north

you failed to mention what the difference in the decay time is between the muons in the upper atmosphere and those muons that are stationary fill me in

just a very good question

yes and no the "room " is based on energy/matter for me and I have not calculated this but I think that there is a certain amount of space needed per atom for the atom to exist ( which would extend somewhat out beyond the atom its self ) and when then multiplied by the amount of atoms in the Universe would give you the size or the volume of the Universe as it is

distance is well distance duration on the other hand is based on the energy applied to either system or just by one system to move together or apart and that energy is based on the energy of the system and/or particles involved , time has nothing to contribute and was never meant to relative is about perspective . human perspective but to the object(s) there is no perspective , they , the objects , just do what they do because space has no substance in and of its self

the only thing outside our Universe , if there is such a thing , is room

with ? since it does not include " affect " cause>effect>affect is continuous and the circle of the movement of things , with no particular order of the three each cause>effect>affect has aspects of the others before and after an event I just don't want to see people confusing ajb's rather neat explanation, (which, mind you, I feel can be easily misinterpreted) with whatever north is talking about. but all this data is based on our position in this Universe if I was in another point , say the exact opposite of our point of view what then ? then I would see the opposite of what we see so that what we see as expansion , and so would the opposite see expansion but in reverse hence a null

time is not as real as space at all time is merely a mathamatical concept used to to understand movement gravity doesn't curve space but curves the matter within that space

no because the for anyone who can observe the full Universe ( this space-time concept is out dated now , since it is a two dimensional movement of things ) observes " affect " as well so that cause>effect thinking ( which is two dimensional thinking upon things ) is advanced by the introduction of " affect " which produces a three dimensional picture of the way things really are. the circle of movement of things ( cause>effect ) is replaced by and which then of course leads to the sphere of the movement of things , in no particular order > affect>cause>effect>cause>effect>affect>cause etc.

of course you assume that " blackholes " exist in the first place based on GR ( general realivity ) I don't

what is outside the Universe ? there isn't an outside nor does there need to be , " an outside of the Universe "

true but what is more importantly true , is that the equations of the motion of objects don't come from time its self but the interaction of objects with other objects or the energy within a single object its self therefore it is the energy within the objects themselves and as well their interaction(s) with other objects which create the situation of which time can be concieved

space without order is non-directional what gives order to space is the rate of spin or rotation plus the density of matter within this said space within the objects rotational influence the thinner the density of matter per cubic meter of space the less influence the rotation has or " gravity "

or the scientists are either wrong or misinterpreted the info

but nevertheless is in correct

because gravity is about the order of space and this order of space is based on the spin or rotation energy of the object

and of course when looked at three dimensionally the expansion pushs and pulls three dimensionally leading to a null expansion by the Universe

there is this wide pervasive thinking that time, in and of its self , has some real physical essence to it inotherwords time has influence on the movement of objects is this true ?

explain further not fully measurement for the most part just scratches the surface of information or knowledge of a system

and if , I , as an individual mind , doesn't believe in god then what ?

I don't ignore this idea of Space-time but what I'm saying is this first , space has no fabric associated with it if I take out any energy/matter within any amount of space , will space then still be affected ? it has not been shown that space has any inherent physical form independent of energy/matter you warp the energy/matter IN space but NOT space its self second , time . time is a geometric mathematical concept used to understand the relationship between the movement(s) of object(s) only . time is not meant to be considered the " cause " of the movement(s) between objects then describe the physical dynamics between the sun and mercury without any mathematical concept references I hope , it will in the end , be mainstream thinking if not now how can my ideas not be based on fact ? are you saying that the essence of all energy/matter is based on time alone ? lets take then two objects which are at an absolute stillness , no vibration , no electromagnetics , no rotation , no movement whats-so-ever in any form and no change in position in space I now introduce time to provoke movement , how ? explain how the introduction of time and time alone , between the two objects becomes a physical dynamical force ? no response , hmmm... it seems I've proved my point !!

simplely put all geometric mathematics are based on geometric forms and those geometric forms are based on energy/matter , fundamentally inotherwords the essence of any form is energy/matter based , and this is the essence of my position while Einstein is correct in using geometry to perdict where a body may be in the future his theory is incomplete . time , space and even gravity are the resultant of a geometric perspective , this is a natural out-come of this perspective . because this is the result of a three dimensional plane . since they had no understanding of the physical dynamics between objects which " caused " the geometry to end up being true since Einstein was not looking at the why , but analysing the observations but what I'm trying to get into is the why . and the why is based on energy/matter interactions between objects hence my thinking is not based on some pseudo or speculative science it is based on real energy/matter interactions between objects which govern the geometric mathematics in the end

well continue... interesting my thread has been moved to " Pseudoscience and Speculations " based on what evidence ?

yet space has no substance to it , space is part of the geometric explanation , naturally inherent in a geometric explanation behaviour of things it is the matter IN space that is bent , not space and gravity is also a geometric invention to account for a certain behaviour of things for why then is mercury not sucked into the sun , being so much closer to the sun then is Earth mercury has a mass of 3.3 x10^23 kg , 0.055 of the mass of Earth , radius is 0.38 of Earth , an average density of 5400kg/m^3 , Escape speed of 4.3km/s

no what I'm saying is that while the geometric mathematics right what the mathematics don't know is the reason WHY it is right hence they don't know the physical dynamics or the cause of the physical dynamic for instance the physical dynamics between the sun and the planet mercury while we know geometric relationship between the sun and mercury we don't know why

yes the geometry is fine , it works but the " physical dynamics " do matter since it is the essence of the geometric mathematics in the first place