Aether, mass and gravity in QWC [Archive]

quantum_wave

12-02-08, 07:51 PM

Aether, mass and gravity in QWC

I have spoken about the aether in my “Mass *has*gravity” (http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=82060) thread in the pseudoscience forum, the first Quantum Wave Cosmology (QWC) thread on the forum. I made a case for moving QWC out of pseudoscience on the basis that is was protoscience and the rules of the Pseudoscience Forum address that possibility. I took up my discussion of QWC in the Cosmology Forum in the “QWC’s Niche” (http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=86883) thread, and have mentioned the aether in passing there as well. In the mainstream there is a reference to a “luminiferous aether” ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luminiferous_aether ) that was not found by careful experiments. Luminiferous aether is referred to as superseded scientific theory since it was not discovered as predicted. That is not the same aether that QWC describes as being “connected” with mass and gravity.

In any discussion of the aether in QWC, its connection to mass and gravity must be also be part of that discussion. All three are intimately connected to enable mass to exist, enable gravity, and to determine the path that mass takes as it moves. Those connections are discussed in the following paragraphs.

In QWC the aether emanates from mass in the form of spherically expanding waves of energy. These waves originate within mass as the result of the force of quantum action. Quantum action is the force that represents the presence of a quantum of energy within mass. Quantum action is characterized by the collapse of a quantum of energy into a high density spot with location and momentum, and the burst of that spot into a spherically expanding quantum wave. The collapse of the quantum of energy is triggered by the presence of a quantum of energy within the intersection where quantum waves overlap. The convergence of energy that produces a quantum of energy within the small space required for quantum action to occur is the trigger for quantum action. The volume of the triggering space depends on the energy density of the immediate environment. The volume of space occupied by the high density spot is invariant and always equal to the smallest meaningful space and an invariant energy density that is required to produce quantum action. A quantum of energy is the smallest meaningful increment of energy. Mass is made up of energy in quantum increments and there is a repetitive sequence of quantum action within mass for every quanta that makes up the mass. The period of repetition is the shortest meaningful increment of time. When quantum action causes energy to emanate from mass that energy is added to the aether. The energy thus added to the aether is the same amount of energy that is absorbed from the aether by mass to replace the energy within the mass so that the equivalence between mass and energy is maintained on a quantum for quantum basis. The aether is therefore connected to mass and gravity. The term, “dragged” by mass is correct in QWC but the meaning of “dragged” differs from the meaning used in the various experiments that tested for luminiferous aether “dragging” and found none.

The aether is required in QWC to maintain the equivalence between mass and energy, and because the cause of mass and gravity depends on it. The aether, like the universe, has always existed, but it is ever changing. The aether is continually refreshed by the existence of mass since the source of the aether is quantum action. Likewise the aether is the source of energy required to replace the energy of gravity that emanates from mass as a result of that same quantum action. The aether transmits gravity. The spherically expanding quantum waves that emanate from mass are what give gravity its infinite reach.

You can quickly see the dual nature of the aether connection to mass and gravity in that 1) it emanates from mass and is absorbed back into mass to continually refresh the presence of the exact number of quanta that make up the mass, and 2) it transmits gravity across the distance between bodies of mass.

The aether is connected to mass by an out flow of “push” energy that emanates from all mass and that has an infinite reach across space by way of the spherically expanding quantum waves that are produced by quantum action within mass. The aether is also connected to mass by a flow of “pull” energy into mass as the collapse of energy quanta occurs during formation of the high density spots within mass. For any given mass the push and pull are equivalent for each quantum time increment.

The aether is connected to gravity since at any point in space the aether has energy density that is the product of all pushes and pulls of gravity from all mass in the universe. Therefore the path that mass takes through the aether is determined by the path of lowest energy density surrounding the mass.

The energy of mass remains equivalent to the energy of the quantum increments that make up the mass but that energy is maintained because the gravitational energy that is emanated by mass is completely replaced by the gravitational energy from other mass that is absorbed to replace the emanated gravitational energy. Quantum action pulls energy into mass as high density spots form and the burst of those high density spots pushes energy out of mass. It is a balanced, continuous process of quantum action in mass that occurs repetitively for every quantum increment that makes up the mass. The amount absorbed by a given mass always equals the energy value of the energy emanating from mass in the form of gravity.

QWC presents a physical picture that enables you to envision the dynamics of the aether, what causes mass and gravity, and how the path of mass through space is determined. Since it is still only protoscience there is no quantification.

We don’t know the amount of energy in a quantum.
We don’t know the amount of space required to trigger the collapse of a quantum of energy into a high density spot.
We don’t know the energy density range required of the environment to maintain the process of quantum action within mass.
We don’t know the maximum energy density achieved within a high density spot before it bursts.
We don’t know the volume of space occupied by a high density spot at its peak energy density.
We don’t know the average period of time between quantum action events that occur repetitively to maintain mass.
We don’t know for sure that the radius of the spherically expanding quantum wave increases at the speed of light as expected.
We don’t know if the process of quantum action at the quantum scale really equates to the process of the formation and burst of big crunches on the arena scale of the greater universe but I find that aspect of QWC interesting. Visualizing quantum action that takes place within mass, and visualizing the formation and burst of big crunches at the arena level as differing only on scale gives us two perspectives from which we can draw on to describe the natural force of quantum action.

Notwithstanding what we don’t know about QWC, it provides ideas that are subject to possible quantification as the technology of scientific measurement advances. Those advances are required in order for science to fulfill its quest for a unifying theory, and QWC is anticipating those advancements.

quantum_wave

12-05-08, 09:59 AM

The key to the aether flow is the force of quantum action.

Quantum action is the collapse of a quantum of energy into a spot of the highest possible energy density in a smallest possible volume of space. In QWC the energy density of the spot is the maximum energy density that can be attained. The volume of the spot is the tiniest volume of space that can contain a quantum of energy at maximum energy density. We have a high density spot.

When a quantum of energy is present and when the expansion of the energy density of the space it occupies is interrupted by intersecting quantum waves, the quantum of energy at the convergence of overlapping quantum waves will collapse into a high density spot.

When the collapse occurs it will continue until the maximum possible energy density is achieved. When the maximum energy density is achieved the spot experiences a quantum bounce. The collapse is halted by reaching the maximum energy density threshold and the momentum of the collapse is converted into expansion energy.

The quantum of energy expands spherically. As it expands its internal energy density decreases and the volume increases. As long as the expansion continues uninterrupted there will be a process of equalization of the energy density within the sphere. Tiny perturbations of energy density will exist within the expanding sphere but the density is constantly equalizing and the energy density of the perturbations continually declines and approaches the average equalized energy density. The quantum wave of energy will expand until it is interrupted by intersecting with similarly expanding quantum waves. How long it takes for an intersection to occur is determined by the energy density of the wider space occupied by multiple expanding quantum waves.

When the intersection of quantum waves occurs there is an overlap formed and the energy density in the overlap is the combination of the energy density of the intersecting spherical waves. When the amount of energy in the overlap reaches a quantum of energy, the overlap will collapse into a high density spot.

That is quantum action.

The collapse of the energy into a high density spot is the "pull" action of quantum action, and the quantum bounce and spherical expansion of the quantum wave is the "push" action of quantum action.

This pull and push not only causes gravity, but it pulls energy into mass to enable the continuation of quantum action, and it pushes energy out of mass to feed the aether flow. There is a continual exchange of energy between mass and the aether. The energy flowing into mass originated from the emanation of energy from distant mass, and the outflow of energy from mass will expand through the aether until it reaches and is absorbed by distant mass.

quantum_wave

12-07-08, 12:31 AM

Gravity and containment

Gravity rounds out the discussion of connections between the aether, mass, and gravity as orchestrated by quantum action.

You know that in QWC the pull and push of quantum action causes the flow of the aether into and out of mass, and that this pull and push translates into gravity. But to understand gravity in QWC there is one more factor that comes into play. That factor is called “containment”. In QWC terminology containment delays the emanating push of quantum bursts relative to the pull of quantum collapses and creates a time delay in proportion to the mass.

To visualize the effect of containment, first consider a single quantum of energy collapsing into a single high density spot and bursting into a single spherically expanding quantum wave. Since there is no surrounding mass, the energy that collapses into the high density spot must come from the aether. The pull equals the push and there is a net zero flow of aether energy from a single quantum action. The emanated quantum wave has an equal pull trough and push crest. There is no delay between the trough and the crest of the quantum wave. The wave structure of this single quantum wave includes a leading spherical pull trough of –e (e = one quantum of energy) and a trailing push crest of +e (-e +e = 0). Net zero energy is transmitted by a single uninterrupted quantum wave and no gravity is emanated by a single quantum action.

Now consider a mass that contains multiple quanta that are repetitively participating in quantum action. There are now two sources of the energy that is captured by these quanta as they collapse into their high density spots. One is the energy flowing into mass from the aether and the other is the energy from expanding waves that were internally generated by quantum action within the mass.

The delay occurs as the quantum wave produced by the burst of quantum action passes through the mass on its way to becoming an emanation. Its journey is interrupted as it encounters and intersects with other quantum waves, overlaps form, and subsequent quantum action occurs. A segment of the energy of the expanding waves is captured and becomes part of the new high density spots formed by these subsequent quantum actions. The result is that the when leading pull trough equal to a quantum of negative energy emanates from mass, the trailing push crest has less that a positive quantum of energy. The difference is caused by containment of the push crest of the quantum wave relative to the pull trough because some of the crest is delayed by containment.

The time delay is always proportional to the mass and determines the net negative energy emanating from the mass. Gravity equals –e + (+e *(1- d)) where e is a quantum of energy and d is the delay due to containment as a percentage of e. Therefore containment determines the amount of gravity emanating from the mass. As containment increases, the amount of negative energy increases and so the gravity increases.

quantum_wave

12-11-08, 01:03 AM

Comparison between the quantum level and the universal level in QWC

So far this thread has addressed QWC from the perspective of the aether, mass, gravity and quantum action at the quantum level. This link (http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=2068088&postcount=14) goes to a post in another thread that addressed the landscape of the greater universe, i.e. the universal level.

In Quantum Wave Cosmology mass has gravity. Also, if QWC is true, quantum action acts as if a quantum of energy itself is composed of sub-quantum increments of energy that act as if they are composed of mass that has gravity that causes the quantum collapse.

This would put the quantum level itself above some sub-quantum level of order and we would be getting perilously close to talking about infinite regression or “Turtles all the way down” (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turtles_all_the_way_down).

QWC avoids this lower order catastrophe of infinite regression by limiting itself to two levels of order, the quantum level and the universal level and limits itself to reasonable and responsible speculation about ideas that qualify as protoscience. If there are turtles all the way down and we just happen to be in one of an infinite number of levels within an infinite regression, QWC leaves that idea out.

But that brings up the similarity of the two levels of order that QWC includes; quantum action at the quantum level and the matter-to energy-to matter arena process that is characterized by the collapse of arenas of energy into a big crunches at the universal level.

Here is a comparison:

At the quantum level, quantum action occurs when a quantum of energy occupies a single energy environment. This circumstance occurs as multiple quantum waves intersect in the same space forcing a quantum of energy into a single energy environment at the convergence of those waves. As soon as that convergence contains a quantum of energy then quantum collapse occurs.

At the universal level, an arena of energy in the form of galaxies and galactic remnants from multiple expanding arenas mix and merge as they rendezvous out in the greater universe. The overlap of expanding arenas forms new energy environments. Each overlap contains a contribution of energy from each intersecting arena forcing an arenas worth of energy in an overlap of multiple arenas. As soon as that convergence contains an arenas worth of energy a new arena forms and collapses into a big crunch.

A quantum of energy at the quantum scale is represented by an arena of energy at the universal level.

Intersecting quantum waves at the quantum level is represented by the intersection and overlap of expanding arenas at the universal level.

The energy environment created by the intersection of quantum waves at the quantum level is the represented by the energy environment created by the intersection of expanding arenas at the universal level.

The circumstance of a quantum of energy being forced into a single energy environment in space at the convergence of quantum waves at the quantum level is represented by the circumstance of an arenas worth of energy being forced into a single energy environment in space at the convergence of overlapping arenas at the universal level.

The collapse of a quantum of energy into a high density spot at the quantum level is represented by the collapse of an arena into a big crunch at the universal level.

The tiny energy density perturbations caused by the energy density fluctuations of the aether as a quantum of energy collapses at the quantum level is represented by the galaxies and galactic remnants that are captured in the collapse of an arena at the universal level.

The aether being feed by expanding quantum waves generated by quantum action at the quantum level is represented by the landscape of the greater universe with its potentially infinite history of arena expansion and intersection at the universal level.

The bounce and burst of a high density spot at the quantum level is represented by the defeat of gravity and the burst of the big crunch at the universal level.

The spherically expanding quantum wave produced by quantum action at the quantum level is represented by the expanding ball of dense dark energy that emerges from a big crunch in the matter-to energy-to matter arena process at the universal level.

Both the process of quantum action at the quantum level and the matter-to energy-to matter arena process at the universal level are perpetual and together account for the defeat of entropy in QWC.

quantum_wave

12-12-08, 10:16 AM

Ramifications of quantum collapse in QWC

Some important concepts mentioned in this post are discussed in the previous posts in this thread and the new concepts of “energy environments”, “energy density equalization”, and “jostling” are introduced.

The concept of an “energy environment” has special meaning in QWC. An energy environment is a patch of space whose energy density is set apart from the surrounding energy density environments. Energy density at every point in space is always changing. Though the energy density of an energy environment is consistent across the entire environment it is also changing at the same rate across the entire environment. An energy environment must be completely surrounded by other energy environments but none of the surrounding environments can be at the same energy density.

An energy environment can be as small as the overlap of intersecting quantum waves or as large as the expanding arena of energy related to the various stages of the formation, burst, and expansion of a big crunch. Even the greater universe as a whole is an energy environment that is defined to have an average energy density.

When you discuss an energy environment you define the environment and once you define it, the energy density is the average energy density across the environment. For example if you discuss a single perturbation that exists within a collapsing quantum of energy, that perturbation caused by tiny energy density fluctuations that make up the aether is part of the larger energy environment represented by the collapsing quantum. The single perturbation is an energy environment within an energy environment caused by sub-quanta sized patches of space. This is the case with all energy environments because they are all environments within environments with the possible exceptions of those tiny fluctuations called sub-quanta or the greater universe as a whole.

As you know if you have followed Quantum Wave Cosmology, a key feature is quantum collapse. Quantum collapse must occur when a quantum of energy occupies its own energy environment. That means that quantum collapse must be the natural response to the presence of a quantum of energy in its own energy environment formed when quantum waves converge.

Note: It follows in QWC that at the universal level the collapse of galactic remnants into a big crunch must also be a natural response. The presence of an arenas worth of energy in a patch of space of the greater universe occurs when arena expansion has been interrupted by the convergence of multiple expanding arenas. This interruption causes overlaps in which an arenas worth of energy in the form of galaxies and galactic remnants occupies its own energy environment. The natural result is arena collapse into a big crunch.

A perfect example of an energy environment at the quantum level is the overlap of spherically expanding quantum waves of energy generated by quantum action. As quantum waves expand and intersect with each other, the overlap contains energy from each of the individual spherical waves. For that brief instant, the overlap is a new energy environment. The amount of energy in the environment starts out at zero energy at the instant the waves intersect but before they overlap. As the intersection progresses into an overlap, the amount of energy increases as each wave contributes more and more energy to the overlap. The energy density of the overlap is always the sum of the energy density of the contributing waves.

When the energy in the convergence of the quantum waves reaches a quantum itself, it collapses into a high density spot.

There are ramifications of that collapse. The surrounding energy environments, i.e. the un-collapsed remains of the quantum waves that contributed to the collapsing quantum of energy are immediately affected by that collapse. Surrounding energy environments respond to the change in energy density of the adjacent environments. The collapse is clearly a change because the original space in the overlaps is still space, but the space needed for the high density spot is much less. The residual space would be a void, but in QWC there are no voids. As the collapse occurs, the zone vacated by the collapse is immediately filled by the energy in the surrounding environments. They rush into the low energy density sphere that surrounds the collapsing quantum as that quantum proceeds toward completion of its high density spot. This rush of energy into the low energy density zone is due to the natural mechanics of energy called “energy density equalization”.

Since this rushing action is not itself an intersection or overlap and so no new quanta form directly from it, it is simply a change in the energy density of the surrounding environments. The surrounding energy environments rush into the zone as a result of energy density equalization. The shape of those individual environments changes as they fill the potential void. This reshaping is a swirling and stretching of the surrounding environments as the high density spot forms.

In QWC this effect is called “jostling”. The low energy density zone created by the collapse is the leading trough of the quantum wave that is being produced by the collapsing quantum of energy. Jostling is the effect on the surrounding energy density fluctuations of the passing of the leading trough of the quantum wave produced by quantum action. The leading trough begins with the potential void caused by the collapse. The jostling occurs as the surrounding energy density environments attempt to equalize the energy density caused by the collapse. The trough spreads out spherically and jostles and pulls everything in its path toward the focus point of the high density spot.

The crest of that quantum wave will follow the trough. The formation of the crest of the quantum wave occurs as the high density spot produced by the collapse bursts into expansion. As mentioned previously in this thread, the burst of the spot is the result of the momentum of the collapse being converted to expansion energy as the energy density within the collapse reaches the maximum possible energy density threshold.

Energy density equalization and quantum collapse go together. You can’t have the resulting quantum wave structure and gravity without the characteristic of energy to equalize its energy density across its environment as quantum collapse occurs. Both the quantum wave and gravity are ramifications of quantum collapse.

quantum_wave

12-17-08, 11:43 AM

The quantum space in QWC

In QWC each energy quantum has its own space, but it is willing to share. That may seem strange but it can be explained by describing the “quantum space”.

The quantum space in QWC is the amount of space occupied by an initial quantum of energy as it gets established in its own energy environment. This occurs at a location in space and at an instant in time where quantum waves intersect and overlap so that the shared space at the intersection acquires a quantum of energy from the intersecting waves (this is what I meant by sharing space). This marks the beginning of the individual energy quantum. Clearly the energy is not created by the convergence of quantum waves, but the existence of the individual quantum in its own space and energy environment begins at that point.

The volume of the quantum space changes throughout the process of quantum action. The volume of the initial quantum space is variable and is dependent on the energy density of the mass within which that “quantum energy increment” participates. But whatever that volume of space is, it immediately decreases in volume as the quantum of energy collapses. The duration of the collapse is directly related to the initial volume of the quantum space. It is this collapse that creates the pull trough of negative energy that begins the quantum wave structure.

When the collapsing quantum of energy reaches the maximum possible energy density of the high density spot, the energy cannot be further compressed. The momentum of the collapse reaches maximum velocity (the speed of light) and the energy quantum is changed to a quantum of potential expansion energy. The surrounding energy density is not sufficient to contain the quantum of energy in the high density spot and the potential expansion energy is converted to expansion energy as the quantum bounce occurs. The spherically expanding quantum wave emerges from the high density spot and is expanding at the speed of light. It is this push crest of positive energy that completes the initial structure of the quantum wave that is responsible for gravity.

As the quantum wave emerges from the high density spot expanding at the speed of light, the volume of the quantum space is now increasing as the quantum wave expands. The expansion is characterized as a co-moving coordinate system where the radius increases at the speed of light. The radius increases while the energy density within the quantum wave decreases at a rate proportional to the increasing volume.

Once the wave emerges from the mass the spherical shape is reestablished by the process of energy density equalization and expansion. These processes serve to organize the emanation from mass into a net gravitational force. That force is a net negative energy and a relative low energy density emanation in the form of an expanding spherical wave of energy added to the aether. The aether serves to net out the prevailing energy density at every point in space. Mass moves toward the path of lowest energy density in the surrounding aether.

To summarize the nature of the quantum space: while within mass the quantum space has formed, collapsed, bounced, and expanded. Aside from the effect of containment that occurs as the wave travels through the mass, the quantum space contains a quantum of energy. As the wave emerges from mass as an energy emanation it becomes part of the aether. The space of the positive energy wave emanated from mass is now expanding through the aether. In the aether the radius of the expanding spherical quantum wave increases at the speed of light which translates into gravity traveling at the speed of light. The space occupied by the positive energy of the quantum wave increases until that wave reaches another mass. It flows into that mass and performs its role of signaling to the receiving mass what the energy density in the direction from which the emanation arrived. The mass has information from all directions and moves in the direction of the strongest gravitational energy (highest negative energy and lowest energy density).

quantum_wave

12-21-08, 11:21 PM

There is a concept in QWC called “expansion suppression”.

As previously mentioned, when an overlap of expanding quantum waves accumulates a quantum of energy itself,
Figure 1http://i399.photobucket.com/albums/pp72/quantum_wave/Twoquanta4a.jpg?t=1229923930
then quantum collapse occurs.
Figure 2http://i399.photobucket.com/albums/pp72/quantum_wave/Twoquanta7a.jpg?t=1229920375

In QWC that is simply nature. At the quantum level of order, a quantum of energy in its own energy environment always collapses into a high density spot as depicted above. The overlap is depicted by the gold colored segment in the first figure and the high density spot is depicted by the tiny red spot labeled "3" in the center of the second figure.

“Expansion suppression” occurs when quantum collapse occurs. The expansion of the tiny energy environments surrounding the collapsing quantum is interrupted by the collapse. The expansion energy that has been exerting itself from the instant of the burst of the high density spots is diverted. Before the interruption, the expansion energy was causing the radius of the adjacent spherical quantum waves to increase at the speed of light. When a quantum of energy collapses adjacent to expanding quanta, the expansion energy of the affected quanta is used to fill the potential void caused by the nearby quantum collapse instead of for radii expansion.

That is why the un-collapsing portion of the two adjacent overlapping spheres change shape to fill the potential void caused by the collapse instead of expanding outward as they were before the quantum collapse.

This interruption and diversion of expansion energy is momentary but it is directly associated with the time delay that shapes the emanating quantum wave structure. It is that wave structure that determines the strength of the gravity emanated by the mass.
Figure 3http://i399.photobucket.com/albums/pp72/quantum_wave/Twoquanta8.jpg?t=1229922975

Figure 3 shows the resumption of expansion. Note how 1 & 2 are expanding as the high density spot bounces (3) into expansion.

quantum_wave

12-23-08, 12:30 PM

Quantifying the overlap in QWC

Figure 4 (Figures 1,2 & 3 are in the previous post)
http://i399.photobucket.com/albums/pp72/quantum_wave/spheresphere4b.jpg?t=1230046941

QWC equation (1) for two sphere overlap:
\frac{V_{cap1}}{V_1}+\frac{V_{cap2}}{V_2}+\frac{V_ {cap1}}{V_2}+\frac{V_{cap2}}{V_1}=\frac{1/3\pi H^2(3R-H)}{4/3\pi R^3}+\frac{1/3\pi h^2(3r-h)}{4/3\pi r^3}+\frac{1/3\pi H ^2(3R-H)}{4/3\pi r^3}+\frac{1/3\pi h^2(3r-h)}{4/3\pi R^3}

QWC equation (1) for two sphere overlap in text form:
\frac{V_{cap1}}{V_1}+\frac{V_{cap2}}{V_2}+\frac{V_ {cap1}}{V_2}+\frac{V_{cap2}}{V_1}=\frac{1/3\pi H^2(3R-H)}{4/3\pi R^3}+\frac{1/3\pi h^2(3r-h)}{4/3\pi r^3}+\frac{1/3\pi H ^2(3R-H)}{4/3\pi r^3}+\frac{1/3\pi h^2(3r-h)}{4/3\pi R^3}

When two expanding quantum waves are in an overlap condition, the equation yields “e/q”, the percentage of a QWC quantum of energy accumulated in the overlap.

Each sphere contains a quantum of energy, and “d” is the distance between the high density spots of the two identical spheres.

“R” and “r” are the radii of the two quantum waves that emerge from the HD spots after their respective quantum bounces. R and r increase at the speed of light until R and r overlap and until e/q =1.

In our example R and r are equal. When identical quantum waves overlap the relationship between “d” and the radius of the spheres at the point that e/q = 1 is invariant at 0.69459271066772139540… ( http://www.research.att.com/~njas/sequences/A133749)

This relationship changes as the difference between the radii increases from zero. Any difference in the radii would be caused by a difference in the length of time between the bounce of the individual HD spots that produced the waves.

Therefore in a universe containing two quanta, the data from figure 4 (R, r, and d only since H, h, X and x can be calculated) and the equation can predict the time of the collapse, yield the age of the universe (R/c (where c is the speed of light), the distance across the universe (R+r+d), the distance and time delay between the two HD spots (d) and ((R-r)/c) respectively, the length of time from the bounce of either quanta until the overlap equals one quanta (R/c or r/c @ (e/q=1), and the average energy density of each quanta at any point in time up to and including the point of quantum collapse of the overlap (q/(4/3 pi r^3) or \frac{q}{4/3\pi r^3} where q is a QWC energy quantum.

However, this fictional universe has its limitations. If it had begun with the “burst” of a single quantum out of nowhere, there would never be an overlap and the single quantum would expand forever. Since this fictional universe has two quanta (origin undefined), it is destined to perform one quantum bounce before it expands forever. Unless of course the space it is expanding in contains aether but that would be a different universe from our fictional two quanta universe.

However, QWC predicts multiple quanta :D. In fact, QWC predicts that space itself is potentially infinite and that there are an infinite number of quanta that had no beginning. In the QWC universe, mass and gravity have always existed and therefore there has always been aether.

Diode-Man

12-23-08, 04:51 PM

However, QWC predicts multiple quanta :D. In fact, QWC predicts that space itself is potentially infinite and that there are an infinite number of quanta that had no beginning. In the QWC universe, mass and gravity have always existed and therefore there has always been an aether.

Hello, I didn't read the whole theory, but I skipped to the conclusion and I agree fully.

To me this proves that time is an excellent tool for measuring energy. Time began the day matter formed intoyou... time also began the day I was born. There is only one beginning of time, and thats the one by which perspective is created.

The day you were born the Universe was created. Before that, there was nothing.

I believe this because every night I sleep and travel through time at a high speed, the sun goes down and suddenly it comes up as I open my eyes in the morning....

What do you think of this theory?

quantum_wave

12-23-08, 05:33 PM

....

What do you think of this theory?I seems right in a way. You have a DMT thread that I think is related to your theory. I'm going to read it and post there with any questions.

Feel free to ask me about QWC on this thread.

quantum_wave

12-25-08, 10:15 AM

Cylindrical valley and aether intrusion in a two-quantum universe

Just a quick note about our two-quantum fictional universe before I zoom out to a four-quantum universe; it can avoid eternal expansion if we add aether. If you look at figure 3 (above) you see that when quantum collapse occurred, the un-collapsed portion of quanta 1 & 2 changed shape. They were drawn into the void left by the collapse. At that point, if there was aether, it would be drawn into the entire periphery of the two-quantum mass and would occupy the cylindrical valley formed between quanta 1 & 2.

This effect is called aether intrusion and it occurs simultaneously with expansion suppression. In other words, not only is the expansion of the un-collapsed portions of quantum 1 & 2 suppressed to fill the void left by the collapse, but the aether is drawn in behind the reshaped quanta. The aether has an unlimited amount of energy to offer. Not only does it intrude during quantum collapse, but during normal expansion between collapses its tiny energy density fluctuations are overlapping with the expanding quantum waves of the mass.

Figure 5 http://i399.photobucket.com/albums/pp72/quantum_wave/Twoquanta8c.jpg?t=1230218763

The aether is continually providing energy to the mass through intrusion during quantum collapse and during expansion by overlapping with quanta expanding within the mass. When it is all added up, the amount of aether absorbed by mass is exactly the amount of energy emanated from the mass in the form of gravity.
Thus, in a universe with two quanta whose focus points are separated by distance “d” within the aether, there is a two-quantum mass formed when they overlap. The two-quantum mass will be perpetuated by the process of quantum action, expansion suppression, aether intrusion and aether overlap.

Equation 1 can be applied throughout the process of mass refreshing and gravity emanation to track the energy from the two original quanta and from the aether because the energy density of each overlap can be calculated if you have R and r (the radii).

theoneiuse

12-25-08, 02:40 PM

quantum_wave

12-25-08, 03:58 PM

You might be right. Something makes me keep chasing these ideas. Most people leave me alone after awhile so I just dump it out into a thread and let the chips fall where they will :). Thanks for the thoughts.

theoneiuse

12-25-08, 04:32 PM

Views on the ''Orion project'' may stimulate you be sure to take part.

quantum_wave

12-25-08, 04:44 PM

Interesting project. Some of the research links look interesting too. Thanks.

quantum_wave

12-26-08, 10:22 AM

A four-quantum universe
http://i399.photobucket.com/albums/pp72/quantum_wave/Four%20Quana/5-5.jpg?t=1230305227
http://i399.photobucket.com/albums/pp72/quantum_wave/Four%20Quana/5-5a1.jpg?t=1230305157
http://i399.photobucket.com/albums/pp72/quantum_wave/Four%20Quana/5-5e1.jpg?t=1230305467

quantum_wave

12-26-08, 10:23 AM

A four-quantum universe with aether
http://i399.photobucket.com/albums/pp72/quantum_wave/Four%20Quana/5-5f1a.jpg?t=1230305023
http://i399.photobucket.com/albums/pp72/quantum_wave/Four%20Quana/5-6d1.jpg?t=1230304534
http://i399.photobucket.com/albums/pp72/quantum_wave/Four%20Quana/5-6f1.jpg?t=1230304426

quantum_wave

12-26-08, 10:23 AM

Looking at the path of a four-quantum universe through the aether
http://i399.photobucket.com/albums/pp72/quantum_wave/Four%20Quana/5-6g1.jpg?t=1230304104

quantum_wave

12-28-08, 10:09 AM

Edit: Figures in Post #16 should be labeled Figure 6a, 6b, and 6c. Figures in posts #17 should be labeled 7a, 7b, and 7c, and the composite figure in post #18 should be labeled Figure 7.

Space and energy density in Quantum Wave Cosmology (QWC)

Space: In my simplistic view space is where things happen. Its basic characteristic is that it could be empty. But space isn’t ever empty because energy fills all space.

In QWC, a discussion of space then leads to a discussion of energy. The explanation for how energy can fill all space, leaving no voids, is that energy has a basic characteristic called energy density. Every point in space has energy density. The energy density is always fluctuating and so if you focus on a point in space its energy density will always be changing.

A discussion of energy density leads to a discussion of the cause of energy density fluctuations. The explanation for energy density fluctuations is energy quantization. The average energy density of the universe is high enough to force energy quantization, i.e. energy quantizes into quantum increments. Quantization occurs because there is a threshold above which energy density cannot become fully equalized without forcing tiny patches of energy to collapse into high density spots. The average energy density of the universe provides for a stable ratio of high density spots (energy quanta) to overall energy. The existence of energy quanta allows the energy occupying the rest of space to fluctuate in the direction of overall equalization of its energy density.

However, equalization of all space surrounding the high density spots is not feasible because the spots are only temporary. They reach such high density that the surrounding density cannot sustain them and they burst or “bounce” into spherical expansion back into the surrounding energy density. This burst causes a quantum wave that spreads into the surrounding space and jostles the surrounding energy density causing perpetual energy density fluctuations at every point in space.

Figure 8
http://i399.photobucket.com/albums/pp72/quantum_wave/Spaceandenergydensity.jpg?t=1230477583

The forming and bursting of high density spots causes the energy density fluctuations that make up the aether. After the spots form and burst the average energy density causes new spots to form. Across the universe there is an average density of high density spots at any given time and there are always spots bursting and new spots forming. The process maintains a stable ratio between high density spots and total energy in any large arena of space. Energy is quantized and the quanta are always forming and bursting in an endless process.

In QWC matter forms from energy in quantum increments.

quantum_wave

12-28-08, 06:38 PM

OK, pay attention class ...http://i399.photobucket.com/albums/pp72/quantum_wave/QWC%20101/IMG_12021.jpg?t=1230493812

quantum_wave

12-31-08, 06:09 PM

Wow, it is amazing how many overlaps you get as you expand a four-quantum universe. It is a bit more manageable to do the calculations for a three-quantum universe with aether. Using my equation for the energy content of overlaps of quantum waves and doing calculations by hand with the help of Excel, my three-quantum universe is beginning to take shape, the mass is being maintained and gravity is being emanated.

Some of the calculations require splitting the spherical caps into spherical segments and I have been doing that in iterations; time consuming :). I'm going to look at adding the spherical segment math to the equation. Once I get some clear mass boundaries, a good feel for containment, and a good energy density footprint in the aether it will be time to give the three-quantum mass some momentum (and some companionship). To do that I will add a second mass and they will have relative momentum.

It should then be easy enough to calculate each quantum action in each mass for a few quantum periods and watch them move through the aether. Or I should say watch the aether lead the mass through it.

Does anyone understand any of what I just wrote?

Anyway, HAPPY NEW YEAR http://www1.istockphoto.com/file_thumbview_approve/6149793/2/istockphoto_6149793-happy-new-year-2009.jpg

quantum_wave

01-03-09, 01:39 PM

Dense State Energy

I’m thinking that if the QWC ideas are right about quantum waves and quantum action then there is a state of energy called the “dense” state. It is where matter is compressed by gravity to the extent that matter ceases to function, i.e. particles of matter can’t exist individually.

In QWC, mass is composed of particles of matter. Particles of matter are composed of energy in quantum increments. When a quantum of energy collapses into a high density spot, that spot is thought to reach the point of “dense state” energy.

Matter that is compressed into dense state energy no longer exists; only its energy exists. That energy exists as dense state energy. “Dense state” energy has a characteristic called “potential expansion energy”. In order for dense state energy to exert its potential expansion energy the compression that contains it must be defeated.

In QWC at the universal level where big crunches form, the defeat of the compression of mass into the dense state occurs because when matter no longer functions, gravity no longer functions either. The cessation of gravity allows the potential expansion energy to overcome the compression and “Bang” :).

At the quantum level the defeat of the compression of energy into “dense state” energy is caused by the failure of the surrounding energy density to be able to maintain the compression caused by the quantum collapse. The high density spot bounces off of the “high density threshold” and expands at the same rate as it was collapsing before the bounce.

quantum_wave

01-23-09, 08:33 PM

I wrote this elsewhere but since it helps explain why I am working on the QWC protoscience I decided to place it on this thread too:

Do you "... side with Einstein that QM fails in regards to grasping reality? In fact [do] you think that the uncertainty principle is due to our inability to observe the wave/particle duality sufficiently to realize that there is a precise reality to all particles at all times?"

QWC is all about that very thing, i.e. there is precise identifiable space for each particle whether it is in the wave state or the particle state.

And while I'm at it, it might help explain the quantum realm of QWC to reference this post from the Schrödinger's cat thread: http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=2141263&postcount=66

Here is that post: We know a great deal about the quantum world. The last 100 years of the history of the science of quantum mechanics has had turning points where divisions arose and out of those divisions came a form of consensus. The consensus is formed around the uncertainty principle and the wave function.

This thread and the views brought out are evidence to me that the consensus is the current best thinking but no one is completely comfortable that this thinking is the final version. There is a need for more to be said by quantum mechanics about reality before the nature of reality can be put to rest.

Reality is a broad subject so I will qualify it by saying that physical reality at the quantum level cannot be determined for certain. However, there is a mathematical approach that works satisfactorily to enable the science to describe particle interactions using the wave function, i.e. all possible locations of the presence of that "point" that would represent a particle location.

What I get from that is we can live with not knowing exactly where that focus point is at all times as long as we can describe mathematically all of the possibilities. Some say there is no focus point at all until an observation occurs. Observation can take all of the forms mentioned including visual, instrument, particle interactions, or mathematical calculations. Others say that there doesn't have to be any observation to convince them that an object has reality in the form of a physical presence. Some say that a physical presence requires some minimum mass.

None of us are smart enough to know what quantum reality really is. All of us who take a position on it based on our own individual thought process and our degree of understanding of the science will have a different physical picture. Each of our individual physical pictures will require a thousand words (thousands of words if it is a discussion) to convey our thinking. Few of us in a forum like this have a detailed visualization of the physical picture of our own version of quantum reality and at the same time are willing to discuss why one is right and one is wrong. There is really no way to determine if anyone is right and we all have our reasons for why we think we are right and others are not.

Here is my thinking in a nutshell (<400 words):

At the quantum level even the fundamental particles of the standard particle model have a hidden quantum nature. Hidden in that nature is the cause of mass and gravity. Mass and gravity exist independently from electromagnetic fields, charges and forces associated with the standard particle model. Anything, particle or group of particles with mass has a physical presence that is a mix of both waves and particles at the same time. The waves included in that mix overlap to cause particle points (high density spots), and the particle points form and burst into waves. Each wave/particle is either a wave or a particle at any given instant but as long as they are within a given mass they are always in the process of changing from a wave to a particle or from a particle to a wave.

Each wave/particle represents a quantum of energy and mass is composed of energy in quantum increments. A single quantum of energy will have mass during the "high density spot" phase and that spot will change to reveal its energy content and wave nature as the spot bursts into spherical expansion.

The spherical waves are expanding waves of energy that overlap with each other as they travel through the mass. In the overlap, the energy from the overlapping waves is the sum of the energy of the individual waves in that overlap space. When the overlap accumulates a quantum of energy then quantum collapse occurs and that quantum of energy collapses into a high density spot. I accept quantum collapse as a natural phenomenon for which I have another thousand words .

The collapse of the high density spot creates a potential void in space since the spot occupies less space than the overlap from which it formed. Gravity is caused by that collapse as the surrounding energy quanta are pulled into the potential void in space.

This thousand words touches on my view of the cause of mass and gravity and I am the first to admit that none of it can be proven because we just don't have the ability to observe at this level of quantum mechanics. Some will compare it to speculating about wild creatures at the far reaches of the galaxy, some will dismiss it due to its lack of proper jargon or mathematics, and some will think about it and then dismiss it politely. Some will have something in mind from it that is worth discussing and I am willing to discuss any of it on their thread or mine.

I would understand if the originator of this thread wanted this post moved and if so, please move it to a new thread in the Cosmology forum where I have been discussing these ideas as part of Quantum Wave Cosmology.

Last edited by quantum_wave; 01-15-09 at 09:27 AM..

zagacious

01-28-09, 02:53 PM

absolutely amazing so far

quantum_wave

02-15-09, 05:21 PM

Thanks for the encouragement; now I might have to get busy and say how I show mathematically how a three-quantum mass in aether could maintain its mass and exert gravity.

It won't prove that mass is caused by quantum action, that gravity "has" mass, or that both are connected to the aether as I have described in this thread. But it will show that if quantum action, mass, gravity and aether work the way I describe, then there is a mathematical relationship between them that I can offer for those of the analytical persuasion.

quantum_wave

03-09-09, 08:17 AM

Note: This post originally appeared on the General Science Forum "Share ideas about energy ..." thread, and is being deleted there and moved to this thread where it belongs.

By way of recap, a quantum of energy is the tiniest meaningful quantity of energy. What separates it from the aether and distinguishes it from other quantities of energy is called a force. The force associated with the energy quantum is the tiniest force there is. It is called quantum action.

Quantum action always occurs when a quantum of energy is established in a quantum-space within the aether.

Quantum action requires a single quantum of energy. The action is a rapid reduction of space occupied by the quantum of energy (the collapse phase of quantum action). The second phase, the mid-point of the action, is called a high density spot which is made up of the entire quantum of energy after the collapse. The high density spot occupies only a small fraction of the original quantum-space. Expansion is the final phase of quantum action.

The expansion phase of quantum action that follows the formation of the high density spot phase is initiated when the collapsing energy reaches an unsustainable energy density. The collapse phase compresses the energy tightly into the tiny spot in space. The compression cannot be maintained because the energy density of the surrounding space is much lower and so the energy that was compressed into the spot bounces into expansion.

The quantum of energy in the expansion phase will expand spherically forever or until the expansion is interrupted, whichever comes first. Interruption is defined as the intersection and overlap of expanding quantum waves so “interruption” occurs whenever more than one quantum of energy occupies a given space.

Mass is composed of energy in quantum increments and multiple quanta occupy any observable mass.

Quantum action is repetitive within mass.

An observer in the path of a stream of the repetitive expanding energy quanta from quantum action generated within mass will experience a rapid pull and push as the sequence of quantum wave forms pass.

The wave form is a trough of low energy density created when the quantum collapses, followed by a crest of high energy density as the expanding sphere of the energy quantum passes.

This pull/push action is a continuous stream emanating from mass as quantum action maintains the mass of an object through repetitive action.

You as an observer would be unaffected by the passing pull-push of quantum waves if it weren’t for the fact that the pull is stronger than the push. The difference in the strength of the pull and the push equals the exact amount of energy it takes to maintain the mass. A portion of the energy from the push is absorbed by the mass, i.e. the quantum waves produced by the quantum action within the mass are interrupted from their otherwise potentially endless journey of expansion.

The interruption occurs as the expanding wave is caught up in subsequent quantum actions as the wave passes through and out of the mass. This “containment” of energy by mass establishes the presence of the mass and causes the push emanating from mass to be smaller than the pull.

That is gravity and the strength of the gravitational attraction between the object and observer is directly proportional to the mass of the object and the observer.

Since the quantum waves expand spherically, the strength of the gravitational force emanating from mass is inversely proportional to the radius of the spherical wave, i.e. the square of the distance.

This idea about the force of quantum action is the basis of the calculations that represent how multiple energy quanta can form mass, how that mass can be maintained by containment, and how gravity emanates from mass.

Think about it and if you see any reason why this won’t work let me know your reasoning.

Bishadi

03-10-09, 02:11 PM

if the universe started at a single point (hypothetically speaking of course), then from that point everything out there in existence came from that point. OK?

The sun, a ball, an atom all have a sphere to show itself. If existence is a sphere, then everything within, is associated based on the energy between all that mass exchanging (all them stars, all day long, doing what they do).

i suggest, that unless there are 2 points of mass, no light (em) can exchange.

Meaning, no where in existence is there a (perfect) vacuum, no where in existence is there a void between points. And from point A, no matter the vector, there must be a B or no exchange (em) can occur. That means even on the outside of the very edge of the universe; them stars are not lighting up the 'nothing'.... My opinion!

Now in astronomy they share a cosmic background radiation CBR
http://astro.u-strasbg.fr/cbr96.html

this offers and idea that there could be no void anywhere in the existing universe. That even if that energy is not from the BB, it still offers the concept that there could be energy resonating behind everything we see since day one of existence.

could this be your aether?

yes or no is fine..... as i wish not to impose on your thread other than to see if the 'possiblility' exists.

quantum_wave

03-10-09, 03:23 PM

could this be your aether?

yes or no is fine..... as i wish not to impose on your thread other than to see if the 'possiblility' exists.My answer could be “yes” if you let me make a few changes. First change is that the expansion of our known universe is just a small and common event in the greater universe. Then what you say about point A and point B would still be the case, and point A could be in our expanding arena, and point B could be in any one of a potentially infinite number of distant arenas, some expanding out of a big crunch, and some contracting into a big crunch.

In addition I would add that the energy in your “single point” in space would be changed to “the energy in a big crunch” that preceded the expansion of our known universe. Big crunches would be just as common as the event of expanding arenas across the greater universe. All of the big crunches would result in an expansion of the energy in the crunch and each such expansion would be like our known expanding arena. Matter that is destined to become galaxies would form from the dense dark energy that emerges from the big crunch.

Thirdly I would add that the energy in each big crunch would have an infinite past, i.e. all of the energy in the greater universe has always existed and is merely being shuffled around as big crunches form from the galactic remnants of previously expanding arenas.

So “my aether” has always existed and is a state of energy. Other states of energy emerge from the aether at different energy density thresholds. The crunch/burst process is repetitive and requires a finite amount of energy. The finite amount of energy is equivalent to the amount of energy in our own expanding arena. The exact amount of energy in an arena is determined by the threshold called critical capacity. When the critical capacity of a big crunch is reached, the crunch fails from within because a limit of maximum energy density is acheived and the energy compressed in the crunch is released into expansion as a stage in the crunch/burst process.

Are you OK with those changes?

Bishadi

03-12-09, 01:13 PM

My answer could be “yes” if you let me make a few changes. what's there to change?

i just asked if you thought the CBR could be the aether you talk aboutm if so then say 'Yes'

First change is that the expansion of our known universe is just a small and common event in the greater universe. as weird as it may sound, i do comprehend that statement and i do agree in principle as to this concept.

Then what you say about point A and point B would still be the case, and point A could be in our expanding arena, and point B could be in any one of a potentially infinite number of distant arenas, some expanding out of a big crunch, and some contracting into a big crunch. OK

are setting the fields as being interrelated at all points at the same time; as i often suggest, "each measured moment in time can be observed as a dimension", not another place but in existence, just like a snapshop. So one is affecting the other and vise verse, no matter the d/t. (this is how to define entanglement)

In addition I would add that the energy in your “single point” in space not my single point.... i only picked up from what many on the globe consider a beginning in time (for an example)

Matter that is destined to become galaxies would form from the dense dark energy that emerges from the big crunch. no such thing as DE/DM or even black holes of super dense matter. All them speculations were born from from having differences between what is seen (astronomy)and the math trying to predict. There are huge errors in the constants.

That means, do not try and reach the created entity, but to return to real items and go forward. i.e.... can't climb a latter without firm steps. (i like my feet planted firmly)

So “my aether” has always existed and is a state of energy. then define that 'state' first or provide the transition from mass to energy. in a glance, i will be able to let you know if i can help Other states of energy emerge from the aether at different energy density thresholds. so to define the background state offers a medium thoughout the universe which will be varied based on the environment. Then to define them 'other states' must show a progression rather than entropic construct to reach the thresholds? Yes or No?

The crunch/burst process is repetitive and requires a finite amount of energy. The finite amount of energy is equivalent to the amount of energy in our own expanding arena. The exact amount of energy in an arena is determined by the threshold called critical capacity. When the critical capacity of a big crunch is reached, the crunch fails from within because a limit of maximum energy density is acheived and the energy compressed in the crunch is released into expansion as a stage in the crunch/burst process. that looks like you are trying to describe a transition of perhaps energy to mass, mass to energy (fission/fussion... but one atom) without the particle frame?

and using words to do it. (which is a tough cookie)

i am asking this because, i understand that the initial 'universal beginning' will follow the same rules as in each transition we can experience from the suns job

please answer each question

I would like to see what you are using, mathematically.

no values, just the frame

quantum_wave

03-12-09, 05:14 PM

are setting the fields as being interrelated at all points at the same time; as i often suggest, "each measured moment in time can be observed as a dimension", not another place but in existence, just like a snapshop. So one is affecting the other and vise verse, no matter the d/t. (this is how to define entanglement)I don't understand, but if you insist on entanglement and I say there is none, is that a problem?

no such thing as DE/DM or even black holes of super dense matter. All them speculations were born from from having differences between what is seen (astronomy)and the math trying to predict. There are huge errors in the constants.

That means, do not try and reach the created entity, but to return to real items and go forward. i.e.... can't climb a latter without firm steps. (i like my feet planted firmly)I do understand that and I don't agree. There are black holes IMHO.
then define that 'state' first or provide the transition from mass to energy. in a glance, i will be able to let you know if i can helpI appreciate that. Look at the first few posts.
so to define the background state offers a medium thoughout the universe which will be varied based on the environment. Then to define them 'other states' must show a progression rather than entropic construct to reach the thresholds? Yes or No?I don't understand the use of the word "progression". Do you mean reverse entropy? If so, the landscape of the greater universe has both expanding and contraction arenas. Entropy occurs during expansion and reverse entropy occurs during contraction or at least as a result of the contraction.

that looks like you are trying to describe a transition of perhaps energy to mass, mass to energy (fission/fussion... but one atom) without the particle frame?I am describing a transition from energy-to matter-to energy.and using words to do it. (which is a tough cookie):) I agree. I could draw pictures.
i am asking this because, i understand that the initial 'universal beginning' will follow the same rules as in each transition we can experience from the suns jobI don't understand that. But in QWC, there was no beginning unless you call the emergence of an expanding arena from a big crunch a beginning, but I don't.
please answer each questionI tried.
I would like to see what you are using, mathematically.

no values, just the frameWhat math I have is all derived from the equations that are shown earlier. See post #8. That returns the % of a quantum that is included in an overlap of intersecting quanta. From there, by tweaking the variables you can do a lot with that equation believe it or not. But basically, until I finish the thee quantum mass live action I am supposed to be working on, that is as far as the math goes.

Bishadi

03-14-09, 09:42 PM

I don't understand, but if you insist on entanglement and I say there is none, is that a problem?I do understand that and I don't agree. There are black holes IMHO.I appreciate that. Look at the first few posts.I don't understand the use of the word "progression".

in a sense i was rude, to not read your whole thread before

so i read it and find you are breaking every rule in the book and i rather enjoy it.

first your whole frame is defining a progression (we live in this universe, so when we get to the other side, then we can go back to entropy)

second, your whole premise is bound to entanglement, but you have called it something else but clearly point out the potential is innert.

Gravity itself is just entanglememt. The energy is doing it, not some 'weight'.

I wanted to know if you have a compurter simulation?

quantum_wave

03-14-09, 10:17 PM

in a sense i was rude, to not read your whole thread before

so i read it and find you are breaking every rule in the book and i rather enjoy it.

first your whole frame is defining a progression (we live in this universe, so when we get to the other side, then we can go back to entropy)

second, your whole premise is bound to entanglement, but you have called it something else but clearly point out the potential is innert.

Gravity itself is just entanglememt. The energy is doing it, not some 'weight'.

I wanted to know if you have a compurter simulation?Thanks Bishadi. I don't have it yet but I am not funded yet either. I need about a quarter of a million dollars plus computer programming and computer time. Can you write me a check :cheers:?

CheskiChips

03-15-09, 04:53 AM

How about you compile this into PDF for ease?

quantum_wave

03-15-09, 08:22 AM

To do that I guess I would have to buy the PDF creation software? Then there is the matter of putting it together is some logical order, maybe with some cut and paste from posts and essays, then a table of contents and index, footnotes etc.

Have you ever used PDF? I really think that you meant that as a serious idea. It is a good suggestion.

The timing is good for me to consider that. Over at Science Forums, The Original, as they call it, where I just joined as Brain-in-a vat, I'm setting out to do a clean presentation with my updated speculations. My plan was to start a thread to present it in a logical fashion and link all the concepts to show how they support each other. Just like here and other forums, interest in QWC is minimal but I am planning to present some new ideas there to see if anyone will take interest.

I also just finished a big entrepreneurial project and have time to put into organizing QWC. Maybe when I get away for a few days soon I can start in on that idea of using PDF. Thanks.

Bishadi

03-15-09, 11:34 AM

Thanks Bishadi. I don't have it yet but I am not funded yet either. I need about a quarter of a million dollars plus computer programming and computer time. Can you write me a check :cheers:?

You remind me of what i did, 30 years back. Write up material, that can address phenomenon (even as a 2LoT buster) and not know what it was doing.

Had i known back when, be certain i would have been a very dangerous man by now.

But i learned compassion before knowing what the math meant.

Now i am ruined in today's standards.

No money nor help to the pursuit of profit!

kind of sick i r

quantum_wave

03-15-09, 01:29 PM

You remind me of what i did, 30 years back. Write up material, that can address phenomenon (even as a 2LoT buster) and not know what it was doing.

Had i known back when, be certain i would have been a very dangerous man by now.

But i learned compassion before knowing what the math meant.

Now i am ruined in today's standards.

No money nor help to the pursuit of profit!

kind of sick i rThere is a cryptic aspect to your posts that I suspect grows out of your personal view of physics, sort of eluding to what you have figured out and yet keeping within the boundaries :).

Anyway, you seem to almost give me some slack on the idea of the math of QWC can be derived from the simple equation for the accumulated portion of a quantum given the radii of the expanding spherical quantum waves.

By applying the equation to live action and to a small mass, say the three or four quantum mass that I have been playing with, it is or at least will be easy to show that the mass can maintain its presence and emanate gravity at the same time when the aether surrounds the mass. I may get back to work on that little project if I do go on a little getaway next week. I just can't make myself do it because I know that the work I will put into it is ten times the work it would take if I was working with a programmer.

What I would do is program it so that each quanta is given a label, and define their positions and radii at the start. Then set some variables like the rate of increase in their radii, set aether intrusion at the same rate as gravity emanation, and trigger a new high density spot every time the equation determines that the energy in the overlap is equal to a quantum of energy. The high density spot then gets a label and is considered to be in expansion as a new spherical quantum wave.

Each wave that contributed to the new quantum will also still be a residual wave continuing on into the aether with its characteristic pull and push in accord with calculated energy containment of a three or four quantum mass. I can picture it and know the math will describe it to show how the mass is maintained and how gravity is emanated. When I do it with the two small masses separated in space, the animation will show how the path of mass is determined by the energy density of the aether, that itself is established by the residual quantum waves criss crossing throughout the aether.

CheskiChips

03-15-09, 07:23 PM

Microsoft Word and OpenOffice offer .doc --> .pdf conversion.

When putting in foot notes, the foot notes become links in the pdf. You can also "add hyperlink" over texts.

quantum_wave

03-16-09, 06:56 PM

That sounds easy. I am always producing new Word documents and setting the heading1 and heading2 as a table of contents. Being able to make it a PDF will give me some nice additional features. Thank you for the suggestions.

quantum_wave

03-16-09, 10:02 PM

Nucleosynthesis Begins

Let me offer more detail for you to evaluate which might lead to some feedback about possible tests doable with today’s technology that I am not experienced enough to know about.

If you read this you will have to read about two thousand words just to get exposed to the new detail. It is not easy reading and I don’t claim to have the ability to express myself in an interesting way. This post has to do with nucleosynthesis and the energy-to matter-to energy (E-M-E) process. The thing that makes the E-M-E process available for us to evaluate in the present and at the quantum level of order (and for possible testing ideas) is that the M in E-M-E is matter and matter is said to form within every arena during its expansion phase from dense dark energy.

So if matter does form from dark energy then all particles we call “fundamental” will form out of the energy or as a result of interactions of those particles that do, i.e. there are no particles, not even quarks, in the burst of dense dark energy.

In addition to the dense dark energy producing the fundamental particles, there is a factor from outside of the initial dense dark energy ball that is considered to have a major role in the matter formation process. Remember that the big crunch formed as a result of the intersection and overlap of two or more expanding arenas. The energy environment outside the crunch is composed of the arena remnants that did not get caught up in the collapsing overlap of the expanding arenas. That “outside” energy begins to be incorporated into the expanding dense dark energy right from the instant of the burst.

It can be said that the dense dark energy is equalizing its energy density with the energy density of the surrounding energy environment as expansion progresses.

If we say that the burst contained an arena worth of energy (i.e. the total energy in the burst is the same for every burst; it could be called an arena-quantum), then the total energy in the expanding arena is increasing as this equalization occurs. The expanding arena contains the original arena-quantum of energy and it gains energy from the outside environment through the process of energy density equalization.

So with this description of the dual source of the energy content of the expanding arena, we have the constituent energy from which matter forms and the expanding environment within which it forms.

Let’s analyze the two constituents. The expanding energy ball referred to as dense dark energy has the word “dense” because it has been compressed to the maximum possible energy density inside the crunch and retains that label until its density declines to the matter formation threshold. The name contains the word “dark” not to say that there are no particles that are emitting electromagnetic radiation (there are no particles at all), but to say there is an unseen expansionary force there. That force is the result of what is called potential expansion energy that was built up as the energy was compressed beyond the upper matter functioning range, i.e. the “energy” part of the force that I called arena action earlier in the thread.

The other constituent of the energy content of the arena is the energy environment that surrounded the crunch at the time of the burst, and that is being incorporated into the dense dark energy as expansion occurs. That energy is called background energy and is made up of three main constituents, electromagnetic radiation, dark matter, and dark energy.

Electromagnetic radiation is coursing through space from all directions as the result of a history of arenas that have played out across the landscape of the greater universe. It is called cosmic microwave background radiation (CMBR). The other two constituents of the background energy are quantized and unquantized dark energy. Both are energy remnants from the same history of arena action that gives us the CMB. Some of the dark energy becomes quantized during the matter formation process but does not get incorporated into the fundamental particles that form next; it is dark matter. The other part of the dark energy is simply the expanding remnant of the dark energy which continues to occupy space and files all voids after the matter formation period is completed; a period that is very brief in cosmic terms.

So that is the “soup” from which matter forms during the expansion phase of arena action.

I bet you are saying that you can’t understand this, but I know that understanding can be gained. You can envision things that are against your current understanding. I’m sure it is entirely possible for you to do that. But I also think that we can envision future discoveries and the process of discovery requires us to do so. I don’t know if you would agree that you need to understand what I am saying before you can debunk it, and it isn’t likely that you are thinking that I am envisioning future discovery. But never the less, there are certainly some laughs here if you have the right attitude. I would like to know what the laughable parts are, and I hope you think that is the right attitude on my part.

So let’s move to the part about what the temperature is of this pre-matter formation soup. Any process of nucleosynthesis must comply with the entire recipe, and temperature is just as important to the recipe as the constituents that go into the soup.

My prediction is that we have a “cold start” to the matter formation process. I know that goes against your current understanding and for that I apologize because I said I accept most peer-reviewed theory as the best we can do given the evidence and the tools. Briefly, my reasons for going with a “cold start” in Quantum Wave Cosmology are twofold. First, if matter ceases to function at some maximum level of energy density (required in the mechanics of the burst) then photons are not being emitted to heat things up. Second, the high energy photons, electrons, protons, X-Rays, cosmic rays and other particles already in existence and characteristic of the tremendous heat and radiation associated with the formation of a big crunch will be converted to dense dark energy. This conversion occurs just like the conversion of gravity and mass of the crunch that occurs at the moment of the negation of functioning matter.

How can heat be converted to dense dark energy? The process of heat generation is stopped in the core as gravity and mass are converted to dense state energy leaving no functioning particles to produce or absorb electromagnetic radiation. As the core grows it does not generate heat and it gradually diminishes the mass of the crunch (dense energy has no mass in QWC because mass is a process and all processes are halted). As the mass of the crunch is diminished, the gravitational emanation of the crunch is proportionally diminished.

The core consists of perfectly equalized energy density and the equalization is maintained throughout the core as it grows. The existing heat outside the core is at the maximum possible temperature which is associated with the maximum possible energy density that triggers the formation of the dense energy core. That heat energy is expended to drive the energy density over the threshold required for dense state energy to form. The heat is effectively converted to dense state energy in the process.

Two main differences between Big Bang Nucleosynthesis and big burst nucleosynthesis are the point at which heat begins to dissipate and the constituents of the soup from which matter forms.

So after the burst and after energy density equalization has lowered the energy density to the matter formation threshold we get rapid and abundant matter formation across the expanding arena. The phrase “rapid and abundant” means that matter forms almost simultaneously throughout the space encompassed by the arena.

I maintain that dark matter is the first matter to form. Dark matter is the first product of the quantization of energy. Quantization occurs as follows. When the density of the dense dark energy declines to the matter formation threshold it reaches the point in the range of energy densities where there is sufficient background intrusion from outside the arena to allow quantum action to occur. Remember quantum action was forced to stop due to the compression of energy in the big crunch.

A huge amount of mass, gravitational energy and heat energy was consumed to produce the dense state energy, and so it is expected that there will be a huge amount of dense dark energy consumed to produce dark matter and its associated gravity, i.e. it is an e=mc^2 type of relationship.

Dark matter is marked by the presence of energy quanta. Energy quanta exist when quantum action is taking place. So what is quantum action and what causes it to take place?

Quantum action is the consequence when energy density falls from the dense state to within the range that accommodates the formation of matter. As the density of energy declines out of its dense state where it was perfectly equalized it is forced to give up its equalized state and it gives it up grudgingly. Microscopic low density holes form and the dense energy rushes in to fill them and to maintain the equalization state. But it is a futile effort and more and more holes of low energy density keep forming as arena expansion continues and the dense energy keeps filling them. What was once mostly dense dark energy quickly becomes mostly “holes” of low energy density and what is left of the dense dark energy is only able to find and maintain its dense state at the center of the holes.

By way of analogy, if you shot photons into expanding dense state energy then microscopic low density “holes” form in the dense state energy because the energy of a photon is lower than the density of dense state energy.

But that is only half of the picture because once the “holes” predominate, the low energy density of the holes surrounding the remaining bits of dense energy want to equalize with the bits of dense energy. As a result the bit of dense energy is forced to expand to fill the low energy density hole. This produces a spherically expanding quantum wave of energy and primes the process of repeating quantum action that occurs within mass.

Quantum action goes on at all times when the energy density of the arena is within the matter functioning range. The bit of dense dark energy in each “hole” has now become a quantum of energy and the force of quantum action that began as a struggle between the dense state energy and the intruding low energy density is now self-perpetuating process of overlapping energy quanta followed by the collapse of quanta of energy into high density spots. The spots in turn bust into expansion to perpetuate the process.

The formation of matter across the expanding environment quickly transforms the arena into a sea of dark matter and dark energy. It can be described as intersecting energy quanta closely packed across the expanding arena. All the while the entire arena sea is continually being intruded upon by the three constituents of the surrounding energy environment.

Gravity is extremely strong relative to expansion momentum at this stage in the E-M-E process. What unfolds in the arena from here is a result of the imbalance between gravity and expansion momentum. Expansion momentum will eventually win out but until then, fundamental particles of matter, electromagnetic radiation, atoms of hydrogen, neutrons, helium, and eventually stars, stellar nucleosynthesis, metallization, and galaxies will form.

We have dark matter in the form of energy quanta separating and moving away from each other due to the expansion momentum imparted to them as they formed, and also attracting each other with their new gravitational emanation. The expanding arena is now ready to start quanta clumping due to gravity, and the clumping is the source of many of the fundamental particles.

To be continued after the robust discussion to follow :thumbsup:

quantum_wave

04-11-09, 09:52 AM

Let me try a different approach here too like I did in the other forum, hoping to get some discussion.

Does anyone agree that the physics of the known universe includes a concept of energy that encompasses a large body of knowledge and theory? And maybe the most important part of what we know about energy is the equivalence between mass and energy.

Agree or disagree?

Agree … good.

Equivalence between mass and energy is represented by Einstein’s equation e=mc^2. That seems pretty reasonable to me. Agree? … Good.

We know energy is a characteristic of mass and can be used by extracting it from mass, as in burning coal to boil water to turn a turbine to operate machinery. That process converts energy from coal to useful motion. Agree? … Good.

Does everyone agree that there is a precise equivalence instead of an imprecise casual variable type of relationship between energy contained within mass and the useful energy that is extracted from mass?

Is this precise equivalence, if it is true, enough evidence to support a concept of energy quantization? In other words, no matter how or when the mass got formed, while it has been in its present form, at a constant temperature, and unexcited by outside sources, it has always contained a precise amount of energy as in the equation e=mc^2 would indicate? Agreed? ... I hope so.

The implication I am getting at is that the fundamental particles of the standard particle model that have mass would all have an equivalent amount of energy relative to their mass, and if fundamental particles have different mass, they would have different energy equivalence.

And if energy quantization is the way that equivalence is achieved by nature, wouldn't it follow that the fundamental particles would contain energy in quantum increments, implying that the various fundamental particles all have something in common, and that commonality is energy quantization.

Oli

04-11-09, 10:02 AM

Nice try but you fall over too quickly.
Try walking before attempting to run.
Clue:
Agree
Agree
Oops.

quantum_wave

04-18-09, 10:02 AM

Nice try but you fall over too quickly.
Try walking before attempting to run.
Clue:
Agree
Agree
Oops.Your comment is appreciated. Though brief, you point out what I readily admit; my scenario goes beyond the mainstream, I have no proof, and I can’t point to a means of testing my scenario. I make a case for it being protoscience as opposed to pseudoscience on the basis that it is compatible with existing science and that technological advancement will allow for tests to be developed. Whether it is protoscience or not might boil down to each of our personal interpretations of the scientific method.

If you have the stick-to-itiveness to wade through the following you will see how I attempt to defend my position in response to your recent post. I will be happy to address any specifics for your previous response that you don’t feel are addressed below.

Energy defined in Quantum Wave Cosmology (QWC):
(Summary level, read the entire thread for more detail ... or I can provide more detail on any point below to explain my ideas but it will still only be ideas and not qualified science so don't expect any proof or proposed means of testing the ideas for awhile.)
My scenario is that in our finite arena that we call our expanding universe there is a finite amount of energy that takes many forms. As the scenario goes, if there was a common unit in which we could describe all energy it would be called the energy quantum, a precise amount of energy that lies at the heart of the idea and concept of quantization that I am using as a means to account for energy in all of it forms and uses in QWC. The term quantum here is not the familiar usage of the term quantum as in the discrete energy packets of electromagnetic radiation or as in describing the quantum nature of the various fundamental particles. I am using the term quantum as a common denominator of all forms of energy, nuclear, thermal, kinetic, any form that energy can take. And I am proposing the idea (it is an idea and not science, maybe better call protoscience) that in our finite arena of space that we call our expanding universe, all of the energy when measured in this as yet un-quantified but consistent increment called the quantum, adds up to a finite but all inclusive amount of energy in our arena.

Note that quantization is a mechanism that allows energy to be “used” and to change form with perfect precision, in other words with perfect accounting for every quantum. It is this basic accounting that QWC sees in nature that supports the theory that energy cannot be created or destroyed.

Keep in mind that entropy is our enemy. Quantization may be perfect, but entropy measures the decline in “useful energy”; without reverse entropy the end result is the “heat death” of the universe or the “big rip” as described by current theories. If and I say if even though it is contrary to QWC, if our universe consists of only our finite expanding arena, the there seems to be no turning it around. Expansion is accelerating, the amount of useful energy is finite and declining as entropy increases, and there is no indication of a mechanism of reverse entropy in current theory (though there are various ideas about it that are not embraced by the scientific community). Unless there or other similar arenas throughout the greater universe, our expanding arena will not be able to support life forever.

In my scenario, all space contains energy meaning that there is an additional form of energy, an aether that fills all space leaving no voids, and therefore at every point in space there is some level of energy density. Energy can be in the form of the aether, or it can be quantized as in mass and it can even be in another energy state called “dense state” energy at the core of a big crunch, so dense that mass cannot function at that level of compression. The energy that makes up the mass of the universe is in quantum increments and therefore mass is quantized energy that exists in a sea of aether.

Quantized mass is not static but is characterized by quantum action that is a very rapid and repetitive process of renewal of the presence of the energy quanta that make up all mass. Quantum action is a force that encompasses a quantum of energy and that describes a repetition that takes place each instant. Quantum action involves the accumulation of a quantum of energy, the collapse of that quantum into a high density spot, the burst (bounce off of a limit of maximum energy density) of that energy into a spherically expanding quantum wave, all occurring within a brief instant. The intersecting and overlapping of quantum waves is what allows new quanta to form from the energy contained in spherically expanding quantum waves. They overlap, the energy that converges in the overlap collapses into a high density spot, the spot achieves the maximum possible energy density allowed by nature and “bounces” into a burst of energy that takes the shape of a spherically expanding quantum wave of energy thus perpetuating the process of quantum action.

I know this is vague but the exact amount of energy in a quantum, the exact amount of space occupied by a quantum of energy at its high density point, and the length of time it takes for one quantum action to occur are not known yet. I can only say that the energy increment is the smallest possible energy increment that can have a meaningful impact in the formation of mass, the space occupied by the high density spot phase of quantum action is the smallest possible space that can be described with any hope of quantification, and the length of time it takes for a “quantum action” to occur and re-occur is the shortest amount of time we can hope to ever measure because these quantities are the final limits of what we call “infinitesimal”.

It is from this context that I define the term energy in the cosmology that I am trying to describe. My definition is therefore much broader than the definition of energy that falls within the accepted scientific usage of the term.

This more inclusive definition, i.e. that the universe “is” energy, describes why I am mixing my energy terms and concepts when viewed from a mainstream perspective. To me useful energy and its relationship to entropy deals with the same energy as is contained in mass, as is represented by motion, as is a characteristic of electromagnetic radiation, thermal radiation, as is a characteristic of chemical reactions, as is the medium of space called the aether, and as is the sole component of the universe that can take so many forms. There is perfect conservation of energy, energy cannot be created or destroyed, and all of the energy in the universe has always existed and is continually participating in the processes of quantum action and arena action.

In addition to our finite arena (which we call our expanding universe), there is a greater universe that encompasses a potentially infinite number of arenas of the same amount of energy, i.e. quantized at the arena level of order. Some are expanding arenas and some are contracting arenas, but all are in a greater universe where entropy is defeated by the arena process that is characterized by energy-to matter- to energy process. This process centers around the formation of high density big crunches, the burst of crunches into expanding balls of dark energy, the formation of mass within the expanding dark energy, and the eventual formation of galaxies that are separating from each other in all directions. This separation of galaxies in a co-moving coordinate system occurs because expansion momentum is imparted to mass as it forms and momentum is conserved as mass clumps into particles, atoms, stars and galaxies. In QWC there will be an eventual overlap of the galactic expansions of two or more arenas (two or more co-moving coordinate systems) to form new arenas which collapse into big crunches. It is a perpetual process called “arena action” of which our expanding arena is a small and passing part.

And to round out the energy picture in my scenario, in what I call Quantum Wave Cosmology, the arena process (“arena action”) that takes place in the landscape of the greater universe is very similar to what I describe as “quantum action” that I described as taking place at the infinitesimal level of order. The major difference is that at the infinitesimal level of order there is insufficient compression surrounding the high density spots and so the high density spots bounce immediately into spherically expanding quantum waves as soon as the maximum energy density is achieved. On the other end of the energy density spectrum, when a big crunch forms, compression is present and builds until the crunch reaches maximum internal energy density and is finally defeated from within leading the the burst and the resulting spherically expanding ball of dense dark energy and is finally defeated from within leading to the burst and the resulting spherically expanding ball of dense dark energy.

So yes, I have a laymen’s understanding of the mainstream view of energy and its various forms, and yes, I understand the mainstream view of entropy, and of electromagnetic radiation, thermal radiation, rest energy, relativistic energy, kinetic energy, energy released in chemical reactions, and even potential energy. I understand that energy and force go together. I understand that no aether has been detected and the concept of aether is called “superseded scientific theory” since it was not discovered as predicted. But to define energy in QWC, all of the above must be taken into account.

Oli

04-18-09, 01:02 PM

Your comment is appreciated. Though brief, you point out what I readily admit; my scenario goes beyond the mainstream
No, it goes against the mainstream.
And offers nothing.

I have no proof, and I can’t point to a means of testing my scenario.
So it's a wild guess?

I make a case for it being protoscience as opposed to pseudoscience on the basis that it is compatible with existing science and that technological advancement will allow for tests to be developed. Whether it is protoscience or not might boil down to each of our personal interpretations of the scientific method.
It's not even a pseudoscience, let alone proto-.
You have no proof, no means of testing..
Any mathematical backup?

quantum_wave

04-18-09, 01:40 PM

No, it goes against the mainstream.
And offers nothing.

So it's a wild guess?

It's not even a pseudoscience, let alone proto-.
You have no proof, no means of testing..
Any mathematical backup?Not everyone plays by the same rules. I'm just not satisfied with the mainstream explanations of what causes mass, what causes gravity, what caused the initial expansions of our observable universe. Are you?

Oli

04-18-09, 01:48 PM

But you have nothing that actually makes predictions or can explain things as well as current theory.
All you do have is wishful thinking and no supporting evidence.

quantum_wave

04-18-09, 02:19 PM

What does mainstream have that tells us what causes mass? What is it that causes gravity? What caused the initial expansion of the observable universe? You have nothing to answer these questions. And as for predictions, you couldn't be more wrong. As for wishful thinking, I don't get you? What am I wishing for besides answers to these questions in your opinion?

Oli

04-18-09, 02:32 PM

What does mainstream have that tells us what causes mass? What is it that causes gravity? What caused the initial expansion of the observable universe? You have nothing to answer these questions.
Correct: but they are being worked on.
Scientifically.

And as for predictions, you couldn't be more wrong.
Go ahead: present one.
Any one.

As for wishful thinking, I don't get you?
Since you have no supporting evidence it's not science it's pure speculation.

quantum_wave

04-18-09, 02:37 PM

Correct: but they are being worked on.
Scientifically.

Go ahead: present one.
Any one.

Since you have no supporting evidence it's not science it's pure speculation.You couldn't possibly have read this thread without seeing predictions. And I don't disagree that it is all speculation. We differ in our understanding of how science is done. Read this thread and come back and say you see no predictions. Read this thread and tell me that speculation has no role in science.

Oli

04-18-09, 02:42 PM

Maybe you misunderstand what "prediction" means.
It means suggesting an observable result occur under set conditions.
And account for that result mathematically.
We certainly do differ in our understanding of how science is done - I know it follows a methodology, you appear not to.
And once again: speculation without data or evidentiary support is not science.
It's mere speculation, like a kid saying "wouldn't it be cool if my G.I. Joe was alive?".

quantum_wave

04-18-09, 03:27 PM

You are wrong about speculation, about what science is, and about the role of mathematics in the development of science according to the scientific method. I have been over all of this in this thread or in threads that I link to in the OP already and you don't seem to have read it or you would have quotes from it to support your denial. Though I have plenty of time, you don't seem to have time to make a case by reading the thread, quoting from it where you find it in error, and offering alternative answers to the questions I just asked you.

quantum_wave

04-23-09, 03:52 PM

{This entire post can be seen above.}
... So yes, I have a laymen’s understanding of the mainstream view of energy and its various forms, and yes, I understand the mainstream view of entropy, and of electromagnetic radiation, thermal radiation, rest energy, relativistic energy, kinetic energy, energy released in chemical reactions, and even potential energy. I understand that energy and force go together. I understand that no aether has been detected and the concept of aether is called “superseded scientific theory” since it was not discovered as predicted. But to define energy in QWC, all of the above must be taken into account.In the other forum I mentioned, there was a response to a similar post which contained my description of energy in QWC.

It said, “The problem is that many experiments with energy show that energy is not quantized in and of itself. Instead, the "quantization" comes from electrons dropping from higher electron orbits to lower ones, discrete chemical bonds formed or broken, and discrete amounts of matter converted to energy in nuclear fission and fusion. IF energy itself were quantized, there would be a common quanta in which each of these would be integers of that quantum. The data I have seen contradicts that. For instance, if an electron drops from a 2p to a 1p electron orbital, you get one quanta of energy. But if it drops from 2s to 1s, you get a different one that is not related by an integer to the first. If your scenario were correct, this should be the case.”

That same poster suggested that I look into the First Law of Thermodynamics because it proved that the universe could not contain an infinite amount of energy. This guy’s response of course was just one of those ways of saying that I was missing something very basic in my understanding.

I replied to the thermodynamics comment by posting the results of a Google search that showed almost of million links mentioning 1LTD and asked him to show me where it described the parameters of the universe and where it said that the universe was not infinite. I haven’t heard back from him on that yet.

My response to the “integer” comment was more detailed. I replied that I see you do understand how I am using the concept of quantization because you do refer to how various discrete packets of energy related to photon emission and the quantum leaps involved with electromagnetic radiation would have to be integer values of the quantum.

What your example did was explain how the various electron drops are not of equal energy and so you conclude that there is no quantum value that would always produce an integer count of quanta.

In QWC though, the electron drops from one orbital to another are multiple quanta events. For example, I brainstormed in another forum about how many quanta there might be in a proton, or an electron (and therefore in various quarks). One possible approach to quantifying the energy in protons and electrons took several speculations together. The idea was related to the measurements that show the energy of an electron is ~1/1836 of a proton.

One speculation that was interesting was that the surface of the proton consisted of the same number of quanta as the entire electron. There were ideas about nucleosynthesis that used this relationship to describe the formation of quarks, protons, and electrons but that deserves another post by itself which I have done elsewhere and would be over kill here at the present.

Equating the surface of a proton to the surface of a sphere I was able to calculate a supposed number of energy quanta in the electron and the proton.

The calculation was based on the relationship between the area of the surface of a sphere, and the volume of a sphere.

Area/Volume = (4 pi r2)/(4/3 pi r3) = 3/r = 1/1836,
therefore r = 3*1836 = 5508

4/3 pi r^3 using a radius of 5508 quanta gives us 699,955,457,517 quanta in a proton, and dividing by 1836 gives us 381,239,356 quanta in an electron (at rest).

Admittedly there are several reasons why these calculations aren't right on, but they do point to the possibility that there is a huge number of energy quanta involved in an electron.

So when I use the phrase that matter is composed of energy in quantum increments, I mean that protons might contain ~700 billion quanta and electrons might contain 381 million quanta. Putting these quantities into the perspective of the movement of an electron from one ring or orbital to the next and you can see that because of the tiny energy involved in a quantum it is entirely feasible that there is an integer value of quanta for the jumps even though the jumps are themselves of differing energy values.

Would you like to comment on this post or about my earlier description of energy in QWC?

prometheus

04-23-09, 05:46 PM

Saquist

04-23-09, 06:23 PM

Correct: but they are being worked on.
Scientifically.

Go ahead: present one.
Any one.

Since you have no supporting evidence it's not science it's pure speculation.

You might be intrested to know that scientist have confirmed on Public Television that Gravity is a result of the expanding universe when they determined that Gravity would cease to exist if the universe began to fall in on it's self and at the same time linked it with Time (indirectly)

The concept and acceptance apparently isn't new.
Mass and inertia really is the result of the expansion of the space/time fabric.

Oli

04-23-09, 06:27 PM

You might be intrested to know that scientist have confirmed on Public Television that Gravity is a result of the expanding universe when they determined that Gravity would cease to exist if the universe began to fall in on it's self and at the same time linked it with Time (indirectly)
Interesting.
Do you have a link?
And is this a genuine finding or a typical TV "let's hype it up and misunderstand things completely" type presentation?

quantum_wave

04-23-09, 06:31 PM

I'm arriving rather late to this discussion, but I think a relevant reference to add if it hasn't been disussed already is this paper (http://arxiv.org/abs/0812.1049) by Carroll et al. They show that theories with an ether are not stable, which is strong evidence (as if any more were needed) that the ether does not exist.
Sean Carroll is a pretty smart guy. I have followed his string theory site, Cosmic Variance for a couple of years. He is the "Arrow of Time" eternal inflationist too. I don't know from what he said in the abstract if there is an aether or not, and "evidence" that there is no aether seems a stretch. Thanks for the link and read the thread and you will see my references to superseded theory, and a link to a discussion of the search for and failure to find the aether. Still, if quantization of energy and the force of quantum action produce quantum waves, those waves are the aether that I am talking about. If energy is not quantized, and if quantum waves do not exist, then QWC is wrong.

But if you have read my thread with an open mind, you will see that everything I say is based on the fact that we don't know what causes mass (I say it is quantum action), we don't know what causes gravity (I say it is quantum action), and we don't know what caused the Big Bang or big burst as I call it (I say that it is caused by the burst of a big crunch).

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2ZpPekgRQTw

http://preposterousuniverse.com/eternitytohere/faq.html

theoneiuse

04-23-09, 07:11 PM

Interesting.
Do you have a link?
And is this a genuine finding or a typical TV "let's hype it up and misunderstand things completely" type presentation?

You and Quantum wave will be jugded accordingy, so far you Oli have demonstrated no ability to add progress to your species, even with your 50 odd years of existence. It is better to try and fail than never to try at all. For I have learned that all lifeforms deserve respect for they are all variables that make reality possible. Maby you Oli lack the ability to think for yourself,you may very well lack the courage neccessary to be humiliated for bieng wrong. You cannot help those like you very much if you can only explain to them things thats your species have already figured out in the past. Resist the temtation of bieng a coward. And maybe you could join the efforts of your species to save itself from total extinction. Take heed for ones such as Einstein and Newton had such courage. For the loser of knowlegde is bestowed on the ''one'' that cannot add it, that ''one'' will never have
two cents.

Oli

04-23-09, 07:25 PM

You and Quantum wave will be jugded accordingy
Cor 1:17.
"It matters little to me that I am judged by you or human court".

so far you Oli have demonstrated no ability to add progress
Wrong.

to your species
My species?
Cheese sandwiches?

It is better to try and fail than never to try at all.
And far better to try and succeed.
Any more homilies to offer?

Maby you Oli lack the ability to think for yourself
And maybe I don't.

you may very well lack the courage neccessary to be humiliated for bieng wrong.
By whom?

You cannot help those like you very much if you can only explain to them things thats your species have already figured out in the past.
Incorrect surely.
Some people need to have what's already known so that can go on to learn or discover new things.

Resist the temtation of bieng a coward.
There is no temptation to resist.

And maybe you could join the efforts of your species to save itself from total extinction.
Unfortunately you're assuming that I've done nothing in that direction.

Take heed for ones such as Einstein and Newton had such courage. For the loser of knowlegde is bestowed on the ''one'' that cannot add it, that ''one'' will never have two cents.
Could you rephrase that so that it's in English please?

quantum_wave

04-23-09, 08:01 PM

Please take your personal discussion out in the hall.

Saquist

04-23-09, 08:14 PM

Interesting.
Do you have a link?
And is this a genuine finding or a typical TV "let's hype it up and misunderstand things completely" type presentation?

To be honest it might be but it wasn't that "Science Now" shows with that black guy. I beleive it was NOVA but I came in on the middle of it.

I wasn't able to get the name...
but I was shocked. I litteraly heard in one sentence the confirmation of my theory not as though it was a theory but as accepted results of a graviational collapse of the universe.

I've been keeping my eyes pealed for when I see it again. I WILL definitely get you a link to the PBS.org site or the You Tube link that shows it. I still would like your imput to see if you hear the same thing I heard.

Oli

04-23-09, 08:16 PM

I'm in the UK and haven't owned a TV for two years, so I don't know the shows :)

Saquist

04-23-09, 08:16 PM

Interesting.
Do you have a link?
And is this a genuine finding or a typical TV "let's hype it up and misunderstand things completely" type presentation?

Oh and it made sense to what I heard theorized by the Big Bang break downs because even they don't describe gravity coming into existance in first fractions of a second of the dispersal. I assumed this is because of almost not relative speed of anything.

quantum_wave

04-23-09, 09:19 PM

Oh and it made sense to what I heard theorized by the Big Bang break downs because even they don't describe gravity coming into existance in first fractions of a second of the dispersal. I assumed this is because of almost not relative speed of anything.You might be interested and even find some support for your ideas or theory. Did you read in my thread where I talk about a big crunch. Did you understand how I suggest that a big crunch forms? You will notice that I predict that gravity fails when compression inside a big crunch reaches the point where matter ceases to function.

I am saying that gravity is a function of mass, and if mass ceases to function, then gravity ceases as well. When gravity stops deep inside a big crunch, the seeds are sown for the big crunch to self destruct. Self destruction in my view is the burst of the big crunch when the potential expansion energy of the compressed matter (I call it dense state energy) exceeds the declining gravitational compression.

Dense state energy is released by the burst and a ball of expanding dense dark energy emerges.

prometheus

04-24-09, 03:09 AM

Sean Carroll is a pretty smart guy. I have followed his string theory site, Cosmic Variance for a couple of years.

As a matter of clarity, cosmic variance is a blog and as far as I know does not support string theory in the sense that you are tying to imply. Also, Sean Carroll is not the only contributor. I guess the facts aren't that important to you?

He is the "Arrow of Time" eternal inflationist too.

And this is relevant because? From what I know of Carroll, he is an extremely rational man who believes in things when there is sufficient evidence to support them.

I don't know from what he said in the abstract if there is an aether or not, and "evidence" that there is no aether seems a stretch.

What part of these quotes don't you understand?
"Models with generic kinetic terms are plagued either by ghosts or by tachyons, and are therefore physically unacceptable."

"The timelike sigma-model case is well-defined and stable when the vector norm is fixed by a constraint; however, when it is determined by minimizing a potential there is necessarily a tachyonic ghost, and therefore an instability."

"In the Maxwell and scalar cases, the Hamiltonian is unbounded below" (meaning there is no global minimum energy level so something could radiate energy for ever).

I think it's pretty clear.

Thanks for the link and read the thread and you will see my references to superseded theory, and a link to a discussion of the search for and failure to find the aether.

I don't think so buddy. I have real work to do.

Still, if quantization of energy and the force of quantum action produce quantum waves, those waves are the aether that I am talking about. If energy is not quantized, and if quantum waves do not exist, then QWC is wrong.

I don't think you even know what you are saying.

But if you have read my thread with an open mind, you will see that everything I say is based on the fact that we don't know what causes mass (I say it is quantum action)
action is a word that has a specific meaning other than the common definition, in physics, and you are misusing it.

we don't know what causes gravity (I say it is quantum action), and we don't know what caused the Big Bang or big burst as I call it (I say that it is caused by the burst of a big crunch).

Yes we do, it's just that you don't.

quantum_wave

04-24-09, 07:44 AM

As a matter of clarity, cosmic variance is a blog and as far as I know does not support string theory in the sense that you are tying to imply. Also, Sean Carroll is not the only contributor. I guess the facts aren't that important to you?

And this is relevant because? From what I know of Carroll, he is an extremely rational man who believes in things when there is sufficient evidence to support them.

What part of these quotes don't you understand?
"Models with generic kinetic terms are plagued either by ghosts or by tachyons, and are therefore physically unacceptable."

"The timelike sigma-model case is well-defined and stable when the vector norm is fixed by a constraint; however, when it is determined by minimizing a potential there is necessarily a tachyonic ghost, and therefore an instability."

"In the Maxwell and scalar cases, the Hamiltonian is unbounded below" (meaning there is no global minimum energy level so something could radiate energy for ever).

I think it's pretty clear.

I don't think so buddy. I have real work to do.

I don't think you even know what you are saying.

action is a word that has a specific meaning other than the common definition, in physics, and you are misusing it.

Yes we do, it's just that you don't.Well said from the mainstream perspective. Wrong, but well said. And that is fine. You are concerned that the young formative minds might be influenced by the glib word salad on my threads. If you set them straight you have done your share to help. But if you think that the mainstream or you know what causes gravity to do what it does, or what causes mass to maintain its presence, or what caused the initial expansion of our universe, you are blowing smoke. But if you don't mind, just so I can be sure what you are talking about, links to the cause of mass, gravity and the Big Bang would be helpful to all of those who might be misled by my thread.

I will encourage people to think about them, and I will suggest where I think they fall short of telling us the causes.

quantum_wave

04-25-09, 09:37 AM

prometheus

04-25-09, 01:19 PM

I hope we hear back from Prometheus because his mainstream position is where many people view science. I decided to try to understand what science was saying about the Big Bang, i.e. when and how it happened. It didn’t take long to realize that science was saying it happened 13.7 billion years ago if … and then there were a lot of ifs. And it turned out that science wasn’t saying how it happened, but was saying that any speculation about how it happened was not considered scientific if there was no way to prove whatever theory was offered. And a little more reading about the Big Bang quickly points out that even the Big Bang Theory (BBT) itself doesn’t actually say there was a Big Bang. The timeline begins with an expanding universe and picks up the instant after whatever event occurred to initiate the expansion.

As far as I am aware, current cosmological models of the early universe don't claim to explain what happened before the big bang. The fact that there is a singularity points to the fact that the theory is incomplete, but not wrong.

Also, the big bang model of the early universe is supported by quite a lot of observational evidence, for example the CMB, galaxy surveys like APM and the relative abundances of elements in the universe. These can all be calculated with the big bang model and are found to be in good agreement with observation. You are being quite disingenuous to say what you say about the big bang theory. To claim it is something that fully explains the origin of the universe is to ascribe something to it that it doesn't even claim for itself. You are guilty of using a straw man argument here.

I’m not being critical of the scientific method when I point this out. That is how science is done and a quick search on the net for the topic, “scientific method” will spell out how it works.

For the record, the scientific method can be summarised like this:

1. Define the question
2. Gather information and resources (observe)
3. Form hypothesis
4. Perform experiment and collect data
5. Analyze data
6. Interpret data and draw conclusions that serve as a starting point for new hypothesis
7. Publish results
8. Retest (frequently done by other scientists)

The problem with most pseudoscience is that the want to start with an idea about the nature of the universe, then derive (or not) results from it and fit the universe to their theory. My research is into the behaviour of strongly coupled quantum field theories and string theory and every project starts with a question, for example, what happens when we put a particular theory on a curved background. Then we do the calculation and come up with a prediction for the behaviour of the theory which can then be compared with experimental data.

For the Prometheus types (no criticism intended because it is that type that makes science the best that it can be given what we can observe) the scientific method is the road map to scientific progress. But there is no haughtiness or private rights usage to the scientific method. Even a layman like me can read it and understand how it works and why it follows the steps that it follows.

At one point in the scientific process there is an observation and an idea of what causes the effect that is observed. We observe an expanding universe. We have ideas about what caused the expansion. Is that science? Not yet, it is protoscience.

You are again guilty of creating a straw man. The big bang model has fulfilled all parts of the scientific method. Allow me to illustrate:

1. Define the question - Is the universe expanding?
2. Gather information and resources (observe) - Answer: Yes.
3. Form hypothesis - The FRW solution of GR
4. Perform experiment and collect data - COBE, WMAP, APM etc etc...
5. Analyze data - confirm the FRW for late times.
6. Interpret data and draw conclusions that serve as a starting point for new hypothesis. - Discrepancies in the correlation of theory with experiment leads to the proposal of the inflationary phase of the early universe.
7. Publish results
8. Retest (frequently done by other scientists)

Does the scientific community view protoscience as part of the scientific method? Yes, some do and the links to protoscience on the web lead to discussions that it takes ideas to initiate the scientific process. But ideas from the layman are a dime a dozen and are almost always without merit. So those who pride themselves with their hard earned scientific understanding are often predisposed to wave off any ideas from the laymen.

You are guilty of a false characterisation here. The big bang model is a fully fledged scientific model. Quantum wave cosmology is not, and as such is rightly dismissed.

That is why those who have put in the rigor to become professionals in various aspects of science steeped in mathematics will usually ignore discussions like I conduct on my threads. Sometimes though the temptation to attack my ideas from their hard earned perspective is irresistible. When that happens it gives me the opportunity to question them about the issues that have been bothering me for a long time.

Usually they just go away when I try to get answers from them, because I understand better than many of them what the limits of our current understanding are.

Evidently this claim is not true as you are ascribing things to scientific theories that they certainly do not claim.

If the coupling of space and time, i.e. space time causes gravity, I’m a monkey’s uncle. I hope someday that can be established.

It has already been proven to a very high degree of accuracy. GR works by assuming spacetime is a dynamical object that can be deformed by mass and energy. Objects moving in spacetime follow geodesics. The predictions of GR have been tested and proven to be very accurate over the course of the last 80 years or so.

If the Higgs Boson is the original source of all mass, I’m just wrong about the cause of mass being the process of quantum action. The “action” part of quantum action is described in such great detail in my threads that for Prometheus to call me out on the use of the word “action” just shows a bit of the haughtiness that creeps in when the mainstream attacks ideas.

The standard model that contains the Higgs is a very rigorous mathematical model that predicts a great many things very well. The Higgs is something that is yet to be proven to exist.

Attacking ideas is always a losing battle.

This is rhetorical rubbish, and here we come to the problem with this sort of pseudoscience. What exactly is a "quantum action" and what does it do? At the level we're at now I could just as well say that there are teeny tiny gremlins that eat the aether and cause mass and it is just as good an idea as your quantum action. The reality is that they are both crap ideas with no theoretical or experimental reason to believe them.

If the Big Bang was initiated by … well they don’t say now do they …

This is not part of the big bang model.

But it is not pseudoscience to have the idea that the Big Bang was initiated by the burst of a big crunch.

There are proper theories of physics that predict this I think, loop quantum gravity for example. Unfortunately there is no evidence at all for or against this so it's simply not science.

To talk about these things with anyone who identifies themselves with the mainstream will never lead to anything more than the attitude that ideas from the layman are a dime a dozen and are almost always without merit. Usually they are shown to be without merit because they violate established science.

This is simply a lie. They are proven to be without value because they either predict nothing at all or their predictions differ wildly from what is observed.

But papers from even the most credentialed science professionals that discuss scientific issues are not yet established science. The process is a long one and just like with ideas from laymen, papers that are based completely on math can turn out to be without merit also, not only because of the underlying mathematical logic, but like with my ideas, there is no way to test them yet.

The difference between mainstream science and pseudoscience is that mainstream science is based on the scientific method and in general will use generalisations of accepted theory to derive things that can be tested in experiment, maybe not right away but soon. Pseudoscience like this is basically a lot of word salad that comes up with nothing at all for experimentalists to test. To claim that pseudoscience and real science have anything in common does a huge disservice to the real scientists that work to genuinely improve the understanding of the human race on a daily basis.

quantum_wave

04-25-09, 03:29 PM

I'm surprised you responded. Your response is in line with what I predicted.

Let me point out the fallacies in your reply like you point out the fallacies in my post. The ability to use words in word salad is not just the providence of protoscience, as you have just proved.

Did you bother to Google "protoscience"? Look here, http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=protoscience&btnG=Google+Search&aq=f&oq=

As far as I am aware, current cosmological models of the early universe don't claim to explain what happened before the big bang. Agreed and that is what I mean to convey.The fact that there is a singularity points to the fact that the theory is incomplete, but not wrong.Agreed, and I don't think I said it was wrong did I?
Also, the big bang model of the early universe is supported by quite a lot of observational evidence, for example the CMB, galaxy surveys like APM and the relative abundances of elements in the universe. These can all be calculated with the big bang model and are found to be in good agreement with observation.Agreed and I didn't address that part of BBT in a critical way. In fact I have said in several places that BBT is the best we can do with the tools we have for observation.You are being quite disingenuous to say what you say about the big bang theory. To claim it is something that fully explains the origin of the universe is to ascribe something to it that it doesn't even claim for itself. You are guilty of using a straw man argument here.I didn't make that claim and to the contrary, you are the one using a straw man by claiming that I said something about BBT that I didn't say (though if you were to quote my exact words I would be better able to defend myself against your strawman).
For the record, the scientific method can be summarised like this:

1. Define the question
2. Gather information and resources (observe)
3. Form hypothesis
4. Perform experiment and collect data
5. Analyze data
6. Interpret data and draw conclusions that serve as a starting point for new hypothesis
7. Publish results
8. Retest (frequently done by other scientists)
For the record, you seem to have followed my suggestion and looked up the scientific method. You found what I have always found in the numerous times I have looked it up.
The problem with most pseudoscience is that the want to start with an idea about the nature of the universe, then derive (or not) results from it and fit the universe to their theory.I agree. And I did say that most layman's ideas are without merit, sometimes for that reason. My research is into the behaviour of strongly coupled quantum field theories and string theory and every project starts with a question, for example, what happens when we put a particular theory on a curved background. Then we do the calculation and come up with a prediction for the behaviour of the theory which can then be compared with experimental data. I respect you for working in that area of investigation and applaud you for the rigor you have put in to be able to play in that arena.
You are again guilty of creating a straw man. The big bang model has fulfilled all parts of the scientific method. Allow me to illustrate:

1. Define the question - Is the universe expanding?
2. Gather information and resources (observe) - Answer: Yes.
3. Form hypothesis - The FRW solution of GR
4. Perform experiment and collect data - COBE, WMAP, APM etc etc...
5. Analyze data - confirm the FRW for late times.
6. Interpret data and draw conclusions that serve as a starting point for new hypothesis. - Discrepancies in the correlation of theory with experiment leads to the proposal of the inflationary phase of the early universe.
7. Publish results
8. Retest (frequently done by other scientists)Here again you are accusing me of building a strawman when in fact I made no such comments. It would help me defend myself if you could quote my exact words using the "quote function". In addition, I counter sue you, woops, counter accuse you of being the one building a strawman by implying I said things about BBT that I did not say. I like BBT, it is just not complete and you readily acknowledge that. Why do you have to make me out to be a bad guy when in fact I have my ear to the ground all of the time for advances in our knowledge. If you want to impress anyone, why not waste a little time buddy, and use the quote function from my thread, and show the science that my ideas are inconsistent with.
You are guilty of a false characterization here. The big bang model is a fully fledged scientific model. Quantum wave cosmology is not, and as such is rightly dismissed.This is faulty reasoning. Are you saying that BBT is now fact. If not, then are you saying that alternative ideas are already disqualified because BBT complies with the scientific method? That doesn't quite make it fact, but you know that.
Evidently this claim is not true as you are ascribing things to scientific theories that they certainly do not claim.For the third time in your post you make this claim so why not put me down where I belong by using the quote function to show where I made the claim you are deriding me for.
It has already been proven to a very high degree of accuracy. GR works by assuming spacetime is a dynamical object that can be deformed by mass and energy. Objects moving in spacetime follow geodesics. The predictions of GR have been tested and proven to be very accurate over the course of the last 80 years or so.I agree that GR is a beautiful thing. It is the perhaps the best that man can do given our current tools and technology. The math is nearly perfect as math goes. But you sound as if you thing GR has proven that spacetime curvature is what causes gravity and to that I take exception. What GR does do, among other things, is provide equations that when applied to predict the movement of objects in space, it does so with a high degree of accuracy.

What I am saying is that degree of accuracy does not prove that the effects that are predicted are caused by the curvature of spacetime. Gravity will cause the effects that are predicted even if the cause of gravity is not the curvature of spacetime. GR has only proven to be a reliable way to calculate the effect of gravity and does not tell us how mass curves spacetime. It could be that there are thousands of teeny tiny gremlins pulling on object in space as far as you know. Don't talk about me spreading rubish and then dish it out at the same time.
The standard model that contains the Higgs is a very rigorous mathematical model that predicts a great many things very well. The Higgs is something that is yet to be proven to exist.Word salad. You could triple the rigor and be no closer to proving that the cause of mass is the Higgs mechanism. And I will repeat, that the standard model, BBT and the cosmological constant, with inflation, are works of art. Beautiful theories. The best we can do with the tools we have. But still, those theories do not say what causes mass, only that we think it might be the Higgs. And they don't say what causes gravity, only that gravity seems to be highly predictable using EFEs. And they don't say what caused the initial expansion of our observable universe, only that at 10^-43 seconds after some event, expansion was occurring.
This is rhetorical rubbish, and here we come to the problem with this sort of pseudoscience. What exactly is a "quantum action" and what does it do? At the level we're at now I could just as well say that there are teeny tiny gremlins that eat the aether and cause mass and it is just as good an idea as your quantum action. The reality is that they are both crap ideas with no theoretical or experimental reason to believe them.WELL ... as Jack Benny used to say :).
This is not part of the big bang model.
My point exactly.

There are proper theories of physics that predict this I think, loop quantum gravity for example.That is correct.Unfortunately there is no evidence at all for or against this so it's simply not science.Protoscience man. Get out of the stoneages.
This is simply a lie. They are proven to be without value because they either predict nothing at all or their predictions differ wildly from what is observed.You are splitting hairs about why ideas are rejected. I guess we both agree but you feel better making it look like we disagree and that you are right. WELL!
The difference between mainstream science and pseudoscience is that mainstream science is based on the scientific method and in general will use generalisations of accepted theory to derive things that can be tested in experiment, maybe not right away but soon. Pseudoscience like this is basically a lot of word salad that comes up with nothing at all for experimentalists to test. To claim that pseudoscience and real science have anything in common does a huge disservice to the real scientists that work to genuinely improve the understanding of the human race on a daily basis.And you say this why? Are you saying that my protoscience is pseudoscience? You either haven't taken the time (buddy) to read the thread, or you haven't enlightened yourself about the difference between pseudoscienc and protoscience.

Now that all of this has been said from you to me, and from me to you, don't go away thinking that I don't respect the positive parts of what you do. Just try to go back and on every acusation you have made where you claim I have used a strawman, use the quote function and give me the words I have used specifically instead of trying to sound all "authoritive" and everything.

quantum_wave

04-25-09, 05:25 PM

I've said this before in other threads and in so many words, but just now, in a response on another thread I put my idea about the cause of the effect that is thought of as the curvature of spacetime. I want it to appear on this thread because it really describes how the effect I call gravity and the effect that some call curved spacetime can be reconciled to my satisfaction. It went like this:

"I can offer an idea on the cause of the effect that seems to look like curved spacetime. The idea is that it is time dilation caused by a gravitational field. It is the combination of two effects, the effect of the strength of a gravitation field on mass within the field, and the effect of time dilation between particles and objects that have relative momentum within a gravitational field.

Time dilation occurs because the distance between objects is changing within a gravitational field and so the strength of the field is always different and is always changing as particles or objects move within it. This means that the gravitational effect is always different for every particle or object in a gravitational field. This is the old premise, and a good one, that says that every object, even every particle has its own exclusive reference frame.

The result is that every object moving within a gravitational field will take a different path, and the path of every object with mass is affected by the mass, path and distance of every other object in the field. The result is that the movement of objects in a gravitational field is always curved and the curvature is due to the effect of the strength of a gravitation field on mass within the field, and the effect of time dilation between particles and objects that have relative momentum within a gravitational field. The movement of an object in response to the mass of another object is always directed to a point behind the real location of the object that is being responded to, because that object has moved during the period of time dilation."

quantum_wave

04-25-09, 11:05 PM

This seems like a good time to mention one more idea related to time dilation. Remember the space traveler who leaves Earth traveling at near the speed of light on a circuitous journey and returns to Earth to find that his twin brother has aged significantly in comparison to the traveler? Time has passed differently for the two twins because the traveler was in an accelerated reference frame relative to the home body.

One difference between the environments that the two twins lived in during the period that the one twin was traveling can be described as a difference in energy density. An accelerated body experiences higher energy density than a body at rest. It is associated with the increase in mass and shortening of length experienced in an accelerating reference frame.

That being the case, the resulting difference in aging, i.e. in the different rate that time passes, correlates to the energy density of the environment where time is being measured.

The accounting for time by the traveler says he was gone only a short time, while by the accounting of the home body the traveler was gone for many years. The conclusion is that the higher the energy density of the environment, the more slowly time passes. Energy density determines the lubrication of the environment in regards to the ability for time to pass. The lower the energy density the higher the lubrication which enables time to pass more quickly. The traveler was in a high energy density environment caused by accelerated motion relative to the home body, and so time passed much more slowly for the traveler, meaning he aged more slowly and was therefore much younger than his twin when he returned home.

So in addition to the explanation in the previous post of how time dilation and the acceleration of gravity combine to cause the path of objects through space to be curved, there is another factor that comes into play. It is the energy density being experienced that explains the differing effect of time dilation on objects that are experiencing different rates of acceleration.

The discussion of time passing at different rates in environments that have different energy density does not change the concept of a universal "now". The universal "now" would be described by imagining that time stops everywhere at the same instant so that there was no motion. Going a step further in the concept of "now", if all clocks at all places in the universe were to be reset to the same time, call it universal time, then that setting would be universal.

But as soon as time was started back up, clocks all over the universe would begin measuring time differently based on the energy density of their environment. If the clocks were all stopped again after the passage of time, they would all show different times because the passing of time is based on the energy density of the environment.

Since in my QWC cosmology the universe IS energy, energy density is an important variable in explaining energy quantization and the force of quantum action. All space contains some level of energy density and the energy density at any point in space is constantly fluctuating because space is permeated by spherically expanding quantum waves. The spherically expanding quantum waves are the result of the force of quantum action, the process by which the presence of mass is maintained and by which gravity emanates from mass. If this is new to you, you haven't been paying attention. Go back to the beginning, do not pass go, do not collect $200 dollars.

quantum_wave

04-26-09, 12:31 PM

Take a three quantum mass. Stop time and plot those three quanta. Each quantum is in the form of a spherically expanding quantum wave of energy that has recently emerged from the burst of a high density spot. The amount of time that past since the most recent of the three quanta burst into expansion is infinitesimal. Each quantum has a center of expansion that has location in space from which the expansion originated and the radius of each expanding quantum wave is a measure of the length of time that past since the burst of the spot. The time is equal to the radius times the speed of light.

Each of the three quanta are intersecting the other two, but none of the overlaps have accumulated a quantum of energy so expansion of the three spheres is in progress and has not yet been interrupted by the collapse of a quantum of energy into a new high density spot.

The expansion of a spherical quantum wave is characterized by a continual process of energy density equalization within the sphere, meaning that as the radius of the sphere increases, the energy density within the sphere declines equally across the volume of the sphere.

That means that in the overlaps of the expanding quantum waves, the energy contributed to the overlap from each sphere is equal in energy density to the energy density of the contributing spheres. So the energy in the overlap is the sum of the energy contributed by each of the intersecting spheres, and the energy density of the overlap is then necessarily greater than the energy density in either of the intersecting spheres.

The energy density in each overlap is the amount of energy in the overlap divided by the volume of the overlap. As the overlap increases, the amount of energy in the overlap increases. It only takes an instant for the accumulated amount of energy to grow to equal a quantum of energy by being feed energy from the spherical waves that are contributing to the overlap.

When that occurs, quantum collapse is the result. Quantum collapse is the change in the volume of space occupied by a quantum of energy. Collapse is initiated by the presence of a quantum of energy accumulated in the overlap. Quantum collapse is simply a natural phenomenon in QWC.

We have stopped time so let’s put a clock in each quantum and in each overlap and set all of the clocks to the same universal time. In a three quantum mass that has proceeded to produce overlaps at each point of intersection, and before any on overlap accumulates a quantum of energy, there are seven clocks needed to put one in each equalized space.

Then let’s start time for the instant that it takes for one of the overlaps to accumulate a quantum of energy. Stop and look at the clocks. The clocks in the un-overlapped region of each expanding quantum wave will have moved forward further than the clocks in the overlaps because the energy density in the overlaps is greater, meaning that time moves slower in the overlaps.

The highest density overlap is the one that now that has the highest energy density, i.e. one that has accumulated a quantum of energy in the overlap.

Reset the clocks to the same universal time and start the clocks for the instant that it takes for the quantum of energy that accumulated in the one overlap to collapse into a high density spot. Stop the clocks.

The clocks in the un-overlapped regions have again moved the most, followed in order by the clocks in the overlaps which have moved forward slower relative to their individual energy densities, and then look at the clock in the overlap that just collapsed into a high density spot. If you are outside looking in, that clock has not changed because the collapse occurred at the speed of light. From the perspective of any of the other clocks, the view of the clock in the collapsing space has not changed because the view before the collapse moved toward the center of the collapsing space at the speed of light. Time effectively stops during the collapse from the perspective outside of the collapse. However, inside the collapse an instant has past that is measured in time. The length of that time is equal to the speed of light over the change in radius of the quantum of energy from before the collapse to after the collapse is complete. This is the period of time during which that quantum of energy establishes the presence of mass and the corresponding gravity associated with a quantum action.

The presence of mass occurs during the collapse into a high density spot, so the point in time that the spot achieves maximum energy density is called the mass point of quantum action. The mass phase of quantum action is the entire period of the collapse.

The gravity is produced during that same period. The collapse of the quantum of energy into a high density spot affects all of the surrounding energy density spaces, and that effect has an infinite reach. Every time there is a quantum collapse, the entire universe is dragged toward the center of collapse by the negative energy generated by the collapse. Another way to say this is that the energy in the surrounding spaces rushes into the potential void created by the collapse of the space occupied by the collapsing quantum of energy.

The high density spot produced by the quantum collapse exists only momentarily. The collapse is halted by the attainment of the natural limit of energy density. In the quantum environment, the attainment of the maximum energy density in a high density spot cannot by maintained because the energy density of all of the surrounding energy density spaces is lower than the maximum energy density, and so as quickly as the space collapsed into a spot and as quickly as the quantum of energy achieved maximum energy density, the whole spot bounces into expansion. It is referred to as a bounce off of the limit of maximum energy density.

This short scenario has covered the period of one quantum action of one quantum of energy within a three quantum mass. The process of quantum action includes expansion, intersection, overlap, accumulation of a quantum of energy in the overlap, quantum collapse into a high density spot, and the burst of that high density spot into a spherically expanding quantum wave as it bounces off of the limit of maximum energy density.

prometheus

04-27-09, 06:03 AM

I didn't make that claim and to the contrary, you are the one using a straw man by claiming that I said something about BBT that I didn't say (though if you were to quote my exact words I would be better able to defend myself against your strawman).

You said: "It didn’t take long to realize that science was saying it happened 13.7 billion years ago if … and then there were a lot of ifs. And it turned out that science wasn’t saying how it happened...

You seem to be trying to say that because the BBT can't explain "before" the big bang (which is itself a meaningless concept) that it's an undesirable feature of the model.

Here again you are accusing me of building a strawman when in fact I made no such comments. It would help me defend myself if you could quote my exact words using the "quote function". In addition, I counter sue you, woops, counter accuse you of being the one building a strawman by implying I said things about BBT that I did not say.

You said "We observe an expanding universe. We have ideas about what caused the expansion [the big bang model]. Is that science? Not yet, it is protoscience."

The big bang model is science, not protoscience or whatever you want to call it. It would be nice to have your definition of protoscience as well, because it looks like a word that's used to describe the dark ages of scientific endeavour, which I presume you don't mean.

I like BBT, it is just not complete and you readily acknowledge that.

The big bang model is not complete because the theory upon which it is based (GR) is also known to be incomplete. Not because there is some inherent incompleteness in the theory that you can invoke whenever you want to score a point against it.

Why do you have to make me out to be a bad guy when in fact I have my ear to the ground all of the time for advances in our knowledge. If you want to impress anyone, why not waste a little time buddy, and use the quote function from my thread, and show the science that my ideas are inconsistent with.

I was rather tempted to give you some crackpot points (http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/crackpot.html) for this, but if I'm going to do that I'd rather work out a complete total. The fact is that the burden of proof is on the theory, not it's detractors. If you or another proponent can't come up with a coherent list of predictions that you have rigorously derived from the postulates of your theory then I can say without hesitation that you are wasting the time of yourself and others.

The fact is that I have a fairly busy life between working on my PhD and my family, so I cannot undertake to review your theory. Happily, there is a device that comes to your rescue on this called peer review. Write a paper and submit it to a journal. I recommend JHEP or PRD for high energy physics. Since you are talking about cosmology you may want to consider submiting to JCAP or classical and quantum gravity. Let us know how it goes.

This is faulty reasoning. Are you saying that BBT is now fact. If not, then are you saying that alternative ideas are already disqualified because BBT complies with the scientific method? That doesn't quite make it fact, but you know that.

You know full well that I am not saying BBT is fact, I am saying that it is a "fully fledged scientific model." The point is that if you want to supercede it you will need to come up with another fully fledged scientific theory that explains what is observed more accurately than the BBT does. Currently, quantum wave cosmology is not science, and it's not even protoscience in my opinion.

I agree that GR is a beautiful thing. It is the perhaps the best that man can do given our current tools and technology. The math is nearly perfect as math goes. But you sound as if you thing GR has proven that spacetime curvature is what causes gravity and to that I take exception. What GR does do, among other things, is provide equations that when applied to predict the movement of objects in space, it does so with a high degree of accuracy.

What I am saying is that degree of accuracy does not prove that the effects that are predicted are caused by the curvature of spacetime. Gravity will cause the effects that are predicted even if the cause of gravity is not the curvature of spacetime. GR has only proven to be a reliable way to calculate the effect of gravity and does not tell us how mass curves spacetime. It could be that there are thousands of teeny tiny gremlins pulling on object in space as far as you know. Don't talk about me spreading rubish and then dish it out at the same time.

So you don't understand the scientific method then? Allow me to quote from one of my posts on this subject: "This is the way physics works - observe, predict, measure, confirm, interpret. In the case of GR people observed the precession of perihelion of the orbit of mercury. Einstein came up with GR that explained it. Other experimental tests of GR were designed and carried out so GR was confirmed as the way gravity works. As you say, theories of physics are very mathematical, but one can interpret the nature of our universe using these theories. For example, GR treats spacetime as being curved and GR is right so spacetime is interpreted as being curved."

What you are saying is that, despite the fact that GR is right and GR treats spacetime as something that can curve in the presence of matter and energy, we should disregard that and take your word for it that spacetime behaves like you say it does and with no evidence to prove it? You talk about spreading rubbish but you are spreading it so thick it's very hard to see what was underneath in the first place.

Word salad. You could triple the rigor and be no closer to proving that the cause of mass is the Higgs mechanism. And I will repeat, that the standard model, BBT and the cosmological constant, with inflation, are works of art. Beautiful theories. The best we can do with the tools we have. But still, those theories do not say what causes mass, only that we think it might be the Higgs.

In a sense, every post is word salad. The difference is there is a huge amount of real science behind the Higgs and almost none behind quantum wave cosmology. I'm not going to disagree that we don't know if the Higgs exists or not. If the LHC finds the Higgs then we will know what causes mass. If not then it will be one of the other theories that add to the standard model and generate mass. Maybe we know about it now, or maybe not.

And they don't say what causes gravity, only that gravity seems to be highly predictable using EFEs.

You are wrong. We know that the curvature of spacetime causes gravity. Just because you don't like it doesn't mean it's not true.

And they don't say what caused the initial expansion of our observable universe, only that at 10^-43 seconds after some event, expansion was occurring.

What you seem to be missing is that at t = 10^-43 s or whatever the limit on good theory is the universe was very small, dense and hot. The GR description of the big bang states there is a singularity at the start of the universe which expanded. We know this is not complete because GR cannot describe a singularity properly, the full description will come with a theory of quantum gravity which will be able to describe a singularity properly.

Protoscience man. Get out of the stoneages.

Call it what you like. Protoscience seems to be another word for pseudoscience to me. Also, let me get this straight: Are you telling me to "get out of the stoneages[sic]" by ascribing value to a method that was abandoned hundreds of years ago? Irony much?

You are splitting hairs about why ideas are rejected.

Ok, I'll give you another chance. What are the predictions of quantum wave cosmology that have been rigorously derived from what physical postulates?

quantum_wave

04-27-09, 09:05 AM

...
I was rather tempted to give you some crackpot points (http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/crackpot.html) for this, but if I'm going to do that I'd rather work out a complete total. The fact is that the burden of proof is on the theory, not it's detractors. If you or another proponent can't come up with a coherent list of predictions that you have rigorously derived from the postulates of your theory then I can say without hesitation that you are wasting the time of yourself and others.
You might note that I refer to QWC as ideas and have explained why I say “ideas” and not theory. If you insist on not reading the thread and yet relish the idea of needlessly defending the mainstream against things that I have not said, then I have to believe you would rather waste your time arguing than using perspective.

The fact is that I have a fairly busy life between working on my PhD and my family, so I cannot undertake to review your theory. Happily, there is a device that comes to your rescue on this called peer review. Write a paper and submit it to a journal. I recommend JHEP or PRD for high energy physics. Since you are talking about cosmology you may want to consider submiting to JCAP or classical and quantum gravity. Let us know how it goes.
Too busy to read the thread, too busy to consider when you read it that I am explaining the perspective I am coming from, too busy to discuss the ideas presented? I don’t think you are too busy at all. Read it, and when you read it do try to put it into the perspective from which it is offered instead of from your own agenda.

Allow me to quote from one of my posts on this subject: [i]"This is the way physics works - observe, predict, measure, confirm, interpret. In the case of GR people observed the precession of perihelion of the orbit of mercury. Einstein came up with GR that explained it. Other experimental tests of GR were designed and carried out so GR was confirmed as the way gravity works.
Oops. No, Einstein’s calculations were confirmed. The calculations were what gravity does, not how it does it.

As you say, theories of physics are very mathematical, but one can interpret the nature of our universe using these theories. For example, GR treats spacetime as being curved and GR is right so spacetime is interpreted as being curved.
Come again?

What you are saying is that, despite the fact that GR is right…Let me get this straight. … didn’t you forget that GR is theory and not fact? Saying it is right, maybe you mean that predictions proved right, not that the cause of those predictions was part of the calculations. How does mass curve space time without any muscle? What is it about mass that reaches out to curve the space around it? How many different curvatures are there in a point in space? If a patch of space is positioned amongst a billion massive objects how many curvatures are there in that patch and how does the space remember them all? How does spacetime communicate the net sum of all of the curvatures to each of the masses to direct the path of each mass? Isn’t there something missing. In QWC there are ideas mentioned about quantum waves which I describe, and they expand spherically throughout space. The ideas includes that any point or patch of space is always a complete history of the energy density fluctuations caused by quantum waves that are passing through it. Therefore every patch of space encompasses a full record of the mass that has sent quantum waves into that patch of space. The relative mass, pre time dilated position of the mass that sent the waves, and more.

and GR treats spacetime as something that can curve in the presence of matter and energy,How does it do that? we should disregard that and take your word for it that spacetime behaves like you say it does and with no evidence to prove it?

Does making a prediction that proves right make the theory fact in your world? And btw, I am saying that the movement of objects in space can be explained without GR that treats spacetime as being curved in the presence of matter and energy without saying how it does that. Is this statement so hard to understand:

"I can offer an idea on the cause of the effect that seems to look like curved spacetime. The idea is that it is Time dilation (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KHjpBjgIMVk)
caused by a gravitational field.
Time dilation caused by a gravitational field ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravitational_time_dilation )

It is the combination of two effects, the effect of the strength of a gravitation field ( http://www.economicexpert.com/a/Gravitational:field.htm) on mass within the field, and the effect of time dilation between particles and objects that have relative momentum within a gravitational field.

Time dilation occurs as the distance between objects is changing within a gravitational field. The strength of the field is always different and is always changing as particles or objects move within it. This means that the gravitational effect is always different for every particle or object in a gravitational field. This is the old premise, and a good one, that says that every object, even every particle has its own exclusive reference frame.

The result is that every object moving within a gravitational field will take a different path, and the path of every object with mass is affected by the mass, path and distance of every other object in the field. The result is that the movement of objects in a gravitational field is always curved and the curvature is due to the effect of the strength of a gravitation field on mass within the field, and the effect of time dilation between particles and objects that have relative momentum within a gravitational field. The movement of an object in response to the mass of another object is always directed to a point behind the real location of the object that is being responded to, because that object has moved during the period of time dilation."

You talk about spreading rubbish but you are spreading it so thick it's very hard to see what was underneath in the first place.

Fine. Take my statement, tell me how it differs from how you say the curvature of spacetime is accomplished … oh wait. You don’t say how it is accomplished ...

quantum_wave

04-27-09, 04:41 PM

It annoys some people when a poster uses bold to make a point. For doing that in my last post I apologize.

prometheus

04-27-09, 05:20 PM

Last edited by quantum_wave; Today at 10:17 PM.. Reason: ...(deleted chit chat that didn't seem worth bickering about) ...

If you think the predictions of your "idea" are chit chat not worth bickering about you have it worse than I thought. I'll repeat the question: What are the predictions of quantum wave cosmology that have been rigorously derived from what physical postulates?

quantum_wave

04-27-09, 05:29 PM

If you think the predictions of your "idea" are chit chat not worth bickering about you have it worse than I thought. I'll repeat the question: What are the predictions of quantum wave cosmology that have been rigorously derived from what physical postulates?I'll repeat. Read the thread and you will see them. If you are too busy to read it, then just read my last reply where I included some of the predictions. You really have a personality flaw if you insist on continuing the discussion without reading my part of the discussion, i.e. even my last response to you.

prometheus

04-27-09, 05:51 PM

Oops. No, Einstein’s calculations were confirmed. The calculations were what gravity does, not how it does it.

You're half right - calculations do not show anything. The fact that GR gives the correct predictions for a multitude of observations make it our current best theory of gravity. The physical insight from the mathematics is that spacetime is curved in the presence of matter and energy. In a better way, the stress energy tensor T_{\mu \nu} of the space generates a curvature tensor R_{\mu \nu} - \frac{1}{2}R g_{\mu \nu} . You're trying to put the cart before the horse by basically trying to interpret spacetime before you have a theory that provides any testable predictions.

Finally on this, how does space curve is not a well posed question. Until we have a theory where spacetime is an emergent property it will not be, and QWC is very far away from this.

Come again?

Do keep up, I was very clear that I copied that part of my response from another post.

Let me get this straight. … didn’t you forget that GR is theory and not fact?

You are certainly getting some crackpot points for this (16. 10 points for arguing that a current well-established theory is "only a theory", as if this were somehow a point against it.) As I have been very clear on, GR is an extremely well understood theory that matches what we observe in every case we have been able to test. In my book that makes it right, and even if something comes along to supercede it, it will still be right in the same way that Newtonian gravity is right.

Saying it is right, maybe you mean that predictions proved right, not that the cause of those predictions was part of the calculations. How does mass curve space time without any muscle? What is it about mass that reaches out to curve the space around it? How many different curvatures are there in a point in space? If a patch of space is positioned amongst a billion massive objects how many curvatures are there in that patch and how does the space remember them all? How does spacetime communicate the net sum of all of the curvatures to each of the masses to direct the path of each mass? Isn’t there something missing.

You've never even seen a book on GR have you? There are a lot of very basic questions here that indicate to me you don't have the slightest clue about GR (particularly "How many different curvatures are there in a point in space?" - very funny)

In QWC there are ideas mentioned about quantum waves which I describe, and they expand spherically throughout space. The ideas includes that any point or patch of space is always a complete history of the energy density fluctuations caused by quantum waves that are passing through it. Therefore every patch of space encompasses a full record of the mass that has sent quantum waves into that patch of space. The relative mass, pre time dilated position of the mass that sent the waves, and more.

I can ask lots of stupid questions too - how do the wave know to expand spherically? where do they come from? how do points of space remember the histories? what makes the waves quantum? etc. etc. The fact is that QWC has many more questions about how it works than any proper theory of physics.

How does it do that?Does making a prediction that proves right make the theory fact in your world?

Do you have a poorer memory than the average goldfish? My stated position is that a theory that is proven by experiment is right inasmuch as it is the most accurate theory that we have until it superceded by whatever is next.

And btw, I am saying that the movement of objects in space can be explained without GR that treats spacetime as being curved in the presence of matter and energy without saying how it does that.

My response to this would be "Go on then."

Is this statement so hard to understand:

"I can offer an idea on the cause of the effect that seems to look like curved spacetime. The idea is that it is Time dilation (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KHjpBjgIMVk)
caused by a gravitational field.
Time dilation caused by a gravitational field ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravitational_time_dilation )

It is the combination of two effects, the effect of the strength of a gravitation field ( http://www.economicexpert.com/a/Gravitational:field.htm) on mass within the field, and the effect of time dilation between particles and objects that have relative momentum within a gravitational field.

Gravitational time dilation and spacetime curvature are not mutually exclusive. In fact, it is far easier to understand GR if you say that spacetime curvature causes gravitational time dilation.

Time dilation occurs as the distance between objects is changing within a gravitational field... <snip>

Wrong. If I have you sit at the top of the burj building and I sit at the bottom with our relative separation remaining the same the passage of time for me will be slower than for you, which is what gravitational time dilation is.

Fine. Take my statement, tell me how it differs from how you say the curvature of spacetime is accomplished … oh wait. You don’t say how it is accomplished ...

You certainly don't come close to having a working theory of gravity. I'll stick with GR for the time being, warts and all.

quantum_wave

04-27-09, 07:14 PM

You're half right - calculations do not show anything. The fact that GR gives the correct predictions for a multitude of observations make it our current best theory of gravity. The physical insight from the mathematics is that spacetime is curved in the presence of matter and energy. In a better way, the stress energy tensor T_{\mu \nu} of the space generates a curvature tensor R_{\mu \nu} - \frac{1}{2}R g_{\mu \nu} . You're trying to put the cart before the horse by basically trying to interpret spacetime before you have a theory that provides any testable predictions.

Finally on this, how does space curve is not a well posed question. Until we have a theory where spacetime is an emergent property it will not be, and QWC is very far away from this.Well we’re not all PhD students now are we.

You are certainly getting some crackpot points for this (16. 10 points for arguing that a current well-established theory is "only a theory", as if this were somehow a point against it.) As I have been very clear on, GR is an extremely well understood theory that matches what we observe in every case we have been able to test. In my book that makes it right, and even if something comes along to supercede it, it will still be right in the same way that Newtonian gravity is right.
And you get 10 points for pointing out that you have gone to school, as if this were evidence of sanity.
I can ask lots of stupid questions too - how do the wave know to expand spherically?

It is in the thread, but since you have issues with reading it, they expand because they “bounce” off of the limit of maximum energy density right after they collapse into the preceding high density spot.
where do they come from? Energy cannot be created or destroyed so their energy has always existed. The quantum waves come from the process of quantum action which is the means by which energy is quantized according to the ideas of QWC.how do points of space remember the histories?The presence of mass is established by quantum action, a force that enables mass and emanates gravity in the form of quantum waves. Every quantum in a mass sends out quantum waves for every quantum action. There may be billions of quanta in a tiny mass according to QWC, and each quanta sends out repetitive waves every instant, so gravity (from quantum waves) is a continual emanation from mass. Mass takes the path of lowest energy density when you consider the qravitational portion of the quantum wave structure to be negative energy density. Every point in space has net energy density based on the gravitational component of the quantum waves of all objects with mass (in the entire universe for that matter), but it is all in the thread.
what makes the waves quantum?

Quantization is considered a natural phenomenon in QWC.etc. etc. The fact is that QWC has many more questions about how it works than any proper theory of physics.It is just ideas about the details of the cause of mass and gravity, and ideas about what causes big crunches and how big crunches burst into expansion.

...My stated position is that a theory that is proven by experiment is right inasmuch as it is the most accurate theory that we have until it superceded by whatever is next.

I keep agreeing with this. Your posts are an extension of you character. Or lack thereof.

Gravitational time dilation and spacetime curvature are not mutually exclusive. In fact, it is far easier to understand GR if you say that spacetime curvature causes gravitational time dilation. Aren't you leaving out a few details about the mathematical correspondence between the 4-D spacetime of geometrical objects and physical mass? Or do you maintain that they are the same thing?
Wrong. If I have you sit at the top of the burj building and I sit at the bottom with our relative separation remaining the same the passage of time for me will be slower than for you, which is what gravitational time dilation is.
That is gravitational time dilation which means that if you stand still, as I bet you are prone to do, you head ages faster that your feet. That might explain your dismal attitude. Your haughty approach to addressing a few ideas makes me think you were a spoiled only child.

quantum_wave

04-27-09, 10:29 PM

A recap of quantum action in mass and how gravity is emanated from mass and is netted out at all points in space (in terms of energy density and gravitational time dilation):

Take a three quantum mass. Stop time and plot those three quanta. Each quantum is in the form of a spherically expanding quantum wave of energy that has recently emerged from the burst of a high density spot. The amount of time that past since the most recent of the three quanta burst into expansion is infinitesimal. Each quantum has a center of expansion that has location in space from which the expansion originated and the radius of each expanding quantum wave is a measure of the length of time that past since the burst of the spot. The time is equal to the radius times the speed of light.

Each of the three quanta are intersecting the other two, but none of the overlaps have accumulated a quantum of energy so expansion of the three spheres is in progress and has not yet been interrupted by the collapse of a quantum of energy into a new high density spot.

The expansion of a spherical quantum wave is characterized by a continual process of energy density equalization within the sphere, meaning that as the radius of the sphere increases, the energy density within the sphere declines equally across the volume of the sphere.

That means that in the overlaps of the expanding quantum waves, the energy contributed to the overlap from each sphere is equal in energy density to the energy density of the contributing spheres. So the energy in the overlap is the sum of the energy contributed by each of the intersecting spheres, and the energy density of the overlap is then necessarily greater than the energy density in either of the intersecting spheres.

The energy density in each overlap is the amount of energy in the overlap divided by the volume of the overlap. As the overlap increases, the amount of energy in the overlap increases. It only takes an instant for the accumulated amount of energy to grow to equal a quantum of energy by being feed energy from the spherical waves that are contributing to the overlap.

When that occurs, quantum collapse is the result. Quantum collapse is the change in the volume of space occupied by a quantum of energy. Collapse is initiated by the presence of a quantum of energy accumulated in the overlap. The center of collapse will mark the location of that energy quantum and contribute to the location of the three-quantum mass. Quantum collapse is simply a natural phenomenon in QWC.

We have stopped time so let’s put a clock in each quantum and in each overlap and set all of the clocks to the same universal time. In a three quantum mass that has proceeded to produce overlaps at each point of intersection, and before any one overlap accumulates a quantum of energy, there are seven clocks needed to put one in each equalized space.

Then let’s start time for the instant that it takes for one of the overlaps to accumulate a quantum of energy. Stop and look at the clocks. The clocks in the un-overlapped region of each expanding quantum wave will have moved forward further than the clocks in the overlaps because the energy density in the overlaps is greater, meaning that time moves slower in the overlaps.

The highest density overlap is the one that now that has the highest energy density, i.e. one that has accumulated a quantum of energy in the overlap.

Reset the clocks to the same universal time and start the clocks for the instant that it takes for the quantum of energy that accumulated in the one overlap to collapse into a high density spot. Stop the clocks.

The clocks in the un-overlapped regions have again moved the most, followed in order by the clocks in the overlaps which have moved forward slower relative to their individual energy densities, and then look at the clock in the overlap that just collapsed into a high density spot. If you are outside looking in, that clock has not changed because the collapse occurred at the speed of light. Time effectively stops during the collapse from the perspective outside of the collapse. However, inside the collapse an instant has past that is measured in time. The length of that time is equal to the speed of light over the change in radius of the quantum of energy from before the collapse to after the collapse is complete. This is the period of time during which that quantum of energy establishes the presence of mass and the corresponding gravity associated with a quantum action.

The presence of mass occurs during the collapse into a high density spot, so the point in time that the spot achieves maximum energy density is called the mass point of quantum action. The mass phase of quantum action is the entire period of the collapse.

The gravity is produced during that same period. The collapse of the quantum of energy into a high density spot affects all of the surrounding energy density spaces, and that effect has an infinite reach. Every time there is a quantum collapse, the entire universe is dragged toward the center of collapse by the negative energy generated by the collapse. Another way to say this is that the energy in the surrounding spaces rushes into the potential void created by the collapse of the space occupied by the collapsing quantum of energy.

The high density spot produced by the quantum collapse exists only momentarily. The collapse is halted by the attainment of the natural limit of energy density. In the quantum environment, the attainment of the maximum energy density in a high density spot cannot by maintained because the energy density of all of the surrounding energy density spaces is lower than the maximum energy density, and so as quickly as the space collapsed into a spot and as quickly as the quantum of energy achieved maximum energy density, the whole spot bounces into expansion. It is referred to as a bounce off of the limit of maximum energy density.

This short scenario has covered the period of one quantum action of one quantum of energy within a three quantum mass. The process of quantum action includes expansion, intersection, overlap, accumulation of a quantum of energy in the overlap, quantum collapse into a high density spot, and the burst of that high density spot into a spherically expanding quantum wave as it bounces off of the limit of maximum energy density.

Time dilation occurs between energy density spaces as is shown by the different rate of time in adjoining energy spaces of differing energy density, and the differing rate that time passes corresponds to the differing energy density of the spaces. The higher the energy density, the slower the rate at which time is measured to pass. This means that energy density if the reason that time is measured to pass at different rates in different places within a gravitational field.

This existence of time dilation within each energy density space in each quantum of energy as quantum action occurs within mass is characteristic of quantum action, and the energy density differentials that exist in any given quantum during quantum action is associated with the phases of the process of quantum action. Let’s look at the changes in energy density that occur throughout the process in a single quantum.

Let’s start at the mass point of the process. This is the point of maximum energy density that occurs when a quantum of energy collapses naturally from the energy density space of a completed overlap into a high density spot.

The next phase of quantum action is the “bounce”. The bounce refers to the action that occurs when the mass point is achieved. That action is a reversal of the direction of change in the radius of the spherical space occupied by the quantum of energy. The radius was decreasing at the speed of light as the collapse took place and immediately reversed direction to increase at the speed of light when the mass point occurred. This is referred to as the bounce off of the limit of energy density.

The next phase of quantum action is the expansion phase. The bounce converts the energy from the mass point into a spherically expanding quantum wave of energy. As expansion proceeds intersections and overlaps occur with surrounding spherically expanding quantum waves that have rushed into the potential void that was created by the preceding collapse. The amount of energy accumulating in each overlap increases during this phase.

The next phase of quantum action begins at the point where a quantum of energy is accumulated in one of the growing overlaps. This is the point where the natural phenomenon called quantum collapse occurs. The space occupied by the quantum of energy at that instant is the quantum space. The phenomenon of collapse takes place as soon as a quantum of energy occupies a quantum space. The energy collapses into a high density spot as the energy vacates the quantum space and occupies the high density spot.

Simultaneous with the collapse of energy, and as a result of the potential void caused by the energy vacating the quantum space, the energy occupying the surrounding energy spaces rushes into the vacated space in an effort to achieve equalized energy density between the void and the surrounding energy density. This rush of energy means that the energy density of the surrounding energy spaces drops precipitously. The energy spaces surrounding the energy spaces that fill the void experience a corresponding drop in energy density as they expand into the new free space. In other words, this momentary precipitous drop in energy density spreads across the aether as a wave of low energy density. The repetition of this wave as quantum action continues within mass once every instant for every quantum in the mass is the reason that all points in the aether have an energy density that is the net of all gravity emanations from all mass in the universe.

prometheus

04-28-09, 05:32 PM

Well we’re not all PhD students now are we.

I started to learn about GR when I was doing my physics degree.

And you get 10 points for pointing out that you have gone to school, as if this were evidence of sanity.

Please link to the post where I said that.

It is in the thread, but since you have issues with reading it, they expand because they “bounce” off of the limit of maximum energy density right after they collapse into the preceding high density spot.

Energy cannot be created or destroyed so their energy has always existed. The quantum waves come from the process of quantum action which is the means by which energy is quantized according to the ideas of QWC.

The presence of mass is established by quantum action, a force that enables mass and emanates gravity in the form of quantum waves. Every quantum in a mass sends out quantum waves for every quantum action. There may be billions of quanta in a tiny mass according to QWC, and each quanta sends out repetitive waves every instant, so gravity (from quantum waves) is a continual emanation from mass. Mass takes the path of lowest energy density when you consider the qravitational portion of the quantum wave structure to be negative energy density. Every point in space has net energy density based on the gravitational component of the quantum waves of all objects with mass (in the entire universe for that matter), but it is all in the thread.

Quantization is considered a natural phenomenon in QWC.

It is just ideas about the details of the cause of mass and gravity, and ideas about what causes big crunches and how big crunches burst into expansion.

You're just typing words that you've heard but don't understand. I want to know what the basic physical postulates are for QWC and how you can use them to derive results that your theory predicts. Lets try again shall we? Please post a numbered list with the physical postulates of the theory. FYI all the profound consequences of special relativity comes from 2 postulates.

I keep agreeing with this. Your posts are an extension of you character.

And you keep saying things like "Does making a prediction that proves right make the theory fact in your world?" Do you not understand the difference between a scientific theory and a factual statement? If not you should probably learn it before you do anything else today.

Aren't you leaving out a few details about the mathematical correspondence between the 4-D spacetime of geometrical objects and physical mass? Or do you maintain that they are the same thing?

In special relativity mass is pretty straightforward: it is the norm of the momentum four vector: -m^2 c^2 = \eta^{a b }p_a p_b = -\frac{E^2}{c^2} + \vec{p}.\vec{p} . It's harder in general relativity because the metric can be time dependent. One can use the ADM formalism to define a mass in spacetimes where the asymptotic behaviour is static and well defined, but mostly people just talk about the energy of the system which can be extracted from the energy momentum tensor.

That is gravitational time dilation which means that if you stand still, as I bet you are prone to do, you head ages faster that your feet. That might explain your dismal attitude. Your haughty approach to addressing a few ideas makes me think you were a spoiled only child.

Ha ha, you're so witty and insightful it makes me want to re-examine my life and not be so nasty to stupid people on internet forums. Let's be clear about this - you are stupid. A stupid person cannot learn whereas someone who has not yet learned is not necessarily stupid. Instead of learning some proper physics you've come up with a worthless idea that only other internet idiots will realise is devoid of any substance at all. Congratulations, mum and dad must be so proud of you.

quantum_wave

04-28-09, 06:04 PM

...

Ha ha, you're so witty and insightful it makes me want to re-examine my life and not be so nasty to stupid people on internet forums. Let's be clear about this - you are stupid. A stupid person cannot learn whereas someone who has not yet learned is not necessarily stupid. Instead of learning some proper physics you've come up with a worthless idea that only other internet idiots will realise is devoid of any substance at all. Congratulations, mum and dad must be so proud of you.You lost all sense of composure. I'm betting "spoiled only child" is what set you off. Right on wasn't I? So the best you can come back with is that I'm stupid? Amateur.

prometheus

04-29-09, 03:14 AM

You lost all sense of composure. I'm betting "spoiled only child" is what set you off. Right on wasn't I? So the best you can come back with is that I'm stupid? Amateur.

Nice work. You use this to avoid answering any of the rest of my post. Just FYI I'm neither spoiled nor an only child and I've had to work hard for everything I've achieved in my life, not that any of this is your business of course. I've met plenty of people who both know their stuff and whose personalities make me want to hit them with a blunt instrument yet I am mature enough to work with them on work, and not belittle their perceived character flaws. Frankly, I don't care about your opinion of me - it certainly changes nothing about your theory which I maintain is crap. Why don't you actually try and have a science discussion now, including answering the most important question: Please post a numbered list with the physical postulates of the theory.

quantum_wave

04-29-09, 07:17 AM

Nice work. You use this to avoid answering any of the rest of my post. Just FYI I'm neither spoiled nor an only child and I've had to work hard for everything I've achieved in my life, not that any of this is your business of course. I've met plenty of people who both know their stuff and whose personalities make me want to hit them with a blunt instrument yet I am mature enough to work with them on work, and not belittle their perceived character flaws. Frankly, I don't care about your opinion of me - it certainly changes nothing about your theory which I maintain is crap. Why don't you actually try and have a science discussion now, including answering the most important question: Please post a numbered list with the physical postulates of the theory.First, please point to where I refer to it as theory. That makes three times you have come at it from the angle that I was proposing QWC as theory and three times I have said they are ideas that are posted for discussion purposes.

Second, I welcome anyone to read the ideas in the thread and discuss them by referring to what I have posted.

Prometheus, if I could put a probability on the chance that you have any interest in these “crap” ideas, it would be about 15%. Go ahead and make me sound stupid for making it so high.

If I could put a probability on the chance that you have an agenda and no matter what I post you will label it as stupid crap based on your authority as a PhD student (that is school), wail about some detail of science theory and deride me for not trying to enter into science at the level of respected professionals I would put it at 85%.

IMHO there is a 2% chance that you and I will ever get over the history we have established on this thread and actually move into any discussion in the spirit of what I have said is my intention.

prometheus

04-29-09, 12:04 PM

I often ask myself why I bother to get involved with this stuff, and I think a partial answer is the following: Why is it that people like yourself feel that with no physics background whatsoever, you can make a contribution to physics? It's like me trying to revolutionise the construction of internal combustion engines - a subject of which my only knowledge is that if I turn the key in my car the aforementioned device makes an impressive noise and the pipe at the back smells funny. I do admit to feeling annoyed that people like yourself can have the ridiculously large ego to think you can walk into a subject that I and everyone else that has made any sort of contribution, subject changing or not, have studied for years and years. You expect to walk in and turn it in it's head - I'm amazed you can fit through doors with a head that big.

What makes it fun for me is that for the most part people like yourself really do have no knowledge of physics and the errors they make are comically funny. I'm not sure you fall into this category because, despite the amount of words and time you must waste on this polished turd of an idea, you manage to say surprisingly little. Having now read the first few postings of this thread it seems that what you're suggesting is the following:

1) mass is made of something unmentioned, and out of it we magically get quantum waves. I know you bandy this phrase "quantum action" around but I have yet to find anything close to a definition of this. Where you do say "this is quantum action" it says nothing about where the waves come from inside a spot of maximum energy density.

2) I'm not sure if these masses are particles or universes, because you seems to suggest in one place that they are dense, and also they can cause a collapse and bounce of some sort that you seem to want to call a model for the big bang.

3) In all of this mystery, we have the aether which does something. You at one point say that the aether carries gravity, but It's not clear that the quantum waves are waves of aether. Anyway, by my reckoning your idea implies that gravity should do nothing at all - ("For any given mass the push and pull are equivalent for each quantum time increment.")

4) You say that the aether supplies the energy that is radiated away by the quantum waves, but where does that energy come from?

At the end of the day you want people reading it to take your word for it about your claims that something causes gravity and mass, although I cannot find anywhere where you say "mass is caused by this in QWC." You make up something for gravity as if something you made up is in some way an answer to "we don't know how space is curved in GR. I'd rather take the explanation from something that has been theoretically probed and experimentally tested thoroughly to explain gravity and mass and I think anyone who has any sense at all will do the same.

quantum_wave

04-29-09, 02:19 PM

I often ask myself why I bother to get involved with this stuff, and I think a partial answer is the following: Why is it that people like yourself feel that with no physics background whatsoever, you can make a contribution to physics? It's like me trying to revolutionise the construction of internal combustion engines - a subject of which my only knowledge is that if I turn the key in my car the aforementioned device makes an impressive noise and the pipe at the back smells funny. I do admit to feeling annoyed that people like yourself can have the ridiculously large ego to think you can walk into a subject that I and everyone else that has made any sort of contribution, subject changing or not, have studied for years and years. You expect to walk in and turn it in it's head - I'm amazed you can fit through doors with a head that big.

What makes it fun for me is that for the most part people like yourself really do have no knowledge of physics and the errors they make are comically funny. I'm not sure you fall into this category because, despite the amount of words and time you must waste on this polished turd of an idea, you manage to say surprisingly little. Using your words, this “turd” of an idea from such a “stupid egotistical” vendor of pure “crap” can’t possibly be of any interest to you except as you point out, to make fun of.
Having now read the first few postings of this thread it seems that what you're suggesting is the following:

1) mass is made of something unmentioned, and out of it we magically get quantum waves. I know you bandy this phrase "quantum action" around but I have yet to find anything close to a definition of this. Where you do say "this is quantum action" it says nothing about where the waves come from inside a spot of maximum energy density.

2) I'm not sure if these masses are particles or universes, because you seems to suggest in one place that they are dense, and also they can cause a collapse and bounce of some sort that you seem to want to call a model for the big bang.

3) In all of this mystery, we have the aether which does something. You at one point say that the aether carries gravity, but It's not clear that the quantum waves are waves of aether. Anyway, by my reckoning your idea implies that gravity should do nothing at all - ("For any given mass the push and pull are equivalent for each quantum time increment.")

4) You say that the aether supplies the energy that is radiated away by the quantum waves, but where does that energy come from?
You have just wasted a few minutes reading my "stupid turd crap" as you call it. Your agenda is clear and all I can hope is that you will stop wasting your time.
At the end of the day you want people reading it to take your word for it about your claims that something causes gravity and mass, although I cannot find anywhere where you say "mass is caused by this in QWC." You make up something for gravity as if something you made up is in some way an answer to "we don't know how space is curved in GR. I'd rather take the explanation from something that has been theoretically probed and experimentally tested thoroughly to explain gravity and mass and I think anyone who has any sense at all will do the same.You’re wrong about what I want but you do seem to relish twisting my intentions into an animal that you can slay instead of slaying the animal that it is.

The answers to every one of your “observations” are in the thread. If it is such a waste of time to read it and direct a question or observation to a specific post, why should I waste any more of your time with my crap statements? Don’t think I am encouraging you into discussion any more, quite the contrary, since you have stated that your intentions are to make fun of me.

Notice that I haven't used any abusive ad homonyms, and I"m not interested to being so poorly treated by someone like you. The thread is here to read and it contains the answers to your questions so far. Make your future statements "abusive ad homonym" free (though if you have no more questions or comments that's fine too).

AlphaNumeric

04-29-09, 02:21 PM

and no matter what I post you will label it as stupid crap based on your authority as a PhD student (that is school),But the thing is it isn't 'school' in the sense its compulsory education everyone receives, it's education far beyond anything 99.99% of people ever receive in the sciences.

Saying "but you're still in school" only works when that then means that person hasn't received the level of education which is expected of the education system and which you yourself have received. Yes, Prom (and I and Ben and a few others) are still in education but we aren't being taught in lectures or in classes. We are spoon fed no more information than actual professors. We got the same seminars as professors. We give talks to and listen to talks from those professors. We publish in the same journals. Our work is held to the same standards as professors.

Being a PhD student is about being given a bit of help when it comes to producing original work. In school and being an undergraduate it's about simply learning the things other people have already done. I'm sure the stuff Prom is working on is not something which has been taught to him or he just read in a book and is reproducing in a different notation, it's new additions and extensions to published work. Work sufficiently cutting edge you won't find any textbooks on it. And unlike you with your avoidance of questions and inability to produce concrete results, our 'schools' require our work to be of a particular standard. If it's not then we don't get published and we don't get PhDs. We have this opportunity because we've proven ourselves capable in simpler things.

And you'll also find we help teach to undergraduates material which is completely beyond your grasp.

Prom, I've asked him about QWC before. He couldn't answer my questions either. And since then he's done nothing to develop his 'work' to the point where he can answer yours. He's spun his wheels because there's nothing of any substance in his 'work'.

quantum_wave

04-29-09, 02:33 PM

OK, noted.

BTW, you missed the point about "school". Prom gave me 10 crack pot points for saying something like, "just because a prediction is right, that doesn't make the theory fact". I remembered he had mentioned he was working on a PhD and so I gave him 10 crack pot points from his own link which allows 10 points when someone mentions that they have gone to school.

But it is nice that you guys are getting educated and that you stand up for each other. I would do the same with all of my crack pot buddies (don't be tempted to twist that around to mean I am saying that your buddies are crack pots because I am not saying that; I was being self-deprecating because I knew you two would like that).

prometheus

04-29-09, 05:07 PM

BTW, you missed the point about "school". Prom gave me 10 crack pot points for saying something like, "just because a prediction is right, that doesn't make the theory fact". I remembered he had mentioned he was working on a PhD and so I gave him 10 crack pot points from his own link which allows 10 points when someone mentions that they have gone to school.

Actually I gave you the crackpot points for saying something to the effect of "Don't you know that GR is only a theory, not a fact." - such a stupid thing to say I couldn't contain myself.

Using your words, this “turd” of an idea from such a “stupid egotistical” vendor of pure “crap” can’t possibly be of any interest to you except as you point out, to make fun of.

I may have called you many things but egotistical wasn't one of them. It clearly demonstrates your penchant for twisting the truth.

You’re wrong about what I want.

What exactly do you want then? If you wanted to genuinely learn how the universe works you'd go and learn some proper physics which you have clearly never done. It's a typical crackpot desire to want to be patted on the back by whoever will.

The answers to every one of your “observations” are in the thread. If it is such a waste of time to read it and direct a question or observation to a specific post, why should I waste any more of your time with my crap statements? Don’t think I am encouraging you into discussion any more, quite the contrary, since you have stated that your intentions are to make fun of me.

The real centrepiece of this little display is the fact that you haven't actually answered a single question that I have asked you. You've got to take a look out of the window of the care home for the endearingly naive and see this: people are sometimes rude and spiteful just because they are, and it's up to you to promote your idea above that. Not having ever worked on proper physics is not going to help either. If you really believe what you say is right and you are genuinely trying to advance human understanding of the way the universe works then the proper response would be to make me look bad by answering my questions patiently to the best of your ability. What could I say to that ehh? However, if you're more like how I think you are and how AN sees you then all you need to do is carry on avoiding the issue and the rest of us can continue to laugh at you. It's that simple.

Notice that I haven't used any abusive ad homonyms, and I"m not interested to being so poorly treated by someone like you. The thread is here to read and it contains the answers to your questions so far. Make your future statements "abusive ad homonym" free (though if you have no more questions or comments that's fine too).

You've used plenty of ad hominems.

"That is gravitational time dilation which means that if you stand still, as I bet you are prone to do, you head ages faster that your feet. That might explain your dismal attitude. Your haughty approach to addressing a few ideas makes me think you were a spoiled only child."

"I'm betting "spoiled only child" is what set you off. Right on wasn't I? So the best you can come back with is that I'm stupid? Amateur."

Ring any bells?

I repeat. The best thing you can do now to make me look brash and uneducated is to answer my questions. Bet you can't do it.

quantum_wave

04-30-09, 01:11 AM

You said: "It didn’t take long to realize that science was saying it happened 13.7 billion years ago if … and then there were a lot of ifs. And it turned out that science wasn’t saying how it happened...

You seem to be trying to say that because the BBT can't explain "before" the big bang (which is itself a meaningless concept) that it's an undesirable feature of the model. I said that BBT didn’t address “before”. You said “before” is a meaningless concept. Am I correct that you are saying that you have some higher authority to say what is and is not meaningful? If you are not saying that, can you explain for everyone who wonders what caused the initial expansion that we observe, why it is meaningless? Aren’t you saying that “before” the Big Bang is meaningless because BBT doesn’t address “before”?

The big bang model is not complete because the theory upon which it is based (GR) is also known to be incomplete. Not because there is some inherent incompleteness in the theory that you can invoke whenever you want to score a point against it.

Are you saying that I want to invoke some illegitimate idea that BBT is incomplete just for the sake of scoring some kind of truly meaningless point? That is absurd.

I was rather tempted to give you some crackpot points (http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/crackpot.html) for this, but if I'm going to do that I'd rather work out a complete total. The fact is that the burden of proof is on the theory, not it's detractors. If you or another proponent can't come up with a coherent list of predictions that you have rigorously derived from the postulates of your theory then I can say without hesitation that you are wasting the time of yourself and others. Here is the paragraph where you linked us to the “crackpot points”. This is the site you used to rack up points against me that comes up several times in subsequent posts.

The fact is that I have a fairly busy life between working on my PhD and my family, so I cannot undertake to review your theory. Happily, there is a device that comes to your rescue on this called peer review. Write a paper and submit it to a journal. I recommend JHEP or PRD for high energy physics. Since you are talking about cosmology you may want to consider submiting to JCAP or classical and quantum gravity. Let us know how it goes.

Here is the paragraph where you let us all know you were working on a PhD which I equate to “having gone to school” in a subsequent post where I awarded you 10 crackpot points. Go to the link you gave us all, and look on the list and you will see that the 10 points I awarded you were legitimate.

What you are saying is that, despite the fact that GR is right and GR treats spacetime as something that can curve in the presence of matter and energy, we should disregard that …
Here is the line that I quoted later. You took my response to this statement and gave me 10 crackpot points which I did not earn. I revisit this later in this post.

In a sense, every post is word salad. The difference is there is a huge amount of real science behind the Higgs and almost none behind quantum wave cosmology. I'm not going to disagree that we don't know if the Higgs exists or not. If the LHC finds the Higgs then we will know what causes mass. If not then it will be one of the other theories that add to the standard model and generate mass. Maybe we know about it now, or maybe not.
The LHC will create high energy density in the extreme. If mass emerges from high energy density then that is consistent with QWC where the idea is that a big crunch preceded the expansion that we observe in our known universe, and the big crunch idea in QWC is characterized by the maximum possible energy density.

You are wrong. We know that the curvature of spacetime causes gravity. Just because you don't like it doesn't mean it's not true.
This comes up again later in our discussion but I want to point it out here because this is an instance where you use the phrase, ”We know that the curvature of spacetime causes gravity”. The “We know” part sounds like it is put to bed and anyone who doesn’t like it should lump it. I thought there was still some work to do on the subject of gravity so I would like you to confirm that when you say “We know”, that we do in fact know. I asked you for a link that establishes this as fact. So far you have seen fit to ignore that request. Is that because you couldn’t provide such a link?

What you seem to be missing is that at t = 10^-43 s or whatever the limit on good theory is the universe was very small, dense and hot. The GR description of the big bang states there is a singularity at the start of the universe which expanded. We know this is not complete because GR cannot describe a singularity properly, the full description will come with a theory of quantum gravity which will be able to describe a singularity properly.
I refer to BBT as GR, inflation, and the Cosmological Principle. I’m sure that you can make a squirrelly case that I don’t know what I’m talking about by saying that. Would you mind responding to this?

When you say that a “full description will come with the theory of quantum gravity” you are contradicting yourself. You just said that “We know that the curvature of spacetime causes gravity”. Which is it? Is it the curvature of spacetime or is the as yet incomplete theory of quantum gravity? I would appreciate it if you would clear up this apparent contradiction.

Call it what you like. Protoscience seems to be another word for pseudoscience to me. Also, let me get this straight: Are you telling me to "get out of the stoneages[sic]" by ascribing value to a method that was abandoned hundreds of years ago? Irony much? I let you off too easily on this statement earlier. I maintain there is a clear difference between protoscience and pseudoscience. Protoscience is the earliest point in the scientific process after observation and before hypothesis. It is from ideas about observations that hypotheses are spawned. I said before that pseudoscience is non-science and protoscience is pre-science. I stand by that. Do I need to provide a link or can you take the time to look at the Google list I already gave you on the subject? It seems to me that by denying that there is any merit to ideas, you are not only very short sighted, but are actually ignoring the fact that ideas play an early role in science.

Let me get this straight. … didn’t you forget that GR is theory and not fact?
This is from my response to what I pointed out above where you said …
What you are saying is that, despite the fact that GR is right and GR treats spacetime as something that can curve in the presence of matter and energy, we should disregard that.Now you said. “despite the fact that GR is right and GR treats spacetime as something that can curve in the presence of matter and energy, we should disregard that.” How am I saying that we should disregard regard that when I say, “didn’t you forget that GR is theory and not fact?

And there it is, the exact words I said, in the context that they were said before you awarded me the crackpot points.

Here is my quote:

Let me get this straight. … didn’t you forget that GR is theory and not fact?
And here is the paragraph where you awarded me the points …

You are certainly getting some crackpot points for this (16. 10 points for arguing that a current well-established theory is "only a theory"I never said it was only theory. I said …
Let me get this straight. … didn’t you forget that GR is theory and not fact?
And I said that in response to your statement …
What you are saying is that, despite the fact that GR is right … and later I have been very clear on, GR is an extremely well understood theory that matches what we observe in every case we have been able to test. In my book that makes it right.I don’t think you can award me crackpot points for what I said without awarding you the same points for making theory into fact and insisting that the evidence prove it is fact.

...
You've never even seen a book on GR have you? There are a lot of very basic questions here that indicate to me you don't have the slightest clue about GR (particularly "How many different curvatures are there in a point in space?" - very funny) Yikes, I have seen many of them. Perhaps you think that you have to be, what did you say, in school working on a PhD" in order to access books on GR. This is just an example of the narrow view you have of others and the inflated view you have of yourself in regard to the books you see and that you think are the only books that count.

Can you explain to me how someone can follow various science forums, many science related topics on the internet, and read various blogs without ever coming across material on GR. In retrospect don't you feel silly having said that now? Of course you don't. Maybe you really believe your own self aggrandizement.
I started to learn about GR when I was doing my physics degree. Here you mention your physics degree. You get 10 crackpot points every time you say that.
Please link to the post where I said that.You said this when I awarded you the points for mentioning that you went to school. I have pointed out two or three times you referred to your physics degree and your work on your PhD.

Did I fulfill you request for a link to where you said that or do I need to repeat it?
You're just typing words that you've heard but don't understand.I have repeatedly offered to discuss and explain what I have said. Please ask me to explain any of the “words I have typed” that you think I don’t understand or tell me about what I typed that I don’t understand.

I want to know what the basic physical postulates are for QWC and how you can use them to derive results that your theory predicts. Lets try again shall we? Please post a numbered list with the physical postulates of the theory. FYI all the profound consequences of special relativity comes from 2 postulates.Here you go again. Please show me where I call QWC anything but ideas. Specifically show us where I call it theory, or get off of this boring and repetitive “challenge” that is baseless.

And you keep saying things like "Does making a prediction that proves right make the theory fact in your world?" Do you not understand the difference between a scientific theory and a factual statement? If not you should probably learn it before you do anything else today.There is irony and lie combined here. I raised the question of why you are elevating theory to fact because it looked like you are the one that does not understand the difference.

Ha ha, you're so witty and insightful it makes me want to re-examine my life and not be so nasty to stupid people on internet forums. Let's be clear about this - you are stupid. A stupid person cannot learn whereas someone who has not yet learned is not necessarily stupid. Instead of learning some proper physics you've come up with a worthless idea that only other internet idiots will realise is devoid of any substance at all. Congratulations, mum and dad must be so proud of you.So if you were to ask me to jump through some hoop, would you expect me to do so? This is exactly what you are asking when you repeatedly ask me to explain my “stupid crap” theory. Just wait around while I work up a complete response to that request.
I often ask myself why I bother to get involved with this stuff, and I think a partial answer is the following: Why is it that people like yourself feel that with no physics background whatsoever, you can make a contribution to physics?What exactly is the contribution that you claim I am making? This is just you flapping your jaws so to speak. You equate my threads to me telling the scientific community what is, instead of what I am actually doing and that is presenting some ideas for discussion. I have called them ideas right along and have encouraged discussion. An appropriate response is to point to something from my posts, preferably something from the place where you find what I say to be inconsistent with accepted science, and then discuss what makes it inconsistent.
It's like me trying to revolutionise the construction of internal combustion engines - a subject of which my only knowledge is that if I turn the key in my car the aforementioned device makes an impressive noise and the pipe at the back smells funny. I do admit to feeling annoyed that people like yourself can have the ridiculously large ego to think you can walk into a subject that I and everyone else that has made any sort of contribution, subject changing or not, have studied for years and years. You expect to walk in and turn it in it's head - I'm amazed you can fit through doors with a head that big.
Here is where you accuse me of having such a huge ego that you are amazed I can fit my head through the door. Later when I said you referred to this as ego, you asked me to show you where you said it. This is the third time I have been able to go back and show you where you said things that you deny saying. Do you have trouble remembering what you say or are you thinking that I am too stupid to be able to go back and find them? Either way, it makes you wrong. And this is also a character issue. If you deny saying the things that I can then go back and show you where you said them, one has to wonder why you feel the need to make the denial?

What makes it fun for me is that for the most part people like yourself really do have no knowledge of physics and the errors they make are comically funny. I'm not sure you fall into this category because, despite the amount of words and time you must waste on this polished turd of an idea, you manage to say surprisingly little.
Mr. Personality. Do you entertain any idea that I am going to jump for you? Keep thinking that.

Having now read the first few postings of this thread it seems that what you're suggesting is the following:

1) mass is made of something unmentioned, and out of it we magically get quantum waves. I know you bandy this phrase "quantum action" around but I have yet to find anything close to a definition of this. Where you do say "this is quantum action" it says nothing about where the waves come from inside a spot of maximum energy density.

2) I'm not sure if these masses are particles or universes, because you seems to suggest in one place that they are dense, and also they can cause a collapse and bounce of some sort that you seem to want to call a model for the big bang.

3) In all of this mystery, we have the aether which does something. You at one point say that the aether carries gravity, but It's not clear that the quantum waves are waves of aether. Anyway, by my reckoning your idea implies that gravity should do nothing at all - ("For any given mass the push and pull are equivalent for each quantum time increment.")

4) You say that the aether supplies the energy that is radiated away by the quantum waves, but where does that energy come from?
You didn’t bother to look up where I answered those things later in the thread did you? You didn’t look because maybe it isn’t on your agenda to get the answers, but instead your agenda is to make fun of me from you authoritative position of having a physics degree and because you are working on you PhD. I’m glad you get a laugh from me, because I get plenty of them from what you say. The really funny thing is that if there is another level below what science can now observe, it is very likely that all of the rigor you are putting in and all of the haughty ranting that you do will be totally wasted by what is to be discovered at that level of order.

At the end of the day you want people reading it to take your word for it about your claims that something causes gravity and mass, although I cannot find anywhere where you say "mass is caused by this in QWC." You make up something for gravity as if something you made up is in some way an answer to "we don't know how space is curved in GR.

There are several things wrong with this paragraph. I don’t want people to take my word for it. Do you miss where I am looking for discussion of these ideas? If they are so easily dismissed, why have you not addressed specifics and shown where I am violating your view of what the limit is of any future science that will be developed? In addition, when you say you can’t find anywhere I say mass is caused by this …, that just highlights the fact that you haven’t read it.

Actually I gave you the crackpot points for saying something to the effect of "Don't you know that GR is only a theory, not a fact." - such a stupid thing to say I couldn't contain myself.
Actually, I have gone back and put the exact words said by both of us leading to the crackpot point issue. Anyone and everyone can see what we both really said though I am pretty certain that no one cares.

I may have called you many things but egotistical wasn't one of them. It clearly demonstrates your penchant for twisting the truth.
Above in this post I quoted your exact words that lead me to claim you called me egotistical. For you to then boldly accuse me of twisting the truth when nothing could be further from the truth is just another of the type of character flaws that people like you, over inflated blow hards, suffer from.

What exactly do you want then? If you wanted to genuinely learn how the universe works you'd go and learn some proper physics which you have clearly never done. It's a typical crackpot desire to want to be patted on the back by whoever will.

The real centrepiece of this little display is the fact that you haven't actually answered a single question that I have asked you. I know you don’t mean this. It is so cruel. I thought you were sincere in reading my posts and discussing them, and then you say something like this. I’m hurt but in spite of that I am going to go to work to answer your questions. Hang around while I put a complete response together for you. In a short reply like this one it is hard to cover all of the territory.

You've got to take a look out of the window of the care home for the endearingly naive and see this: people are sometimes rude and spiteful just because they are, and it's up to you to promote your idea above that. Not having ever worked on proper physics is not going to help either. If you really believe what you say is right and you are genuinely trying to advance human understanding of the way the universe works then the proper response would be to make me look bad by answering my questions patiently to the best of your ability. What could I say to that ehh?
There are several things wrong with this statement. I’m not in a care home yet. What do you mean that sometimes people are rude and spiteful? Who are you referring to except yourself. There is no reason under the sun why I should promote my ideas to you now is there. Or am I wrong that you intent is to make fun of me?

However, if you're more like how I think you are and how AN sees you then all you need to do is carry on avoiding the issue and the rest of us can continue to laugh at you. It's that simple.
By know, you could have read the thread and the several previous threads and have all the answers about my ideas. It is completely disingenuous of you to characterize your continual request for answers and clarification when you haven’t read the thread and when you have said that you intended to make fun of me.

And for me to sum up may concern for what you think of me after your very unfriendly and confrontational accusations is easy. I don’t care what you think until you actually ask a question about what I have said. You can pretend like AN does that I am not answering you, but your demands are for support of some imagined theory that you say I am expecting people to believe just because I say so. This is not true. I don’t call it theory because it is ideas about a level of order too small to investigate with today’s technology on the one hand, and too big at the level of the greater universe to investigate with our current tools. So as unimpressive as it is for you and AN to wave you hands, and jointly claim that I am not responding to some question is rude, untruthful, and is not fooling anyone.

You've used plenty of ad hominems.
Of course I am going to respond in kind. But I was the one that took the high road and posted without ad homs. You didn’t pick up on that you just continued with the belittling language as if you were talking from authority about realms where only ideas exist, i.e. the realms that I discuss and the realms that will have to be investigated in the future when technology permits.

"That is gravitational time dilation which means that if you stand still, as I bet you are prone to do, you head ages faster that your feet. That might explain your dismal attitude. Your haughty approach to addressing a few ideas makes me think you were a spoiled only child."

"I'm betting "spoiled only child" is what set you off. Right on wasn't I? So the best you can come back with is that I'm stupid? Amateur."

Ring any bells?
Not really; would you please take a minute and explain for my benefit what your point is?

I repeat. The best thing you can do now to make me look brash and uneducated is to answer my questions. Bet you can't do it.
I could if you were to ask something related to what I have posted. If you ridicule me and then expect me to look up in my thread where I have already answered the questions you must have forgotten the tone of your posts toward me. Read the thread first and then I will discuss it with anyone who has real questions and not just some supposed accusations about claims you say I am making without ever responding to my request for you to show me where I made those claims. But I am patient so go ahead and address my posts appropriately, meaning read them and refer to specific words I use to initiate discussion that will help me fill out my ideas.

In the mean time there are seven requests for you to respond to in this post that should help clear the air and show that you have some interest in the intended reason for my thread.

prometheus

05-01-09, 11:01 AM

Oh dear, the inevitable deflection and nonsense posting commences. I said this, you said that. blah blah blah. You could have made such a good post too, and I actually told you precisely what to do to make the debate yours. Instead you post a long posting of rubbish. What a shame.

There are several things wrong with this statement. I’m not in a care home yet. What do you mean that sometimes people are rude and spiteful? Who are you referring to except yourself. There is no reason under the sun why I should promote my ideas to you now is there. Or am I wrong that you intent is to make fun of me?
Well, by posting this thread at all you are promoting your idea to the board and since I am a member of this board you are promoting it to me. If you don't want to have people comment on you "idea," don't post it in public.

By know, you could have read the thread and the several previous threads and have all the answers about my ideas. It is completely disingenuous of you to characterize your continual request for answers and clarification when you haven’t read the thread and when you have said that you intended to make fun of me.

And on the other hand, from the self same post you say "I’m hurt but in spite of that I am going to go to work to answer your questions." I'm still waiting.

On the other hand. I've read a few of your posts now and nothing I have found answers my previous questions and a few others are raised. I would like to comment that your claim that you can explain mass is completely erroneous and your claim that you can explain gravity is extremely shaky. It's closer than the mass thing because there is something (that is wrong) that you say causes gravity but the mass is completely absent.

In the mean time there are seven requests for you to respond to in this post that should help clear the air and show that you have some interest in the intended reason for my thread.

This is your thing - I don't see why you can't answer my questions. I have read a lot of your posts now (they are long) and I can't find satisfactory answers. I see there is another thread you have posted which I'm going to have a look at now.

AlphaNumeric

05-01-09, 12:44 PM

Well, by posting this thread at all you are promoting your idea to the board and since I am a member of this board you are promoting it to me. If you don't want to have people comment on you "idea," don't post it in public. Cranks advertise their pet theories hoping they'll fool other cranks into thinking they are intelligent and right. When someone with actual knowledge comes along suddenly it's our fault for asking questions.

It's also ironic that often a major whining point from cranks is how physicists think they know it all, but you'll be hard pushed to find a physicist who is taken seriously by the majority of other physicists who proclaims "My work is the right perfect model of phenomena X, Y an Z in Nature![/i]". But when a crank proclaims they've got a simple theory of everything which doesn't need a Higgs, GR or knowledge of mathematics it's supposedly okay?

Quantum_wave, give me one, just one phenomena your work can model to an accuracy of say 10% and demonstrate that. No chit chat, no whining, just imagine you'd written a school textbook based on your work and give me a page from that book where you show your work actually models nature. If you can't, shut up whining.

quantum_wave

05-01-09, 01:16 PM

Cranks advertise their pet theories hoping they'll fool other cranks into thinking they are intelligent and right. When someone with actual knowledge comes along suddenly it's our fault for asking questions.

It's also ironic that often a major whining point from cranks is how physicists think they know it all, but you'll be hard pushed to find a physicist who is taken seriously by the majority of other physicists who proclaims "My work is the right perfect model of phenomena X, Y an Z in Nature![/i]". But when a crank proclaims they've got a simple theory of everything which doesn't need a Higgs, GR or knowledge of mathematics it's supposedly okay?

Quantum_wave, give me one, just one phenomena your work can model to an accuracy of say 10% and demonstrate that. No chit chat, no whining, just imagine you'd written a school textbook based on your work and give me a page from that book where you show your work actually models nature. If you can't, shut up whining.I take it you are again asking for quantification? And that you don't care what I quantify from QWC, you just want me to pick a phenomenon that I describe and quantify it within 10% accuracy? And if I can't you want me to suppress my own first amendment rights?

None of QWC is quantified. Would you please pick a phenomenon that I mention so I can explain why it is not yet quantified.

AlphaNumeric

05-02-09, 03:39 AM

ning

05-02-09, 04:04 AM

Try: quantum gravity; construct an ansatz for a mass function; embed ansatz in causal structure, check model conforms to the real universe at quantum level etc.

quantum_wave

05-02-09, 08:12 AM

The problem being that if you remove the requirement that you can model something in a quantitative way then you can come up with anything. Gravity is invisible fairies pushing things together. That's qualitatively coherent but it's also extremely absurd. Basically you've got nothing other than a conceptual explaination you prefer over the mainstream physics, which is too hard for you to grasp. Boo hoo.

And you don't have first amendment rights on a website you don't own. And even then there's limits to what people are allowed to say.I understand that. The lack of quantification may be refereed to as the "gremlin Catastrophe" in that if there is none, the standing of the model among all models, responsible and fanciful cannot be established to the community. The only thing going for such an idea is the reasonable and responsible speculation that makes it up.

If the ideas are developed in a step by step process where each step is scrutinized by a group of forum members with some interest in science and some knowledge on the subject, the resulting ideas, even though unquantified, can be more responsible that the lesser "gremlin" group.

quantum_wave

05-05-09, 01:13 PM

I started a new thread in which I will present updates to QWC. http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=92736
Anyone who has subscribed to this thread is encouraged to subscribe to the "QWC Updates 2009" thread.

quantum_wave

05-10-09, 10:36 AM

Quantum Wave Cosmology and Gravity Aether

I know some of the clichés about who cares and who doesn’t care what I think, and I acknowledge the position that Prometheus and AlphaNumeric are taking. It can simply be summarized by saying that under current theory there is no need for aether and the fact that is has not been detected after carefully designed experiments means that there is no detectible aether using the current tools we have to look for it.

I acknowledge that. The part that there is no need for gravity aether is true if mass curves space time. If mass does not curve spacetime it is not true.

My threads approach the issue of aether from the fall back position that mass does not curve spacetime and therefore the need for gravity aether is renewed.

No one else describes gravity aether like I do as far as I know. That alone is maybe cause for disbelief. But gravity aether (and the central characteristic of the process of quantum action that creates the gravity aether) is logical, it makes connections between mass and gravity that no one else is making, it describes a mechanism that could guide mass through space in the same way that curved spacetime does, and it does much more.

On the surface then QWC is based on a force involving energy quantization that establishes and continually refreshes the presence of mass. That idea when explored with thought explains the movement of mass as simply the relocation of the high density spot of every energy quanta in the mass (quantum action at work) as the presence of mass is re-established every quantum period (every instant) in a slightly different place. The change in the focal point of the quanta, i.e. the change in the location of the mass is determined by the energy density of the aether surrounding the mass. During each quantum period (the length of time it takes for all quanta within mass to be refreshed once) the momentum of the mass has caused movement. That movement is determined by the momentum and the energy density surrounding the mass. Momentum carries mass through space in the path of lowest energy density. The net of the low energy density emanating from every mass in the universe exists at all points in aether that occupies space and reaches every other mass. As our mass moves based on its momentum, the place that it move to next is the path of lowest energy density in the aether surrounding the mass.

I am smart enough to know that is not a dumb idea. You can’t understand the detail from such a brief overview, but if you were to talk with me about it and ask questions pertinent to it, maybe it would seem less than dumb to you too. Or maybe by using valid arguments about why it can’t work or why it can’t even stand on its own merits you would actually be setting me free.

It isn’t hard to understand why aether theories got moved to the back seat of the buss. After Einstein came up with the field equations that are still the best we can do at predicting gravitational effects, the physical need for aether was removed. It didn’t matter if there was aether because we can predict gravity from the GR perspective with curved spacetime.

And I can accept curved spacetime if I know what causes it to curve. I know; mass and energy cause spacetime to curve. But how? What is it that transmits the presence of mass to other mass across space, or what is it about the energy that lets it reach out to occupy space around mass. What is the nature of that energy? QWC deals with gravity as if there was aether composed of energy density and the energy density is emanated from the mass and has an infinite reach as the quantum waves that carry the energy expand spherically across space. (I hate to make analogies because they never stand up, but an analogy is that mass sucks in aether as part of the process of quantum action, consumes part of it to re-establish all of the high density spots caused by quantum action, thus moving and maintaining the presence of mass, and emits the unused, i.e. lower energy density aether back into space with a time delay that occurs while the aether is being distributed throughout the mass).

I don’t claim to understand spacetime math but there is really some pretty sophisticated math involved that takes the events that occur as time passes (i.e. motion) and ties them to the space that is occupied by mass. It is an ingenious way to put the physical universe into a 4-D geometrical coordinate system where math can be used to tie the history of motion to the time frame of the motion. Do that for multiple objects and you can relate the combined motion to the effect it has on individual objects in the coordinate system. It is quite beautiful and I certainly understand how mathematicians can make a career out of it and how theorist can do whatever they want with it to test theories and the like. None of that is going away even if there is gravity aether.

My point about the mainstream theory of gravity is that it says what gravity does, but not how it does it. QWC says how it does it and accepts the EFEs as the best we can do to say what it does.