[General] On grav/tension fields

[Dr Grahame Blackwell]

Dear Al (and All),

My thoughts on this, for what they're worth:

The fact (or view) that the universe is finite doesn't necessarily imply a 'rind' or boundary: the surface of a ball is unbounded but finite.  I believe that Einstein believed the universe to be finite but unbounded, a 3-D/4-D analog of the 'ball surface' could do it.

This is also supported by Hubble expansion: a universe with a boundary must also have a centre, whereas the surface of a ball doesn't have a centre; as Hubble told us, the universe is expanding by the expansion of space itself, from every point (like the surface of a ball or balloon on being inflated), rather than simply a throwing outward of matter from some central origin.  Ergo, the universe doesn't have a central origin and so neither a boundary [If one were to ask "So where in the universe WAS the Big Bang", my answer would be(and has been): "In the equivalent position to the centre of the ball, which has now expanded - i.e. at no point on its present surface (or in its present spatial volume, in the case of the cosmos)".]

Going one step further, I'd venture to suggest that our very perception of space and distance/displacement is a limitation of our awareness; there is much evidence that the deeper reality is in some real sense 'alocal', i.e. 'localisation' is a simplification of some greater truth.  I believe that the same is equally true of time.  So when we ask "What's outside the universe" or "How long has the universe existed", my answer is: "You're asking the wrong questions".

[As a point of detail: for those who consider that scientific evidence puts the age of the universe at around 13.8 billion years, +/- 0.5 billion (or even more precisely), I'd propose that this estimate makes all sorts of assumptions about things that are actually unknowable - notably what time itself IS and how it might have 'behaved' in the early universe.  Not least, it seems likely that the unimaginable concentration of energy at the Big Bang event would itself have had a very significant effect on the passage of time (whatever that may have meant then), becoming progressively less intense as the universe expanded - this is my take on 'The Inflationary Period'.  I've posted an easy-read version of this here: http://www.grahameb.com/realitycheck/?p=387 .  I also say more on the illusory nature of time here: http://www.grahameb.com/realitycheck/?p=425 .]

Best regards,
Grahame



----- Original Message ----- 
From: af.kracklauer at web.de 
To: general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org 
Cc: Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion 
Sent: Sunday, January 22, 2017 6:20 AM
Subject: Re: [General] light and particles group


Challenge for proponents of fields (all kinds: E&M, Gravity, Tension, whatever):  If the universe is finite, then the field sources on the outer rind will be pumping field energy into the void, the material universe would be cooling down, etc. So, where is the evidence for such?  If the universe is finite but topologically closed, then it will have certain "Betti numbers" for various forms which will be closed, (see: algebraic topology texts), again there should be some observable consequence from the these closed forms.  So (again) where's the evidence?   Granted, current tech may not be up to the task; but that would imply that field theories have to be reduced in status to be virtually religion.

One way out:  there are no fields, but interactions between sources and sinks.  Where one is missing, there's nothing!  In particular nothing emminating from sources without regard for target-like sinks.  Advantage: the math works out without internal contradictions (divergencies, etc.).  Another advantage: from this viewpoint, there are no waves, and associated divergencies.  They are just coceptual Fourier components for the interactions.  Useful, but strictly hypothetical. 

For what it's worth, Al
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/pipermail/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/attachments/20170122/92709a47/attachment.htm>