the capacity to feel their environment and to act to stay on sync with it.
You say "to act", I say "to react".
It's difficult to imagine how two humans could be moving by steps like the two atoms of my animated molecule, but I really think they do.
It's simply the result of "entropy"; from simplicity (atoms) to complexity (organism).
Isn't that what your own theory is trying to do?
It doesn't have to try; it does without the need of quantum gravity
. Everything is consequent to GR "gravity" which is a consequence of the geometry
About that, I don't agree that nature can start with a dimensionless point to develop volumes of space. We can imagine it, but we can't build it for real,
Which means that you don't agree with "evolution" or a "dynamic" universe. Funny that, up until now, whatever we "imagined" we did build. The only thing I can say is that 2 appears before 3 and 1 before 2. You can disagree if you want, it's your right.
The point is a mathematical tool, not a real thing. Real things have to carry real dimensions.
In a "volume" you have three dimensions; which one is not "real"?
Nature is already infinitely precise if it is infinite
"Infinite" cannot be "precise"; there's no "precision" at all in "infinite". As for "nature" it is not "infinite"; in fact it's very precisely "définite" and guetting more "definite" each day that passes.
You chose to develop things out of nothing, but nature is unable to do that.
Then you say that entropy
doesn't exists; which means that the universe is "static
" and the BB is impossible
. As for your steps; you've just pour them down the drain by saying so
; "static" means "no steps" possible.
an infinitely precise simulation of them. You chose to develop things out of nothing, but nature is unable to do that. Why didn't you start with a real particle instead, a particle that has a dimension, thus that has components already distant from one another?
" is a must
to explain things. I started with one "real" particle in the state of a "potentiality
" that whent trough a "phase transition" that gave it a lot of "probabilities
" which experienced another phase transition to become less "possibilities" in order to finaly become the "realisation
" of its sole former potentiality
which will be the "reality
". As for "distant from one another
", it wasn't logically
possible with a starting unique
particle that couldn't have "components" to be the "starting" state.
Wasn't it enough to define space as the distance between the particles at any scale?
You own phrase shows that "space" is not "distance
". Between two particles you have a "distance" and around both particles, you have "space". They are not the same thing. As you can see, your mind knows it even if you're not aware of it.
I don't mind using the concept of density of energy, as long as that kind of energy is subjected to doppler effect, not only to distance.
Once again, your concept is "blurred". Density of energy is not energy. Frequency is the density of energy. The doppler effect is only an "effect" related to the distance of the source
. In reality the amount of energy in the frequency
doesn't change but the distance affect the wavelenght
because the movement
of the source is either "contracting" or "expanding" it.
What you mean is that it doesn't fit with GR's redshift,
No. What I mean is that there's no "communications" between volumes of "deformed space" seperated by "flat space" (between two "biggest" russian dolls). What occurs in one "deformed volume" is not related to what occurs in an another "deformed volume". The only universal relation is the electromagnetism of the whole universe which is "available" where and when needed.
Time is an effect from my first atom's step, but it is also a cause for my second atom's step.
That is "illogic". Time is not a "cause"; it's a "measure" of the movement of your first step
; and so it is the measure of your second step.
You are the one to consider that space is contracting all by itself.
That would be an act of faith. And since I have no "faith" whatsoever, space doesn't contract by itself
. At first, it doesn't even "contract" at all; it simply stop "expanding". Then, if the "mass energy" making "pressure", counter-expanding wise
, on its "center of gravity
", this "point" "backs up" (retrogrades) on the distance previously traveled in its "expanding metric"
to a "smaller" metric. Pretty simple, isn't it? It can even "back up" to the point of producing a "black hole".
With GR, particles exchange information with space, and space uses that information to tell particles what to do.
So you say; but "deformed" or "flat" space is like a "curved" or "straight" road. Your car has to follow it without need of exchange of "informations" between the road and the car.
Of course, the steps are mediated by light, but a light that is not curved by space,
Where can your light pass without being influenced by the geometry of space
? That is illogic.
Would you have to change your theory a lot if light did not have to be curved by gravitation?
What would have to change, is that gravitation wouldn't be a "consequence" of the deformation of the geometry
of space. So GR wouldn't be a premise to my "theory" as you call it. I consider GR gravitation as a "fact" not a "theory".
The only way to progress without knowing what is coming up is to proceed by trial and error.
Funny that you mention it! Because you didn't accept that the universe was proceeding the same "only" way
in its evolution (progress)???
I still don't see why our two theories would be incompatible.
It might be compatible at the "matter" level; which is the only one that you consider; but then it would be only 5% compatible.