JohnSSM

Sure...lets try it once...Thats exactly what I would expect.. I dont think math is the only way to predict something...

I also predicted that space and time did not exist...Did you see that in my post? I find it interesting that while in forums, folks dont really address what is being said...SO much of my post is just ignored...but there are points all through it I was hoping to discuss...

I offer the money so that an expert would take the time to discuss things with me and not just send me links

I do agree and hopefully you can appreciate what I said about needing to think I terms of both GR and QM which cant be done yet...So this is all speculative again, isn't it?

Youll have to discuss it as you understand it. If you have the proof right there in those links, then it should be easy since you know it so well. When discussing matters that aren't speculative, Why would there be any discussion? We should just have forum posts full of links to answers and questions... I take lots of time to type and explain and think...I would rather have you send me private messages to a bunch of links...if everyone did the same, there would be no talking and I could just google the topic entries to find reading material... But im for more than reading material...I am here, at a forum, mostly for discussion... Don't be offended when I ignore those postings from now on...Im sorry, im not interested I those links right now...

This discussion cropped up 12 pages into a Speculative forum post, but I wanted to start a new thread here. What was there before the big bang, if anything? When you imagine the setting before the big bang, what do you typically imagine? An ultra small, ultra energetic point of nothingness? That's kinda what ive always imagined...Apparently, in this view, there is no space yet. If you see your tiny energetic point in a big open space, its ok, you cant really see something with no spatial values, but to think the "space around" that point is spacetime, would be a misconception...and also there is no mass yet, mass is really a factor of moving and there isn't any moving going on within a place with no space. But we do have energy...massless, non moving energy that occupies no space...There could be fields though...Since the nature of fields in much harder to imagine and most people don't consider them any different from space itself, which is not true...space would at least be a conglomeration of fields, but with no space, no mass and no motion those fields would have nothing to guide or dictate....but that doesn't mean the fields are not present just because space is not...or that's how I see it...I write from a perspective of truth, but these are only my thoughts and I know that...Although I do believe they are being guided by GR and QM...Im thinking in terms of them being unified, in a way...If you don't consider them both simultaneously, then you need to have a theory of what existed before the big bang in GR...and another for what existed in terms of QM...If ya cant mix em, ya cant mix em...but im kinda taking what I know about both...I don't know how you could when discussing such a topic... This point was brought on by another point...When describing the geometrical effects of GR on space-time, one might say, "The geometry of space-time (gravity) is dictated, in whole, by the relative motion and energy of mass, through properties belonging to the mass itself and other masses which are present" What "happens to" space-time is not a mechanism of space-time. Gravity isn't even "real", it's just a relative effect of all the vectors of mass-energy. Nothing is pulling you...energy is pointing you...and you don't even move, you just gain energy in a certain vector...that's all that needs to occur to curve space-time and create relative motion...the first thing that becomes obvious is that you cannot have straight lines in space...even with no other mass around you and no gravitational effects other than the ones produced by your own mass, you would still spin...but you don't really spin...youre just given a relative perception of spinning... Alas, the point becomes, does the presence of mass not only create the curves in space? does it also create space as it simply creates a vector from the existence of its energy?...and since that stuff doesn't sit still, it always has a vector...What's the point? It seems that you cannot have space without mass...if nothing is there, then there are no properties to create a geometrical model of anything...space doesn't sit there unfilled...its a relative perspective of GR and gravity...space is as unreal as motion...or, it seems to me, using what I understand about GR... As soon as space does exist, it gives those fields a chance to put their theoretical directives to use and they become fields in space-time...can there be fields without space-time?...seems possible to me since its just a...what is it? a set of guidelines for that which react with it? It doesn't have to exist in a reaction to exist...just like the geometry that guides GR...its just sitting there, ready to guide GR...we don't need anything to figure for GR...put in some mass and GR figures itself....maybe GR didn't even exist before the big bang...the rules could have formed after mass was finally created... Id really like the GR point of view on this...Im sticking to it the best I know. .

My theory suggests that massive geometrical collapse (or massive gravity) is what breaks the gloun field...and if I wanted to make it paralell to the rules of GR, I would have to claim gravity itself is the impetus of the gluon field... If Magnet (charge) is to EMF then Mass (gravity) is to Gluon field and I was not prepared to make that claim after understanding fields and their sources so I put foam theory on a low back burner... Yknow what...i was right in both claims...youre gonna have to think for a minute though...Do you know of a universe that doesnt have any mass? Of course not..now...envision a universe, with GR, without any mass...there is no space and there is no universe....So yes...mass does create space...but its been created for like 14 billion years now...now the mass that moves through space seems not to create it, but it was allready there...I hope youre getting this... I truly truly truly understand vectoring and tensor systems now...and I was right about motion...its just an energy level with vector...nothing moves...but it does curve spacetime was there any spatial volume before the big bang? The blank slate for a universe, would not be empty space any more than it would be a huge chuck of material with no space.... Actually...it was a huge chunk of material with no space...of course...the laws had not been turned on yet... If nothing is moving, there is no space...

If the gridlines are closer together near massive objects, its taking it as close as one can for black holes...and the closing of it becomes the event horizon...I thought it nice since it gives a really good explanation of why nothing can radiate from a black hole...not even light can pass a barrier where there is no spacetime to pass through...or so I claim within the bounds of foam theory I looked deeper into it today as well...The heat and magnetic fields...and youre almost right but you have seem to forgotten what I realized today... When you heat a magnet, add energy, the aligned magnetic properties fade away with the excitement of the bits...and heres the thing...that object is creating the magnetic field. Lets say you had a room that you could cut off from all outside EMF...and you bring a magnet into the room, the magnet is what creates the EMF in that room...its the 2 poles interacting with each other....you dont need two magnets to create an EMF...so if particle physics is at work, and you heat a magnet,you are right...but you do lose the field...Do you think magnetic fields are there before the presense of the magnet? Thats exaclty how I was seeing gravity...Believing that space time has its own impetus of existance...but it doesnt...space time geomtery in GR is definitely created by the masses themselves...which is to say the same thing about the empty room as deep empty space...there is no curvature until you bring a mass into deep space...I ope we agree on this or my undestanding is still off

Ill admit my theory is poop...as amazing as the 20 year journey of spending every toilet and driving moment with my thoughts in visions of bent foam and particles of light...as much as it has done for me as a person to apply myself to the very borders of my own conceptions with nothing but knowledge as the prize...feeling the unquenchable thirst that is NEEDING to know and understand and surrounding myself with people who know that PAIN...it has all been awesome...my life would have been a bore this far without these desires driving my thoughts... Ill find my next theory...realize the problems and revise them...or maybe Ill start searching for dark matter...to release this idea and notion feels ok now And as I end, Mordred finally stuns the crowd with an explanation in his own words that makes really good sense and I could relate to and understand...well said...LOL! I was begging you to do that many pages ago... Dont you ever go hidin your own expressions ever again, young man...for no reason! You are here to express...and you finally did it! Its akin to scientific intimacy issues and finally letting down your gaurd...thanks man

Strange, I dont know if you saw this in an earlier post, but Im gonna do the quick gloun gravity explanation again...really short and sweet as possible... Protons and neutrons need gluon field strength to support the quark interactions happening within them... So the gluon field, without the presense of any quarks or hadrons, is still there...its always there and permeates all of spacetime...it takes energy to always be there... Lets say I have some empty space time and I start filling it with matter...so, lots of protons, neutrons, other hadrons and quarks all need the energy of the gluon field to do their thing (QCD)... In my theory, there is a point where you can compress enough matter, filled with protons and neutrons, into that volume of spacetime and it does not have the gluon field energy to support all those reactions...it does take energy to compress the matter together that much...and now it will take more energy from the gluon field to support but, but the gluon energy from that volume of spacetime isnt enough... The gluon filed then has to use energy from a different volume of spacetime and it begins to use the energy from the gluon field that surrounds it...since it cannot take energy from the matter it is supporting, and the matter it is supporting is using all its energy, the gluon filed absorbs energy from the unused spacetime around it... This would create a "draw" of gluon field energy into the center of the mass from all the space surrounding it... How many more times will you make this statement? I know your perspective on this, I can assure you... The theory can act like a computer screen..When your graphics card is pushed to its limits and can no longer keep up, what happens? a lag is created...the screen slows down (time) and often you lose resolution too (space)...if your computer screen could shrink, in order to need less graphics coverage, that would also help...and if your computer was hooked to a network and could borrow processing power from other computers in the network when its demands were being tested (gravity) that would be very cool... So really, I was just trying to give a physical explanation for what drives the changing of the bahaviors of spacetime to account for the fact that the geomtery was being created... I do see Mordreds constant point...Ha...lets make a thoery called "Mordreds Constant Point" where he states over and over that spacetime needs only coodinates to exist...ha...kinda cute...maybe ill buy the URL I think his point really becomes that the geometry is created by the vectors and tensors of the particles that enter spacetime...they have motions and energies and the geometry created by THEM, is that which then effects THEM, is caused by THEIR influence...individually and as a group...vectors and tensors are awesome concepts... Which speaks so highly of our state as humans in this whole thing...and even speaks to determinism vs predeterminism... Ive been floating on air for the last two days...this forum has been the best thing for me since that last chic who was into BDSM...

I know it is not required for a model or theory...the universe where space time does exist however, it needs causes in order to have effects... They didnt add dark matter and energy to GR to satisfy it's "aesthetics"? It seems so... My gluons are not warts...ha....they just happen to be that which gives spacetime the impetus for the curvature of the thoeretical curves of GR....from theory to reality takes a few jumps

I know geometery doesnt require anything to exist, and to perform its functions in thoery...but, in this case, although it doesnt require it, does not mean its not there... We all need to get a government grant so we can sit around talking about gravity theory all day! and not have to work...ha My theory states the spacetime is a dimensional stacking of fields...each field has its own interactions...its just the gluon field that lends itself to compression,,, If you go read about the gluon field you will find that it is always present in spacetime...it is the only form of vacuum energy that we have ever detected...

Well, all im doing right now is trying to convince those that see EMF and spacetime as "nothing" to begin to see it as something...anything that would put it beyond the barriers of being truly "nothing"...Can nothing be molded? can nothing have its value set to zero? can nothing have properties that effect something? Getting people over the hump to see that spacetime is something is my first order of business...once it is something, i can start talking about how that some interacts and how it has energy... Lets say that spacetime is nothing...meaning that there is no spacetime at all...do these 2 statements mean the same thing? I think they do and have no conflicts. theres just one issue...there is spacetime...for those who say its nothing, they really have a major issue to deal with... To say that there is spacetime, but it is nothing, seems to ring of practical impossibility...

If we can clear the room of all EMF and EM charge, now lets clear that room of spacetime and mass...not too hard to get rid of all the mass, but i need to hear what we can use to rid ourselves of all the spacetime filling the room... I dont think of spacetime as fabric, just as I dont think of the EMF as fabric...I do consider that EMF is THERE or NOT....if something is there, and then can be taken away, it is something...Im not defining the nature of WHAT it is at this point, Only that it is something... I do understand that GR is classical model, which essentially means, it can all be figured with math and geometry, which do not need any THING to create their effects...But it does not stipulate that THINGS cannot be involved in creating the geometry... Aether describes a different thoery of spacetime proposed by some guy...Although my thoery does include a property of spacetime that equates into energy that is meant to replace the cosmo constant and free of us dark matter and dark energy, it is not akin to the aether directly... A photo has no mass...are you still calling it a particle? Gravity definitely works with photons...I can see that you are a particle fan...but I am a waveparticle fan... Since I have a new theory, not all the old definitions "work" for me...this has been an issue between us ever since this post began...I am here talking about new perspectives and your only response is to ask me to see it in terms of the old definitions...It does help me see GR better and better...but, youre not putting any real effort into seeing the topic through the perspective I offer...which would be the only purpose of exploring a new topic or perspective...

Yes...Its in a you tube video from one of his lectures... I will do my best to find and note the time, and send you the link through some means... He was referring to an experiment where light was hitting some sort of plate detector that signaled an audible blip...he said when the light was bright, the detector would make the sounds of white noise...but as you turned down the light until it was almost completely off, you would occasionally get a random blip...he inferred that the randomness of the blip as proof that light was a little packet,,,why would a wave arrive at random intervals? then makes a motion with his hands...and says "its a particle"... I shall go looking for the video Thanks to you too...I surely knew the troubles all this could cause and am really happy that folks are, from time to time, giving me consideration I may not deserve...and that is graciousness..and it creates warmth, if not heat To me, something must have a nature to have a property...Properties need to stick to some cause...the very purpose of any property is to direct the actions of that cause in some way...If spacetime is being used as a medium, Like the EMF, then to me, its real and has properties which define it...but, its not being used as a medium in the classic model and thats what I didnt understand at first...When you try to put gravity into the sense of having a communication medium, you either need the gravitron or space that just does what geomtery tells it without having any means of communicating it... Unless you adopt my thoery which gives spacetime itself a geometrical form before gravity even enters the picture...giving it an existance beyond gravity..and making it real... I have a question...Can we take a room and line it with lead or something and shield it from all outside EM influences to have a completely EM free environment? No EMF and no charges?

Dont make me do it...I have to...how can you make changes to something you claim isnt real, or doesnt exist? Is this question allowed? cuz I keep asking it...and I know there is no answer for it...but there it is... I can use frequency to refer to compression, or I can use momentum to refer to compression...compression is a model for anything that carries anything...I think my answer is...Yes...would describe whatever it is as compression...I even see motion as compression...miles per hour...increase the miles per hour and we call it accleration...I call in increased compressive motion....the same thing gravity does to us to get us moving...

Heres a thought experiment...You go back in time and talk to einstein when he's still thinking about men falling in elevators...GR was not created when he made equations...and I personally believed he envisioned them way before he started manipulating the existing equations...I would think he probably manipulated existing equations before he came up with what became his equations...So I would be in the elevator stage...and it doesnt make me wrong...or right...just unfounded and unproved...which is totaly understand to be illegitimate...but it is where I am...

Its more than a mental image at this point...thats only how it started...I know what youre saying though...Models in physics are described with equations and not constuctions...

"I don't think your characterization of black holes smashing space time out of existence is correct..." If you need to be harsher because "theres NO WAY my characterization of black holes smashing space time out of existance is correct"...Then do it, otherwise you leave me thinking that you arent for sure... If you want to...no pressure to be harsher...my point is...it didnt sound that solid and i wouldnt want you to spare me for my feelings sake... You cant decrease the strength of magnets by heating them? I thought it was possible...I might be thinking superconductivty with magnets and heat...

Feyman called photons corpusles...interesting word that essentially means "particle"...mass or not, that was his perspective... i never really agreed with him on that...his big argument was that a photon has a front and back...and it seems a wave can have a front and back... This answer is gonna open a can of worms... In my thoery, the compression of space-time is MOST at the surface, And it decreases as one moves away from the center of mass... But it is only compressed due to the lack of gluon energy...because of that, time runs slower and one dimension of space shrinks...The dimension in the vector of the gravitational compression...standing up on earth means you shrink from your head down...laying down on your back means you shrink from you chest down...time doesnt care how youre positioned...it just shrinks... Is it ok to speculate about the gluon field? cuz thats how it all gets unified in my thoery... Im pretty sure that GR folk see the space time at the edge of a blackhole to be strectched...or that is how their perspective has seemed to me... My theory explains back holes in the sense of smashing space time out of existance...like heat detroys EM fields...gravity can destory the spacetime field...andthe impetus is beinog compressed down to nothing...its easy to imagine foam that is so pressurized that it no longer has foam like qualities... The theory goes on to suggest that the energy in black holes no longer follows the four forces...because the four forces are created by the conflict between space time and what I like to call mass-energy...in the case of black holes, mass-energy has won and energy is free do whatever its possibilties now dictate...and without spacetime to "tame" its tendencies, it kinda just exists as a pool of lawless potential...but cant really interact with the energies that do exist within spacetime...one the other side of that horizon...where we are

I did make a prediction but Yes, youre right...thats a good point...I was thinking, what if general relativity does predict this also? If it did, i would be pretty excited that once again, my thoughts could align with results of equations without ever doing them...if general theory didnt predict them, then we might have a real test or something I could show was different than GR...in that perspective, I was fine with both outcomes...Is my description and occurence of worms holes the same as how GR predicts them? that would blow my mind... My questions are really simple and annoying...i dont think anyone wants to bother with them... You had some perspectives and made some points that ABJ did not...I wasnt even aware that I was mixing my GR and my QM...there were lots of small topics on the table at the same time...Your words had more impact on me...for whatever that is worth... I didnt even think of what being a "classical" theory meant...and then I remembered that there are no particles in GM and its all based on geometry only...but i truly didnt think to change my perspective of EM to not include QM...I dont often think of electromagnetism in "classical" terms...and waveforms still exist for me in QM...I never separated GR into waveforms and QM into particles...Ive always view any mention of a particle as a particle wave, and any mention of a waveform as a particle wave... One carries momentum and the other carries amplitude...i see them as kinda interchangeable...to me, the difference between a particle and a wave is just a model and a perspective...one has mass,the other has frequency...

I am willing to pay someone who is willing to let me ask them some questions about GR...kinda like a tutor...am I allowed to make such offers? If not, please forgive me...It will not be a discussion about my thoery at all...I just have some specific questions about GR... If fields require energy, how can they not be real things? this fake or "unreal" thing over here is using up my energy? This may get annoying to you...

My lack of formal education started combining QM and GR... But i cant say I know much about EM without photons...i always considered them inseparable... So what is light in classical E&M? By the way, I believe you suggested i develop a test or experiment for my theory which i found very daunting as you suggested it...but became very interesting as I tried and came up with one...Yuo can read the experiment on post #89...I Just mention it in passing cuz I do think you inspired that bit...if you get the time and inclination, your feedback would be great. Thanks for hinting me into using the rules to keep this post as clean as i could... IS the merger of GR and QM akin to unifying the four forces? It seems so, but i have to admit that its blurry to me...is the working model of quantum gravity, the gravitron, holding up unification? Is that the issue?

So mass is the mechanism and effects spacetime...as charge is the mechanism and effects the EMF... or does mass effect something else in gravity's case? The only other logical thing it could effect would be "other mass"...but what travels from one of the masses to inform the other mass that an effect is due? the gravitron...ugh..i dont like it! but without the graviitron, spacetime must become the communicative medium...it must have properties that allow for the transfer of information and if something has properties then it does exist and is not nothing...or couldnt seem to be nothing... So, do you adopt the gravitron as the absolute field tenser of gravity? Ive met lots of GR enthusiasts who say no to the gravitron...and they are GR enthusiasts... so the difference seems to be that everyone knows about the photon and its tensor field communications are like bedrock in physics...the gravitron is like the shunned step child...is that only my perspective?

Thanks for the read and the comments...yes...thank you! I know it takes energy to read someone else's words and truly consider them... Yes, Im running into some of the same walls with my own experiment at this point...But let me give an extreme example...the larger the scale i use, it makes the effect more drastic... Lets say we have a cluster of galaxies.. five of them, and just for easy's sake, we make them all roughly the same in mass... So our five galaxy clusters are all compressing the grids within them and surrounding them..even obeying the shell theorem that i just read...this next part is going to be very layman...im sorry... So you have the compressive energy from 5 different galaxies converging on an area of spacetime...Lets just say for easy's sake that from the 5 different gravitational fields, there is 30 percent of one, 25 percent another, 30, 40 and 10 percent left over..it suggests that the galaxy clusters are not spaced evenly from a common center...IF these fields converge and the compressive energy combines and adds together,youve got 135 percent of the compression in the middle of space where no mass exists at all...since the 5 masses could not all be coverging on the same axis, that would have to be taken into account and would lower the resulting energy below 100 percent...But you still may have 50 percent of the compressive force of gravity left over in a region of spacetime with no mass...So you take 50 percent of the gravitational force of just one of our five galaxies and it exists is a very small area of spacetime where the convergence happens...if your 5 galaxy clusters are in a star pattern on a flat axis and at equal distances, and you could travel perpendicular to that axis in the absolute place in space time where the convergence occurs, in this case, in the center of that star formation, i thoerize you could now use that energy to accelerate to very fast speeds... the speed of light? I dont know...at this point the theory only makes the claim that this effect would allow for powerless acceleration...giving your craft the same intense gravitational energy as half a galaxy...But you will only exwerience this effect with the correct vector...If you travel accros this zone and do not hit that vector, your craft will be tugged from all 5 directions...in the experiment, our craft does not hit that vector...so it flies from one galaxy to another...but as it travels through that space, the time/length dilation would exist...because spacetime is still additively compressed even though the effect cannot be detected by a change in acceleration...cause the gravity is still compressing back at different vectors...time doesnt have a vector... No...of course I heard that Einstein came up with curved space time...I came up with compression for a model as to how those curves are formed...You probably did not read the post where I describe that process but ill either find it or write it again...You know how many times Einstien mentions compression in his published theories or discussions? I didnt find any references to it...How much could my concept of compression have been on his mind? Then again, I thought it very obvious...you cannot curve things without changing their "internal" geomtery...if you want to curve something, it must be flexible...try to curve a zippo lighter...it dont bend so well...but the real truth is, it dont compress so well...because compression is the impetus of bending and not the other way around... He doesnt mention compresison and I dont mention whatever it is hes talking about because I dont get it...but we did end up with very similiar models...can you find another graphic that represents the geomtery like the 3d one you showed earlier? I sincerely want a collection of them...if you happen to come across another...I cannot find another...so it doesnt seem that common a notion...you can find the 2d bowling ball latex thing all over the place by googling "gravitational models of space" and looking at the images...theres like 500 of those... So....my mental picture did not come from mathematics brotha...i have no idea how to create that geometry with math...but i can do it with big blocks of foam and basketballs... Thats why I thought it so amazing when i saw that drawing...Ive actually searched craigslist a couple times when i went looking for a 3d cpu modelling expert to create the same thing...none of them would come meet me cuz they didnt understand what I was asking... I was like....imagine a big piece of memory foam with gridlines running through it in all 3 dimensions...now imagine i can slip a rubber membrane into the middle of the foam and magically pump it up....what we want to observe and model is the effect this has on the gridlines of the foam as it is forced away..which should be a spherical pattern of those grid boxes compressed near the edges of the rubber membrane, with the compressing easing as it gets back its natural shape travelling away from the center of the rubber membrane...none of them could understand...but that thought is how i got here... for the love of snoopy! you are too much...i wanna party with you...im sure youre a ballbsuter