Origin of spacetime

We can write the Einstein formula for the tachyons as follows.

E = m/sqrt(vv/cc – 1)

Assume that inertial mass of tachyon m is in proportion to its volume V. Then the above formula looks as follows.

E ~ V/sqrt(vv/cc – 1)

When in a gas speed of tachyons increases (the v increases) then due to the direct collisions of the tachyons there should be the grinding of them i.e. volumes V of the tachyons should decrease when their speed increases. This means that energy E and volume V (so the inertial mass also) of a tachyon decreases when its speed increases. Such phenomena do not violate the law of conservation of energy because due to the grinding there are more and more the smaller tachyons.

We can see that when speed of tachyons is higher and higher then there are more and more the smaller and smaller tachyons. When speed of tachyons is infinite then there is infinite number of tachyons which volume and energy is equal to zero. We can see that for the asymptotic limit there is the infinite number of mathematical points which are moving with infinite speed. Just there are the infinite speeds ONLY.

But such conclusion is incorrect. Why?
The volumes V (so inertial masses m also) of the tachyons, i.e. the moving PIECES of space cannot be reduced to zero. The total volume of the all tachyons STILL must be the same! We must say that volumes of the tachyons V can be smaller and smaller but they never will be equal to zero i.e. never their speed v will be infinite.

Conclusion
We cannot create space from nothing. It is eternal. In the truly empty nothingness cannot appear space (the physical volumes) and time (the motions of the physical volumes). The truly empty nothingness and space and time are eternal.

Origin of spacetime

We can write the Einstein formula for the tachyons as follows.

E = m/sqrt(vv/cc – 1)

Assume that inertial mass of tachyon m is in proportion to its volume V. Then the above formula looks as follows.

E ~ V/sqrt(vv/cc – 1)

When in a gas speed of tachyons increases (the v increases) then due to the direct collisions of the tachyons there should be the grinding of them i.e. volumes V of the tachyons should decrease when their speed increases. This means that energy E and volume V (so the inertial mass also) of a tachyon decreases when its speed increases. Such phenomena do not violate the law of conservation of energy because due to the grinding there are more and more the smaller tachyons.

We can see that when speed of tachyons is higher and higher then there are more and more the smaller and smaller tachyons. When speed of tachyons is infinite then there is infinite number of tachyons which volume and energy is equal to zero. We can see that for the asymptotic limit there is the infinite number of mathematical points which are moving with infinite speed. Just there are the infinite speeds ONLY.

But such conclusion is incorrect. Why?
The volumes V (so inertial masses m also) of the tachyons, i.e. the moving PIECES of space cannot be reduced to zero. The total volume of the all tachyons STILL must be the same! We must say that volumes of the tachyons V can be smaller and smaller but they never will be equal to zero i.e. never their speed v will be infinite.

Conclusion
We cannot create space from nothing. It is eternal. In the truly empty nothingness cannot appear space (the physical volumes) and time (the motions of the physical volumes). The truly empty nothingness and space and time are eternal.

I have solved everything. Time for you to relax. You will get to put your maths to good use. I think you might enjoy it. :D

We can write the Einstein formula for the tachyons as follows.

E = m/sqrt(vv/cc – 1)

I was not aware that Einstein had a formula for tachyons. Could you cite his tachyon paper - sounds like an interesting read.


Assume that inertial mass of tachyon m is in proportion to its volume V. Then the above formula looks as follows.

E ~ V/sqrt(vv/cc – 1)

I think prior to this assumption there needs to be acknowledgment that there imust be an ASSUMPTION that a tachyon even exists!

I have solved everything. Time for you to relax. You will get to put your maths to good use. I think you might enjoy it. :D

Pincho Paxton, you formulated the idea based on +1-1=0 in the truly empty nothingness. But there are not some descriptions to show physical meaning of such idea. Next, you should formulate the initial conditions and next show how the initial conditions lead to the experimental data. Can you see that you have the idea +1-1=0 only? It is not a theory, just idea and I tried to show you that the formula +1-1=0 cannot be realised in the truly empty nothingness. Your idea needs a physical spacetime.

Pincho Paxton, you formulated the idea based on +1-1=0 in the truly empty nothingness. But there are not some descriptions to show physical meaning of such idea. Next, you should formulate the initial conditions and next show how the initial conditions lead to the experimental data. Can you see that you have the idea +1-1=0 only? It is not a theory, just idea and I tried to show you that the formula +1-1=0 cannot be realised in the truly empty nothingness. Your idea needs a physical spacetime.

It is a particle with a hole in it. The membrane is +1, and the hole is -1.

I was not aware that Einstein had a formula for tachyons. Could you cite his tachyon paper - sounds like an interesting read.

Just google and next Wikipedia.


I think prior to this assumption there needs to be acknowledgment that there imust be an ASSUMPTION that a tachyon even exists!

There are in existence the superluminal neutrinos. This suggests that neutrinos consist of superluminal particles.

There are following questions.
1.
What is the physical meaning of the +1 and -1? Mass, volume, surface,...? Why -1? Did you read about the imaginary time postulated by S. Hawking?
2.
What is the external radius of the particle and what interactions are responsible for it?
3.
What is the radius of the hole in the particle and what interactions are responsible for it?
4.
What is the medium the particle is built of and what are the properties of this medium?
5.
Is the medium eternal?
6.
Can you formulate the definitions of space and time for your particle of a field composed of your particles?
7.
Have your particle inertial or gravitational mass or both? Why?
8.
What is speed of your particle? What phenomena lead to the superluminal neutrinos and the speed c characteristic for the photons and gluons?

And so on.

There are following questions.
1.
What is the physical meaning of the +1 and -1? Mass, volume, surface,...? Why -1? Did you read about the imaginary time postulated by S. Hawking?
2.
What is the external radius of the particle and what interactions are responsible for it?
3.
What is the radius of the hole in the particle and what interactions are responsible for it?
4.
What is the medium the particle is built of and what are the properties of this medium?
5.
Is the medium eternal?
6.
Can you formulate the definitions of space and time for your particle of a field composed of your particles?
7.
Have your particle inertial or gravitational mass or both? Why?
8.
What is speed of your particle? What phenomena lead to the superluminal neutrinos and the speed c characteristic for the photons and gluons?

And so on.

Stephen Hawking's program was about my theory which is about 5 years old.

The particle has scale of 1, the radius cannot be calculated as this is the smallest scale in our universe.

The hole is -1 the radius cannot be calculated.

The particle medium is the particle, it is made from zero.

The medium is eternal.

Space, and time are infinite.

My particles create all physical forces, and particles, they create everything. They have a mass of +1 + -1

My particles have a speed of x +1 x -1 y +1 y -1 z +1 z -1 all at once.

Just google and next Wikipedia.
Well I'll be, no information about Einsteins work on tachyons. Weird huh?



There are in existence the superluminal neutrinos.

No, there is one experiment that indicate this may be the case - it is looking doubtful though.


This suggests that neutrinos consist of superluminal particles.
What aspect of that experiment leads you to believe the neutrinos consist of superluminal particles?

The particle has scale of 1, the radius cannot be calculated as this is the smallest scale in our universe.
The hole is -1 the radius cannot be calculated.

If you cannot calculate this radius then your model does not lead to experimental data. Your model should lead from the experimental data to the initial conditions so to the smallest scale also. If not then your model is useless.


The particle medium is the particle, it is made from zero.

The medium is eternal.

Pincho Paxton,
Do you claim that there is medium defined by zero i.e. defined by truly empty nothingness? I completely do not understand it. For physicist medium has positive volume so it is not the zero.


Space, and time are infinite.

In my opinion, it is untrue. From the Einstein formula for tachyons, it follows that speed of tachyons is finite. This means that sufficiently distant regions of the infinite spacetime can be separated. This leads to conclusion that in the separated regions initial conditions can be different. There can be the timeless regions too (i.e. there are not the collisions of the pieces of space) or spacetimeless regions (i.e. the truly empty nothingness).


My particles create all physical forces, and particles, they create everything. They have a mass of +1 + -1

But you cannot prove it.

If you cannot calculate this radius then your model does not lead to experimental data. Your model should lead from the experimental data to the initial conditions so to the smallest scale also. If not then your model is useless.



Pincho Paxton,
Do you claim that there is medium defined by zero i.e. defined by truly empty nothingness? I completely do not understand it. For physicist medium has positive volume so it is not the zero.



In my opinion, it is untrue. From the Einstein formula for tachyons, it follows that speed of tachyons is finite. This means that sufficiently distant regions of the infinite spacetime can be separated. This leads to conclusion that in the separated regions initial conditions can be different. There can be the timeless regions too (i.e. there are not the collisions of the pieces of space) or spacetimeless regions (i.e. the truly empty nothingness).



But you cannot prove it.

Well Stephen Hawking agrees so proof is in the maths 1 + -1 = 0. The nothingness is two things, and maths agrees, and Stephen Hawking agrees.

Well I'll be, no information about Einsteins work on tachyons. Weird huh?

There are cited many papers concerning tachyons based on the Theory of Relativity. I never wrote that the formula E = m/sqrt(vv/cc - 1) for the tachyons is in some Einstein’s work. Just for M = im in the Einstein formula E = Mcc/sqrt(1 –vv/cc), where i = sqrt(-1), we obtain the above formula.


No, there is one experiment that indicate this may be the case - it is looking doubtful though.

To be or not to be. The OPERA experiment 'says' that there are in existence the superluminal neutrinos. Today there is no evidence that it is untrue.


What aspect of that experiment leads you to believe the neutrinos consist of superluminal particles?

Applying the mainstream theories, we can obtain the theoretical results consistent with the MINOS and OPERA experiments and with the SN 1987A data. We can do it at the assumption that the superluminal neutrinos are the NON-RELATIVISTIC particles i.e. their mass does not depend on speed. If the neutrinos are the superluminal particles then the components of the neutrinos are moving with the superluminal speeds too. You know if a car could be superluminal then the driver also.

Well Stephen Hawking agrees so proof is in the maths 1 + -1 = 0. The nothingness is two things, and maths agrees, and Stephen Hawking agrees.

There is difference between the abstract math and physical physics. If you claim that there can appear two things (for example, the virtual PAIRS) in the truly empty nothingness then you MUST describe physically and mathematically the mechanism and forces responsible for such phenomena.

There is difference between the abstract math and physical physics. If you claim that there can appear two things (for example, the virtual PAIRS) in the truly empty nothingness then you MUST describe physically and mathematically the mechanism and forces responsible for such phenomena.

No you don't have to explain zero. You can have zero for free. It is nothing, you don't need to explain it.

This is how it works....
http://homepage.ntlworld.com/pinchopaxton/Igloo.jpg

I understand what you try to say. But you cut out the positive mass from nothingness. In my opinion, physically it is impossible.

Just to remember what Tachyons are - Faster than light particles

There was a young lady named Bright,
Whose speed was far faster than light.
She went out one day,
In a relative way,
And returned the previous night!

—Reginald Buller

Just to remember what Tachyons are - Faster than light particles

There was a young lady named Bright,
Whose speed was far faster than light.
She went out one day,
In a relative way,
And returned the previous night!

—Reginald Buller


Unfortunately, the time loops are not in existence. There are only the wrong interpretations. They suggest that the journeys to the past are possible. My theory shows that such journeys are impossible just due to the tachyons. Their speed is 8•10^88 times higher than the photons and gluons. The tachyons very quickly modify the wave function describing our Universe. There is in existence the present always. Due to the tachyons, the past ends very quickly.

Unfortunately, the time loops are not in existence. There are only the wrong interpretations. They suggest that the journeys to the past are possible. My theory shows that such journeys are impossible just due to the tachyons. Their speed is 8•10^88 times higher than the photons and gluons. The tachyons very quickly modify the wave function describing our Universe. There is in existence the present always. Due to the tachyons, the past ends very quickly.
Can you write in words the speed of a tachyon please. I'm a bit amused by the number I see so just write it in words, then I'll know if we are seeing the same thing.

Their speed is 8•10^88 times higher than the photons and gluons.
Seems extreme!
Where was the proof of this speed. TIMES Higher than what? :)

. . .tachyons are as 'real' as gravitons!!

. . .tachyons are as 'real' as gravitons!!Well that is good to know. They will be found sooner or later then. :)

Well that is good to know. They will be found sooner or later then. :)

. . . . probably . . . . via math at least . . .

Can you write in words the speed of a tachyon please. I'm a bit amused by the number I see so just write it in words, then I'll know if we are seeing the same thing.

Seems extreme!
Where was the proof of this speed. TIMES Higher than what? :)

In my Everlasting Theory, there are the initial conditions. There is the gas composed of tachyons and 7 parameters. The phase transitions of such spacetime lead to four very stable structures i.e. to the superluminal closed strings, to the superluminal neutrinos (these particles are the NON-RELATIVISTIC particles), to the cores of baryons and to the cosmic objects before the 'soft' big bangs after the period of inflation. Such theory leads via the physical constants (they are calculated within my theory from the initial conditions) to the experimental data. The mean speed of the tachyons is the initial parameter in my theory. This means that if we change its value then we will not obtain theoretical results consistent with experimental data. We can say that my theory leads from the experimental data to the mean speed of the tachyons. The mean speed of tachyons is 2.4•10^97 m/s i.e. this speed is 8•10^88 times higher than the c i.e. than the speed of photons and gluons.

The direct and indirect evidences that there are in existence the superluminal particles are as follows.
1.
There are the superluminal neutrinos.
2.
Entangled photons show that they can communicate with speeds higher than the c.
3.
The wave functions fill the whole our Universe. The wave function describing our Universe can be the coherent mathematical object if the very distant points of the wave function can communicate with speeds much higher than the c. We can say that coherent quantum physics needs the tachyons.
4.
Also the Michelson-Morley experiment leads to conclusion that masses emit the tachyons (see the explanation in my book).

Conclusion
Many experiments show or lead to the conclusion that there are in existence the tachyons. The experimental data via my theory lead to conclusion that the mean speed of the tachyons is tremendous and is 8•10^88 times higher than the c.

SK: Your tachyons MAY be embedded in my SQR. I cannot re-state my hypothesis here . . . it is found in posts placed a few months ago, but due to accusations by mods of self-promotion and trolling, I'll refrain from reposting here. Send me a PM.

Thanks and Merry Christmas!

SK: Your tachyons MAY be embedded in my SQR. I cannot re-state my hypothesis here . . . it is found in posts placed a few months ago, but due to accusations by mods of self-promotion and trolling, I'll refrain from reposting here. Send me a PM.

Thanks and Merry Christmas!


Wlminex,
I read the EEMU Hypotheses. You know, there is tremendous number of new hypotheses. How can we verify them? Just authors of new ideas should start from some initial conditions (i.e. formulae and parameters) and show that their initial conditions via their ideas lead to the experimental data and observational facts. On base of the calculations, we can say whether the new ideas are useful. In your paper, there is lack of any calculations. You did not write also how we can verify your model i.e. there should appear new phenomena. The new phenomena should lead to some theoretical results. We should verify them in experiments.

Wlminex, we can discuss the new ideas concerning the origin of spacetime here.

I wish you a Merry Christmas too.

Wlminex,
I read the EEMU Hypotheses. You know, there is tremendous number of new hypotheses. How can we verify them? Just authors of new ideas should start from some initial conditions (i.e. formulae and parameters) and show that their initial conditions via their ideas lead to the experimental data and observational facts. On base of the calculations, we can say whether the new ideas are useful. In your paper, there is lack of any calculations. You did not write also how we can verify your model i.e. there should appear new phenomena. The new phenomena should lead to some theoretical results. We should verify them in experiments.

Wlminex, we can discuss the new ideas concerning the origin of spacetime here.

I wish you a Merry Christmas too.
I'm going to look into the tachyons for they seem to be really important. What proof is there that there is such a thing?

I'm going to look into the tachyons for they seem to be really important. What proof is there that there is such a thing?

Robittybob1, can you read the post #22 in this thread? Just a few posts earlier. I listed the direct and indirect evidences that nature needs the tachyons.

Robittybob1, can you read the post #22 in this thread? Just a few posts earlier. I listed the direct and indirect evidences that nature needs the tachyons.Thanks, I reading up about the speed of Gravity. Come and visit us someday. :)

In the post #22 I showed that nature needs tachyons. They are the moving pieces of space in the truly empty nothingness. The Newtonian spacetime consists of the free tachyons. It is the gas composed of the pieces of space. Such free pieces of space (tachyons) cannot emit anything because they are the internally structureless objects. The free tachyons interact due to the direct collision. Because they cannot emit anything, so they cannot be detected DIRECTLY but we know that nature needs tachyons. Because the free tachyons are separated from the wave function describing our Universe, so we can say that energy of the Newtonian spacetime is the IMAGINARY energy. All the physical quantities which define the properties of the Newtonian spacetime, we can call the imaginary physical quantities so there appears the imaginary time also. The imaginary time introduced S. Hawking.

The total energy T we can define as the sum of the energy which appears in the General Relativity E and the imaginary energy associated with the Newtonian spacetime N

T = E + iN where i = sqrt(-1)

We know that the E applied in the GR is defined as follows

E = M(gravitational=inertial)cc/sqrt(1 – vv/cc)

The tachyons cannot emit some objects so they have the inertial mass only m(in). Substitute ic instead c, iv instead v and im(in) instead M(gr=in).
Then

N = -im(in)cc/sqrt(1 – vv/cc)

N = m(in)cc/sqrt(vv/cc – 1)

The m(in) is in proportion to volume of tachyon i.e. m(in) = aV.
Then

N = aVcc/sqrt(vv/cc – 1)

In my first post in this thread, I discussed this formula.
We can see that we can reformulate the GR via following substitution in the Einstein equations E = T – iN. We can see also that the GR leads to the Newtonian spacetime i.e. to the fundamental spacetime. We can see also that the GR is the more fundamental theory than the Quantum Physics. The Quantum Physics appears on higher level of nature and is associated with the excited states of the Einstein spacetime. From the formula T = E + iN follows that there are in existence two spacetimes i.e. the Einstein spacetime and the imaginary Newtonian spacetime. The phase transitions of the imaginary Newtonian spacetime, which lead to the Einstein spacetime ALSO, I described in my Everlasting Theory.

*edit. i reread and my post made no sense*:bugeye:

The notion of imaginary time came before Hawking. In quantum field theory it is known as a Wick rotation. In group theory it is the Weyl trick. Euclideanisation was a common tool in many relativistic models well before Hawking. You need to learn the physics from books not tv programs Sylwester.

The imaginary time in my post is associated with cosmology. We can read about the S. Hawking imaginary time concept in cosmology, for example, in his book A Brief History of Time, A Bantam Book edition 1990, pages 138-140.

But it is true that we obtain the imaginary time due to the (pi)/2 Wick rotation in the complex plane. In my book I described physical meaning of the imaginary unit i = sqrt(-1). See the chapters Fractal Field and Mathematical Constants, pages 82-84.

So your source is a pop science book written decades after the research it talks about. Thanks for proving my point about how you should be getting information from textbooks right. As for physical interpretations if its as laughable as your explanation of the Taylor series of exp Impressive certain it isbt worth my or anyone else's time to look at.

So, as usually, your source is the Wikipedia. In my post, I needed just the imaginary time applied in cosmology. Most important is the S. Hawking concept. In the post, the (pi)/2 Wick rotation was not needed.

Do you claim that the old papers, for example, the Einstein papers are useless? You know, each source is important, the S. Hawking books also. AlphaNumeric, just stop write the nonsense. You know, today is the traditional Christmas-Eve supper. Just try to write about your ideas. Is there at least one?

How is my source wikipedia? I just pointed out how you getting your information from layperson sources like pop science books gives you an incorrect impression of the development of certain ideas. What your comment about Einstein has to do with anything i don't know. Once again it seems you don't even understand your own short comings.

As for my ideas they are in papers. My current research is covered by company privacy but I am certain its accomplishing more than yours. Real scientists don't present their work on forums, they have proper avenues.

So, as usually, your source is the Wikipedia. In my post, I needed just the imaginary time applied in cosmology. Most important is the S. Hawking concept. In the post, the (pi)/2 Wick rotation was not needed.

Do you claim that the old papers, for example, the Einstein papers are useless? You know, each source is important, the S. Hawking books also. AlphaNumeric, just stop write the nonsense. You know, today is the traditional Christmas-Eve supper. Just try to write about your ideas. Is there at least one?
What is your background Sylwester? :)

What is your background Sylwester? :)

You can read my CV on my website.

How is my source wikipedia?

In your posts is the encyclopaedic information only. There is no one new idea. Do you are afraid to write about them or...? I can see in your posts also the tremendous frustration, just the inconceivable malice.

Do you read about the attacks of the great physicists on the OPERA EXPERIMENTAL DATA? Today is no place in the scientific papers for the second spacetime i.e. for the imaginary Newtonian spacetime. But the time for the good new ideas is going. Sometimes authors of good ideas waited tens years to meet with approbation. I claim that we never solve the hundreds unsolved problems without my phase transitions of the imaginary Newtonian spacetime. They lead to the superluminal closed strings the neutrinos consist of, to the neutrinos, cores of baryons and the cosmic objects after the period of inflation. There appears the Titius-Bode law for the strong interactions too i.e. the atom-like structure of baryons.

AlphaNumeric, CAN YOU STOP WRITE THE NONSENSE? Your posts are very dull. SciForums are to discuss the new ideas. Why you cannot discuss in this thread the origin of spacetime? Why you write about the unimportant things only? They are not associated with the title of this thread. You know, it is trolling.

I tens times wrote that you should discuss the problems listed in the titles of the threads and in the leading posts. You, PhD, are unable to do this. See the all your posts in my threads. There are just the nonsense and nonsense and nonsense.
Once more: you compromise this forum.

What do you think about the T = E + iN? Is it too complicated for you? Where are your scientific arguments? Maybe you were a scientist but TODAY your behaviour suggests that you are out.

Sylwester . . . . . unfortunately Alphanumeric is a moderator on Sciforums . . . mods usually "rule-the-roost" here and try to dictate the flow and content of posting, such as yours re: "the Origin of Spacetime", to THEIR liking! I think your discussion of tachyons has merit . . . their existence is, however, difficult to discover/prove under the stipulated Standard Model conditions. I also like your discussion re: superluminal strings - for "things" propogating at (or near) c, I believe (hypothesize . . . not theorize!) it is entirely possible that their associated internal vibrational rates may exceed c.

Sylwester . . . . . unfortunately Alphanumeric is a moderator on Sciforums . . . mods usually "rule-the-roost" here and try to dictate the flow and content of posting, such as yours re: "the Origin of Spacetime", to THEIR liking! I think your discussion of tachyons has merit . . . their existence is, however, difficult to discover/prove under the stipulated Standard Model conditions. I also like your discussion re: superluminal strings - for "things" propogating at (or near) c, I believe (hypothesize . . . not theorize!) it is entirely possible that their associated internal vibrational rates may exceed c.

The Theory of Relativity leads to the tachyons via folowing substitutions c -> ic, v -> iv, m -> im, where i = sqrt(-1). In the post #22, I wrote about the four direct and indirect evidences that nature needs the tachyons ABSOLUTELY. The theories which include the tachyons and lead to the experimental data should be TODAY the leading theories. And in my opinion it will be soon. Today there is the war which looks as the war at the beginning of the XX century between physicists for whom the waves were the religion and the believers that the quantum physics is the ultimate theory. Today, i.e. on the beginning of the XXI century, the war is more complicated but sun the ‘tachyonists’ will be the winners.

Sweater, my posts do not contain original work for a number of reasons. Firstly forums are not the place to present original work. Secondly you are incapable of honest discussion, as you have demonstrated by misusing terminology even after being corrected on it. Thirdly I do not believe you capable of understanding my work. Fourthly my present research is not done in a university but in the private sector so I cannot openly discuss it anyway. Your assertions I am 'out' are baseless and look to be nothing more than attempts to get a rise out of me, as are your comments about malice. I have no malice to your work, I think its laughable and obviously no one else takes you seriously either else you'd not squander your time whining on forum pseudo sections.

My work is intellectually interesting, challenging and has helped in plenty of real world problems. Any assertions you make about my job are based know nothing but your on bias. I think your imaginings about my current work say more about you than me. I have no problem you posting your claims here but when you flat out lie about the mainstream, misrepresent research or myself then I point it out.

You keep asking to discuss physics but you have shown yourself incapable. You have made claims about string theory but when asked to justify them you refuse, you cannot. Why should anyone think anything else you say will be honest when you are so dishonest in such straightforward things like that?

When you act a bit more honest then i might see a reason to discuss research with you but until you can demonstrate a decent honest grasp of basic physics you make productive discussion impossible.

In the SciForums rules we can read:

Trolling

….Deliberately derailing discussions onto tangential matters in order to try to control the flow of discussion.
Trolls are not tolerated on sciforums.

The AlphaNumeric last post and tremendous number of the others show that AlphaNumeric violates the SciForums Rules. He is the moderator! In my last post, I wrote that he should not discuss the TANGENTIAL MATTERS. Now we know why he is doing it. He tries to control the flow of discussion.

This thread titled “Origin of spacetime” satisfies all criteria for threads in the Alternative Theories forum. Why there is tolerated that AlphaNumeric deliberately derails discussion in this thread and all my other threads onto tangential matter?

I wrote about cosmology and I wrote that S. Hawking introduced the imaginary time. The word “introduced” does not mean “mathematical definition”. I am physicist and for me most important is the physical meaning of the imaginary time. S. Hawking described in his book his idea. Even if we assume that my words were partially inexact, there is my explanation. And it should be the end on this subject. What is doing AlphaNumeric? He DELIBERATELY DERAILS discussion onto tangential matters. He writes the nonsense about the sources. I commented his behaviour on this forum so he writes the dissertation about his work. I wrote that we must radically change the initial conditions in the string/M theory because this theory TODAY leads astray. I even wrote how the correct initial conditions should look to LEAD TO THE EXPERIMENTAL DATA ONLY. Then, AlphaNumeric write the nonsense as in his last post. Just trolling.

He is the provocator. In his posts permanently appear the tangential matters. Why others can in this thread discuss the formula T = E + iN whereas AlphaNumeric (moderator) cannot?

You asked me questions about where my work is and i replied. I have repeatedly stated Ill not reply to the thread provided you can just stick to your work. I reply when you say something false about the mainstream or myself. For example you have misrepresented Euclideanisation in physics. You have also made unsupported suppositions about my work. Both of those are dishonest and the latter is trolling in itself. I am responding to those falsehoods you present.

I will quite happily not reply to this thread if you can manage to make no unfounded assertions about myself and my work as well as not be dishonest about the mainstream. I am not going to sit idly by and watch you lie about such things but you are welcome to make unjustified claims about your work all you want. I haven't tried to stop you doing that, I have been responding to other things you have said. Anyone reviewing the thread can see that.

If you can manage to not say anything about me or anything dishonest about the mainstream from this point onwards I will not reply from this point onwards. Can't say fairer than that. The ball is in your court.

AlphaNumeric wrote many times in Internet that infinite number of mathematical/sizeless points (i.e. of the truly empty nothingness) lead to physical volume. The same, applying other words, wrote Pincho Paxton. He wrote that nature is able to cut out a positive mass/volume from the truly empty nothingness so there appears the negative mass/volume also. Now, the Pincho Paxton thread is in the Pseudoscience Forum. I think that this idea is very interesting because if it could be true then we could derive whole nature from the truly empty nothingness. But I proved in my first post in this thread that it is impossible. Consider the vice versa process. There is a physical volume and we divide it into two parts, and next each the half into two parts and so on. Can there be infinite number of such divisions? No! It is possible only in mathematics, not in physics. Nature needs a period to divide a fragment of space (it could be a tachyon). This means that the divisions never end. There still the total volume of the physical tachyons is the same as at the beginning. Can you see the difference between thinking in physics and mathematics? The same is with the higher dimensions. Physical meaning of the numbers 10 and 26 applied in the string/M theory differs from the mathematical meaning. This causes that TODAY the string/M theory leads astray. The same is with the imaginary physical quantities. We need the physical meanings of the imaginary quantities and you can find it in my Everlasting Theory.

BTW, Pincho Paxton, do not worry because even the great mathematicians do not understand physics correctly. Your idea still will be the inspiration for many. I also wasted a lot of time to understand the difference between mathematics and physics. Good luck to you.

AlphaNumeric wrote many times in Internet that infinite number of mathematical/sizeless points (i.e. of the truly empty nothingness) lead to physical volume. The same, applying other words, wrote Pincho Paxton. He wrote that nature is able to cut out a positive mass/volume from the truly empty nothingness so there appears the negative mass/volume also. Now, the Pincho Paxton thread is in the Pseudoscience Forum. I think that this idea is very interesting because if it could be true then we could derive whole nature from the truly empty nothingness. But I proved in my first post in this thread that it is impossible. Consider the vice versa process. There is a physical volume and we divide it into two parts, and next each the half into two parts and so on. Can there be infinite number of such divisions? No! It is possible only in mathematics, not in physics. Nature needs a period to divide a fragment of space (it could be a tachyon). This means that the divisions never end. There still the total volume of the physical tachyons is the same as at the beginning. Can you see the difference between thinking in physics and mathematics? The same is with the higher dimensions. Physical meaning of the numbers 10 and 26 applied in the string/M theory differs from the mathematical meaning. This causes that TODAY the string/M theory leads astray. The same is with the imaginary physical quantities. We need the physical meanings of the imaginary quantities and you can find it in my Everlasting Theory.

BTW, Pincho Paxton, do not worry because even the great mathematicians do not understand physics correctly. Your idea still will be the inspiration for many. I also wasted a lot of time to understand the difference between mathematics and physics. Good luck to you.

Well I say that you can put infinite particles inside infinite particles, but I also have other rules. That is just the first rule. The particles are not allowed to overlap. Overlap is the second rule. Our universe has a minimum scale, that is the third rule. And you end up with physics, because the universe has to break some of those rules. I'm not concentrating on maths anyway, I'm concentrating on zero mainly. Maintain zero until it breaks.

Pincho Paxton, I like your posts because there is nothing personal. Just physics. We have different ideas but we are not some enemies because there is nothing personal. Just you are tip-top. There is lack of emotions so you are better than I am. I cannot tolerate a caddish behaviour. Congratulations.
We can distinguish the internally structureless pieces of space (so the tachyons and the superluminal closed strings in my theory also) from the other particles which have the internal structure. The particles which have internal structure, for example the electrons and nucleons, can partially overlap with other particles because inside such BARE particles there are also volumes which are the truly empty nothingness. We can also say that my tachyons cannot overlap. We can say that the volumes of the tachyons decrease the volume of the infinite truly empty nothingness so someone can write following formula:

V(nothingness) = V(infinite) – V(total volume of pieces of space),

where V(total volume of tachyons) > 0.
There can be regions which satisfy following conditions.
V(nothingness) = 0 is for the timeless spacetime/region.
V(total volume of pieces of space) = 0 is for the spacetimeless regions.

The fundamental volumes or fundamental inertial masses cannot be negative. Nature cannot create negative volumes/masses in the truly empty nothingness.

In the previous posts I motivated that the Einstein relativity leads to the tachyons i.e. to the tachyon gas which I call the imaginary Newtonian spacetime because the free tachyons have broken contact with the wave function describing our Universe. Just the fundamental particles, i.e. the internally structureless pieces of space, are the CLASSICAL particles. They do not emit any particles.
I showed also that there are the direct and indirect experimental data proving that the tachyons are in existence.

Now I will try in details describe how the phase transitions of the imaginary Newtonian spacetime lead to the ground state of the Einstein spacetime i.e. there are the two spacetimes and their total energy T is

T(Total energy) = E(internal energy of the Einstein spacetime) + iN(internal energy of the imaginary Newtonian spacetime).

Next, I will show how the phase transitions lead to the gravitational and electromagnetic interactions and why we cannot describe these two interactions within one homogeneous description using the Quantum Field Theory i.e. why we cannot describe gravity of the TODAY Universe via the wave functions (it was possible during the very short period of inflation).