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

From: Hal Ruhl <HalRuhl.domain.name.hidden>
Date: Mon, 10 Oct 2005 23:29:10 -0400

Hi Jesse:

At 10:51 PM 10/10/2005, you wrote:
>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.

First let me say that discussion of such "local" theories relevant to
a particular universe is not my goal on this list. That said such
discussions can from time to time help reveal issues with efforts to
model more basic levels. That said:

>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?

I think that applies to all lower level theories that have discrete
states for universes and I believe that that is the correct view.

>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".

The issue you are talking about is IMO an aspect of "observation" and
then only the "observation" needs to support SR at least in our
universe. I think that a correct view of "observation" [a TBD?] will
allow for the appearance of SR at large distances and times for our
universe based on a low level single frame of reference
approach. Notice that my model is a distortion of space. Time
dilation is also supported.


>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...

In my model the laws of physics are determined at the level of the
grid which in any event does not relocate and further the laws are
determined at the level of a region and its 12 nearest neighbors
which surely do not relocate. Any relocation of a large dance
[large coordinated collections of point relocation - like observers]
will not disturb the "Laws of Physics".

Its been about three years since I played with these ideas so I may
make more than the usual number of mistakes and ramble about a bit
while I get the juices flowing.

Hal Ruhl
Received on Mon Oct 10 2005 - 23:34:44 PDT