Alright, I've reviewed a few times and I understand where the lack of focus and the conceptual issues arise from.
I need to ask that my previous terminology be forgotten for now. It's back to basics.
Alright. Albert Einstein released a paper on the nature of energy, mass, space and time. In it he showed a geometric view of the universe, and of gravity. He related how one can manipulate time by simply manipulating distanced travelled. That time and space are one in the same. He also related energy to mass, and a relationship of mass-energy to space-time. What I purpose, and what Einstein apparently didn't see, is that space-time and Mass-energy are all of the same fundamental blox. Matter.
The concepts of Mass and energy are neglected in objective analysis of physics. They are terms which are used frequently, without respect to the fact that they are unexamined. The best answer you can get when asking what they are is that they are substance. That they are matter. When you ask what is matter, you get definite "we don't know.", after long hours and much pestering of those who are so sure of what they already know.
This for a scientist, is admit of defeat. Doubly so for an engineer.
So, please heed what I have to say, and bare with it. Accept it, sample it, test it, then reject it.
I have asked before, here and else where. What are boundries, and how are they defined? When I bounce a ball, what keeps it from going through the ground? When I attempt to leave the atmosphere what keeps me from doing so? What holds me here?
Both of these are boundries, and are things which are not looked at objectively in physics. Mostly traditional thoughts reign supreame in the discussion of such things.
Now Einstein shook the traditions to the core when he purposed geometrics and curved space-time. Even to day many people who say they get it, obviously don't. His ideas even now are widely contested.
So I ask, what defines the boundries of space-time? Are the boundries of space-time different from the boundries of mass-energy and matter? My only possible answer, is very simply "No, the boundries are not different."
My reasoning is actually fairly simple. Einstein purposed what is called "The Equivalence Principle". If their are boundries that hold me to the surface of a solid, and boundries that keep me from falling through that same surface and they both are described the same, except for direction, then it would seem that they are the same.
Here's what I think Einstein missed. He allowed boundries to exist, but he failed, as many scientist do, to explain what the boundries are made up of. Now there are many explinations but few which fit the criteria of science. So I would have to guess that the boundries of the system, of the visible universe would have to be none other than matter, or substance. This would be rather consistent I think with a number of concepts. The Dirac sea comes to mind in addition to Space-Time Fabric.
Furthermore, it would seem intuitively wrong that these things should all be made up of different fundamental forms with different attributes, if they all interact. If they are all matter, then they all have the same common elemental properties.
Here's the thing and this is the brain buster for me. Mass-energy, Space-time, Charge-Spin, the various flavors, the four forces and all of that would then be all based on one axiomatic object. Matter. They are all properties of this axiom.
It becomes relevant then to talk about what is the fundamental, the smallest constituant of aggregate matter? Atoms are not it. Photons are dual natured and virtual. Leptons would be a good place to look, it would seem. However, quarks make this interesting. If all matter is homogenous, then would it not follow that the matter that makes up an electron would be the same matter that makes up a proton?
I would think so. Infact I would think that the splitting of the atom and the decay of the neutron, as well as many other well documented phenomena would indicate this to be true. Most of all the idea of universal energy exchange, in quantized packets called photons.
So, let's now shift a bit. We'll talk a little bit about Geometry, Computer science and Graphic arts. In Geometry we talk about these interesting constructs called points, lines, and angles. In Graphic arts we would be more concearned with vertices, lines, polygons, angles, and key frames. In Computerscience we wouldn't be so concearned with those, as we would be with arrays, vectors, and matrices.
What these concepts have to do with the majority discussion, is that they all have to do with representing geometric constructs. We might call this boundry analysis. In my understanding what defines a polygon is not the lines making up the polygon, but the points that make up the line.
Taken into the context of Mass-energy, Charge-spin, and Space-time, this concept would be the question. What is the line and what is the point? My answer would be simple. Matter is the point; mass-energy, would be the line and space-time would be the boundry the line resides in.
Space-time and Mass-energy are really one in the same, they are both properties of matter interactions, that is point-to-point interactions.
Obviously there are very certain rules to it all, that grow more complex as you examine the data and generate information about the interactions. However the elements remain the same. The only thing that differs in any given observation is the properties of the matter-matter interactions.
It is on this that I base my theorm.
Next: Neutrinos, Massless?
Related Threads:
DoctorDick's A simple geometric proof with profound consequences
