rabe

For instance time is as real, and can be defined by the physical changes that occur within an interval. Time then is a comparison of changes by use of a standard which we call a clock. Space is as real as the distance between at least two physical entities, or the volume which encompasses contiguous matter. Space then is a comparison of distances by use of a standard such as a comparison with the size of the physical units that space separates, via a ruler of sorts, or by comparison with a light year, etc. "When forced to summarize the general theory of relativity in one sentence: Time and space and gravitation have no separate existence from matter." (Albert Einstein) Of course simplicity . . . . The article is at the underlined link in the initial post. A theory based on the assumed framework of linear space and time, of course, must show no separate existence of space and time from matter. Time can be defined by changes within an interval. But now the opinion arises that time has to be defined not only by such an interval, but also in dependencence from space units which could vary depending on the density etc. The same, inversely, would be true for space. Using an alternative framework depending, as proposed, on quantum numbers, could certainly lead to different results and possibly make accessible the hypothetical primary matter. Thanks for the very friendly words. But you should have seen that the travel aims not only at the galaxies, but also at the elementary particles, and even at things on our Earth. Is this arrogant, or what else ? Doubts about the basic framework are uttered. Arguments would be better than polemics.

If we see space and time as generated by mass and energy, it is suggested to develop reduced physics, giving up the notions of space and time The article published now on a website has not passed the peer review of NATURE, but nevertheless it seems to be a very different and attractive way to tackle the question of a primary system. This approach could even reconcile scientists with recent development in minimal arts and allow for a modern definition of the term of transcendence. As neither the standard model nor the Big Bang model nor even the relativity theory with the cosmological constant are free of hypothetical assumptions mainly in form of interpreted constants, the only two hypothetical assumptions in this article seem to be justified. First the old argument of Occams razor that our world is basically simple, - much simpler than all those really complicated theories in actual cosmology and elementary particle physics. Second the pretty obvious conception that quantum numbers are more basic than space and time. This may allow for completely new conclusions about a possible identity of energy and antimatter.

Fully agreeing with you I seriously doubt that space and time are already dimensions at the beginning. Of course, the standard model gives very exact predictions, but on the other side it has evident flaws. What you are calling directions of time, may in reality be separate "universes". Please see my web-article which evidently does not fit into the actual mainstream cosmology: http://www.ars-una.net/thealltheory.htm

It seems one can get much simpler answers when you start asking in a simpler way. Forget for a moment to think about all the forces and have a look at the unknown primary matter. The first steps when building the world should have been very simple, according to the famous principle of Occam's razor. Have a look at http://www.ars-una.net/thealltheory.htm

It must not be a battle. They can unite peacefully and together be even better then alone. A third partner in the game could be the arts. This may be a very rewarding perspective. See www.ars-una.net

Not only space, but also time is bent by big masses. Is it not just this ? Time is not necessarily assumed to be existent everywhere in the same linear form. This is also postulated by the not yet accepted all-theory: http://www.ars-una.net/thealltheory.htm

Can we talk about a beginning of the world, if space and time are only children of a primary matter? And may energy and antimatter essentially be the same? www.ars-una.net