Re: ROSS MODEL OF THE UNIVERSE - The Simplest Yet Theory of Everything

From: Jesse Mazer <lasermazer.domain.name.hidden>
Date: Mon, 10 Oct 2005 22:51:52 -0400

Hal Ruhl wrote:

>Hi Jesse:
>
>In FCC ABC layering the distance between the centers of any two adjacent
>regions is always the same.
>
>Now if we get to motion the question is whether or not the model allows
>motion. In a discrete state evolving universe there is no motion while a
>universe is in a particular state and there is no continuous transition to
>the next state but rather a wink out and a wink in.
>
>The postulates of special relativity:
>
>"Postulate 1: (Principle of Relativity) The laws of nature are the same in
>all inertial frames.
>
> Postulate 2: (Constancy of the Velocity of Light) The speed of light in
>empty space is an
> absolute constant of nature and is independent of the
>motion of the emitting body.
>
>are satisfied if there is no motion so the model would have
>Lorentz-symmetry.

How can you have different "reference frames" if you dismiss motion
entirely? Are you saying there would only be a single reference frame in
this theory? That definitely isn't an acceptable solution, any fundamental
underlying theory has to reduce to SR in the limit of large distances and
times, so it doesn't make sense to just say something like "since there is
no motion, you don't have multiple reference frames". Anyway, it seems to me
it wouldn't be very hard to generalize the concept of different frames to a
universe where change is discontinuous rather than continuous--just have the
origin of the coordinate system jump discontinuously too, by regular
increments--and a regular lattice means the laws of physics won't work the
same in different frames defined in such a way. It's possible that a more
random lattice might avoid such problems, I'm not sure...

Jesse
Received on Mon Oct 10 2005 - 22:55:17 PDT