Science Forums

# Does It Make Sense To Say That Something Is Almost Infinite? If Yes, Then Why?

## Recommended Posts

I remember hearing someone say "almost infinite" in this video. As someone who hasn't studied very much math, "almost infinite" sounds like nonsense. Either something ends or it doesn't, there really isn't a spectrum of unending-ness. In this video he says that ''almost infinite'' pieces of verticle lines are placed along X length. Why not infinit?

##### Share on other sites

If its from a mathematician, infinities make the maths easier. ie If a number tends towards infinity and you divide a value by it, then you know the answer will tend towards zero.

Infinite space has philosophical meanings, like never ending, or never ending as far as we can tell. The visible horizon of the universe 13.8billion ish years away does not mean the universe ends at 13.8 billion light years away. It could just keep going for ever or have some slight undetectable curvature, that brings you back to where you started like on the surface of a very large sphere.

So, in that video, at 1:23 is it correct to say that 'infinite pieces'' of vertical lines instead of ''almost infinite pieces''?

##### Share on other sites

1) I think conversely. everything is  almost finite. (but this is a part of philosophy,you need formulization and usage for reality)

2) I disagree to that video,after 3th dimensions are not convincing.

3) as a matheatician, I do not prefer to say that math is easy or difficult.

...

Edited by balagna
##### Share on other sites

1) I think conversely. everything is  almost finite. (but this is a part of philosophy,you need formulization and usage for reality)

2) I disagree to that video,after 3th dimensions are not convincing.

3) as a matheatician, I do not prefer to say that math is easy or difficult.

...

So, is two dimensions made of infinite number of one dimensions, as stated in 1:23?

##### Share on other sites

we need some instructions ,and to connet some other contexts each them

like this

vector space X is said to be finite dimensional if there is a positive integer n such that X contains a linearly independent set of n vectors whereas any set of n + 1 or more vectors of X is linearly dependent. n is called the dimension of X, written n = dim X. By definition, X = {O} is finite dimensional and dim X = 0. If X is not finite dimensional, it is said to be infinite dimensional

In analysis, infinite dimensional vector spaces are of greater interest than finite dimensional ones. For instance, C[ a, b] and 12 are infinite dimensional, whereas Rn and en are n-dimensional. If dim X = n, a linearly independent n-tuple of vectors of X is called a basis for X (or a basis in X). If {et, ... , en} is a basis for X, every x E X has a unique representation as a linear combination of the basis vectors

This is sometimes called the canonical basis for Rn. More generally, if X is any vector space, not necessarily finite dimensional, and B is a linearly independent subset of X which spans 2.1 Vector Space ss X, then B is called a basis (or Hamel basis) for X. Hence if B is a basis for X, then every nonzero x E X has a unique representation as a linear combination of (finitely many!) elements of B with nonzero scalars as coefficients. Every vector space Xi:- {O} has a basis. In the finite dimensional case this is clear. For arbitrary infinite dimensional vector spaces an existence proof will be given by the use of Zorn's lemma. This lemma involves several concepts whose explanation would take us some time and, since at present a number of other thin~s are more important to us, we do not pause but postpone that existence proof to Sec. 4.1, where we must introduce Zorn's lemma for another purpose. We mention that all bases for a given (finite or infinite' dimensional) vector space X have the same cardinal number. (A proof would require somewhat more advanced tools from set theory; ct. M. M. Day (1973), p. 3.) This number is called the dimension of X. Note that this includes and extends Def. 2.1-7. Later we shall need the following simple [1]

[1] Kreyszig,Erwin Kreyszig ,INTRODUCTORY FUNCTIONAL ANALYSIS WITH ~ APPLICATIONS,wiley&son's

some more broad instructions exist in algebra. and then , go to geometry and / or physics ..

then try to connect all the relevancies each them without going far away from the reality.

Edited by balagna
##### Share on other sites

I'm still waiting for a payoff I've demonstrated within a context in the past

what do you mean by this sentence?

are you waiting a reply to your previous comment?

##### Share on other sites

I don't even know right now. These public forums are not a good place to be spilling all my regimes.

you are really not understandable.

I can also see,that you do not understood yourself,too.

Edited by balagna
##### Share on other sites

I have a universe-like topological system that can be expressed in numbers giving precise behavior similar to a big bang. Big bangs in this context in fact have variations which are size dependent, and only for the first few moments of a stellar mass black hole at this point can be comparable to fitting 13 billion years in a event horizon accelerated time vacuum of about 10^-21 years

1) topology: I think that while,it has its own mathematical definition privately to this case,this word seems semantic.

2) big bang: I do not deal with this definition in the current position. so,I am unable to draw a meaningful message here about this issue.

3) black hole: yes! this has high potentiality to be relevant to this thread, but again I do not deal with it in the current position.

....

some specific conclusions.

if you;

1)think that you have found some important scientific clues or findings ,then do not post here .(if I were you). prepare it well ,and submit it to a scientific journal.

2) think that you have invented something, then please be informed that you are strictly advised NOT to share it anywhere except official filing to patent institıtes.

Edited by balagna
##### Share on other sites

Draco;

Unfortunately, mathematicians don't always have grammatical skills to match their math skills. "almost infinite" is in the same category as "almost pregnant", etc.

The intended meaning of any statement containing 'infinite', depends on the context.

Using a dictionary or thesaurus, you find 'figures of speech' for emphasis or drama.

Math is (supposedly) a formal language with rigid definitions, (in an ideal world).

The definition of 'infinite' in the mathematical sense is: without limit or immeasurable.

It's a relation or condition, not a quantity. This is the common problem of attempting to use it as a quantifier.

If you research "mathematical limits", you will find another nonsensical phrase, "approaches infinity".

I have asked how this is done, on various forums, with no responses.

If 'it takes an infinite amount of time', then 'it never happens'.

##### Share on other sites

Infinity is interesting, but it is also really just an abstract, it simply means 'something without bounds', numbers are also abstract (a 6 does not exist in reality), but infinity is not really even a number.

Nothing is infinite! literally.. The only thing that can be considered by itself as infinite is nothing..

Although having said that, it could be that the Universe itself 'goes forever' (without bounds), and it could actually be the case that the amount of matter in the universe AND the amount of space that the matter exists in could be infinite.

But even if the entire universe contained only the mass of a single electron, then the Universe would still be infinite (without bounds or borders), that is our universe that contains a single electron mass would have finite mass (the mass of the electron), but the 'NOTHING' that the electrons exists in (space) is infinite, at no point at any distance away from that electron is there NOT SPACE.

SO the only thing that can be infinite is nothing.

You just cannot consider 'infinite' to be 'VERY LARGE' or 'VERY SMALL' or very far away, or 'almost' anything. Because infinite does not have anything to do with size.

Infinity is handy for use in mathematics (again, because of strict rules and definitions), but in science and physics it's not really 'a thing', if your physics equations results in infinities that generally means you are getting something wrong.

So if you are doing calculation son black holes and you start getting infinities out of your equations, either your physics is wrong, or your assumptions are wrong.

Nature does not do infinities, (except possibly for nothing, and the universe). But locally (such as black holes), if you get infinities it's probably wrong.

Mathematically you may be able to put matter into zero volume but just like in computer science if you start dividing by zero's you get an error (divide by zero error), if you introduce concepts like matter in zero volume you will get infinities (garbage) as an output.

It's upsetting to me that in modern times (past 50 years ish), that theoretical physics has started to consider infinities as a valid conclusion and are embracing infinities as opposed to understanding that the infinities they get show that they are wrong.

This is probably a good part of the reason why physics and cosmology are in crisis today and have been really struggling for many, many years.

##### Share on other sites

Infinity is interesting, but it is also really just an abstract, it simply means 'something without bounds', numbers are also abstract (a 6 does not exist in reality), but infinity is not really even a number.

Nothing is infinite! literally.. The only thing that can be considered by itself as infinite is nothing..

Although having said that, it could be that the Universe itself 'goes forever' (without bounds), and it could actually be the case that the amount of matter in the universe AND the amount of space that the matter exists in could be infinite.

But even if the entire universe contained only the mass of a single electron, then the Universe would still be infinite (without bounds or borders), that is our universe that contains a single electron mass would have finite mass (the mass of the electron), but the 'NOTHING' that the electrons exists in (space) is infinite, at no point at any distance away from that electron is there NOT SPACE.

SO the only thing that can be infinite is nothing.

You just cannot consider 'infinite' to be 'VERY LARGE' or 'VERY SMALL' or very far away, or 'almost' anything. Because infinite does not have anything to do with size.

Infinity is handy for use in mathematics (again, because of strict rules and definitions), but in science and physics it's not really 'a thing', if your physics equations results in infinities that generally means you are getting something wrong.

So if you are doing calculation son black holes and you start getting infinities out of your equations, either your physics is wrong, or your assumptions are wrong.

Nature does not do infinities, (except possibly for nothing, and the universe). But locally (such as black holes), if you get infinities it's probably wrong.

Mathematically you may be able to put matter into zero volume but just like in computer science if you start dividing by zero's you get an error (divide by zero error), if you introduce concepts like matter in zero volume you will get infinities (garbage) as an output.

It's upsetting to me that in modern times (past 50 years ish), that theoretical physics has started to consider infinities as a valid conclusion and are embracing infinities as opposed to understanding that the infinities they get show that they are wrong.

This is probably a good part of the reason why physics and cosmology are in crisis today and have been really struggling for many, many years.

first,it will be good to say ,I think you do not have sufficient mathematical skill

You need to formulize the thing whatever you say,therefore you are definitely lacking.

please be informed that infinity is not alone.

you need something to describe it for instance you need a serie, a sequence or a function.

then you will be able to describe infinity.

thus,almost all of your this explanations is NOTHING.

##### Share on other sites

Draco;

Unfortunately, mathematicians don't always have grammatical skills to match their math skills. "almost infinite" is in the same category as "almost pregnant", etc.

The intended meaning of any statement containing 'infinite', depends on the context.

Using a dictionary or thesaurus, you find 'figures of speech' for emphasis or drama.

Math is (supposedly) a formal language with rigid definitions, (in an ideal world).

The definition of 'infinite' in the mathematical sense is: without limit or immeasurable.

It's a relation or condition, not a quantity. This is the common problem of attempting to use it as a quantifier.

If you research "mathematical limits", you will find another nonsensical phrase, "approaches infinity".

I have asked how this is done, on various forums, with no responses.

If 'it takes an infinite amount of time', then 'it never happens'.

you do not have  mathematical skill to interpret this issue.

Edited by balagna
##### Share on other sites

you do not have  mathematical skill to interpret this issue.

How did you get appointed as a role model for society?

##### Share on other sites

Infinity has mathematical and philosophical meanings.

Examples of infinties with other definitions eg. Mathematically N/0 is undefined or non computable. The calculation of numbers, that can not be computed without infinite decimal places. PI for example could be regarded as examples of infinities.

Infinity is a definition of something that is unattainable either numerically, or in terms of spacetime coordinates.

Nothing is not a mathematical definition. If you focus on the vacuum nothingness of space, you find it is full of quantum fluctuations, all the way down to the planck scale, perhaps the 0th dimension for the purposes of this thread.

Tending towards infinity is a useful mathematical idea which allows mathematical simplifications in the derivation of formulaes. You will remember from university that many of those formulae used in calculus are derived by assuming infinties, or tending towards infinity or zero.

Are you not contradicting yourself a little here.

If the maths comes up with infinities when a mathematical theory is stretched beyond breaking point, then a new theory might be required.

Standard spacetime dimensions, might not be all there is. String theory which I am not keen on introduces lots more dimensions. The 0th dimension above could be regarded in a number of different ways. Playing with the idea of it as a membrane (m theory), which connects all points in spacetime, is interesting. The number 0 revolutionized our counting. https://www.history.com/news/who-invented-the-zero#:~:text=Sumerian%20scribes%20used%20spaces%20to,century%20B.C.%20in%20ancient%20Babylon.

Introducing a 0th dimension as a membrane, without shape or definition is interesting to play with, both mathematically and philosophically. Perhaps ascribing a minimum size at the planck scale, and also connecting to all points in space to different degrees tending all the way to infinity. Space time grows out of an undefined infinte 0th dimension

Disappearing down a wormhole and warping ideas with entanglement ie the ER = EPR conjecture does a a 0th dimension help at all?????

Edit at c infinite space and time or zero space and time in what reference frames??

Infinity has mathematical and philosophical meanings.

Examples of infinties with other definitions eg. Mathematically N/0 is undefined or non computable. The calculation of numbers, that can not be computed without infinite decimal places. PI for example could be regarded as examples of infinities.

Infinity is a definition of something that is unattainable either numerically, or in terms of spacetime coordinates.

The question then is 'is mathematics physics?', and yes Infinity has math and philosophical meanings, I would say that math is not in itself physics, it is just a good language to describe things in physics (the real world), by using the abstract and 'by definition' mathematics, as the language of communications.

N/0 is only undefined in your don't use infinity (infinity is the definition of how many zero's goes into one), I would say it's is non-computable because infinity is not a number. (but numbers can be infinite, as you said such as Pi, or the number of numbers between 1 and 2).

You can do that with numbers and math, especially if you have a definition of a value without bounds (infinity) that can be used in mathematics to describe irrational numbers and division by zero.

But how does that apply beyond the world of math and philosophy? In the real world, in nature and in physics? (that's the philosophical question).

So what is infinite in the real world ?

Nothing is not a mathematical definition. If you focus on the vacuum nothingness of space, you find it is full of quantum fluctuations, all the way down to the planck scale, perhaps the 0th dimension for the purposes of this thread.

'Nothing' is tricky, particularly in theoretical physics, it is true it is not a mathematical definition (but zero is, as are all numbers, they are abstract, so what nothing 'is' is more a philosophical question.

"If you focus on the vacuum nothingness of space" then you focus on the something (vacuum) nothingness of something (space). So you are not really dealing with nothing.

I'm assuming your are talking about the Casimir effect when you talk about 'full of quantum fluctuations', I don't buy that argument, it's an interesting effect but I don't accept the conclusion that the effect is caused by quantum particles or fluctuations popping into existance and applying a force to the metal plates. I see the effect to be simply electric and magnetic forces between the charges present on the metal plates causing the observed attraction.

If that was not the case where is the entire class of instruments being developed to study and investigate and characterise these quantum fluxuations?

That is I do not accept based on the available evidence that we do in fact get something from nothing (vacuum nothingness of space).

But to truly have nothing, you would not no space or time or energy or gravity. But even then you still could have completely empty space.

Imagine you had a box made out of a hyperthetical shielding material that existed at absolute zero, blocked all EM radiation, blocked 'gravity' and all energy, you take out all matter from inside the box (perfect vacuum), so within the walls of the box exists nothing (no heat, no light, no gravity, no matter) even then you have 'SPACE' betweeen the walls of the box, the box does not collapse to zero size, it is just a box with NOTHING in it, but you can still measure a length of space within the box (the box has a size).

But even then the length of space you have in the box is finite (say your box is 1 meter per side), you can fit a 1 meter ruler inside the box. That is inside the box is bound by the box itself.

I was trying to say earlier that the 'box' of our universe has no bounds, so nothing (space length and nothing else) could be infinite, the universe could be infinite in extent, and if populated with matter that matter could also be infinite. But it is possible to have a finite amount of matter in an infinite universe of nothing but space.

If the maths comes up with infinities when a mathematical theory is stretched beyond breaking point, then a new theory might be required.

This is a thorny point (at least for me), is it a 'mathematical theory' or a mathematical description of nature? Is the math the science? Or the theory?

My argument against math being the science/nature is that if you get infinities from the math it is going to be the math that is misapplied or applied as an 'ideal' (abstract).

My argument is that nature will not let you do something that will result in infinities, so something you can do with math you cannot do in the real world, if you stretch the mathematical 'theory' such that you get infinities I think it is the application of the math that is the problem and not nature.

If I put zero ohms across a charged capacitor I will get infinite current, according to perfectly working math and ideal components that nature does not allow you to do. Does that mean ohms law, or coulombs law are broken and we need a new theory or new math? I would say we do not. Nothing wrong with the theory or the math, but you still get infinities out, if you consider nature as abstracts (ideal components).

So zero volume with matter in it would be for me an example of applying abstracts to the reality of nature, So to say that you can apply relativity and mathematically put matter in zero volume, you get the impossible infinities (density/volume) in the singularity in a black hole.

Does that really happen in nature? I would say it is just like the zero ohm resister and charged capacitor, you will not get the infinities that the math implies.

As for dimensions of space and the 0th dimension, you have to ask yourself what qualifies as a spatial dimension and a time dimension?

In that subject I have a different perspective of space and time that is a non-geometrical perspective.

but even with a geometrical perspective you need to consider (or I do) what is common between X,Y,Z and time X,Y,Z are directions, and a length and that length is an absolute (no negatives). SO I consider the common factor to be length (of space and of time), and due to the speed of light being constant (in all reference frames), that length property is the same (in any direction and in any time if geometrically treated).

So my question would be what qualifies 0th dimension or higher dimensions as dimensions at all? do they have a direction and a length property? Do they have length properties such to keep c constant? Does a direction qualify as a dimension? if so would there not be an infinite number of them, far more than X,Y,Z 3 dimensions with is a minimal number of values to define a location (plus time for when to show up!). But there is no reason why could not go in any direction and define that direction as a dimension.

Now I fully understand that you, just like myself have always understood as space being 3 dimensional and geometrical in nature and 'curved and warped' by matter/mass. I understand that it is hard to conceptualise otherwise.

But for me, I see the model of space and time far more simply explained and understood that space is fundamentally a length property, and what is relative about relativity is the difference in the length property from the observed to the observer, and having little to do with the relative locations or paths between to two reference frames.

The temperature at your place relative to the temperature at my place is not a function of the relative locations or paths between your place and my place, although I can define it as such, and I can mathematically justify that relative difference in those terms.

I find it more interesting to consider simply that the temperature at your address is different from mine, and then explore those differences in terms of the nature of space (temp) at your location relative to the nature of space at my location. (but not as a function of your position relative to me).

The only difficulty of this treatment (non-geometrical) is not intrenched the geometrical model is. (but it does save on 4D geometric calculus)..

Now I think I'm way off topic, but thanks for the comments and post.

##### Share on other sites

Well my thoughts on this is in string theory the energy dimensions/curled dimensions expand from a 0th state to a dimensional state so maybe within the confines of this universe it is possible to expand something from a negative infinity to a finite size however these curled dimensions still occupy a plank length so technically they are not infinitely small, just very small, but still they decompress in such a way that seems like they are expanding from a zero(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compactification_(physics)).

Edited by VictorMedvil
##### Share on other sites

I am not keen on string theory, I cant think in 26 dimensions or 11 dimensions of M theory https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M-theory

How do you define entanglement effects in string theory without a dimension that does not have space time restrictions or planck sized limits?

0th dimension perhaps undefined, as a building block which everything else unfolds from.?

It explain it the same as Quantum Mechanics explains it, as a quantum effect, string theory does not have any additional insights into the entanglement phenomenon. The 0th Dimensions is the size of a planck length in string theory and is defined however everything can be compressed to a planck length such as in black holes the space dimensions are compressed to a planck length by gravity. It has a similar picture as general relativity but the dots on the plane are curled up dimensions as thing such as charge,Color, and flavor, which come from QFT.

General Relativity(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pseudo-Riemannian_manifold#Lorentzian_manifold)

The only real difference between each of the theories is the manifold that was used(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manifold).

Edited by VictorMedvil
##### Share on other sites

Denial of Quantum theory and the proven Casimir effect, is a wrong opinion to take in my opinion :). Perhaps you could argue the casimir effect away with van der vaals forces. The dynamic casimr effect can not be argued away in the same way. Dark energy and the expansion of the universe could be due to the energy of the vacuum of space. Quantum theory is at the basis of everything, which is made up of quantum fluctuations, supporting :) the vacuum of space.

Rambling

The expansion of space expands into what from what?. The need to define measurable dimensions x,y,z,time etc might not be a requirement for a 0th dimension. Why not undefinable, all points could be separated by 0 distance in a 0th dimension, like M theory perhaps. Likewise the need to define measurable mass might not be a requirement for a 0th dimension. A 0th dimension could be your "nothing" it is not definable within normal mathematical constraints.

Your explanation of space time based around the length property is intriguing:) ie I cant see anything wrong with it, which must be wrong :( what are the arguments against it?????????? Does a undefined dimension help your interpretation of relativity???????? (ie absorption of space in a direction along a path shrinking the distance between points, rather than moving between points (confused myself now)).  I am sure it is relative from an undefined location:)

Denial of Quantum theory and the proven Casimir effect, is a wrong opinion to take in my opinion :). Perhaps you could argue the casimir effect away with van der vaals forces. The dynamic casimr effect can not be argued away in the same way. Dark energy and the expansion of the universe could be due to the energy of the vacuum of space. Quantum theory is at the basis of everything, which is made up of quantum fluctuations, supporting :) the vacuum of space.

The effect is real, there is a force between the two metal plates that is a real effect, that the effect is the result of some quantum effects or fluctuations is for me at least not a convincing argument. The idea is that somehow the metal plates exclude 'space' so the gap between the plates is too close for the fluctuations to occur in.

If that is the case the effect should also be seem with non-conducting material instead of metal electrical conducting plates. So for it is fairly obvious that it is due to the close proximity of free electrons (loosely bound) and electric and magnetic fields creating eddy currents and electric fields that cause the plates to experience an attractive force. You are essentially creating a capacitor and there is no way you could design that experiment and keep those EM effects out of the picture (unless you use a non conductor such as a ceramic). I expect that as well as the magnetic and electric fields causing an attraction that you are also getting electron exchange where the electrons are ripped off one place and flow across the gap to the other place.

Again, if the effect is due to quantum particles applying a force outside and not inside the gap that effect would also be apparent if you used glass or ceramic or some other non conductor.

It would also be a value field of exploration into the nature and frequency of these quantum particles, it would be a new branch of science, but I don't see that happening. That is why I say that the effect is real, but the reason for that effect or the conclusion that it is due to a quantum effect is incorrect.

If you can detect these quantum fluctuations by just putting two metal plates close to each other, then the detectors such as at CERN would be flooded with this energy and would overwhelm the detectors with noise.

Science is not about picking a conclusion that supports your argument without every other possibility for the observed effect, as you pointed out with my length of space and time argument, it needs to be able to be falsified and you have to consider every other possible explanation, then you write a paper and ask your peers to also try their best to come up with reasons why you might be wrong. Than that is followed by a long process of trying to see if it could be in any way wrong.

So two things, why is the effect not being exploited to discover more about the nature of these quantum particles popping out of nowhere? By modifications and variations of the experiment? and 2) The scientific method is to continuously question conclusions and to try to come up with possible valid and testable alternatives to explain an observed effect. I do not think quantum particles from space vacuum fits well or could be 'the only possible mechanism' to give that effect.

The expansion of space expands into what from what?. The need to define measurable dimensions x,y,z,time etc might not be a requirement for a 0th dimension. Why not undefinable, all points could be separated by 0 distance in a 0th dimension, like M theory perhaps. Likewise the need to define measurable mass might not be a requirement for a 0th dimension. A 0th dimension could be your "nothing" it is not definable within normal mathematical constraints.

I DON'T think space is expanding!!! There I have come out of the closet! I don't think the big bang went down the way it is claimed to have happened (or the many variants thereof).  But that just means that the evidence for the big bang is not sufficient and could be the result of other known effects. I am mainly talking about Hubble expansion and the CMBR here.

As with the Casimir effect, I do not think the data strongly supports the conclusions (the big bang banged) and the data can be explained by other mechanisms that are well known and understood. I do not see any clear and unambiguous evidence that redshift with distance and background radiation can ONLY be the result of a big bang.

There is also a lot of evidence that the BB model is fundamentally flawed in its inability to make accurate predictions. But that is a separate subject and would be an interesting thread in its own right.

But IF the BB did happen and the universe is expanding (I guess it's possible!!!  ) Then the universe could still be infinite and go forever, but the length of space could be getting longer (as in my space length model), and that is kind of what the expanding universe model (or some of them) consider to be the case, possibly resulting in 'the big rip' scenario, where space gets so long that even protons and neutrons (and possibly electrons) decompose or rip apart.

Your explanation of space time based around the length property is intriguing:) ie I cant see anything wrong with it, which must be wrong :( what are the arguments against it?????????? Does a undefined dimension help your interpretation of relativity???????? (ie absorption of space in a direction along a path shrinking the distance between points, rather than moving between points (confused myself now)).  I am sure it is relative from an undefined location:)

I also think it is very intriguing and once you get it in your head it's really hard to think about it in any other way! I cant see anything wrong with it either, I can't really see any arguments against it, except what I sometimes hard from people who have not tried to grasp it (it's not hard but takes a different perspective) who just say 'space is warped'.

What I have done to try to disprove it is to compare the model to the 'tests of relativity', the experiments that confirm that relativity is correct, and see if the space length model fits the observations, it's a bottom up, first principles approach.

So I look at things like time dilation, gravitational lensing, Shapiro Delay, and 'dragging', and see if my model explains those observations, but additionally the model really neatly explains how GRAVITY actually works, in a simple and practical way, it explains orbits as well.

It explains the effects we observe, but it does it for me far more cleanly and simply than a relative position, warped space model. It really does need a thread of its own, and when I have enough courage I will try to explain it in more detail..

If you like I have a subreddit dedicated to it, and if you have some time I would invite you to check it out it's /r/SpaceTime_Relativity..

I want to create a thread for it here, but I want to first write it out in a clear and 'scientific method' type of way, and asking people to try to understand it but to question it. But it is conceptionally different to what we all learned. But I think I might be right!!

I think the universe fundamentally operates with some VERY SIMPLE rules, and matter matting space longer as opposed to matter curing space is very simple and explains what we see. Space is flat, just like we measure it to be..

The definition of 'dimension' does! X,Y,Z,t is useful if you have a party invite because its all the information you need, it's the time and the address (but does not tell you if it is fancy dress!). And that's the problem cosmological dimensions is just the address of a location of a 4D array of values. But it does not tell you anything about what is the property of that array location. What is happening at that address and why is what is happening at that location justified by that location relative to your own location (or reference frame)?

So for example: the center of the earth is 2.5 years 'younger' than the surface of the earth, and that time 'goes faster' on a GPS satellite atomic clock from General relativity due to its distance from the center of the earth. We observe this effect.

That is time is LONGER at the center of the earth and shorter on a GPS satellite, the center of the earth is 2.5 years younger (over the age of the earth), because a clock there would less longer seconds and the clock on a GPS satellite or on top of Everest would count more shorter seconds, at both locations the speed of light is the same, so the length of space HAS TO BE also longer at the center of the earth and shorter on top of Everest.

The length of space varies relative to the amount of mass and the proximity to that mass, matter makes space longer and because space is longer the time we derive from that length of space (spacetime) is also made longer because of matter. Space (distance) derived time (spacetime) is an emergent property of the length of space, the length of space is a function of mass and distance.

Gravity is the result of matter moving into a lower energy state by getting into the longest possible space length, it can do that with general relativity by grouping together and sharing space, or with special relativity by moving through that space length (over time, by velocity) such that it 'experiences' more/longer space over time.

If want to start a thread on this subject, but I would like to have some diagrams to help explain it first..

## Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.