Natural Science Forum / Physics / Relativity / December 2006

xxein:  It means much the same as 'the fabric of society'.  They both
invade an emptiness with a conglomerate of things and the relations
among these things.  Each has its own type of structural differences,
yet each is an out-lander.

A 'fabric' can be the interweaving of almost anything,  This includes
scales of things to make the scale of the 'fabric'.

A 'fabric' is usually only identified (by a name) by its outward
macro-appearance.  This 'naming' is of a tree-scale.  The constituent
invaders (if micro enough) seem to blend into the empty space as if
they were original.  But they are not.  Most still have the view that
empty space only exists as a 'fabric'.  They are wrong.

The conundrum is that we cannot measure an empty space without a
'fabric'.  We love to measure and put things into perspective.  But
that means that there have to be things.  We can't measure into the
vastness/infiniteness of an 'empty space'.  It has to be occupied to
measure.  Then, we are only measuring the things and assigning them as
'properties' as if they were one and the same as an empty space,
because that is all we can measure.  Iow, we measure the things and
their relations and weave a 'fabric' in our minds, but it is only an
occupation empty space.  It shouldn't be included as a 'property' of an
empty space.

Things get interwoven through time (the universe expands into a
nothingness) and the relations of things expand, but not beyond the
boundary of the things.  This is a hard notion to swallow because of
the traditional way physics has developed.  The concept of fields is
good.  Let the field expand, but by the very notion of "expanding into
what", it simply means that the field is expanding timewise into a
nothingness.  It is not a part of the field until the field gets there.

The field is even lumpy; it is not homogeneous.  The four identified
forces (down to 3U + G?) depend on the distribution of things.  This is
the evolution of this micro-scale.  There is no containment to this
expansion/evolution except for the totality of field itself.  Does
anything escape this field?  Well, if you believe in gravitons shooting
360 from all matter and energy at c, there would still be gravitons
expansion-wise, forever.

So you must ask the what of length and velocity that defines c in such
a situation.  What of the situation inside the Schwartzchild radius of
a black hole?  Is there a problem here?  Yes!  It is our feeble
construction of what we call physics.  It is fine for us, where we are.
But where are we?  We have defined a physics for our place and our
situation wrt time in the evolution of things.  Will they appear so if
we were on the edge of the universe or inside of a BH?  The evidence
seems to point to that.  But the keyword is 'appear'/subjective
measurement.  Where is any 'objectivity' of the universe?

We identify the four known(?) forces(?) on a subjective basis from a
limited position within an expanding universe that changes radically as
it expands generally or contracts to BH's locally.  We have no
objective viewpoint from anywhere outside our local condition.

But that seems to be OK if we are willing to say an objectivity doesn't
exist.  But we all know such an objectivity exists.  Why do we ignore
it and still claim a knowledge of physics as we do?

Is our physics so much for so little a universe, or so little for so
much of one?

I spoke my peace (yes, peace not piece) for today.  Let the opposing
tirade begin.

What's going wrong with Google?  I was supposed to return to the
"continue" page.  I'll post again.