I was considering Michelson-Morley last night, and realized that light does ride spacetime like sound waves ride water. The fact that gravitational lensing exists proves that light does affect spacetime, and therefore it's waves are ripples in spacetime, as are gravity waves. This is because gravity is not a force, but merely the affect on spacetime of mass. Since light is affected by gravity, it demonstrates it's interaction with spacetime.
The engineering possible in the 19th Century too limited Michelson and Morley to be able to detect how the expansion of spacetime impacted light. It still so limits us today. Had spacetime expanded within their apparatus they could not have detected it, since their apparatus would have expanded concomitantly. Had they been able to detect such then, extant theories did not include spacetime expansion, and they would have thus misinterpreted their results to mean a separate aether to spacetime itself existed. This is exactly why much cosmology is based on false premises today, and why it is vital for constant reconsideration of canon to be undertaken regarding physics.
It is interesting to consider how the rate of spacetime being created today increases directly proportionally to mass becoming less dense generally. This is because the universe is expanding at an increasing rate, but mass far less so, indeed indetectably. This raises questions: is spacetime creation locally homogeneous? Do local concentrations of mass affect the spontaneous creation of spacetime (is that creation spontaneous)? Why isn't mass also being created proportionately?
It is this expansion of spacetime that is construed as 'dark energy'. It would be very educational to do similar experiments to Michelson-Morley near black holes, and compare results to those in relative voids of mass.
Beyond the event horizon of the universe is nothing, not even spacetime. Since nothing cannot exist, this means our universe is a singularity, albeit in reverse; a white hole, if you will, of infinite expanse instead of a black hole confined in a Schwarzchild radius. However, physics demonstrates bidirectionality, for instance every camera is a monitor. Pushing photons in one end produces electrons at the other, and pushing electrons in that end produces photons out of the first. Physics is consilient. Therefore I don't think nothing exists, because something cannot come from nothing, since that event isn't bidirectional. The Big Bang therefore could not have been spontaneous.
Instead, I suspect that the beginning of creation was the point at which our universe became a singularity in an uberuniverse, and that expansion of spacetime is actually the black hole gaining mass in the uberuniverse. What this means is that Dark Energy is simply the addition of mass to the singularity our universe is within the uberuniverse, expressed as creation of spacetime, or that spacetime in this universe is mass in the uberuniverse that falls into the singularity. Spacetime and mass are the inverse of one another, and the transition between them are black holes.
This hypothesis conserves consilience, as within the limited Schwarzchild radius of a black hole with infinite mass the inverse of a black hole exists, a white hole with an infinite expanse of spacetime and limited mass. Mass become infinite in a blackhole, while spacetime becomes infinite in a white hole, or universe. Just as mass increases in a black hole when it passes the event horizon, spacetime is created in a white hole that expands it's event horizon.
This has implications for useful tech, such as FTL propulsion. The Dark Energy Drive (DED) has a ring to it, doesn't it?
We have been able to demonstrate concentrations of Dark Matter due to their gravitational effect. I am unaware of any such demonstration regarding Dark Energy, or of variable expansion of spacetime. Indeed, Hubble showed that expansion is homogeneous in all directions, and this would be predicted by my hypothesis. This hypothesis also predicts that creation of spacetime would not vary in the vicinity of black holes, although it would be proportionally compressed. Further, since mass falling into black holes varies due to regional variations in the concentrations of mass, the hypothesis predicts that the expansion of spacetime would vary, while remaining homogeneous.
The fact that mass is only created at the Schwarzchild Radius of black holes is predicted (through virtual particle pair production in which one particle is absorbed by the black hole), since black holes only expand infinitesimally. This ratio between creation of spacetime and creation of mass may be probative, as it should mirror the rate of expansion of black holes due to the increase in their mass, but I cannot conceive of a way to test it absent variations in the rate of increase in red shift as mass accelerates away from the rest of the universe. I don't think our engineers are currently able to detect this, and it's very possible that the rate of mass being absorbed by this particular black hole is relatively constant, as this is true of many black holes.
Too bad we can't test it yet. Doing so awaits either creation of black holes in labs, or means of conducting experiments in the vicinity of extant black holes. Perhaps we could detect variation in the rate of expansion, but I suspect engineering yet is too rudimentary to make that possible.
I'd appreciate any thoughts or criticisms.
IMG source - UniverseToday.com
Something occurred to me just now, while considering Paul Dirac's equation describing the electron. Given that only spacetime exists within a vacuum, and that virtual particles erupt on occasion from that spacetime, the photons emitted when the matter/antimatter pair of particles mutually annihilate must extract the energy and mass they possess from spacetime. Such extraction of the fundamental base of spacetime would constitute decreation, and may be another potential mechanism whereby this inversion hypothesis might be tested, as well as used to create the DED, if there is a way to induce virtual particle production.
If the hypothesis is correct, mass erupting from spacetime would be reverting from spacetime to mass, and preserving consilience would require that black holes also similarly erupt spacetime. This seems like a handle that might enable inversion to be controlled, if such can be done.
Edit: I note that the measurement of the expansion of the universe is effected on the macro scale, and if that expansion is effected by myriad local events, of equal probability, then overall the expansion would appear to be not only homogeneous, but nonlocal, or globally effected. Since particle pair production is shown to occur locally, yet to be everywhere equally probable, it's possible that the creation of spacetime might also be effected similarly, rather than globally. Given consilience, that seems likely to be the case.
To further consider the mechanism(s) by which creation of spacetime and mass might be effected, I have taken a look at Murray Gell-Man, whose work on The Eightfold Way of subatomic particles reveals much about mass. Quarks' properties are fundamental to the expression of mass in our unterverse, and all the rest of them. The forces expressed by quarks have properties such as three different colors, left or right spin, strangeness, top, and bottom. Murray reckoned these particles could be useful, and revealed some means of manipulating them, such as converting gluons to mesons. The Strong Force is highly local, unlike other forces, so Quantum Chromodynamics (QCD) seems an appropriate vector for effecting mass/spacetime inversions in a controllable 'region'. Given that mass and spacetime seem to spontaneously invert, if such inversion of spacetime to mass can be effected at will, and reversed after the passage of a transport, an FTL drive would be the result, eliminating the distance, and time taken to traverse it, between two locations.
QCD, because of it's locality, would be highly desirable as means of manipulating inversion.
A question for ya man. Just trying to understand your view pertaining to DNA and the specific code/script written for all living things, retained in the blue print known as DNA. What is your opinion on that, concerning a flawless script that makes all living things what they are exists for each human, plant, animal etc. The reason I ask this is because Darwin wrote his findings long before DNA was discovered. And now that we know DNA does exist.. this might change things for some peoples view points.
I will say that as for me, I am certain that information must be given, as with language (my opinion). So personally I am of the belief that we are a design, and therefore have a designer. Of course I respect all ideas, and enjoy listening to them.
So as you are someone whom I admire listening to their opinions on things. What say you Sir!?
:D
ps any thoughts on alien life out there? If you would do me the pleasure of entertaining my curiosity :)
WARNING: IF YOU REPLY TO THIS ACCOUNT YOU WILL BE FLAGGED, YOUR REP HARMED AND ALL OF YOUR REWARDS REMOVED. DO NOT ENGAGE WITH THE TRASH. YOU HAVE BEEN WARNED
Well DNA is a blueprint that is followed to build the body and behaviour of a creature. I've never considered it possibly flawless, nor the construction. All kinds of things disrupt construction, and the code, including epigenetics, which causes certain genes to not express, or to express, in subsequent generations, depending on environmental variables.
As to a designer, I'm not agin' it. 'The heavens themselves declare the Glory of God.' is meaningful to me, and the God of creation is to whom I'm grateful from time to time. There are no arguments I'm aware of that logically prove the existence or nonexistence of God either way, so I don't make such arguments. Neither does it make any difference discussing physics, biology, or any other natural science whether there is a God or not. Science is asking questions about things and asking new questions when you get answers.
God never answers questions, so we have to figure out the answers ourselves, which is science.
Aliens probably exist, just not on Earth, probing anuses. There may even be other bodies in our solar system with alien life on them, so conditions requisite to life are probably amazingly common across the universe. We haven't found any yet, but we haven't looked much.
There's just not much point to doing stuff to life on Earth for aliens. Scientific observations would be more effectively undertaken via robotic probes, and if they can send probes I see no reason they'd alter the objects of study by interfering with our culture, because it would change how we behave and mess up their studies. When I was a marine biologist I didn't swim down and teach octopi how to make villages. The fact octopi are making villages is important and educational because we didn't teach them that.
I reckon most alien life is single celled organisms, just like on Earth. Haven't seen any yet, unless you consider Tardigrades or fungi aliens. They have DNA, so I don't, but they're wierd enough that some do. We'll have to keep looking. That's the fun part anyway.
Many interesting points. While I do not agree with them all, I find your opinions extremely interesting. I should not have said flawless pertaining to DNA, as of course in instances it can 'loose code' and therefore flaws appear in those situations. I think what I meant to say was DNA as well as the things it creates are awe inspiring, mesmerizing, and to think about makes me utterly awe struck knowing of such things like that our eyes are literally plugged into our brain via optic nerves.. the way the taste buds can taste.. our hands can perfectly grasp the foods which seem to be made for us to eat eg. Banana. The whole thing just makes me feel in a total state of amazement over all of creation and the absolute magnitude of intelligence that I witness behind every little detail.. right down to our eyelashes protecting our eyes. Nothing has been left out. Not one detail.
Have you watched those funny birds mating.. I will drop a link here. The way the male puts on such a show for his lady bird. It just makes me laugh but also I feel very amazed by all of this.
Anyhow sorry to go on a tangent about the beauty and intelligence I am constantly struck by.. but I can't help my self. You even fall into that category my friend. When I speak to you, or even when I read your thoughts.. the sheer brilliance behind your words shines through. You are one amazing being.
Lastly thank you for opening up about your thoughts. I thoroughly enjoy your words each and every time.
Oh here is the funny bird video. I just love watching nature videos, as well as documentaries. If you have any suggestions please do share. I am always open to learning new things.
Cheers
You're extremely kind. I am glad to be interesting, and hope to be inspirational as well.
I used to keep peacocks, and I remember being struck by the realization that the beauty of a peacock displaying was God being nice to us. I considered it proof God loved us, but proof is harder to come by if I'm going to be completely reasonable. Sometimes I'm just grateful instead, like I am for this reminder of that exact same thing.
Thanks!
BTW, if you really want to be amazed, have a look at the Banana. It's almost certainly the result of genetic engineering millenia ago.
Banana genetics
It looks to me like CRISPR was used on bananas long ago, but not recently. I find that very interesting.
My goodness now this is something I can sink my teeth into! No pun intended :D
Looking into the banana right now!
Talk soon man
Cheers