What are the boundary conditions and initial conditions that define an inertial frame of reference?

An inertial frame of reference

geodesicby Bruce Camber, April 10, 2018

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.

Sphere to tetrahedron-octahedron coupletWhat 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 envision 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?

I can find no record of a dialogue between Max Planck and Albert Einstein about Planck’s base units and the equations that gave rise to them. In the earliest years of their work together, perhaps from 1905 through 1911, there could been such a discussion:

  •  What is between the Planck units and our work in the lab today?  
  • What if that that very small thrust and assume it causes all these base units to double and then to double again and again, what kind of universe do we have?  Though the precursors (concepts) to a big bang would not emerge until
    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).[1] [2]

Observational and experimental data clouded that view.

Quantum Entanglement from the EPR Paradox. In 1980 while studying with Oliver Costa de Beauregard on Tuesdays and with his colleague-but-nemesis, J.P. Vigier on Thursdays, our focus was on the nature of causality within the EPR model. Neither had a clue about an integrated model of the universe from the very first moment.  Nobody talked about the Planck units.

At that time Steven Weinberg’s  little booklet, The First Three Minutes, was about all there was in the popular press. Weinberg starts at 1/100 of a second,. In our model, that is the 142 notation or doubling. Though not quite a second old, well-over two thirds of the universe has unfolded. Within our system, it is still unfolding. Each doubling or notation is an ongoing, always and forever process. The only time is Now.