Hi Dave.
“First, why use Spheres? Other Geometries fit together without Gaps. Unless you need those Gaps, as you appear to do so, by suggesting those gaps are filled with Energy.”
1) Sphere is the only possible shape produced by projection in all directions by energy. I’ve never heard of a square explosion ;-) . So no, I don't need them at all; but I've got to deal with them since they can't be any other shape.
2) Those gaps are not filled with energy; they get filled by “borrowing” energy of other spheres (anyway spheres of energy are not confined. A metric doesn't restrain them). A “gap” in space is impossible; what would it be composed of?
“It's this stage that is just an Hypothesis, without a definition for Energy.”
Do you know anybody that can tell you what energy is? Nobody know really. We know it’s effect; nothing else.
doesn't that imply a growing Planck Length Scale?
Didn’t I explain it couldn't get bigger? So they stay the same size. The inches stays the same size but imply growing scales as a foot then a yard and so on.
“Also, for each Generation of surface Spheres being Grown.”
You need more and more Planck spheres that have energy. Decupling is “copying”. We're talking of a simple process of expansion simply replacing size-growth here; nothing else. And the only reason we have to is because the universe is more than Planck length.
“is new Energy auto filled into the new Gaps or does that energy bleed in from earlier Gaps into later Gaps?”
The whole total sphere constantly equalizes its energy density. There's no "energy shells" in this process.
“And can one define the nature of said Energy?”
Said energy is kinetic; it’s evident.
“Again, from such a Model, we would see all Galaxies moving away from a Central Location,”
There’s something you are forgetting here: ALL existing (duplicated) Planck sphere keeps on duplicating (multiplying). So space is constantly “created”
between galaxies. That’s why they move away
from each other. Even though they have their own personal velocity.
“this expansion by adding new Spheres would be rather disruptive to any structure built into this fabric,”
Adding new spheres of Planck length doesn’t seem to disturb anything yet, except moving galaxies from each other.
“unless said structure also grew with each new layer.”
The structures you’re talking about aren’t affected by expansion; so they’re not disturbed by it.
“Or one adopts the stance that where Matter exists, the New Sphere Size being grown…”
Where there is matter, there is not expansion; thus no growth of space sphere there.
“the Planck Length is a Variable.”
How can it be variable if
it is the smallest possible length? That’s illogical.
“And so far, we haven't talked about the contents of what's Inside said Spheres.”
Well, let’s do it; actually there’s only on single space sphere that is called the Universe.
1) It has grown by expansion and expansion is a duplication of small “space” volumes that has Planck length diameter.
2)When you consider the universe as a whole, it is one single sphere still expanding.
3)You get to “observe” the smaller spheres only where the expansion is “blocked” by mass energy (starting from galaxies spheres, stars spheres, planets spheres, moon spheres and then since you’re the observer you have to bend to lower spheres than yourself; meaning atoms spheres (electronic shells), Protons and neutrons spheres composed of quarks spheres; and that's where it stops, because that's where it started.
Change the word “spheres” for “field” if you prefer, and you’re in quantum mechanics since the galaxy sphere.
“What the surface of said Spheres is composed of..”
What do you want it to be composed of? It’s space produced by motion, which is caused by kinetic energy..
Does space have a wall to keep it united in a single thing? The situated non-existing wall is where the motion ends around the growing universal sphere.
“and a Sphere would have an infinite number of surface vertices or.. it wouldn't be a Sphere.. it would be a Specific Geometry.. such as: A Cube? A Tetrahedron? A Octahedron? A Dodecahedron? (etc)”
I see as much difference between a sphere and a cube as I see a difference in a tetrahedreon and an octahedron. They’re simply different “shapes”. In fact, a sphere is an infintahedron, just as a circle is an infinigon :-)
“Hopefully, I persuaded you away from Spheres.. because they require infinite Resolution to define a Surface.”
You can't be serious. My only resolution is to understand that a sphere is a surface
to which depth was given. And in fact, it is nothing else. That doesn’t imply having to locate anything inside that sphere; which, by the way, cannot have anything else than a "flat" topology where geodesics cannot be other than straight trajectories.
“And if all Spheres are the same size, it would look like a bag of marbles (without the bag.. lol).”
And that’s exactly what it is, but the marbles are invisible
since spheres of space have no “walls” to hold them. Finally the marbles (Planck spheres) have no solid shape and so has the bag (Universe).
Plank length is a
metric; a definite size to measure things with. But it’s also
the smallest possible definite size you can find; and since the universe
had a start and is still growing, it must have started at the smallest possible size. I’m not the believing kind of person; whatever I hear, think or say has to submit to logic; whatever it or who is.
“But let's make it a bit more Simple and deal with a a Flat 2D Universe populated with Flat Landers.”
Sorry you can’t do that you won’t see anything around you, 2D doesn’t have thickness.
Your flat-Lander is moving through 3D.
If
you see him, you’re not in that 2D universe even if he’s flat.
“My 3D view of him has been captured at a precise Time to show his flat front surface to me.”
Lucky he was facing you; sideways your camera wouldn’t have caught anything:-)
“His Universe is Expanding in the direction towards the Camera.”
Wrong; his universe is expanding
into a greater surface without thickness. That is exactly what Planck epoch was; except it was expanding by the centrifugal effect, because it was rotating. Our universe doesn't rotate because the Planck epoch kind of "exploded" energetically, giving depth to the previous surface; stopping right there the previous rotation of the former surface.
“Obviously, he cannot see the Empty Void ahead of him, on this Growing "Front" Side,”
there is no growing “front" side for a 2D. Otherwise it would gain “thickness”. It grows side-ways.
“Also note that if he rolled his circle on the ground, that the Axis of Rotation would be in the direction of "Time".”
1) Time has started when time started. I guess you’ll accept that.
So it has to start when time stops being “zero”
That’s when Planck epoch STARTED. So Time cannot have 2D since it originated from where 2D appeared.
Time is then 1D.
Let’s say it’s a 1D “particle”. That 1D particle is an invisible point. Ask Euclid. ;-)
That point (invisible) defines, by duplicating itself, in one direction: the arrow of time = forward.
A line is a succession of points; and invisible points produces an invisible line that represents a distance. That is what time is: an invisible succession of points defining time length and time trajectory (forward = arrow of time)
2)The axis of rotation
cannot be in the direction of time since time
is in the axis of the growing surface; so the time line progresses
in the direction the surface expands.
“that it is likely that some (if not all) particles also rotate around the Axis of "Time"?”
Which is normal for them, since time comes from the “origin” of all particles; and they all origin from their center.
“They can't exist unless new surface Space-Time is always provided for their History to project new placement Geometry.”
They don’t even exist in the epoch we’re talking about. Photons didn’t appear in the universe before at least Bottom quarks appeared; which is sometime during inflation between 10^-36 and 10^-32 sec. What happens in space after that is related to electromagnetism; because the universe became electromagnetic at that moment.
“To get more freedom, we require the Geometry of additional History layers of Time.”
What is that, if not a layer of space at a certain determined time?
“…and new Matter is always being Created onto the next blank Surface as an ongoing Change in Geometry as structure propagated from the past.”
And since matter is energy, you saying the same thing as I am.
“As you have already agreed, Time is Growth..”
I said that Time is the direction of growth. Here let me show you what time is when it pierced into our universe's expanding sphere:

Time pierced through the centre of the original Plank sphere (center in yellow) and progressed in a straight line. As you can see on the drawing, only some series of the spheres have their center in line with the center of Planck sphere. I’ve put them in different colors. Each color forming a circle around the center, passing through those spheres. One serie is brownish the other one is greenish.
The difference between greenish and brownish is because they appear in two different layers of space spheres if your draw a circle for those spheres.
Note that the same process goes for each and every space spheres. Since they are all centers of the universe. So, finally you get that same "clock" for the whole universal sphere.
If you doubt, see:

“without New Space-Time Growth.. Time would Stop.”
Everything would stop.
“Energy is not some intangible substance but rather Energy is Geometry.”
I don't agree. To me energy is what produces work.
Space is geometry; now
space is the work of kinetic energy; no motion = no distances
thus no space and no time.
“Note: this could represent the Planck Scale Quantum or it could Represent the Large Scale Metric..”
It could and it would if it was “flat” topology; which, sadly here, isn’t.
Lot's more to say.. but I have to leave for awhile..
When ever you have time.
Nice exchanging with you
See you
Andrex.