[Planet_Bob]

Originally Posted by Coldcreation

There most likely is a fundamental surface (a three dimensional surface along with time).

A fundemental SURFACE

Is that like a fabric ?

Originally Posted by Coldcreation

If you extract everything that can possibly be extracted, including the impossible, ground energy and its associated Casimir fluctuations, or zero-point fluctuations, you are still left with a space. This surface, also called the vacuum, or empty space, has some remarkable qualities.

If it's got properties, then maybe you haven't extracted everything, including the impossible.

Originally Posted by Coldcreation

Abandoning, or rejecting Einstein's principles (in my opinion) is not the way to go.

Everybody is entitled to their opinion, but at the end of the day it is only an opinion and one should avoid trying to ram it down other peoples throats.

Originally Posted by Coldcreation

Curved spacetime is not a mechanism. It is a description of space and time in the presence of massive bodies and energy (perhaps pressure too). In order to maintain a constant velocity of light we say spacetime in curved.

So let me get this straight, you're saying that the constant speed of light is a figment of curved spacetime ...

Originally Posted by Coldcreation

So your quest with PB (although an interesting one, and I would urge both of you to continue the research, as you are likely doing) to reduce the contents of the universe down to the very basic fundamental substance has lead both of you astray in that you've managed, spuriously, to take away something that is indeed the most simple, the most fundamental of all:

Spacetime itself

CC,
none of the posts you have made on this thread have addressed the main topic of the thread. In fact almost every post of yours is on some way trying to push the apparent vitues of GR and you have made it perfectly clear that you have no respect for people who discount SpaceTime as nothing more than a mathematical convenience.
The issues being address in this thread cover not only the same results as GR would produce, but also SR and other theories and laws, in an attempt to produce a simple, yet elegant theory - something which your man Einstein predicted.

You are welcome to join in the discussion, but enough with shouting foul every time somebody questions something you believe in. Argue the issues that are being raised, not your obsession with all things Einstein.

PB.

[Coldcreation]

Originally Posted by Planet_Bob

...From The General Theory of Relativity (One object's Relationship with another) to being a good person (Your relationship with society). It all comes down to Relationships.

You bring up the subject of GR (not I) in the first post of your thread, the name that is. However what you then write has zero to do with relativity, albeit in some exsistential post-filosocp-religious(?) manner.

Originally Posted by Planet_Bob

From the smallest particles, photons, and their relationships with other particles and how that in turn creates complex structures, to the largest truck and if it doesn't get out of your way, you're going to end up as a hood ornament, there are relationships going on all around us, all the time and it is these relationships that determine who and what we are.

This, again in my opinion, means little if not nothing. I know what you're trying to say, but it didn't materialize here. Perhaps it does in a different post (although I read the entire thread and have not yet seen it written in coherent form, yet)

Originally Posted by Planet_Bob

There you go, simple. A <-> B

Where do you get A in the first place, your initial condition? And, wht is inbetween A and B? Nothing, a field, fabric, more photons?

Originally Posted by Planet_Bob

Alright, each relationship can be viewed in a more complex way, but fundementally, cut away all the math and other superfluous stuff and they all come down to a straight forward relationship between two things.

Ok, so its not just FS, it's something else too? Or if the interaction is aslo with FS, i.e., FS <<>>FS, then again, where did your FS come from, your initial condition?

Originally Posted by Planet_Bob

If you are a content person, then the phrase 'Happy with yourself' ends up being just another relationship.

Nothing to do with T.O.E.

Originally Posted by Planet_Bob

So the TOE in fact it comes down to being the relationship between one or more things.

PB.

A relationship between one thing is hardly a relationship (good thing you added "or more" but then there is not just a FS, there is something else). Can you point to where you elaborate on this?

This TOE is stubbed from the get go.

CC

[Coldcreation]

Originally Posted by Planet_Bob

...Everybody is entitled to their opinion, but at the end of the day it is only an opinion and one should avoid trying to ram it down other peoples throats.

Isn't this what you are trying to do? But nobody seems to be swallowing.

Originally Posted by Planet_Bob

CC, none of the posts you have made on this thread have addressed the main topic of the thread. In fact almost every post of yours is on some way trying to push the apparent vitues of GR and you have made it perfectly clear that you have no respect for people who discount SpaceTime as nothing more than a mathematical convenience..

The main topic, you have admitted, is ZPE, but without virtual photons (what you call FS). We're both on-topic. I've discussed that in just about every post. I have respect for everyone (why do you take it personally? Let's discuss ideas, not people). And I've attempted, unsuccesfully, to explain that spacetime is much more than mathematical convenience. It is the substrate (or substratum) within which all events and phenomena transpire. What is so dificult to comprehend about that?

Originally Posted by Planet_Bob

The issues being address in this thread cover not only the same results as GR would produce, but also SR and other theories and laws, in an attempt to produce a simple, yet elegant theory - something which your man Einstein predicted.

Ok, please answer the following simple questions:
1. How do you explain time dilation
2. How do you explain gravitational redshift
3. How do you explain the deflection of light (as it passes a star, say)
4. How do you explain gravitational lensing
5. How do you explain gravitational waves
6. How do you explain the Euclidean free-fall in a gravity field, i.e., a freely falling object feels no force or acceleration.

That should keep you busy for a while (I have plenty more where those came from: these are the easy ones).

Originally Posted by Planet_Bob

You are welcome to join in the discussion, but enough with shouting foul every time somebody questions something you believe in. Argue the issues that are being raised, not your obsession with all things Einstein.

PB.

I hear Wagner again.

Let's put it this way. Disregarding general relativity is like disregarding thermodynamics, or QM. It seems you have chosen to do so for reasons other than physical: metaphysical, perhaps, or worse.

The strange thing is that you seem to approve of Newtonian gravitation. Is that correct? Do you consider gravity to be a force, or does it even exist?

I hope you will answer these questions without personal attacks this time.

Keep cosmology fun.

CC

[Planet_Bob]

Originally Posted by Coldcreation

Isn't this what you are trying to do? But nobody seems to be swallowing.

No, I haven't jumped onto a thread, started by some else, shouting I'm right and you're wrong.

Originally Posted by Coldcreation

The main topic, you have admitted, is ZPE, but without virtual photons (what you call FS).

The main concern of ZPE is with virtual photons, so without them it isn't ZPE, is it. ZPE is similar, but not the topic of this thread.

Originally Posted by Coldcreation

I've discussed that in just about every post. I have respect for everyone

No, you've harped on that disregarding SpaceTime will not provide the TOE.

Originally Posted by Coldcreation

(why do you take it personally? Let's discuss ideas, not people).

It would be good to discuss ideas, but you have made it clear that you can't see anyway for the Universe to exist without SpaceTime which has existed for all time, never created, just there.

Your inability to perceive a Universe where SpaceTime does not exist would seem to make it very difficult for you discuss such a scenario.

Originally Posted by Coldcreation

And I've attempted, unsuccesfully, to explain that spacetime is much more than mathematical convenience.

There you go again.

Originally Posted by Coldcreation

Ok, please answer the following simple questions:
1. How do you explain time dilation
2. How do you explain gravitational redshift
3. How do you explain the deflection of light (as it passes a star, say)
4. How do you explain gravitational lensing
5. How do you explain gravitational waves
6. How do you explain the Euclidean free-fall in a gravity field, i.e., a freely falling object feels no force or acceleration.

That should keep you busy for a while (I have plenty more where those came from: these are the easy ones).

I thought you said that you had read the entire thread, obviously you haven't.

Originally Posted by Planet_Bob

What about time dilation and relativity ... ?

Compressed space gives you time dilation due to there being more energy packed into one area.
Space includes those areas between the shelves of an atom, in between the structure that makes up an electron. These places are not empty........

I'd quote the rest, but then you're not really interested it in anyway, because it doesn't use SpaceTime.

As for gravitational redshift, the same post.

As for Gravitational Waves.
This is similar to a lot of the other stuff you've posted, in that, as far as I am aware, and you are welcome to correct me if I'm wrong, although you haven't on any of the previous posts so I don't suspect that you will here either, Graviational Waves are still theoretical.

Originally Posted by Coldcreation

Let's put it this way. Disregarding general relativity is like disregarding thermodynamics, or QM. It seems you have chosen to do so for reasons other than physical: metaphysical, perhaps, or worse.

The only thing that is being disregarded is SpaceTime, which, unfortunately, it is rather fundemental to GR.
As Lloyd has said

Yes, the math works, and many of the ideas have advanced us toward a larger knowledge base, but at what cost? How much needs to be revised, and thrown out, as incomplete and or invalid?

What we are trying to achieve here is a step in a new direction. Maybe we're right and maybe we're wrong.

When you are looking to open up new ideas, what use is a closed mind ?

PB.

[Coldcreation]

Your persistent personal attacks show me that you have no means of defending your ideas using proper physics.

Why not argue physics instead? Don't you think it would help advance your cause?

Or is your TOE about some superior consciousness too (FS), i.e., not about physics?

Originally Posted by Originally Posted by Coldcreation

Ok, please answer the following simple questions:
1. How do you explain time dilation
2. How do you explain gravitational redshift
3. How do you explain the deflection of light (as it passes a star, say)
4. How do you explain gravitational lensing
5. How do you explain the Euclidean free-fall in a gravity field, i.e., a freely falling object feels no force or acceleration.

That should keep you busy for a while (I have plenty more where those came from: these are the easy ones).

I'm still waiting for answers. (I took out the gravutational wave question).

Originally Posted by Originally Posted by [B

Planet_Bob][/b]
What about time dilation and relativity ... ?

Compressed space gives you time dilation due to there being more energy packed into one area.
Space includes those areas between the shelves of an atom, in between the structure that makes up an electron. These places are not empty........

I'd quote the rest, but then you're not really interested it in anyway, because it doesn't use SpaceTime.

You write there is no such thing as spacetime yet "compressed space" gives time dilation. Funny how you get time dilation in a space where you continually write there is no time, or time in a space where you continually write there is no space. What gives? Are you just stating that space and time should not be combined? It don't make any sense.

Don't fight the chill.

Coldcreation

[Planet_Bob]

Originally Posted by Coldcreation

Your persistent personal attacks show me that you have no means of defending your ideas using proper physics.

No, CC, I have no intention of defending my ideas using your physics as, and I will repeat what I have said previously rather than constantly quoting post, because I consider that the physics that you are using, SpaceTime primarily, is flawed.

There, I don't see how I can make it any clearer.

Originally Posted by Coldcreation

Why not argue physics instead? Don't you think it would help advance your cause?

That is actually what we were trying to do before you insisted that ignoring SpaceTime was the wrong way to go.

There has been plenty of physics posted in this thread, but you have chosen to ignore it because the phrase SpaceTime doesn't appear in it.
Almost every post of yours has, as a part of it, a reference to the approach we are taking as being wrong because we haven't included SpaceTime, or how can we make reference to any part of GR if we don't recognise SpaceTime as being a fundemental part.

If you think SpaceTime exists and you're happy with that, great. If you consider SpaceTime to have always been there and there was no Big Bang or creator or primary event, great.
You obviously are quite happy with your version of how the Universe works, so I don't see why you feel the need to take part in a forum such as this.

Originally Posted by Coldcreation

Or is your TOE about some superior consciousness too (FS), i.e., not about physics?

The TOE is supposed to be, as the name implies, a theory of Everything, physics being part of that Everything.

Originally Posted by Coldcreation

You write there is no such thing as spacetime yet "compressed space" gives time dilation. Funny how you get time dilation in a space where you continually write there is no time, or time in a space where you continually write there is no space. What gives? Are you just stating that space and time should not be combined? It don't make any sense.

Originally Posted by Planet_Bob

I'd quote the rest, but then you're not really interested it in anyway, because it doesn't use SpaceTime.

Even after I mentioned the fact that you probably wouldn't read it anyway, you still didn't read it. You must have skimmed it looking for familiar words without really understanding what those words were about.

I thought the text was quite clear, but obviously you have found the words space and time and want to know :-

Originally Posted by Coldcreation

Are you just stating that space and time should not be combined?

CC, what are you looking for? Are you like a Jehovah's Witness (SpaceTime Witness) trying to convert people ?

I don't know of any other way of putting this because obviously I've not been clear enough in the past, but I'll try again.

Space and Time are not joined together.
SpaceTime does not exist in any state other than being a mathematical convenience.

PB.

[Coldcreation]

Originally Posted by Planet_Bob

No, CC, I have no intention of defending my ideas using your physics as, and I will repeat what I have said previously rather than constantly quoting post, because I consider that the physics that you are using, SpaceTime primarily, is flawed.

What in general relativity, precisely, is flawed, according to you? Obviously you dislike placing the function of time inside space (for some dubious reason).

Do you believe the laws of thermodynamics are flawed too; as well as QM?

Originally Posted by Planet_Bob

There has been plenty of physics posted in this thread, but you have chosen to ignore it because the phrase SpaceTime doesn't appear in it.

I fail to see any physics in this thread. Yes.

Originally Posted by Planet_Bob

Almost every post of yours has, as a part of it, a reference to the approach we are taking as being wrong because we haven't included SpaceTime, or how can we make reference to any part of GR if we don't recognise SpaceTime as being a fundemental part.

True.

Originally Posted by Planet_Bob

...

Originally Posted by Planet_Bob

Space and Time are not joined together.
SpaceTime does not exist in any state other than being a mathematical convenience.

PB.

You make no sense. Why on earth would you have a space with no time, and/or time without space.





Quote:

Originally Posted by Originally Posted by [B

Coldcreation][/b]
Or is your TOE about some superior consciousness too (FS), i.e., not about physics?

Originally Posted by Planet_Bob

The TOE is supposed to be, as the name implies, a theory of Everything, physics being part of that Everything.

I think now, with the latter exchange, we are comming closer and closer to the crux of your argument. What is it, ID?

CC

[Planet_Bob]

Originally Posted by Coldcreation

What in general relativity, precisely, is flawed, according to you? Obviously you dislike placing the function of time inside space (for some dubious reason).

I have given reasons why time does not exist inside space.
You on the other hand have not given one reason, in fact you haven't provided anything.

Do you actually have any original thoughts, or are all your answers taken from someone else's work?

You argue for the existance of something called SpaceTime, but the only real argument you appear to have for its existance is 'because the maths works'.
You have no explanation of where it came from apart from the much over used cop out, 'it's always been there'


I will split out your next answer so that it is clear what you have said

Originally Posted by Planet_Bob

There has been plenty of physics posted in this thread,

Originally Posted by Planet_Bob

but you have chosen to ignore it because the phrase SpaceTime doesn't appear in it.

In your next answer you then admit that almost every post you have made concerns your obsession with SpaceTime.

Originally Posted by Coldcreation

You make no sense. Why on earth would you have a space with no time, and/or time without space.

Actually it makes perfect sense unless you have an unhealthy obsession with SpaceTime. That you can't see beyond SpaceTime, or even comprehend that there are alternatives out there shows what a closed mind you have.

You have failed repeatedly to comprehend, what is after all a fairly simple concept, I suspect because you have no wish to understand it. If you were to try to understand what is being presented, it would put into question the validity of what you have been preaching and there is a distinct possibility that your world of SpaceTime will come crumbling down around you.



PB.

[Coldcreation]

Originally Posted by Coldcreation

...


1. How do you explain time dilation


2. How do you explain gravitational redshift


3. How do you explain the deflection of light (as it passes a star, say)


4. How do you explain gravitational lensing


5. How do you explain the Euclidean free-fall in a gravity field, i.e., a freely falling object feels no force or acceleration.
...



I hear Wagner again.
...
CC

I have a feeling I'll be waiting a long time.






Coldcreation

[Coldcreation]

Originally Posted by Planet_Bob

Quote:

The TOE is supposed to be, as the name implies, a theory of Everything, physics being part of that Everything.

Your writing "physics being part of that Everything" (or, in another way: Everything is not part of physics) rather than writing everything is physics is revelatory. This entire thread has that beyond physics about it. Your fundamental substance rings of Divinity for that very reason.

Originally Posted by Planet_Bob

Space and Time are not joined together.
SpaceTime does not exist in any state other than being a mathematical convenience.

PB.

The burden of proof is on you to show your idea tenable. So far you have not done so.




CC




.