Spacetime By the Volume!

[Atlan0001]

Einstein's 4=dimensionality of spacetime does not go by, or exist by, any length of time, but by the indivisible VOLUME (and the volumes, infinitely plural in indivisible solidly 4-dimensional volumes) of SPACETIME! Smack the volume arm of your chair. Grip any volume of object. Think any 4-dimensionally concentric volume of spacetime (volumes of spacetime).

Now you have the union of of relativity and quantum mechanics in the countless breadth and depth of 4-dimensional volumes, not 1-dimensional lengths of spacetime (of the small diamond-like (so to speak) 4-dimensional VOLUME dollops and the huge broad and deep VOLUME oceans of spacetimes).

There is no 'Flatland', there are no 'flatlands', to Einstein's 4-dimensional zeroing of spacetime . . . to Einstein's diamond-quality bits, shatter-shards (so to speak), of spacetime volume and volumes)! Microcosmic (micro-verse) and macrocosmic (macro-verse)! In the 4-dimensional, otherwise dimensionless or 0-dimensional, volumes of spacetime microcosmic and macrocosmic is the union of the micro- and macro-verses. Including, probably, the otherwise dimensionless or concentric 0-dimensional volume of gravity . . . the ... countless many broad and deep volumes of gravity.

 

[Pinball1970]

Einstein's 4=dimensionality of spacetime does not go by, or exist by, any length of time, but by the indivisible VOLUME (and the volumes, infinitely plural in indivisible solidly 4-dimensional volumes) of SPACETIME! Smack the volume arm of your chair. Grip any volume of object. Think any 4-dimensionally concentric volume of spacetime (volumes of spacetime).

Now you have the union of of relativity and quantum mechanics in the countless breadth and depth of 4-dimensional volumes, not 1-dimensional lengths of spacetime (of the small diamond-like (so to speak) 4-dimensional VOLUME dollops and the huge broad and deep VOLUME oceans of spacetimes).

There is no 'Flatland', there are no 'flatlands', to Einstein's 4-dimensional zeroing of spacetime . . . to Einstein's diamond-quality bits, shatter-shards (so to speak), of spacetime volume and volumes)! Microcosmic (micro-verse) and macrocosmic (macro-verse)! In the 4-dimensional, otherwise dimensionless or 0-dimensional, volumes of spacetime microcosmic and macrocosmic is the union of the micro- and macro-verses. Including, probably, the otherwise dimensionless or concentric 0-dimensional volume of gravity . . . the ... countless many broad and deep volumes of gravity.

Why are you insisting on posting in hard science? It is very clear you have no idea what you are talking about.

Requesting this be moved to an appropriate SF.

 

[Atlan0001]

Why are you insisting on posting in hard science? It is very clear you have no idea what you are talking about.

Requesting this be moved to an appropriate SF.

More of a hard science idea, far more of a hard science idea, I grow more to realize, than you have any capacity whatsoever, or so it seems, to realize or know!

My coffee cup is an Einsteinian volume singularity of spacetime. The planet Earth we live on is an Einsteinian volume singularity of spacetime. A molecule of dirt is an Einsteinian volume singularity of spacetime, as is also its component makeup. A micro- and/or macro-verse is a volume singularity of spacetime . . . exactly as Einstein's work on relativity (work on invariance/invariability) predicts. Sometimes the man, or woman, doesn't realize how far, how deep, into the 'shape' of things their work extends.

Any and every unitary object / entity from the collapsed cosmological constant (/\) Planck Horizon Singularity up and out and/or down and in will be an Einsteinian volume singularity of spacetime (volume of spacetime . . . spacetime by the volume). Including my sons' signed -- hard science -- trophy baseballs (two volume spacetime singularities) I keep.

 

[DaveC426913]

Reported to have this moved to a more appropriate forum.

 

[Atlan0001]

Only content material, threads and posts aligned with and approved by DaveC426913 and/or Pinball1970 permitted in this forum?!?!?1 Hard science physics forbidden if it doesn't narrowly -- very, very, narrowly -- conform exactly to what they believe and say it is and should be. My coffee cup, and all it illustrates and represents of a volume singularity of spacetime in the entire universe, is hard science physics! Particularly, probably, locally illustrating and representing quantum gravity physics!

 

[Pinball1970]

Only (stuff) DaveC426913 and/or Pinball1970 permitted in this forum?!

No, we are the ones who are patiently trying to guide you.

Hard science means established science, it is in the text books, it is in the published literature.
Cutting edge research like Euclid data, is also hard science, so papers, pre prints and conference notes are totally fine.
Science that has happened OR happening.

Recent Published literature by definition will be very technical. I usually post a paper with a supporting article to give everyone a chance of reading it including myself.

"We should do Star Wars" is not hard science even it is a cool idea.


Space X/NASA, probably the closest you will get. As I said though, let's see a study, article relating to it.
Something tangible and realistic.

 

[DaveC426913]

Only content material, threads and posts aligned with and approved by DaveC426913 and/or Pinball1970 permitted in this forum?!?!?

Again with the persecution thing...

The mods make the decisions. They may reject the report. It's up to them.

It is every member's right and responsibility - that includes you - to inform moderators of issues they deem should be addressed.

There's no physics or math in this thread - not so far, anyway.

Putting your threads in the appropriate forum ensures your threads get the kind of attention you want. If a math- or physics-minded person sees this thread, they will dismiss it immediately, because they're expecting math and physics.

If you feel like you are being treated unfairly, by all means, report it so that the mods can address it.

Note though, that James has already weighed in on the dearth of science in your other threads, and those weren't even in the science forums. That gives you a big clue what is expected of you.

 

[Atlan0001]

What I put here is physics, but not the peer reviewed hard science physics the site is trying to have the input here, I see. I thank the moderators that I am still here at this time, but it isn't the afore mentioned:

Moderator,

If you will, please move my thread to a theoretical forum for its 4-dimensional spacetime by volume, as a resultant volume 0-dimensional singularity in physics, interpretation of Einstein. It certainly isn't 'Pseudoscience' since it expands Einstein into real world objects having volume micro- and macro-verse, but I have difficulty seeing it as 'Alternative Theories' since it is interpreting Einstein's 4-d volume of spacetime into 4-d (0-d concentric) volumes of spacetimes (plural). If 'Alternative Theories' is where you put it, so be it.

I promise I will stay away from this particular forum unless I'm addressing a particularly relevant published article to it.

Again, much thanks for leaving it alone so far.

 

[Atlan0001]

Oh! And if you choose to leave it here where it is, that will be okay, too!

 

[James R]

Einstein's 4=dimensionality of spacetime does not go by, or exist by, any length of time, but by the indivisible VOLUME (and the volumes, infinitely plural in indivisible solidly 4-dimensional volumes) of SPACETIME!

You're making an assertion here that, as far as I can tell, doesn't even scan as an English statement that makes sense.

Now you have the union of of relativity and quantum mechanics in the countless breadth and depth of 4-dimensional volumes, not 1-dimensional lengths of spacetime (of the small diamond-like (so to speak) 4-dimensional VOLUME dollops and the huge broad and deep VOLUME oceans of spacetimes).

Smacking a chair will not unify two theories of physics.

There is no 'Flatland', there are no 'flatlands'

Abbott wrote a book called "Flatland".

... to Einstein's 4-dimensional zeroing of spacetime

"4-dimensional zeroing of spacetime" is not a thing in physics.

. . . to Einstein's diamond-quality bits,...

Did Einstein ever mention such a thing? If so, where?

Microcosmic (micro-verse) and macrocosmic (macro-verse)!

That's not a sentence.

In the 4-dimensional, otherwise dimensionless or 0-dimensional, volumes ...

Something that is 4-dimensional cannot simultaneously be 0-dimensional. You're not making any sense. Are you aware? Is there a problem?

Including, probably, the otherwise dimensionless or concentric 0-dimensional volume of gravity . . .

Gravity doesn't come in volumes.

More of a hard science idea, far more of a hard science idea, I grow more to realize, than you have any capacity whatsoever, or so it seems, to realize or know!

Nonsense is not science.

My coffee cup is an Einsteinian volume singularity of spacetime.

There's no such thing as an Einsteinian volume singularity of spacetime, so your coffee cup can't be one.

A micro- and/or macro-verse is a volume singularity of spacetime . . . exactly as Einstein's work on relativity (work on invariance/invariability) predicts.

Einstein made no such prediction.

Any and every unitary object / entity from the collapsed cosmological constant (/\) Planck Horizon Singularity up and out and/or down and in will be an Einsteinian volume singularity of spacetime (volume of spacetime . . . spacetime by the volume). Including my sons' signed -- hard science -- trophy baseballs (two volume spacetime singularities) I keep.

Pure nonsensical drivel, that you're trying to pass off as science. Stop that.

What I put here is physics...

I haven't seen any physics from you so far. Just some buzz words borrowed from physics and strung together in a way that is almost entirely nonsensical.

Moderator,

If you will, please move my thread to a theoretical forum for its 4-dimensional spacetime by volume, as a resultant volume 0-dimensional singularity in physics, interpretation of Einstein.

I have moved it to Pseudoscience, because that's what it is. It almost doesn't rise to that level, even, but the low standard of this nonsense is not atypical for pseudoscience.

I promise I will stay away from this particular forum unless I'm addressing a particularly relevant published article to it.

Okay. Thanks.

 

[Pinball1970]

Ok so now we are in the appropriate SF a couple of things. A singularity means, "we don't know," it is not a thing.

Second, space time is continuous.

 

[Atlan0001]

I've been told I deal in nothing but nonsense, word salad, and pseudoscience, maybe not even rising to that low a level:

Apparently this unexplainable by current physics and science, too, is nothing but nonsense, word salad, and pseudoscience, if rising to even that low level:

Mysterious Cosmic Signal Detected in Antarctica Defies Known Physics

High above the vast, white wilderness of Antarctica, where the air is thin and Earth feels closest to space, a strange whisper from the cosmos was caught ...

www.sciencenewstoday.org

 

[Atlan0001]

Because I don't see it or describe it exactly as some here do, I'm told I'm nothing but a weirdo dealing in nonsense, word salads (instead of so much math salad and salads), and pseudoscience, if even that!

I suppose I in my weirdness, dealing in nothing but nonsense, word salads, and so on, will have to start finding more of the above [defiance of known physics!]

 

[Pinball1970]

Because I don't see it or describe it exactly as some here do, I'm told I'm nothing but a weirdo dealing in nonsense, word salads (instead of so much math salad and salads), and pseudoscience, if even that!

I suppose I in my weirdness, dealing in nothing but nonsense, word salads, and so on, will have to start finding more of the above [defiance of known physics!]

What does that link have to do with your posts? There is a project, a study with publish work coming from that.
Remember the stuff I said? Real science?

https://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevLett.134.121003

 

[Pinball1970]

suppose I in my weirdness, dealing in nothing but nonsense, word salads, and so on, will have to start finding more of the above

Why? Posting links to studies is fine, if you have a point, if you know enough of the science to be able to engage a little bit.

Random pasting serves no purpose, we all have journal access or at least abstract access.

Science and scientific ideas do not happen the way you think. The people who have the ideas already have a very deep understanding and solid grounding in their fields. They already know what is known, that's how they can develop new ideas, build on old Ideas or create new ones because a study hinted at something.

Do you think you could watch football on TV for twenty years then just go onto the pitch beat players and score a goal? If you had never played? How about piano? Just sit down and play without any training? Any practice?

Why do you think Science is different?

 

[DaveC426913]

Because I don't see it or describe it exactly as some here do, I'm told I'm nothing but a weirdo dealing in nonsense, word salads (instead of so much math salad and salads), and pseudoscience, if even that!

I suppose I in my weirdness, dealing in nothing but nonsense, word salads, and so on, will have to start finding more of the above [defiance of known physics!]

This may come as a surprise to you but this is not the only forum on the internet.

Do you see me going on the all-things-ballet.com website to blog about my latest arc-welding techniques?

 

[Atlan0001]

This thread has been placed by the moderator in Pseudoscience claiming it to be essentially nothing but nonsense and word salad.

Can a traveler ever travel faster than the speed of light. That is a negative according to the gist of my thread here!

Any volume singularity of 4-dimensional spacetime can be expanded or contracted, and even is being observed to expand in largest aspect, yet is said to be just as capable of contracting . . . that it. the local relative singularity of spacetime by volume of the spacetime, on the order of quantum entanglement, tunneling, or wormholing, can be flexibly warped and hyper-spacetime contracted, too, obviating any possible need for faster than light necessity in any possible case. As Einstein put things in another context, faster than the speed of light speed would simply be redundant and unnecessary.

Limitless Space, in league with NASA, has already put out at least one good video on the possibility of contraction of volumes of spacetime shrinking travel times in and through the universe:

LSI

Infinite Possibilities

www.limitlessspace.org

Of course, on this site, the above -- as is just about all my input per moderator's post #10 here -- will graded by the moderator as nothing but nonsense (including the LSI organization site, what it presents, and the LSI/NASA video), word salad, and simply pseudoscience. Proved by where this thread was displaced to.

The LSI video on their site does not have the travel slowing time down while hyperspatially speeding through spacetime. It contracts, warps, 4-dimensional volumes of spacetime in a constant of powered travel (acceleratingly contracting the particular volume of local relative universe in a powering ship created soliton wave). The spacetime is altogether one spacetime like a quantum entanglement of distance separated particles. A singularity (a 0-point dimensional) of spacetime across the board of the particular spacetime!!!! What will be 4-dimensional volume spacetime topography to one observer will not be so to another. So contracted, it will be 0-dimensional in spacetime topography to another observer differently situated who will see no point separation between (see no divide at all between points to him a naked singularity of 0-point), though I'm told in uncertain terms that it is all nonsense gibberish.

 

[James R]

Altan0001:

How do you respond to my objections to what you wrote (see post #10)?

Are you going to post on the topic of the thread, or are you going to try to change the subject?

 

[Atlan0001]

Did anyone see the simultaneity of 4-dimensionality and 0-dimensionality of exactly the same volume of spacetime, I described in post #17?

LSI/NASA are dealing in gravity as the operated upon entity in the video presentation of volume spacetime contraction ahead of the traveler and, equally but oppositely, volume of spacetime expansion behind the traveler.

Is LSI/NASA, working together on the idea, dealing in physics or "nonsensical drivel"? Side to side, the volume of spacetime LSI/NASA is working with in interstellar spacetime in describing possibilities of space travel in the future is no different than the local volume of spacetime occupied by a coffee mug . . . to be exact, my coffee cup (that being described as "nonsensical drivel" and said, not even rising to that level).

---------------------------

"From a drop of water, a logician could infer the possibility of an Atlantic or a Niagara without having seen or heard of one or the other...." -- 'Sherlock Holmes: A Study in Scarlet', by Arthur Canon Doyle.

 

[James R]

Did anyone see the simultaneity of 4-dimensionality and 0-dimensionality of exactly the same volume of spacetime, I described in post #17?

No. That would be impossible because, as I noted previously, nothing can be both 4 dimensional and 0 dimensional simultaneously.

LSI/NASA are dealing in gravity as the operated upon entity in the video presentation of volume spacetime contraction ahead of the traveler and, equally but oppositely, volume of spacetime expansion behind the traveler.

What does "dealing in gravity" mean?

Is LSI/NASA, working together on the idea, dealing in physics or "nonsensical drivel"?

What idea are they working on? I can't tell from your description.

Side to side, the volume of spacetime LSI/NASA is working with in interstellar spacetime in describing possibilities of space travel in the future is no different than the local volume of spacetime occupied by a coffee mug

Explain how this can be the case.