AbnormallyHonest

Could you please tell me how the conclusions of quantum physics are proven... or could it just be a model based on conjecture of the statistical analysis of data from destroying stuff we can't discretely measure?

I would argue that this would mean the entire field of quantum physics is purely conjecture... there are some that might argue that point. I would say, that it's not the space "In-between" but rather, it exists everywhere, but we are only aware of it's potential to be larger than the quantum volume, which is really just fluctuation at the limit of measurement. Conjecture... only if you believe that the fractal expansion of space is not occurring or quantum fluctuation does not exist. I would say that the expansion of space validates quantum mechanics and quantum mechanics validates the fractal expansion of space.

Ok, if something in space is static, and you do not interact with it in anyway, does it experience a change? I guess a better way to describe it would be that on a scale small enough, quantum mechanics would mean that there is some fluctuation between where an object is actually located. that fluctuation represents a certain amount of space, so if it moves, you would have to statistically eliminate the margin of error in measurement, rendering the object must not be able to move in a linear fashion, at least from the perspective of measurement.

Excuse me, 3 constants is more appropriate.

I'm not referring to their shape, to the theoretical existence of, or the way we label the limit of physical measurement to the quantum scale. As I said to beecee, I only referenced the Planck Length because of its familiarity. The point of the topic seems to be on the expansion of space, which could be connected to this quantum limit. If the limit has a maximum value, but no minimum, and the space between these values has a minimum, but no maximum. Wouldn't the space, if starting at the smallest possible volume, statistically only have one way to evolve, considering the undefinable portion between this space is in a constant state of quantum fluctuation?

Yes, I understand that the Planck Length is actually just a minimum value for three separate equations to remain defined, and common denominator of sorts. I only use the term "Planck Length" as a familiar term or idea that most have at least a limited knowledge of. Really, I am referring to the smallest possible length of space that has coherence to our understanding of it. The limit before the quantum scale takes precedence.

There is evidence in that things move. In order to produce a change in position, you must apply energy to an object. The amount of energy required to produce a change does have a minimum amount, and that amount of energy is equivalent to the smallest possible length achieved in space. If there's no energy, there's no displacement, and if the movement has no discernible quantizable limit, then the smallest amount of energy to produce a change would would create a displacement that was immeasureable, and therefore not a change at all. Actually, I believe that as the length a the smallest possible measurement of space is inherently undefinable, then the shape and size of these volumes, and hence the space between them is undefinable as well, or basically not adhering to a set shape or size.

If there's a Planck Length, then wouldn't it stand to reason that there would also be a Planck Volume? Now, if space was composed of these Planck Volumes there would be small units of space between these tiny spheres of undefinable space. Little tetrahedrons of space. So if these volumes are actually not definable, then wouldn't the space between them also be undefinable? The difference being that the Planck Length has a maximum, but no minimum, and the space between has a minimum, but no maximum, so the space between would just continue to expand. Which part of this model do you think we exist in? The 3 dimensional, fractal expansion?

the stretching of space away from the observation, as viewed through only one dimension is always going to be recessive. It doesn't make sense to account for that recession to be calculated by volume unless the light traversed the space to the viewer in an indirect path through it. (This is pertaining to light emitted from the source if the singularity, not light fallin at an angle) In both cases the light originates from a point that is infinitely recessing away from the viewer with greater velocity with respect to the distance away from the perception. Any lateral differences from being stretched inward or outward would be irrelevant in a one dimensional view. Also, as a singularity, is it not theorized that space "curves" infinitely? Wouldn't that also be a change in volume? Also, in a finite amount of anything (such as space) wouldn't a change in volume also be directly related to density? As our view of local space seems to have have a different rate and amount of this expanded volume... does that not also effect the distribution of the density as well?

Sorry, I know this is an old thread, but this just came to mind... if "light has no issue with recessive velocity greater than c" then why can't light escape and event horizon? I mean, if the value is from an outside viewer's location and not the light beams current location and all?

Yes, the double slit, but the massive particles do not adhere to delayed choice. The path of massive particles remains undefined even if it's entangled photon is measured. I believe that space is not quantized, but I believe the separation of matter from space created a measurable digitization of it's movement through space. I believe it is the very thing that caused the separation of matter from space, because it caused the expansion of space, at least from the perspective of matter. (think think of an analogue vs digital translation for sound. Digital requires a DAC in order to translate the sound because the sound and signal were separated... or think of a cookie cutter, you can always make more cookies from the scraps in between) I don't think the Planck length is a real thing though, because within that narrow portion of space, things are uncertain, including length, so you cannot say for sure that within the length, that the length actually exists...but to matter that exists in space, it has to move to an adjacent place in space from where it currently exists, and it requires energy in order to get it over that hump, and that amount of energy would be the amount required to move it about a Planck Length. Also, gives time a continuity and is the quantum manifestation of existing in a finite Universe. The smaller than the Planck Length scales are also require their own type of temporal displacement in order to conceptualize. Math exists, the mathematics proves nothing other than my conceptualization is logical. There isn't much in this reality that we couldn't create some kind of algorithm for... It would be much easier to form some mathematical interpretation for this than say a Quintic Function, yet we still believe 5th degree polynomials can be factored. Also, I might add... Einstein said "If you can't explain it to a six year old, you don't understand it yourself." Don't know many six year olds that would make sense out of a Monster Moonshine, Hypergeometric Functions, or the Hausdorff Measure. Conception is really all we have, the math is just a way to articulate it in a way that will resonate with anyone who has studied math for six years or more. If the conception isn't more logical, then creating the math to explain it seems like a waste of energy.

Yes it does make sense, except the tidal bulge of the Earth's Ocean's pulling the Moon. I believe it causes traction which reduces the angular momentum, but I believe the mechanism to transfer that energy to the Moon has to do with the Moon's mean gravitational center being altered by oscillating between the Sun and Earth, creating torque that causes the Moon to "wobble" and that wobble is how it maintains it's resonant period. As it increases in altitude, the wobble will reduce and the angular momentum will take back over once it stops, but in a 1:1 or less than 1:1 ratio. (It would appear retrograde) I also believe that Moons are more prone to tidal locking because of their constant shifting of the mean gravitational center by oscillating between the Sun and parent planet to the outside of both, which creates torque that effects the angular momentum. It is the idea of mean gravitational center that causes me to reject the notion of the tidal bulge leading the moon and accelerating it. The only gravitational friction/traction would be from the Moon's unevenly distributed mass, otherwise the liquid water is exactly the thing that prevented the Earth from becoming tidally locked because the semi-diurnal and diurnal tides balance the gravitational center of the Earth preventing it from being gravitationally lopsided.

Another point to consider is that since we know there is a Planck Length, the movement of an object through space is more of a digital transposition rather than an linear analogue movement. Light however moves as a wave until it is perceived. The wave of energy woudln't necessarily subscribe to the quanta state of matter, but when it is realized as a particle, that particle does not adhere to the quanta of spacetime, it would exist as the wave, as a linear movement... lossless so to speak. It is the quanta that force chronological adherence of matter to exist in the space adjacent to the space it will exist in next. Light particles do not adhere to this, this is why they do not experience time, and this is why the Delayed Choice does seem to follow a logical continuity that we see with massive particles through space.

Question: So if we assume space is receding away from us dependent on how much space is between us, so what of the space between galaxies with respect to a lateral relationship. Does the space between them expand as well based on how far they are from us? I would think not that is why there are more of them included in the view the farther out we look. Basically, from a fixed displacement from us, the space between galaxies actually represent less expanded space from the space we exist in now. So doesn't it make sense to use that area to calculate the distance since we can see linear relationships that are not distorted, and that area is finite no matter how "red shifted" the light is. The apparent distance between galaxies does not change even if the light is shifted. The area represented by by a specific amount of "red shift" should more accurately infer it's actual distance because if they actually were moving away from us, the distances between the galaxies should also increase.

I would say that indifference curves wouldn't be required to navigate the traffic regulations, but they would be helpful in making decisions based on non regulatory conditions. For people of different geographical locations, their driving habits, observance of the law, or lack thereof, weather conditions, or unanticipated changes such as detours, construction zones, new roads, accidents, or emergency situations. I believe being able to learn adaptively would create a driving A.I. that was more perceptive of, not only their most commonly traveled routes, but also of the passengers that they may be chauffeuring. This could improve all experiences related to the A.I. as well as allowing the software to evolve over time, reducing the necessity of updating to keep current, or possibly even producing it's own updates that could be shared over a network that might be instituted for A.I.'s traversing differing driving locales.

Thank you, I had no idea this type of theory existed. Are you familiar with this j-invariance? https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/J-invariant Or rather it's inverse, https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hypergeometric_function In a 2 dimensional area, wouldn't it be illogical to represent the graph of the circle as (X^2)+(Y^2)= infinity then X and Y both equal infinity? In order for it to be defined, the values of both X and Y would have to be finite and the circumference would represent the potential points from that displacement if fixed from the origin? You would only require one linear measurement because we can assume that one coordinate can always be assumed as 0. So the displacement is the square root of the graph intersecting one of the axis, even if we cannot determine the linear distance from the origin (our perspective without parallax), you can alaways estimate the circumference from one perspective which would allow you to infer the displacement. (The number of points could be infinite, but could be estimated by the difference in two points by a factor of their degrees of separation. Objects of known linear size, like a similar galaxy would give us an angular diameter which could be used to measure a ratio of the angular diameter represented up close, to that of far. So the graph would be that ratio^2 giving us an idea of the size of circle in terms of local space, then the circumference could be calculated and the known distances represented by angular diameter could be substituted, and the radius known.) I would probably my use the distance represented by that angular diameter as extrapolated from the center of the earth the the linear measurement on the surface. That would give you the local space representation for the ratio since the earth is the most local spatial convergence that we are influenced by.

I'm not actually sure that there is any research done on the proposition of indifference curves for A.I. This was just a speculation of my own. I would speculate that the initial linear curve would need to be programmed in order for the experience to be acquired. Once an experience renders the curve as nonlinear, it will always have a preference, because it cannot be a 1 to 1 indifference... assuming that the initial experiences were not 1 to 1.

It seems to me that programming an artificial intelligence should be based on the economics of biological logic, indifference curves. For example, if a program were installed into an independently mobile machine that began with linear indifference curves, which is what you would expect from logic. What if those linear indifference curves could change based on intersections with other curves or from the statistical information of its individual experience. Say, there were a 1 to 1 relationship between how to react to a low power situation. The machine could either use its remaining power to find another power source or shut down conserving power and its basic functions until help arrived. For a machine that, in the past was closer to power sources, it would routinely make for the power because it was more advantageous, and for a machine that was typically too far to travel to a power source, it would typically wait for help. Those experiences would change their linear indifference curves based on their experiences. Now say both machines are placed in a situation that it is neither advantageous nor disadvantageous to travel or to shut down. Each machine would choose differently based on their experiences... they would have an opinion. They would both have individual perspectives based on the same programming, neither would be "wrong" but with enough areas of indifference that could intersect, the complexity of personality might become defineable. (Think R2-D2 and C-3P0 on Tatooine in Episode IV) Compared to a machine without adaptable indifference, which would probably neither shut down nor travel because it wouldn't be able to decide; which would be a less desirable trait, and therefore not selected to be programmed into other machines. How many curves and how much experience would be required before the program displayed a preference for preservation of self over a logical preference for cooperative behavior for the best chance of survival for any "version" of its program? At that point would we call it "self aware"?

Distance in terms of the Universe should be in its apparent area at a fixed displacement. Every point is its own center, but distance should be calculated by how many of those singular perspectives are potentially included by our view. When we look out we are seeing one point (from a straight on view from our perspective), who's distance should be a derivative of how many points historically are contained at that time when the Universe was more compact. (If we were to travel back in time, the potential points represented by the area of the sphere at that displacement, would've been contained within the space we exist in now.) Basically, we are just seeing the potential points contained in our point of space if space were as expanded as it is now. Or the area represented by a fixed displacement from us actually only represents one point in space. The distance should be derived from the area of a fixed displacement or potential of one point as seen from our current view of more expanded space. (When and where are actually just the size of spacetime, they are unified as well.) The volume represents our ability view across differing points (across the rate of change... acceleration). That is a derivative of the amount of time the Universe has existed (when=where=spacetime). Our spatial existence is actually just 1 dimensional but it's 1D^3 because We can view across the rate of change of the rate of change, but all views are 1 dimensional, a straight line from where we exist now.

A = 5 (billion light years) the original distance of the farthest objects. P= 48 (billion light years) the apparent distance of those objects today. t = 13.8 (billion years) the actual time it took for that light to reach us. r = the expansion rate of space, along an infinitely compounding schedule. (Time and diststances are synonymous because 1 l/y= 1 year Input data into an online investment calculator... Strange, if you increase the original distance and the apparent distance along the same schedule, it would take less time for it to be realized... so assuming that all the data we currently have is correct... Of course that is only a linear expansion, which is currently the only view we have. What would've originated at 6 billion light years away (approx. add ~7 billion years for the added 1 billion year distance derived from current distances we have measurements for) to an apparent distance of 55 billion light years, would've been viewable ~300,000,000 years ago. The problem is of course, that the rate cannot be constant since we cannot see the Universe as it is simultaneously from all distances. When we look further out we are seeing a time when the expansion rate was less, so the difference is actually a rate of change of the rate of change, a curve that would increase exponentially with respect to time as a cubic function. I would assume that is why we perceive this apparent acceleration, because we are viewing the expansion rate across its differing rates of change. The problem with the hotel anology is the same thing as saying in 2 dimensional space area is infinite, but adding a 3rd dimension creates infinite volume. Neither is less infinite but volume represents exponentially more points in space. The hotel paradox is like reducing infinite volume to only infinite area and then adding a finite z value to increase that infinity incrementally, but that is not observant of the potentially infinite volume you must dismiss in order to accommodate a reduced dimensional reasoning (or reduced potential by assuming infinite is contained on one end in a linear expression of it... to say it has a finite begininning, or can only have differing values in one direction). How reduced are your reasoning abilities? In a hotel with an infinite number of rooms, there is no "first" room, because the first room is exactly as far away from infinity as the very last room is, meaning there is no start and no end... it is infinite.

That would make sense. As an object moves away from us due to the transfer of momentum, once it moves far enough away from us that the asymmetrical center mass (the Moon's center mass being about 2 km from its actual center) becomes less influential than the angular momentum, the angular momentum would begin to absorb the linear acceleration so the period and the altitude would find equilibrium. Only that angular momentum would now be less than the orbital period giving the satellite an parent retrograde rotation. Perhaps not too different than the rotation vs revolution ratios we see of Mercury and Venus whom probably both were gravitationally locked at some point in their history.

What I mean is that if the Universe began with an infinite view, like there was no disparity in the distribution of matter and energy within space, that space itself was indiscernible from anything else. Once space began it's expansion, and there were points in space that began receding from one another at a rate that exceeded "c", it began to separate space from everything else. This is what allowed light to move freely. I would argue that objects with a recession greater than "c" are viewable, but only as red shifted light, because the light actually began its journey toward us when its recession was less than "c". We see those objects "stretched" to farther distances, but we do not see anything past that. I would reason that is because the points farther than those farthest objects were receding at rates greater than "c" and as time goes on, since we all agree that there is this expansion of space, that more and more points will have recessions greater than "c". This would mean that only light that began its way toward us before that inflection in recession will be viewable, so as there are less points that are able to emit light in our direction as time moves forward, so will our ability to see certain objects. The light we see from the objects receding at a rate that exceeds "c" that is leaving right now, at this moment will never reach us. As we can see the light that it emitted in the past and in the future we will not be able to see them, I would say that our view must be shrinking. How did that mathematical model formulate? Well, they had a theory that seemed to make sense to everybody, that light requires a certain amount of time to travel to us, so that must mean the more time the Universe exists the more we should be able to see=(Was Logical). Great, makes a lot of sense, only we started actually collecting data at it seemed things were a lot weirder than we had anticipated. There was this expansion going on, and red shifting and recession and all this stuff... so now we need to create a mathematical model: This data + That Data = (Was Logical) only wait, that doesn't work out? This data(incoherence) + That Data(illogical) = (Was Logical)... Ok, everyone agrees. I'm only suggesting that: This Data + That Data = (Is Logical) I feel it might reduce some of the "Huh?" Here, this might help. Yes, I understand the generally accepted model, but that link you provided of course will validate the conventional model, because it used the conventional model as the premise to apply the data. There is no data that what you're saying has any real hard data to back it up. Have we been seeing actual galaxies, from farther away start to appear? Unless you can show me that data, I would say your argument is no less speculative that mine, only my argument utilizes the same data and builds an model from the ground up that reduces a huge amount of paradox. The only argument that I can seem to generate is that I'm wrong because people have already designed an elaborate mathematical symphony in order to validate an idea that was accepted prior to the availability of the data we have now. Well at least its not sarcasm... No I don't believe I would be, because they've already given out those prizes for applying the same data to other speculative models. If you can give one piece of scientific, mathematical, or observational data, that is purely fact and not created from the assumption that "someday we might be able to see more stuff, but for now we're just going to assume that it's true" then I will cede the point. Remember we haven't actually seen anything move, we've only inferred from data that it looks like it has been in a state of movement, but none of that data has actually observed a change in view or things moving away from us. There is nothing that you could say to me that would make the accepted model less speculative than the one I present. In fact, I would say that my model is actually stronger because it doesn't require as many subordinate theories in order to backtrack the validation of the accepted model. The earth was the center of the solar system... how many convoluted models were constructed in order to explain retrograde motion of planets? One question, if the Universe is 13.8 billion years old, and the current model explains that our view of the Universe is expanding with respect to time, then why do we not see any light that originated 13.8 billion years ago? The light we see at the furthest out began it's journey to us around 5 billion years ago but took another 8.8 billion years to recede to 48 billion light years away. So from 5 billion years ago to 13.8 billion years ago, why have we not see anything else pop into view Because you are going to tell me that it took 13.8 billion years to reach us, even though it left from only 5 billion light years away, yet in your same argument you would say that recession would never stop the progression of light toward us. So you've slowed the progress of light by 8.8 billion years, from 5 billion light years away. The cumulative expansion of space actually reduced the speed of light, and you would still defend the idea that light from farther away will still eventually reach us... indefinitely? The problem here is everyone thinks that I do not understand the current model... and you are absolutely correct, and I believe it is the fact that you do which prevents you from understanding (see signature quote). *One more question to anyone that would answer, if the light from 5 billion light years away takes 13.8 billion years to reach us, that would mean that light from 6 billion light years away would take much longer to reach us and so on. Do you no see that at some point, since the amount of time to reach us increases exponentially in relation to the distance rather than directly proportionate that it would not always be progressive? At some point the amount of added time to reach us would be infinitely compounding. The amount of space being created would exceed the amount it could be reduced by the movement toward us? Have any of you ever calculated infinitely compounding interest?

I suppose that's why as soon as they collected all this data, all the pieces just seemed to fall in place just like a square peg in a square hole. No inconsistencies, no controversies, no misconceptions, no disagreements, and everyone couldn't be happier with the current model that all that data produced. I don't know how I could've missed that. Just because I didn't have any part in collecting the facts, doesn't mean I can't utilize them in exactly the same way as those that did. Winning the lottery doesn't make you a financial wizard, although it does give you capital in invest with. Just because I don't have any capital does not mean I wouldn't know a solid investment when I see one.

That article says nothing to me other than what we see doesn't really make sense, but some guys got together and finally agreed on an explanation that validates already accepted theories that were formulated before the information that we have today was available.

Yes that would be true for our current location, that all of the "stuff" pulls from every direction evenly which is why our local group is at stasis in relation to other celestial bodies within that group. The farther you displace yourself from this position, the more uneven the distribution of gravity because we see ourselves in a vicinity of space that has had more time to expand than that of matter in space that we see farther out. Since we see the Universe as a progressively "less expanded" state the farther out we look, than it would stand to reason that "stuff" would be closer together, creating a stronger gravitational accumulation. It is not actual, just apparent due to our view outward being directly proportionate to the age of the Universe from that displacement. The red shifted galaxies might also be in a state of current stasis, but their view of us would be just as red shifted as our view of them because they would be viewing us at a time long before the space we exist became so expanded, therefore producing an uneven distribution of gravitational accumulation that would be warping space away from their perspective and stretching the light. Or it could just be that the Universe is rotating about the most expanded portion of space... but that would be unfounded.