Philosophy Discussion Forums | A Humans-Only Club for Open-Minded Discussion & Debate

[Gregorygregg1]

Ok, here it is, a theory of the universe and everything. Well, almost everything. What is needed is a critical examination with the view to falsifying the assumptions upon which it is based.

Assumption #1: The "stuff" of the universe is not matter, but space.
From this point of view, matter is not the presence of something, but the absence of space. It is the "stretching" of space by black holes. If we look at the universe as a mathematical set, it is an infinite set containing both infinity and nothing, actually an infinity of nothings.
This hypothesis attempts to explain how a material universe can contain both infinity and nothing.

Assumption #2: Space is infinite. This appears self evident because space can only be contained by more space.

Assumption #3: The black holes at the center of galaxies are the nothing.

Hypothesis: In order for nothing and infinity to coexist there must be a transition. There is a great tension in the transition zone. Einstinian physics indicates that matter and energy are interchangeable. The energy resulting from the tension of the transition between space and nothing results in the condensation of the energy of that tension into matter. Matter, in this
scenario is a "stretching" of space.
The presence of matter excludes space. This exclusion is relatively sketchy in the part of the galaxy where Earth resides. Even where matter exists, it is mostly space on the subatomic scale. This changes dramatically where matter is denser. Near a black hole matter condenses to a point that subatomic space is reduced. At the center of the black hole all space is eliminated, and since there is no space to hold it, matter which this hypothesis defines as an absence of space, becomes absolute. And therefore nothing.
The reason the "ATOM", the smallest indivisible particle of matter cannot be found is because it does not exist. What exists are the forces of spacial stretch.
Gravity results from spacial stretch as well. The tendency of areas containing more space to be drawn to areas of less space. For instance, the area around a planet contains more space than the same size area around a star. The area of space including the planet is then attracted to the area of space containing the star because it contains more space. The attraction appears as a mass effect as well, because mass is the absence of space. The result is that space drawn to fill the absence where there is matter, carries with it more matter, and therefore more absence to attract space more strongly.

Anyone out there with a strong argument against this theory is invited to rip it up, or ammend it if you see rectifiable flaws.

If you think it's a starting point, I look forward to your thesis.

Thanks, GG

[Cronos988]

Assumption #1: The "stuff" of the universe is not matter, but space.
From this point of view, matter is not the presence of something, but the absence of space. It is the "stretching" of space by black holes. If we look at the universe as a mathematical set, it is an infinite set containing both infinity and nothing, actually an infinity of nothings.
This hypothesis attempts to explain how a material universe can contain both infinity and nothing.

The problem I see with that is that this approach requires you define space, because matter is defined by space, and then time is defined by space and matter.

It is possible to define matter as a certain density or vibration of energy. Space then is what separates matter. Note that space is not simply the absence of matter, since without matter, space cannot be defined, and therefore does not exist. Time then is defined relating to space and matter, forming the space - time - continuum.

I can't see how you would define space without defining matter first.

Assumption #2: Space is infinite. This appears self evident because space can only be contained by more space.

I do not think it is all that self evident. where matter ends, space ends too. Because without a relation to matter, space becomes meaningless. So space can indeed be contained by pure nothingness.

Assumption #3: The black holes at the center of galaxies are the nothing.

Hypothesis: In order for nothing and infinity to coexist there must be a transition. There is a great tension in the transition zone. Einstinian physics indicates that matter and energy are interchangeable. The energy resulting from the tension of the transition between space and nothing results in the condensation of the energy of that tension into matter. Matter, in this
scenario is a "stretching" of space.
The presence of matter excludes space. This exclusion is relatively sketchy in the part of the galaxy where Earth resides. Even where matter exists, it is mostly space on the subatomic scale. This changes dramatically where matter is denser. Near a black hole matter condenses to a point that subatomic space is reduced. At the center of the black hole all space is eliminated, and since there is no space to hold it, matter which this hypothesis defines as an absence of space, becomes absolute. And therefore nothing.
The reason the "ATOM", the smallest indivisible particle of matter cannot be found is because it does not exist. What exists are the forces of spacial stretch.
Gravity results from spacial stretch as well. The tendency of areas containing more space to be drawn to areas of less space. For instance, the area around a planet contains more space than the same size area around a star. The area of space including the planet is then attracted to the area of space containing the star because it contains more space. The attraction appears as a mass effect as well, because mass is the absence of space. The result is that space drawn to fill the absence where there is matter, carries with it more matter, and therefore more absence to attract space more strongly.
Thanks, GG

Now you define matter both as enery, and as a stretching of space. If space really is the basis, then energy, too, has to be defined as absence of space?
Your theory of gravity seems flawed. Because if "more space would be attracted to less space" then the sun would mostly attract the space between planets, because it contains even less space then the planets. However, the reality is that the less space ares have, the more strongly they attract each other. An area with alot of "space", say an asteriod with many holes and consequently low mass, is not attracted as strongly as a planet consisting mainly of condensed rock. So it is the other way round, areas with little space are drawn towards other areas with little space.

[Gregorygregg1]

Assumption #1: The "stuff" of the universe is not matter, but space.
From this point of view, matter is not the presence of something, but the absence of space. It is the "stretching" of space by black holes. If we look at the universe as a mathematical set, it is an infinite set containing both infinity and nothing, actually an infinity of nothings.
This hypothesis attempts to explain how a material universe can contain both infinity and nothing.

The problem I see with that is that this approach requires you define space, because matter is defined by space, and then time is defined by space and matter.

It is possible to define matter as a certain density or vibration of energy. Space then is what separates matter. Note that space is not simply the absence of matter, since without matter, space cannot be defined, and therefore does not exist. Time then is defined relating to space and matter, forming the space - time - continuum.

I can't see how you would define space without defining matter first.

Ok, I difine matter as a transitional state between substanceless dimension, which is the nature of absolute space, and nothing, the absence of dimension, which is the nature of the black hole.

Assumption #2: Space is infinite. This appears self evident because space can only be contained by more space.

I do not think it is all that self evident. where matter ends, space ends too. Because without a relation to matter, space becomes meaningless. So space can indeed be contained by pure nothingness.[/quote]


Are you saying that space is contained by matter? There is not enough matter in the universe to contain space. Only more space can contain space. That is why space, for the most part, is substanceless dimension.

Assumption #3: The black holes at the center of galaxies are the nothing.

If it is permitted then that the black holes are nothing, the rest follows logically.

Hypothesis: In order for nothing and infinity to coexist there must be a transition. There is a great tension in the transition zone. Einstinian physics indicates that matter and energy are interchangeable. The energy resulting from the tension of the transition between space and nothing results in the condensation of the energy of that tension into matter. Matter, in this
scenario is a "stretching" of space.
The presence of matter excludes space. This exclusion is relatively sketchy in the part of the galaxy where Earth resides. Even where matter exists, it is mostly space on the subatomic scale. This changes dramatically where matter is denser. Near a black hole matter condenses to a point that subatomic space is reduced. At the center of the black hole all space is eliminated, and since there is no space to hold it, matter which this hypothesis defines as an absence of space, becomes absolute. And therefore nothing.
The reason the "ATOM", the smallest indivisible particle of matter cannot be found is because it does not exist. What exists are the forces of spacial stretch.
Gravity results from spacial stretch as well. The tendency of areas containing more space to be drawn to areas of less space. For instance, the area around a planet contains more space than the same size area around a star. The area of space including the planet is then attracted to the area of space containing the star because it contains more space. The attraction appears as a mass effect as well, because mass is the absence of space. The result is that space drawn to fill the absence where there is matter, carries with it more matter, and therefore more absence to attract space more strongly.
Thanks, GG

Now you define matter both as enery, and as a stretching of space. If space really is the basis, then energy, too, has to be defined as absence of space?
Your theory of gravity seems flawed. Because if "more space would be attracted to less space" then the sun would mostly attract the space between planets, because it contains even less space then the planets. However, the reality is that the less space ares have, the more strongly they attract each other. An area with alot of "space", say an asteriod with many holes and consequently low mass, is not attracted as strongly as a planet consisting mainly of condensed rock. So it is the other way round, areas with little space are drawn towards other areas with little space.

Imagine a balloon. It is filled with air. There is potential energy stored in the latex, supplied by the stretch of the latex in its natural tendency to resume it's unstretched state. Now imagine the universe. It is, for the most part substanceless dimension. There is no end to it. Infinity. But in this substanceless dimension there are holes. The Black holes. Because dimension is infinite, there are also an infinite number of holes. These are the galaxies. At the center of the holes is the nothing. The dimensionless nothing. Matter is the potential energy of the tension (stretch) between substanceless dimension and nothing. Gravity too is a product of that stretch. The greater the stretch, the more mass. The more mass, the more gravity. In other words, the more dimension is excluded. Where there is mass, there is less space. Where space is excluded, as in a black hole, there is nothing.

If you understand this, you may use it but not claim it. Attribute it to Life.

[Belinda]

I do not think it is all that self evident. where matter ends, space ends too. Because without a relation to matter, space becomes meaningless. So space can indeed be contained by pure nothingness.

(GregoryGregg)

Does 'space' mean existence, or does 'space ' mean that which cannot be occupied by more than one entity at any one time? If the former, then the definition of space is its contrast with noting. If the latter, then the definition of space is that which exists but is not time which is another dimension apart from space.

[PaulNZ]

This link is a note on Facebook by Geoffrey Haselhurst. In it he explains space and the universe in a very interesting fashion.

https://www.facebook.com/topic.php?topi ... 4331976202

[Gregorygregg1]

I do not think it is all that self evident. where matter ends, space ends too. Because without a relation to matter, space becomes meaningless. So space can indeed be contained by pure nothingness.

(GregoryGregg)

Does 'space' mean existence, or does 'space ' mean that which cannot be occupied by more than one entity at any one time? If the former, then the definition of space is its contrast with noting. If the latter, then the definition of space is that which exists but is not time which is another dimension apart from space.

I define space as empty dimension. When you add "something", which I define as a reduction in dimnsion, there is less space. I agree, time is something else. It results from the juxtapositon of awareness and matter. I have a theory for that too.

[Whynot]

(GregoryGregg)

Does 'space' mean existence, or does 'space ' mean that which cannot be occupied by more than one entity at any one time? If the former, then the definition of space is its contrast with noting. If the latter, then the definition of space is that which exists but is not time which is another dimension apart from space.

I define space as empty dimension. When you add "something", which I define as a reduction in dimnsion, there is less space. I agree, time is something else. It results from the juxtapositon of awareness and matter. I have a theory for that too.

whynot: Interesting gregory...very interesting indeed.