SPACE IS NOT NOTHING!

SPACE IS NOT NOTHING!

 

EXPERIMENTAL SPACE: A RELATIONAL VIEW

 

The most important theoretical two words I’d like to introduce here are “experimental space.” How is experimental space, maybe space we think and talk about during our experiments, different from space in general (like what we think of as objective absolute cosmic space)?

 

It isn’t.

 

All we can observe from the limited virtual realities of our minds is experimental space (space defined and measured by the observer).

 

Most of the things we can observe and measure in normal space-time are relatively local. The more mass a system has, the greater the stability of its center of gravity (which I define as a locality, a position, a point—one point of view—none of which in itself, alone, says anything about distance or space).

 

A gravity well is a low energy location on the interface of the expanding universe (actually the expanding universe is it’s interface). Perhaps the interface on the path between what is a product of interaction and what is enfolded before or after (According to David Bohm, the implicit order), embedded in a spectrum of real to virtual existence.

 

Non-normal space consists of relativistic space. Relativistic space is at opposite poles of a spectrum from general relativistic effects at a cg and special relativistic effects at high-energy statistical error at distances from cgs. The tension between the two create the tensions and forces we call gravitation.

 

Space Is Not Nothing

 

Space can be described as part of a fractal dimension of a distributed system. A simple example of this fractional dimension is the square/cube law. The smaller a particle (let’s say it’s spherical, which gives us a minimum surface area for a particle) the larger the surface area per volume of the particle.

 

If the volume is directly related to its density, then the particle’s volume will be directly related to its mass. That means that the more massive a particle, the less its potential for interacting with the rest of the universe. (So, it’s potential for interacting with the universe is its overall potential).

 

The smaller the square/cube of a particle (the square area it takes up as opposed to the magnitude of its volume) the lower it is in energy potential. The larger the square/cube, the greater the energy potential.

We know there is a lower limit in a black hole (though even black holes cgs at the centers of galaxies move, when they get in close proximity, when galaxies merge). The more interesting question is, not is there a lower limit in potential (within a black-hole scenario, though important to realize) but is there an upper limit to potential in the universe?

 

According to a simple conductive flow model across an expanding boundary:

 

In fluids, we have an energy interaction across an expanding fluid boundary equal to its interfacial tension times its curvature. And both interfacial tension and Newton’s formula of gravitational attraction are of the same configuration, leading me to the belief that gravitation is a manifestation of interfacial universal tension in an expanding interface.

 

According to the analog, in the two-fluid, unstable, expanding interface the trough of the perturbing sine wave (gravitational well in high-energy systems) is of high curvature and relatively high stability (like the cg, it resists movement, or has lots of inertia). The crest of the expanding boundary wave tends to contain or create lots more space per mass (higher square/cube values as in the smallest of energy packets that still can be found whirling around in the “emptiness” of space).

 

The smaller the particle, the higher the square/cube value, the greater the energy potential. What specifically does this potential look like in outer space?

 

We know that the outer arms of galaxies move about their centers faster than predicted using only their masses. The farther we travel from the black holes at galaxy centers, the more we’re at the energetic leading edges of perturbing waves of expansion. In my experiment, these sine wave crests can also have fairly high curvatures, though in opposite directions (cc-downward as opposed to gravitational wells being cc-upward in the direction of expansion).

 

Where will we engage these strange relativistic tightly curved energetic locations? Are they locations? What sort of pathways might they contain? Will they cause some sort of blockage of energy potential or information flow as do the greatly massive gravitational wells?

 

 

2 thoughts

  1. The way our brain functions limits our ability to observe and understand the universe, to perceive what is inputted. The more we learn, the more we discover how much we don’t know. You could say what we don’t know is expanding faster than the universe itself.

  2. DJ,
    Exactly. All we really can talk about is our conscious virtual reality. Through thought we collapse Gary Zukav’s cosmic wave, creating incoming information, explaining the unexplainable (What Is Behind What Is). Are we exploring a real expansion of space, or, the creation of space in the world of description. I still need to place this caveat: who’s observing; who’s describing?

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: