Originally posted by sasquatch672
Very superficial, not well thought-out - come on, you're capable of more than this as well.
My point is that describing a substance that is both invisible and
non-pervasive to radiation as 'matter' and 'energy' immediately
sends us on the wrong course for what to expect. What we are in
fact describing is the absence of mass and energy.
Regarding the space-time fabric you are seeking, you may be
interested to read that Ether is making a knockout comeback.
The idea is that Ether, being an all-pervasive field, behaves
in a similar way to Einsteins proposed 'elastic sheets'. The key
differences are that firstly it acts to 'soften' space rather than
'bend' it and secondly that it houses a threshold value for the
acceleration of a mass passing through it. Thereafter
it behaves in a different manner. A good analogue of this would
be the viscosity of air after an object breaks throught the sound
barrier.
The implications of this would mean that slower moving objects
on the outskirts of galaxies experience a greater mass.
The observation that is currently described by dark matter.
http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2006-08/ns-ert082306.php
With this in mind, I believe it is important when assigning labels
to universal constructs that we bear in mind, that we are in fact
labelling information.
When we speak of matter we are also speaking of energy which is
information. The same can be said of velocity, acceleration and
forces that we encounter.
The description of Ether above is for all intents and purposes, the
description of Mathematics. It is a description of how one substance
moves through another. It is information.
Why is it then such a leap of the imagination to consider that an increase
in the complexity of this information such as the addition of observers.
Or the loss of information by means of the cosmic horizon, black
holes etc . should be one of the "forces"/"masses"/"energies"/"fields" in our
universe today?