“non-local, not that compressible.”

Very true. So why do we seem to favor these point particles?

Is it because our primary intellectual tool is focus and concentration and when your favorite tool is a hammer, everything becomes a nail?

Is the absolute, the universal state, the point at the center of the graph, or is it the paper on which the graph is drawn?

When the old orders were obsessing over ever more convoluted and corrupted strictures, it was said of the French and Russian Revolutions that “power was left lying in the streets.”

The absolute is the essence from which we rise, not an ideal from which we fell.

Good luck on the trip!

LikeLike

]]>LikeLike

]]>Measures occur in the present and the present is hollowed out as it becomes past.

I was only pointing out that quantum theory seems to be trying to nail down measurements that are seemingly endlessly slippery. Maybe it isn’t because quanta are so very small, but because this seeming reality, that only exists as a transient present, is so very slippery.

Even a moving car doesn’t have an exact location.

LikeLike

]]>Aside from celestial mechanics, we have return force oscillations (springs, pendulum, etc.), light clocks, atomic/elementary particle decay.

A measurement is a measurement, I don’t know what makes it “hollow”.

“Amplitude” is not part of Quantum Theory now, except in a trivial way. It has to with number of particles (that causes endless confusions). In QFT, energy of the Quantum Fields is not locally fixed… And this is what really happens (measurements! Hollow or not…).

LikeLike

]]>LikeLike

]]>I keep making the argument that time is an effect of activity, specifically the relationship of energy to its form.

So since energy is conserved, it only exists as the present, while the form is constantly changing, thus reading into the past.

Now consider this in terms of the issues with the quanta;

We don’t know what form the energy will adopt, until it has formulated it. Fo instance, we don’t know the amplitude of a wave, until it has peaked. We can’t measure the location of a particle without interfering with it. When a wave collapses, it is releasing the energy which created it. Etc.

In all these, we only “know” at the point the form has peaked and is therefore receding. Measurement is an act of confining energy.

Any way there is to know is to create definition, yet that only creates a transition for the energy, as it is interfered by the measuring energy.

So the energy goes to other forms, dissipating from the old forms and the order we thought we had, only starts to recede, like the wave that has peaked, leaving us with just a hollow measurement.

LikeLike

]]> Yes and if space is a non-physical state of infinite equilibrium, it would be the basis of all geometric frames, not a creation of them. The Michelson Morley experiment only showed there is no aether, not that space is a creation of its contents.

Logically if a clock slows in a moving frame, then the frame with the fastest clock would be closest to this equilibrium of the vacuum, through which light travels at C. Otherwise what would be the basis of C? Why wouldn’t two frames pass each other, with internal activity in one exceeding the speed of light in the other, even if it were only apparent as massive blueshift on entering the other?

So it would be as a property of space that what might happen in a Euclidian frame would be distorted in a non-Euclidian frame and multiple frames can interact, within only the non-physical parameters of infinity and equilibrium.

As neither equilibrium or infinity(0, oo) are physical properties, they don’t need physical cause, such as a big bang.

So space is the blank paper on which geometry is written.

It may not need the internal geometry, but it has it. Those distant galaxies are presumed to recede, such that the light will take longer to cross from them. In GR, when space contracts, time dilates and so the speed of light remains constant to the distance. Which is not what is being proposed here.

LikeLike

]]>LikeLike

]]>Cosmologists know mathematics often more by rote, than really under-standing it.

In General Relativity, the speed of light is not constant. It can get arbitrarily slow. Not locally, but globally. That’s the whole problem of Black Holes, and related endless discussions (which I am happy to have launched, way back, in Stanford at a seminar I led).

A 4 dimensional Lorentzian differentiable manifold can be embedded in a high dimensional space with flat geometry. An n dimensional reasonable manifold can be viewed as expanding in an appropriate 2n +1 flat space. one does not need the internal geometry to define expansion.

LikeLike

]]>I very much agree we are bound within the local patch, but as a consequence of horizon lines and feedback to any linear projection.

Also I have a strong objection to reducing space to an effect of measurement and geometry. For instance, infinite(?) numbers of dimensionless points can’t add up to anything, as even infinity multiplied by zero is still zero.

As I keep arguing with the cosmologists and none of them have shown me where I’m wrong, that saying ‘space expands” overlooks the fact that the theory still assumes a stable speed of light, as the denominator against which to judge this expansion and that assumes a stable dimension of space, in which that expansion is effectively only increasing distance.

Now given the sun is 8 minutes away, at lightspeed and the nearest star is 4.3 lightyears away, it seems dismissing space is the supreme hubris.

Good luck on your trip!

LikeLike

]]>