[Tony Stanton]

Originally Posted by <<>> It's not that your opinion, or mine, or Zeroca's, or someone olse's opinion isn't valid, but it is that if we are making scientific theories that have to do with scientific studies, then, it is our obligation to act as a scientist (in the sence of creating theroies like them) or be scientists. Atleast for scientific theories like yours.

True, but science is only structure, you use structured questions to gain structured anwers that are confirmed by experiment, scientists are trained in this method but that does not mean a non-scientist's question is less valid!

[Tony Stanton]

Originally Posted by dleviwing Tony; There is a Quantum Physics concept for gravity that you may be interested in. "GRAVITY AS QUANTUM FOAM IN-FLOW" by Reginald T. Cahill of the School of Chemistry, Physics and Earth Sciences, Flinders University, Australia. http://www.scieng.flinders.edu.au/cpes/people/cahill_r/processphysics.html There are many other science papers at this site well worth studying for those interested in a TOE. I agree with Guille's comments in post #17. Though all opinions are valid, facts are more convincing. Best regards; Dave

Thanks Dave, I'll have a look.

[Tony Stanton]

Originally Posted by quanta07 Whao Tony, There appears to be anomolies in this thought process. Tony, Making a conclusion 1st, then searching for the correct premis is a fallacy in logic. You have continuously stated that 'mass generates Space-time'. Sorry Tony, I believe you have it backwards. The generation of mass, is a property of the Space-time function......... For a logical, mathematical proof of the above statement, please review the article in TOEquest library under mathematics.

There is no anomaly in the thought process, even from when I was at school I always wondered where time came from and when I had the initial idea it took years just to write it down in a form that others might understand. I really wanted it to be wrong so I could put the idea to bed but the more I studied the more real it became. It may be a fallacy in logic from your point of view but from the point of view of systems engineer such as myself I like to find out how things work. The Universe is just a system and if I can find out how part of it works then the rest of it will eventually fall into place.

I have answered all of this thread on the discussion page of my website www.theoryofspacetime.co.uk as usual.

[Guille]

Originally Posted by Tony Stanton True, but science is only structure, you use structured questions to gain structured anwers that are confirmed by experiment, scientists are trained in this method but that does not mean a non-scientist's question is less valid!

in scientific suibjects, yes. our opinion/questions/answers/theories/concepts are all less valid than a scinetists one.

I believe in what Q7 says in his last two or theree posts,

if you explain how exactly, in a smooth way, detailed, how mass generates space-time, then your theory would be valid.

Looking at your answers to my question, please, if you already have an idea of what spacetime is made of for you and your theory, it would help: because if you are saying something produces something then you have to say what the produced and producing somethings are made of. We know matter is made of fundamental particles: electrons, quarks.....

Now it's the important part of all, you have/need to explain what would change the path of your theory through this forum:
why space-time is created?
how space-time is created?
what is created when space-time is created (heat, the fundamental of space-time, force....)?

[Tony Stanton]

Originally Posted by quanta07 Hi Tony, "There is no anomaly in the thought process" The anomoly is making the statement 'mass generates space-time', It stands as an unjustified, 'take it on faith', statement of your previous, personal conclusions. The falacy of logic is making this unproven statement your premis of a logical presentation, then drawing conclusions. Conclusions that remain unjustified, 'take it on faith', BECAUSE of this premis. As a systems engineer, then you know about GIGO, I know that my awareness of the functionality of a hammer does not make me a home carpenter, that unless I master all the tools, my roof will leak and doors won't close. I have been to your site, so please explain, here on TOEquest, how 'mass generates space-time', because if you can do this, Tony I believe you will prove your conclusions for your site presentations AND your theory VALID. Respectfully, q7

All theories are just that, a theory. The only thing that science can do is the verify a theory by observation and experimentation. If the theory holds true to the data gained by these experiments and observations then surely we should believe that theory is true, until it is proved wrong.

It is not a premiss but a conclusion that matter generates Space-Time. In my opinion this conclusion still holds true even more since it appears from the latest data that there is a inflow of space towards the Sun from the ISM (not a consequence of general relativity). I will be adding to the consequences page to show how this latest data fits in well with my theory.

I have, as usual, answed this is greater detail on the discussion page of my website www.theoryofspacetime.co.uk .

Best regards and with respect.

Tony Stanton

[Tony Stanton]

Originally Posted by <<>> in scientific suibjects, yes. our opinion/questions/answers/theories/concepts are all less valid than a scinetists one. I believe in what Q7 says in his last two or theree posts, if you explain how exactly, in a smooth way, detailed, how mass generates space-time, then your theory would be valid. Looking at your answers to my question, please, if you already have an idea of what spacetime is made of for you and your theory, it would help: because if you are saying something produces something then you have to say what the produced and producing somethings are made of. We know matter is made of fundamental particles: electrons, quarks..... Now it's the important part of all, you have/need to explain what would change the path of your theory through this forum: why space-time is created? how space-time is created? what is created when space-time is created (heat, the fundamental of space-time, force....)?

From the point of view of the scientist, not from the point of view of the person giving his/her opinion and as previously stated, until this theory is either taken up or proved wrong, I will not disclose my thoughts on TOE.

Best regards
Tony

[Tony Stanton]

Originally Posted by dleviwing Tony; There is a Quantum Physics concept for gravity that you may be interested in. "GRAVITY AS QUANTUM FOAM IN-FLOW" by Reginald T. Cahill of the School of Chemistry, Physics and Earth Sciences, Flinders University, Australia. http://www.scieng.flinders.edu.au/cpes/people/cahill_r/processphysics.html There are many other science papers at this site well worth studying for those interested in a TOE. I agree with Guille's comments in post #17. Though all opinions are valid, facts are more convincing. Best regards; Dave

This is a very interesting paper and even more interesting is the fact that from the data, space appears to be flowing towards the sun!

Thanks for pointing me in this direction Dave, its much appreciated.

Best regards
Tony

[Tony Stanton]

Partly due to the input from the members of this website I have re-structured my website to include the in-flow data from Flinders University. I have also pointed out that one of the natural consequences of True Relativity is quantum entanglement.

I would be glad to here any constructive comments or otherwise about my website www.theoryofspacetime.co.uk .

I must point out that I have Asperger’s syndrome which is a form of high functioning autism and it can make me appear abrupt in my communication with people so please be a little patient with me.

Regards
Tony

[humanbydefault]

I read part of your article but I couldn't finished it because I didn't have the time. There are things I agree with you although I see it from a different [mental] "inertial frame":

Galileo once said: "Time is the measure[ment] of change." No one could deny that every single "tiny piece" os space [vacuum or whatever...] is always changing. Electrons popp out and disappear, photons move from A to B, etc so the universe is different no matter how small could be the unit of time you may chose. Time could never EVER [no matter what other old-time philosophers may have said] be an eternal now... simply wrong.
IF we assume change as the only constant and eternal process in this known universe then time and space are here with us since the very beginning [if it was one at all...].

The question however about the aspects of space and time that I've been writing lately were as some of you have already seen tries to explain why is it that we perceive rods to contract with speed and time to dilate under specific circumstances. That's my personal opinion on the subject and I don't try neither to convince nor derail anybody's views.

But concerning the generation of space and time I did wrote a lot in this forum and in my book. I said that I refused to accept gravity as the result of warped or curved fabric of space-time and the reason for that is because I see gravity as the result of a quantum mechanical process occuring inside the SUN.
In my book and my posts I have referred to the conexion between spin and time [read my article "The young experiment" right here in this forum if you want to see my side of the story] Anyway!
I do believe as you stated that space and time are being generated [created] but in my picture I assume that reality [space and time are a consistent reality] being borne in stars and no where else.
Earth rotates around the sun [in my views] not because space-time was warped by the solar mass, because there is a quantum mechanical process of spin amplification around the sun in a "MACRO-SCALE."
The true reason for attraction between electrical bodies do have a time interpretation since I have said before [here in this forum] that harmonics spinning around the atomic core (I called them standing nuclear waves) DO rotate IN THE CONTEXT OF SPACE-TIME different one from the other.
I depicted a horse race where in each harmonic [track] a horse [energy] could move only at discrete rate of time... It's all in the article "The young experiment." I also published it in a web page called sidewlakastronomer.com

I invite you and the other to join me in a healthy debate in my thread "why was relativity borne?"

Keep the good work!

HUMANBYDEFAULT www.humanbydefault.com

[gautam]

As described in my Mest Theory, I fully subscribe to the idea of space-time having no independent existence. As life and time of John are not something else than John. However, I have my reservations about "generating' space-time. It is not required indeed. The three -dimensional objects in a four dimensional universe dont really occupy it but for the perception of a three-dimensional observer. A three dimensional room can never be filled up with two- dimensional patches of ' lights and shadows' If those two dimensional shadows could think ,their worries would be no different than ours.
It is just the magic of an extra dimension.
The laws of universe, of the two-dimensional beings(ghosts) will be part-truths.
For example,' a bigger shadow can make a smaller shadow vanish but there is a greater power that keeps it alive and makes it reappear as soon as the bigger shadow changes its position....
Thanks
Gautam