jedaisoul

I have not rejected the law of cause and effect. I've stated that there was no cause, therefore the universe coming into existence was not an effect. I have said that this is the most logical conclusion. That does not make it the only conclusion you could draw. You could conclude that a man in a monkey suit created the universe. That is a possible explanation. I just don't think it very likely. Why? If there is nothing then there is nothing to act as a cause, and nothing for it to have an effect on! Hence no cause and effect. They don't exist. They are mental abstractions that describe the behaviour of this universe. If something never started existing, it would not exist.

That depends on what you mean by "forever". This is the same as saying that something has "always" existed. See below... That is an assumption. I have shown that the most logical conclusion is that the universe did not have a cause. I do not reject the possibility of an explanation. I merely suggest that the most logical conclusion is that there is no explanation. No, cause and effect and the laws of conservation are descriptions of the way the universe behaves. Without a universe there is no reason to presume such behaviour. This depends on what you mean by "always" or "forever". Do you conceive time to be an abstract idea or part of the spacetime continuum? a) If the former, then there is no limit to time, but only because it does not exist. Therefore "always" or "forever" are nothing more than an abstract ideas. b) If the latter, then time came into existence with the universe.

Thanks for any comments. I would paraphrase your logic as: a) If there was a reason why the universe came into existence, then there has to be a cause. If there is a cause, then that implies that there is a causer. Therefore there cannot have been "nothing" before the universe came into existence. Note: The term "causer" is used in the widest sense as "something or someone who caused it to happen". It not intended to imply necessarily that the "causer" was an intelligent being. Phrasing the logic in that manner reveals that there is an alternative interpretation: b) There is no reason why the universe came into existence. It just did. If that is true, then there could have been nothing before the universe came into existence. Now, the suggestion that the universe just came into existence because it did may not seem very satisfactory. But the alternative is, arguably, worse. Assuming the intervention of a "causer" simply begets the question: "what existed before the 'causer' came into existence?". This is just a rephrasing of the well known question "if God created the universe, who created God?". Anyway, I hope I've shown that it is possible that the was nothing before the universe came into existence. Indeed if you extend the term "universe" to include its "causer", and the causer's "causer" etc..., I would suggest that the only logical answer is that there was nothing before the universe came into existence. Hence there was no reason, or cause, why it happened. It just did.

I think this is a misrepresentation. My understanding of the big bang theory is that it does not define what existed before the big bang as being "nothing". Indeed, it does not define it at all. It's undefined and unknowable in the context of that theory, which is very different from being defined as being nothing. Some proponents of the big bang theory may speculate that there was nothing before the big bang, but that is a very different thing from saying that is what the theory predicts.

The statement "Therefore it must be a mistake..." does not follow from "Authority is something that we give more of (in observational terms) to a group than any individual". Why does that make it a mistake? Furthermore why must it be a mistake? Calling the alternative a mistake assumes that the former is somehow the "correct" choice. But even if the statement "Authority is something that we give more of (in observational terms) to a group than any individual" is true, it does not follow that we are in any sense "correct" to do so. That has not been shown. So Fred's assertion makes as much sense as "most people dislike sushi, therefore it is a mistake to eat raw fish". It may happen to be true, but there is little logical or causal connection. The reasons for not eating raw fish have little to do with the preference (or otherwise) for eating sushi.

Thank you for clarifying. I had no intention to mis-quote you.

Hi Atheist, Perhaps insane_alien can asist with the mathematics. I'm pimarily interested in the conceptual framework that underlies GR, and whether it corresponds to reality. As I've said, the question is not relevant to my scenario.

Hi Atheist, Please see the comments by insane_alien. He has correctly pointed out that jumping around in time (in the manner of my example) is not supported by GR. I have acknowledged that and apologised. It is a bad example. However, I still maintain that general co-variance, which is fundamental to GR, conceptually allows the freedom of movement forwards and backwards through time. So, in my example, if you assume that the subject is accelerating forwards and backwards in time (rather than making instantaneous movements to and from different times) you arrive at the same conclusion that, in principle, this requires the same atoms and molecules to be in two (or more) places at the same time. This does not arise with movement in space, so movement in space and time are not equivalent. The film “The Time Machine”, which is based on a book by H. G. Wells, uses this form of time travel. However, I should stress that insane_alien interprets time travel (according to GR) differently. He says that GR only allows you to travel forwards in time at different rates. It is this form of time travel that he refers to. Anyway, the question of time travel is incidental to this thread, because my scenario, based on Newtonian Relativity, does not allow any form of time travel. What is does allow is for different passages of time to appear to arise when viewing distant objects. I hope that helps…

I'm glad that we agree that it is not possible to go back in time. That would violate causality, as your actions in the past would be predicated on actions that were yet to happen (and may not happen). My problem is not with the modern application of GR, it's with the conceptual framework. As I understand it, and as I've quoted it, general co-variance is fundamental to GR, and it conceptually includes the ability to move as freely in time as we can in space. So although we agree that this is not possible in practice, to me, a conceptual framework that is based on the feasibility of time travel (in that sense) is not a description of reality. Simply agreeing that it cannot happen in practice does not fix the conceptual framework that, in principle, allows it. The conceptual framework of GR does not match reality in this respect. I would stress that this has little or no bearing on the practical application of GR. What I'm saying is that we need to be aware of the limitations of GR as a description of reality. That is why I feel that there is room for the discussion of other speculative models. And that is what I'd rather be doing. This is really just a diversion from the purpose of this thread, to discuss a speculative framework for cosmology that takes Newtonian relativity (with it's acknowledged limitations) and gives it a novel twist. I hope that this clarifies my intentions, and the purpose of this thread.

I would not consider Einstein’s 1916 paper to be a “popularised view”. Einstein said “all imaginable systems of co-ordinates”, and I take it that he meant precisely that. All imaginable systems of co-ordinates in a Minkowski spacetime continuum explicitly includes travel in time. Now it may not include jumping around in time, and I'd apologise for using that as an example. But it does include the freedom to move forwards and backwards through time in the manner of H G Wells' time machine. Now that (as we seem to agree) is silly. You may prefer to disown it, but Einstein defined general co-variance and that is what he said it meant.

Hi foodchain. The primary purpose of the time stamps is to provide a consistent way of labelling signals to distinguish them. This makes the point that when the girls are adjacent, they receive different signals from the remote transmitter. Exactly what those signals mean is a secondary consideration. However, as this is a Newtonian environment (in which there is no actual time dilation nor spatial contraction), I think that it is perfectly legitimate to use the time stamps to relate back to when the signals were transmitted, and where the girls were at that time. Of course, that is not so if you posit a different scenario. Sorry, I don’t understand how this is relevant to my scenario. Where did I say that? The idea that all macro objects are interrelated and interact is consistent with the conclusion that space does not actually exist, and that distances are merely relationships between objects. I’m not sure what point you were making. All I can say is that mathematics is a two edged sword; it is reality neutral. I’d rephrase the question as “…for any thought experiment you do, do you validate the reality of knowledge which you work with? I.e. Is it in line with how nature actually operates?” My apologies if I’ve misrepresented your question, but if this is what you meant, I would agree that it is a very important question. Unfortunately, it is the most difficult thing to do in practice. I try to be aware of the assumptions I’m making, and to ensure that my conclusions follow logically from those assumptions. I also try to make sure that those assumptions (e.g. causality) accord with reality. However, whether my conclusions correspond to reality is another question. I’ve already admitted that it is not, at present, provable. My thanks for your input. Hi Atheist. Sorry if I’m “teaching grandmothers to suck eggs”, but the reference to time travel is relevant because General Relativity is partially based on Minkowski’s idea that time is just one of the four dimensions of spacetime. Thus “all imaginable systems of coordinates” includes those which may be in arbitrary motion in the time dimension. This unavoidably requires time travel to be theoretically possible (even if it is not feasible). For an example of what I mean by time travel, please see the reply to insane_alien. I think this is a good example because I have avoided the obvious paradoxes of time travel (killing your own grandmother etc…) and focussed instead on the conclusion that time travel unavoidably implies that the same molecules and atoms can be in two (or more) places at the same time. Travel in the spatial dimensions does not require this. Thus time travel is not equivalent to spatial travel. You can equate them mathematically, but IMHO to suggest that has any relevance to reality is specious. I hope this helps…

Hi IA, Well thanks for bothering to read the OP, and for your forthright opinions. I agree that this is, at present, entirely useless for any real application for cosmology. That is why I put it in the "speculative" section rather than the "physics" section (knowing that it would be moved anyway!). What is the purpose of having a "speculative" section of the site if it is not to speculate on things which are currently un-provable? Anyway, I’m glad that you found it mildly interesting. I thought that the idea of reversing the conceptual relationship “where you are determines when you see things” is a real corker. A genuine piece of original thinking. But then, I’m biased. Well so does Einsteinian Relativity, it just fails to describe the real universe in a different way. This is because General Relativity is based on the presumption that time travel is possible. That’s just silly. And if you are going to say “oh no it isn’t (based on that presumption)” let me quote from Einstein’s 1916 paper, where he defined general co-variance: “So there is nothing for it but to regard all imaginable systems of co-ordinates, on principle, as equally suitable for the description of nature”. I.e. As Einstein was talking in the context of a Minkowski spacetime continuum, general co-variance, the cornerstone of GR, is based on the assumption that time travel is possible (albeit it may not be feasible). On the other hand, if you are going to say “oh no it isn’t (silly)”, just consider the following: The concept of time travel inherently involves atoms and molecules being in two places at the same time and/or not being in any place at another time. Example: Lets assume that I have a bowl, an apple and a time machine... a) At time 1, I place the apple in the bowl. A "second" me appears and places a "second" apple in the bowl. So there are two apples in the bowl. b) At time 2, I pick up the first apple from the bowl and walk away from the table. The "second" me travels to time 5. The "second" apple remains in the bowl. c) At time 3, I travel back in time to time 1 with the apple in my hand, becoming the "second" me at time 1. d) At time 4, Neither I nor the "original" apple are there. Only the "second" apple remains in the bowl. e) At time 5, The "second" me returns. So there's only one apple and only one me again. You can describe my, the apple's, and the bowl's behaviour in three different world lines, but does that make it credible? The molecules and atoms that exist at different places in space are different entities. But the molecules and atoms that exist at different times are (mostly) the same entities. That is a huge difference, and GR fails to make that distinction. Are you really telling me that GR corresponds to reality? I think that, despite the many achievements of Einsteinian relativity, there is a desperate need to re-assess cosmology. That includes considering ideas that are, at present, un-provable. Also, although simultaneity-time is un-provable, it can, in theory, be disproved. If you (or anyone) can find a logical flaw in the scenario I propose, that would disprove it. Anyway, thanks again for reading the OP and for offering your opinions.

Synopsis A thought experiment is used to investigate the effects of the invariance of the velocity of light in a Newtonian environment. This reveals an apparent inconsistency, in that two observers can receive different time signals from a distant transmitter, even though they are adjacent at that moment. The inconsistency is resolved by adopting a novel conceptual framework, a simultaneity-time continuum, in which the physical relationships between macroscopic objects remain Newtonian but the observed relationships can, and will, differ. Introduction Galilean Invariance (which is also referred to as Newtonian Relativity) is a form of relativity that was originated by Galileo. In this scenario: The relationships between frames of reference is defined by the Galilean Transformation (as opposed to the Lorentz Transformation of Special Relativity). There is no time dilation nor spatial contraction. The existence of a physical space in which material objects exist is presumed. I would direct anyone who is not familiar with this form of relativity to Wikipedia, which contains an article called “Galilean Invariance”. Special Relativity is regarded as a more accurate description of the behaviour of objects moving at near-light velocities, but Newtonian Relativity is sufficiently accurate for most practical purposes, and is easier to use. However, Newtonian Relativity pre-dated the discovery that the velocity of light is unaffected by the relative motion of the source and receiver. I therefore decided to use a thought experiment to examine the effects the invariance of the velocity of light would have in a Newtonian environment. I.e. if you do not introduce the concepts of time dilation and spatial contraction of Special Relativity. A Thought Experiment on Newtonian Relativity In a region of space far away from other material objects there is a radio transmitter and two girls, Alice and Betty. The transmitter emits four time signals per second. Each girl has a device capable of displaying the time signals as they are received. At 10:00:00am the transmitter sends the time “10:00:00.00”. Alice and Betty have synchronised clocks co-located with them, but as there is no time dilation in this scenario, they always indicate the same time as the transmitter. Alice is at rest with respect to the transmitter and 4 light seconds distant from it. So the time displayed on her device is always 4 seconds behind the actual time (as displayed on her clock). I.e. At 10:00:00 her device displays “09:59:56.00”. At 10:00:04 her device will display “10:00:00.00”, at 10:00:05 it will display “10:00:01.00”, and so on… 10:00:00.00_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _<-Betty Transmitter_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _Alice "09:59:56.00" 0_ _ _ _ _1_ _ _ _ _2_ _ _ _ _3_ _ _ _ _4_ _ _ _ _5 l sec At 10:00:00 Betty is 5 light seconds distant from the transmitter and approaching it at 0.2c. So in 5 seconds time (at 10:00:05) she will have travelled 1 light second and be adjacent to Alice. You might therefore expect that at 10:00:05 she too would receive the time signal “10:00:01.00”. However, Betty's observations require a little more thought. In her rest frame of reference, she is stationary and the transmitter is approaching her at 0.2c. At 10:00:00, when it is 5 light seconds distant from her, the transmitter emits the time signal "10:00:00.00" and continues on its way. The time signal approaches her at the velocity of light, so Betty will receive the time signal “10:00:00.00” at 10:00:05. 10:00:05.00_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _<-Betty "10:00:00.00" Transmitter_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _Alice "10:00:01.00" 0_ _ _ _ _1_ _ _ _ _2_ _ _ _ _3_ _ _ _ _4_ _ _ _ _5 l sec So at 10:00:05, even though they are adjacent, Alice (stationary in the frame of reference of the transmitter) receives the time signal "10:00:01.00" and Betty (stationary in her own rest frame) receives the time signal "10:00:00.00". Furthermore, Betty, will see Alice’s device displaying “10:00:01.00”, and Alice will see Betty’s device displaying “10:00:00.00”. Also, as five seconds have passed since the time signal “10:00:00.00” was transmitted, both their clocks will display “10:00:05.00”. So there is no discrepancy in how much time has actually passed for Alice and Betty (as indicated by their clocks), but the time signals received on adjacent devices from a distant transmitter are out of sync. At this point you may be thinking “that cannot be”. If we imagine light as a particle or wave travelling through space, then when the girls are adjacent, they should receive the same time signal. We will come back to that. For the moment, we will re-run the experiment, starting again at 10:00:00. This time, moments before they are adjacent, both girls step sideways such that at 10:00:05 each is at the exact position occupied by the other in the first experiment. 10:00:05.00_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _Alice "10:00:01.00" Transmitter_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _<-Betty "10:00:00.00" 0_ _ _ _ _1_ _ _ _ _2_ _ _ _ _3_ _ _ _ _4_ _ _ _ _5 l sec The small transverse movements should have no effect on when the girls receive the time signals, so Alice’s device will still show “10:00:01” whilst Betty’s will show “10:00:00”. The girls are at the exact positions occupied by each other in the first run, yet each still receives the time signals according to their own relationship to the transmitter. Also, if we assume that the girls could see the transmitter, at 10:00:05 Alice would see it as being 4 light seconds distant, whilst Betty would see it as being 5 light seconds distant. Is there an actual difference in the distance? No. The girls see the transmitter as being at different distances because they are seeing it where it was (with respect to themselves) when the light that each receives was emitted. So even though the actual physical relationships are unaffected, the apparent relationships to a distant object can, and will, differ. We can describe this effect more fully by using a sequence of “snapshots”. For brevity, I will refer to Alice, Betty and the Transmitter as A, B and T. The actual time at which each “snapshot” is taken is shown on the left. This matches the time signal emitted by the transmitter at that moment, and the times displayed on Alice and Betty’s clocks. For clarity, Betty’s distance from the transmitter is given in brackets after the time. The time displayed on the receiving devices is shown in quotes against the respective observer. If at 10:00:00.00 Betty was 5 light seconds distant from the transmitter, then 1.25 seconds earlier (at 09:59:58.75) she was 1.25 x 0.2 light seconds further away. I.e. 5.25 light seconds distant. Therefore she will receive the time signal “09:59:58.75” 5.25 seconds later, at 10:00:04. At that time (10:00:04) she is 5.25 x 0.2 light seconds nearer than at 09:59:58.75, ie. 5.25 - 1.05 = 4.2 light seconds distant from the transmitter. Whereas, at 10:00:04, Alice receives the time signal “10:00:00.00” and remains 4 light seconds distant from the transmitter. 10:00:04.00 (4.2)_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _<-B "09:59:58.75" T_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _A "10:00:00.00" 0_ _ _ _ _1_ _ _ _ _2_ _ _ _ _3_ _ _ _ _4_ _ _ _ _5 l sec Using this logic, we can work back to the time signal that Betty received at 10:00:00 when she was 5.0 light seconds distant. However, there is an easier way to work out the steps. Alice receives 4 time signals per second, because that is the frequency they are emitted at and she is stationary with respect to the transmitter. However, Betty, because of her relative velocity, receives 5 time signals per second. Also Betty moves 0.2 light seconds nearer the transmitter. This is a linear relationship, So we can work back second by second deducting 1 second from the time displayed by Alice’s device, and 1.25 seconds from the time displayed on Betty’s device, and adding 0.2 light seconds to her distance. Thus we determine that at 10:00:00 Betty’s device displayed “09:59:53.75” when she was 5 light seconds distant from the transmitter. The complete sequence is: 10:00:00.00 (5.0)_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _<-B "09:59:53.75" T_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _A "09:59:56.00" 0_ _ _ _ _1_ _ _ _ _2_ _ _ _ _3_ _ _ _ _4_ _ _ _ _5 l sec 10:00:01.00 (4.8)_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _<-B "09:59:55.00" T_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _A "09:59:57.00" 0_ _ _ _ _1_ _ _ _ _2_ _ _ _ _3_ _ _ _ _4_ _ _ _ _5 l sec 10:00:02.00 (4.6)_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _<-B "09:59:56.25" T_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _A "09:59:58.00" 0_ _ _ _ _1_ _ _ _ _2_ _ _ _ _3_ _ _ _ _4_ _ _ _ _5 l sec 10:00:03.00 (4.4)_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _<-B "09:59:57.50" T_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _A "09:59:59.00" 0_ _ _ _ _1_ _ _ _ _2_ _ _ _ _3_ _ _ _ _4_ _ _ _ _5 l sec 10:00:04.00 (4.2)_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _<-B "09:59:58.75" T_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _A "10:00:00.00" 0_ _ _ _ _1_ _ _ _ _2_ _ _ _ _3_ _ _ _ _4_ _ _ _ _5 l sec 10:00:05.00 (4.0)_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _<-B "10:00:00.00" T_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _A "10:00:01.00" 0_ _ _ _ _1_ _ _ _ _2_ _ _ _ _3_ _ _ _ _4_ _ _ _ _5 l sec Similarly, we can project forwards by adding 1 second to Alice‘s display, 1.25 seconds to Betty‘s display, and deducting 0.2 light seconds from Betty’s distance from the transmitter. Thus at 10:00:09 both devices display “10:00:05.00” (the time when the girls were adjacent): 10:00:06.00 (3.8)_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _<-B "10:00:01.25" T_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _A "10:00:02.00" 0_ _ _ _ _1_ _ _ _ _2_ _ _ _ _3_ _ _ _ _4_ _ _ _ _5 l sec 10:00:07.00 (3.6)_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _<-B "10:00:02.50" T_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _A "10:00:03.00" 0_ _ _ _ _1_ _ _ _ _2_ _ _ _ _3_ _ _ _ _4_ _ _ _ _5 l sec 10:00:08.00 (3.4)_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _<-B "10:00:03.75" T_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _A "10:00:04.00" 0_ _ _ _ _1_ _ _ _ _2_ _ _ _ _3_ _ _ _ _4_ _ _ _ _5 l sec 10:00:09.00 (3.2)_ _ _ _ _ _ _<-B "10:00:05.00" T_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _A "10:00:05.00" 0_ _ _ _ _1_ _ _ _ _2_ _ _ _ _3_ _ _ _ _4_ _ _ _ _5 l sec Similarly, at 10:00:25 Betty arrives at the transmitter, and her device (not surprisingly) shows “10:00:25.00”. Betty’s device shows “10:00:21.00”. 10:00:25.00 (0.0) B "10:00:25.00" T_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _A "10:00:21.00" 0_ _ _ _ _1_ _ _ _ _2_ _ _ _ _3_ _ _ _ _4_ _ _ _ _5 l sec We have followed Betty’s progress over a 25 second period. The timings of her receipt of the time signals follow a consistent pattern. The only apparent illogicality is that, when the girls are adjacent, they receive different time signals. If this is correct, then we can draw an important conclusion from these results: As was mentioned earlier, if space were a physical entity, these results could not arise. Light would travel at a fixed velocity with respect to space, and when the girls were adjacent they would receive the same time signal. This suggest that, in this scenario, space does not exist as a physical entity, at least, so far as light is concerned. Yet it is fundamental to Newtonian mechanics that material objects behave as if space exists physically. We will deal with this apparent contradiction in the next section… Note: You may have noticed that the Doppler effect has not been mentioned. Because of her relative velocity, Betty will see the time signals as being Doppler shifted. However, that does not affect the times encoded in the signals, nor when they will be received. Therefore, the Doppler effect can be ignored for these purposes. A Simultaneity-Time Framework for Cosmology The problem identified with the invariance of the velocity of light in a Newtonian scenario is that two observers can receive different time signals from a distant transmitter, even though they are adjacent at that moment. Furthermore, when the experiment is re-run and the observers swap places, they still receive the time signals related to their own relationship to the transmitter. If you regard space as a physical entity, and light as particles or waves travelling through that space, then this is impossible. It simply could not happen. So how do we resolve this? Well, if material objects behave as if space exists as a physical entity, but light behaves as if it isn’t, then it’s as if there are two different universes that interact and affect one another. I say as if because I do not mean to imply that this is actually the case. Merely that the universe appears to be different to different types of entities. Hence the nature of the actual universe (according to this scenario) must support both views. I would also add as axioms that: The universe obeys causality. The past, present and future do not co-exist. Time is not a dimension, at least, not in the same sense that the spatial ones are. Note: Every scientific model of the universe (that I am aware of) treats time as a dimension. This is necessary if we are to model change, cause and effect, and the way that entities interact. This does not invalidate the models, but it is important to recognise that this feature of a model may have no corollary in the actual universe. Also, I propose to focus on two classes of entities: Massless entities that can travel at the velocity of light, and whose velocity is unaffected by the relative velocity of the source and the observer. For brevity I refer specifically to photons. Macroscopic objects that have mass, cannot travel at the velocity of light, and whose velocity is affected by the relative velocity of the source (if any) and the observer. For brevity I refer to “macro objects”. So how do we put together a framework for a cosmology that meets these criteria? Well, firstly, if space does not exist as a physical entity in the universe experienced by photons, then it cannot exist in the actual universe. But if that is so, what meaning can we attribute to spatial distances, and what causes the delay between photons being emitted by one object and being received by another? It cannot be the time taken for the photon to “travel” through space from one to the other, as space does not exist to photons in this scenario. We can resolve this by adapting an idea suggested by Einstein; that of differences in simultaneity. Einstein suggested that simultaneity was dependent on the frame of reference. I.e. That two events which are simultaneous when seen from one frame of reference may not be so from a different frame of reference. Lets take this idea, but instead of attributing the effect to the relative motions of the frames of reference, what if it is an inherent property of macro objects? Putting this another way… Conventionally we would say that where an object is determines when it experiences events. But if space does not actually exist, what determines where an object is? So, instead, let us reverse this causal relationship and state that when an object experiences events determines where it is. Thus we may say that if there is a delay of five seconds between the emission of light by one body, and it’s reception by another, it is because there is five seconds difference in their view of when that event occurred, I.e. their view of simultaneity differs by five seconds. So we may say that those two objects are five light seconds apart, which, using c, translates into a spatial distance of one and a half million kilometres (or thereabouts). Of course space is not one dimensional, it is three dimensional, and this suggests that the differences in simultaneity are three dimensional. This does not explain why space is three dimensional, it merely acknowledges that it is. Put simply, if this were not so, the universe would not be as it is. So instead of a space-time universe, we end up with a simultaneity-time universe which macro objects experience in a Newtonian manner, but photons experience in a quite different way. Furthermore, this suggests that, rather than being a velocity, c is an universal constant that links a difference in simultaneity between two macro objects to the physical distance between them. Which might explain why the velocity of light and the velocities of the source and receiver do not add. Thus we can reconcile the invariance of the velocity of light with Newtonian Relativity by adopting a simultaneity-time framework for cosmology. This leads to the question of whether the universe might actually be a simultaneity-time continuum? How could we tell? Well, in principle, the time dilation and spatial contraction effects of Special Relativity are real (affecting the actual passage of time and spatial distances), whereas the effects of this scenario are apparent (only affecting the view of distant objects). However, the practicality of performing an experiment with macro objects to determine which scenario corresponds more closely to reality is another matter. Which is why at the moment, this is just an interesting idea. At least, I hope that, if you have read this far, you found it interesting.

Hi I'm Terry and I'm new here. I want to post an idea, but I need to use mono-spaced type for some ascii diagrams. I can't see a "how to" link, so I'll experiment here and see what works... 123456789012345678901234567890 ....:....|....:....|....:....| 123456789012345678901234567890 ....:....|....:....|....:....| I hope one of these works... Yipee, both worked! Now to try... item 1 item 2 item 3 Regards, Terry