Gravity's mechanism

Discussion in 'Physics & Math' started by quantum_wave, Feb 4, 2013.

  1. Farsight Valued Senior Member

    Sorry to jump in, but when it comes to electromagnetism, see Minkowski's Space and Time on wiki. See this little paragraph towards the end, alongside figure 3:

    "In the description of the field caused by the electron itself, then it will appear that the division of the field into electric and magnetic forces is a relative one with respect to the time-axis assumed; the two forces considered together can most vividly be described by a certain analogy to the force-screw in mechanics; the analogy is, however, imperfect."

    Note that it's the field caused by the electron, and it's the two forces, one linear, the other rotational. The field is the electromagnetic field. Electromagnetic field interactions result in linear and/or rotational motion. When only linear motion occurs people talk about an electric field. When only rotational motion occurs people talk about a magnetic field. But these aren't really fields, they're forces. The field concerned is the electromagnetic field. See Jackson’s Classical Electrodynamics on this. See section 11.10 where he says "one should properly speak of the electromagnetic field Fuv rather than E or B separately".

    Edit: See this re a medium. And do your own research. Don't believe what ignorant people tell you.
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  3. quantum_wave Contemplating the "as yet" unknown Valued Senior Member

    Good advice. (I can't say that I am trying to impress anyone, and I don't call my so called model a theory though

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    I appreciate the links and the content of your post, and have some awareness of all of that. I try not to antagonize everyone all at once, and so the fact that I am undecided on the degree of reality there is in the current generally accepted theories is one stimulus for continuing to evolve my own view where everything works together. It is an under statement to say that if quantum mechanics and GR are as yet unreconciled, then the micro "mechanics" and macro "mechanics" don't work together. My simple hobby is to have a personal view of the mechanics at both levels of order that work together. I spend my time improving that so called internally consistent model, for my own benefit, and to my own satisfaction.
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  5. Maximum_Planck Registered Member

    I think farsight is correct, his concept is strong.
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  7. Farsight Valued Senior Member

    Good stuff, though I'd say there is a degree of reality in the accepted theories but it doesn't get taught much. The result is that people who come out with say a PhD don't know about it, and tend to put up resistance instead of appreciating that there's only so much that can be fitted into a course.

    IMHO it's more like the maths doesn't work together, as if they're totally different languages. The "mechanics" isn't so bad. To give you a feel for it, check out the wiki derivation from electromagnetic theory and note this: "the curl operator on one side of these equations results in first-order spacial derivatives of the wave solution, while the time-derivative on the other side of the equations, which gives the other field, is first order in time". That's saying the "electric field" is the spatial derivative of electromagnetic four-potential, whilst the "magnetic field" is the time derivative. In a nutshell, the former is the slope and the latter is the rate of change of slope. Then see The Role of Potentials in Electromagnetism by Percy Hammond and look at the sentence near the end-note: "We conclude that the field describes the curvature that characterizes the electromagnetic interaction." Then mindful of lattice QCD, draw a curved-space integral of the photon's sinusoidal electromagnetic waveform, like this. The photon is wherever there's curvature, hence many-paths. Any cell that's skewed instead of square is a field quantum, a "chunk" of field, a virtual photon. It's spin1 because it isn't a perfect parallelogram and you need to rotate it by 360 degrees to look the same. Then draw another picture, this time for a whole lot of out-of-phase photons smeared across the bottom, all overlapping one another, so much so that the curved space is gone. Keep the cell heights the same, like this. Any cell that's a rectangle rather than a square is a field quantum, a virtual graviton. It's spin2 because it looks the same when you rotate by 180 degrees. But it isn't a messenger particle literally flying around, just a field quantum, a "chunk" of a static field which isn’t really quantum because it’s reaction to action h, which is. Anyway, imagine the lattice is stiff and elastic, hence the EFEs feature shear stress, and hence the bag model. A rough outline picture forms, not enough to make any testable predictions, but hopefully enough to point the way for the mechanics.

    Good hobby. Keep at it.
  8. Farsight Valued Senior Member

    The things I talk about aren't really my concepts. For example a guy called Reg Norgan told me about the gravity mechanism. It's just that I've read a lot of papers and articles that people generally haven't heard of.
  9. quantum_wave Contemplating the "as yet" unknown Valued Senior Member

    Great links and content. I'd be embarrassed by taking up time and space in this forum with people trying to educate me if it weren't for the fact that others may also be benefiting from the various perspectives. I know that the scientific community is continually working and making advances towards understanding the physical universe, and that work is being done in the language of mathematics. The conventional wisdom is that quantum mechanics and general relativity are as yet unreconciled, and so if a single person knows all of the mathematics of all of the currently accepted theories then they know a lot of detail about the theories as described by the equations, but the theories remain as yet unreconciled.

    I'm not trying to antagonize people, but in my way of thinking, the explanations for the presence of matter and energy, the formation and existence of particles, and the cause of motion of particles and objects are aspects and characteristics of the quantum realm, but they must play nicely with the explanation for the origin and mechanics of the big bang and the greater universe. Just to give you an unwanted and unneeded inkling into my pea brained thinking, in my so called model there were preconditions to the big bang, and the landscape of the greater universe is composed of a potentially infinite number of active expanding and intersecting big bang arenas governed by a self perpetuating process that defeats entropy and assures the ongoing presence of big bang arenas similar to our own across that greater landscape; a universe that had no beginning.

    A "fundamental truth" like that is philosophical and takes my inquiries beyond the realm of the scientific method. I hope you can see and tolerate why I am interested in physics and cosmology, and I hope you can understand and tolerate why I have to have my own personal views of the physics and cosmology of the universe beyond generally accepted science in order to have a so-called model where everything works together.

    So far, the best way to say what works for me across the scale from the quantum realm to the big bang realm is to say that the only physical thing in the universe is wave energy traversing a foundational medium, and that wave energy is conserved. Everything else has to be derived from that foundation. That means there are limits and thresholds of wave energy density where particles can form, exist and where particles cannot exist and are negated, where gravity leads to matter crunching into big crunches, where the limits of matter density lead to crunches that "bang"/collapse/bounce into expanding arenas, where expanding big bang arenas intersect and overlap, and where gravity again takes over to forum new crunches from the converging galactic material that formed and evolved in the expanding big bang arenas.

    I fear by saying all of that that I have tainted this thread to the extent that the moderators may see fit to move it to where my kind of philosophy and so called modeling of cosmology is permitted.

    Thanks to those who have contributed, and assuming the thread is moved, I go forth with the conclusion that conventional thinking points to a gravitational field, and to particles that self propagate through it. On the other hand, no one has stated out right what the characteristic is that is common to all particles with mass that makes them propagate through the field.

    Perhaps the moderators will tolerate my expounding on philosophy and the brief inappropriate excursion into my pea brained ideas, and let the thread remain open somewhere so that the topic of the characteristic of particles that makes them respond to the predicted field can be discussed. If not, oh well.
    Last edited: Mar 1, 2013
  10. przyk squishy Valued Senior Member

    Farsight, that is terrible advice. Are you trying to actively destroy his sense of skepticism? I mean, this should be obvious. Physics is a science which means that by far the most important thing is the justification (experimental or otherwise) for any view under consideration, independently of who happened to say what. Conformity with things physics celebrities of the past might have said is not a stated goal of physics.

    If you really want to understand a theory like General Relativity, the one thing you don't do is go reading every offhand comment ever made by Einstein on the subject and treating it as gospel. What you should do instead is read a detailed statement of the theory (like Einstein's 1916 paper, though a modern textbook development will probably be clearer), and actually make sure you understand the whole thing. In particular, don't skip over the math -- that's fatal and will completely cripple your ability to read the development critically; rather aim to understand why the author thinks a certain mathematical development is the natural way to express the theory and draw conclusions (like predictions) from it. Once you've done that, optionally only then should you go out and see if the author or other people made observations about the theory that you could glean further insights from. Then at least you'll be in a position to read those observations critically and in context, rather than simply memorizing bits of gossip and trivia about a theory you don't understand and being forced to take the author's word for everything.

    If you do that, you may well find (gasp!) that certain things Einstein said are not, in retrospect, the best way to think about General Relativity. But that's a debate you're not even equipped to participate in if you don't have an in-depth understanding of the structure of the theory in the first place. (And in case it's not obvious, understanding the formal mathematical statement of the theory is of utmost important because that's the thing that all the results of experimental tests of GR are compared with.)

    You've been on forums like this one for a while. If there's one think you should have learned by now it's that physicists are not impressed by a worldview based on disembodied Einstein quotes. Any thinking person has every right to disagree with Einstein.
    Last edited: Mar 3, 2013
  11. quantum_wave Contemplating the "as yet" unknown Valued Senior Member

    It is noteworthy that members of the scientific community here at SciForums are divided on the topic of "gravity's mechanism". No one is saying I am wrong about the current situation which I portray as being that we don't know the physics except that we have it very accurately quantified.

    Comments so far include the impression that it is wrong to expect science to find something that is way out of line with other well established science, and some feel that there is no missing mechanism at all, but that we just haven't been able to detect gravity's field and the force carrier yet, and when we do, that discovery will fill out the Standard Model and we can all go home, lol (kidding about that, I know science never rests).

    Comments so far imply that it wouldn't seem to be possible and wouldn't fit in the well ordered way that physics is studied and taught, for space to be filled with a medium, and yet the science that I am continually reading about, and not in the far out links in the fringe, refer to characteristics of space surrounding matter in all forms and at all levels of accumulation and all energy levels in sub atomic and cosmological landscapes.

    Correct me if I'm wrong, but we call what is in that space "the medium" into which fields propagate, and though it is called free space, it is never characterized as being literally empty space, never empty of field, and never a perfect vacuum (what I call nothingness). The "medium" concept fits with what we observe about field, and about how light self propagates, as well as how light travels slower as the density of the medium increases, and how light is diffracted by the density of the medium. The research community is leaving no stone unturned to find the similar "missing" mechanisms for gravity that I am asking about.

    My reference earlier to the wave energy density of space and waves traversing the medium of space, did not result is any recrimination and the threads has not yet been moved, so I wonder if I'm just using the wrong words when I expound on fringe ideas in my remote threads. Would I be advised to not equate the medium of space with the word "aether"? Would it be right to stop equating the nature of the universe in terms of wave energy density and instead just say "energy density"? Would I be right to stop characterizing the nature of energy density as being continually in the process of equalizing its density across any given energy environment? Are there corresponding ways to say those things that don't "smack" of an aether filling space that has lead to me being chastised; ways that are within that language that is acceptable and that we use in what we teach our children, and yet that convey the same characteristics of nature?

    I don't really expect an answer, but I want to pose the questions because the mechanisms that I am talking about might not even be a goal of science. Maybe science does not seek to reveal the "how nature works", but is instead seeking to simply quantify the workings of nature mathematically? Maybe anything beyond that simple quantification doesn't fall under the scientific method, but instead is only appropriate when considered philosophically?
  12. Farsight Valued Senior Member

    Thanks. I hope it's of some use.

    Ouch. That turns into a toughie, real fast. We just don't have that much to go on when it comes to the origin of the universe. It's very easy to get sucked into speculation that can never be proven or disproven, whereupon you aren't doing science any more. IMHO it's better to stick with the easy stuff like gravity, electromagnetism, mass, particles, etc. PS: I have to say I'm not fond of the word "realm". Whenever anybody says that, I think of fairies.

    See what I mean?

    I'd say that's it in a nutshell. Everything is waves. Or fields if you prefer - the distinction between them gets a bit fuzzy when you start thinking about things like the near field aka evanescent wave.

    I'm not fond of the bouncing universe idea. Gravity didn't make the early universe contract, so it isn't going to make an expanded universe contract either. Hopefully when you understand the mechanism you'll appreciate this. A gravitational field is just a "pressure gradient" or "energy density gradient" in space. It doesn't make space fall in on itself and collapse into a black hole, it just causes curvilinear motion through space.

    It would be a shame. I think this is good physics.

    Methinks you need to understand the mechanism of mass.
  13. Farsight Valued Senior Member

    I've lost my post twice now. There's some "shortcut" combination of keystrokes that clears the post. It might be my laptop though.

    Anyway, in brief:

    Aether is only a dirty word amongst people who don't know that Einstein referred to space as the aether of general relativity, and who don't appreciate that there's a lot of papers on arXiv with aether in the title. But nevertheless, it's better to use the word space. Not just to avoid brickbats, but because it has less of a connotation with "stuff". Space sustains waves and fields: we can make electrons and positrons from electromagnetic waves in pair production. So we can make the "stuff" called matter from waves in space. But we can't assert that space is made of anything else. It is what it is.

    And yes, it's better to use the phrase "energy density", because it covers fields as well as waves. Interestingly enough, at the deep fundamental level it becomes very difficult to make any distinction between "energy density" and "space density".

    Science certainly does seek to reveal the "how nature works". Do not be persuaded otherwise by naysayers who can't offer any answers.

    NB: see this for Einstein referring to structures in space.
  14. quantum_wave Contemplating the "as yet" unknown Valued Senior Member

    Yes, I acknowledge that we have no evidence of preconditions to the big bang or of a greater universe. I do speculate/hypothesize because it is my stated goal to have a personal view of cosmology where quantum mechanics and general relativity are replaced by an internally consistent model that does not prove inconsistent with scientific observations. For your benefit and because you are not at all familiar with my threads in the fringe, I am not doing science and I don't claim to have a theory, just a so called model for my personal benefit and to pursue a satisfying hobby.
    I completely understand, but when I delve into the speculations and hypotheses that you might be fearful will lead to my personal delusion, and/or to recrimination from the mainstream players, I am automatically into territory that comes closer to fantasy in their minds than science and so "realm" is appropriate and the connotation you have of it is justified if generally accepted theory and professional level skepticism is as far afield as you care to go.
    Lol, yes; great timing on your part.
    Then all is not lost.
    Yikes, answering that statement puts my post out there into the forbidden territory, but I have already acknowledged that moderators would be justified in moving the thread and so let me respond with the sensibilities of the community in mind.

    My so called model is not a bouncing universe idea, which I think is pretty well dismissed by both the scientific community and by the likes of me because of the inbred entropy problem. As for the role of gravity, I agree that it did not likely cause the early universe to contract in the sense that gravity pulled the distant and disparate parts back from the abyss, lol. But in my so called model, big bang arenas keep expanding until their expansion momentum is interrupted by intersecting with other expanding big bang arenas. And what are those arenas filled with? Hundreds of billions of galaxies. Gravity overcomes the expansion momentum when those interruptions occur, when arenas collide and overlap, and so the role of gravity in my so called model is that when two parent arenas overlap, the galactic material collapses at the center of gravity of the overlapping lens shaped space under the influence of gravity (I speculate/hypothesize a big crunch forming from the galactic material of the parent arenas). It is those big crunches which collapse and bounce into expansion. Sorry folks for taking such liberties in this forum.
    Some of it is, but my responses that go out of bounds certainly are not good physics, and I profusely apologize to those members who I know are dissatisfied with my conduct.
    Don't we all wish I understood that.
    Last edited: Mar 3, 2013
  15. quantum_wave Contemplating the "as yet" unknown Valued Senior Member

    On that basis I think I can state my hypotheses without violating the intent of this particular sub-forum, but if I am out of line then I accept any resulting moderation.

    I’m picturing a big bang event from the stand point that at the instant of the bang, the contents of the emerging arena is energy, and to clarify, in my so-called model, all energy is wave energy. If, as you suggest, we just talk about waves that carry energy as they traverse space, I picture all of the wave energy of our emerging big bang arena at the moment of the bang as being equivalently enough wave energy to produce all of the galaxies that we now observe.

    Particles form from that dense dark energy state. A rapid increase in the volume of that dense state energy is the effect of the big bang. The effect of the rapid expansion of the arena is a rapid decline in the density of the energy. As the density declines, the arena reaches a threshold of energy density at which particles can form. The threshold is reached as the arena is expanding, and so when the matter threshold is reached particles form in an expanding energy density environment. They are moving with the expansion of the wave energy from which they form, and as a result they are moving away from each other as they form.

    The arena is getting larger throughout the matter formation period which is noteworthy for two reasons. One, the energy density of the big bang is being converted to particles which don’t expand and which reduce the amount of dense state energy that has fueled the expansion. But though particles that form don’t individually expand, they are moving apart because of forming during expansion of the dense state energy environment within which they formed. Two, particles form because of the continual interaction between waves in the expanding dense state environment. Waves are continually coming toward the particle’s space from all directions, and when the particle formation threshold is reached, the density of the arena causes those intersections to be at the proper frequency for repeated intersections to occur, producing standing wave patterns, i.e. the synchronized wave intersections where the continuous inflow of waves from all directions causes the presence of particles. Hence, particles are composed of wave energy that is synchronized at the moment of particle formation, into standing waves that are sustained but the inflowing wave energy from the surrounding environment.

    These fundamental standing wave patterns form across the entire arena; they are the most fundamental standing wave patterns, making the entire arena a sea of the most basic particles (not something you find in the Standard Particle Model of quantum physics). The particles are “basic” in that they are all the same simple standing waves that I would equate to dark matter because they exhibit no electromagnetic radiation. Thus at this point, the arena is a sea of dark matter particles all moving away from each other … except that gravity is a characteristic of standing wave patterns as well.

    Gravity is an imbalance in the directional inflowing wave energy that sustains the presence of the standing wave pattern. Particles move in the direction of the highest net wave energy inflow because they are continually receiving higher density inflow from that direction as their presence is being continually refreshed.

    You must be thinking that if there is inflow from all directions to sustain the presence of the standing wave particle and to cause it to move toward the highest density inflow, then there must be out flow as well. If you think that you are correct, according to my so-called model. The difference is that the inflow is curved plane waves arriving from a distance, and the out flow is spherical waves emitted from the standing wave patterns equally in all directions. The interesting side note to the spherical out flow is that as those out flowing spherical waves expand away from their point of origin, their spherical surface broadens and flattens and they become the curved plane waves that serve as the directional inflowing wave energy to surrounding standing wave patterns (particles).

    So we have “dark matter” particles caused by the dense state energy reaching a threshold of wave energy density during the initial “inflation” of the big bang arena, and the dark matter particles tending to move away from each other due to the expansion momentum, and toward each other in close quarters because of the initialization of gravity that is characteristic of the sustained presence of standing wave particles.

    The major overriding motion in the arena is that the dark matter particles, in spite of clumping, still exhibit the separation momentum that is conserved in those particles and particle clumps. The clumping continues as the clumps form simple atoms of hydrogen, hydrogen clumps into stars, stars eventually into galaxies, and those galaxies and galaxy clusters end up moving away from each other as a result of the conservation of momentum.
    Last edited: Mar 12, 2013
  16. quantum_wave Contemplating the "as yet" unknown Valued Senior Member

    I have taken liberties in this forum and apologize, expecting that appropriate moderator action is pending. But I would like to continue by suggesting that the hypothesis of "gravity's mechanism" in the last post is a solution that would apply at the quantum level of fundamental particles, and would be scalable up through the quantum level and on up into the macro level where objects composed of fundamental particles become visible to the naked eye. Therefore it is a proposed quantum and macro solution to the mechanism of gravity, and if it is, it would have to be shown to be consistent in the quantum environment and in a macro environment that could feature a Big Bang, black holes, and relativistically accelerated particles.

    For that consistency to occur, we must consider one thing that distinguishes the "mechanism" hypothesis from the current model; the velocity of light would be affected by the wave energy density of the environment. Light would slow down relative to a less dense wave energy environment, i.e. light would slow down as the wave energy density increased. Such a thought must be accompanied by an explanation about why the speed of light cannot be observed to slow down in any experiments where it is measured.

    The explanation is that an energy density environment is always greater than the volume of space occupied by the attempts to measure the local velocity of light. Therefore anything in that environment is subject to the wave energy density common to the greater environment within which that local environment exists. That means that the measuring equipment itself would be subject to the greater wave energy density; the equipment could not be shielded or separated from the energy density impact of the local environment where the light velocity is being measured. Thus the measurement would always show light to have the same velocity relative to the measuring equipment.

    This is consistent with the hypothesis on the basis that the particles within the measuring equipment are composed of standing wave energy with inflowing and out flowing components that travel through the same wave energy density environment as the light that is being measured.
  17. quantum_wave Contemplating the "as yet" unknown Valued Senior Member

    I'm wanting to continue the thinking behind the "mechanism hypothesis", and appreciate the honor of being left to present it in this forum, even though I have the expectation that the thread could be moved in accord with the rules of moderation.

    Following on the last post and in accord with the "mechanism hypothesis", if light velocity is affected by the wave energy density of the environment through which it passes, then I should be able to present the definition of an energy density environment that would encompass the effect. Let me attempt to do that here:

    The "mechanism hypothesis" describes particles as standing wave patterns that are refreshed continually by the directionally inflowing wave energy arriving from other sources, accompanied by spherically out flowing wave energy; the spherical out flow becomes the directional energy source of the inflowing wave energy component arriving at other particles. The hypothesis also describes the wave velocity through any environment to be based on the wave energy density of the environment, thus the mass of objects is a determinant of the relative wave energy density of the surrounding environment, i.e. the "environment" includes the volume of space containing the mass and the surrounding volume of space that hosts the inflow and out flow close to the mass. I think those would be two of the premises that define what I refer to as the wave energy density environment.

    It follows that if passing light encounters a massive object in space with its associated high wave energy density environment extending out into space away from it, then the light would bend toward the massive object as it progresses through the relative high energy density space. Light coming from stars hidden behind a nearby star would bend around the nearby star and become visible if observed with the proper technique.
  18. eram Sciengineer Valued Senior Member

    I think Farsight was being sarcastic.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    He usually behaves in the opposite manner.

    Still, you have given excellent advice. One must try to understand things and spend some time thinking about them, not just take others' word for it.

    Now if only I had a Point-of-View Gun. That would make things so much easier.
  19. quantum_wave Contemplating the "as yet" unknown Valued Senior Member

    It is possible for you to have a point of view gun, and to consider your own brain to be the Deep Thought computer of Douglas Adams fame

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    . If you go back to your post (#85) you said: "Good to hear that you have achieved your objective [see post #84 for context], though I am quite confused as to what your objective actually was. Also I think that whatever you brought up in this thread is reasonable and is not pseudoscience."

    I responded (see post #86), "You might have a better idea of the objective, as stated several times, if you had a compulsion to have a continually improving personal model of the universe that answers all of the "imponderables" about the universe to your own personal satisfaction."

    That is where the "Deep Thought Computer" is most useful, and I am proposing that every science enthusiast has one of their own; their brain, their stick-to-it-iveness, and no fear posting what their contemplations produce.

    I think it is clear that gravity's mechanism hypothesis is one of those things that qualify as an "as yet unknown". My hobby (compulsion) to have a personal concept of a complete cosmology featuring an internally compatible set of hypotheses that are not inconsistent with known scientific observations and data, is the stimulus for presenting the ideas that go beyond quantified science to fill a gap in known science. You can be sure that when I offer alternative views, they always have two purposes: 1) to expand my personal model of the universe while insisting that everything I add is internally consistent, and 2) to see if anyone who knows the leading edge science will correct me where I add something that is inconsistent with current scientific knowledge.

    As you can see, it is not a popular activity for those who do know a lot about generally accepted theory and scientific knowledge, but still, by posting my views I fulfill my own criteria for advancing my model; it is out there for criticism, and I usually have some arguments at hand to support what I post.

    Some members just flame me for being "out there", but if they point out an error on my part I acknowledge it, correct it, and build on it.

    If this thread has come to the end of its usefulness, as I thought it had back in post #84, I will go back to the drawing board and see what I can come up with that is interesting, lol.
  20. eram Sciengineer Valued Senior Member

    Ah, now I understand your objective. Though you really should cut down on words. Otherwise you'll have to use a POV gun on me.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    If you wanna work on personal theories you should work within the existing framework, you must have a comprehensive tertiary education too.
  21. quantum_wave Contemplating the "as yet" unknown Valued Senior Member

    We don't exactly agree on that. But now you know that what I am conjuring up is only those things that science does not yet have the answers for, or at least that there is no consensus on. As for understanding where the current generally accepted science stands, I am actively following that all the time, so I guess I'm not ignorant about the limits of science. This thread, which AlphaNumeric renamed for me, is an example. I am working within the existing framework if you ask me, and the existing framework is that there is no consensus on gravity's mechanism. Am I missing your point?
    Last edited: Mar 30, 2013
  22. eram Sciengineer Valued Senior Member

    There is no direct consensus, but there have been attempts to unify QM and GR, the Standard model too, through LQG and String theory. Both of these are partially based on the existing framework.
  23. quantum_wave Contemplating the "as yet" unknown Valued Senior Member

    Don't they all have a common framework of observed expansion which is back-tracked to an event ~14 billion years ago, the Big Bang, or quantum fluctuations, or intersecting branes, at which point time starts? None of them see continuity from pre-existing conditions, to our observed arena, to future big bangs that will incorporate portions of our big bang arena's galactic material, like in my so-called model.

    And don't the alternatives address quantum gravity by quantifying it mathematically just like the EFEs quantify gravity in the macro sense? GR doesn't describe the mechanism, and I'm not aware of any of the alternative cosmologies that describe gravity's mechanism, and to do the math they all have to add dimensions to our intuitive three. I don't see how the mechanism can be described within the existing framework.

    My so-called model in a nutshell describes the mechanics based on the wave energy content of space and the composition of particles as standing wave patterns. Gravity is the directional imbalance in the inflowing wave energy component of the standing wave pattern; particles and therefore objects move in the direction of the net highest source of wave energy density. It attributes the expansion to the collapse of a big crunch when the gravitational compression exceeds the ability of particles to maintain their individual particle space; the collapse negates all existing partiles to wave energy, and the emerging wave energy marks the start of expansion of a new big bang arena. Time simply passes. The medium of space has wave energy density, and wave energy density of the medium of space determines the speed of light.

Share This Page