The Theory of a realistic

Discussion in 'Alternative Theories' started by absolute-space, Feb 25, 2016.

  1. Dywyddyr Penguinaciously duckalicious. Valued Senior Member

    You're mistaken:
    This is neither true nor an axiom.

    Nor this. For example: is a distance of 5 miles (or metres, or millimetres) no longer cont as a distance because it's been measured?

    Why do the points have to be "reflective"?

    It's an axiom that the universe is infinite?

    If matter OCCUPIES space doesn't that contradict your earlier "definition" of space?

    You appear to be redefining "matter" and "substance" without actually providing the definitions.

    If you'd written "physical dimensions" you'd have been more nearly correct.

    You don't have a theory: what you have is a mish-mash of rubbish, unsupported drivel and made up nonsense that YOU think is correct and justified (when in fact it's neither).
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  3. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    To be fair to our friend, perhaps the fault of him claiming this as a "theory" could be laid at the section heading, which is wrong. Afterall we do all [most of us anyway] know what a scientific theory is and what it entails.
    The heading should more correctly be named "alternative hypotheticals".
    You are totally correct of course with your comment on the content of this mish mash of scientifically sounding words, jumbled together in the form of sentences but which are grossly astray in their meanings.
    In that respect, this thread should be in pseudoscience along with the two woo threads by "the god" poster.
    [Or possibly even cesspool]
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  5. absolute-space Registered Member

    Thank you for your post, I will consider what you are asking, and reply when I have consider it.
    Last edited: Feb 25, 2016
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  7. river

    You clearly should not have read his post dyydr.
  8. exchemist Valued Senior Member

    And congrats to you too for your unwonted magnanimity.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

  9. absolute-space Registered Member

    My apologies, I forgot to add that I was considering the questions for reply.
  10. absolute-space Registered Member

    The theory is not finished or been final edited. I do not see any point in answering your question when your mind is already made up. However, luckily you are not the peers who will be reading the final edit . You are welcome to your opinion and criticism which I will take on board.

    ''If you'd written "physical dimensions" you'd have been more nearly correct.''

    Indeed correct, it was careless of me to do that before my edit.

    me -'space - space is the volume of ''empty'' distance that surrounds an observer.

    you -'' This is neither true nor an axiom.''

    I disagree, you can quite clearly see that ''empty'' is in quotation, we perceive that space is not opaque, we do not see air or light propagating through air, relatively to us , we observe an emptiness of space with the occasional dust particles or raindrops etc.

    Do you think you are not surrounded by space inferring you was in a solid?

    I am not sure you read the edited version also which I have edited again after your comment.

    Space - space is the volume of ''empty'' distance that surrounds an observer
    Distance - An isotropic unbounded quantity of N-dimensional space expanding away from the observer
    Length -1. A measured distance of finite bounded space between two reflective or light emitting point sources.
    2. A measurement of an objects physical dimensions of its form.
    Universe - an unbounded N-dimensional space
    Visual Universe - a finite observed length within a Universe
    Matter - Solidity or substance that occupies space
    Energy - property of an object, matter of substance with physical presence but without solidity.
    Objects - matter existing with solidity such as a particle.
    Motion - the continuous displacement of matter in space
    Dimensions- The volume of a physical object
    Last edited: Feb 25, 2016
  11. river

    My comments are done at the end of the thought , ( ; )
    absolute-space likes this.
  12. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    Firstly and for the second time, as yet you do not have a theory, at least not a scientific theory.
    So you are writing up a paper on your hypothetical philosophical outlook of reality and science? Good. Reputable publisher I hope?
    We had another once who published some tripe on what he called Black Neutron Stars: The paper was totally demolished by three professional experts, all professors, two whose area of research was BH's and Neutron stars.
    The claim by the same poster of an improved follow up paper, never eventuated.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    At least the forum heard no more about it.
    absolute-space likes this.
  13. absolute-space Registered Member

    They say space is expanding but I do agree that the word is rather misleading, thank you for the pointing out, I think extending away may be a better expression.
  14. river

    absolute-space likes this.
  15. absolute-space Registered Member

    Did you not read this section which has new things in it? Also I have not added seeing things in the past etc yet.

    6.The meaning and value of Geometric
    Geometry is a branch of maths that is concerned in dealing with the aspects of shape, lines , curves and points , geometrically being a regular existence of lines and shapes thus leading us into a lengthy discussion of the relativeness of Geometry in space.
    It is important when considering space and in the use of geometry and Minkowski's space-time, that we do not get obsessed into trying to materialise Minkowski's space-time into something other than virtual, ignoring any ''truths'' of axioms such that lines or curves relatively do not exist in space, relatively curves and lines only exist of objects.
    Einstein's relativity, a theory , which is not an axiom, suggests a curvature of Minkowski's space-time regarding space-time to like'fabric'', however there has never been any physical properties of space observed such as an aether or anything observed of a solidity of space itself. Space is observed as passive, even allowing the propagation of light through space, space offering no resistance to the light. It is of importance though we do not disregard Einstein's work or Minkowski's space-time completely, it has huge value in respect to navigation and co-ordination of events in the visual Universe and some of Einstein's relativity thought is of axiom ''truths'' thus far on our understanding and exclusively to our limitations.
    In the continuation of geometry, I feel it is of importance we bring to the discussion, the geometrical relative size of the visual universe. It is believed by the big bang theory, that before the big bang , nothing existed , not even time.
    In the above sense, relatively we can describe nothing in geometrical maths terminology
    4/3 pi r³ - 4/3 pi r³ = nothing
    In this maths use expression, it is not important to consider values or put values, the importance of the equation is to consider any size spherical volume and by taking away equal to itself, it leaves nothing.
    The big bang also suggests that space is expanding, suggesting the size of the visual Universe is ''growing'' and that space itself is expanding into nothing.
    However, this is not an axiom of ''truth''and the evidence that is offered of the Hubble observed red shift, is based on the length between two reflective points . Space itself does not reflect light or is observed to be red shifting, only the incident ray of light impacting an object or the reflective invert of light from objects can red shift relative to the Doppler effect. I propose the basis of evidence suggests that objects are moving away from the observer into more space, rather than the unobserved expansion of space, a length expansion into a unknown distance.
    Thus brings me to an explanation of a limitation, the limitation being that of light and the diminished magnitude of light over a distance from the source, following that of the inverse square law, relative to observation of objects and the observer.
    In consideration of the diminished light, let us consider an analogy , which is a comparison between one thing and another of similar context.
    If in thought we imagine a huge empty warehouse that was in complete darkness, in the center of the warehouse is observer (A) and at a length away from observer (A) standing by the warehouse walls was observer (B).
    Relative to observer (A) they can not observe (B)
    Relative to observer (B) they can not observe (A)
    Relatively both observers can concur by voice the axiom truth, that neither observer can observe each other.
    Now lets us imagine that observer (A) in the center of the huge warehouse was to place a lit candle by their feet.
    Relative to observer (A) they can still not observe (B)
    Relative to observer (B) they can observe (A)
    Relative to both observers, they can concur by voice that this is the axiom truth of the observation.
    My reasoning for this relationship is that emitted light is a much a greater magnitude than reflected light. Observer B observes light emitted from the candle flame and a greater magnitude of reflection of the light off (A), where as observer (B) only reflects the extended light that is weakened by the inverse square law by time it arrives at (B). The magnitude of light reflected from (B) is not a great enough magnitude by time the invert reaches (A) and the information of observation is ''washed out'' by the candle light surrounding (A).
    There is no apparent reason why this analogy can not be used on a broader scale of space. We can assume that the axiom holds true on a broader scale, we can assume that the ''black'' background of space, is distance, and objects reflect light or emit light over the distance to identify lengths between objects.
    To extend on this axiom, I would direct the reader to the attention of vanishing points and perspective view. A body in motion travelling away from an observer relative to observation will appear to decrease in size to an eventual point of appearing to not exist, down scaling into nothing.
    This can be described in analogy by using a train track.
    If in imagination we are standing on the train track observing a train travelling away from us , relatively we observe the train's observed rear area, scaling down in size.
    This area contraction can be acquainted to the Lorentz formula and length contraction, length contraction being that of perspective parallel nature, where as the perspective linear view relative nature to motion of the object differs in that the whole area of the viewed object contracts to a point of nothingness relative to a linear velocity between two bodies.
    Thus brings us to the relative geometrical size of the visual Universe, there is a ''truth'' in that the size is relative to the reflectiveness or the emittance of the furthest away object, there is also a ''truth'' that this does not show us any relative size to the Universe and space itself, this only shows us relative length between objects relative to light.
    To describe the visual universe in geometrical maths, we can write the expression
    4/3 pi r(c)³
    Where r(c) represents the radius of light we observe from a localised point of the Universe corresponding to a distant body and relative to the length of light between bodies.
    To describe the the Universe and N-dimensional space we can apply the maths expression
    4/3 pi N³
  16. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    Not interested in your unsupported hypothesis for many reasons.

    But at least you kept to the right section.....take a point.
  17. absolute-space Registered Member

    No problem and it will be a theory when I add all the rellavent maths , I can not place the maths here it won't show properly.
  18. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    Sure sure!

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    You ever heard of delusions of grandeur?
  19. origin In a democracy you deserve the leaders you elect. Valued Senior Member

    Sure they will look here:

Share This Page