Hello all!

I thought we could all get our heads together to do an old-fashined UT homemade criticism of the following "hypothesis" found on another forum I administrate.

So...have at him! B)

'Space pushing' is another way of saying what I have been saying for many posts on this forum, and basically I have had no response other than "so how do you explain the abundance of light elements, acoustic oscillations, gravitational lensing", etc. - which is really asking someone to explain someone else's theory. If there is a universal energy field without matter, simply an expanding field of 'spacetime', then the action of expansion will create matter since the field will operate upon itself, within the field it has already created. 'Matter' then arises as a response to the pressure the field creates, in the form of spinning regions, the spin acting to absorb the pressure - and the 'spacetime' by which the field is measured. 'Gravity' is then simply the absorption of energy - spacetime - by a spinning region. Spinning regions may combine to form more efficient spin combinations, and be capable of absorbing more energy than the field can produce - so they radiate energy back out into the field. (In other words, 'gravitational collapse' is looking at the situation backwards.) I do not believe it would be so difficult to create a mathematical model of this (but it won't be done by me.

I think this is a reasonable alternative explanation for the evolution of a universal system, and the lack of response from this forum indicates to me that eagerness to debunk can come at the expense of objectivity.

Which forum is that StarLab (if you don't mind me asking)?Well first, StarLab, you could let this person know that whatever it is, it most certainly is NOT a 'theory'!

Perhaps this person could start to think a bit beyond nice word pictures, and begin to work out how the bits of this idea might relate to each other? And how words in the idea might relate to words that look the same as those used in mainstream science (e.g. 'light particles', 'intense light', 'mass', 'pressure').OK, so how about "so how do you explain these excellent observations {list of telescopes/instruments/data reductions, with times and dates}?" In other words, remove the 'someone else's theory' interpretation and go straight to the data.What leads you to this conclusion?Why not?You won't be at all surprised to read that I, for one, have a different view, part of which is that the 'lack of response' is due to a lack of anything to 'respond' to

A NASA astrophysicist says, "We are just beginning to understand the ramifications of the belief that even 'empty' space has energy and that this energy can cause measureable effects." So obviously not many people have given much thought to energy in 'empty' space, or the link between energy and space. Judging by the above quote, I believe that will change.

I believe that modelling of 'empty' spacetime is already being done in loop quantum gravity mathematics (when you add the time 'dimension', spacetime ceases to be empty).

Lack of a response can also indicate the lack of a mathematical system by which to describe an idea. This is nobody's fault. The idea that the universe 'originated' in a 'explosion' of matter and space is an organic outgrowth of existing 'data' which presumes the 'fundamental' existence of matter alongside an equally 'fundamental' but parallel existence of space. An alternative is that matter arises out of the action of an energized medium, namely spacetime. That this alternative does not rise to the level of requiring a response, 'because there is nothing to respond to', strikes me as subjective. Trying to be as objective as possible, is there not a discernible difference between these two ideas? On the one hand, 'matter' is fundamental. On the other, 'matter' is not fundamental. As far as I can tell, the search for the Higgs field is mainly to show that 'matter' is fundamental. But by osmosis I get the impression that even the Big Bang theory is evolving into a form where 'matter' is not fundamental. At that point, the 'bang' goes out of the balloon.

This kid is calling String Theorists drug abusers. That kind of shuts down any willingness I might have had to try and help him. You've seen the thread here about how ideas are cheap. If someone conjures a mental image of how the universe works, that image is useless to the world unless they have the means to show how the model works, and to test it against some known observations. This is yet another example of someone who's had a vision outside the testable that they can't translate into meaningful science.

__________________
Forming opinions as we speak