According to a recent experiment which traced the path of light emitted from a massive explosion nearly 7 billion light years away, researches have found that the light beams arrived in unison. This suggests to them that "spacetime is smooth" rather than being composted of a foam of bubbles, which would have affected the time it took for the light to reach the receivers here on Earth.

Which way is "down" without a relative standard? |

The problem with this study is that it is ascribing literal, physical adjectives, to the abstract concept called space-time. Only objects can be physically smooth or foamy. This is because smooth/foamy refer to architecture, structure and shape, and an object is

*defined*as that which has shape.

### Is space-time an object?

Pursuant to the definition of exist (that which has shape and location), only OBJECTS can exist in reality.

This has led some physicists to conclude that space-time is most definitely an object. It warps, it is smooth, you can tear holes in it... space-time is thought of by most as a fabric. The problem with this is that a giant canvas sheet does not solve the problem of gravity, which is exactly what space-time was proposed by Einstein for.Einstein's model shows planets being trapped by the weighed down canvas like a ball rolling around a Roulette. The problem is that this model of gravity does not explain why the canvas is being pulled in a particular direction. This could possibly explain why the moon orbits around the Earth's equator and causes some eclipses, but what about the moons of Uranus and Pluto? In order to explain those orbits, they would have to weigh the canvas "outwards" or "sideways", contradicting the notion that objects "weigh down" the space-time canvas to cause gravity.

### Coordinate Confusion

Many physicists attempt to justify their claims about space-time by telling you that you cannot possibly visualize it because it is "4 dimensional".

A simple clarification of the definition of dimension shows that this cannot be the case. According to dictionary.com, the commonly understood definition of dimension is:

The Mathematical definition used in all of the long equations of General Relativity & Quantum is thus:

"

A simple clarification of the definition of dimension shows that this cannot be the case. According to dictionary.com, the commonly understood definition of dimension is:

**"The spatial extent (size) of an object; length, width, and height."**The Mathematical definition used in all of the long equations of General Relativity & Quantum is thus:

"

**“ dimension: Mathematics. The least number of independent coordinates required to****specify uniquely the points in a space.”"**

These two definitions clearly confuse meaning of the word. One is related to the architecture of an object, while another relates to abstract locations and positions in space. The physical definition of dimensions, i.e. spatial extent, has only two strictly

So, does an object change it's shape by adding a fourth dimension? Can there possibly be a 4th direction orthogonal to length, width, and height? Of course not, so it makes no sense to say that an object is 4 dimensional.

*qualitative*properties:*direction and orthogonality*. It does not take a mathematical equation to understand that a cross is two lines sitting perpendicular to each other.So, does an object change it's shape by adding a fourth dimension? Can there possibly be a 4th direction orthogonal to length, width, and height? Of course not, so it makes no sense to say that an object is 4 dimensional.

### The final nail in the coffin of space-time

What's this black stuff surrounding space-time and giving it form? |

The final issue with space-time is so basic that a child could understand. Space-time is alleged to be an object containing ALL of space. This is, however, directly contradicted from the start by the notion that space-time is an object. If an object exists, then it must have shape and shape can only be provided by a background. Without any space to contour the object and give it shape, it cannot possibly exist.

So the question naturally arises, what is this mysterious medium surrounding the Universe, giving it a boundary? This is easily solved by a

The universe is definitively a concept, relating all things and the boundless nothing of space. Claiming that space is NOT boundless is indefensible because the question arises, "What medium surrounds "space" giving it a shape, i.e. boundary."? It is IMPOSSIBLE for an object to have a boundary without space surrounding it. Therefore, space CANNOT itself be an object.

So the question naturally arises, what is this mysterious medium surrounding the Universe, giving it a boundary? This is easily solved by a

*rational*definition of the term Universe.**Universe: All matter and space**The universe is definitively a concept, relating all things and the boundless nothing of space. Claiming that space is NOT boundless is indefensible because the question arises, "What medium surrounds "space" giving it a shape, i.e. boundary."? It is IMPOSSIBLE for an object to have a boundary without space surrounding it. Therefore, space CANNOT itself be an object.

## 0 comments:

## Post a Comment