AbnormallyHonest

The two cars are divided, they aren't the same car. That's not what I meant though. If two points in space can both be the center of expansion, that means that their perspectives are independent of one another. Both points do not perceive the same center, therefore there has to be some way to quantize the division between when a point becomes two independent perspectives. As I just posted on another response, when does one perspective become two independent perspectives? There must be a way to quantize the separation.

I believe it is validated and able to make predictions, just as Newtonian Mechanics is able, yet Einstein came up with a more comprehensive conceptualization for the same thing. Now, with quantum physics, we do have a concept that seems to fit the data so far, just as relativity does for mechanics, but they do not fit together. So either one of them is incorrect, both or incorrect, or both are correct. Either way, just because I can convert temperature from Celsius to Fahrenheit and back, doesn't mean either of those scales are Universally true. The scale itself is just a conceptualization to quantify our experience of differences in energy. The experiment that is timed. Time quantifies change, and change is the transfer of energy. How much?... more than none. Again, I refer to the example of quintic function. I suppose 5th degree polynomials do not exist then, because it is not "true"? Space expands, this is universally agreed upon? Is it Metric or Fractal? I would see if the rate of inflation was constant. If not, I would place two objects in space who's magnetic repulsion was exactly proportionate to their gravitational attraction. If space expands intrinsically, as in a metric expansion the repulsion would hold the objects at equilibrium, they would not accrete, but gravity would hold them at equilibrium, but if the space expands between them, as in a fractal expansion, they should move apart.

So basically, there is no such thing as energy, and all change, is not just the transfer of this imaginary thing we call energy? That, in fact, this imaginary thing is not conserved, because there it is not required, because, as you say, it is a figment of my imagination? It's not really "between" but more like built into every part of space. As I said to strange, to say that there is no minimum amount would be the same thing as saying that you could introduce change without the transfer or conservation of energy.

Again, I only refer to the Planck Length because it is familiar, at least the idea that I'm talking about. Really, I'm referring the quanta of energy.

If you think of the fluctuation expanding inward, and the overlap is where space forms. The two metric expansions overlap and create a higher probability, but also cancel out the intrinsic expansion. This is space. The portions that do not overlap just continue to expand and overlap with other metric fluctuations forming more space, and the process just continues.

Exponential: Relating to a mathematical expression containing one or more exponents. ◇ Something is said to increase or decrease exponentially if its rate of change must be expressed using exponents. A graph of such a rate would appear not as a straight line, but as a curve that continually becomes steeper or shallower. Well apparently your command of the English language may not be as well versed as your mathematics... or perhaps its the other way around? Well, honestly it would be similar to saying there are an infinite number of rooms on the 1st floor, but there are an infinite number of floors with an infinite number of rooms. So instead placing people on the next floor, you move an infinite number of people down one room and just continue to fill in the first floor. You have to disregard not only the infinite number of floors, but also the infinite number of rooms on each floor in order to justify that diminished dimensional understanding of infinity. To say there is a first room? Infinity is every possible value. To limit yourself to one "set" of numbers is really just a metric expansion because those values will inherently adopt the smallest possible increment that can be achieved, because infinite is infinite. The separation of the values in any "set" of infinity is just as infinitely narrow as any other "set" of infinity. Your're just applying a transformation to the value system in order to create the idea that it is a "set". It's almost as if you don't understand infinity.

So we believe that gravity absolutely bends light? Could there not be another explaination? Below are some classic examples of gravitational lensing that we acknowledge as validating relativity. Further below is an example of a circular interference pattern. Is the light "bending" or could it be that the direct line of sight to the light is being blocked? Which one is less speculative? Looking through a magnifying "lens" the images never resemble the "lensing" effect in the photos.

If you had a rotating body generating large amounts of centrifugal inertia, but used electromagnets to balance the centripetal force, releasing isolated portions of that centripetal force in tangent to rotation, could that cause the angular momentum to be transformed to linear momentum? That displacement could accelerate mass off the ground.

Don't you see, that you are basing this on conjecture that spacetime is curved. I would say that spacetime is flat between the boundaries, but at the extremes curvature would apply, and that is why it is not as predictable. Einstein may have shown Newton's Laws of Motion to be incorrect or primitive, yet spacecraft to other worlds rely on one set of principles. Does it not make sense that Newton and Maxwell's version of spacetime both cohesively explain the same thing using the same model, doesn't that represent stronger validation than another as assumed to be "more accurate"? Even Einstein said, "It can scarcely be denied that the supreme goal of all theory is to make the irreducible basic elements as simple and as few as possible without having to surrender the adequate representation of a single datum of experience."

The only invalidation was the fact that this model relied on QM, so that was attacked. Then, the same QM was used to demonstrate predictability. GR may make successful predictions, but Maxwell's Equations for electromagnetism make the same predictions. So which one is correct? Is it 2+2=4 or 2x2=4?

2...2...4 Could you prove to me using mathematics what that progression, beyond a reasonable doubt, demonstrates?

Do you know what a porabola is? Do you know what the law of squares is? Do you know what maxima and minima are? Do you know what inverse relationships are? The expansion of space is a parabola, it has a minimum value, and once we reach that minimum, we must inverse the parabola to continue, only negative squares move in the same direction. So statistically speaking, if the graph represented the volume of space (every dimension being squared) statistically speaking, how would space evolve? The quantum fluctuation are the negative values, but space still moves the same way.

Newton's laws are a logical way to describe motion in space within the boundaries of our reality. Once we push the limits of that reality, things become more and more illogical, because we are pushing our perception outside the limits of reality, where our ideas of math and science or mathematics may not even apply in the same way. From beyond those limits, our reality would probably seem just as illogical and irrational if the perception were pushed the other way. Weight is really just concept based on a constant which really only exists at a mean distance from the gravitational center. It doesn't really have any basis in science that is useful unless you're trying to draw a comparison to how something might "feel" from our experience of it. The law of squares isn't just about gravity, it's actually quite logical. The surface of a sphere is the square of the change in radius. The equation is composed of all constants, the only variable is the radius, so however much you increase the radius is directly related to the area of its surface (inversely only depends on what you're trying to describe, if it's energy or gravity, it would diffuse that concentration, but if it's area, it would be larger).

It does, because it predicts "Red Shift" and the bending of light. These have to do with the warping of spacetime. Einstein's model of the universe creates a fluid dynamic existence of spacetime that exists differently at different locations. Time does not flow the same for everyone. The Universe may be much younger to differing perspective or much older even. If we have two perspectives in space, that do not exist within the same gravitational system, and both those locations prove to be the center of that perspective, that's pretty clear validation. Space expands from every point, it can't do that without division.

Quantum mechanics gives extremely reliable results because the entire field is based on the results. God doesn't play dice with the universe, we do.

Because changing the state of existence would be the transfer of information. We can only measure its properties by "shaking" them gently as not to disturb their entanglement, but then we have use the old fashioned light speed to cross check these measurements to demonstrate that the entanglement still persists.

So I suppose that 5th degree polynomials do not exist, unless you've figured out quintic function. Also, Einstein once said that if you can't explain it to a 12 year old, the problem isn't with the 12 year old. I would say, that if this makes sense to a 12 year old, but not to bunch of mathematical geniuses, the problem is not with the 12 year old. What's the point of demonstrating it logically with math if the logic of the concept is rejected. It would seem like trying to find the pot of gold at the end of a rainbow.

I agree.

Did it exist before or after humans came up with a concept of how to describe it?

No, its actually conjecture, and it is based on the data that was available to the people of the time that the idea of God was recorded. Science believes mathematics is God, wouldn't you say? So what if one day, we find that our interpretation of mathematics is as limiting in our understanding as our vision is into understanding the electromagnetic spectrum. It would seem logical that within the boundaries of our reality, at the extremes, things become very chaotic and irrational, because we try to explain them in terms that exist within that boundary. It's like trying to explain that you believe light exists outside of what we see, but without the underlying mechanism of waveform and frequency. Mathematics just may be our interpretation of the "color" of the Universe.

I agree with this as well. I also believe that delayed choice would demonstrate that spatial continuity takes precedence over chronological continuity, if you could prove that the information is actually transferred retroactively. Time dilation would cause the light's perspective to fall out of the passage of time. The entire existence of light is only one moment, and only one place in space. It is energy inseparable from space. The information is not "retroactive" it is on simultaneous throughout the entire displacement. The same I believe is true for quantum entanglement. The two particles are just simultaneous, unified so to speak. The distance that they separate does not happen at a rate that exceeds our interpretation of light speed, and if it were it would most probably break the entanglement. The entanglement never displaces faster than light, but as they are entangled, their existence is simultaneous... this does not violate Relativity.

Yes, but I've have never heard anything that addresses the mechanism to that expansion and connects it to quantum mechanics.

Math demonstrates that the "Data" can be explained in a logical way. I could prove that free fall would adhere to a different set of principles, or differing constants, and it would be just as logical, but it wouldn't match the "Data". The data is a concept, because we cannot experience Ultraviolet light, but we can design instruments to measure it, in a way that we understand it's relationship to the light we can see. We can even translate the data and display it within the range of color we see. But it's existence is purely a concept to us because we cannot "see" it.

Well, I would predict that quantum fluctuation would cause the fractal expansion of space... and does space expand? Not only that, but if you believe that our perception of space is in fact expanding as a three dimensional fractal, and you believe in Einstein's General Relativity, then you would have to logically have to believe in quantization of space. Think of a bed sheet, if spacetime is really fluid, try to spread a bed sheet evenly from the center of a bed. You run into some issues like bunching or overlapping that make it difficult to apply this type of model to fractal expansion. Now if you divide space up between the fluctuation, statistically, the fluctuation would cause space to evolve in one direction. That space that is growing in our perception of it, would also have that quantum fluctuation built into it. Therefore, not all space needs to expand at the same rate, but fractal expansion is still possible.

Thank you, this is similar to my understanding of it. Our entire reality is just a concept of our input mechanisms. Colors don't exist, they are just a conceptual model our mind creates to differentiate differing frequencies of light. Furthermore, the range of visible light is such a small portion of the entire spectrum and yet people still subscribe to the notion that "seeing is believing" as if vision or the ability to see creates a comprehensive model of the entire Universe. Any concept can be proven, if that concept is based on the data, the math is just a way to demonstrate that a concept is logical. The truth being that the data is a concept as well, an analogy created for an experience of the Universe that we are incapable of ourselves. The topic of this discussion is the Expansion of Space, and I have yet to hear anything addressing that topic. The differing opinions on quantum fluctuation are a metaphor for its existence.