Origin of spacetime

In the SciForums rules we can read:

Trolling

….Deliberately derailing discussions onto tangential matters in order to try to control the flow of discussion.
Trolls are not tolerated on sciforums.

The AlphaNumeric last post and tremendous number of the others show that AlphaNumeric violates the SciForums Rules. He is the moderator! In my last post, I wrote that he should not discuss the TANGENTIAL MATTERS. Now we know why he is doing it. He tries to control the flow of discussion.

This thread titled “Origin of spacetime” satisfies all criteria for threads in the Alternative Theories forum. Why there is tolerated that AlphaNumeric deliberately derails discussion in this thread and all my other threads onto tangential matter?

I wrote about cosmology and I wrote that S. Hawking introduced the imaginary time. The word “introduced” does not mean “mathematical definition”. I am physicist and for me most important is the physical meaning of the imaginary time. S. Hawking described in his book his idea. Even if we assume that my words were partially inexact, there is my explanation. And it should be the end on this subject. What is doing AlphaNumeric? He DELIBERATELY DERAILS discussion onto tangential matters. He writes the nonsense about the sources. I commented his behaviour on this forum so he writes the dissertation about his work. I wrote that we must radically change the initial conditions in the string/M theory because this theory TODAY leads astray. I even wrote how the correct initial conditions should look to LEAD TO THE EXPERIMENTAL DATA ONLY. Then, AlphaNumeric write the nonsense as in his last post. Just trolling.

He is the provocator. In his posts permanently appear the tangential matters. Why others can in this thread discuss the formula T = E + iN whereas AlphaNumeric (moderator) cannot?
 
You asked me questions about where my work is and i replied. I have repeatedly stated Ill not reply to the thread provided you can just stick to your work. I reply when you say something false about the mainstream or myself. For example you have misrepresented Euclideanisation in physics. You have also made unsupported suppositions about my work. Both of those are dishonest and the latter is trolling in itself. I am responding to those falsehoods you present.

I will quite happily not reply to this thread if you can manage to make no unfounded assertions about myself and my work as well as not be dishonest about the mainstream. I am not going to sit idly by and watch you lie about such things but you are welcome to make unjustified claims about your work all you want. I haven't tried to stop you doing that, I have been responding to other things you have said. Anyone reviewing the thread can see that.

If you can manage to not say anything about me or anything dishonest about the mainstream from this point onwards I will not reply from this point onwards. Can't say fairer than that. The ball is in your court.
 
AlphaNumeric wrote many times in Internet that infinite number of mathematical/sizeless points (i.e. of the truly empty nothingness) lead to physical volume. The same, applying other words, wrote Pincho Paxton. He wrote that nature is able to cut out a positive mass/volume from the truly empty nothingness so there appears the negative mass/volume also. Now, the Pincho Paxton thread is in the Pseudoscience Forum. I think that this idea is very interesting because if it could be true then we could derive whole nature from the truly empty nothingness. But I proved in my first post in this thread that it is impossible. Consider the vice versa process. There is a physical volume and we divide it into two parts, and next each the half into two parts and so on. Can there be infinite number of such divisions? No! It is possible only in mathematics, not in physics. Nature needs a period to divide a fragment of space (it could be a tachyon). This means that the divisions never end. There still the total volume of the physical tachyons is the same as at the beginning. Can you see the difference between thinking in physics and mathematics? The same is with the higher dimensions. Physical meaning of the numbers 10 and 26 applied in the string/M theory differs from the mathematical meaning. This causes that TODAY the string/M theory leads astray. The same is with the imaginary physical quantities. We need the physical meanings of the imaginary quantities and you can find it in my Everlasting Theory.

BTW, Pincho Paxton, do not worry because even the great mathematicians do not understand physics correctly. Your idea still will be the inspiration for many. I also wasted a lot of time to understand the difference between mathematics and physics. Good luck to you.
 
Sylwester Kornowski said:
AlphaNumeric wrote many times in Internet that infinite number of mathematical/sizeless points (i.e. of the truly empty nothingness) lead to physical volume. The same, applying other words, wrote Pincho Paxton. He wrote that nature is able to cut out a positive mass/volume from the truly empty nothingness so there appears the negative mass/volume also. Now, the Pincho Paxton thread is in the Pseudoscience Forum. I think that this idea is very interesting because if it could be true then we could derive whole nature from the truly empty nothingness. But I proved in my first post in this thread that it is impossible. Consider the vice versa process. There is a physical volume and we divide it into two parts, and next each the half into two parts and so on. Can there be infinite number of such divisions? No! It is possible only in mathematics, not in physics. Nature needs a period to divide a fragment of space (it could be a tachyon). This means that the divisions never end. There still the total volume of the physical tachyons is the same as at the beginning. Can you see the difference between thinking in physics and mathematics? The same is with the higher dimensions. Physical meaning of the numbers 10 and 26 applied in the string/M theory differs from the mathematical meaning. This causes that TODAY the string/M theory leads astray. The same is with the imaginary physical quantities. We need the physical meanings of the imaginary quantities and you can find it in my Everlasting Theory.

BTW, Pincho Paxton, do not worry because even the great mathematicians do not understand physics correctly. Your idea still will be the inspiration for many. I also wasted a lot of time to understand the difference between mathematics and physics. Good luck to you.
Click to expand...

Well I say that you can put infinite particles inside infinite particles, but I also have other rules. That is just the first rule. The particles are not allowed to overlap. Overlap is the second rule. Our universe has a minimum scale, that is the third rule. And you end up with physics, because the universe has to break some of those rules. I'm not concentrating on maths anyway, I'm concentrating on zero mainly. Maintain zero until it breaks.
 
Pincho Paxton, I like your posts because there is nothing personal. Just physics. We have different ideas but we are not some enemies because there is nothing personal. Just you are tip-top. There is lack of emotions so you are better than I am. I cannot tolerate a caddish behaviour. Congratulations.
We can distinguish the internally structureless pieces of space (so the tachyons and the superluminal closed strings in my theory also) from the other particles which have the internal structure. The particles which have internal structure, for example the electrons and nucleons, can partially overlap with other particles because inside such BARE particles there are also volumes which are the truly empty nothingness. We can also say that my tachyons cannot overlap. We can say that the volumes of the tachyons decrease the volume of the infinite truly empty nothingness so someone can write following formula:

V(nothingness) = V(infinite) – V(total volume of pieces of space),

where V(total volume of tachyons) > 0.
There can be regions which satisfy following conditions.
V(nothingness) = 0 is for the timeless spacetime/region.
V(total volume of pieces of space) = 0 is for the spacetimeless regions.

The fundamental volumes or fundamental inertial masses cannot be negative. Nature cannot create negative volumes/masses in the truly empty nothingness.
 
In the previous posts I motivated that the Einstein relativity leads to the tachyons i.e. to the tachyon gas which I call the imaginary Newtonian spacetime because the free tachyons have broken contact with the wave function describing our Universe. Just the fundamental particles, i.e. the internally structureless pieces of space, are the CLASSICAL particles. They do not emit any particles.
I showed also that there are the direct and indirect experimental data proving that the tachyons are in existence.

Now I will try in details describe how the phase transitions of the imaginary Newtonian spacetime lead to the ground state of the Einstein spacetime i.e. there are the two spacetimes and their total energy T is

T(Total energy) = E(internal energy of the Einstein spacetime) + iN(internal energy of the imaginary Newtonian spacetime).

Next, I will show how the phase transitions lead to the gravitational and electromagnetic interactions and why we cannot describe these two interactions within one homogeneous description using the Quantum Field Theory i.e. why we cannot describe gravity of the TODAY Universe via the wave functions (it was possible during the very short period of inflation).
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top