Concerning any and all phenomena which we catagorize under "attraction/repulsion" or "gravitation/levitation"; the things we associate with the four invisible forces, the most objective observation that can be made is that the space, the distance separating the two (or more) bodies, is either deflating or inflating. No net change is observed in the bodies themselves. Only their apparent positions in space have changed as a result of the deflation (in the case of gravity) of the space between them. The position-change observation is secondary to the deflation-of-space observation because any of the "participating" bodies can easily regard themselves as standards of rest. Either any of them can or none of them can. But without regard to frame of reference, all observers must agree on either an inflation of space (in the case of a "repulsive" force) or a deflation of space (in the case of an "attractive" force) between the bodies involved. The degrees of spatial deflation (we're talking about gravity from here on out) may vary from vantage point to vantage point, but there is obviously no vantage point in the universe from which it appears that the Earth is "repelling" the apple instead of "attracting" it. Written more precisely, there is no reference frame in space-time from which it appears that the space separating the Earth and the apple, or the skydiver, is inflating. Falling is falling is "falling".
There is a fourth spatial dimension and if we had to give it a name like up/down, right/left, or front/back, it would have to be in/out. It is the dimension through which motion is represented three-dimensionally as omnidirectional expansion or contraction. There is no qualitative difference between an object whose surface is perpetually expanding and an object whose center is perpetually shrinking. In both cases, the distance separating the center and the surface is increasing.
Fourth dimensional motion is just as relative as three-dimensional motion. Say two bodies are floating in empty space and they are both expanding omnidirectionally (in "all" six directions simultaniously and proportionally) at identical rates of expansion. Relative to one another, they would regard each other as maintaining constant, unchanging size. Both bodies would, however, register a deflation of space, on account of their actual expansions. They observe no net expansion on their parts because they naturally regard themselves as standards of fourth dimensional rest. Indeed, they are probably not even aware of this fourth spatial dimension through which they move. (It is actually an over-simplification to say that both bodies would observe no net expansion. In fact, body A would observe the expansion of body B along with the deflation of space between them, and vice versa. We think that our minds are tricking us when they use size to represent distance, but the objective line between size and distance turns out to be more blurry than that.) Proceding with the over-simplification for now, all bodies A and B think they see (observers on their surfaces) is the deflation of space between two seemingly unchanging bodies; bodies whose positions seem to be changing as a result of the spatial deflation between them.
But in all actuality, the positions of the two bodies' centers of gravity is never changing. The centers of gravity of the two objects are at rest relative to each other while in "free fall". Only their surfaces are accelerating toward each other.
Remember that the above two-body example was in empty space with no local markers to reference. The two bodies were not expanding at identical rates right next to a third body which was not expanding at all. But let's just say for a second that there was some third body there which was "maintaining constant size". To bodies A and B, naturally regarding themselves as fourth dimensional standards of rest, the third body would not be maintaining constant size, it would be shrinking. If the observers on bodies A and B were particularly insightful, they might question whether body C was really shrinking or getting farther away from them, but they would hardly jump to the comclusion that they were expanding and that body C was not. It is just as natural to assume that we are maintaining constant size as it was to assume that the Earth was at three-dimensional rest while the Sun and stars revolved around us. Both assumptions, however natural, are incongruent with observation. In truth, the expanding objects are expanding and the shrinking objects are shrinking, just as the Earth, Sun and stars are all in constant motion.
Returning to the over-simplified two-body example, assuming that there is nothing around to spoil the illusion, both bodies (as long as their rates of expansion are identical) would regard themselves and each other as maintaining constant, unchanging size. Now imagine an entire universe of "nothing to spoil the illusion"; a universe inwhich every single object was expanding at the same rate. Observers on every one of those objects would be tricked into thinking that they were maintaining constant size, while the space between them mysteriously got smaller. "All bodies attract!" one of them might say, mistakenly.
Let us now say that in this imaginary universe the space itself was constantly inflating due to some biggish bangish sort of thing. There would be two equally valid ways to visualize this sort of universe. We could see it as a four-dimensional bubble of space-time whose boundary conditions are unchanging. In that case, it is a universe whose center is perpetually contracting. We could, instead, regard the center of the space-time bubble as a standard of rest, in which case it is a universe whose edge is perpetually expanding. Speaking most objectively, the distance between its center and its edge would be increasing. Now make space inflate at a constant rate (c?) and matter expand at an accelerated rate determined by the object-in-question's fourth dimensional kinetic energy (mass) and you have a working model for our observable universe. Bodies in our universe do not expand at identical rates but at varying rates dependent on the bodies' individual masses.
Any center of "gravity" can be regarded as an inertial frame of reference and therefore, can be identified with the center of the expansion of the universe (the center of the four-dimensional universe's expanding three-dimensnional surface).
Regarding the Earth's center of "gravity" as a standard of rest, it's surface is speeding away from it. That surface then strikes other objects (feet, basketballs, anvils, meteorites) and pushes them into accelerated retreat as well. Even objects which the Earth's surface does not strike are retreating on account of the constant inflation of space. To sum it up, distant objects are retreating from the Earth's center of "gravity" at the constant rate of spatial inflation while objects that reside on the Earth's surface are retreating at the accelerated rate of matter. The universe is an expanding four-dimensional sphere and any inertial reference frame; any body's center of "gravity", can be regarded as an arbitrary "pole" its three-dimensional surface.
Any center of "gravity", even that of a neutron, is speeding away from its surface (or its surface is speeding away from it) at the accelerated rate characteristic of its mass. Since all bodies are conglomerates of uniformly expanding particles, the bodies themselves expand uniformly, as well.
While space is only one part space, all matter is always some part matter and some part space. Even a neutron star must have some infinitesimal amount of space separating the neutrons that comprise it. For this reason, all bodies expand at both the constant spatial rate of inflation and the accelerated rate of matter itself. This is why matter can overcome spatial inflation when the ratios of matter to space in the "gravitational transaction" allow it. We can divide atoms into protons and neutrons and we can divide those into six different quarks. I believe that we will always be able to divide matter thusly because the space will always be there. There are six quarks instead of any smaller quantity of quarks specifically because space separates six different types. If there was no space separating two individual quarks, then there would not be two quarks but one quark instead.

TANGENT - We are accustomed to imagining that our minds employ the "convention" of representing distance through size. Something that is far away from us "looks" smaller than it would "look" if it were closer. But we have begun to see that the distinction between distance and size has a less objective mode of existence than commonly thought.
Picture two bodies a lightyear apart. Light leaves body A at time interval T1 and arrives at body B one year later at T2. According to our thoery, both body A and body B have expanded quite a bit since T1. Since the observers on body B are seeing body A as it was at T1, body A must look very small to them. The stars in the night sky look pretty small to me. I know that claim sounds crazy but consider the following.
I see a computer monitor in front of me. Intuitively, I know that if it occupied the position in space that I am currently occupying; if we both hypothetically occupied the same position in space simultaniously, it would be a two foot cube. But it looks smaller than that when it is in front of me. Trusting my depth perception and operating on probably reasoning, I assume that the monitor is still two feet by two feet by two feet, but that it is now three feet away from me.
Two eyes are two vantage points, two separate frames of reference, that our minds somewhat "artificially" combine to produce one image. But the universe should most properly be viewed through only one eye. Depth perception is, at least, partly illusory. With only one eye open, the computer monitor could just as easily be a two foot cube residing three feet from my retina as it could be a two millimeter cube residing three millimeters from my retina. It could, in fact, be any size-distance combination in between those two extremes. The rule is: size decreases by the square of the distance. It is an inverse-square law just like "gravity". Objects which we assume are large yet far away are in fact smaller and closer than we believe. There is no absolute standard of size just as there is no absolute standard of space or time. The actual size of something is as relative to your particular frame of reference as motion and rest are.

Whatever!:bugeye:

CTEBO,

The normal purpose of writing something is to communicate an idea to a reader. Your post does not do that very well.

Could you please summarise, in a couple of sentences, what the main point of your post was?

Thankyou.

I like that. It just goes to show that there's always at least two ways of looking at things.

Have you read Gombrich 'Art and Illusion'? It contains a lot of interesting ideas on the equivalence of different ways of interpreting visual clues as to distance, size and form that seem relevant to your ideas here. (Eg your computer example does not just show that your monitor may not be a two foot cube three feet away, it may not even be a cube, and it may not even be a single object). In fact there are an infinite number of interpretations of what might account for your visual image in the absence of some intuitive or formal theory of perception (cf the work on 3D illusions by psychologist Adelbert Ames).

Some half-serious chemically-induced questions.

a) If all space is expanding but matter is not (just the space between its constituents) then the constituents of matter must be becoming ever smaller in relation to the size of the objects that they constitute. Is this what you mean? Or is matter expanding as well? If matter itself is said to be expanding then all sorts of strange questions arise.

b) You say "Say two bodies are floating in empty space and they are both expanding omnidirectionally (in "all" six directions simultaneously and proportionally) at identical rates of expansion."
In this case wouldn't what observers on these bodies see depend on how far apart they are. If they are very close then the expansion of the bodies would outpace the expansion of the space between them. However if they are far apart then the reverse would be true. Thus comparing the distance between two objects with the lenth of their diameters over time would allow one to calculate the rate of expansion even if these two bodies were all that could be observed. (In other words the volume of the 3D bodies increases geometrically, but the distance between them expands only arithmetically, so the expansion would be measurable to observers as the relationship between size and distance would change over time).

c) If every point in space is expanding then surely boundary of the universe is expanding at a rate that is the aggregate of the expansion of all the points in between. In other words the larger the space then the faster the expansion of its boundaries.

Yet how could the rate of expansion of the boundaries be affected by the expansion of a point of space that may be some trillions of light years away. Do points of space push themselves apart as they expand (ie. is space rigid)? If it is not rigid then why would the expansion of points within space affect the size of its boundaries?

d) If c really is a limit on velocity then it would place a limit on the size of the space, since at a certain maximum size (number of points between opposite boundaries) any overall expansion whatsoever would entail that objects on opposite boundaries recede from each other at rates greater than c. Or am I flirting with nonsense here? (As if I need to ask)

I'm very sorry that my post was difficult to read. I agree that the purpose of posts is to communicate ideas. I will try to break my arguement down in a pseudo-outline so that it is easier to follow.

1 - The Theory of Relativity equates the force that we call gravity with the force we call inertia. It states that there is no qualitative difference between the force you feel when you accelerate in your car and the force you feel holding you to the Earth. The expansionary theory of gravity is an attempt to explain this equivalence physically.

2 - Imagine a sphere in your head. Its radius is x amount of inches. Say now, that this sphere is growing, like a balloon. If it is growing then its radius is increasing, right? The distance betwwen the sphere's surface and its center is expanding, right? All I am saying is that you can look at this situation two different ways and that BOTH ways are equally valid.
A. The center is at rest and the surface is moving away from it.
B. The surface is at rest and the center is moving away from it.

Right now you may say to yourself,"NO! if the center was moving away from one part of the surface then it must be getting closer to the other side!!" E.G. If we have a sphere with a 10 inch radius and the center of that sphere moves away from the surface in one of the 6 directions which it is able to move in (3 dimensions equal 6 directions, right?) then it may increase the distance between it and the surface on one side to 15 inches, but only to decrease it on the opposite side by 5 inches.

If you cannot follow this then it is evident that visual aids are a must. Visual aids are, of course not an option here.

For those who CAN follow it, I am saying that there IS, in fact, a direction inwhich the center of that sphere can move, where it would increase the radius of the sphere by 5 inches on ALL SIDES. THIS is the fourth spatial dimension that I brought up in my original post. I believe that it can be refered to as the "in/out" dimension just as the other three dimensions can be referred to as the "up/down", "right/left", and "front/back" dimensions. In this fourth spatial dimension, the center moves "in" while the surface moves "out".

3 - Lastly (since this is obviously more than just a few sentences), the Theory of Relativity states that the measure of all motion is observer relative. I'm gonna measure the speed of the train to be different from you (in the most global sense). I am saying the 4th dimensional motion is just as relative. You can say that the center is at rest while the surface is moving or you can say that the surface is at rest while the center is moving, it makes no difference. Making matter "expand" at a perpetually accelerating rate gives a physical explanation for the eqivalence between gravity and inertia. This Expansionary Theory is more a set of deductions from the Theory of Relativity, than it is some attempt to unseat it. If I had visual aids at my disposal, I am confident that I could also explain the curvature of space (another part of the General Theory of Relativity) through the expansion of matter within that curved space.
The TANGENT part of my original post was an attempt to explain some further deductions that I made on the Expansionary Theory itself.

One last thing, someone responded to my original post by simply typing "Whatever!" Whoever you are, you must be a genius because that is the most well thought out critique I have ever hear or read. You brought up points that showed me how wrong I was and for that I thank you. All these other people who are actually trying to arrive at conclusions by discussing their ideas are obviously going about it in the wrong way. We all have alot to learn from this clearly gifted individual.

Sarcastically Yours,

CTEBO

CANUTE

I'm out of town right now on someone else's computer. When I get home on Tuesday then I will DEFINITELY give your response some very serious consideration.

I just want to thank whomever it is that is responsible for creating a site like this where people all over the place can come together and exchange ideas in an earnest, respectful, and serious manner!!!

Originally posted by CTEBO
CANUTE

I'm out of town right now on someone else's computer. When I get home on Tuesday then I will DEFINITELY give your response some very serious consideration.

I just want to thank whomever it is that is responsible for creating a site like this where people all over the place can come together and exchange ideas in an earnets and serious matter!!!
Good grief. I'm not used to being understood. You encouraged me to give it more thought.

It’s one of the most interesting ideas I’ve come across here. It seems to be in line with my growing theory that the opposite of everything true is not provably false.

Imagine that everything is expanding into your 4th dimension. Presumably the furthest things away from us in this dimension would be receeding at the fastest rate relative to us, and this would be true for any observer. That is to say that if one imagined the cosmos as a sphere then relative to any of the infinite points on the surface the precise centre point of the sphere would be receeding into the 4th dimension faster than any other point within the sphere. This makes the centre point unique. It is the direction of all expansion.

As you have (cleverly imo) figured out this is precisely equivalent to our orthodox view of cosmic expansion, where an infinite number of inner points are expanding to create outwards expansion, with each point at the centre of this overall expansion. But I don’t think your idea quite works in this form.

I have a problem with this 4th dimension thing. Your view is that every point in space is expanding into this strange dimension that we cannot detect. But what can this mean? If we are expanding into it then we are in it, so why can’t we detect it?

Why not take the scientific view. We normally imagine that the cosmos is expanding into infinite nothingness (or some equivalent). Why don’t you do the same?

This is perfectly possible because in both your view and the orthodox view any observer standing at any point would be unable to decide whether their cosmos was expanding into the 4th dimension or outwards into ‘nothingness’. If we say that the 4th dimension IS actually ‘nothingness’ then the two theories become precisely equivalent.

In other words why not say that we are expanding inwards into nothingness, just as we are expanding outwards into nothingness in our normal view. Then your theory would say that all points in space are expanding inwards into nothingness, and that for all possible observers this interpretation of the evidence must always be precisely equivalent to our orthodox view of outward expansion.

Then it becomes clear what your theory of 4th dimensional expansion really is. Expanding inwards is getting smaller. Yours theory is the theory of a shrinking universe.

It seems to be perfectly feasible. In fact I suspect that you’re right in saying that its unfalsifiable. It really does seem to be precisely equivalent to our normal view in observational terms.

Now you might understand why I wrote that strange sentence in my second paragraph. Whether you believe that the universe is expanding or shinking seems to be a simply matter of taste.

It’ll be interested to see if anyone can prove your theory in this form false. Perhaps some observation contradicts it, but I doubt it.

I am very happy that we've struck up this conversation.
I happen to be on a small family vacation, and as a result of that I'm a little fucked up (alcohol) so I couldnt possibly tackle your entire response. Thats (unfortunately) gonna have to wait til Tuesday. But several things did jump out at me while I was "trying" to read your response.

Is every point in space expanding? Well if we are to regard any possible point as an inertial reference frame, then I suppose it would have to be. What is crucial (I think) is that space (empty, matter-less space) expands at a constant rate while matter expands at an accelerated rate. Otherwise, we would not observe this force of "gravity" which we do, or more specifically, "gravity" would not be equivalent to inertia.

Relativity already presumes a 4th dimension which it calls time. Most people have been hesitant to call it a spatial dimension. I'm not sure that its a spatial one either, therefore I am not insisting that this 4th spatial dimension of which my theory speaks is the same 4th dimension Relativity dentifies as time. Superstring theory calls for 10 spatial dimensions. Before I go any further, i wanna talk about that for a bit. I dont know much about superstring yet, but i do know that if we were to take all the different ways that the 4 known forces can pull . . .
Let me say that better . . . Gravity only pulls one way (thats 1), the electromagnetic force pulls two ways; it repells and attracts (thats 2 and 3), the weak nuclear force does the same (4 and 5) and the strong does too (6 and 7). Lets say we need an extra dimension for each force to pull and push into; so that the push/pull forces can attract some things while reppelling other things at the same time. Thats 7 dimensions, right? Add that to the three we already have and presto!! 10 dimensions. I HAVE TO READ UP ON SUPERSTRING THEORY.
We are experiencing the three dimensional surface of the four (at least four, maybe ten) dimensional universe, just like orthodox theory explains.

I was reading a physics book and the author was warning that the name "Big Bang" gives a mistaken impression on readers. The author insisted that it is improper to think that the Big Bang singularity exploded outwards into empty space since space and time were created at the Big Bang too. thats when I saw this visualization of a sphere whose center was shrinking smaller and smaller. the sphere's boundary conditions get obeyed; nothing ends up exploding-out into anything. The surface remains at rest while the center perpetually shrinks. Thats when I realized that theres no difference between a body whose center is shrinking and a body whose surface is expanding.

(MATHEMATICAL FACT according to a high school textbook) - If you were to push a 3-D sphere through a 2-D universe, observers in that universe would see a 2-D circle get larger and then smaller according to the sequence of slices that they perceived (MAN I WISH I HAD VISUAL AIDS).

Now I ask you to imagine someone pushing a 3-D cone, point first, through this 2-D universe. The observers would observe a perpetually expanding circle. Now make it a 4-D cone being pushed through the 3-D surface (like our actual universe) and you have a perpetually expanding sphere, much like the Earth, moon, planets, stars, and any other gravitational bodies. The cone's surface is curved so as to give the impression of a sphere that is expanding at an accelerating rate. I'm rambling now aren't I? I know this makes sense, but I'm sure I'm butchering it now.

On Tuesday, this conversation starts FOR REAL. I want to address every single one of your points. Don't take me to be preachy, please, I'm just really excited for this idea.

ONE LAST THING - I know this isnt the forum for it but fuck it. You MUST tell me about your opposite of truth idea. At first glance it sounds ALOT like something I've been toying with, but I dont want to do your idea any injustice. I do love science and philosophy. The universe (space-time) may be a system of anything from 4 to 10 dimensions, but the TOTALITY OF EXISTENCE can never be anything less than a system of infinite dimensions. The question isn't "Why is there something rather than nothing?" The real question is "Why is there everything rather than nothing?" Only an "everything" universe can exlain the completely arbitrary "something" universe that we perceive. Now I'm really straying from the point (what point?)

Sorry,

CTEBO :m:

CTEBO:

Thankyou. That was a lot clearer the second time around.

<i>1 - The Theory of Relativity equates the force that we call gravity with the force we call inertia. It states that there is no qualitative difference between the force you feel when you accelerate in your car and the force you feel holding you to the Earth. The expansionary theory of gravity is an attempt to explain this equivalence physically.</i>

The theory of relativity, of course, already explains the equivalence. In fact, the theory elevates that equivalence to the status of a fundamental law of nature, called the <b>Principle of Equivalence</b>.

<i>...I am saying that there IS, in fact, a direction inwhich the center of that sphere can move, where it would increase the radius of the sphere by 5 inches on ALL SIDES. THIS is the fourth spatial dimension that I brought up in my original post. I believe that it can be refered to as the "in/out" dimension just as the other three dimensions can be referred to as the "up/down", "right/left", and "front/back" dimensions. In this fourth spatial dimension, the center moves "in" while the surface moves "out".</i>

That's all very nice, but we can always point to the centre of a sphere in 3 dimensions. We never observe the centre of a sphere to disappear from our 3D space and go "in" or "out" to some 4th dimension. The centre always remains in our familiar 3D world.

What does that do for your theory?

<i>Lets say we need an extra dimension for each force to pull and push into; so that the push/pull forces can attract some things while reppelling other things at the same time.</i>

But Gravity already pulls in 3 dimensions, not 1, as you claim.

James R,

I see that Relativity acknowledges the equivalence between gravity and inertia. It goes so far as to make it a fundamental principle as you say. But an acknowledgement is not an explanation. Relativity seems to simply take the equivalence for granted. Newton could not explain why bodies "attracted" each other. He made gravity more than a principle, he made it a law, but made no attempt to explain it. Einstein explained it through simple geometry. According to him it is the curved space that does it. I'm saying that the expansion of matter curves the space immediately around it but applying a sort of pressure on it. Space bunches up at matter's surface because matter is, so to speak, leaning up against it; accelerating against space's constant rate of inflation. (I say that matter "expands" and that space "inflates" just to make the distinction clear). The expansion causes the curvature which causes the "force".

While the center of the body is receding into the 4th dimension, it does not leave our realm of perception. It does not disappear from the 3-D realm, and there is no reason why it should. It is all one continuum. The center looks as if it is not moving at all, as you have pointed out. Picture looking down onto a 2-D circle. The circle is defined by the x and y axise (I'm sure I butchered that spelling). Let us now say that someone pinches the center of the circle from the opposite side and sort of pulls it toward him along the z axis not "observable" to you. While you are looking directly down at the circle you see no difference, but if you were to rotate your position so as to look at the circle from the side, you'd see that it was being stretched out to the shape of a cone (the center of the sphere being its point) separating itself from the surface (the perimeter of the circle). I wish I had visual aids. The above 2-to-3 dimensional example works for a 3-to-4 dimensional one as well.

You said that gravity already pulls in 3 dimenions. I'm saying that if we abandon the idea of pulling and pushing all together, and say instead that objects expand-toward or shrink-away from each other in greater-than-three dimenions, then it would require ten spatial dimensions altogether to account for the four known forces.

This expanding-toward and shrinking-away thing makes us question how sure we are about this thing we call "depth perception." It makes ME question it at least.

Are two eyes NOT two independent frames of reference that our minds melt into one? I stand by the postulate that a body's size falls off by the square of its distance from your retina (or camera lens).

CTEBO

PS Thank you for the honest criticism.

James R - Forgetting all the details for a moment would you say that a contracting universe would be observationaly equivalent to an expanding one, or would there be differences? (Assume all points contracting into nothing rather than expanding into nothing). Sounds daft at first but at the moment I can't see how the two situations could be distinguished from each other.

I've been doing something that I should probably STOP doing. When it suits me, I describe the theory in terms of extradimensional (greater-than-three) motion, but then when it suits me otherwise, I describe it in terms of omnidirectional expansion or contraction. I can see where this would lead to confusion. From now on, I want to stick with the extradimensional motion thing. We must always keep in mind, however, that greater-than-three dimensional motion is REPRESENTED THREE DIMENIONSALLY as omnidirectional expansion or contraction.

I'd like to give a small 10 dimensional account of the electromagnetic "force". First I want to set up the universe inwhich this example takes place. It has 10 spatial dimensions; each axis is labeled by the first 10 letters of the alphabet (A, B, C, D, E, F, G, H, I, and K). The H, I, and K dimenions are the 3 dimensions we readily perceive (normally labelled X, Y, and Z). Each of the first 7 dimensions (A through G) are allocated to the four forces. A belongs to "gravity", B and C belong to "electromagnetism", D and E to the "strong nuclear force", and F and G to the weak one.
NOW, imagine three electrically charged objects floating in this space. Two have like charges, while one has the opposite. As we well know, the like charges "repell" one another, while the opposites "attract". For simplicity's sake, we will say that the two like charges are positive while the third is obviously negative. The positive charge which lies between the other two travels along a curved path between the B and C dimesnions. While traveling along a curved path, the object has components of B-dimensional motion AND C-dimenionsal motion simultaneously. For every step it takes in the B dimension, it is REPRESENTED THREE-DIMENSINALLY as expanding-towards it's negative partner, while for every step it also takes in the C dimension, it is REPRESENTED THREE-DIMENSIONALLY as contracting away from the positive charge. If all we are to experience directly are the H, I and K dimensions (which is precisely the case in our world) we would witness a spatial inflation between the like charges while we would witness a spatial deflation between the opposite charges. Once again, trusting our depth perception, we would not question that "opposite charges attract while like charges repell."

CANUTE, CANUTE, CANUTE

I'm tackling each point one by one. First of all, I have not read "Art and Illusion", but believe me that I will before the month is over. It sounds absolutely fascinating!! I can't resist it.

When we speak of the individual constituents of matter, they expand as well. You said it SO MUCH MORE ELOQUENTLY than I have been saying it when you said that space inflates "arithmetically" while matter expands "geometrically"!! When trying to find out what's gonna win out, all one needs to do is imagine the one dimensional line segment that connects any two centers of "gravity". This serves as a sort of slice or cross-section of the "gravitational transaction" happening between these two bodies. This slice gives us a ratio. It gives us a spatial measurement and a matter measurement. It is this ratio that determines whether observers on the surfaces of those two bodies register a NET-EXPANSION-OF-MATTER / NET-DEFLATION-OF-SPACE (attraction) or a NET-CONTRACTION-OF-MATTER / NET-INFLATION-OF-SPACE (repulsion - the way all of those red-shifted galaxies are being "repelled" from us). You are absolutely right; too much space between them leads to one phenomenon (repulsion), while not enough space leads to the other (attraction). You could also, of course, say it the other way; too much matter leads to "attraction" while too little leads to "repulsion".

WOW, your observation about the aggregate expansion of all things (matter and space) in the universe ammounting to the totality expansion of the universe is very insightful. The distance between the center of the universe and its boundary conditions increases at a rate equal to the sum of all expansions and inflations that are occuring within it. My physical body has ALOT of empty space in it, just consider the space separating each of my individual molecules. But without regard to that space, I'm still considered a solid chunk of matter. Theres alot of empty space in the universe, but the universe MUST expand as if it were a chunk of matter too. It expands at a rate determined by ALL the mass in the universe (plus the space within it, just like my body, my car, our planet, our moon, etc.). But since that total mass never changes (conservation of energy) the nature of the universal expansion never changes either, right? Yeah, I'm not sure either. I'm gonna have to think about it.

WOW. Is space rigid or elastic? I say elastic (after only a few seconds of thought - I'mma have to ponder that one). My first instinct is to say that space is elastic, and that its inflation is a sort of stretch. One point-of-space's inflation doesn't necessarily rub against the neighboring point. Each point inflates independently of the others. Does that even come close to answering that question about how the inflation of space effects the overall expansion of the universe? Space is certainly not "nothingness". Its definitely a "stuff". But its no "ether" either. Michelson and Morley were treating space too much like matter. There could never be an "ether wind". Space doesn't work that way. It either stretches or contracts (more precisely, it either "inflates" or "deflates"). I'm still not even sold on the idea that space has an objective mode of existence. It may just be construct of the mind. Consider the "fact" that light travels at 186,000 m/s. Thats only according to us. If we were to "ask light" how much time to takes to get from point A to point B (ANY point A to ANY point B) it would "say" that it takes no time at all. Zero time. That sounds like infinite velocity to me. The idea of time dilation is like adding epicycles to the planetary orbits. It just complicates things. I read somewhere once that if a ship were steadily accelerating at 1g toward the andromeda galaxy, it would reach it in 55 ship years, while some ungodly number of milleniums passed on Earth. Why would it not be easier to say that light travels at infinte speed (which is why we will never match it) but we can travel any speed between here and infinity. There must be a level of acceleration that would put the ship in Andromedean orbit in 2 years. This is still within the limits of relativity. All relativity should really say is that matter must always take SOME ammount of time to get places while energy never takes any at all. So where does this 186,000 m/s number come from? Maybe THAT is the constant rate of spatial inflation. Light moves instantaneously while space moves at 186,000 m/s. Where the fuck am I? sorry about that tangent. The point was that if we can say that light travels outside of time, then it travels outside of space as well. Maybe there is no space at all and thats why light propogation is infinite (or at least seems infinite to me). But then we still need some objective THING to inflate arithmentically against matter's geometric expansion, don't we?

I KNOW I read somewhere that quasars at one end of the observable universe are AT THIS VERY MOMENT flying away from the quasars on the OPPOSITE END OF THE UNIVERSE at a rate FAR greater than the speed of light. The c speed limit is a "local" one, not a "global" one. This just goes to show that you were NOT flirting with nonsense.

This post is long enough as it is. I'm gonna stop here and then tackle your second post in a second post of my own.


GOD-DAMNIT I LOVE THIS SHIT!!

James R

I see that you did not challenge Zarkov's electrodymanic theory of gravity. I freely admit that I do not understand it. But that means nothing. There are plenty of things with merit that I do not understand.

You obviously really know your stuff. I just want to know what you really think about his theory.

Originally posted by CTEBO
CANUTE
I'm tackling each point one by one. First of all, I have not read "Art and Illusion", but believe me that I will before the month is over. It sounds absolutely fascinating!! I can't resist it.
Check it first - I'm not sure you'll see the link with your ideas and you may not enjoy it. Still, it's the best book on visual art and human perception ever written that I've read.


[When we speak of the individual constituents of matter, they expand as well. You said it SO MUCH MORE ELOQUENTLY than I have been saying it when you said that space inflates "arithmetically" while matter expands "geometrically"!!
[/B]
Thanks but I'm afraid I didn't quite mean that. I meant that 'distance' expands mathematically while space and matter expand geometrically. I'm still trying to work out whether that has any significance or not.

(I wrote a lot more here but I've come back to wipe it all. I made a mistake and it was nonsense).

I can only assume that you brainstormed more and saw a flaw in your idea. I read what was there and started replying point by point but then my computer crashed so I had to give it time to chill. Even if you've totally proved it wrong to yourself, fill me in on how.

What I read in my head and screwed up in typing was that space inflates arithmatically while matter expands exponentially. Do you agree with that?

What I thought I read you to be saying is that matter is a conglomerate of infinitesimals, and so in a way it is just thicker space. But then I couldnt see a way around the fact that infinitesimals can't function as references for size. They have no size. A thick chunk of infinitesimals is the same as a thin mist of them. Theres nothing to be thicker than. But then I figured that points weren't infinitesimals, that they couldnt be smaller than the Planck distance. As long as thats the case, then there can be lumps on the soup. The expansion of that patch of space would be determined by its spatial thickness. So since the points don't move, the universe is a system of blinking marquis lights simulating motion. Thats pretty raw. I have to go to work right now but I'm gonna try and connect the above in a valuable way to the extra-dimensional thing (at least 4-D).

A result of that computer monitor example in my first post might be a sort of uncertainty principle. The more you know about size, the less you know about distance, and the more about distance the less about size. Size and distance may end up being synonymous in extra dimensions.

CTEBO:

Can you show me the mathematical implications of your idea? For example, in your electromagnetic example, can you show me how the inverse-square force relationship for interacting charges can be derived in your picture? (Or similarly for gravity?)

For a physical theory to be at all useful, it must be not merely descriptive, but also quantitative.

Firstly,

Canute - After long deliberation, I think I've concluded that even if this "thick and thin space" thing is true, it is a whole 'nother theory in and of itself. I'm a fan of Descartes, and so I believe in a method for arriving at truth. Considering his method, I think that there are too many logical degrees of separation between the "Expansionary Theory of Force-at-a-Distance" and the "Matter is only thick space" thing. If they are related (and lets face it;: everything is interrelated) then I'd rather trace the steps from the expansion theory to the thick space theory one by one so as not to accept any falsehoods as truths.
Before we can go any further, I just want to know whether you understand the Expansion theory the way I do and whether or not (once you understand it the way I do) you agree with it. Everything else is secondary to me. Do you understand and agree with the "Expansionary Theory of Force-at-a-Distance"? If not, then tell me what augmentations you would make in order to make it condusive to what you feel to be true. So far you've given me ZERO reason to distrust your judgement. The implications it has on motion in general start with the acknowledgment that all objects are at least two different things: a surface and a center. Depending on the frame of reference, one can be in motion while the other is not.

Secondly,

James R - You are absolutely right that a useful theory is not just descriptive, but also quantitative. For this reason, my theory is not a useful one, yet. I lack the math to back it up, but I am convinced that the math is there. I will search for it until I find it or until someone beats me to it. Either way is fine with me. You may be skeptical as to whether or not the math actually exists but I am not. Call it blind faith if you must. It is not blind to me.
Respectfully, I really want to hear your critique of Zarkov's Electrodynamic theory. You are another person whose reasoning I have no cause to question. Zarkov's theory seems to be one that is held up by math (math that I have yet to understand, but WILL understand before long - the knowledge couldn't possibly be more than one book away).

"Do you understand and agree with the "Expansionary Theory of Force-at-a-Distance"?"

Probably not - could you give an outline - I'm starting to lose the plot.

I need to check my facts here. I understand that in the current orthodox view the creation of virtual particles drives cosmic expansion (as shown by Casimir Effect).

As more particles can be created in space (where there is no restriction on wavelength) than can be created inside matter (where there is a restriction), the space between objects expands faster than the objects do.

Presumably, as virtual particles generally disappear as fast as they appear, it is the net remaining particles (the ones that persist) that cause the expansion since those that are created but quickly self-annihilate have no net effect.

Is this correct?

Canute:

<i>I understand that in the current orthodox view the creation of virtual particles drives cosmic expansion (as shown by Casimir Effect).</i>

I don't think that is correct. The universe expands because it was given an initial "push" at the time of the big bang, and gravity has not yet slowed or halted the expansion. Current thinking says there may also be a kind of "dark energy" pervading the universe, which causes the expansion rate to accelerate with time. There's no particular connection to virtual particles.

James - I'm sure I've read that it is considered that virtual particle creation creates expansion (some of it anyway). I'm off on a trip so can't pursue the point but are you sure about what you said?

Reasonably sure, Canute.

Been away for a while.
Will outline it out completely tomorrow.
I believe but never heard that dark energy might be causing the accelerated expansion of the universe. More to the point, I did not know that accelerated expansion had been observed. But our expansionary theory predicts it.

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Canute
I have a problem with this 4th dimension thing. Your view is that every point in space is expanding into this strange dimension that we cannot detect. But what can this mean? If we are expanding into it then we are in it, so why can?t we detect it?

We do detect it, in that we experience the force of gravity which is a by-product of it.
The following is an attempt to take the "equivalence of gravity and inertia" route to explaining the theory (which I should not call a theory but rather a hypothesis).
When inside a car that has just increased in speed, the driver (his name will be Joe) feels a force pushing him back into his seat. Relative to the car, which was accelerating at the time, Joe was pushed back into his seat by some invisible force that wasn't there a second ago. It would appear that the law of inertia was violated because an object (Joe) moved without an actual force acting on it (him). But relative to the ground, the car accelerated due to the force created by its engine, while Joe was busy obeying the law of inertia.
If the Earth's surface is used as a reference point, then the driver's motion is being viewed through an inertial frame of reference. We know this because the law of inertia is obeyed. If the motion of the driver was observed in relation to the accelerating car, then the event is being measured through an accelerated frame of reference, because in it the law of inertia is violated.
Carrying this hypothetical example into the fourth dimension, while standing on the surface of the Earth, Joe feels a force holding him down to the ground. Relative to the surface of the Earth, he is being pushed down by some invisible force. This observation already violates the law of inertia by virtue of its "invisible force"(disobeying the law of inertia = gravitational/accelerated reference frame). If the existence of an invisible force in the car example leads us immediately to conclude that we are measureing that event through an accelerated reference frame, then the same observation in this gravity example yeilds the same conclusion.

Here's where I say the same thing 900 times in 900 different ways to try and get the point accross - Relative to the surface of the Earth (an accelerated reference frame) Joe feels an invisible force identical to the force he felt "push him into" the seat of his car when his car accelerated. Relative to the center of the Earth; the center of the Earth's gravity; the point in space where Joe is actually being "pulled" toward, he is resisting the accelerated motion of the surface of the Earth underneath him just as in the car he resisted the acceleration of his driver's-seat behind him. Relative to the center of the Earth, Joe is obeying the law of interia.

Again, relative to Joe-the-driver, the car accelerated into his back. Relative to Joe-the-stander, the Earth is accelerating into his feet. The Earth is expanding beneath him and the net expansion rate is accelerating at 1g. Anything that has a center of gravity (even a neutron) expands, that is, moves along one direction of the fourth spatial dimension. It is the dimension through which motion is observed as omnidirectional expansion or contraction, or in the case of space; inflation or deflation.

Why not take the scientific view. We normally imagine that the cosmos is expanding into infinite nothingness (or some equivalent). Why don?t you do the same?

I do. The fourth dimensional space through which we perpetually accelerate is empty, until two bodies collide, of course. All matter got sent on its accelerated fourth dimensional path at the onset of all things; the big bang. Since I do not regard empty space to be nothingness, strictly speaking, I can't be sure if we are indeed expanding into this nothingness or empty space. Space is not nothingness because it has a structure in and of itself, albeit different from matter. If time is space and vice versa, we are expanding into time.

This is perfectly possible because in both your view and the orthodox view any observer standing at any point would be unable to decide whether their cosmos was expanding into the 4th dimension or outwards into ?nothingness?. If we say that the 4th dimension IS actually ?nothingness? then the two theories become precisely equivalent.

In other words why not say that we are expanding inwards into nothingness, just as we are expanding outwards into nothingness in our normal view. Then your theory would say that all points in space are expanding inwards into nothingness, and that for all possible observers this interpretation of the evidence must always be precisely equivalent to our orthodox view of outward expansion.

Exactly, I think it matches up with observation exceptionally. i wish i had a computer that could support a program so that I could run physical simulations. I'm convinced that if I could imput the laws of nature as stipulated by the "Expansionary Hypothesis of Force-at-a-Distance" we would have a precise model for our universe (I'm changing the name of this thing all the time - come to think of it, it is not the hypothesis that is expansionary, but rather the hypothesis' description of matter)

Then it becomes clear what your theory of 4th dimensional expansion really is. Expanding inwards is getting smaller. Yours theory is the theory of a shrinking universe.

Yes. But I want our terminology to sinc up. All bodies are at least two things: a surface and center. I think it is crucial to specify which is contracting and which is expanding.

Whether you believe that the universe is expanding or shinking seems to be a simply matter of taste.

Exactly. Both views are equivalent.

It?ll be interested to see if anyone can prove your theory in this form false. Perhaps some observation contradicts it, but I doubt it.

I figure the only place where the hypothesis could stand to be falsified is in the math, which I haven't even developed yet. If its wrong, its wrong. If its right, its right. I just really think its right.

Hi, I am interested in the ideas in the first post from a few different points of view.
. gravity is i think the force that holds reality in place and time- reality would have no place, would not exist except through gravity.
.i like i think the in/out direction thing because i think i agree with that- how it seems to me too.
.it seems to me it my be possible that it is merely confusion to associate the expansion of space or the universe with the force of gravity which pushes reality out into place and being.
.on the other hadn it may not, but it doesnt feel right to me.
.if it was right then i dont see why it wouldbnt push thinner areas more easily than thicker areas, but it would be like a ciurved bulge of space, (maybe even in many directions, appearingt as a thinning or stretching perhaps from within curved space time)and the planets would actually be enlarging themselves too, and measurably so i guess.
.a major point i dont like in the initial post is the seoaration of maytter and space, as i think spacetimematter is all one, all reality, held in place or existemnce by gravity, dictating how to balance bits and pieces aof matter and their accumulationa nd dispersion so ast o maintain their existence.


I am not a scientist.

ele -

I'm not a professional scientist either. But I study.

You're points are excellent, and I really think they get addressed later on in the thread.

The one thing you bring up about the unity of matter and space-time in particular is very valid. Canute and I discussed briefly whether objects could be regarded as pools of "thicker" space, piles of mathematical ponts in the otherwise smooth sea of them. But we concluded that if that was so, it would probably constitute a theory of its own. I didn't want to jump too far ahead too early.

I agree that existence is a system of infinite dimensions, only 4 (possibly 10) of which are spatial. That which "only" has a subjective mode of existence still exists. Why, the very dicotemy (butchered spelling) of subjectivity/objectivity constitutes a dimension of its own in this infinite dimensional system.

Tangent - Consciousness is, or at least begins with, the recognition of contrast. Any and every Thing is some other Thing's referent. There are no Things until there is a division of Things. Contrast gives rise to comparison. Then they both give rise to context. Context gives rise to meaning.
But the important question is "who does the dividng?"
Is existence naturally divided?
or
Do we (our minds) do the dividing?

Is it objective?
or
Is it subjective?

The key is the equivalence between zero and infinity.

Hi, thanks for answering. Here is my answer.


"The one thing you bring up about the unity of matter and space-time in particular is very valid. Canute and I discussed briefly whether objects could be regarded as pools of "thicker" space, piles of mathematical ponts in the otherwise smooth sea of them. "

I am not sure why you say mathematical points rather than instances of denser matter reality or aprser matter reality. I am also unsure why this iis an unconventional view.

"I agree that existence is a system of infinite dimensions, only 4 (possibly 10) of which are spatial. "

I think the ordinary model is 4d including space and time. I think my change would be to put spacetimematter as one integrated fabric, wrapped around a fifth dimension ast each individual point and somhow having each individual points wrapped centre also being part of a fifth dimensional reality which is one. I think the view od 4d reality being wrapped round a fifth dimension is supported by string theory in maths/physoica that tries to logically resolve the existence of reality as physicists know it.

"That which "only" has a subjective mode of existence still exists."

Of course.



"Why, the very dicotemy (butchered spelling) of subjectivity/objectivity constitutes a dimension of its own in this infinite dimensional system."
1. subjectivity objectivity in the sense of the resolution into objects and also in the sense of the resolution of reality into subjects and objects, the subjects perceiving the objects do indeed constitute a dimrension odf thought that needs to be challenged in itself and provides a context in itself.



"Consciousness is, or at least begins with, the recognition of contrast."

Yes, good existentialist position. the recognition of other is essential part of awareness of self.

" Any and every Thing is some other Thing's referent. There are no Things until there is a division of Things. Contrast gives rise to comparison. Then they both give rise to context. Context gives rise to meaning."

yes, all true i think.


"But the important question is "who does the dividng?"
Is existence naturally divided?
or
Do we (our minds) do the dividing?"

Not so important as all that, as long as we remain aware our perceptions may be limited.

"Is it objective?
or
Is it subjective?"

Is reality objective or subjective is also not that important, as we are entitled to value our own experiences and knowledge as people, and to progress as people, as this is what we are, and we can not alter that. however, what it is important to realise is that soemtimes logic can take you beyond what can be immediatley perceived to offer strong explanations that may well hold true, and open up other possibilities when thought about, such as 5th dimensional space warp travel etc and instantaneous atter transmission.

"The key is the equivalence between zero and infinity."

That i need to understand...What do you mean?

CTEBO
""The key is the equivalence between zero and infinity."

That i need to understand...What do you mean?

Or is it just menat to sound good?

>>The degrees of spatial deflation (we're talking about gravity from here on out) may vary from vantage point to vantage point, but there is obviously no vantage point in the universe from which it appears that the Earth is "repelling" the apple instead of "attracting" it. Written more precisely, there is no reference frame in space-time from which it appears that the space separating the Earth and the apple, or the skydiver, is inflating. Falling is falling is "falling".<<

My apologies if the following has been covered by your thread or replys-
The statement you have made is not entirely correct.
Tidal effect will enable an inertial observer to see the apple and earth as seperating from each other- (perceived as repelling).
Consider the possibility that the earth and apple (and solar system) is travelling through space towards some other massive body in our galaxy, which may/maynot be plausible.
If the earth and apple are considered as two masses in free fall towards the massive body and they have different distance from this mass, then they will have a different acceleration towards the massive body.
One will accelerate faster than the other and result in a perceived
seperation of the apple and earth.
This senario is unlikely, however it does demonstrate the tidal effect as it would apply to two masses in free fall towards a massive body and having different distance from it.

Beta-
You are absolutely correct. I had totally overlooked that.

ele-
"I am not sure why you say mathematical points rather than instances of denser matter reality or aprser matter reality. I am also unsure why this iis an unconventional view."
It may be a very conventional view that I have simply not heard of.
We initially called them mathematical points because we concluded that you couldn't regard infinitesimals as denser than or thinner than anything. They are standards for nothing size related, density, volume, mass, etc. But then we figured that the points might not be infinitesimals at all, but rather no smaller than the Planck distance. In the end, I think those speculations are more philosophical than scientific.

Not that this discussion belongs here, but I happen to think that you gravely underestimate the importance of the division between subjectivity and objectivity.
What I just wrote was my subjective truth, right? Your claim that the dicotemy between subjectivity and objectivity in not very important is obviously your subjective truth. Yet we fall into the happen of treating our subjective truths as objective ones, while in reality, there is nothing more objective than the very division between subjectivity and objectivity. It is the very thing that makes objective-Things objective. If the line was blurry at all, then the line itself would have a purely subjective mode of existence, making objectivity itself non-existent, which obviously not the case.

Is my belief that the line between sub. and obj. is the most objective Thing of all subjective in and of itself?
If thats the case, there is no objectivity in the world.

I say that zero and infinity are equivalent because they share identical properties. They are the sum of equal parts, called by two names. They are the same thing. It has everything to do with the world (all of existence) before the division of Things. It has everything to do with absolute homogeneity

Hi Ctebo.
"If the line was blurry at all, then the line itself would have a purely subjective mode of existence, making objectivity itself non-existent, which obviously not the case.

Is my belief that the line between sub. and obj. is the most objective Thing of all subjective in and of itself?
If thats the case, there is no objectivity in the world."

i think objectivity is definitional and socially constructed - i think it is really intersubjectivity. Some of it is formulaised and formalised intersubjectivity, such as the scientific method as a tool that people agree will give objective results.

"I say that zero and infinity are equivalent because they share identical properties. They are the sum of equal parts, called by two names. They are the same thing. It has everything to do with the world (all of existence) before the division of Things. It has everything to do with absolute homogeneity"

I am very concerned that you are heading for ideas like hegel's here that everything is spirit or even worse, in my view that everything is god and we and all are only aprts of god mind.

Originally posted by CTEBO
I agree that existence is a system of infinite dimensions, only 4 (possibly 10) of which are spatial.
I would argue that only three are spatial.


Why, the very dichotomy of subjectivity/objectivity constitutes a dimension of its own in this infinite dimensional system.[/B]
Good point.


[Tangent - Consciousness is, or at least begins with, the recognition of contrast. Any and every Thing is some other Thing's referent. There are no Things until there is a division of Things. Contrast gives rise to comparison. Then they both give rise to context. Context gives rise to meaning.[/B]
Not quite - or not according to non-dual philosophies anyway. It is true that knowledge and mind (knowing, perceiving, etc) begin with duality ('contrast' in your terms), but consciousness is capable of an existence (an experience) beyond duality, and thus preceeds knowledge and mind in ontological terms. This is the pure 'non-knowing' experience of 'oneness' or bliss.



There is nothing else that can do the dividing. Only our own mind can create a distinction between subjective and objective, first person and third-person, there isn't any other way of doing it.


The key is the equivalence between zero and infinity.
I couldn't agree more. The key is understanding the equivalence between all such pairs of opposites, including subjective/objective, expansion/contraction and even truth/falsity.

Originally posted by James R
Reasonably sure, Canute.
It is my understanding that the accelerating universe theory states that the cosmological constant drives (or helps to drive) the accelerated expansion of the universe. The CC is thought to derive from the buoyancy created by the production of virtual particles in space.

This idea is used to dispense with the notion of 'dark matter', since the vacuum energy required to produce these virtual particles (being equivalent to mass) substitutes for it.

Thus the CC is used to stand in for dark matter.

That the CC causes expansion is supported by study of Type 1a supernovae by the Supernova Cosmology Project, (Richard Ellis - Cambridge Institute of Astronomy), which found that the supernovae studied were 15% dimmer than they should be if CC=0. The conclusion of many (not all) seems to be that CC>0.

This positive inflationary force is thought to be related to virtual particle production, with vacuum energy creating virtual particles and causing an accelerated expansion sufficient to counter the effect of gravity without recourse to any hypothesed dark matter.

This view comes from Stuart Clark's review of current cosmology ('Towards the Edge of the Universe') He writes "the existence of virtual particles implies that the expansion of our universe will slowly accelerate, with time creating an accelerating universe".

To me this suggests that the Casimir effect (or a cosmological verion of it) plays a role in the expansion of the universe, producing a cosmological constant of sufficiently high value to overcome its contraction by gravity.

However I may have misread this. He is not clear whether it is vaccum energy itself which (in some unspecified way) causes expansion, or whether it is the virtual particles created from vacuum energy that cause it.

Canute,


This positive inflationary force is thought to be related to virtual particle production, with vacuum energy creating virtual particles and causing an accelerated expansion sufficient to counter the effect of gravity without recourse to any hypothesed dark matter.


Lets consider for just a moment that certain things MAY be true, even though testing and data have not been done to suggest it.

1 - The anihilation energy from virtual particles propagates radially in a general spherical pattern from the point of origin.

2 - The form of this radiation is a force carrier, i.e. - energy capable of creating momentum upon impact; which acts to produce a drag on matter in the vector that the field is moving.

3 - With atoms being substantially voids with only bits of actual matter they are virtually transparent and hence only a minor amount of such fields are absorbed or attenuated as the field passes through matter.

4 - that being the case one can develope the view that the intensity or strength of opposing fields through (and between) two independant masses will be weaker than the sources of such fields external to the space between such masses.

5 - This creates a net greater force (push) or momentum transfer on the masses toward each other than is transferred by the remanants of the field pushing them apart after having penetrated each mass. Hence gravity and the geometric and trigometric view of such a process involving a finite universe and the volume of points of origin - each planck length in the dimension of the universe, and the volumes of such cones of sources effective at penetrating two such masses in a gravitational way (shadowing) follows the inverse square law.

6 - As one explores this process outward toward the edge of the known universe there becomes less and less points of origin of the anihilation energy, hence less and less momentum delivered to objects in a vector toward the center of the universe and consequently a greater push outward and acceleration of the expansion of the universe.

7 - For this to be the explanation, which unifies both gravity and universal expansion as being a process from a common source we only need to view the production of virtual particles as being an on going process of creation, post BB.

That is the BB was a rip in the Chiral Condensate which released tremendous energy and time, space colaesing into matter carrying kenetic energy and storing virtual energy in a condensed form.

If you accept this description you are 99% of the way to becoming a UniKEF supporter.

Originally posted by MacM
Canute,

Lets consider for just a moment that certain things MAY be true, even though testing and data have not been done to suggest it.

ETC ETC
I'm out of my depths here but I'll have a shot at replying.

It appears that your numbered points give a situation equivalent to the cosmological constant of the accelerating universe theory I mentioned above, except that you use vacuum energy to also explain gravity as (loosely) a cosmic Casimir effect. If I read you right you assume that the vacuum energy released by annihilating virtual particles is the cause of both expansion and contraction, with its effect in any particular case being dependent on the relative positions of the bodies involved. I couldn't say why that doesn't make sense, and it appears to agree with the idea of a stationary ether, which I support.

However the energy released by annihilating pairs of particles came from somewhere. Wouldn't the formation of pairs have quite the opposite effect to their annihilation, counteracting any inflationary tendency?

This is why to me it seems better to consider the physical effect of the existence of the particles rather than the energy from which they are created. That is to say that while no energy is created or destroyed in the virtual particle life-cycle, the physical universe is affected by their temporary existence as physical entities. I cannot see logically how the energy itself can have an effect on anything, since it was there all along.

I also don't like to drop the idea that wavelegths play a part. It is the difference in the number of allowed wavelengths that create part of the Casimir effect and this seems important. The further two points are apart the greater the number of virtual particle wavelengths are allowed between them, thus creating a geometric realtionship between inflation and the distance apart of bodies, rather than just a linear one.

I don't like the BB explanation you give because I feel that the BB is a very dubious hypothesis however it is explained.

I don't know what a 'chiral condensate' is so cannot comment on that. If you mean something like a stationary 'ether' then I can go along with it. As Stuart Clark (ibid) writes "The concept of a cosmic substratum postulates that on the largest scales the universe can be thought of as an idealised smooth fluid. At earlier and earlier times this analagy becomes applicable over smaller and smaller distances. Before the age of 300,000 years the universe is thought to have been an excellent example of an ideal fluid. This fluid is non-viscous, and all measurements are made from a co-moving frame of reference which means that it is at rest within the substratum".

I have no scientific objection to Unikef (since I don't know enough about either it or science to have one) but I'm suspicious on metaphysical grounds. Where did this 'chiral condensate' come from?

Originally posted by MacM
1 - The anihilation energy from virtual particles propagates radially in a general spherical pattern from the point of origin.

I wish I had studied more field theory to be 100% sure of what I am going to say here (even though I am pretty confident that it is). The reason why these particles are called "virtual" is because in the "real" (as opposed to virtual) world, the experimentally accessible world, you cannot detect their presence or anything they cause. If they would radiate energy away spherically, then this energy could be detected and hence the particles would not be "virtual". Also, the timescale where this "energy" exists is incredibly small (order of 10^(-40) if I remember correctly), so it could not propagate far enough to have any effects on "surrounding matter" (which is more at a distance of 10^(-10) meters).

This is a bit a classical picture though, and you are going to drag in the Casimir effect on this one (as being a measurable cause of virtual particles) :).

I think I just want to point out it is not entirely that simple.



3 - With atoms being substantially voids with only bits of actual matter they are virtually transparent and hence only a minor amount of such fields are absorbed or attenuated as the field passes through matter.

So how would you explain the effect of a mirror then ? Mirrors exist that can reflect up to 99,9999% of inbound light. They are made of the same atoms that are, as you say, substantially void. Why won't the radiation just go through then ?


4 - that being the case one can develope the view that the intensity or strength of opposing fields through (and between) two independant masses will be weaker than the sources of such fields external to the space between such masses.

This I do not understand. Where do opposing fields come in all of the sudden ? What is an opposing field ?

Bye!

Crisp

MacM:

<i>1 - The anihilation energy from virtual particles propagates radially in a general spherical pattern from the point of origin.</i>

Crisp is right. The annihilation of virtual particles doesn't radiate any energy whatsoever.

There's no need to discuss any of the following points.

Originally posted by beta
Tidal effect will enable an inertial observer to see the apple and earth as seperating from each other- (perceived as repelling).
Consider the possibility that the earth and apple (and solar system) is travelling through space towards some other massive body in our galaxy, which may/maynot be plausible.
If the earth and apple are considered as two masses in free fall towards the massive body and they have different distance from this mass, then they will have a different acceleration towards the massive body.
One will accelerate faster than the other and result in a perceived
seperation of the apple and earth.

Unlikely as it may be, it is certainly very conceivable for there to be an Earth sized object, an apple sized object, and an object big enough to pull them both out there playing out the tidal scenario you described.
In the end, however, there would still be no discrepencies between reference frames as to whether repulsion or attraction (I like to say spatial inflation or deflation) is occuring.
In the scenario you described, all observers would recognize a net inflation of space between the Earth sized object and the apple sized object, not just observers on the enormous object pulling them both.
The first section of my first post was a mumbled attempt to arrive at the most objective phenomenological account of force-at-a-distance available to our senses. My arguement was simply that the CHANGE-IN-SPACE observation (the distance separating the objects involved) was more objective than the CHANGE-IN-POSITION observation (the positions in space of the objects involved).

I have since revised and clarified that section and will be posting it soon.

The rest of my proposal, however, does not account for tidal effects in any way. If I can't work them in legitimately, then I'm neck deep in pseudo-science, which I do not believe to be the case.

:m: