Looking for honest peer !

The Universe Inside and Out !


Introduction.

The Universe inside and out is a journey of discovery that considers past science and present science . A journey of discover that will advance present science thoughts and theory , opening up a whole new era of science in regards to physics and physical process .
The Universe inside and out makes reference to Dirac , Newton , Higg's , Tesla and Einstein , concluding an united field theory namely the N-field theory , an united field theory that explains the beginning of the visual universe , unites field matter ( spatial quantum fields ) and atomic matter ( Visible objects ) into an united manifold that is independent of space.
Additionally the Universe inside and out explains the gravity mechanism , the true nature of light and the true meaning of time .


Chapter One - Absolute Newtonian Space .

For purposeful and meaningful discussion I feel it is of utmost importance that we all agree upon definition and semantics . Firstly I would like to draw our attention to the definition of space

1. A continuous area or expanse which is free, available, or unoccupied.

It is important we do not change the context of our definitions where semantics are important . People often generalise space as being contents included which is contradictory to our definition of space and not of fact .

In consideration of what is space ?

I propose that space is the single property of an infinite void , agreeing with Newton that space is absolute and immovable . In regards to space there is no evidence that suggests anything other than these provided seven postulates :

1) Space cannot be created or destroyed

2) Space is immovable

3) Space is timeless and has no mechanism to age or decay

4) Space is the unique property of a void

5) Space has no mechanism to be visibly light or visibly dark

6) Space is transparent

7) Space has no physicality

There's no reason or reasons why these postulates are not of axiom value and true to observation , it would be quite absurd and subjective to disagree with the postulates without providing proof of evidence to demonstrate falsity of the postulates . Objectively , the seven postulates hold true and are unarguable without evidence to the contrary .



(To be continued , comments thus far ? )

 

I don't think this is consistent with Einstein's two theories. Four dimensional space-time is curved and can be altered by the existence of super-massive objects like pulsars, quasars, neutron stars, and black holes. At the same time, the universe is expanding, which it couldn't do if it was immovable and had no physical properties.

"To deny the ether is ultimately to assume that empty space has no physical qualities whatever. The fundamental facts of mechanics do not harmonize with this view." - Einstein

 

Equality, I wish you the best of fortune on your endeavor.

I am not qualified to comment on your comments.

 

It's actually very consistent with Einstein but I have not wrote any further yet that explains this . To put it in brief for you , relativistic space-time occupies absolute space and is independent of space .
The space-time curves relative to absolute space , absolute space is the immovable stationary reference frame .

Additionally relativity does not prove the seven postulates I provided to be false . Do you observe any falsity in the postulates ?

 

You don't need to be qualified to comment , you only have to be able to think for yourself !


Can you think of any possible way to destroy void space ?

I believe it is impossible that space can be created or destroyed which shows falsity of the big bang theory .

 

Space = nothing = 0

Its the default setting of the universe.

 

delete

 

Yes, see above. Einstein proved that time and motion are purely relative and that there is no fixed frame of reference.

Yeah, see, you're already running up against facts. There is a background radiation level to the universe left over from the Big Bang.

"The Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation is the afterglow of the Big Bang; one of the strongest lines of evidence we have that this event happened. UCLA’s Dr. Ned Wright explains."

https://www.universetoday.com/110221/what-is-the-cosmic-microwave-background-radiation/

 

Almost

space=nothingness

nothing = point of nothingness = 0

 

So you're just going to ignore everything I said and resort back to relativity which does not show my postulates to be false ?

I'll give you a simple experiment to prove my postulates true .

Place a glass upside down on a flat surface

Slide the glass to the left or right

Observe it is the same air in the glass

Observe it is now not the same geometrical space in the glass .

The space has no physicality Postulate 7 .

The space is passive to the glass as the glass is passive to the space .

The space is immovable . Postulate 2.

 

Here is a sneak preview of part of my model , it looks great in 3d but the program is only a trial program and won't let me use the full facilities to record in 3d . So you'll have to do with a 2d sneak preview .



A / k

B / k

(A+B)/t * A / k + *B / k = >4/3 πr³ / t

Or simply N*n³/t = >4/3 πr³ / t

 

I suggest you study up on Einstein's Theories of Relativity. Einstein himself said there are no fixed points of reference in space. The simple fact that the universe is expanding (and this has been objectively verified to be true) shows that space can move and has a physical reality. Your "experiment" proves nothing. And you didn't even address the background radiation.

"Before Einstein, Isaac Newton shared the popular belief that both absolute time and absolute space exist. Newton believed that the grid that defined absolute space was undetectable, but that there is a universal time that ticks away for all observers in all locations, and that universal time can be accurately measured by clocks. If it is 5 o'clock on planet earth, it is simultaneously 5 o'clock on the most distant star. Similarly, Newton believed that absolute space exists that can be measured using the same yardstick (meter-stick) anywhere in the cosmos, a mile measures the same distance anywhere on Earth and on any distant star as it does where you are standing right now.

There are lots of problems with this idea, experimental observations simply do not support the conclusion that absolute time and absolute space exist. In 1905 Einstein published his theory of special relativity, which introduced the then radical idea that different observers see the same event occurring at different times and places."

http://www.ws5.com/spacetime/

 

I know what Einstein said and I do not need to look anything up . Every point of space is fixed but because points of space are invisible and not opaque , we can't use then as a reference frame is the correct semantics . I suggest you stop being fixated on incorrect semantics and actual ''step down'' and try to learn something new and much more accurate .
I haven't spent over a decade of self education to deliver garbage that is not true !

My experiment I provided proves my postulate 7 so why do you say it doesn't ?

Are you suggesting it is the same geometrical space as before the glass was moved ?

Are you suggesting the spatial points exterior of the deflated balloons surface do not end up the interior of the balloon when the balloon is inflated ?

Do you offer anything to demonstrate any falsity of the seven postulates ?

You've offered nothing in defense other than incorrect Einstein that doesn't prove the postulates incorrect .

Let me clarify something for you , time does not literally exist . Time is an arbitrary quantifiable measurement devised to record the aging process relative to absolute space . It is based on the earths rotation relative to the sun , the speed of time is ~1000mph , dressing time up to look fancy , i'e an atomic clock , does not wash with me . Science made a huge blunder and have the speed of time equal to a speed of rotation .

In the beginning , time did not begin , aging begun . Then evolved us who devised ways of recording aging .

 

I don't see evidence of space being infinite. If you want to claim that the standard big bang cosmology is invalid I think you have to do more than simply define "space" to be infinite.

The usual view of the big bang is that space/time came in that event. If one charts the universe back in time, time AND space have to shrink to that singularity - which would be hard for anything infinite to do.

Also, there is significant evidence today that space is not only expanding, but that the rate of expansion is increasing. I think it's worth more than a quick definition to understand how space could be expanding and also be infinite. Or, perhaps the direction is to dispute the experimental findings of astrophysics today??

At the least, there needs to be more to your definition, such as evidence.

 

Why don't you try submitting your theory to a physics or astrophysics journal and see how far you get.

https://iopscience.iop.org/journal/0004-637X

 

There is reasons I don't bother sending my work to a journal .

1) It is pointless because it doesn't pay
2) Science doesn't want people to know they are incompetent and a huge majority of scientists are stupid and delusional

Sending in a paper is just giving present scientists all your work for free . They'll rewrite it and claim it is the work of science in years to come .
Science forums do the same thing, science forums are science way of gaining free knowledge . I am nothing and will remain nothing although I rewrote physics and have loads of invention ideas . They already stole some of my ideas .`

I have the physics for a photon torpedo ,perpetual motion , energy ideas , I also have naval ideas and nobody will even give me a job .

All my notions use physics that will work .

 

I can demonstrate the infinite of space by using logical deductions ......


It is simple , if anyway claims the universe is finite , they are claiming after there is a solid , within this solid would still be the space as space is passive . Beyond the solid is more solid or more space , there can be no end it is like the Chinese dolls .
You can't put an end to space there can't be one , it is impossible .

Space or solid is the only things, there is no end .

There may be borders , I wonder if Trump built them lol .

 

I love your parting shot!

Once again, keep in mind that I'm not a physicist.

But, the big bang theory has this universe starting from a singularity. THAT was the beginning of space/time. From there space itself expanded. That is, the distance between any two galaxies is getting larger not just because of relative motion, but because the space between them is expanding. (Of course, gravity between the galaxies is another force that may counter part or all of that expansion - expansion of space isn't the only thing going on out there.)

We don't notice that in daily life, because the distance between familiar objects is just too small to detect that expansion. BUT, if you multiply the expansion of each mile by the number of miles to distant galaxies, you get a large number - in fact, you can get a number that is greater than the speed of light.

This is the root of the reason there are TWO theories of relativity - there is special relativity that essentially ignores the expansion of of space and applies when distances are small. And, there is general relativity that takes the expansion of space into account and must be used when distances are large - like, between galaxies, where there is enough space between objects for expansion to be significant.

Today, there are multiple ways to test how fast space is expanding. So, we know that at the present time, the rate of expansion of space is increasing.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Expan..._of_expansion_and_change_of_rate_of_expansion

Given that model, infinite space would mean that the expansion was infinite, and that's a problem.

There may be different ways of looking at "infinite", such as the universe somehow folding back on itself. Or, you may want to dispute the big bang model.

 

Ah, a repeat of this nonsense equation where the units don't match.

 

Now then silly boy , you just haven't learned this yet !

new
Dictionary result for new
/njuː/
adjective

1. 1.
   produced, introduced, or discovered recently or now for the first time; not existing before.

 

Oh, new can be useful and interesting but it's easy to tell something is complete nonsense if the units don't match on both sides of an equation.

 

Ok , I will for now just agree with you and say my equation is nonsense . Perhaps you can help me then to make the right equation ?

To begin , I want to express a single points energy , fragmenting/ dispersing into space and diminishing to 0 magnitude . This ZPE is a positive charged electrostatic charge and I also need the same equation but for a negative charge ?

So divide is involved ? It is divided by space !

Space is involved

Charge is involved

Charge / space = 0

If you want to know the reason it disperses / fragments is because of this

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emission_spectrum

The surrounding space of the ZPE manifestation is a lower energy state . The maths I require are for this video model of the process .

 

That does not show falsity of the BB theory.

 

I've finally finished a section of my book / paper

How does this read ?

The Universe inside and out !

Author:

Introduction.

The Universe inside and out is a scientific investigation and research project that has taken over a decade to complete that considers past physics and present physics . A journey of discover that will advance present science thoughts and theory , correcting semantic errors and incorrect interpretation , opening up a whole new era of science in regards to physics and physical process .
The Universe inside and out makes reference to Dirac , Newton , Higgs , Tesla and Einstein , concluding an united field theory namely the N-field theory , an united field theory that explains the beginning of the visual universe , unites field matter ( spatial quantum fields ) and atomic matter ( Visible objects ) into an united manifold that is independent of space. Additionally the Universe inside and out explains the gravity mechanism , the true nature of light and the meaning of time .

Contents:

1. Absolute Newtonian space
2. Micro bang theory ( Virtual particles popping into and out of existence ).
3. Binary energy particle ( A quantum singularity )
4. Binary energy particle expansion ( Singularity expansion)
5. The n-field theory (The interior field matter of a binary expansion)
6. The N-field theory (Atomic matter)
7. The gravity mechanism
8. The nature of light
9. The meaning of time


1. Absolute Newtonian space .

For purposeful and meaningful discussion I feel it is of utmost importance that we firstly all agree upon the definition of space .

1. A continuous area or expanse which is free, available, or unoccupied.

It is important we do not change the context of this definition where semantics are important . People often generalise space as being contents included which is contradictory to our definition of space and not of fact .

Newton believed that absolute space remains always similar and immovable , independent of everything else . In consideration of what is space ? I propose that space is the unique property of an infinite void , agreeing with Newton that space is absolute and immovable . In regards to space , my scientific research as revealed there is no evidence that suggests anything other than these provided seven postulates :

1) Space cannot be created or destroyed

2) Space is immovable

3) Space is timeless and has no mechanism to age or decay

4) Space is the unique property of a void

5) Space has no mechanism to be visible light or visible dark

6) Space is transparent

7) Space has no physicality

There's no reason or reasons why these postulates are not of axiom value and hold true to observation . It would be quite absurd , subjective and illogical to disagree with the postulates without providing proof of evidence to demonstrate falsity of the postulates . Objectively , the seven postulates hold true and are unarguable without evidence of the contrary . An axiom is something that is self evidently true, it is important we understand that things that are self evidently true, are true, regardless of the “truth” of propositions , theory or hypothesis .
It is universally important that we define simplistic axiom's in a simple understandable manner that clarifies the exact content that all readers of the information can easily relate to without misinterpretation of the information.

I propose the seven provided postulates are accurate and a true reflection of reality and observation , observation being our most valuable tool .

Let us now in brief detail discuss each postulate individually to clarify our understanding !

1) Space cannot be created or destroyed

It would be illogical to suggest that space , which has no physicality , can be created or destroyed ! There is no observed evidence to suggest anything other than the proposed postulate . Even after a nuclear bomb test , when the cloud settles , the observed space remains unaltered although there will be an increased radiation/energy levels , occupying that space .

2) Space is immovable

Bodies traverse through space and a bodies emitted spatial field moves with the body through space . The body moves relative to other bodies and all bodies move relative to space . Space itself being the relative stationary reference frame of fixed geometrical points . There is no evidence observational or otherwise to suggest that geometrical points of space can be displaced . Minkowski space-time , XYZt , is a four dimensional manifold coordinate system where the background is ''fixed '' and an objects coordinates are calculated by this . Einsteins four dimensional space-time and curvature is of field lines relative to the ''fixed'' reference frame of Minowski's space-time . However , in all scenarios , XYZt , is a finite metric visual measurement within a greater Newtonian absolute space .

3) Space is timeless and has no mechanism to age or decay

Observationally with our eyes we can observe the decay of things and the aging of things . However , we never observe with our eyes the aging or the decaying of the space . Neither can we measure the age or decay of space as the only property of space itself is spatial room . It is quite clear literally speaking , that space itself has no mechanism to age or decay .

4) Space is the unique property of a void

A void is empty space and the only property of a void is the space until some thing such as matter is placed within the void ''frame'' . I do not feel this postulate needs a greater explanation other than this .

5) Space has no mechanism to be visible light or visible dark

We only observe the visible light of objects but at times we can observe visible light when visible light is formed , such as a rainbow . Generally we do not observe visible light of / in the space between masses but we can detect it . The space itself has no mechanism to produce visible light and the space does not have enough magnitude of permeability to cause sufficient interaction with electromagnetic radiation to produce visible light .
Space neither has mechanism to be visible dark , darkness is of objects that are not illuminated and does not exist of the space . The space being relative transparent and clear to observation , passive to all matter .

6) Space is transparent

See postulate 5 .

7) Space has no physicality

There is no evidence to suggest that space itself has physicality , presence of bodily structure . Space is passive and this is seemingly evident . In the inflation of a balloon , the exterior space of the balloons surface , passes through the surface of the balloon , unimposing to become interior space . Similar we can move an upside down glass on a flat surface to the left or the right and the space passes through the glass , the movement displacing the interior air to a different position but not displacing the space .
There can be no doubt that space has no physicality and the demonstration and simple experiments of the balloon and the glass confirms this .

 

So much for Einstein, eh?

I mean, how could our understanding of physiscs possibly have progressed since Newton?

After all, every physicist since Newton was an idiot and all recent experiments are conspiracies among charlatans in searcch of research grants- right?