None of my limited studies of GR showed any indication that Big Al included any physics in the process, as in SR (Special Relativity). He simply did the math based upon how we measure things. Any proposals that spacetime was a "material" were the afterthoughts of materialist idiots.uwot wrote:It's a very good theory, but while it's true that astronomers talk about gravitational lensing, the mechanism that Einstein proposed was a material, spacetime, that is warped by mass; he didn't explain how though.Greylorn Ell wrote:Isn't the idea that gravitational force on mass and e/m is a form of refraction (with space itself acting as the lens) kind of included in General Relativity? That was a pretty good theory, as you claim.
He did not worry about "how" things work, only about the manner in which they worked. A pragmatic approach. This is consistent with the principles of classical physics in which "why" is a completely irrelevant question, and "how" is pretty much guesswork. So long as the principles hold true and the math works, a physicist is happy.
Uwot,uwot wrote:My view is that if you take a position of realism, ie the universe is made of some 'stuff', combine it with some version of the Big Bang, then the universe is made of Big Bang stuff.
The argument goes that since Big Bang stuff expands/grows/spreads out, then so do fundamental particles.
The reason we don't experience this is that particles are knots/twists/accretions of the Big Bang stuff that act as point sources of Big Bang stuff; the universe is flowing out of them.
The 'energy' we experience, e/m for instance, is waves in Big Bang stuff.
E/m waves demonstrably move slower in denser media.
Big Bang stuff is denser the closer to point sources or collections thereof: fundamental particles, atoms, you, me, planets and stars, and hence waves passing through are refracted.
The way the density of Big Bang stuff falls with distance is consistent with Newton's Inverse Square Law, and if you start moving things around, you get they consequences of the Doppler effect associated with Relativity.
The reason we experience 'weight' is that the fundamental particles we are made of are tumbling over each other; in other words they spend some of their time travelling perpendicular to the main source of Big Bang stuff, in our case the Earth.
For simplicity we can just think in terms of left and right, but in both cases they experience refraction towards the Earth; downwards, if you like.
This implies that gravity is a localised effect and that once the density falls below a particular value, the expansion/growth/spreading out of Big Bang stuff becomes repellent and accelerates the recession of distant objects, a bit like dark energy.
It is nice story, but I have no idea whether it is true. For all I know it was created by beon and as for where consciousness or soul fits in, I haven't a clue. You'd be better off asking Ginkgo, he knows way more about that stuff than me.
I will try and read your book, but I'm very pressed for time and will struggle to give it the attention you say it needs any time soon.
You wrote, "My view is that if you take a position of realism, ie the universe is made of some 'stuff', combine it with some version of the Big Bang, then the universe is made of Big Bang stuff. "
I agree absolutely with you that the universe is made of stuff. However, although I am not qualified to trundle through the various mathematical schemes that have tried to model the Big Bang and justify the current cosmological bullshit, it is clear to me, and ought to be clear to anyone with a three-digit IQ, that the plethora of theories attempting to mathematically justify the BB indicates that the theory sucks.
Of course there must be a beginning, but I agree with Roger Penrose that a universe beginning at very low entropy is a troublesome concept. I also find that Big Bang theory is functionally identical to the omnipotent God theory-- both representative of low-entropy beginnings.
Therefore Beon Theory takes an entirely different approach to the beginnings of things, assuming that the initial state of the universe was at Entropy One.
You appear to be well qualified to understand it, provided that you take it slowly and ask questions. The only difficult part will come as you try to deal with the extreme conflict between my ideas and those you've adopted via the science-agreement system.
There is no difficult material anywhere in the book. Even my editor, a word and people person who had not taken a single high school math or science course, made perfect sense of my physics explanations. Perhaps because she had not been programmed to believe in contrary bullshit.
A chapter weekly will make it an easy read, giving you some time to consider the alternative ideas you will find along the way. Except for a few of the later chapters on Darwinism and physics. These should be perused a section or two at a reading, or whatever works for you.
Reading a book that is guaranteed to challenge your fundamental beliefs is a very difficult undertaking. Should you choose to accept the challenge, I'll do my best to assist.
I'm not going to comment on the rest of your post because I'm not interested in conventional physics beliefs. No point in trying to discuss them without an alternative paradigm. Perhaps, you'll come to understand this later. Or not.