An Idea

[Profpat]

Hi Fredrick;

Lets draw a line.

Lets start with a fixed point and stretch it to make a line. Three operations are necessary to accomplish this task.

1) Stretching the point. ( MOVEMENT )
2) Simultaneously creating the line. ( SPACE )
3) It takes time to do this. ( TIME )

This is why I state that all three are necessary, and are created simultaneously. Remove one of these key elements and NO LINE. ( Or string ).

I know you have problems with trinity, but it is at the foundation of my An Idea.
The proton and the photon, which are the eternal particles, are composed of 3 elements.

I view space to be like a bubble. a closed system. That is why we have our conservation laws. Outside of this is nothing ( THE VOID ). Space is filled with everything.

Best to you,

Pat

P.S. I have no problem with singularity, and my faith dictates there is a God.

[Fredrick]

Hi Fredrick;

Lets draw a line.

Lets start with a fixed point and stretch it to make a line. Three operations are necessary to accomplish this task.

1) Stretching the point. ( MOVEMENT )
2) Simultaneously creating the line. ( SPACE )
3) It takes time to do this. ( TIME )

This is why I state that all three are necessary, and are created simultaneously. Remove one of these key elements and NO LINE. ( Or string ).

I know you have problems with trinity, but it is at the foundation of my An Idea.
The proton and the photon, which are the eternal particles, are composed of 3 elements.

I view space to be like a bubble. a closed system. That is why we have our conservation laws. Outside of this is nothing ( THE VOID ). Space is filled with everything.

Best to you,

Pat

P.S. I have no problem with singularity, and my faith dictates there is a God.

Good delivery, indeed, Pat. And no problems with understanding how beliefs function; if it wasn't for your certainty that things are as you say then you wouldn't have a belief. In my pentaist ToE there is also an explanation/location for beliefs, but I do not consider addressing that here appropriate at this point in time.

The question is not if these aspects are there or not, nor is the question whether they are fundamental (and therefore required to behave the way you are describing in your example). The question is: what are their frameworks, because the frameworks will tell us how they came about, what specific purpose/functions they have. While one can say that a cow is an animal, the reverse is not automatically true, because an animal can be a lot of other things besides a cow. The framework of Animal is therefore different from the framework Cow, and they do show connections, but only with one-way certainties.

How much scientific information do you have on the existence of singularity, and is there any information available that moves this beyond the theoretical level? (In other words, in how far does the information exclude other options.)

P.S. How do you define space, Pat? Like me, like Max, or in a different way?

I believe if you took matter out of a body of space, you would have less space, since I'm fairly certain matter is just knots or folds in space itself.

I'm going to kill the spatial wave function descriptions of quantum mechanics some day, they're the source of the pernicious infinities which require renormalization to correct, to me it screams "THIS IS WRONG", yet no one does anything about it because they don't want to consider loosening causality, and different ways to think about time.

Hi Max, I see we are in many ways of similar mind sets, but we do not agree on what space is. Your definition involves a spatial framework that intereacts with matter, my spatial framework simply is. The earth moves through space, and in your delivery there would be some kind of interactive grid involved with that movement, my delivery only has earth as the object existing within a spatial framework interacting with other objects (planets, moon, sun, etc), but without anything special going on with space. For me, space is a nothing; it's there, but it's just a expansive position, not an entity with characteristics that interacts with matter. It's like a plate (placeholder) that is used for food (mass/energy), but the meal (matter) does not involve eating the plate (space). And where a cold plate can cool down hot food, space isn't cool nor hot, it does not interact at all, it only provides the positions matter can take in.

Can I admit that I have no idea what is so right or wrong about spatial wave function. Does it also require an interaction with a spatial grid of some paramount order that therefore doesn't fit my thinking?

[Max™]

I don't believe it is a framework that interacts with matter.

I believe matter is just an aspect of space and time, knots and folds within space.

It's how I explain gravity.


As for spatial wave functions.

Consider the interaction of a wave function with the location of a particle.

Then consider the interaction of a wave function with itself.

Then the interaction of the interaction with itself.

Then the interaction of the interaction of the interaction with itself.

It never stops, it keeps going on to infinity in some fractal spread, when I picture it in my head it looks like space is a mirror and quantum mechanics is a hammer smashing it.

So renormalization designates an arbitrary edge to the interactions, calculates what would be required to cancel them, and then applies that to infinity.

As Feynman said, Infinity - Infinity is a "dippy process."

[Fredrick]

I don't believe it is a framework that interacts with matter.

I believe matter is just an aspect of space and time, knots and folds within space.

It's how I explain gravity.

Thanks for that explanation, Max, I have never been a fan of infinity as a great answer to anything (to me it is a function that is not real at the fundamental level, though the option to see it exists). In my pentaist theory I do have a lever effect that at one point is so great for potential energy involved that the threshold between previous state and current state of materialization is overcome. So, a kind of infinity, but then -really only halfway there- something fundamental breaks down.

As far as the framework is concerned, frameworks do not interact with substance; apologies if my wording made you consider this. Frameworks are like theories. The book of colors would be a framework to the actual colors to be used to look up names of colors, etc, not something that interacts with the colors themselves. But we do have a real distinction in our thinking here, and we also have different ideas on explaining gravity. In the pentaist theory, gravity is automatically there (like 'family' is there when you have at least two members present). I consider 'gravity' really something like 'family' is really something, based on the set up of the parts, not something based on itself. Gravity exists inside the pyramid of forces, and is itself not an entity, rather it is a phenomenon.

[Max™]

It is a phenomenon as I view it too, it is literally a representation of the amount of space folded within a body of mass.

The distance contained within a particle determines the distance which other particles are displaced by, and vice versa.

I then postulate that the other observed forces are representations of the way the distance is folded, and the effect that has on the body itself, and the rest of the spatial fabric, including other bodies within it.

[Profpat]

SPACE THE FINAL FRONTIER



Hi Fredrick, and greetings from space.

It's my belief that we have space, and we have the void.

Space is that bubble that floats on the nothingness we call the void.

Space is that which encloses and includes its surface; it is everything. CBR, protons, photons, etc.

You have outer and inner space. Inner space is that space inside of things, such as the space inside of the protons and atoms. Outer space is that space which is outside of things, which of course could be inner space to some other larger thing. That which is outside of space is nothing, or the Void.

Space, as well as time and motion was created at the big bang, from that dimensionless point ( The Void ).

The expanse in which the solar system, stars, and galaxies exist; the universe.

Best,

Pat

[dipayankar]

If black holes do not radiate, then where does all the information they gulped down go to?

I missed your question about space there.

I believe if you took matter out of a body of space, you would have less space, since I'm fairly certain matter is just knots or folds in space itself.

I don't agree with the virtual particle model, it's just attempting to describe the energy contained in space without saying it is actually "the energy of space".

I just call it gravitons, it works well enough, and explains the vacuum expectation value nicely. Though it does put me at odds with Hawking, and by definition I disagree about black holes radiating, but heck... I think I can take him.

I'm going to kill the spatial wave function descriptions of quantum mechanics some day, they're the source of the pernicious infinities which require renormalization to correct, to me it screams "THIS IS WRONG", yet no one does anything about it because they don't want to consider loosening causality, and different ways to think about time.

[Profpat]

If black holes do not radiate, then where does all the information they gulped down go to?

Hi Dipayankar:

According to Professor Hawkings the information gets stored in a parallel universe.

[Fredrick]

-Gravity- is a phenomenon as I view it too, it is literally a representation of the amount of space folded within a body of mass.

We do not think alike in this respect, Max, or I do not understand your language. For me space is a something that isn't something material. The room is not its furniture, though the furniture can give ambiance to the room. The changing ambiance belongs not to the room, but to the furniture. The furniture takes up space and can get changed, and contains itself space at the molecular level, but it isn't the same as space. The room is the room with or without the furniture (and yes, the walls, doors and windows can create an ambiance to the space, too).

It's my belief that we have space, and we have the void.

I have the same (linguistic) problem with you, Pat. Just like the word fundamental cannot be used as referring to something with having a more and something with a less fundamental part, nothing (space, void) cannot be divvied up in categories and it having any additional meaning. If you want to wrap space inside a void, that sounds like a mystery wrapped in an enigma pronounced in a riddle to me. Naturally, if you claim space to be inclusive of matter then your words make sense, but you are then not separating matter from space. You are then stating that marriage is defined as a husband and Carol, while it should be husband and wife, or Charley and Carol (or in some nations and states also possible: Charley and Carl); i.e. it is matter and non-matter, and it is empty space and taken-up space.

To communicate properly, we have to have the same meanings for words, we need to understand how each words functions within its own framework (numbers and letters are different framework, for instance) and we need to understand where some words may be different words but describing the same thing. I guess what I am saying, Pat, is that we do not have the same meanings attached to our words (but I will admit immediately that language is a difficult tool to use, especially for the largest of frameworks).

About the Black Holes, I know you know what I think of them (ash holes!). Matter does not disappear, it is deplaced from our ordinary view like a magician lets a rabbit disappear.

[Max™]

The universe is full of space.

Outside of the universe is something else.

There is something qualitatively different about space from not-space.

The vacuum expectation value, cosmological constant, dark energy... these all occur to me as artifacts of the actual energy of space.

Think about a beam of light, now reduce the energy to the minimum value, what do you get?

You can't reduce it to zero, but it stops seeming meaningful as light...


You get space! Gravitons as I call 'em.


As for black holes, where does the information go?

It cheats entropy by passing it on to a daughter universe (what Dave called a magical conjecture), which nicely explains the rather arbitrary presence of bodies of extremely low entropy that we call big bangs.

Run the current expansion of this universe to it's maximum point, eventually space will lose meaning, time will no longer matter, the universe will fall apart.

The black holes within her will no longer have event horizons, and then as they say.

Let there be light.