLao · **self-energy is infinite and undefined -** 04-06-2005, 09:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by GUILLE

I must disagree. If you think about it, if you are the only one posting in this forum then you ARE something, becuase only things that ARE can do ARE things. And you ARE posting in this fourm, so you ARE. from the sense to be. You don't need someone to reply so that you become something or somebody, you just need to post.

In absolute sense, you are right. But self-energy or anything referenced to oneself is calculated to be infinite and the inverse of infinity is zero.

Relatively speaking: energy, force, velocity, length, time are all based on accepted standards of measure or frame of reference.

Quote:

Originally Posted by davidgow77

Surely this means that we have infinite dimensions of space, where the n-points represent points 1 planck length apart

my reply later.

davidgow77 · 04-07-2005, 08:11 AM

Come on AntonioLao, let me know what you think. This plenum idea forms the basis of my TOE.

AntonioLao · **plenum -** 04-07-2005, 11:59 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by davidgow77

Come on AntonioLao, let me know what you think. This plenum idea forms the basis of my TOE.

Your plenum idea is similar to my concept of continuous space (S) in contrast to my other idea of quantized space (H). The equation for the plenum is the following

$S=cE_T$

where c is the speed of light in vacuum and $E_T$ is the total energy of the universe.

my equation for quantized space (H) is equivalent to the square of energy (zero-point energy) and must be integrated or added together to get the total energy of the universe

$H=E^{2}_0=\psi_{i}\times\phi_{i}\cdot\psi_{j}\times\phi_{j}$

where i=j=1,2,3,...,n

AntonioLao · **integral form -** 04-07-2005, 12:10 PM

the integral form for quantized space is equivalent to the double action integral

$H=A^2=\int^{\infty}_0\int^{0}_{-\infty} E^{2}_0 dt dt$

such that $E^{2}_0$ is equivalent to the square of the Lagrangian.

AntonioLao · 04-07-2005, 12:13 PM

the ratio of S over H is the total linear momentum of the universe.

$p_{T}=\frac{S}{H}$