Relative Space.

[throng]

I think if location is non-existant then space is non existant. In fact I think space is consequential to location and not prior to it.

 

If we use 0D points space is not required because 0D does not occupy space.

 

Usually, one takes a blank page which represents space and draws the origin thereon, so an origin representing existance is contrasted against a space representing 'nothing'.

 

I don't know which scientist rose to godliness and asserted there must be a pre-existing space to expand into, but there is no reason to accept that, I think fresh approaches are just as valid, and moreso in particular applications.

 

I invented a model which is geometrically congruent to relativity but it goes against what is taught in geometry, and the more set one becomes in academia the more resistant he might be to models that defy current definitions, but if it is cohesive I see no reason to debunk it, try if you like but I worked it out and I'd prefer open enquiry, and I can clarify any query or accept different perspectives.

 

I hope someone would like to discuss space being consequential to, and not prior to 'existance' or origin.

[ajb]

I think if location is non-existant then space is non existant. In fact I think space is consequential to location and not prior to it.

 

Are you thinking of "demoting" the role of points in (classical)

geometry? To an extent this is the view of topology were we think of "regions" (open neighbourhoods) as being more important than the points themselves.

 

Passing to more advanced geometry such as sheaves, schemes and other things in algebraic geometry this becomes even more important.

 

If we use 0D points space is not required because 0D does not occupy space.

 

I am not sure what you mean here. A point can be considered as a topological space (even a manifold).

 

Usually, one takes a blank page which represents space and draws the origin thereon, so an origin representing existance is contrasted against a space representing 'nothing'.

 

By origin I take it you are referring to a choice of local coordinates. You should think of the space as being independent of the coordinates chosen.

 

I don't know which scientist rose to godliness and asserted there must be a pre-existing space to expand into, but there is no reason to accept that, I think fresh approaches are just as valid, and moreso in particular applications.

 

I am not sure what you mean by this.

 

I invented a model which is geometrically congruent to relativity but it goes against what is taught in geometry, and the more set one becomes in academia the more resistant he might be to models that defy current definitions, but if it is cohesive I see no reason to debunk it, try if you like but I worked it out and I'd prefer open enquiry, and I can clarify any query or accept different perspectives.

 

Great. Care to share more details?

 

I hope someone would like to discuss space being consequential to, and not prior to 'existance' or origin.

 

 

In relativity space-time "consists" of events. That is all possible locations for something happening are the points of space-time. This is independent of any coordinates chosen.

[swansont]

I don't know which scientist rose to godliness and asserted there must be a pre-existing space to expand into, but there is no reason to accept that, I think fresh approaches are just as valid, and moreso in particular applications.

 

Who is doing this?

[throng]

Who is doing this?

 

 

No one does it I hope, really I'm just being inflamatory - sorry.

 

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

Are you thinking of "demoting" the role of points in (classical)

geometry? To an extent this is the view of topology were we think of "regions" (open neighbourhoods) as being more important than the points themselves.

 

Passing to more advanced geometry such as sheaves, schemes and other things in algebraic geometry this becomes even more important.

 

 

I am inventing a model using 0D points as representation, all modern geometry can only verify my model because it is mathematically cohesive.

 

 

 

I am not sure what you mean here. A point can be considered as a topological space (even a manifold).

 

I wan't to keep it very simple and since we last spoke I explored all nature of things to find an expression and dicussed alot seeking communicative medium.

 

 

 

 

 

By origin I take it you are referring to a choice of local coordinates. You should think of the space as being independent of the coordinates chosen.

 

Exactly my intention. In fact the space is consequential to locations and not prior to them.

 

 

 

Great. Care to share more details?

 

 

 

 

In relativity space-time "consists" of events. That is all possible locations for something happening are the points of space-time. This is independent of any coordinates chosen.

 

In my expression space is entirely dependant on the points given, not prior, not seperate, but relative.

 

I relish the opportunity to share details.

 

The main problem with expressing origin is we use a blank page to represent space in which the origin point can exist. We end up having two values, 'space' and 'origin' (or nothing/something or is/isn't).

 

When the second point is drawn a distance is only apparent because space or 'blank page' was preordained.

 

I draw the second point but ignore the prior space or blank page, because the relationship between two points does not define a location and the distance is really just a singular value with no relative, because distance can't measure a point and a point can't measure distance. Surely two points only express a single value. The possibility is either point (which are the same) or both points (the same).

 

I liken it to a two headed coin either side is heads and both sides are heads and the only possibility is heads.

 

"Heads" is the singular value using that metaphor.

 

In the classic system, 'space' or 'origin' represent two distinct possibilities, so is not expressive of singularity, duality in fact. My model uses two points but expresses a singular value.

 

Hopefully this is conceptually coherant to modern geometry.

 

Thanks, I'll answer or discuss, and hope interest is enough for continuation.

Edited May 28, 2009 by throng
Consecutive posts merged.