All galaxies and all other matter exist in an infinite, eternal, flat, homogeneous, isotropic,
symmetric and very cold (T=0K) reference frame of the Cosmic Vacuum which is filled
with Dirac's dualistic virtual particles E=±MC². Their constantly fluctuations change
the smooth and cold surface of the cosmic T=0K.
symmetric and very cold (T=0K) reference frame of the Cosmic Vacuum which is filled
with Dirac's dualistic virtual particles E=±MC². Their constantly fluctuations change
the smooth and cold surface of the cosmic T=0K.
Attachments
Nice first post, socratus!
The Cosmic Vacuum may be cold, but you will find a warm welcome here!
The Cosmic Vacuum may be cold, but you will find a warm welcome here!
Nothingness - Aether - An absolute 4D spacetime - Cosmic void - Cosmic vacuum.
-----
In the 19th century "aether" was a theorized medium for the propagation of light.
In the 20th century "an absolute 4D spacetime" was a theorized medium
for the propagation of light (light-cone)
In the 21th century "an absolute 4D spacetime" is still subject of debates.
If Einstein's SRT is true theory, then “an absolute 4D spacetime" must also be
true - real substance / continuum / reference frame.
There isn't physics without the theory of "an absolute 4D spacetime".
There isn't a philosophy of physics without understanding what
"an absolute 4D spacetime" really is.
-------
'': . . something seems wrong with our idea of the vacuum.
It is we who abhor a vacuum, who recoil from the stillness of the void as from an open grave.''
/ book ''The Fermi Solution'', page 37-38, by Hans Christian von Baeyer /
--------------
-----
In the 19th century "aether" was a theorized medium for the propagation of light.
In the 20th century "an absolute 4D spacetime" was a theorized medium
for the propagation of light (light-cone)
In the 21th century "an absolute 4D spacetime" is still subject of debates.
If Einstein's SRT is true theory, then “an absolute 4D spacetime" must also be
true - real substance / continuum / reference frame.
There isn't physics without the theory of "an absolute 4D spacetime".
There isn't a philosophy of physics without understanding what
"an absolute 4D spacetime" really is.
-------
'': . . something seems wrong with our idea of the vacuum.
It is we who abhor a vacuum, who recoil from the stillness of the void as from an open grave.''
/ book ''The Fermi Solution'', page 37-38, by Hans Christian von Baeyer /
--------------
Attachments
Interesting that you should quote Tesla.
Tesla is said to have given a lecture on his "Dynamic Theory of Gravity" which dispensed with the "false" conception of a curved spacetime. His theory was based around the lumineferous ether which he claimed filled all space, and which was acted upon by a "life-giving creative force".
Tesla proposed that the ether became "rigidified" by rapidly varying electrostatic forces, and was thereby involved in gravitational effects, inertia, and momentum.
The ether, when "micro whirling" at near the speed of light, became tangible matter which, when the motion ceased, reverted back to ether.
He went on to suggest that man could harness these processes to:
-Precipitate matter from the ether
-Create whatever he wants with the matter and energy derived
-Alter the Earth’s size
-Control earth’s seasons
-Guide earth’s path through the Universe
-Cause the collisions of planets to produce new suns and stars
-Originate and develop life in infinite forms
https://www.aetherforce.energy/teslas-dynamic-theory-of-gravity/
Looking at Tesla's hypothesis, I agree with you that we should probably stick with Einstein's theory of an "absolute 4D spacetime" for a bit longer! 😀
Apparently, when Albert Einstein was asked how it felt to be the “smartest person alive”, Einstein replied: “I don’t know, you’ll have to ask Nikola Tesla.”
Tesla is said to have given a lecture on his "Dynamic Theory of Gravity" which dispensed with the "false" conception of a curved spacetime. His theory was based around the lumineferous ether which he claimed filled all space, and which was acted upon by a "life-giving creative force".
Tesla proposed that the ether became "rigidified" by rapidly varying electrostatic forces, and was thereby involved in gravitational effects, inertia, and momentum.
The ether, when "micro whirling" at near the speed of light, became tangible matter which, when the motion ceased, reverted back to ether.
He went on to suggest that man could harness these processes to:
-Precipitate matter from the ether
-Create whatever he wants with the matter and energy derived
-Alter the Earth’s size
-Control earth’s seasons
-Guide earth’s path through the Universe
-Cause the collisions of planets to produce new suns and stars
-Originate and develop life in infinite forms
https://www.aetherforce.energy/teslas-dynamic-theory-of-gravity/
Looking at Tesla's hypothesis, I agree with you that we should probably stick with Einstein's theory of an "absolute 4D spacetime" for a bit longer! 😀
Apparently, when Albert Einstein was asked how it felt to be the “smartest person alive”, Einstein replied: “I don’t know, you’ll have to ask Nikola Tesla.”
Real gravity must be "Dynamic"
1 - Newton gravity is about interaction of 2 planets.
2 - Einstein gravity -is about how mass and energy of the Sun (stars) change
flat "spacetime" of vacuum and bend stright motion of light.
3 - Gravity is effect of masses and energy.
Quantum gravity is effect of quantum energy (E=h*f) + quantum masses (S=kTlogW)
4 - Without gravitaty masses and energy, cosmic vacuum is an infinite, flat,
homogeneous, isotropic and very cold (T=0K) continuum
Attachments
Looking back over your posts, socratus, I have to assume you support the motion that a theory of quantum gravity must replace general relativity in order to give a true representation of how the universe works.
Earlier discussions in this thread have led to the conclusion that general relativity - which has stood up to observational and experimental verification over many years - is currently our best description of gravity.
I doubt that a fully fledged theory of quantum gravity will emerge in my lifetime. Should it do so, I am unlikely to understand it any better than I understand general relativity. This will be particularly true if I'm confronted with equations like S=kTlogW when the symbols are undefined! 😉
Earlier discussions in this thread have led to the conclusion that general relativity - which has stood up to observational and experimental verification over many years - is currently our best description of gravity.
I doubt that a fully fledged theory of quantum gravity will emerge in my lifetime. Should it do so, I am unlikely to understand it any better than I understand general relativity. This will be particularly true if I'm confronted with equations like S=kTlogW when the symbols are undefined! 😉
some theory of quantum gravity must be source of Einstein's general relativity
in order to give a true representation of how the universe works.
Definition
Planck constant: E=h*f
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planck_constantBoltzmann's entropy formula: S=kTlogW
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boltzmann's_entropy_formula
I'm quite familiar with Planck's constant thanks!
However, I would like to understand how the Bolzmann-Planck equation for an ideal gas is related to a quantum theory of gravity.
However, I would like to understand how the Bolzmann-Planck equation for an ideal gas is related to a quantum theory of gravity.
I see now that you must be referring to entropic (emergent) gravity which describes gravity as a force which results from the universe's statistical tendency to increase its entropy.
This controversial theory suggests that general relativity is a macro-scale manifestation of quantum level disorder.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Entropic_gravity
I never understood the fascination, or requirement, for something to exist between empty space - whether the lumiferous ether (thoroughly debunked) or quantum vacuum fluctuations. We still do not have a rational explanation for how an EM wave propagates through space. We know how it behaves, but not the deep underlying mechanism; ditto gravity waves.
The only thing needed for energy to propagate through a vacuum is a time difference between objects - energy (EMC, gravity field) perturbs the time ‘field’ (and it is completely relativistic) and it is this that allows a photon for example to travel, across the universe. You can have a time difference between objects without there have been some form of energy change ie entropy and that’s why ultimately the solution to uniting QM and GR probably lies with some new expression of entropy. Seems the real challenge is in understanding how entropy actually creates time - time is not a ‘blank canvas’ (Newton’s view IIRC) upon which nature plays out but it is created by entropy ie a product of entropy.
The only thing needed for energy to propagate through a vacuum is a time difference between objects - energy (EMC, gravity field) perturbs the time ‘field’ (and it is completely relativistic) and it is this that allows a photon for example to travel, across the universe. You can have a time difference between objects without there have been some form of energy change ie entropy and that’s why ultimately the solution to uniting QM and GR probably lies with some new expression of entropy. Seems the real challenge is in understanding how entropy actually creates time - time is not a ‘blank canvas’ (Newton’s view IIRC) upon which nature plays out but it is created by entropy ie a product of entropy.
'You can have a time difference between objects without there have been some form of energy change ie entropy '
sorry, should read 'You cannot have a time difference between objects without there have been some form of energy change ie entropy'
sorry, should read 'You cannot have a time difference between objects without there have been some form of energy change ie entropy'
I spotted your little slip, Bonsai. I, for one, pay attention!
However, I'm still trying to get my head round your 'time field' concept.
Does time create entropy or does entropy create time? I see lots of discussion on that question on the web. Some contributors say that the answer is neither, which is a great help!
However, I'm still trying to get my head round your 'time field' concept.
Does time create entropy or does entropy create time? I see lots of discussion on that question on the web. Some contributors say that the answer is neither, which is a great help!
I don't know Galu. I can only wonder.
It seems to me the nub of this is how matter and energy are linked (other than by E=MC^2) - and its probably locked away in some quantum<>entropy understanding waiting to be discovered or exposed. My personal (non-scientific of course) understanding is as follows:-
It seems to me the nub of this is how matter and energy are linked (other than by E=MC^2) - and its probably locked away in some quantum<>entropy understanding waiting to be discovered or exposed. My personal (non-scientific of course) understanding is as follows:-
- In the beginning there was a singularity with as good as infinite mass.
- Time did not exist when it was in that state, since everything essentially occupied the same space. The universe was ordered in this state ie it was pre-entropic
- I would assume that if something had temperature, it would be entropic, but I'm not sure - I have to ponder this a bit more.
- For some reason, matter dislocated from that pre-entropic state, and huge amounts of energy were liberated (total mass<>energy in the universe of course remained the same) and the universe entered an entropic state
- In the process of mass converting to energy, space was created - ie things flew apart
- There is an equivalence between space and time (space-time)
- I therefore prefer to think of entropy as creating time through energy, which we perceive as distance or space. you can see this when you look at stars at night. You are looking back in time.
- Since the universe is in a state now where entropy reigns, time is being created - its not a passive 'canvas' - and we perceive that as an expanding universe.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.