Every:- action, reaction, transmission , travel, effect, movement can ONLY be with its immediate neighbour.

[Mike Smith Cosmos]

I have been , and still am , reading about the thrust by the 10 great scientists of history , in their endeavour to understand " How and why the universe works ,the way it does " ?

 

These are :- Isaac Newton, Niels Bhor, Galileo Galilei, Albert Einstein, James Clerk Maxwell, Michael Faraday, Marie Curie, Richard Feynman, Ernest Rutherford, Paul Dirac.

 

Of course there are other scientists of note, but these lay the structural basis for our current understanding of how and why the universe works the way it does .

 

Although not individually stated one thing becomes clear most of them worked from the idea that it was the immediate neighbouring item that caused the interaction to be what it was .

 

So rather than some far , distant influenence was causing some effect , it was in fact the immediate , next door , neighbouring contact was what gave them there understanding .

 

So is it down at some plank length , interactions are occuring , which make up the essence of what is happening in the universe ? Where these interactions occur in time, so as to build up the larger effects we come to understand are occuring at a much larger scale , and at much larger distances , having different much larger effects All occuring over distances and time , no greater than the speed of light ?

 

Mike

Edited October 14, 2016 by Mike Smith Cosmos

[Sensei]

Experimental physicists/chemists always work with what they have at hand.

f.e.
Rutherford experiment recorded on video:

Just put Gold foil between alpha (or other particle) emitter,
and see how they react..
Alpha particles are repelled in majority from Gold atoms nucleus, and tiny amount pass through to other side of foil.

In this case matter charge, mass of particle (and it's volume and cross section), and it's kinetic energy prior interaction.
Interaction occur between accelerated nucleus of Helium-4 with electrons of air (creating trace) and electrons of Gold,
and with other nucleus (Gold) causing reflection of incoming particle (because Gold nucleus is 197/4 = ~49 times more massive).

If positive and negative charged particles would be evenly distributed, this video would look completely different.

ps. Part of mentioned by you scientists are pure theoreticians, so they don't belong here.

 

ps2. If object is moving toward you, you can know it without direct interaction with it, because photons are emitted by object (black body radiation), or (from other source) reflected by object, and reaching faster than that object will arrive.

Edited October 14, 2016 by Sensei

[Mike Smith Cosmos]

Experimental physicists/chemists always work with what they have at hand.

f.e.

Rutherford experiment recorded on video:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=noP7HT-Uins

Just put Gold foil between alpha (or other particle) emitter,

and see how they react..

Alpha particles are repelled in majority from Gold atoms nucleus, and tiny amount pass through to other side of foil.

In this case matter charge, mass of particle (and it's volume and cross section), and it's kinetic energy prior interaction.

Interaction occur between accelerated nucleus of Helium-4 with electrons of air (creating trace) and electrons of Gold,

and with other nucleus (Gold) causing reflection of incoming particle (because Gold nucleus is 197/4 = ~49 times more massive).

If positive and negative charged particles would be evenly distributed, this video would look completely different.

ps. Part of mentioned by you scientists are pure theoreticians, so they don't belong here.

 

ps2. If object is moving toward you, you can know it without direct interaction with it, because photons are emitted by object (black body radiation), or (from other source) reflected by object, and reaching faster than that object will arrive.

..

Yes it is true many of the investigative scientists work on things , right at their ' fingertips ' for example , Marie Curie , handled something called " pitchblende " which included Uranium , and other radio active elements . In this case touching and being exposed to the radiation was perhaps not such a good idea. She did get a couple of Nobel Prizes for her descoveries with radio activity.

 

You say that light is coming in , ( your ps2 ) was from a distance . This is true , but I suspect the interaction did not occur until the arrival of the photon of energy reached its arrival destination . I would suggest right up to that ' last moment interaction' , NO knowledge , NO effect was resistered with the destination , before the moment of interaction ( that is it appeared as an immediate neighbour) . Similarly when a photon of light is emitted , say from an atom , it has no idea of the final destination or journey , just a direction and an immediate neighbour of interaction . As far as IT knows , the story or knowledge of a very long journey END RIGHT THERE , AT THE NEIGHBOUR. surely ?

 

If the Neighbour , for all sorts of reasons ( excess energy, momentum , charge , direction ,) continues to pass this on , the process in isolation ' may ' repeat the process , surely ?( with its neighbour , if there is one ) .

With the case with electro magnetic waves James Clark Maxwell , sort of suggests the neighbour changes from being an electro field collapsing to being a magnetic field , which in turn collapses , to being an electric field , on and on . Here neighbours seem to change type , as their form of ' interaction ' ? A pretty effective interaction , one has to say !

 

Mike

Edited October 15, 2016 by Mike Smith Cosmos

[Mike Smith Cosmos]

.

The maths which best explains the movement to the " Neighbour " is that of Light , or electromagnetic waves , given by James Clark Maxwell .

 

Below , can be seen the light wave as a sine wave ( three dimensional ) moving by self replication .

 

The maths can be seen in this reference :-

 

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maxwell%27s_equations

 

Clearly Maxwell, built , on the work of other mathematicians and scientists, who had gone before . So as to sythesize many principles and equations applicable to amongst other things " electricity and magnetism"

 

However he used his mathmatical brain to bring all these things together and originate some of the most staggering principles of ' Light and the whole electro-magnetic spectrum '

 

 

 

Note the significant wave , is that at the origin ( x,y,z ) . Whatever happens at the origin , is self replicated . This neighbour then effectively moves away , into space , at the speed of light .

 

Note it is the effect that moves away !

 

Mike

 

Ref to James Clark Maxwell as a person

 

: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Clerk_Maxwell

Edited October 16, 2016 by Mike Smith Cosmos

[Mike Smith Cosmos]

The early 1900's saw a group of scientists touch the atom. By isolating the properties of both the electrons and the protons in their dance about each other , they started to get a taste of both classical and quantum physics . Scientists like Rutherford , Bohr, Born, de Broglie, Heisenberg, Pauli, Plank ,Dirac , Einstein. They all contributed to this investigation of the neighbouring, interacting particles of the Atom .

 

It is close in, neighbouring constituents of the Atom , that many of the strange characteristics of atomic behaviour and hence the nature and behaviour of the Universe started to be fathomed and in some ways , understood .

 

 

So rather than some " spooky action at a distance , " , being responsible for what is happening in some ' far flung field' . How the universe works and why it works the way it does ? ,

is thus to be found in the close , interactions with the near ' neighbours ' . At the atomic scale ?

Thus the precision, detail and accuracy is spawned, right here ! At the site of neighbouring interactions !

 

This is not unlike the workings of today's society, throughout the world . The nature and activity in the human condition about the world at large , is formulated and initiated in the human mind . Which is a sobering thought , is it not ?

 

Mike

 

P.s. You might say " but he is stating the obvious " . That's fine ! One of my ' reason detre ',

is amongst other things ' to restate the blindingly obvious ' !

Edited October 18, 2016 by Mike Smith Cosmos

[imatfaal]

The early 1900's saw a group of scientists touch the atom. By isolating the properties of both the electrons and the protons in their dance about each other , they started to get a taste of both classical and quantum physics . Scientists like Rutherford , Bohr, Born, de Broglie, Heisenberg, Pauli, Plank ,Dirac , Einstein. They all contributed to this investigation of the neighbouring, interacting particles of the Atom .

 

It is close in, neighbouring constituents of the Atom , that many of the strange characteristics of atomic behaviour and hence the nature and behaviour of the Universe started to be fathomed and in some ways , understood .

 

image.jpg

 

So rather than some " spooky action at a distance , " , being responsible for what is happening in some ' far flung field' . How the universe works and why it works the way it does ? ,

is thus to be found in the close , interactions with the near ' neighbours ' . At the atomic scale ?

Thus the precision, detail and accuracy is spawned, right here ! At the site of neighbouring interactions !

 

This is not unlike the workings of today's society, throughout the world . The nature and activity in the human condition about the world at large , is formulated and initiated in the human mind . Which is a sobering thought , is it not ?

 

Mike

 

P.s. You might say " but he is stating the obvious " . That's fine ! One of my ' reason detre ',

is amongst other things ' to restate the blindingly obvious ' !

 

Spooky action remains spooky. We know it is not only spatial separate we also know that it the state of the entangled particles is undetermined/undeterminable until measurement. The maths tells us that the results cannot come from a single predetermined distribution

[Mike Smith Cosmos]

Spooky action remains spooky. We know it is not only spatial separate we also know that it the state of the entangled particles is undetermined/undeterminable until measurement. The maths tells us that the results cannot come from a single predetermined distribution

.

If we were to consider either ( atoms ) or particles ( electrons , protons ,Neutrons ) as operating in 2 dimensions only , as opposed to 3 dimentions . Then the particles and activities toward those particles , could be interacted WITH , without a spooky action . See the following illustration .

 

I am touching by light , a tree base ( apparently ) From a large distance . This is achieved by the light ( sunlight ) coming in along a two Dimentional surface ( field ) showing my arm and hand reaching out and touching the distant tree. While I remained distant on the two dimensional surface ! ( spooked ) . Now, working in 2 dimensions rather than three , ? At least for the atom . Me , I was in three Dimensions, remaining at my location , yet influencing/ interaction , instantaneously , spookily at a distance , on the two Dimentional surface .

 

 

Although this might sound extra ordinary , at first pass. However , I have observed that nature tends to take the efficient route toward activity. So for example , if energy is to be maintained by some form of sinusoidal or oscillatory motion , it will choose to work in the minimal of dimensions " if it can hold the energy in ' ONE DIMENSION'

As further energy is required to be held , nature will break into a second dimension!

Also , following this further , if more energy is required to be held in this type of sinusoidal , oscillatory motion , a THIRD DIMENSION , is entered .

 

I have experimented with this phenomenon and proved this sequence of ONE , TWO, and THREE DIMENSIONS. The minimum dimension is 'naturally ' first , then second , then third.

 

I would suggest the particles , atoms , follows this sequence . ONE , TWO , and THREE dimensions!

 

Mike

Edited October 19, 2016 by Mike Smith Cosmos

[studiot]

 

imatfaal

Spooky action remains spooky.

 

Not until all soul's eve.

 

 

To choirs of ghastly cackling laughter

[imatfaal]

 

Not until all soul's eve.

 

 

To choirs of ghastly cackling laughter

 

Surely All Hallow's Eve; All Soul's Eve is one of the Holiest days of the Calendar.

 

The important feast for Western Christians is All Saints Day - the celebration of those that have made it to heaven; the first of November in the modern reckoning. The day after that is All Soul's Day - the Day of the Faithful Departed; the second of November. But the day before All Saint's Day (which is also called All Hallows Day) is the eve of All Hallows or Halloween; the 31st of October. Scary amount of detail for a card-carrying atheist.

[Ophiolite]

Every:- action, reaction, transmission , travel, effect, movement can ONLY be with its immediate neighbour

No.¹

 

 

 

 

^Note:

^{1. While this response lacks detailed information, I would argue that its brevity and focus are preferable to another Mike Smith Cosmos ramble. (Sorry Mike.)}

[swansont]

!

Moderator Note

 

I'm not seeing anything resembling a testable hypothesis here, or progress in that direction. If that doesn't change, this will be locked.

 

Don't waste your chance to keep the discussion going by responding to this modnote in the thread.

 

[Mike Smith Cosmos]

The hypothesis is .

 

There are no mediums present , according to present , scientists understanding !

If that is trulely the case , then there can be no communication from all sorts of matter , distributed throughout space time , as no one seems to come up with any evidence that there is any content of any medium so far explored.

 

Thus the only avenue for communication across this void must be by contact or travel .

 

This does therefor limit communication to a relay mechanism , on the one hand . Namely neighbor to neighbour communication or interaction .

Or in the case of matter particles on the move , then physical movement across space time would be the other alternative for information and matter itself moving across three dimensional Spacetime .

 

The hypothesis is raised that in some circumstances it may be possible, we limit the dimensions to two or one. Then other options arise. We are used to existing in three dimensional space time . A case can be made and has been explored for some communication existing in two dimensions . As explained previously I have taken part in such experimentation . This utilises a mechanical transducer and a model .

 

Mike

[studiot]

Mike, these extracts from 'Bergmann :Introduction to the Theory of Relativity' might help you sort out what you want to ask us.

Particularly the part in italics I have indicated at the sides.

 

 

 

 

 

Edited October 19, 2016 by studiot

[swansont]

 

Thus the only avenue for communication across this void must be by contact or travel .

 

This does therefor limit communication to a relay mechanism , on the one hand . Namely neighbor to neighbour communication or interaction .

Or in the case of matter particles on the move , then physical movement across space time would be the other alternative for information and matter itself moving across three dimensional Spacetime .

 

 

 

 

Trivially falsified. The orbits of planets would not follow the path we see if gravity was "conducted" to them by the sun via nearest-neighbor interaction. The nearest neighbor changes over time, and gravity does not change from its 1/r^2 nature when you add or remove a body in between two others.

 

Space is a pretty good vacuum, so requiring contact is a non-starter.

[Mike Smith Cosmos]

.

 

Mike, these extracts from 'Bergmann :Introduction to the Theory of Relativity' might help you sort out what you want to ask us.

Particularly the part in italics I have indicated at the sides.

 

forces2.jpg

 

forces3.jpg

 

forces4.jpg

 

..

 

 

 

Trivially falsified. The orbits of planets would not follow the path we see if gravity was "conducted" to them by the sun via nearest-neighbor interaction. The nearest neighbor changes over time, and gravity does not change from its 1/r^2 nature when you add or remove a body in between two others.

 

Space is a pretty good vacuum, so requiring contact is a non-starter.

 

.

If we look at the references by " studio" one concerning force interaction , the other about light interaction .

 

Both quotes state precisely what I have alluded to , namely they start and continue their interaction , whether that be just a ' one off ' or if a flight across the universe , with a NEAR NEIGHBOR INTERACTION , which is repeated if necessary . One might be able to assume that the same ' knock on effect ' applies to gravity , similarly , although less seems to be known about gravity.

 

It would be folly to think that a single interaction goes no further than the first interaction with the immediate neighbour , otherwise it would be a minutely sized universe.

 

However it does call on the necessity for space time having as a field property ( if that is what it has ) , to accept the propagation of ALL the interaction systems that apply to particles , waves, and forces . I cannot see that possible with ' space time ' being absolutely nothing ' . But I do understand that is the current , majority , vote , by a lot of scientists . I think the jury is still out on that particular verdict . However , if you are prepared to tolerate fields as the vehicle for interaction, that is fine , provided they are not just scalar numbers only , but relate to ' something tangible' , even though at this juncture the 'something tangible ' may not be fully understood .

 

As regards hypothesis , experiment , and test . As I said , whilst in teaching , I proposed energy transfer by ONE, TWO, and THREE dimensions , while trying to model the atom ( electron proton mix ) .

 

This involved an energy controlled source of one dimensional oscillation . This was fed into a single wire .

 

Dimension one uni directional ( in out ) at a low frequency 50 -3000hz . In the first instance the oscillations remained ( in out ) possibly classed as one dimension . By upping the energy the single wire broke ( interacted ) so as to oscillate in two dimensions , namely a sine wave in the air ( in and out , up and down ) . Only when the energy was raised much more , did the wire break into a third dimension . This time the wire was seen to oscillate in a complex three dimensional pattern .

 

So my proposition is/ was , nature has an intrinsic rule to only use a low number of dimensions with low energy requirements , and only move to higher dimensions like ( 2 and 3 ) , when the energy interaction requirements are much larger .

 

I went on to model an atom and similar things ( though not as easily ) happened.

 

So I am proposing that ' may be ' some of these spooky action at a distance phenomenon may just use these smaller dimensions ( one and two ) . Clearly it is the third dimension is what gives SUBSTANCE .but one and two dimensions can give information. Without the substance ( spooky ) .

 

However returning to interaction with neighbours , surely a neighbour can refer to an electro magnetic single oscillation interacting so as to cause the transmission of the next EM oscillation . Quite what happens with GRAVITY affecting a neighbouring planet , or a neighbouring galaxy like andromeda, or a neighbouring supercluster , I am not too sure how gravity works across such distances . I have proposed it is still near, or next door neighbour , to next door neighbour is the way it works . In other words :-

 

This chunk of rock, this planet , this solar system, this galaxy ,..this supercluster . so distorts the fabric of space time locally , or next door neighbour style , ..... And this distortion travels across the fabric field of space time ... And appears at some distant supercluster and gives it a distortion ( travelling at the speed of light. To get there ) . Of course this does require that ' space time ' is not nothing , but a bit special . But I am sure that will come out in the , 'WASH' , shortly, anyway ?

 

Mike

Edited October 19, 2016 by Mike Smith Cosmos

[swansont]

Studiot's links do not state nor do they imply any relaying of forces.

 

The sun's gravitational interaction with e.g Mars depends only on its distance. It does not depend on whether the earth is in a position beyween the two or on the opposite side from Mars. The earth does not relay the force from the sun to Mars. Full stop.

 

If you think you have a case, you need a model that's testable. No hand-waving. No pictures or drawings.

[Mike Smith Cosmos]

Studiot's links do not state nor do they imply any relaying of forces.

The sun's gravitational interaction with e.g Mars depends only on its distance. It does not depend on whether the earth is in a position beyween the two or on the opposite side from Mars. The earth does not relay the force from the sun to Mars. Full stop.

If you think you have a case, you need a model that's testable. No hand-waving. No pictures or drawings.

.

I am not sure I fully understand what you are saying . Although I think you are implying each object sends out its own gravitational attraction across the universe ? Whereas I am suggesting the effect is transmitted via everything else , (starting with all the neighbouring ' stuff' , whatever that ' everything else stuff ' is ? ) ?

 

Among other things , I could refer to Richard Feynman, when Lecturing in his famous question and answer sessions . In describing how metronomes came to synchronise ? Said it is like a shoal of fish , fish do NOT communicate each fish ACROSS THE WHOLE SHOAL, but rather each fish identifies and follows its NEIGHBOURING fish and responds to its NEIGHBOUR. The effect being , it looks from the outside like some fantastic orchestra dancing to an amazing ensemble , whereas in reality it is built up of the entire cockophony of neighbouring responses!

 

How's that for an answer ?

 

My model is , that although to us looking through our eyes , the universe looks empty ! But rather than empty the universe is full of ' stuff ' whatever that ' stuff is ' . ( fields, particles, virtual particles , whatever) And it is the interaction of all this ' stuff ' is , the effects we ultimately observe . And it is the understanding of all of these interactions , starting with our near neighbours , is what will lead to the understanding of the nature of the how's and why's of the workings of the universe! I think ? .... ( Heck ! I pulled all the stops , for that one ! )

 

 

Mike

Edited October 20, 2016 by Mike Smith Cosmos

[Mike Smith Cosmos]

The rubber sheet 'Model '

Not a model that I have introduced , as I find it difficult to get my head around the way that the distant object adjust to the rubber sheet , although as many coin collection funnels seem to work , then I get the point.

 

Nonetheless this model gets given press quite a lot . It does illustrate, none the less two aspects that I have been recently arguing .

 

1. The rubber sheet has all the indication of some form of MEDIUM , linking the cause of the particular central gravity creating distortion .

 

2. That the central cause of the distortion FIRST effects its immediate NEIGHBOURING , central part of the rubber sheet . Dipping the deepest. Followed by successive ' neighbours of rubber ', right out to the furthest edge of the rubber sheet , say the far flung orbit of a planet or galaxy, where it finally arrives as an effect of much reduced magnitude ! ( each neighbouring section of rubber transferring the effect to the far from centre points . )

 

In this case any 'In pulling ' gravitational effect , being counterbalanced by any 'out pulling ' centrifugal effect .

 

Mike

Edited October 20, 2016 by Mike Smith Cosmos

[swansont]

.

I am not sure I fully understand what you are saying . Although I think you are implying each object sends out its own gravitational attraction across the universe ? Whereas I am suggesting the effect is transmitted via everything else , (starting with all the neighbouring ' stuff' , whatever that ' everything else stuff ' is ? ) ?

 

Among other things , I could refer to Richard Feynman, when Lecturing in his famous question and answer sessions . In describing how metronomes came to synchronise ? Said it is like a shoal of fish , fish do NOT communicate each fish ACROSS THE WHOLE SHOAL, but rather each fish identifies and follows its NEIGHBOURING fish and responds to its NEIGHBOUR. The effect being , it looks from the outside like some fantastic orchestra dancing to an amazing ensemble , whereas in reality it is built up of the entire cockophony of neighbouring responses!

 

How's that for an answer ?

 

In the context of your proposal, it's fallacious and unscientific. And you should know that.

 

That you can find some interactions that are nearest-neighbor (and there are plenty that are) does not mean all interactions are like that. The falsification part of science does not proceed by finding examples that agree with the hypothesis. It proceeds by looking for examples that don't. I was presenting one that doesn't. It doesn't matter how many example you bring forward that do. It only takes one ugly fact to slay a beautiful hypothesis.

 

The rubber sheet 'Model '

Not a model that I have introduced , as I find it difficult to get my head around the way that the distant object adjust to the rubber sheet , although as many coin collection funnels seem to work , then I get the point.

 

Nonetheless this model gets given press quite a lot . It does illustrate, none the less two aspects that I have been recently arguing .

 

1. The rubber sheet has all the indication of some form of MEDIUM , linking the cause of the particular central gravity creating distortion .

The rubber sheet is an analogy. It's not the science itself.

 

2. That the central cause of the distortion FIRST effects its immediate NEIGHBOURING , central part of the rubber sheet . Dipping the deepest. Followed by successive ' neighbours of rubber ', right out to the furthest edge of the rubber sheet , say the far flung orbit of a planet or galaxy, where it finally arrives as an effect of much reduced magnitude ! ( each neighbouring section of rubber transferring the effect to the far from centre points . )

 

In this case any 'In pulling ' gravitational effect , being counterbalanced by any 'out pulling ' centrifugal effect .

 

Mike

There is no actual rubber sheet. This is moot.

 

And I have zero interest in an additional discussion of your long-held misconceptions of centrifugal forces.

[Mike Smith Cosmos]

In the context of your proposal, it's fallacious and unscientific. And you should know that. That you can find some interactions that are nearest-neighbor (and there are plenty that are) does not mean all interactions are like that. The falsification part of science does not proceed by finding examples that agree with the hypothesis. It proceeds by looking for examples that don't. I was presenting one that doesn't. It doesn't matter how many example you bring forward that do. It only takes one ugly fact to slay a beautiful hypothesis.The rubber sheet is an analogy. It's not the science itself. There is no actual rubber sheet. This is moot.And I have zero interest in an additional discussion of your long-held misconceptions of centrifugal forces.

.

It is of some merit that many of the most successful systems both in nature and of current scientific invention have followed the system .

 

INPUT - PROCESS - OUTPUT each element along the sequential chain follows a neighbouring predecessor.

 

Nature ... Animals and Mankind ( digestive tract , nervous system , the sentinel being as a whole )

 

Scientific .... electronic systems ( input keypad , process processor, output screen , computer)

.....................and any machine as a whole system )

 

Most of these follow an adjacent neighbour doing its bit in the chain from origin to destination !

 

If it works don't fix it . So sheer logic should tell us " if it works so well " surely the universe as a whole would use the same ' system ' , all -be-it on a far grander scale ?

 

You say " science proceeds by looking for examples that don't. I was presenting one that doesn't "

 

Well let's look at that :- see if my model can stand up to your attempted falsification ?

 

Quote by Swansont " The sun's gravitational interaction with e.g Mars depends only on its distance. It does not depend on whether the earth is in a position beyween the two or on the opposite side from Mars. The earth does not relay the force from the sun to Mars. " unquote

 

Well for a start , I am not saying the EARTH is relaying any gravity from the Sun to Mars . In this case the sun is pushing the space-time continuum rubber sheet or my neighbour model ' down ' centralised on the sun . We will say for the time being the earth is over to the side somewhere ( not in or beyond the line of fire of any potential major influence to Mars ) . So if it's a rubber sheet or anything that resembles my neighbour to the sun, right adjacent to all that mass of the sun has some gigantuant interaction with the rubber sheet or anything I have there, or really is there , distorted ,ruptured and twisted out of all proportions to anything that exists in far outer space , it's sitting there , whether it is modelled by the rubber sheet , a gravitational field , or whatever else is there that accepts interaction with gravity or large amount of mass close by and is there next to the sun all screwed up .

 

What happens next door adjacent to where we are ( bang smack up against the sun ) ?

Well if I am a rubber sheet and I want to see what is happening to the next door neighbour piece of rubber ? Well it's distorted pretty well the same , maybe a little less by some amount proportional to the new distance from the centre of the sun by a factor of 1/r squared ( r being distance from centre of sun ) .

If I look at my neighbour model , something very similar is happening except my neighbour stuff is not made of rubber , but made of whatever ' space time field ' is made of ??? From my first interaction with the sun to my second interaction now interacting with the first interaction , there has also been an increase in 'r' thus 1/r squared has similarly reduced in its interaction by a similar amount and so on and so on with both the rubber sheet and my neighbourly interaction. Out towards Mars , with no particular involvement by the earth.

 

No contradiction , no falsified model so the model has stood the test !

 

Mike

.

Edited October 20, 2016 by Mike Smith Cosmos

[Mike Smith Cosmos]

.

It would seem the experiment I conducted to investigate the usage of energy applied at a model scale , may have given some insight into the use of different numbers of required dimensions for different types of interaction at the atomic scale.

 

 

This appears to follow the tendency of ' things' in the universe moving towards a condition of a lower energy level .

 

 

Mike

Edited October 21, 2016 by Mike Smith Cosmos

[Mike Smith Cosmos]

So if we were to put this model ( as a testable hypothesis ) to work in the universe at large . Working in the way I have proposed . Can we get at the evidence , FOR A universe building up its dimensions ( 1) (2) (3) and even (4) with time ,working in a neighbour to neighbour way ?

 

Let us go back to the very beginning of time . Time zero for the universe. The very first creational activity, however it was originated as a massive explosion of force in one dimension . Each element of that explosion moved away from a central point . It was individual quantums of energy , moving individually in its own unique direction requiring only (1) one dimention . GRAVITY was thus the first unidirectional force , ever since , only seeking to return to a state of less potential energy .

 

As other forces like charge and magnetic attraction and repulsion , more dimensions (2), were required and so LIGHT and other ELECTRO-MAGNETIC Waves , could carry information , at the speed of light throughout the expanding universe.

 

Thirdly three dimentions (3) , allowed matter to form as to begin with single nuclei and electrons having MASS. Including all the other particles of the standard model .

 

Thus even at this stage we have everything working adjacent with its neighbour , whether it be , photons , electrons and protons all expanding in now a three dimension, and with time a four (4) Dimentional Space -Time Universe .

 

Thus started this cocophany of neighbour to neighbour interaction , right through to today !

 

Mike

Edited October 22, 2016 by Mike Smith Cosmos

[swansont]

How is that testable? We can't go back to the beginning of time.

[Mike Smith Cosmos]

How is that testable? We can't go back to the beginning of time.

.

 

I agree , but the hypothesis is not that the universe has come about . That is accepted as fact , because it's out there , still going .

 

What I am saying is , that my hypothesis , could help in an area , where it is in fact difficult to get access to. Like the very early time in the life of the universe.

 

If you want a test nearer to home , then firstly my mechanical tests 1 and 2 Are demonstrations of adding dimentions from the bottom up.

 

If you want a demonstration of neighbourhood transmission , then the bell jar experiment is a worthy demonstration . While the air is a neighbour to the striking bell clanger and gong. Remove the air , like remove the neighbour . You cannot hear the bell anymore.

 

The case with a planet in orbit is not falsifiable , because you can't remove ' space time ' , easily !

 

However , it might be possible to do a falsifiable experiment with Gravity. Because although we can not remove ' space time ' we might be able to reduce one of the components . Not space , but TIME . It may be possible where gravity is working between two small masses . If adjacent medium between the masses is tampered with by tampering with the TIME component of ' space time . Then it could lead to a verification .and falsification . This may approach your specialised experience ?

 

Mike

Edited October 22, 2016 by Mike Smith Cosmos

[Ophiolite]

Mike, I am struck by the thought that you are, with great inventiveness and imagination, seeking to answer questions in much the way the Greek philosophers did. They had some remarkable insights, but got a great deal wrong. Now, armed only with that imagination and a scattering of pop-science ideas, you are trying to offer solutions to problems that no longer exist. Science has already found the answers. It is frustrating to watch all this, even painful. Would it not make sense to improve your foundations, before you try to create soaring skyscrapers?