Aether, mass and gravity in QWC

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.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

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.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

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.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

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.

 

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.

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 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.

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.

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.

They can defend science within those limits, i.e. they can talk about the math and the theory and the experiments that are going on within their world of endeavor, but they cannot talk about the topics that I address in my threads with any more authority than I do. That is why I ask them about simple basics for which science does not have the answers yet.

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.

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. Attacking ideas is always a losing battle.

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

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

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.

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.

 

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.

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.

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)

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

This is not part of the big bang model.

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.

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.

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.

 

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=

Agreed and that is what I mean to convey.

Agreed, and I don't think I said it was wrong did I?

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.

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, 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.

I agree. And I did say that most layman's ideas are without merit, sometimes for that reason.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

WELL ... as Jack Benny used to say

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

.

My point exactly.

That is correct.

Protoscience man. Get out of the stoneages.

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!

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.

 

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."

 

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.

 

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.

 

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.

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.

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.

I was rather tempted to give you some crackpot points 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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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?

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

 

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.

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.

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

Come again?

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.

How does it do that?

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
caused by a gravitational field.
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 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."

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 ...

 

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

 

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.

 

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.

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

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.

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)

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

 

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

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

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.

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

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?

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.

 

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.

 

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

Please link to the post where I said that.

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.

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.

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.

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.