Relativity+

[Farsight]

One or two of you will notice that I've made what I hope are insightful comments about things like time and gravity and light etc, and some of you will who've heard me talking about vacuum impedance will appreciate that I do think we live in an electric universe. But I suspect it isn't quite the way you think. You know how Tesla lost out to Edison? See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_of_Currents which talks about Edison's DC and Tesla's AC. We normally think of DC as being somehow more fundamental than AC, but it isn't. Take a look at a light wave and there's a sinusoidal electromagnetic field variation in there:



You can't have a field variation without some sort of current. Light is most definitely "electric" in nature. Then you employ pair production to make electrons and positrons. The electron has spin and angular momentum. It's essentially half the original photon wrapped up and trapped by itself. You now have a standing electromagnetic field instead of a field variation, and if you move this thing you have direct current.

All of this is what we'd call electrodynamics. Einstein's first relativity paper was On the electrodynamics of moving bodies. When you move on to gravity you see Einstein saying things like c = c0 (1 + Φ/c²) in 1911, see http://www.relativitybook.com/resources ... avity.html, and die Ausbreitungsgeschwindigkeit des Lichtes mit dem Orte variiert in 1916. That's in chapter 22 of Relativity: the Special and General Theory. You can translate it via google: http://translate.google.com/translate_t ... ry_state0=# . It translates to the speed of light varies with the locality. Then you look at Z0 = √(μ0/ε0) and c = √(1/ε0μ0) and you realise what gravitational time dilation actually is. It's just the light going slower, and a gravitational field is just inhomogeneous space, like Einstein said in his 1920 Leyden address:

"According to this theory the metrical qualities of the continuum of space-time differ in the environment of different points of space-time, and are partly conditioned by the matter existing outside of the territory under consideration. This space-time variability of the reciprocal relations of the standards of space and time, or, perhaps, the recognition of the fact that “empty space” in its physical relation is neither homogeneous nor isotropic, compelling us to describe its state by ten functions (the gravitation potentials gμν)..."

And then near the bottom you read Einstein talking about how important it would be to comprehend both gravity and electromagnetism, and what an advance it would be:

"Of course it would be a great advance if we could succeed in comprehending the gravitational field and the electromagnetic field together as one unified conformation. Then for the first time the epoch of theoretical physics founded by Faraday and Maxwell would reach a satisfactory conclusion. The contrast between ether and matter would fade away, and, through the general theory of relativity, the whole of physics would become a complete system of thought, like geometry, kinematics, and the theory of gravitation".

And then a chill runs down your spine, because it's all so simple and easy. A gravitational field isn't curved spacetime, because that's the effect, not the cause. The cause is a gradient in space, caused by the central matter/energy of a star or planet. But the electric field is curved space, because light travels in straight lines, but pair production creates an electron where the photon is going round in circles. It's an electric universe, and all the mysteries start tumbling like dominoes.

Who wants to talk about it? If you want to find out more about what I've been saying, a good primer is an article about "black swans", see http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/print/38468. That's on the Institute of Physics PhysicsWorld website. Of course, some will say that the geometrical model is just an ugly duckling, but not everybody. Take a look at some other physicsworld page such as http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/news/40714 and look at the bottom right hand corner where you see an advert for this:


http://www.amazon.co.uk/RELATIVITY-Theo ... 0956097804

That's me. If you can see the dedication to the unsung heroes of science, you can see that I take pains to stress that it isn't all my own work. This is not "my theory", instead it's a synthesis where I've joined a few dots. It's easy reading, intended for the layman, painting a coherent simple picture, and it's in line with Einstein and others such as Feynman, Schrodinger, Dirac, Maxwell, Faraday, and Newton. It's so very simple and logical that nobody seems able to offer any rational argument as to why the thrust of it is incorrect. What's particularly interesting is that it's somewhat similar to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_topology, which Ed Witten was working on in the nineties. I'm not sure why he dropped it, but I suspect that's the sort of rigor that now needs to be applied. Another interesting approach is David Hestenes' geometric calculus. I really ought to learn about it. So much to do.

[StevenO]

Hi John,

I was interested to hear what your "Theory of Everything" is. (I have'nt read the book).

For instance you claim in your post:

Light is most definitely "electric" in nature. Then you employ pair production to make electrons and positrons. The electron has spin and angular momentum. It's essentially half the original photon wrapped up and trapped by itself. You now have a standing electromagnetic field instead of a field variation, and if you move this thing you have direct current.

What do you mean by light is "electric" in nature here? That the photon is the quantum of the EM and electrostatic fields? How would you explain the difference between "real", "virtual" and "messenger" photons then?

What proof do you have the electron is "half" the photon "wrapped up"? How do you wrap up half a photon? Is wrapping a form of spin? If so, would'nt a photon spin already? Why would a photon have no mass and a "wrapped up" photon would? The photon is then actually this "Higgs" particle?

So many questions already from a few lines. Any explanation would be appreciated.

Steven

[Farsight]

Hi John, I was interested to hear what your "Theory of Everything" is. (I have'nt read the book).

Hi Steve. I forgot to say, there's also a downloadable pdf paper that dates from about two years ago. You can get at it here: http://www.relativityplus.info/. It's a bit dated now, and the pair production drawing is wrong, and whilst it doesn't explain things quite so well, it should be of some use. I'm doing a fresh version, but have surprised myself at how long it's taking.

For instance you claim in your post:

Light is most definitely "electric" in nature. Then you employ pair production to make electrons and positrons. The electron has spin and angular momentum. It's essentially half the original photon wrapped up and trapped by itself. You now have a standing electromagnetic field instead of a field variation, and if you move this thing you have direct current.

What do you mean by light is "electric" in nature here? That the photon is the quantum of the EM and electrostatic fields?

Not quite, because AC is more fundamental than DC, and because there's only one field. Ever heard of Jefimenko? See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jefimenko's_equations and note this paragraph:

"There is a widespread interpretation of Maxwell's equations to the effect that time variable electric and magnetic fields can cause each other. This is often used as part of an explanation of the formation of electromagnetic waves. However, Jefimenko's equations show otherwise. Jefimenko says, "...neither Maxwell's equations nor their solutions indicate an existence of causal links between electric and magnetic fields. Therefore, we must conclude that an electromagnetic field is a dual entity always having an electric and a magnetic component simultaneously created by their common sources: time-variable electric charges and currents."

Also see Minkowski's wrench. Take a look at Space and Time, two pages from the end. It's in "Principles of Relativity". If you haven't got it, you can maybe see it via this search. Here's the interesting bit:

"Then in the description of the field produced by the electron we see that the separation of the field into electric and magnetic force is a relative one with regard to the underlying time axis; the most perspicious way of describing the two forces together is on a certain analogy with the wrench in mechanics, though the analogy is not complete".

There's only one field, but two forces. The wrench is important. It's associated with a screw thread. Think about an electron. It has an electric field, with a spherical symmetry. It doesn't have a magnetic field. Now think about a vertical stack of electrons. The electric field is now more cylindrical, but there's still no magnetic field. But move down that stack of electrons, and you see a magnetic field. You're just seeing that electric field a different way, and until you realise there's only one field there, you don't appreciate that the right hand rule is telling you that this cylindrical electric field has a barberpole twist to it, like a drill bit. Grip a drill bit in your right hand, put your left thumb on the bottom, and push. It turns. Now you call it a magnetic field. But whichever way you experience this single electromagnetic field, there aren't any actual photons flying back and forth between you and the stack of electrons, mediating the force. Each electron is essentially a self-trapped 511keV photon, spinning round and round exerting a "frame-dragging" effect on the surrounding space. Or you could say that light travels in straight lines, and when it doesn't we say space is curved. Hence an electric field is curved space.

How would you explain the difference between "real", "virtual" and "messenger" photons then?

A real photon is something detectable and real. It conveys energy/momentum, and since the dimensionality of energy is pressure x volume, the photon is effectively a "pressure pulse" rippling through space at c. A virtual photon is more of a pressure gradient, it's still a wave, but a standing wave, like an evanescent wave, which you can see mentioned here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Near_and_far_field. A messenger photon between say an electron and a proton is the same sort of thing, but rippling round and round the proton as the electron rolls around it.

What proof do you have the electron is "half" the photon "wrapped up"?

Actually, it's a whole photon wrapped up. In pair production you start with a +1022keV photon and split it into two 511keV photons, then wrap each one in opposite directions. It's like throwing a water wave at a post in the sea and seeing two opposite whirlpools form:



The electron has spin and angular momentum, there's definitely something "going round and round" there. Ditto for the positron, but it has the opposite charge. See what I was saying above about the electromagnetic field and twist and turn? The positron has the opposite chirality, the opposite twist and turn like that opposite whirlpool, and hence the opposite charge. What is it going round and round? Employ annihilation to combine the electron and the positron and what do you get ? Two 511keV photons:



So what's going round and round in an electron? A 511keV photon. Has to be. There isn't anything else there.

How do you wrap up half a photon?

You make it travel through itself. The photon is akin to a pulse of spacewarp. Change its direction so much that you make it travel all the way through itself because it's wrapped round twice, and it's perennially travelling through its own warped space. It can't get out, it's like it's tied in a knot of its own making.

Is wrapping a form of spin?

I guess so. Electron spin is a rotation in two dimensions, something like this:



The photon is going round and round doing half a twist per revolution, hence spin 1/2. The heavier line traces out one photon wavelength, it's wrapped round twice so that all the photon is travelling through itself. This is from the 1997 Williamson / van der Mark paper Is the electron a photon with toroidal topology? see http://www.cybsoc.org/cybcon2008prog.htm#jw .

If so, wouldn't a photon spin already?

Maybe, but not like an electron. An electron is just a 511keV photon that's spinning so much it isn't going anywhere any more.

Why would a photon have no mass and a "wrapped up" photon would?

Because there's a symmetry between momentum and inertia. The difference between them depends on who you say is moving. If you have to catch a medicine ball travelling at 5m/s it's tricky because it's got a lot of momentum. If however it's you travelling at 5m/s and I put the medicine ball in your way, it's hard to get it moving at 5m/s because it's got a lot of inertia. A photon has momentum p=hf/c. But you can't make it go faster or slower so mass doesn't apply. However when you employ pair production the photon isn't going anywhere anymore, and we call it an electron. But you can make the electron go faster or slower, so the momentum now looks like inertia. This is why E=mc².

The photon is then actually this "Higgs" particle?

No, the Higgs boson would be more like the W and Z bosons, very short-lived, more like an event than a particle.

So many questions already from a few lines. Any explanation would be appreciated.

A pleasure. There will doubtless be some things wrong with all this, but the overall picture is just so simple and coherent, and everything fits so well that the gist of it looks like it's right. It fits with quantum mechanics and QED too. The quantum of quantum is just so horribly simple it's scarey!

[Lloyd]

* Farsight, would you comment on Thornhill's model, please? Will someone please link to his model? You say an electron and positron colliding produce two photons and that that's what they are to begin with, i.e. photons. Thornhill says an electron has structure consisting of two negative charges and one positive, I think the latter orbiting the former. Each charge is called a subtron. The orbit of the outer subtron can become highly elliptical, making the electron effectively a dipole. The same applies to the positron, proton and antiproton, except the number of positive and negative charges vary from one to two each, but 3 in all. When a proton and electron combine into a neutron, the opposite charges are equal, so they're neutral. The same with a neutrino, which he says is a collapsed neutron. He also says the electron and positron upon collision form a neutrino. What do you think of all this?
* Comparing the electron and positron to whirlpools sounds reasonable. Steven Rado has a similar view. I don't understand the photon traveling through itself. Do you mean through it's own orbit or field? Does it consist of anything like a particle, like a subtron?

[Farsight]

* Farsight, would you comment on Thornhill's model, please? Will someone please link to his model?

I'll check it out and get back to you.

Thornhill says an electron has structure consisting of two negative charges and one positive, I think the latter orbiting the former. Each charge is called a subtron.

The electron certainly has structure, but I'd say this structure is what gives it the thing we call charge. We really do make an electron (and a positron) via pair production, and then employ annihilation to get back to photons, so I'd say unless the subtrons are a feature of the photon, introducing them for the electron isn't getting to the bottom of what charge really is.

The orbit of the outer subtron can become highly elliptical, making the electron effectively a dipole. The same applies to the positron, proton and antiproton, except the number of positive and negative charges vary from one to two each, but 3 in all.

I need to read up on the Thornhill model here. It's possible that the subtrons are the inner and outer portions of the electron structure, which I describe as a self-trapped photon. There's perhaps a way to view as a subtron as a twist direction, the inner portion being essentially hidden.

When a proton and electron combine into a neutron, the opposite charges are equal, so they're neutral.

Correct, but the magnetic dipole moment tells us that there are moving charges in there.

The same with a neutrino, which he says is a collapsed neutron. He also says the electron and positron upon collision form a neutrino. What do you think of all this?

I'm afraid both sound wrong. Look at Beta-minus decay and annihilation. I have the neutrino down as a "running loop". It's like an electron with no twist, and whilst classed as a lepton, it ends up being more like photon: it has no mass (or little mass) and it doesn't hang about.

Comparing the electron and positron to whirlpools sounds reasonable. Steven Rado has a similar view. I don't understand the photon traveling through itself. Do you mean through its own orbit or field? Does it consist of anything like a particle, like a subtron?

Think of the photon as a ripple of spacewarp. It normally travels in a straight line. But if spacewarp travels through spacewarp, it isn't going to go straight, because the space is warped. It's going to get bent. If it then travels through some more spacewarp, it's going to get bent some more. Take it all the way, and it doesn't go straight at all. Instead what we get is electron spin - a photon going round and round, trapped by itself, and it can't get out.

[Lloyd]

* Here's a quote from Thornhill from http://www.holoscience.com/synopsis.php?page=11 . Would you comment on each point?
- At the level of the atom, the Electric Universe model takes a lead from the work of Ralph Sansbury, an independent New York researcher. Foremost is the simple recognition of the basic electrical nature of matter and the primacy of the electrostatic force** in matter interactions.
- It also rests upon the simple assumption that the proton, neutron and electron are composed of smaller charged particles [subtrons], orbiting each other in a classical sense in stable, resonant orbits. That is, the energy exchanged between those sub-particles in elastic deformation during each orbit sums to zero [I think by deformation he means orbits can be made highly elliptical = deformed].
- Being charged, the sub-particles interact via the electrostatic force. A simple calculation shows that the sub-particles that form an electron must travel at a speed far in excess of the speed of light - some 2.5 million light-years per second, or from here to the far side of the Andromeda galaxy in one second!
- So the electrostatic force must act at a speed which is almost infinite on our scale for the electron to be stable. It is the stable orbital resonances of these sub-particles, both within and between particles that give rise to the phenomena of protons, neutrons, electrons and atoms.
- Other denizens of the particle "zoo" are merely transient resonant states of the same charged sub-particles.
- The so-called "creation" of matter from energetic photons is an illusion in which pre-existing matter is reorganized into new resonant states that give the impression that a particle has suddenly materialized.
- Antimatter is a misnomer since it too is formed from the same sub-particles as "normal" matter except that the total charge is mirrored.
- Matter cannot be created or annihilated.
* Here's another quote from http://www.holoscience.com/news/antigravity.html .

The first problem with an electric gravitational force is that like charges repel and unlike charges attract, whereas gravity always attracts. A simple way out of that problem is to propose that electrons, protons and neutrons are composed of smaller orbiting charged units (which we may dub “subtrons”)* whose total charge sums to –e, +e and zero, respectively. The magnetic moment of the neutron and spin of the electron suggests that this is so. The stumbling block to such a model has always been the assumption of Einstein’s speed limit on the electric force between charged subtrons. For instance, it has been calculated that subtrons orbiting inside the classical radius of the electron would have a speed of 2.5 million light-years per second. That is the distance from here to the other side of the great Andromeda galaxy in one second! The speed of the electric force must exceed that by a considerable margin for the electron to be a stable particle.
- The electron, proton and neutron have not only a classical size but also a shape, which changes in response to the electric force. The electrical energy absorbed by these particles in deformation rather than acceleration gives rise to the phenomenon of inertial mass [I think he says this is why subatomic particles can't be accelerated normally above light speed]. It is the fundamental origin of the relationship E = mc^2. If gravity is an electrical force, we can see why the gravitational mass of a body is identical to its inertial mass. We have a real classical model with which to explain inertia, gravity, magnetism and quantum theory. Magnetism is a subject on its own to be dealt with later. But if we take an atom for example, it is a complex system of electrical resonances between orbiting charged subtrons within orbiting charged particles. A stable electron orbit is one in which the gain and loss of energy between a deformable electron and all of the subtrons in the other electrons and the nucleus sums to zero over that orbit. Electrons in an atom “whisper” to the nucleus in order to prevent the “classical catastrophe” of the electron spiralling into the nucleus. Changes in resonant state occur in quantum jumps and give rise to an un-cancelled oscillating electric force that may be accepted by another atom. An atomic nucleus operates in the same way, so that quantum tunnelling effects and nuclear interactions can be understood in resonant terms rather than simplistic coulomb barriers. The nuclear force is then another manifestation of the electric force between resonant subsystems within the nucleus. “Cold” fusion is possible in such a resonant system and radioactive decay has an electrical cause and can therefore be modified. It seems that electrons in composite (more than one proton) atomic nuclei are essential for resonant stability. When they leave a nucleus in the company of a proton we call the pair a neutron. Oddly enough, that resonant system is unstable, with the result that it has a lifetime outside the nucleus measured only in minutes.

[Total Science]

Impossible to have a unified theory when your first principles are mythological fairy tales.

Gravitation and General Relativity are 17th and 20th century myths of imaginary mathematics.

The real unified field theory, first envisioned by Faraday, unites gravity and electromagnetism and was demonstrated by T.T. Brown and others in 1923-24.

"I have long held an opinion, almost amounting to conviction, in common I believe with many other lovers of natural knowledge, that the various forms under which the forces of matter are made manifest have one common origin; or, in other words, are so directly related and mutually dependent, that they are convertible, as it were, one into another, and possess equivalents of power in their action. In modern times the proofs of their convertibility have been accumulated to a very considerable extent, and a commencement made of the determination of their equivalent forces." -- Michael Faraday, physicist, 1845

"The long and constant persuasion that all the forces of nature are mutually dependent, having one common origin, or rather being different manifestations of one fundamental power, has often made me think on the possibility of establishing, by experiment, a connection between gravity and electricity …no terms could exaggerate the value of the relation they would establish.'' -- Michael Faraday, physicist, 1865

[StevenO]

Impossible to have a unified theory when your first principles are mythological fairy tales.

Gravitation and General Relativity are 17th and 20th century myths of imaginary mathematics.

The real unified field theory, first envisioned by Faraday, unites gravity and electromagnetism and was demonstrated by T.T. Brown and others in 1923-24.

I agree that a lot of first principles are wrong, but that gravity is a myth is total nonsense. Miles Mathis has a great description of the unified field theory, which is indeed just gravity and a base E/M field. Unfortunately for TT Brown and followers the E/M anti-gravity effect cannot be higher than about 0.1% of the force of gravity at our earth's surface. Look here: The Unified Field Theory

[Farsight]

* Here's a quote from Thornhill from http://www.holoscience.com/synopsis.php?page=11 . Would you comment on each point?

A pleasure. Apologies that I haven't read up on this:

At the level of the atom, the Electric Universe model takes a lead from the work of Ralph Sansbury, an independent New York researcher. Foremost is the simple recognition of the basic electrical nature of matter and the primacy of the electrostatic force** in matter interactions.

Sounds good to me.

It also rests upon the simple assumption that the proton, neutron and electron are composed of smaller charged particles [subtrons], orbiting each other in a classical sense in stable, resonant orbits.

I'd say subtrons aren't getting to the bottom of it.

That is, the energy exchanged between those sub-particles in elastic deformation during each orbit sums to zero [I think by deformation he means orbits can be made highly elliptical = deformed].

The elastic deformation sounds good, but not the sub-particles. IMHO it's space that being subject to elastic deformation. The "aether", not sub-particles.

Being charged, the sub-particles interact via the electrostatic force. A simple calculation shows that the sub-particles that form an electron must travel at a speed far in excess of the speed of light - some 2.5 million light-years per second, or from here to the far side of the Andromeda galaxy in one second!

No, I don't go along with that. As demonstrated by pair produciton, the electron is quite literally "made of light", and it has angular momentum, so it's basically light going round and round in circles.

So the electrostatic force must act at a speed which is almost infinite on our scale for the electron to be stable. It is the stable orbital resonances of these sub-particles, both within and between particles that give rise to the phenomena of protons, neutrons, electrons and atoms.

I don't go along with faster-than-light interactions. I view the stability to be associated with knots, see http://www.popmath.org.uk/exhib/pagesexhib/aether.html

Other denizens of the particle "zoo" are merely transient resonant states of the same charged sub-particles.

I agree with the sense of this, in that they're transient states of the same kind of thing.

The so-called "creation" of matter from energetic photons is an illusion in which pre-existing matter is reorganized into new resonant states that give the impression that a particle has suddenly materialized.

I go along with the sense of this too. People don't normally consider a photon to be matter, but if we can create and destroy matter by altering a photon configuration, the distinction starts to look moot.

Antimatter is a misnomer since it too is formed from the same sub-particles as "normal" matter except that the total charge is mirrored.

I agree that antimatter is a misnomer. I'd say it's formed as per "normal" matter but has the opposite chirality.

Matter cannot be created or annihilated.

People usually say energy cannot be created or destroyed, but see what I said above about whether the photon is classed as matter.

I'll get back to you on the rest of your post later. By and large I concur with what Thornhill is saying with the exception of sub-particles.

[Farsight]

Total Science: Faraday was one hell of a smart guy. He's one's of my heroes of science. What's interesting about a unified field theory, is that in the end, "the concept of field is no longer appropriate". Einstein said that, and people don't generally know what he meant. IMHO what we call a field is associated with a geometrical disposition of space. For example, start with a lattice representing space:



Now reach in with your right hand, grab hold of it, give it a clockwise twist, and hold it there. Think of this as an electron. The twisted grid is an electric field. Note that you've also introduced a tension gradient in the grid, pulling the frame inward. Now reach in with your left hand, grab hold of the lattice, and give it an anticlockwise twist. Think of this as a proton. The twisted grid is an electric field, and you'e introduced even more tension. This tension gradient is gravity.

In truth this analogy is back to front, and gravity is a "pressure gradient" rather than a tension gradient, because you need to think of stress-energy, stress and pressure having the same dimensionality. You also need to think in three dimensions rather than two, and then you end up thinking in terms of a space as a compressed elastic solid, just like Faraday:

http://www.google.co.uk/search?hl=en&so ... =&aq=f&oq=

But space isn't a solid. There's nothing there. So when an electromagnetic wave ripples through space, what's actually changing is distance. It's like a gravity wave, check out LIGO:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LIGO

"When a gravitational wave passes through the interferometer, the space-time in the local area is altered. Depending on the source of the wave and its polarization, this results in an effective change in the length of one or both of the cavities. This length change will bring the cavity very slightly out of resonance, and will cause the light currently in the cavity to become very slightly out of phase with the incoming light".

[kevin]

Farsight,
Your grid is too simplistic.
Add multiple other orientations.
Then do not think "nothing"
Think No-thing.
The grid does not move, it is akin to a scoffold.
What flows along each scaffold sheet is moveable and does so under attraction to the finite point leading to the centre and back out again but in reverse spin.
Think of water going down a plughole, it spirals but that spiral reverses, therefore there is a flow in both directions at once.
it is not an either or neither situation but a complex set of interactions.
But the grid remains fixed, no movement, what is created on the grid can move about on the grid in ever larger spiral pathways.
Universe is a solid, far denser than any created dimensions within it, unless We cross over from this ASSUMPTION that space is nothing, then we are veiled.
kevin

[Farsight]

It is too simplistic, kevin. It's difficult to explain things without keeping it simple. Here's a couple of excerpts to show you the sort of things I think about. I use the word tension a bit too much, considering it's a negative tension, but I hope you catch the drift and see some resonance:

OK, now we’re getting somewhere. Energy is a stress volume moving through space at c. Mass is a measure of this energy when it's going nowhere fast. Charge is the twist that keeps it in place. Time is a relative and cumulative measure of motion, light defining our distance and time. And gravity is the tension that opposes stress, a gradient in the impedance of space rather than curved spacetime, a variable c that we can never measure locally.

But what the heck is space? We often think of it as nothing, but actually it’s impossible to imagine nothing. Nothing is a tricky concept that people take for granted. Close your eyes and try to imagine nothing. What colour is it? Blue? No. It can’t be nothing if it’s got a colour. How heavy is it? A kilogram? No, it can’t be nothing if it’s got a mass. How big is it? A metre across? No, it can’t be nothing if it’s got a size. Here’s a picture of it: Did you get that? Here it is again: Got the picture? There isn’t any picture. When you dig down to what nothing is, you find it has no properties at all, and you can’t hold it in your mind. It slips between your fingers. You can’t imagine nothing because it’s just not there. Nothing doesn't exist.

Space isn’t nothing. Space has got a size, so space definitely isn’t nothing. But that’s all it’s got. It’s a one-trick pony, and the only trick is distance. Yet just like Google, it’s pretty darn brilliant.

Let’s bring it closer to home and have a closer look. Have you ever travelled on the London Underground? On certain stations the platform curves a little, and over the Tannoy you will hear those immortal words: mind the gap. This gap has no colour and no mass, but it does have a size. It’s got a property, and the “possession” of this property makes all the difference. Possession is nine tenths of the law, and a gap has distance. It’s the very last property that makes it the thing that it is. It’s a gap, it has distance, it is distance, it is the space between the platform and the train. When you think of what a gap is, you will appreciate that this “no-thing” thing only exists because the two objects exist. It’s like defining a hole. A hole is something that only exists by virtue of the thing it’s a hole in. My negative carpet is a hole in my living room carpet. In itself it’s not actually there, but we treat this lack of something as if it’s something that has independent existence. We say it exists, we call it a something, but at the same time it’s a nothing. It’s something and nothing. And if you had a hole in nothing, that would be something...

Yes, space is harder than diamond and stronger than steel, because these things and all things are made from it. It's intangible, less substantial than the rarest gas, because it has no substance, because substance is made from space, as matter is made from energy. Because space is distance, and energy is a change of distance, and a change of distance is a distance. It means you just can’t have space without energy. And it means the phrase energy is a volume of stressed space was telling us something important. Yes, space is like a ghostly elastic solid, but because space is stressed, it behaves like a compressed ghostly elastic solid. It’s under pressure, so it expands outwards.

Yes, some parts are tied in knots and gravitational tension pulls them together, but at the same time there’s nothing beyond the universe to hold it all in. And I really do mean nothing. I mean no space, and no distance, and no energy. There’s no infinite void of dark empty space beyond the universe. The universe is space, and the things that are made from space. There is no space beyond the universe, the energy hasn’t got there yet, so there is no distance, and there is no there.

What this tells us is that the problem with Einstein’s cosmological constant can now be seen for what it always was: matter/energy stress cannot be separated from space when matter is made of light, and light is energy, and energy is a volume of stressed space. We must view space itself as energy, and then the mystery of dark energy simply melts away. Space is dark, and it has energy because it’s the same stuff as energy, so it is dark energy. Space expands because the vacuum of space is energy. The universe expands, space expands, distances expand, and the first light expands too, stretching a thousandfold into microwave cosmic background radiation...

[kevin]

Farsight,
Thanks for those words...of wisdom.
The solid is the most difficult concept I grapple with, I look back in time as far as I can with sight.
I find no movement whatsoever.
I check and check until I am blue in the face, that which was sited as far back as I can find, is positioned and was positioned to a FIXED detectable grid.
BUT, that which travels on this grid moves, I check and can check everything created in this grid, thus I can see how everything encompassing within a sort of bubble about itself can switch from point to adjoining point.

Your fingers typing are not moving as such, they are a collection of specifically arranged orientations that are enabled to switch across in the solid of space .
This is the big hurdle, the universe is litterally a solid FIXED, the bubble that is our universe we percieve can expand as it takes more STUFF from whatever bubble it is within, our galaxy is a bubble in the universe bubble, our star a bubble within that , this planets bubble is within the suns bubble.
We are bubbles of duality STUFF.

The grid all of this occurs upon has infinite scale that all the bubbles are travelling about upon, just like your underground system, and each bubble has a heart point where the duality pinchs into and emitts from.
I think abbot suger saw His god, and "I am alpha and Omega "
Is the answer.
We and everything created are to scale in it's image, it is holographic in nature all operating in a sea of liquid gold, the crystaline matrix of gold is a key imo.
Kevin

[lizzie]

Kevin said: The grid all of this occurs upon has infinite scale that all the bubbles are travelling about upon.

You mean like blowing bubbles?

Big Bubble Magic
http://www.wetrock.com/BBM/bbm.html

No proper dowser should ever leave home without his bubble wand!

The Bubble Wand
http://www.wetrock.com/BBM/bbm.html#WandsFabricsd

Bubble Geometry
http://www.geom.uiuc.edu/graphics/image ... 20cell.gif

Strings that blow bubbles in the cosmos
http://www.thefreelibrary.com/Strings+t ... -a04618987

How the galaxies and clusters of galaxies formed in a universe where matter was smoothly and homogeneously distributed in the beginning is one of the great questions of cosmology. Cosmic strings, which are topological defects in the structure of space, are the latest things to be suggested as triggers of galaxy formation.

One recent theory proposes that the strong gravitational forces exerted by the strings gather matter around them and so start galaxy formation. A newer theory, by Jeremiah P. Ostriker Christopher Thompson and Edward Witten of Princeton (N.J.) University, proposes just the opposite. Electromagnetic radiation from the strings, they suggest, blows bubbles in the primordial matter, compressing it in sheets between the bubbles so that galaxies form in the bubble walls.

[junglelord]

Remember, everything is composed solely of distributed charge spheres....thats the bubbles.
Actually Spheres surrounded by Donuts. Dual Charge entites.

They travel the lattice grid of the matrix which has been summerized and composed of 20 different quaternion equations by Maxwell.