[Lloyd Gillespie]

Originally Posted by Coldcreation

Without ground energy nothing would exist, without fluctuation nothing would change, without gravity nothing would coalesce. CC

Hi CC, I agree with these first two points, but the third, gravity, is not fundamental, and is unnecessary for fundamental coalescence___gravity is a property of first finite singularity formation___just eons prior to big-bang. Cold thermo-hydro-dynamics could serve this same purpose, with its initial pressure compression, before the later vacuum state. I call this first stage CTHD, or Cold thermo-hydro-dynamics, in the model, I'm working with___My "cold creation" model, yet it is uncreated, always existing, and creates finiteness___The HTHD, or Hot thermo-hydro-dynamic state. Also, I'm in agreement with Steven, that electrodynamics is unnecessary, at the most fundamental level, yet some sort of wave, friction heat and sound is necessary for, and in, any motion___I prefer toroidal/tornadic waves of FS.

Lloyd

[Coldcreation]

Originally Posted by Lloyd Gillespie

Hi CC, I agree with these first two points, but the third, gravity, is not fundamental, and is unnecessary for fundamental coalescence___gravity is a property of first finite singularity formation___just eons prior to big-bang. Cold thermo-hydro-dynamics could serve this same purpose, with its initial pressure compression, before the later vacuum state. I call this first stage CTHD, or Cold thermo-hydro-dynamics, in the model, I'm working with___My "cold creation" model, yet it is uncreated, always existing, and creates finiteness___The HTHD, or Hot thermo-hydro-dynamic state. Also, I'm in agreement with Steven, that electrodynamics is unnecessary, at the most fundamental level, yet some sort of wave, friction heat and sound is necessary for, and in, any motion___I prefer toroidal/tornadic waves of FS.

Lloyd

OK, a brief review:

Gravity (curvature) is geometric property of spacetime. In order for gravity to be reduced to zero throughout the manifold, all the matter, energy, and pressure would have to be extracted. Going back in time to some primordial state of the very early universe (in big bang-type model or an infinite stationary universe, no matter what model is used), it seems likely that energy will be conserved, at least in its minimum state: the ground energy state (also called ZPE). This minimum state cannot be extract, or reduced to zero throught all of space. Here we both agree.

However, because energy gravitates (and so too would your FS), the would be a devition from a smooth Euclidean spacetime metric, and this no matter how far one wishes to extrapolate back in time. That make gravity irreducible. Since gravity is always attached to the fundamental property of energy (the ground energy at the very least), that makes it every bit as fundamental (here I'm not using the word fundamental as in a fundamental particle, since I disbelieve in gravitons).

Why, anyway, before a big bang, would you want to do away with gravity, or render it less important as far as its role in shaping the large-scale structures of the universe. Certainly electromagnetic 'force is not a long range 'action' such as gravity. Even if as you write gravity is not needed "for fundamental coalescence" it would still be present.

It would be difficult (if not impossible to explain) how any fundamental substance would not gravitate, or be exempt from forming deviations, wells, in the manifol.

If you argue that FS is diffused throught space evenly (in a flat Euclidean or Minkowsky spacetime) how could you then explain the observed lumps and irregularities in the universe today.

You also write above "gravity is a property of first finite singularity formation." That, I'm sure Einstein would not agree with you. It would mean there was a time before which gravity did not exist.

From what I gather, your model stipulates the universe was initially cold, then became excruciatingly hot (around the time of the supposed BB), and has been cooling ever since. Is that correct?

I'll have to get back later to your "electrodynamics is unnecessary, at the most fundamental level, yet some sort of wave, friction heat and sound is necessary for, and in, any motion___I prefer toroidal/tornadic waves of FS."

CC

[Planet_Bob]

Originally Posted by Coldcreation

Gravity (curvature) is geometric property of spacetime.

Spacetime is nothing more than a mathematical convenience.

Originally Posted by Coldcreation

However, because energy gravitates

There's no proof that energy gravitates.

Originally Posted by Coldcreation

It would be difficult (if not impossible to explain) how any fundamental substance would not gravitate, or be exempt from forming deviations, wells, in the manifold.

It is far more difficult to explain how it would gravitate

ZPF : Fluctuations in ZPE.
ZPE is defined using ZPE photons, individual particles (same as this thread) and for there to be fluctuations implies that a volume of normal ZPE photons is interspersed with unnormal ZPE photons, hence the fluctuation.
The fact that their properties differ slightly does not mean that they are not ZPE's. This means that ZPF is reducible down to multiple ZPE's.

Ignoring gravity as there is no direct proof ZPE's have gravitational properties, what you are left with is ZPE, which is exactly what this thread is saying.

At the end of the day the most fundemental thing in the Universe is the humble photon (ZPE photon). On its own, it is completely useless, but with a few friends they can build whatever you want.



PB.

[Coldcreation]

Originally Posted by Planet_Bob

Spacetime is nothing more than a mathematical convenience.

Here we disagree. It has been khown (Einstein, de Sitter, 1916-1917) that spacetime is a fundamental substrate submerged within which is all that fills space. To reduce spaetime to nothing more or less that an equation is to miss the most fundamental spact of the universe itself.

Simply put, if it were possible to remove all that fills space (ZPE included) one would still be left with space and time.

Originally Posted by Planet_Bob

There's no proof that energy gravitates.

Originally Posted by Planet_Bob

It is far more difficult to explain how it would gravitate

Originally Posted by Planet_Bob

ZPF : Fluctuations in ZPE.
ZPE is defined using ZPE photons, individual particles (same as this thread) and for there to be fluctuations implies that a volume of normal ZPE photons is interspersed with unnormal ZPE photons, hence the fluctuation.
The fact that their properties differ slightly does not mean that they are not ZPE's. This means that ZPF is reducible down to multiple ZPE's.

Originally Posted by Planet_Bob

Ignoring gravity as there is no direct proof ZPE's have gravitational properties, what you are left with is ZPE, which is exactly what this thread is saying.

Originally Posted by Planet_Bob

At the end of the day the most fundemental thing in the Universe is the humble photon (ZPE photon). On its own, it is completely useless, but with a few friends they can build whatever you want.



PB.

I'll be back...

[Planet_Bob]

Originally Posted by Coldcreation

Here we disagree. It has been khown (Einstein, de Sitter, 1916-1917) that spacetime is a fundamental substrate submerged within which is all that fills space. To reduce spaetime to nothing more or less that an equation is to miss the most fundamental spact of the universe itself.

The term Spacetime was originally coined for mathematical convenience to describe how certain aspects of space and time interact.

To use SpaceTime as more than just an equation is to place one's trust in magic and take certain aspects of how the Universe works for granted and not ask how it works.

Originally Posted by Coldcreation

Simply put, if it were possible to remove all that fills space (ZPE included) one would still be left with space and time.

Time now becomes an inherant part of the Universe with no explanation as to how it works or why. As for Space, the Universe has dimension, yet there is nothing in it to determine how big it is.

Spacetime has moved beyond the realms of physics and has entered the arena of being a religion. People accept SpaceTime without questioning why or how.

a fundamental substrate submerged within which is all that fills space

What is it ?

Giving an answer such as , it does because it is SpaceTime or it is curved by mass, does not give any indication as to how it works.

The concept of photons being the fundemental substance in the Universe and the manner in which they interact provides answers as to how it all works.

PB.















I'll be back...[/quote]

[Coldcreation]

Originally Posted by Planet_Bob

The term Spacetime was originally coined for mathematical convenience to describe how certain aspects of space and time interact.

And the results shed light on the physical spacetime continuum.

Originally Posted by Planet_Bob

To use SpaceTime as more than just an equation is to place one's trust in magic and take certain aspects of how the Universe works for granted and not ask how it works.

Funny then how the 'magic' of general relativity, GR, has passed every test on observational fronts (save for gravitational waves). Perhaps you have a theory that better accords with observations?

True, we are still lacking the mechanism behind the gravitational interaction.

Originally Posted by Planet_Bob

Spacetime has moved beyond the realms of physics and has entered the arena of being a religion. People accept SpaceTime without questioning why or how.
What is it ?

GR is pure physics. This is not the place to discuss religion. There are those who question why or how gravity (spacetime curvature) works.

Originally Posted by Planet_Bob

The concept of photons being the fundemental substance in the Universe and the manner in which they interact provides answers as to how it all works. PB.

I have reservations about this, but I'll adopt a wait and see attitude. Its seems a substance should have mass, photon do not.















I'll be back...[/quote][/quote]

[Planet_Bob]

Originally Posted by Coldcreation

And the results shed light on the physical spacetime continuum.

You are assuming that it exists as a physical entity.

Originally Posted by Coldcreation

Funny then how the 'magic' of general relativity, GR, has passed every test on observational fronts (save for gravitational waves). Perhaps you have a theory that better accords with observations?

Unless I've been asleep for a few years, I was still under the impression that the General Theory of Relativity was still just that, a theory. It has not yet become the Law of Relativity.
The thread you are posting can provide not only answers, but worked examples of Relativity, General and Special, ohm's law, boyle's law. And it doesn't rely on magic fabrics.

Originally Posted by Coldcreation

GR is pure physics.

No, GR is not pure physics, it is a theory, still only a theory.

Originally Posted by Coldcreation

This is not the place to discuss religion.

True, I have no intention of going down that route.

Originally Posted by Coldcreation

There are those who question why or how gravity (spacetime curvature) works.

And you should be one of them.

If you do not question how it works, then you are accepting what it presents you in blind faith. Is that not how you define a religion ? The total acceptance of the existance of someone or something, purely on faith.

Originally Posted by Coldcreation

I have reservations about this, but I'll adopt a wait and see attitude. Its seems a substance should have mass, photon do not.

Why ?
Electrons and positrons have mass.
Photons do not have mass.
Electron + positron = 2 photons. The mass has disappeared.


PB.















I'll be back...[/quote][/quote][/quote]

[Coldcreation]

Originally Posted by Planet_Bob

You are assuming that it exists as a physical entity.

That is because of the argument I gave earlier, that Einstein had given originally. Remove all that you like from space, and you are still left with space and time. (I can find the exact phrase if you would like). Show me how space and time can be eliminated and I will listen further, perhaps.

Originally Posted by Planet_Bob

Unless I've been asleep for a few years, I was still under the impression that the General Theory of Relativity was still just that, a theory. It has not yet become the Law of Relativity.

The general postulate of relativity, also called the general principle of relativity is empirical in nature. It is thus much more than a 'hypothetical' theory, as you imply. Within GR are many fundamental laws of physics. Look here for example.

Originally Posted by Planet_Bob

The thread you are posting can provide not only answers, but worked examples of Relativity, General and Special, ohm's law, boyle's law. And it doesn't rely on magic fabrics.

I don't see anything magical about postulating gravity as a curved spacetime phenomenon. As I've written, GR has passed nearly every test to which it hs been subjected.

Originally Posted by Planet_Bob

No, GR is not pure physics, it is a theory, still only a theory.

And thanks to "magic" things like GPS are acurate to within one meter (not bad considering the size of the earth).

Originally Posted by Planet_Bob

And you should be one of them.

If you do not question how it works, then you are accepting what it presents you in blind faith. Is that not how you define a religion ? The total acceptance of the existance of someone or something, purely on faith.[/quote]

Actually, I am one of them.

Originally Posted by Planet_Bob

Why ?
Electrons and positrons have mass.
Photons do not have mass.
Electron + positron = 2 photons. The mass has disappeared.

PB.

Could you elaborate (or direct me to one of the posts in this thread where this is explained in more detail). You're saying now that electrons and positron are more fundamental than the massless photon?

CC

[Planet_Bob]

Originally Posted by Coldcreation

That is because of the argument I gave earlier, that Einstein had given originally. Remove all that you like from space, and you are still left with space and time. (I can find the exact phrase if you would like).

This sounds strangely like the gospel of Einstein.

And on the fourth day he did take SpaceTime and he saw that it was curved ...........

Originally Posted by Coldcreation

Show me how space and time can be eliminated and I will listen further, perhaps.

If you'd have read this thread you will have found a conceptual definition of Time. The concept is that Time, far from being a predetermined entity within the Universe, it only exists because of events within the Universe, remove those events and you remove time. It is these fundemental events that not only provide Time, but also set how it is measured.
And just so as you're clear, these Time events have nothing to do with GR and no matter where in the Universe you measure them, their value will be exactly the same, not Relative to anything. This is one concept for which SpaceTime has no equivalent.

Originally Posted by Coldcreation

The general postulate of relativity, also called the general principle of relativity is empirical in nature. It is thus much more than a 'hypothetical' theory, as you imply. Within GR are many fundamental laws of physics. Look here for example.

I checked your link, just in case I had been asleep for years, but no, it was still the same as before.
The link you've offered has a section dedicated to General Relativity, but it also has a section entitled : Quantum Laws. Since when has Heisenberg had a law named after him; an uncertainty principle yes, but no laws.

Be careful quoting from wikipedia because anybody can edit the entries.

General Relativity is still no more than theoretical, no matter how much you think it is. Just because a theory can accurately predict results doesn't make it any more than just a theory. The results are true, but the reasoning behind them may not be.

Originally Posted by Coldcreation

I don't see anything magical about postulating gravity as a curved spacetime phenomenon.

It would have to be magical if SpaceTime doesn't actually exist.

Originally Posted by Coldcreation

As I've written, GR has passed nearly every test to which it hs been subjected.

Nearly every test. So it failed some.

Originally Posted by Coldcreation

And thanks to "magic" things like GPS are acurate to within one meter (not bad considering the size of the earth).

Surely GPS is based on the triangulation of signals from different satellites which would make it geometry, not General Relativity.
The fact that the satellites clocks run at slightly different rates is related to GR, but the positioning bit is down to geometry.

Originally Posted by Planet_Bob

If you do not question how it works, then you are accepting what it presents you in blind faith. Is that not how you define a religion ? The total acceptance of the existance of someone or something, purely on faith.

Let me get this straight.

Somebody told you, indirectly because he's dead, that there is a thing called SpaceTime and you have just accepted that in blind faith.

You have then posted on here and admitted that you really don't understand what it is, but somebody famous said it so it must be important.

Originally Posted by Coldcreation

Could you elaborate (or direct me to one of the posts in this thread where this is explained in more detail). You're saying now that electrons and positron are more fundamental than the massless photon?

The point was that even things which have Mass can become things without Mass. In which case, Mass is not really a fundemental requirement.

PB.

[Lloyd Gillespie]

CC, PB is almost entirely correct throughout these latest posts___Spacetime doesn't exist, and all of Einstein GR can be explained by Newtonian gravity___Space does exist as FS, Time is just the distance FS travels, Time is no entity of the universe. GR and SR both work fine for maths, but are not universal fundamentals___they are gauge theories, within other gravity and motion gauge theories.

Lloyd