Originally Posted by Bogie

By imagining and discussing the ISU I have gained a little understanding of physics.

Initially I imagined the ISU because I was under the impression that “science” said “we can’t know about "before and beyond" the big bang so we don’t talk about it”. I wanted to talk about it because I thought we should be able to figure it out.

I started what I called the “bottom up” approach to start the process of figuring it out, presenting ideas about the infinite spongy universe and the elementary energy particle.

All of my posts relate to those ideas and if I slip up and refer to them as theories and you object to the use of the word theory because the ideas are not testable, then that is another issue.

Now I understand that is not an issue of “science” saying “we can’t know”. It is an issue with gravity in the Planck regime being incompatible with GTR. Particle scientists want to explain all forces, including gravity, in terms of particles and fields, while GTR is our best method of predicting the movement of objects and it is purely mathematical, not physical, and three-dimensional space is not considered in the model.

I understand that GTR and EFEs are mathematical calculations that couple space and time to describe a curvature to gravitation fields and predict the relative movement of massive objects in spacetime based on the warping of spacetime by mass.

GTR uses four-dimensional warped spacetime. I use the term “Field” simply to describe all cases where two bodies separated in three-dimensional space exert a force on each other. GTR doesn’t describe any physical field in three-dimensional space. It says that physical influences are transmitted through empty spacetime without any material or physical agency because spacetime itself is warped by mass.

Three dimensional space is not a consideration in GTR or in BBT.

In GTR the only physical aspect of space is spacetime itself, and spacetime had a beginning 13.7 billion years ago if you backtrack the observed recession of galaxies using the formulas.

So my issue is with GTR and BBT, and not with "science" in general. My discussion of ideas about space being infinite are not considered pertinent in BBT because I am still talking about three dimensional space.

My discussions about a unifying particle are not pertinent to GTR but are pertinent to particle physics.

The problem is that I have been guilty of mixing the two and that may be why I have not found anyone to play with. As I learn more maybe I will get more responses.

I hope the above is stated in such a way that it is not necessary to answer you by following unnecessary assignments to go back to my previous posts. Your challenges seem intended to get me to demonstrate something form past posts that I never said in the first place or never intended. Maybe you are even basing you insistence on the use of the word “theory” instead of idea.

Your attention to my thread is appreciated. If you don't want to have a discourse based on my intentions for my threads, i.e. discussion about a greater universe and a unifying particle that is fine. Some people are constrained by requiring tests to prove hypotheses. Others, and the ones I am interested in attracting to the discussion are people who feel comfortable talking about ideas and offering ideas, not insisting on moving those ideas to theory and hypothesis before they are ready for that.