Redefining "Space"

It seems to me that much of what is commonly accepted as the implications of certain cosmological observations is underpinned by a very specific notion of "space", and that this foundational principle (which is really nothing more than a popular presupposition) may have resulted in some troubling conclusions, specifically where the idea of an expanding universe is concerned. It is therefore my intention to propose a vastly different theory of space, and to show (if only indirectly) that the aforementioned “conclusions” are more the product of the theoretical principles on which they stand than anything else.

The Universe in a Monistic Paradigm

In order to fully grasp my theory of space, it’s necessary to understand the paradigmatic rules to which it strictly adheres -- the key principle being that of oneness. In my view, there exists only one object: the universe itself. In keeping true to this postulate, there can be no whole separation (or “space”) between the many aspects of this singularity. Don't get me wrong; space exists, but only in ‘outer’ relation to the singular material that comprises the object and all of its aspects. To analogize this idea, think of a string that’s been folded in half. While there would indeed be an area between the halves, the “separation” would not be “whole”, because the connection at the delineating point would be intact. Bear in mind, the folded string is the object; the halves are its aspects; and space is the area that exists in outer relation to the totality (which is one).

From this perspective, it’s necessary to think of space, not as something that exists within the universe, but as the pure nothingness in outer relation to it. Simply stated: space doesn’t reside in the universe; the universe exists in relation to space.

Now, the most important implication of my theory, at least in terms of interpreting cosmological observations, is that “space” would be constant. Accordingly, for instance, the redshift observations often cited to support the theory that space is expanding between various groupings of cosmological material, would have to be reinterpreted, with the apparent increases in the areas between these “groupings” being understood in light of the prospect that those areas are nonetheless constant.

“How could this be?”, one may well ask. Simple. In line with my theory, space isn’t expanding; the universe is contracting (or perhaps more properly rewinding itself) against the backdrop of space. Another analogy: think of two balls of twine in a box that are both directly connected to a third (albeit unseen) ball outside of the box. If one were to wind the outer ball, the inner balls would shrink commensurately in relation to the amount of material being pulled away from each of them. So, as the outer ball grows larger, the area between the balls inside the box would seem to be increasing, when what’s really happening is that their respective sizes are decreasing in a relatively constant space.

I’ll leave it there for now.

[edit on 1/26/2009 by Icarus_Fallen]

Air has perhaps 100 - 500 ions per cubic centimeter from secondary
effects of the primary Cosmic particle (they are not rays) discovered
by Tesla.

So if that is what we live in, what is space composed of.
We went to the Moon, nothing to report?

Something I found on the net today:
Water drop generator drives electrostatik engine

www.youtube.com...


teslaandlyne (6 hours ago)
The Kelvin Generator, see AD Moore "Electrostatics": one cu cm of air has 100 ions and each drop builds up a slight difference to 15kV. Thank for showing and the static motor. Tesla made high voltage electrostatics using coils to atom smashing voltage in less space than the mechanical van der Graff. Tesla may have pulled out Cosmic or unknown partials from metal.

Its difficult to find credence in reports of what is going on in space
when Tesla may have known more than any one knows today.
Any one find or report microwaves emanating from Earth and
perhaps planets, some think Tesla did.

Originally posted by TeslaandLyne
Air has perhaps 100 - 500 ions per cubic centimeter from secondary effects of the primary Cosmic particle (they are not rays) discovered by Tesla.

Radical though it may seem, in my view, there are no “particles”; there is only the singular quantum ocean from which all of the structure we perceive is derived (never disconnected, mind you), like oceanic waves, rising, holding shape, interacting with other waves, then falling ...ad infinitum.

I believe the erroneous identifications of quanta via temporal behavior (they’re notorious for acting sometimes as particles and other times as waves) are the fruition of catching glimpses (so to speak) from different angles. Think of it this way: looking down at a three-dimensional, conical figure from directly above, one could easily mistake it for a two-dimensional circle, simply by virtue of the fact that its depth might not be visible from the observer’s perspective.

So if that is what we live in, what is space composed of?

Well, according to my theory, nothing. That is, I see space as nothing more than a non-material relationship to matter.

The effects of gravity observed in the cosmos (specifically the 'bending of light' and the supposed 'warping of space' around planetary and stellar masses) are, in my opinion, evidence of a transparent skin that delineates the boundaries between matter and space. In essence, when we observe such phenomena, we’re doing so from within an existential bubble, and the apparent effects of gravity (ETC) are really limited to the material within, including the inner-lining of the bubble’s translucent skin (an imperfect analogy, I know; but then language can be such a woefully inadequate medium).

[edit on 1/27/2009 by Icarus_Fallen]

Yes it is interesting that there is nothing until we start acting upon it.
You must agree that this is the case.
Atomic particals are acting in a big nothing, then get bombarded with
more particles and we find more particles.
Where is this stuff coming from.
Atomic dimensions are so large to an electron he is a stranger.
As you propose nothing, others propose 'something' that is mostly
nothing.
How can water be composed of supposed atoms acting in dimensions
that if we were by oxygen, hydrogen would be a quasar at the edge
of the universe.
Then we have air.
And then we have space.

Some how the space allows light and radio transmissions.
Which go through air and water with their allowed spaces.
All this governed by allowed quantum spacing.

Never say never or perhaps never say nothing.

Anyway good topic and easy to talk about.

Thank you, T&L.

I think it's important to remember that Particle Physics hasn't quite transcended the realm of Theoretical Physics, and that, accordingly, the status quo should be challenged at every turn. After all, such challenges will only serve to discover and strengthen the true aspects of the common understanding, whatever the truth might be. History has shown that strength is often forged from resistance.

...it is interesting that there is nothing until we start acting upon it. You must agree that this is the case.[...] *emphasis I_F's*

Really, I must respectfully disagree.

In my view, nothing (I.E. empty space) exists in relation to one individual (namely the universe), and irrespective of that individual’s actions, the nothingness beyond itself is both unchanging and ever-present.

In line with this, action changes material structure, not the space (read nothingness) that exists in relation to that structure (recall, one of the primary implications of my theory is that space is constant).

…Atomic particals are acting in a big nothing, then get bombarded with
more particles and we find more particles. […]

Here again, we disagree, primarily because I don’t believe in “particles”, at least not as they’re generally understood by particle physicists. Moreover, quantum wholeness is an intrinsic feature of my theory, meaning I believe there’s no complete separation between the various types of quanta at the base of all physical structure [refer back to the folded string analogy].

…As you propose nothing, others propose 'something' that is mostly
nothing.

Please, don’t misunderstand my proposal; I’m a Monist, not a Nihilist. So, the notion of nothingness I’m advocating is to be understood in a purely relational context, explicitly as in “nothing exists in relation” to the universe.

…Some how the space allows light and radio transmissions.[…]

On my view, light and radio waves travel along the inner-lining of the translucent, existential bubble mentioned earlier, as distant areas of the universe are essentially viewed through that window.

…Never say never or perhaps never say nothing.

And I would say that both of those words should remain readily accessible, although solely for the sake of proper usage.

[edit on 1/27/2009 by Icarus_Fallen]

Moving forward…

Commensurate distribution is a vital aspect of my theory. Because all things within a given group are contracting commensurately, the size differential from one second to the next is virtually undetectable from within that group. In reality (at least according to my theory), what were 12 inches yesterday in relation to humanity’s group, aren't the same twelve inches today, because all things in the group (including the area that qualifies as an 'inch') have contracted at paces suited to their surroundings. This explains how and why many humans are completely oblivious to the shrinking going on all around us.

It is only by 'looking outside' that the various rates of contraction can be measured (via redshift observations). Going back to the balls of twine and the box, the speed at which material is being pulled away from the two inner balls is directly associated with their respective decreases in size, and those decreases are what constitute the impetus for the illusion of expanding space between the balls.

Thoughts, anyone?