| Author |
Message |
| < Science ~ Open Space; Closed Space? |
|
 Posted:
Thu Jun 23, 2005 5:11 am
|
|
|
Moderator
Joined: Jun 21, 2005
Posts: 279
|
|
Einstein with his theory of the curved space-time of gravity
set the precedent for a new cosmology. In otherwords his
gravity is a cosmology.
If the overall curvature of the universe is positive then it
is possible that it curves back on itself without boundary.
In this sense if gravity is curving into the 4th dimension
the universe can be explained as the surface of a four
dimensional hypersphere. This is Riemanian geometry.
Einstein believed this. And Hawking does too as set forth
in his No Boundary Proposal.
I believe that in a sense black holes violate the No
Boundary Proposal. They are boundaries in space
time that can't be crossed from the inside.
I do not believe in event horizons on black holes.
So if the universe as a whole is unbounded it is a
closed space.
And if there are no boundaries in gravity; or event
horizons on black holes; then space is open locally.
To repeat:
Because there are no global boundaries(a closed
universe) space is closed.
Because there are no local boundaries(no event horizons
on black holes) space is open.
Globally space is closed;
Locally space is open.
How do you like that? 
Last edited by Nick on Tue Oct 25, 2005 1:30 am; edited 1 time in total |
|
|
|
 |
|
| Posted:
Fri Jun 24, 2005 4:46 am
|
|
|
Expert
Joined: Nov 17, 2004
Posts: 158
Location: Egypt
|
|
Hello and welcome Nick.
Your choice of a title for the thread was very interesting.
Professor Einstein's model of the universe is consistent with his model of the photon.
Both are finite yet unbounded
While I tend to be convinced that the quantum is the works of the time dimension in the sense of the completion of a topological pattern such as what humans may quantify as a unit of action, hence Planck's Constant, I adopted a diametrically opposing view of the universe to that of the late Professor.
I model the universe as an infinite space, which is infinitely bounded.
I do not believe in the concept of black holes altogether not just their alleged horizon.
The way I model physical phenomena is the classical scientific method, in which observation and experiment comes first then an explanation follows.
What relativity calls the "the event horizon", I call the limit of significance.
Notice that the importance is in the fact of whether information could cross the boundary or not.
My generalized concept is that our universe could be seen as a zero point from the inside with negative significance and positive insignificance beyond the zero boundary. It is that boundary of significance that limits the space of information as we seek it outwards and gives the impression that the universe is finite, but the fact is that our information is finite and not the universe.
The relativistic model also fails to describe the inter-material-space versus the intra-material-space versus the extra-material-space into which the universe is allegedly expanding. Relativity failed to give any reasonable justification for the discrimination in the treatment of space after the rejection of all Aether theories that came and that could ever come.
_________________
Hemetis |
|
|
|
|
|
| Posted:
Fri Jun 24, 2005 5:11 am
|
|
|
Mentor
Joined: Jun 21, 2005
Posts: 94
|
|
| HEMETIS wrote: |
| The relativistic model also fails to describe the inter-material-space versus the intra-material-space versus the extra-material-space into which the universe is allegedly expanding. Relativity failed to give any reasonable justification for the discrimination in the treatment of space after the rejection of all Aether theories that came and that could ever come. |
Why would you need a model for extra material space? It is very much accepted that the universe is not expanding into anything! There is no need for a container for the universe. In fact there isn't a need for a container for matter what so ever! Many view space IHMO as the container manifold without any rhyme or reason as to its dimensional attributes. It just so happens to be 3d (I never consider time as a spatial dimension) why? Nobody knows! The fact is that no manifold container is necessary for anything. If we examine quantum reality particles formalize into the reality we experience through probability waves. So I'm betting that 3d is a product of probability waves and not the constraints of a manifold. Matter can have as many dimensions as it can manifest, which is theoretically unlimited. |
|
|
|
|
|
| Posted:
Fri Jun 24, 2005 5:28 am
|
|
|
Moderator
Joined: Jun 21, 2005
Posts: 279
|
|
Where is the universe at?
There is a place without space!!!
that is before the begining.
Hemetis, I don't believe in infinite space.
We see expansion from a begining at a
finite rate. You can't get infinity out of that!
The only thing that is infinite is the future.  |
|
|
|
|
|
| Posted:
Fri Jun 24, 2005 5:33 am
|
|
|
Expert
Joined: Nov 17, 2004
Posts: 158
Location: Egypt
|
|
Could you be clearer please?
I am lost as to whether you are in agreement with what I said or what Einstein said or that you have objections to both of us and saying something else.
Take your time, because your reply was posted 25 minutes after my post. 
_________________
Hemetis |
|
|
|
|
|
| Posted:
Fri Jun 24, 2005 5:51 am
|
|
|
Mentor
Joined: Jun 21, 2005
Posts: 94
|
|
| HEMETIS wrote: |
Could you be clearer please?
I am lost as to whether you are in agreement with what I said or what Einstein said or that you have objections to both of us and saying something else.
Take your time, because your reply was posted 25 minutes after my post. |
I am assuming that you are referring to my post that happens to be 25 minutes after your post.
I do not agree that there needs to be a model for extra material space and it would seem also that you subtly agree with the need for a container manifold for matter of which Einstein and most everyone also believes. I do not believe that matter is constrained by any spatial barrier. |
|
|
|
|
|
| Posted:
Fri Jun 24, 2005 5:54 am
|
|
|
Moderator
Joined: Jun 21, 2005
Posts: 279
|
|
Hemetis, i find myself in agreement with Einstein.
I believe in a finite universe that has a begining. |
|
|
|
|
|
| Posted:
Fri Jun 24, 2005 6:57 am
|
|
|
Expert
Joined: Nov 17, 2004
Posts: 158
Location: Egypt
|
|
| Frankinstien wrote: |
I am assuming that you are referring to my post that happens to be 25 minutes after your post.
|
Yes, and you did not take my advice. 
| Frankinstien wrote: |
I do not agree that there needs to be a model for extra material space
|
Neither do I need a "model" for every dress I buy for my wife.
However, I do need a catalogue from which to choose when I buy a new tobacco pipe.
What I am seriously saying is that you need what you need when you need it; and you never need what you never need until you need it.
So, you do not need a model for extra material space, while I might need one.
| Frankinstien wrote: |
and it would seem also that you subtly agree with the need for a container manifold for matter of which Einstein and most everyone also believes.
|
The Yin Yang fact is not an issue of needs but an issue of reason and logic.
We tend to think that when we see a drop of oil in water that water contains the oil.
Yet when we see a drop of water in oil we tend to change our minds about what contains what.
By mixing equal volumes of oil and water and shaking the mixture to form a temporary emulsion you can hardly make up your mind about which material contains the other.
On closer examination of the emulsion, the majority tend to think that water contains droplets of oil with oil in foreground and water acting as a background. They miss a topological fact that oil may contain water hyperbolically. Why does the mind neglect such a possibility intuitively! The reason is related to connectedness and discreteness. Our evolved minds had been trained to identify quanta, geometrically-closed-figures and give them names and count them. Man, tree, lion, flower and so on, are examples of such geometrically-enclosed entities, but a river is semi-closed and semi open. Are oceans bounded by continents or is it that continents are bounded by oceans! Finally, is it space that bounds matter or is it matter that bounds space?
Intuitively we would vote for the countable as being bounded by the uncountable, but there is no reasonable justification to restrict the way you look at things, such as the glass of water being half empty or half full.
| Frankinstien wrote: |
I do not believe that matter is constrained by any spatial barrier.
|
Yes, indeed, because such containment is not constrictive as in glass enclosing water but as in water enclosing glass. While water in glass may not wonder into the glass material, glass in water may wonder anywhere in such a background container.
The freedom of choice for matter to acquire coordinates is founded on the infinite space allowing an infinite freedom of choice. While the connected Extra-Space contains all observable matter, matter too does contain space, whether implied or empirically verifiable such as vacuum inside a brass sphere.
That is why the universe may not be finite unless we define the universe as the locally observable collection of galaxies. To say that the universe is unbounded in such a context is a short-sighted and naive assertion because a boundary is a topological entity that defines a threshold of significance for identifying states.
That is why, an expanding universe would be expanding the boundary rather than crossing it.
From where did matter "borrow" the extra space between the boundary of now and the older histories of the boundary of all observable matter?
To make intricate concepts simple, a topological boundary is a dynamic threshold over time and not a spatial barrier.
_________________
Hemetis |
|
|
|
|
|
| Posted:
Fri Jun 24, 2005 3:52 pm
|
|
|
Mentor
Joined: Jun 21, 2005
Posts: 94
|
|
| HEMETIS wrote: |
| From where did matter "borrow" the extra space between the boundary of now and the older histories of the boundary of all observable matter? To make intricate concepts simple, a topological boundary is a dynamic threshold over time and not a spatial barrier. |
I am not arguing that the boundary of space is a barrier but that the limit of spatial dimensions is viewed as a barrier. Why 3d? No one can really answer that question it is simply assumed because that is all that is observed. To give an example of the flaw of this type of thinking; at one time Europeans believed there were only white geese because that is all they observed in their environment. But there are black geese in Australia. The problem with believing there could only be white geese is that no one at the time understood why the feathers of geese were white. If they had understood DNA and the chromosomes involved with the color of the feathers they could have anticipated the possibility of black-feathered geese.
Of course string theory or membrane theory is based on more than three dimensions but the reasoning is more of a fit the forces of nature into a multidimensional model. My view is that matter forms the dimensional constraints of a manifold and why there are three spatial dimensions are due to probability waves canceling out other spatial dimensions. Figuring out how to over come the wave canceling of the other dimensions could lead to strange hyper structures of magnitudes equal to 3d lengths we normally experience. |
|
|
|
|
|
News
Predictions
Community
Links and Downloads
![[Valid RSS]](http://www.zapfuture.com/images/valid-rss.GIF "Validate my RSS feed")
![[Valid Atom 0.3]](http://www.zapfuture.com/images/valid-atom.GIF "Validate my Atom 0.3 feed")