An inertial frame of reference
Introduction. When Einstein first published his work on general relativity in 1911, his concept of the principle of inertia (part of his 1905 definition of special theory of relativity), morphed into a principle of geodesic motion. It seems that he was feeling, seeing or somehow sensing how objects moved according to the curvature of spacetime.
What if the starting point for it all is the Planck Length/Planck Time and Planck Mass/Planck Charge nexus. I’ve been calling it a nexus of transformation from the finite to the infinite and from the infinite to the finite.
What if this simple model from the close packing of equal spheres (demonstrated on the right) is the first expression of doublings of those Planck base units? Can anything be more simple? Is this John Wheeler’s quantum foam? Is the universe literally filled with this proposed foam (which it appears may be known as Planckspheres or Planck Spheres)?
Now, that’s a different image of the universe! The first doubling gives us a container universe filled with the smallest spheres that literally encompass everything, everywhere for all time. We can’t see it. We can’t feel it. We can’t measure it. We can only hypostatize that it is there. Here is Neil Turok’s never-ending starts that his team envisioned in April 2017.
Notwithstanding, I still ask myself, “So what?”
Doesn’t such an image redefine an inertial frame of reference? If the universe is a simple whole, yet ever so dynamically interacting with the infinite, can there be an inertial frame with such a modulus or nexus of transformation?
- What if this natural doubling, the stacking of these Planckspheres, comes alive?
-   Alexander Friedman proposal in 1922 and Lemaître’s observational work in 1927, this radical reformulation of the shape of the universe had been part of ongoing discussions as indicated by Einstein’s 1917 publication of “Kosmologische Betrachtungen zur allgemeinen Relativitätstheorie” (Cosmological considerations on the general theory of relativity).
Quantum Entanglement from the EPR Paradox. In 1980 while studying with