Gravity and space

[zeroca]

I’m not a physicist but only a little from school physics and mathematics is needed to put forward my theory:
According to me nothing exited before the arising of the world (before big bang) and arising of the world is the process of splitting of nothing into two equal opposite parts, so the existence of universe is the existence of separation into two opposite phenomenon, that’s happening within nothing. (http://autorestore.gol.ge/e3.html)
So, let’s call the moment of arising of universe - “Big Bang” as everybody does it.
But I’d call the moment of die of previously existed universe, (i.e. of the universe, which turned into nothing before big bang) – “Big Annihilation”.
So according to my theory the existence of universe is a consecutive succession of its arising and dying, (i.e. consecution of big bangs with big annihilations), following one after another permanently.
When big annihilation takes place, then existence of nothing in itself (without separation) doesn’t last inside the time (even inside of an infinitely small fraction of it), so any previously existed universe turns into following its arising at once (without delay), so I call the state of universe when it turns into nothing as interruption of existence.
As these interruptions don’t last inside the time so the universe exists permanently in the space within time.

As for gravity and space, according to my theory they are opposite parts of the whole (different consisting parts of nothing) and we can call space as Anti-gravity, as well as we can call the gravity as Anti-space, or rather we can call the space as rarefaction and the body as consolidation.
1. Each heavenly body has its own center (which’s the “place” for striving of solid matter to it)
E.g. the earth and the moon have their own centers, and difference between these two bodies from point of view of attraction is that they attract the solid matter placed between them to opposite directions (to their own centers).
So, generally the matter (the substance) doesn’t attract the matter, and different planets are never attracted to each other, but the matter is striving only to the centers of heavenly bodies, and the distance among the centers of planets is relatively permanent.
2. Each heavenly body has its own space, (which’s adjacent to body and spreads from the center of it to all directions and this space is the “place” for striving of expended matter).
E.g. the earth and the moon have their own spaces, each of which begins from their own centers and the difference between these two spaces is in their directions.
As the spaces are rarefactions by their nature they merge into one another without apparent boundaries, and that makes the picture of united homogenous space among the bodies, so the whole space is the sum of separate spaces, each of which begins from the center of heavenly body, spreads to all directions from it, and all of them are merging into one united space.
The opposite directions of separate spaces serve as a barrier among heavenly bodies against falling them to each other, so the distance among the centers of planets is relatively permanent.


1. The first animation- "At the begining of big bang in case of two bodies"
---The direction of space is shown with blue arrows
---The direction of contraction (concentration of matter) is shown with gray arrows.


2. The second animation- When the process of forming of universe is complete we got planets with adjacent to them spaces and the matter strives just to the center of planet, in the area of adjacent space of which it is located, and that doesn’t mean that the planets are attracted to each other.

[AntonioLao]

existence of separation into two opposite phenomenon, that’s happening within nothing.

the structures of these opposites can represented by matrices.

[math]H^{+}=\left(\begin{array}{cc}+1&-1\\-1&+1\end{array}\right)[/math]

and

[math]H^{-}=\left(\begin{array}{cc}-1&+1\\+1&-1\end{array}\right)[/math]

the sum of these matrices is

[math]H^{0}=\left(\begin{array}{cc}0&0\\0&0\end{array}\r ight)[/math]

[Omni]

@zeroca: "Nothing" doesn't exist so it can't be split. If it can be split then that's the proof that it was something and not nothing.

[zeroca]

Dear Omni!
I agree, that nothing doesn’t exist, if existence generally is considered as any phenomenon in 3-d space within time.
But why it can’t split into equal opposite parts? After all the sum of equal opposite parts can be nothing, doesn’t it?
And if it were something, it would split, but not into two equal opposite parts, and I consider this universe as unity of equal opposite parts.
And the most important to me: nothing itself doesn’t experience the change, (splitting - separation). This process happens within it, so I consider nothing as source of this universe, the main rule, main regularity of its existence.

To AntonioLao!
I understand very little in mathematics, only that’s needed to me, not more. Please, be so kind as to explain with simple language what you’d like to say.
Best regards

[AntonioLao]

After all the sum of equal opposite parts can be nothing, doesn’t it?

In addition, the product of opposites is given by the following algebraic rules:

[math]H^{+} H^{-} = 2H^{-}[/math]

[math]H^{-} H^{-} = 2H^{+}[/math]

[math]H^{+} H^{+} = 2H^{+}[/math]

and it can be stated without proof that the product is commutative and associative.

[Omni]

@zeroca: I still can't quite understand what you mean. I think you are saying: "nothing does exist, but it isn't a phenomenon in 3-D space within time so to us with our limited "3-d space within time-observation" it seems nothing". Am I correct? I can't really imagine that you mean that and still refer to it as being "nothing". Nothing can't be refered to as "it" ("this process happens within it" etc.). So ,in my opinion, you should or use a different word instead of "nothing" ("the absolute undetectable (TAU)" or something like that) or, if you really mean 0, face the fact that nothing can't split and that maybe you're on the wrong route... . I would really like someone to convince me that nothing can be split, but I think that will never happen.

[AntonioLao]

I would really like someone to convince me that nothing can be split, but I think that will never happen.

By reviving the Hole Argument which was started by Einstein in the 1900's and studied by various philosophers of science to these days, to be nothing or not to be nothing, that is the question. The distinction between substantivalism and relationalism of space-time.

Is the space-time continuum made up of infinite number of points? In both special and general relativity, the point in question is called an event. But events can never be simultaneous unless they are within an inertial frame that is properly at rest. If there is a tiny slight of motion (either uniform or accelerated) simultaneity is not possible. Since everything is in a state of relative motion, absolute rest cannot exist but absolute acceleration is possible. This absolute angular acceleration can only be localized. Globally, it is manifested as all sorts of relative linear accelerations (coriolis force, centrifugal, centripetal, etc). What we really mean by "nothing" is the idea of absolute rest, a state of no beginning and no end.

[Omni]

I will look further into that Hole Argument discussion but it's all in english and I have to translate things so that will take a while. To be nothing or not to be nothing isn't really a question to me by the way, but who knows what I will come upon reading about it (my God, why don't all scientists speak Dutch )

[zeroca]

Omny, Never say “NEVER”!

The first thing is that I try to explain as I can. The second - I don’t try to convince anybody. I don’t claim that I’m on a right route, because I know that I can be wrong, but believe me – that’s 50-50%.
O.K., close to the subject:
When I say nothing, I mean 0, no space, no time, i.e. no motion, no bodies, i.e. nothing at all.
I think any conception can be referred to as “it”, but anyway wouldn’t like to argue about it, because it doesn’t matter in our case.
The main questions are:
1. What is nothing?
2. Where is nothing?
3. How can it split if it doesn’t exist? Or rather can it split at all?
Please, let me take some time (several days) to think over the reply, because subject is difficult to express.

[Guille]

I think nothing doesn't exist physically. Becuase nothing isn't something, (to exist physically, something has to be something) nothing is nothing.


Try to think of nothing as a concept, not as a real fisical thing.