Einstein on the train

[surreptitious57]

Photons travel in straight lines and radiate out from the centre. In a one dimensional Universe you would receive the same number of them from
a source since that is the only line they can travel on. In a two dimensional Universe the lines would be uniformly spread out in a circle as that is the requisite two dimensional shape. In our three dimensional Universe the lines are uniformly spread out over a sphere as that is the requisite three dimensional shape. In an imaginary four dimensional Universe the lines would be uniformly spread out over a cube as that is the requisite four dimensional shape for that particular scenario. And so on and so on and so on

This is why gravitational attraction is inversely proportional to the square of the distance in three spatial dimensions. We cannot live in a Universe with more than three because we would measure a different fall off point of gravity [ we dont ] Now the smallest distances we have been able to probe is a tenth of a millimetre which is many orders of magnitude greater than the Planck length. If we ever find violations of the inverse square law then that would be evidence for the existence of extra dimensions at the quantum level

[Scott Mayers]

I know that I'm not doing it justice in this explanation as I'd like.

The problem I'm having is that I'm trying to catch up with someone who has worked on this for years and has developed their own jargon - little of which I understand. Maybe we should start right at the beginning. When you talk about lines, curves, dimensions and spins; what are they in?

I treat everything as "pointers" to stand as referents to anything and ignore the actual facts they point to. That is, imagine that you are trying to make sense of reality by first labeling each and everything with absolute unique labels. This turns out to be similar to Set theory of a constructive form, like a ZFC type system (Zermelo Fraenkel with Choice axim 'set' theory). I had to approach this as rebuilding the wheel first and so had actually developed a 'set theory' without realizing the way that I did this mapped similar to the historical thinking of the prior mathematicians. This incidentally prevented me from bias and allows me to be apart of the discovery. (And why I was encouraging Age here 'assuming' she may have sincerity to figure things out as she opts to from scratch without assumptions.)

Instead of objects, I begun imagining the concept of Totality being absolutely containing of anything, everything and nothing. The "pointer" assigned to it would be just a capitalized unique symbol, Ŧ. Because this is an object or factor of reality, a generic pointer can be assigned this as well. So if I use the letter, P, to stand for the generic label of every pointer, one can be assigned to Ŧ, such a P(0). I prefer subscripts but this will do for now.

Before proceeding, I ask myself what this Ŧ (Totality) be? Imagine I can encapsulate this as a whole into some cubical container that acts as a generic holder of Totality. I only use the proper name/label of Totality to that absolute inclusive concept to include not only our Universe but to anyone's conception of what that all entails including any 'other' worlds (like Heaven or Hell), their potential Gods, AND, very importantly, Nothingness. In this way there is no 'outside' to this packaged concept even though my representation of it is FROM without. I use the generic labels of the form, P(x), for a common label type, where x is some number structure identifier. (similar to how we might use numbers and dots in our URL identifiers). I include the concepts like infinity in such labels as well to account or cover all possible x's.

The P(x)'s are then what get used as unnecessary links to any reality conceivable. THESE are both treated as artificial labels AND physical points that make up real space. Since nothing is outside of Ŧ, the pointers, P(x) are also 'real' and in fact all we want or need later. P(x) can be thought of as the set defining brackets and/or braces used for building sets or classes, "{" and "}". In fact I'll be use it interchangeably at times.

The idea here will relate to real space with 'elements' of P(x)'s that are Relative Nothings or 'empty' or 'void'. So space and everything of it and in it will be some P(x). This is to make the set theory 'geometric' and will provide the bases for describing any model. I also treat the initial content of P(x) as "empty" for a different argument of the absolute quantity of possible realities there is. I did this because this theory works if you begin with the state of an Absolutely Nothing [I'm capitalizing "proper" labels to the concepts here, not creating unusual definitions. For now just intuit some of this to get a feel for my theory without the particular proof]

[Scott Mayers]

Photons travel in straight lines and radiate out from the centre. In a one dimensional Universe you would receive the same number of them from
a source since that is the only line they can travel on. In a two dimensional Universe the lines would be uniformly spread out in a circle as that is the requisite two dimensional shape. In our three dimensional Universe the lines are uniformly spread out over a sphere as that is the requisite three dimensional shape. In an imaginary four dimensional Universe the lines would be uniformly spread out over a cube as that is the requisite four dimensional shape for that particular scenario. And so on and so on and so on

This is why gravitational attraction is inversely proportional to the square of the distance in three spatial dimensions. We cannot live in a Universe with more than three because we would measure a different fall off point of gravity [ we dont ] Now the smallest distances we have been able to probe is a tenth of a millimetre which is many orders of magnitude greater than the Planck length. If we ever find violations of the inverse square law then that would be evidence for the existence of extra dimensions at the quantum level

This is a bad interpretation of the reality. The radiation of light from a "source", is a star or a galaxy or a light bulb that sends off multiple photons in all directions. This is needed to first explain how light DIMINISHES in intensity the further away it goes by the relationship: The greater the distance is from these spherical sources, the intensity decreases by an indirect proportion of the square of that distance.

If a single photon did this, it too would require this too but would not be 'quantifiable'. [It would be a 'continuous' concept sufficed by discussing 'waves'.]

As to dimensions, the three as some maximum concept of all of what space is, is misleading. I may be explaining this in what follows for my conversation with Will here. I already did give an example of this a few posts back.

[surreptitious57]

As to dimensions the three as some maximum concept of all of what space is is misleading I may be explaining this in what follows
for my conversation with Will here

The inverse square law is evidence for our three dimensional spatial Universe at the classical level which is what we experience
Any extra dimensions would be curled up so tight at the quantum level that even if they did exist we would not experience them
String theory hypotheses a ten dimensional Universe with the three classical ones and an extra seven quantum ones
The only thing that could determine their existence is gravity which being ubiquitous can leak into other dimensions

[Scott Mayers]

As to dimensions the three as some maximum concept of all of what space is is misleading I may be explaining this in what follows
for my conversation with Will here. I already did give an example of this a few posts back

The inverse square law is evidence for our three dimensional spatial Universe at the classical level which is what we experience
Any extra dimensions would be curled up so tight at the quantum level that even if they did exist we would not experience them
String theory hypotheses a ten dimensional Universe with the three classical ones and an extra seven quantum ones
The only thing that could determine their existence is gravity which being ubiquitous can leak into other dimensions

Those are varying theories and don't relate to your error. Whether photons or waves, light travels normally in straight lines. It does not wave like a drop of water creating waves in a pool on the level of a single photon. Otherwise, light would travel more through dense solids with ease regardless of being absorbed. Also, if what you were saying is true, then you would get an infinite potential energy of the photons because you might have one part of the outer ring of this 'photon' of yours be able to hit two or more distinct atoms and turn one photon into two or more.

Some in the Copenhagen interpretation may believe this. (?)They might argue that only ONE of the possibilities is taken by the roll of probability die then collapse into that one possibility (or eliminate the others) instantaneously and anywhere in space no matter how far.

[surreptitious57]

My main distinction to Einstein is first that ALL POINTS IN SPACE MOVE AT ONE SPEED BUT DIFFER BY THEIR DIRECTION AND DIMENSION. In this
way matter itself can be determined to BE the curves rather than space itself BEING curved by some undetermined/undefined meaning of mass

Mass tells spacetime how to curve and spacetime tells mass how to move [ John Archibald Wheeler ]

The greater the mass of an object is the greater the distortion of spacetime will be. The most massive objects are supermassive black holes which
distort space so much that light cannot escape from them once it passes the event horizon [ even though this applies to all black holes regardless
of size ] And so it is mass that causes this rather than spacetime. However it would be wrong to treat mass and spacetime as entirely separate phenomena given their interaction with one other. Although where there are no objects of mass then spacetime is very flat and smooth indeed

It is also important to state that everything is always in a constant state of motion whatever the nature of spacetime both within
and without galaxies. As nothing is ever absolutely static even though it may give the impression it is relative to everything else

[Scott Mayers]

My main distinction to Einstein is first that ALL POINTS IN SPACE MOVE AT ONE SPEED BUT DIFFER BY THEIR DIRECTION AND DIMENSION. In this
way matter itself can be determined to BE the curves rather than space itself BEING curved by some undetermined/undefined meaning of mass

Mass tells spacetime how to curve and spacetime tells mass how to move [ John Archibald Wheeler ]

My theory can express what precise shape matter is on an atomic scale. This would be the 'finale' of the theory and does not need the meaning of mass to be a pulling force. While space can be rationalized to be warping, most scientists still also simultaneously hold that space is not a 'medium'. This is one of the confusions that lead me to discover my theory.

The greater the mass of an object is the greater the distortion of spacetime will be. The most massive objects are supermassive black holes which
distort space so much that light cannot escape from them once it passes the event horizon [ even though this applies to all black holes regardless
of size ] And so it is mass that causes this rather than spacetime. However it would be wrong to treat mass and spacetime as entirely separate phenomena given their interaction with one other. Although where there are no objects of mass then spacetime is very flat and smooth indeed

I am not fighting against gravity. I disagree with the explanations.

It is also important to state that everything is always in a constant state of motion whatever the nature of spacetime both within
and without galaxies. As nothing is ever absolutely static even though it may give the impression it is relative to everything else

I don't hold a "Static" interpretation of space and already hold that all points in space are constantly changing. But since change itself is energy and a major contention against the Steady State theory was that it asserted a constant evolution of matter to be manifested with expansion, accepting constant change is an example of how the Big Bang theory is being propped up in light of contradicting positions. The Steady State of space expanding is what causes new energy to "enter" or the points in space would require gaining energy per unit space being added or losing it per the new space borrowing the already present energy to distribute into the new space. Steady State versions assert a constant fixed relation of space to energy which is equivalent to saying that the density of each point in space is fixed.

But this is placing the far before the cart by a mile. Did you read my last post with Will?

[surreptitious57]

The Steady State of space expanding is what causes new energy to enter or the points in space would require gaining energy per unit space
being added or losing it per the new space borrowing the already present energy to distribute into the new space. Steady State versions
assert a constant fixed relation of space to energy which is equivalent to saying that the density of each point in space is fixed

This sounds far too ordered for a system as dynamic as the Universe. And with dark energy being responsible for the expansion of space it renders a Steady State theory entirely unnecessary at this point in time. Also supernova explosions are responsible for the release of new energy which is more in line with the dynamic Universe as it really is rather than neat mathematical formulas. We currently cannot account for an incredible 96 per cent of it so need an absolute quantity of hard empirical evidence before we can get anywhere near a TOE even though its the ultimate goal

[Scott Mayers]

The Steady State of space expanding is what causes new energy to enter or the points in space would require gaining energy per unit space
being added or losing it per the new space borrowing the already present energy to distribute into the new space. Steady State versions
assert a constant fixed relation of space to energy which is equivalent to saying that the density of each point in space is fixed

This sounds far too ordered for a system as dynamic as the Universe. And with dark energy being responsible for the expansion of space it renders a Steady State theory entirely unnecessary at this point in time. Also supernova explosions are responsible for the release of new energy which is more in line with the dynamic Universe as it really is rather than neat mathematical formulas. We currently cannot account for an incredible 96 per cent of it so need an absolute quantity of hard empirical evidence before we can get anywhere near a TOE even though its the ultimate goal

The dark energy AND dark matter are counter evidenced to the Big Bang and confirmation of a Steady State version as the dark energy IS expansion with the needed input and the dark matter, though not specifically proposed but assumed in SST is the first formation of matter FROM that energy. This among other factors demonstrate suspicion of the Big Bang theory to be political and has proven time and again that it is not considered disprovable. For every new problem that would definitively rule it out in favor of a Steady State version, instead of dislodging the theory, a post hoc addition has been made to MAKE if fit. In contrast the faulty presumption of the Cosmic Background radiation to be declared definitive to close the Steady State is also fraudulent.

The BBT proposes an origin that is extremely hot. In contrast, the Steady State theory assumes the state of reality to be constant (steady) through time. It if faulty to presume background radiation as proof of this heat when even a Steady State version lacking any guess one way or another should be deemed to have failed. The fact is, no matter what, a residual energy will always exist close to absolute zero because there is no such actual point of no movement.

I have suggested before and still maintain that the likely justification is political because it doesn't rule out an 'origin' of which all religions rely on.

My theory is NOT 'ordered' but permits absolutely all possibilities by assuming an origin of absolutely nothing. All worlds that HAVE 'order' like ours is only due to the coincidence of patterns to exist. Those worlds lacking sufficient pattern will lack a pattern (a 'law') and would just not be manifest like ours.

[surreptitious57]

I have suggested before and still maintain that the likely justification is political because it doesnt rule out an origin of which all religions rely on

Physics breaks down at the Big Bang and that is the only reason why an origin cannot be ruled out at this point in time. New physics is therefore required in the form of a theory of quantum gravity. However it can be stated that the singularity is definitely ruled out by quantum mechanics
It is absolutely impossible to compress a state of infinite density into a dimension of zero volume. It is however possible that time existed before
the Big Bang and that the singularity did not experience it as such

[uwot]

I treat everything as "pointers" to stand as referents to anything and ignore the actual facts they point to.

Which is fine, but when someone tells you they don't understand your nomenclature, it doesn't help if you replace that with symbols. My symbolic logic is functional, albeit rusty, and without busting a gut, your thesis appears coherent. But it's the nature of logic and maths that 'facts' can be ignored; the criterion is validity, rather than soundness. So, I accept that your argument is valid. What are you claiming are the sound premises? What is the universe made of that can have lines, curves, spirals, spin and whatnot in it?

[Greta]

The expanding universe is rapidly creating information, information which cannot be destroyed. Where is all that that information going to go?

[attofishpi]

The expanding universe is rapidly creating information, information which cannot be destroyed. Where is all that that information going to go?

Doesn't entropy destroy information eventually?

[Scott Mayers]

I treat everything as "pointers" to stand as referents to anything and ignore the actual facts they point to.

Which is fine, but when someone tells you they don't understand your nomenclature, it doesn't help if you replace that with symbols. My symbolic logic is functional, albeit rusty, and without busting a gut, your thesis appears coherent. But it's the nature of logic and maths that 'facts' can be ignored; the criterion is validity, rather than soundness. So, I accept that your argument is valid. What are you claiming are the sound premises? What is the universe made of that can have lines, curves, spirals, spin and whatnot in it?

All of science is about negotiating interpreted meaning of observations that are assumed 'true', some consistent logic which we seek validity, and the soundness is dependent upon these. Given theories can only create models relative to the actual realities, the best we can do is to find such a model that fits to the observations. There is no 'soundness' other than to the agreement of what is being observed. As such, any model that describes the reality suffices as long as it is complete on its domain.

I found a way to describe reality that begins with the fact of a subjective observer with an assumption of absolutely nothing. It is 'contradictory, but is justly a reality if you use this to do something. This is 'force' in a set theoretical way sufficient to construct all things in an abstract way as Numbers.

The numbers can act as indeterminate realities. For us, they are just labels we can use to identify everything as though in closed boxes. Instead of opening these boxes, we treat them as 'pointers' and graphically represent them as points in a geometric way. Physics is the manifestation of such a similar model regardless of it seeming to be 'abstract'. This is because we describe reality ONLY through abstractions based upon sensations indirectly. When we define some sensation of what we observe, the consistent patterns define what we presume are 'laws' of reality. But why would or should reality OBEY if it has no mind?

My proposed approach relies on first demonstrating that given no truths, some (finite truths), or an infinity of them (or a count of x, where x = infinity^x, that can define infinite levels of infinities). Exhausting these possibilities proves that with respect to Totality, ALL things are either one of these. The finite option is out without presuming a SPECIAL Universe (or multiverse) that is uniquely true of Totality. It would suggest some potential 'god' or other mysterious realities; But then this begs its own rationale infinitely without leading to either some other higher essence or the infinities of the other options themselves. If the infinite option is true, then each finite possibility is covered AND has to include an Absolute Nothing. But Absolute Nothing is the only possible 'apriori' reality that is at LEAST certain. This is where I justify this fact both logically and to EACH subjective mind's capacity to reason this. This makes it both valid AND sound, and thus at least certainly true of physics. When Absolute Nothing is true, then it is also false and leads back to an Absolute Infinity of possibilities.


This is where I then assign EACH possible truth a 'pointer' and represent it as a unique point. If, continuing with a screen analogy, we imagine for any sized rectilinear shape that represents a world, have each pixel (point) be represented as perfectly unique colors, then we arbitrarily begin with ANY arrangement of these pixels as one of the many possibilities for each position. That is, if we have a world of only 4x4 screen, we have distinctly 16 colors and 16! (16 factorial is a very big number) of possible arrangements. Then, imagine we allow for 'change' to be defined by the way we can arrange any set of these whole images together.

Most sets of images can be represented as a "non-patterned" moving picture to us viewing the monitor. The changes here are of the whole pixels TRADING positions because we assigned each its own unique color or shade. The ones that 'swap' in a pattern we deem tangent to their prior positions, demonstrates how reality operates. That is, all our world needs to express what we see is to have each point moving by trading positions in some way to other tangent pixels.

Note that this simplified two-dimensional model doesn't suffice. We need a way to define 'dimensions'. I did this earlier here but not precisely nor with images. All you do is begin with a few points. Four suffice to describe this concept. Let one point represent an 'origin' and three others be surrounding this. One of the points is a 'source' swap, one is a 'destination' swap, and the third is a dormant OPTION or 'alternative'. Extend this to EACH point and where no point is permitted to swap beyond this or in loops. [I can draw this later for here.] The alternative is a dimension and the other two are what I'll call the "Normal" or original route.

We imagine first that from a given arrangement, the 'next' (second) frame can swap only two points. It is arbitrary where we start and choose the swap. But it can only swap positions 'tangent' to another position AND that only have the three options. The next frame after that can trade from both ends of the first pair of swapped points but they cannot simply trade the same two original points. They dynamically creates a 'line' (not necessarily 'straight') that grows from its original first pair outwards.

Now this demonstration can be done in many different sets of ways defining different line 'stories'. Picture that we only have a black screen that uses 'white' pixels to represent the swapping points. Then we'd see random lines being drawn (like a screen saver) that originates randomly from any point and grows from that seed in any direction. The 'screen' that would be required for the three point presentation thus would not be 'square' pixels, but rather triangular-like ones. In this model we wouldn't be able to actually run this because no growing 'line' can be described as running back into the same point.

While this seems odd, you can use this to define any infinite possible worlds with any number of dimensions you wish. The dimensions would be 'relative' to each point and be sufficient at least to DESCRIBE all possible multidimensional worlds. OUR is one of these patterned worlds.

My theory actually goes all the way to describe what literal shapes particles take and have a rationale way to express how all these interact to formulate the manifested reality we see up to the first elements!

[Scott Mayers]

I treat everything as "pointers" to stand as referents to anything and ignore the actual facts they point to.

Which is fine, but when someone tells you they don't understand your nomenclature, it doesn't help if you replace that with symbols. My symbolic logic is functional, albeit rusty, and without busting a gut, your thesis appears coherent. But it's the nature of logic and maths that 'facts' can be ignored; the criterion is validity, rather than soundness. So, I accept that your argument is valid. What are you claiming are the sound premises? What is the universe made of that can have lines, curves, spirals, spin and whatnot in it?

All of science is about negotiating interpreted meaning of observations that are assumed 'true', some consistent logic which we seek validity, and the soundness is dependent upon these. Given theories can only create models relative to the actual realities, the best we can do is to find such a model that fits to the observations. There is no 'soundness' other than to the agreement of what is being observed. As such, any model that describes the reality suffices as long as it is complete on its domain.

I found a way to describe reality that begins with the fact of a subjective observer with an assumption of absolutely nothing. It is 'contradictory, but is justly a reality if you use this to do something. This is 'force' in a set theoretical way sufficient to construct all things in an abstract way as Numbers.

EDIT: I shortened this and have the original to represent with images. I made some images that need better wording. Sorry about this but it appeared more confusing to me and needs editing. I saved what I wrote prior to this for editing elsewhere before republishing in a later post.