It appears you have not yet registered with our community. To register please click here...

Theory of Everything  

  
Go Back   Theory of Everything > Fundamental Phenomena > Forces of Nature
Reload this Page Gravity and space
Register Website Toe Club Your Blog Arcade

Welcome to the Theory of Everything forums.

You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, communicate privately with other members (PM), respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join our community today!

If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact contact us.

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
Gravity and space
Old
  (#1 (permalink))
1st degree Black Belt
zeroca has a spectacular aura aboutzeroca has a spectacular aura aboutzeroca has a spectacular aura aboutzeroca has a spectacular aura aboutzeroca has a spectacular aura about
 
zeroca's Avatar
 
Status: Offline
Posts: 250
Thanks Given: 9
Thanked 8x in 6 Posts
Join Date: Jan 2005
Rep Power: 16
   
Gravity and space - 03-21-2005, 01:04 PM

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.
Attached Images
File Type: gif space.gif (38.9 KB, 155 views)

Last edited by zeroca : 10-27-2005 at 01:47 PM.
  
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!Spurl this Post!Reddit!
Reply With Quote
math structure
Old
  (#2 (permalink))
Raider of the lost time
AntonioLao is just really niceAntonioLao is just really niceAntonioLao is just really niceAntonioLao is just really niceAntonioLao is just really niceAntonioLao is just really niceAntonioLao is just really niceAntonioLao is just really nice
 
AntonioLao's Avatar
 
Status: Offline
Posts: 5,212
Thanks Given: 684
Thanked 111x in 110 Posts
Join Date: Nov 2003
Rep Power: 73
   
math structure - 03-21-2005, 08:57 PM

Quote:
Originally Posted by zeroca
existence of separation into two opposite phenomenon, that’s happening within nothing.
the structures of these opposites can represented by matrices.

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

and

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

the sum of these matrices is

H^{0}=\left(\begin{array}{cc}0&0\\0&0\end{array}\right)
  
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!Spurl this Post!Reddit!
Reply With Quote
Old
  (#3 (permalink))
Blue Belt
Omni will become famous soon enoughOmni will become famous soon enoughOmni will become famous soon enough
 
Omni's Avatar
 
Status: Offline
Posts: 105
Thanks Given: 0
Thanked 0x in 0 Posts
Join Date: Nov 2003
Rep Power: 18
   
03-22-2005, 09:42 AM

@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.
  
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!Spurl this Post!Reddit!
Reply With Quote
Old
  (#4 (permalink))
1st degree Black Belt
zeroca has a spectacular aura aboutzeroca has a spectacular aura aboutzeroca has a spectacular aura aboutzeroca has a spectacular aura aboutzeroca has a spectacular aura about
 
zeroca's Avatar
 
Status: Offline
Posts: 250
Thanks Given: 9
Thanked 8x in 6 Posts
Join Date: Jan 2005
Rep Power: 16
   
03-22-2005, 03:10 PM

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

Last edited by zeroca : 11-03-2005 at 03:35 PM.
  
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!Spurl this Post!Reddit!
Reply With Quote
product of opposites
Old
  (#5 (permalink))
Raider of the lost time
AntonioLao is just really niceAntonioLao is just really niceAntonioLao is just really niceAntonioLao is just really niceAntonioLao is just really niceAntonioLao is just really niceAntonioLao is just really niceAntonioLao is just really nice
 
AntonioLao's Avatar
 
Status: Offline
Posts: 5,212
Thanks Given: 684
Thanked 111x in 110 Posts
Join Date: Nov 2003
Rep Power: 73
   
product of opposites - 03-23-2005, 12:23 PM

Quote:
Originally Posted by zeroca
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:

H^{+} H^{-} = 2H^{-}

H^{-} H^{-} = 2H^{+}

H^{+} H^{+} = 2H^{+}

and it can be stated without proof that the product is commutative and associative.
  
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!Spurl this Post!Reddit!
Reply With Quote
Old
  (#6 (permalink))
Blue Belt
Omni will become famous soon enoughOmni will become famous soon enoughOmni will become famous soon enough
 
Omni's Avatar
 
Status: Offline
Posts: 105
Thanks Given: 0
Thanked 0x in 0 Posts
Join Date: Nov 2003
Rep Power: 18
   
03-25-2005, 07:58 AM

@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.
  
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!Spurl this Post!Reddit!
Reply With Quote
hole argument
Old
  (#7 (permalink))
Raider of the lost time
AntonioLao is just really niceAntonioLao is just really niceAntonioLao is just really niceAntonioLao is just really niceAntonioLao is just really niceAntonioLao is just really niceAntonioLao is just really niceAntonioLao is just really nice
 
AntonioLao's Avatar
 
Status: Offline
Posts: 5,212
Thanks Given: 684
Thanked 111x in 110 Posts
Join Date: Nov 2003
Rep Power: 73
   
hole argument - 03-25-2005, 12:51 PM

Quote:
Originally Posted by Omni
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.
  
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!Spurl this Post!Reddit!
Reply With Quote
Old
  (#8 (permalink))
Blue Belt
Omni will become famous soon enoughOmni will become famous soon enoughOmni will become famous soon enough
 
Omni's Avatar
 
Status: Offline
Posts: 105
Thanks Given: 0
Thanked 0x in 0 Posts
Join Date: Nov 2003
Rep Power: 18
   
03-26-2005, 05:02 PM

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 )
  
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!Spurl this Post!Reddit!
Reply With Quote
about "nothing"
Old
  (#9 (permalink))
1st degree Black Belt
zeroca has a spectacular aura aboutzeroca has a spectacular aura aboutzeroca has a spectacular aura aboutzeroca has a spectacular aura aboutzeroca has a spectacular aura about
 
zeroca's Avatar
 
Status: Offline
Posts: 250
Thanks Given: 9
Thanked 8x in 6 Posts
Join Date: Jan 2005
Rep Power: 16
   
about "nothing" - 03-27-2005, 05:55 AM

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.

Last edited by zeroca : 04-27-2005 at 02:40 PM.
  
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!Spurl this Post!Reddit!
Reply With Quote
Old
  (#10 (permalink))
The Thinker
Guille is a jewel in the roughGuille is a jewel in the roughGuille is a jewel in the roughGuille is a jewel in the roughGuille is a jewel in the roughGuille is a jewel in the rough
 
Guille's Avatar
 
Status: Offline
Posts: 3,278
Thanks Given: 14
Thanked 9x in 9 Posts
Join Date: Mar 2005
Rep Power: 47
   
03-28-2005, 06:01 AM

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.
  
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!Spurl this Post!Reddit!
Reply With Quote
Reply


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Fitz'slatest revision of what Force, Space and Time really are in the wave world. Robert Duncan TOE Theories 3 02-18-2008 01:44 AM
Singularity As Separate Entity Mohsen TOE Theory Articles 11 02-08-2008 12:15 PM
Quantum Mechanics Mohsen Physics Articles 5 07-16-2007 07:04 AM
Fitzpatrick's Vector Scalar relationship between Force, Space and Time Robert Duncan Forces of Nature 2 04-22-2006 05:03 PM
Gravity is the Property of Space vacuum-mechanics Forces of Nature 8 11-29-2005 11:32 PM



Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.8
Copyright ©2000 - 2008, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO 3.2.0
vBulletin Skin developed by: vBStyles.com