wucko

http://www.sidis.net/ANIMContents.htm This should be a textbook in physics studies. What do you think?

i like the idea that infact only time is being "created" (and had been forever), but space is discrete.

perhapse spacetime is made of discrete space points, ad the expansion is expansion of time. http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/66209-the-speed-of-light-and-discrete-notions-of-space-and-time

The universe is expanding as observed by cosmological redshift - faster than the speed of light, and the speed of expansion is increasing. How exactly is this reconciled with the speed limit of C? Here is a proposal:http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/66209-the-speed-of-light-and-discrete-notions-of-space-and-time/page__p__675852#entry675852

One of the pseudoscientific instances is the confusion of correlation with causality. Physics seems to be biased in the dirrection of confusing causality with correlation. Its an ideology as much as a science. Thats the problem also.

But could it be meaningless precisely because before time does not exist, in a sense, that time infact has no beginning, no t=0? yes, thats why i say it is a flase question (i might be horribly wrong) and go on and develop a possible answer.

here: http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/66200-a-space-time-with-discrete-space-and-infinite-time-in-both-directions/ is what had my nothing-exists-or-not reasoning led me in terms of physycs. if its possible instead of quarreling, try to think. @ I never assumed it was true, I said "if" it was true, and there is evidence to support a universe that works in that manner. (except for a couple of miliseconds after the presumed t=0. Universe of epochs is as valid as BigBang theory. ) A nice way-out would be to assume endless time in both past and future, but in epochs. It is not even completely wrong to assume existance of regions of universe, where the 2nd law of thermodynamics is reversed. Infact one of the most reasonable definitions of life is the reversal of the 2nd law. Asking for t=0 is perhapse really much like asking for a flat planet earth.

this debate exists, if nothing exists - this debate does not exist. Now, can nothing exist? -> false question (this debate exists) -> can nothing NOT exist? if yes: everything can exist (including nothing), but a lingual cution is needed:, this doesnt mean "yes, nothing can not exist", but the opposite "yes, nothing can not-exist" if no: nothing exists, again: nothing can not not-exsist, int this case nothing always exists, and anything else can not exist. if we are to agree uppon our own existance, then the answer is: can nothing exist is a false question, the right question is "can nothing not exist", and the answer is yes, nothing can not-exist. And to avoid false reasoning from "X can not exist" within "X can not-exist": if we are to agree uppon our own existance, then the answer is: can nothing be in existance is a false question, the right question is "can nothing not be in existance", and the answer is yes, nothing can not-be in existance (it is 'able' to not exist, but it can exist or not) perhapse i should re-open the problem: the question "can nothing exist" is a false question, since if we examine both options (of the answer) we proceed: 1st option: "Nothing does exist" therefore "everything does not exists" -> the answer 'yes, nothing can exist - but everything cant' vs 2nd option: "Nothing does not exist" therefore "everything does exist" -> the answer 'no, nothing can not exist - but everything can, except nothing' since in 2nd option, we must claim a paradox: "that everything does exist, while nothing does not", the question at hand is "Can nothing not exist?" And the answer is: the question "can nothing exist" is a false question , but, while everything can exist, yes, nothing can not-exist, but it can also exist. does it exist then? it can not-exist, but it can also exist. one must stop and say "nothing exists" and then go further in answering "Can nothing exist"

if i write it again in math or in C++, will you leave it here? Can I suggest an option to mark a post as 'a try on a hypothesis', just to give hypothetical reasoning a chance here and with that a chance to answer real questions by asking better ones? for your inspiration:

http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/66200-a-space-time-with-discrete-space-and-infinite-time-in-both-directions/ this is the location of my hypothesis after the forum rules have mooved it closer to trash (but instedad could just attach 'pure hypothetical X' to each forum for such purposes. please do think about the proposals, i willl be adding math to it asap.

@ most of the velocity is in the time dimension : i am toying with a notion that spacetime is made of: time and space, in which space is discrete and in between theese discrete 'points' of space time is building up.http://www.sciencefo...ns/#entry675842 @ standing still in time (as it does) while the rest of the "solid" universe speeds away : the dilaltion as measured by cosmological redshift is in my oppinion an effect of the buildup of time in a discretely spatial space-time. Again both notion seem similar. But when you say "stands still in time" you are actualy reffering to my "travells ony thru space-dimension of space-time". @ has been liberated from an atom it no longer has any velocity in the time dimension in my hypothesis it seems that curvature (gravity) in its ultimate form is devoid or absent of time, so when the photon is released it becomes a light-particle outside the curvature. Infact it has no more velocity in time dimension. But solemnly travells thru discrete spatial dimention, while time itself keeps on building up between theeese points of space it travells thru. @the rest of the "solid" universe speeds away at c, it is "speeding away at greater than c, as measured by cosmological redshift", the space-time is growing faster than C (observed from and by an system within curvature - with gravity). And again, similar, what you call "solid" universe i call "has curvature or has gravity" @this energy cannot travel through time. perhapse noting could travel thru time (infact i think C prohibits that), but if it wanted to it must be a part of a curvature system (must have gravity), since if anything was to travel thru time, it shoud itself be outside time. I think gravity or curvature is absent of time, if not so, objects within curvature would stretch with the space-time dillation. If we allow a discrete distribution of "space-points" and define travel as traveling thru space, we can reconcile the problem of greater than c dillation as measured by cosmological redshift and confirm that at the same nothing can travel faster than buildup of time in our hypothesysed space-time. time is enddlesly being built up, hence stretching spacetime indefinately, while space travel is only possible at max C and only outside curvature the limit itself can be achieved. it would at first appear paradoxical to say: a particel traverses spacetime thru discrete points of space A,B,C,... while time is "stretching" the space-time as a whole. It would appear to present us with two times. The time of spacetime (with discrete spatial dimension) and time measured in travel thru discrete-space. But it is not so. In the presence of curvature, the whole body traverses space-time, spatialy discrete and continuously thru time. Comparing motion and activity on scales beyond the reach of gravity, we get the effect of forementioned faster than c dillation, because space-time is stretching faster than "C", since time is infinately being added as a quantity and C is a constant. So, when your particle had bene 'liberated' from the atom, we could say it exited a body within curvature and is emmiting (travelling) thru spacetime (literally appearing in point A, dissapearing in point A, appering in point B etc.). The atom keeps on traveling thru space time as part of a curvature system (has gravity), and is not effected by the stretching of spacetime, that is what is observed with cosmological red-shift does not "stretch" the atom itself, since in curvature time does not exist. The photon, as a masseless entity however must travel at a constant speed of c. But in between forementioned discrete space-points (A,B,Etc), time itself is increasing. So to look at this photon from an distant galaxy which is drifting avay from our it would seem it is not infact catching up with the dillation. And that infact is a observed fact.

Answering the question "Can nothing exist?": "nohing is" and "everything is not" against "everything is" and "nothing is not". the second statement is a paradox, the firs isnt. to me, this would imply, that the original question isnt correct, that its opposite IS the question: "can nothing not exist"

A hypothetical de-synthetisation of spacetime as a synthesys of space and time. Question: is there space for time? Answer: Only if space is discrete. The hypothesis: In spacetime space is discrete, time is a quantity that is building up between points of discretely distributed space. Gravity holds things in place localy, but on the scale beyond gravitational effect, time has an effect of "stretching the spacetime" noticed by cosmological redshift. The universe is getting "bigger", but only in the sense of buildup of time. This gives us infinite time in both directions. The galaxies in this stretching space-time are drifting apart from each other faster than the speed of light, but are not increasing in size themselves, as isnt nothing that is under effect of curvature (gravity) - at the same time as space-time is stretching as measured by cosmological redshift. This is because the building up of time in a spacetime with a discretely distributative space. Effects listed: time is infinite in both directions from any point of refference, space is discrete, travel is discrete posiibility of no Big Bang at all, or at least no t=0 at all not necesserely a cyclical neither infinite universe, but certainly infinite time without t=0 or if there is t=0 there is also a posiible one or more t < 0. time is infinite (limitless) in both future and past in singularity there is no time, but only localy, there is time (endless) outside of singularities gravity seems to have the exact opposite effect of time in the discrete-spaced spacetime. possible cyclical inflation epochs cosmological redshift beyond Z=1.4 not braking C limit, dillation beyond Z=1.4 effect of adding up of quantity of time I am researching how this hypothesis could be overthrown. I would like someone to challenge it from a profesiional point-of-view. some reference ( )