The Universe is a continuum of matter

[Commander]

An infinite continuum of matter, where the concept of "empty space" does not exist

The Universe has infinite energy

The energy fluctuations of the Universe are the cause of all interactions and motion that occur in the Universe

Motion is the result of energy transferring from one location to another and not as a result of matter transferring location

Motion is not matter moving through a medium with that medium being empty space

Motion is energy moving as a wave through a medium with that medium being the continuum of matter

This is my theory, I try to keep it brief rather than rambling into an essay and have stated the main concepts of my theory I think/hope

 

Hi,

 

Why do you say there is no Empty Space ?

 

Can you prove it ??

 

What I am asking is : If you have an Universe within some Boundaries [we seem to agree that a body of matter has to have bounds] then what is beyond this Bounds in any Dimensional Direction [Either X,Y,Z.. or T,E etc or known or unknown dimensions] - ie if you draw a Straight Line through in whatever way anyone can foresee or understand when this line crosses the Bound Vertically, Perpendicularly, Piercing through the Ceiling of this Bound, then What is beyond ? What is beyond it ???

 

Regards

Edited December 26, 2014 by Commander

[derek w]

An infinite continuum of matter, where the concept of "empty space" does not exist

The Universe has infinite energy

The energy fluctuations of the Universe are the cause of all interactions and motion that occur in the Universe

Motion is the result of energy transferring from one location to another and not as a result of matter transferring location

Motion is not matter moving through a medium with that medium being empty space

Motion is energy moving as a wave through a medium with that medium being the continuum of matter

This is my theory, I try to keep it brief rather than rambling into an essay and have stated the main concepts of my theory I think/hope

That would mean that the universe is one massive particle,with internal structure made of fluctuations of fields.

[ZVBXRPL]

 

Hi,

 

Why do you say there is no Empty Space ?

 

Can you prove it ??

 

What I am asking is : If you have an Universe within some Boundaries [we seem to agree that a body of matter has to have bounds] then what is beyond this Bounds in any Dimensional Direction [Either X,Y,Z.. or T,E etc or known or unknown dimensions] - ie if you draw a Straight Line through in whatever way anyone can foresee or understand when this line crosses the Bound Vertically, Perpendicularly, Piercing through the Ceiling of this Bound, then What is beyond ? What is beyond it ???

 

Regards

Can you prove there IS empty space? The answer to your question and mine is NO.

 

The continuum of matter/energy is infinite, there are no bounds. Infinite size, infinite age, infinite microcosm, infinite macrocosm and infinite energy variation.

 

I remember when younger I used to ask "what is beyond that and what is beyond that" type of questions, there are 2 possible answers - Infinite with no end to the question or eventually you get nothingness. I do not like the second possible answer for a few reasons, mainly because it leads to a Universe of something and nothing. I believe we exist in a Universe of infinite something and there is no such thing as "nothingness". If there is no such thing as nothingness, then the only possible answer to the question is the Universe is infinite

That would mean that the universe is one massive particle,with internal structure made of fluctuations of fields.

Yes, but I would prefer infinite "particle" rather than massive. A whale is massive to a human and even more massive to an ant, but the Universe is infinite to the whale, the human, the ant, everything.

[Strange]

I would answer by saying that "we" as human beings, make matter by observing it and labelling it

 

What are we observing, if it doesn't exist until we, as human beings, make it?

 

 

there is no empty space, the concept of empty space onlly exists in the human mind

 

Surely, if we can make matter then we can make empty space.

 

If there is no empty space, then what exists between the widely separated atoms in intergalactic space?

[MigL]

There are two long range fields, of which at least one, the EM field can be quantized. Quantum field theory demands quantum particles to act on and 'carry' it. If gravity is quantizable it will also add new quantum particles, as well as the scalar field responsible for Higgs particles. The vacuum is therefore awash with virtual particles, popping in and out of existence.

 

Incidentally swansont, just this one time, Kramer may be onto something, as these virtual particles may provide Cosmological Constant ( anti-gravity ) and fuel inflation/expansion.

[Mordred]

Yes and no. If you take the critical density formula the average energy density per cubic meter works out to roughly 1 proton per cubic meter including dark energy. The cosmological constant adds roughly 6.62*10^-10 joules per cubic meter. Even with the cosmological constant this leads to lots of empty space. Heisenburgs uncertainty principle in terms of virtual particle production is 120 orders of magnitude too large to be used as the Cosmological constant.

 

Now to the OP anything we can measure or influences our universe is part of our universe. The universe is everything we can see,measure and has an influence upon the previous 2. There is no outside our universe. The concept is meaningless by the definition of universe

However that being said there is the theoretical possibility of multiverses. However we have zero evidence of such beyond mathematical probabilities. So describing a medium between them is also improbable. How do we know those other universes have the same physics? Will the uncertainty principle still apply? This theory remains untestable and therefore highly speculative

[ZVBXRPL]

There are two long range fields, of which at least one, the EM field can be quantized. Quantum field theory demands quantum particles to act on and 'carry' it. If gravity is quantizable it will also add new quantum particles, as well as the scalar field responsible for Higgs particles. The vacuum is therefore awash with virtual particles, popping in and out of existence.

 

Incidentally swansont, just this one time, Kramer may be onto something, as these virtual particles may provide Cosmological Constant ( anti-gravity ) and fuel inflation/expansion.

The phrase "popping in and out of existence". In the theory I have suggested you would not get this, you get energy fluctations in the microcosm. Into existence = at an energy level observable and out of existence = beyond our level of observation, deeper into microcosm. The atom has nucleus and electrons. At first people believed the electrons orbited the nucleus, similar to planets orbiting a star. Suppose that the electrons come from deeper in the microcosm. Energy level increases in that region, what we call an electron appears. Energy level decreases, electron is gone again. Energy level increases in another region of the atom, what we know as electron appears, energy decreases, electron disappears. The effect of mulitple energy fluctuations gives a electron cloud. The number of energy fluctuations results in different type of atoms. An area with low energy fluctuations results in what we call hydrogen or helium. One with high energy fluctuation results in a heavy element such as Uranium. When the region loses energy, light results. Light = wave/particle? Q that has been asked for long time. Well, in this theory, everything is a wave, so light is a wave. Energy is transferring from one location to another across the Universe as a wave and we observe it as light. Our eyes evolved to detect light, part of the EM spectrum. We cannot see any other part of the Universe, only the light waves. This doesn't mean that the rest of the Universe doesn't exist, just that we cannot see it.

 

 

If there is no empty space, then what exists between the widely separated atoms in intergalactic space?

What exists between the atoms here on Earth? We observe, "the best we can", atomic and subatomic. Just because we cannot see what is there, doesn't automatically mean there is nothing there. There is either something or nothing. My theory involves there being something and nothingness does not exist.

If nothingness exists, then nothing exists between atoms here on Earth and out in intergalactic space.

If nothingness does not exist, then there is only something and something lies between atoms here on Earth and out in intergalactic space. We just cannot see it because it so deep into the micorcosm. If you go back far enough we didn't know about atoms and back further we didn't even know about cells. We should not assume that we have seen all there is to see just because of current technological limitations. There is substructure to the Universe. Is this substructure finite or infinite? Even if it IS finite, it is human arrogance to assume that the substructure begins and ends with us. We can see the smallest level of substructure in the Universe, because we are human?

Yes and no. If you take the critical density formula the average energy density per cubic meter works out to roughly 1 proton per cubic meter including dark energy. The cosmological constant adds roughly 6.62*10^-10 joules per cubic meter. Even with the cosmological constant this leads to lots of empty space. Heisenburgs uncertainty principle in terms of virtual particle production is 120 orders of magnitude too large to be used as the Cosmological constant.

 

Now to the OP anything we can measure or influences our universe is part of our universe. The universe is everything we can see,measure and has an influence upon the previous 2. There is no outside our universe. The concept is meaningless by the definition of universe

However that being said there is the theoretical possibility of multiverses. However we have zero evidence of such beyond mathematical probabilities. So describing a medium between them is also improbable. How do we know those other universes have the same physics? Will the uncertainty principle still apply? This theory remains untestable and therefore highly speculative

A formula that says there is 1 proton per cubic metre does not also lead to a conclusion that there is empty space. It only means that the rest of that cubic metre is not proton. You mention DARK energy, along with DARK matter and anything else "dark", that is something scientists do not KNOW exists, they just assume it must do based on formulas and equations that say it might exist.

[Strange]

What exists between the atoms here on Earth? We observe, "the best we can", atomic and subatomic. Just because we cannot see what is there, doesn't automatically mean there is nothing there. There is either something or nothing. My theory involves there being something and nothingness does not exist.

If nothingness exists, then nothing exists between atoms here on Earth and out in intergalactic space.

If nothingness does not exist, then there is only something and something lies between atoms here on Earth and out in intergalactic space. We just cannot see it because it so deep into the micorcosm. If you go back far enough we didn't know about atoms and back further we didn't even know about cells. We should not assume that we have seen all there is to see just because of current technological limitations. There is substructure to the Universe. Is this substructure finite or infinite? Even if it IS finite, it is human arrogance to assume that the substructure begins and ends with us. We can see the smallest level of substructure in the Universe, because we are human?

 

All that seems to amount to "maybe there is nothing, maybe there isn't". That isn't science; it is barely philosophy.

 

If you have no evidence for your "continuum of matter" then it just pointless speculation.

 

You mention DARK energy, along with DARK matter and anything else "dark", that is something scientists do not KNOW exists, they just assume it must do based on formulas and equations that say it might exist.

 

I can't understand why so many people have this bizarre idea. The only reason that the ideas of dark matter and dark energy exist is because of the evidence, not just because of "formulas and equations".

[ZVBXRPL]

 

All that seems to amount to "maybe there is nothing, maybe there isn't". That isn't science; it is barely philosophy.

 

If you have no evidence for your "continuum of matter" then it just pointless speculation.

 

 

I can't understand why so many people have this bizarre idea. The only reason that the ideas of dark matter and dark energy exist is because of the evidence, not just because of "formulas and equations".

I post in the speculations part of the forum because my theory falls into speculation category. You say there is no evidence for my theory, but there is evidence for dark energy and dark matter.

What evidence is there really for dark energy and dark matter that doesn't result from the Big Bang and Expanding Universe theories?

You may believe those theories are more than theories and actual scientific fact, but they are not, they are theories. There are scientists around the world that do not believe them to be true. Just because they do not believe they are true does not mean they are wrong, it just means they have a different opinion to the majority.

Throughout history the majority have often been wrong, I think a good scientist should keep an open mind and accept the fact that any theory could be proven incorrect at some point in the future.

 

As for evidence of my theory, what about the doube slit experiment?

[ACG52]

So there's so there's something there , but you can't see it, or detect it in any way, or measure it, or observe any effects of it. Sounds suspiciously like invisible subatomic pink unicorns. (as opposed to ordinary macroscopic invisible pink unicorns)

[Mordred]

I post in the speculations part of the forum because my theory falls into speculation category. You say there is no evidence for my theory, but there is evidence for dark energy and dark matter.

What evidence is there really for dark energy and dark matter that doesn't result from the Big Bang and Expanding Universe theories?

You may believe those theories are more than theories and actual scientific fact, but they are not, they are theories. There are scientists around the world that do not believe them to be true. Just because they do not believe they are true does not mean they are wrong, it just means they have a different opinion to the majority.

Throughout history the majority have often been wrong, I think a good scientist should keep an open mind and accept the fact that any theory could be proven incorrect at some point in the future.

 

As for evidence of my theory, what about the doube slit experiment?

Mate you have no clue nor have you posted any relevant metrics. Here is a question for you if the universe was a continuum on matter. Why isn't it collapsing under its gravity. You already stated your model has no cosmological constant. So what pray tell Is preventing it from collapsing.

 

Next question which particles are considered matter particles. Photons certainly aren't matter particles. So virtual particles which in the form of virtual particles do not count as matter. So which matter particles that we cannot detect fill all those empty spaces? Then answer why we can't detect them? In the case of dark matter I can easily explain why. I however won't provide you an easy way out. Prove your right over the thousands of physicists and some of the greatest minds in Cosmology as well as particle physicists over the course of the last century.

 

 

Post your metrics would be a good start which is also a requirement on the speculations forum

[ZVBXRPL]

I will elaborate a bit more on my theory by using an analogy I thought of.

Imagine 2 very large rooms such as a warehouse.

Warehouse A contains thousands of golf balls, stacked from wall to wall and floor to ceiling. Warehouse A represents a region of a Universe that contains matter and empty space.

Warehouse B contains thousands of golf balls, stacked from wall to wall and floort to ceiling and surrounding each and every golf ball is a jelly like substance. Warehouse B represents a Universe that is a continuum of matter.

The golf balls in each represent matter. The jelly like substance in warehouse B also represents matter, a different form of matter.

How does motion occur in each warehouse?

Insert a key into one of the golf balls at the south end of warehouse A, this is to identify the golf ball we are observing. If the golf ball moves from the south side of the warehouse to the north side of the warehouse, the key remains in the golf ball we are observing. The golf ball is moving through the empty space and passing other golf balls on its journey.

Now insert a key into one of the golf balls at the south end of warehouse B. The golf ball does not move, the key moves. It will pass to an adjacent golf ball and then to the next golf ball and so on until it reaches the north end of the warehouse. The motion in warehouse B is happening in the form of wave motion. The golf ball stays where it is. The key is what we are observing. It could appear that the golf ball is moving but it is not. The golf ball adjacent to the original golf ball becomes the original golf ball.

Now imagine that a dozen golf balls at the north end and a dozen golf balls at the south end undergo an increase in their energy levels. This increase in energy causes a change in structure and so now each dozen golfballs becomes a football. The footballs represent a region of energy higher than the surrounding energy.

The footballs being at an increased energy level now interact differently with the surrounding golfballs and jelly like substance. Energy is transferred in all directions from each football. When the energy fluctuations of the 2 footballs interact at the middle of the warehouse, there is a further energy interaction. This interaction happens as a result of the 2 footballs being present.

This connection between the 2 footballs causes a permanent interaction between the 2 footballs. The connection will be affected by an increase in energy level of either football or an increase in energy levels of the surrounding golf balls and jelly like substance.

Mate you have no clue nor have you posted any relevant metrics. Here is a question for you if the universe was a continuum on matter. Why isn't it collapsing under its gravity. You already stated your model has no cosmological constant. So what pray tell Is preventing it from collapsing.

Next question which particles are considered matter particles. Photons certainly aren't matter particles. So virtual particles which in the form of virtual particles do not count as matter. So which matter particles that we cannot detect fill all those empty spaces? Then answer why we can't detect them? In the case of dark matter I can easily explain why. I however won't provide you an easy way out. Prove your right over the thousands of physicists and some of the greatest minds in Cosmology as well as particle physicists over the course of the last century.


Post your metrics would be a good start which is also a requirement on the speculations forum

How and why would the Universe I suggest collapse? Infinite continuum of matter. It is impossible for such a Universe to collapse. Only a finite Universe that consists of empty space could in theory collapse.

Should I ignore a minority of scientists in favour of a majority of scientists, simply because the majority are the majority? I prefer to listen to both and think for myself on who may or may not be correct.

If the minority bring up legitimate questions that the majority do not answer, what should I do then?

[Mordred]

Great why does wharehouse b with its higher density not have a higher temperature than wharehouse a. Where does this solve the particle wave duality you mentioned above.. which of the 4 forces does your foam interact with?

 

Where do the bosons fit in when all the available space is matter.

 

How come this medium doesn't limit light below c? How does redshift work in wharehouse b?

 

Your model is rather lacking on some of the essential questions. This far you only described a possible conservation of momentum. What about conservation of color, isospin, flavor, Lepton number? What is the specific properties of your foam when applied to the lie algebra groups? Google SO,(5) or SO(10) for examples. After all your going to need to cover all particle interactions with your foam to be a model

I will elaborate a bit more on my theory by using an analogy I thought of.

Imagine 2 very large rooms such as a warehouse.

Warehouse A contains thousands of golf balls, stacked from wall to wall and floor to ceiling. Warehouse A represents a region of a Universe that contains matter and empty space.

Warehouse B contains thousands of golf balls, stacked from wall to wall and floort to ceiling and surrounding each and every golf ball is a jelly like substance. Warehouse B represents a Universe that is a continuum of matter.

The golf balls in each represent matter. The jelly like substance in warehouse B also represents matter, a different form of matter.

How does motion occur in each warehouse?

Insert a key into one of the golf balls at the south end of warehouse A, this is to identify the golf ball we are observing. If the golf ball moves from the south side of the warehouse to the north side of the warehouse, the key remains in the golf ball we are observing. The golf ball is moving through the empty space and passing other golf balls on its journey.

Now insert a key into one of the golf balls at the south end of warehouse B. The golf ball does not move, the key moves. It will pass to an adjacent golf ball and then to the next golf ball and so on until it reaches the north end of the warehouse. The motion in warehouse B is happening in the form of wave motion. The golf ball stays where it is. The key is what we are observing. It could appear that the golf ball is moving but it is not. The golf ball adjacent to the original golf ball becomes the original golf ball.

Now imagine that a dozen golf balls at the north end and a dozen golf balls at the south end undergo an increase in their energy levels. This increase in energy causes a change in structure and so now each dozen golfballs becomes a football. The footballs represent a region of energy higher than the surrounding energy.

The footballs being at an increased energy level now interact differently with the surrounding golfballs and jelly like substance. Energy is transferred in all directions from each football. When the energy fluctuations of the 2 footballs interact at the middle of the warehouse, there is a further energy interaction. This interaction happens as a result of the 2 footballs being present.

This connection between the 2 footballs causes a permanent interaction between the 2 footballs. The connection will be affected by an increase in energy level of either football or an increase in energy levels of the surrounding golf balls and jelly like substance.

 

How and why would the Universe I suggest collapse? Infinite continuum of matter. It is impossible for such a Universe to collapse. Only a finite Universe that consists of empty space could in theory collapse.

Should I ignore a minority of scientists in favour of a majority of scientists, simply because the majority are the majority? I prefer to listen to both and think for myself on who may or may not be correct.

If the minority bring up legitimate questions that the majority do not answer, what should I do then?

Explain blackholes then. Thus far there is no theoretical limit to how much matter can be compressed into the singularity that I am aware of

[Bignose]

Warehouse B contains thousands of golf balls, stacked from wall to wall and floort to ceiling and surrounding each and every golf ball is a jelly like substance. Warehouse B represents a Universe that is a continuum of matter.

The problem is that your jelly has to start taking on some very magical like properties in order to fit the obervations we have today.

 

 

1) It has to be fluid in order to fill all of space (if it was solid, it wouldn't fill all of space)

 

2) Despite it being a fluid, it has to be very rigid to support the waves of light that travel at the speed of light (far, far faster than the speed of sound in all known substances)

 

3) In addition, it has to be massless and viscosityless, because the planets, comets, stars, galaxies etc. move through space without any retardation of movement.

 

4) it also is obviously transparent, incompressible, and continuous to very small scales

 

5) The Michelson-Morley experiment pretty conclusively proves that the earth is not moving through such a fluid, as the design of the experiment was to find the differences in the behavior of light as light traveled perpendicular to the earth's motion through the fluid or with the earth's motion through the fluid. This experiment has been repeated over and over with increasingly sophisticated and sensitive instruments and today the is no measured effect larger than 1 in [math]10^{-17}[/math].

 

6) If the fluid is moving with the earth, the first obvious question is why the earth is so lucky and the fluid follows our truly somewhat bumpy path as we orbit the sun, as the solar system orbits the Milky Way galactic center, etc... And secondly there have been numerous experiments to detect the effects of this fluid if it were necessarily following us with null results.

 

even if you can explain all of the above

 

7) The theories of special relativity and general relativity are supremely successful and don't require any such fluid. Can any 'fluid'-based ideas match the predictive successes of SR & GR? Please post them if they can.

 

Should I ignore a minority of scientists in favour of a majority of scientists, simply because the majority are the majority? I prefer to listen to both and think for myself on who may or may not be correct.

The above questions are how science works. If you can adequately and rigorously explain every single point above, especially #7 and show that your fluid based predictions are as good or better than our current models, you will receive a great deal of attention from scientists. But, because of the above questions, the 'majority of scientists' have rejected this fluid based idea because the necessarily properties of this fluid are incredibly unlikely to occur and have never been detected.

 

It isn't a question about thinking for yourself. Science really isn't this combative. Science is about making prediction that agree with what is observed. To date, predictions based on such a fluid as you've described here make predictions that don't agree with what is seen. Science has properly rejected it as it is worse model than what we have now. If you can fix it, then I'd definitely be interested. But right now, you have a lot of unanswered questions.

Edited December 29, 2014 by Bignose

[Mordred]

For that matter how could you have compression in your wharehouse b there is no available space to allow compression

Oops I see bignose covered that

[ZVBXRPL]

Great why does wharehouse b with its higher density not have a higher temperature than wharehouse a. Where does this solve the particle wave duality you mentioned above.. which of the 4 forces does your foam interact with?

 

Where do the bosons fit in when all the available space is matter.

 

How come this medium doesn't limit light below c? How does redshift work in wharehouse b?

 

Your model is rather lacking on some of the essential questions. This far you only described a possible conservation of momentum. What about conservation of color, isospin, flavor, Lepton number? What is the specific properties of your foam when applied to the lie algebra groups? Google SO,(5) or SO(10) for examples. After all your going to need to cover all particle interactions with your foam to be a model

Maybe it does have a higher temp, who knows? It is an only an analogy to try and elaborate more on my theory.

In the Universe I am suggesting there are no particles, so there is no duality. The interaction is the same, the energy level of the region makes them different.

It is an infinite continuum, all that exists is connected including Bosons or anything else you mention.

Imagine the key moving from one end of warehouse B to the other is a light wave.

Any energy fluctuation could cause a redshift or blueshift.

[Mordred]

Bosons are not considered matter. Matter occupies a given volume. An infinite number of bosons can occupy a given volume. However although bosons interact with fermions they cannot occupy the same space. Fermions is what forms matter. You left no room for bosons as all your available space is fermionic

[ZVBXRPL]

The problem is that your jelly has to start taking on some very magical like properties in order to fit the obervations we have today.

 

 

1) It has to be fluid in order to fill all of space (if it was solid, it wouldn't fill all of space)

 

2) Despite it being a fluid, it has to be very rigid to support the waves of light that travel at the speed of light (far, far faster than the speed of sound in all known substances)

 

3) In addition, it has to be massless and viscosityless, because the planets, comets, stars, galaxies etc. move through space without any retardation of movement.

 

4) it also is obviously transparent, incompressible, and continuous to very small scales

 

5) The Michelson-Morley experiment pretty conclusively proves that the earth is not moving through such a fluid, as the design of the experiment was to find the differences in the behavior of light as light traveled perpendicular to the earth's motion through the fluid or with the earth's motion through the fluid. This experiment has been repeated over and over with increasingly sophisticated and sensitive instruments and today the is no measured effect larger than 1 in [math]10^{-17}[/math].

 

6) If the fluid is moving with the earth, the first obvious question is why the earth is so lucky and the fluid follows our truly somewhat bumpy path as we orbit the sun, as the solar system orbits the Milky Way galactic center, etc... And secondly there have been numerous experiments to detect the effects of this fluid if it were necessarily following us with null results.

 

even if you can explain all of the above

 

7) The theories of special relativity and general relativity are supremely successful and don't require any such fluid. Can any 'fluid'-based ideas match the predictive successes of SR & GR? Please post them if they can.

 

 

The above questions are how science works. If you can adequately and rigorously explain every single point above, especially #7 and show that your fluid based predictions are as good or better than our current models, you will receive a great deal of attention from scientists. But, because of the above questions, the 'majority of scientists' have rejected this fluid based idea because the necessarily properties of this fluid are incredibly unlikely to occur and have never been detected.

 

It isn't a question about thinking for yourself. Science really isn't this combative. Science is about making prediction that agree with what is observed. To date, predictions based on such a fluid as you've described here make predictions that don't agree with what is seen. Science has properly rejected it as it is worse model than what we have now. If you can fix it, then I'd definitely be interested. But right now, you have a lot of unanswered questions.

It is not solid or liquid because both of those contain empty space. It is a continuum, no empty space.

I found a good description of what I mean when I say continuum.

"Materials, such as solids, liquids and gases, are composed of molecules separated by "empty" space. On a microscopic scale, materials have cracks and discontinuities. However, certain physical phenomena can be modeled assuming the materials exist as a continuum, meaning the matter in the body is continuously distributed and fills the entire region of space it occupies. A continuum is a body that can be continually sub-divided into infinitesimal elements with properties being those of the bulk material."

[Mordred]

Only one fermion can occupy a given volume

[ZVBXRPL]

Bosons are not considered matter. Matter occupies a given volume. An infinite number of bosons can occupy a given volume. However although bosons interact with fermions they cannot occupy the same space. Fermions is what forms matter. You left no room for bosons as all your available space is fermionic

In this Universe, there is no distinction between matter and not matter, it is all one continuum.

An infinite continuum with infinite amount of energy and energy fluctuations.

The energy fluctuations are the cause for everything in the Universe.

[Mordred]

Is your continuum matter is it energy? Perhaps you should look up the definition of matter. After all your opening post is a continuum of matter.

Ah now we're changing it lol.

[Bignose]

It is not solid or liquid because both of those contain empty space. It is a continuum, no empty space.

Right, this continuum (you're the one who used 'jelly'. I frankly don't care what you call it) has to have all the properties of my points 1-7). Please fully and rigorously explain how your continuum does this and why none of the experiments designed specifically to find such a continuum have all come up with null results to highly precise values?

Edited December 29, 2014 by Bignose

[ZVBXRPL]

Regarding the Earth moving through a fluid or not moving through a fluid. It doesn't, not in the theory I am suggesting. Light travels through the Universe as a wave. My theory is saying that EVERYTHING travels as a wave. In a continuum the only way for motion to occur is through waves. The energy fluctuations cause the interactions and motion.

[Mordred]

As you can tell in order to be a model such as the one your presenting you will need to be able to answer the questions on this thread in a rigorous manner. We only presented a few questions.

 

Might help if you study why scientists believe so strongly in dark energy dark matter quantum tunnelling the FLRW metric as represented by LCDM.

 

My signature contains several articles and textbooks to help truly understand the above mentioned

Regarding the Earth moving through a fluid or not moving through a fluid. It doesn't, not in the theory I am suggesting. Light travels through the Universe as a wave. My theory is saying that EVERYTHING travels as a wave. In a continuum the only way for motion to occur is through waves. The energy fluctuations cause the interactions and motion.

This is describing the eather theory which has been disproved by the experiments mentioned by Bignose Edited December 29, 2014 by Mordred

[Bignose]

Regarding the Earth moving through a fluid or not moving through a fluid. It doesn't, not in the theory I am suggesting. Light travels through the Universe as a wave. My theory is saying that EVERYTHING travels as a wave. In a continuum the only way for motion to occur is through waves. The energy fluctuations cause the interactions and motion.

No, you aren't answering my questions.

 

Per my question #1, this continuum must be a fluid, otherwise you need to explain why a solid continuum spread itself everywhere (just like a fluid does).

 

And you need to answer all my other questions -- how is this continuum so rigid that the speed of light is so very, very high? Yet this continuum is massless and viscosityless that planets move through it with no retardation? Etc. Feel free to replace the word 'fluid' with continuum in every question. The questions remain the same and need to be answered. Thoroughly and rigorously please, not just hand-waved away.