[GoC]

LB7

    What makes electrons move? They do not move by their own volition. There has to be a mechanism to move electrons or magic is real. Main stream believes the electrons move and stops there. There must be a mechanical reason for electron motion. It is also controlling photon motion because the electrons and photons are confounded in every frame. Since they are confounded they are controlled by c. c must be of space and not mass for fundamental energy. Mass only has kinetic energy. The more kinetic energy the less fundamental energy. BH's are all kinetic and no fundamental energy. What we measure as time.

[LB7]

LB7

    What makes electrons move? They do not move by their own volition. There has to be a mechanism to move electrons or magic is real. Main stream believes the electrons move and stops there. There must be a mechanical reason for electron motion. It is also controlling photon motion because the electrons and photons are confounded in every frame. Since they are confounded they are controlled by c. c must be of space and not mass for fundamental energy. Mass only has kinetic energy. The more kinetic energy the less fundamental energy. BH's are all kinetic and no fundamental energy. What we measure as time.

Ok, I understood. It is only the electron/photon or it is the case for all particles ?

For me, the clock-particle rotates with the velocity 'c'. If that particle has an inertia, it is easy to explain the movements of the photon and the electron.

For the photon:


For the matter like an electron:



But, if I'm right, the question now, is why the clock-particle moves at 'c' ? Maybe it is a motor, the motor I reached to create the energy. That motor creates its own energy and generates an electromagnetic field (the gravity). The rotor want to rotate at an infinite angular velocity. But it can't it has a limit: 'c'. So now, the question is why 'c' is a limit ? Maybe it is due of the size of the motor, or the geometry.

[nilak (OP)]

Now I understand why GoC keeps asking what moves electrons, as particles I suppose. I don't think there is a particle at all. I think particles and rigid body motion does not exist. For waves it is normal to think they propagate field values at constant velocity because if the free space has constant properties.
Starting from my postulates I have initially shown that either particles don't exist or they have to move on a helical trajectory. But a particle on a helical trajectory doesn't quite make sense. There are also further reasons they don't exist. For light the field already contains the energy and there is no reason to think the energy is also held in a point particle. The concept works without particles. Why make it complicated by adding particles?

[LB7]

I don't think there is a particle at all. I think particles and rigid body motion does not exist.

Particle, wave, like we don't know what it is exactly... it is a name we gave. I prefer to think with points, trajectory, motor, etc because my head works like that.

[nilak (OP)]

I don't think there is a particle at all. I think particles and rigid body motion does not exist.

Particle, wave, like we don't know what it is exactly... it is a name we gave. I prefer to think with points, trajectory, motor, etc because my head works like that.

Yes, but there's a difference between rigid body motion and wave like propagation. I don't think we have both of them.
Waves also interfere and obey the superposition principle .

[GoC]

Waves creating themselves is magic.

[nilak (OP)]

Waves creating themselves is magic.

Waves don't create themselves. The exictations of the filed propagate following a set of rules, which make them behave in a certain manner called wave behaviour. We don't know what was before BB, to tell who created the field excitations, if everything is made of waves.

QFT which is a very accurate theory, works with fields as well, but the fileds are quantised and it uses SR. My hypothesis is that there is a single continuous field (EM), in a medium that "stores"the amplitudes as potential energy. I use an euclidean space that exists only in principle, and constant time flow by definition that also exist in principle with no physical correspondence.
I'm not sure whether the medium is static or not. If it is static, then the absolute frame is the frame with the medium at rest. In this case gravity should be explained by EM waves interferences instead of  gravitons (as in QFT). This version is closer to SR and QFT because the spacetime is also flat.

If the medium is dynamic then it could explain gravity as a flow towards the massive objects. This version is closer to GR. But something is not right with this one although it can explain possibility of the universe expansion.

[GoC]

Waves don't create themselves. The exictations of the filed propagate following a set of rules, which make them behave in a certain manner called wave behaviour. We don't know what was before BB, to tell who created the field excitations, if everything is made of waves.

You only describe affect without a cause. Relativity Math is the best at affects based on postulates. Your theory needs cause not affects.
Do we know there was a BB? If you look at the largest BH's in the universe 13,000 AU + its like saying man only existed on Earth for 6,000 years. And that book is still in circulation. Science should not be based on faith.

QFT which is a very accurate theory, works with fields as well, but the fileds are quantised and it uses SR. My hypothesis is that there is a single continuous field (EM), in a medium that "stores"the amplitudes as potential energy. I use an euclidean space that exists only in principle, and constant time flow by definition that also exist in principle with no physical correspondence.

Time=Motion =fundamental Energy  It's that simple.

I'm not sure whether the medium is static or not.

It's not.

If it is static, then the absolute frame is the frame with the medium at rest.

Nothing is ever at rest.

In this case gravity should be explained by EM waves interferences instead of  gravitons (as in QFT). This version is closer to SR and QFT because the spacetime is also flat.

There is only mass and the spectrum. Fundamental energy is of the spectrum we recognize as c. The spectrum moves the electrons and photons as a wave of the spectrum.

If the medium is dynamic then it could explain gravity as a flow towards the massive objects. This version is closer to GR. But something is not right with this one although it can explain possibility of the universe expansion.

Dilation of fundamental energy causes gravity. Mass is attracted to less dense energy state by having less restrictive volume increasing the electron path slowing the physical clock. Same for the photon increase in distance. The scalar of the electron and the scalar of the photon are equivalent.

[nilak (OP)]

Waves don't create themselves. The exictations of the filed propagate following a set of rules, which make them behave in a certain manner called wave behaviour. We don't know what was before BB, to tell who created the field excitations, if everything is made of waves.

You only describe affect without a cause. Relativity Math is the best at affects based on postulates. Your theory needs cause not affects.
Do we know there was a BB? If you look at the largest BH's in the universe 13,000 AU + its like saying man only existed on Earth for 6,000 years. And that book is still in circulation. Science should not be based on faith.

My concept needs to include a beginning unless the universe has been around forever. The cause of waves are initial excitations of the field. If you have an universe made of a perfect fluid lake and constant gravity, once you create a wave then waves continue forever. We don't know how the waves started, but something  did. BB only says the universe once occupied a much smaller region than now, it doesn't say what whas before.

QFT which is a very accurate theory, works with fields as well, but the fileds are quantised and it uses SR. My hypothesis is that there is a single continuous field (EM), in a medium that "stores"the amplitudes as potential energy. I use an euclidean space that exists only in principle, and constant time flow by definition that also exist in principle with no physical correspondence.

Time=Motion =fundamental Energy  It's that simple.

No, time is not motion, but motion needs time and space.
I see fundamental energy as the EM potential energy only. If you measure the potential energy stored in the EM field within a volume you get all the energy. There is nothing left. Time only allows for the filed values to change location but the energy is conserved.

I'm not sure whether the medium is static or not.

It's not.

If you are a supporter of GR, then yes, you could see space like a dynamic medium.
My concept can work with something like that, but it is not quite GR.

If it is static, then the absolute frame is the frame with the medium at rest.

Nothing is ever at rest.

That means you exclude a static medium and believe GR is correct.

In this case gravity should be explained by EM waves interferences instead of  gravitons (as in QFT). This version is closer to SR and QFT because the spacetime is also flat.

There is only mass and the spectrum. Fundamental energy is of the spectrum we recognize as c. The spectrum moves the electrons and photons as a wave of the spectrum.

Ok, but this is about gravity. I suppose you believe in GR, then gravity is spacetime curvature.

If the medium is dynamic then it could explain gravity as a flow towards the massive objects. This version is closer to GR. But something is not right with this one although it can explain possibility of the universe expansion.

Dilation of fundamental energy causes gravity.

If you say the dilation of fundamental energy causes gravity then it doesn't sound like spacetime curvature.

Mass is attracted to less dense energy state by having less restrictive volume increasing the electron path slowing the physical clock. Same for the photon increase in distance. The scalar of the electron and the scalar of the photon are equivalent.

If mass is attracted to less energy state the why mass is attracted to objects that have a high energy density ?
Can you explain?
What is a scalar of an electron?

My model can work with a static medium but I don't have the mechanism for gravity. It is only a hypothesis that could be caused by EM interference. The idea of dilation of the energy that causes gravity could be something and it could work with the interference hypothesis, but I don't see something clear. EM waves are quite different than normal waves like water waves, sound waves or string waves and I find their behaviour hard to predict.

But if the medium can flow, I can explain it by a flow in the direction of the EM field excitation which corespond to an area with higher energy which is equivalent to higher mass. However, there are problems with  this version as well, like what happens to the medium if it flows towards a volume of space? Its density should increase continuously. There are also other problems.

[GoC]

Waves don't create themselves. The exictations of the filed propagate following a set of rules, which make them behave in a certain manner called wave behaviour. We don't know what was before BB, to tell who created the field excitations, if everything is made of waves.

You only describe affect without a cause. Relativity Math is the best at affects based on postulates. Your theory needs cause not affects.
Do we know there was a BB? If you look at the largest BH's in the universe 13,000 AU + its like saying man only existed on Earth for 6,000 years. And that book is still in circulation. Science should not be based on faith.

My concept needs to include a beginning unless the universe has been around forever. The cause of waves are initial excitations of the field. If you have an universe made of a perfect fluid lake and constant gravity, once you create a wave then waves continue forever. We don't know how the waves started, but something  did. BB only says the universe once occupied a much smaller region than now, it doesn't say what whas before.

We are dealing with density issues. Energy is the lowest form of density in our fractal distinguishable environment. The electron being on the order of a BH to a galaxy for density. Electrons cause energy density changes within its environment.
If we look at red shift through the eyes of GR relativity expansion is no longer an issue.
A realest has to say large comes from small. But the religious conundrum rears its ugly head. From where did the first small come?

QFT which is a very accurate theory, works with fields as well, but the fileds are quantised and it uses SR. My hypothesis is that there is a single continuous field (EM), in a medium that "stores"the amplitudes as potential energy. I use an euclidean space that exists only in principle, and constant time flow by definition that also exist in principle with no physical correspondence.

Time=Motion =fundamental Energy  It's that simple.

No, time is not motion, but motion needs time and space.
I see fundamental energy as the EM potential energy only. If you measure the potential energy stored in the EM field within a volume you get all the energy. There is nothing left. Time only allows for the filed values to change location but the energy is conserved.

Yes, energy is conserved but where, what and how is energy conserved. Main stream only counts kinetic as real energy while all other energy is virtual like the photon. What moves the electron? E=m*c to move the electrons and * c for energy being of space and not being of mass. There is always a ratio of conserved energy as a kinetic ratio to c total. BH's are total kinetic without c.

I'm not sure whether the medium is static or not.

It's not.

If you are a supporter of GR, then yes, you could see space like a dynamic medium.
My concept can work with something like that, but it is not quite GR.

I am in total agreement with Relativity. m*c dilates space c.

If it is static, then the absolute frame is the frame with the medium at rest.

Nothing is ever at rest.

That means you exclude a static medium and believe GR is correct.

The MMX proved a static Aether is extremely unlikely. GR is correct or the entire relativity theory falls apart.

In this case gravity should be explained by EM waves interferences instead of  gravitons (as in QFT). This version is closer to SR and QFT because the spacetime is also flat.

Spacetime is never flat in a universe of mass.

There is only mass and the spectrum. Fundamental energy is of the spectrum we recognize as c. The spectrum moves the electrons and photons as a wave of the spectrum.

Ok, but this is about gravity. I suppose you believe in GR, then gravity is spacetime curvature.

Spacetime curvature is a 2d description of a 3d dilation of space. There are no tensors its just gravity caused by less dense energy and more space for the electron to move. Gravity is like a funnel for mass to the center of maximum dilation

If the medium is dynamic then it could explain gravity as a flow towards the massive objects. This version is closer to GR. But something is not right with this one although it can explain possibility of the universe expansion.

Everything is right with the world.

Dilation of fundamental energy causes gravity.

If you say the dilation of fundamental energy causes gravity then it doesn't sound like spacetime curvature.

Not in the way main streams model of tensors explain. Dilation is the expansion of fundamental energy.

Mass is attracted to less dense energy state by having less restrictive volume increasing the electron path slowing the physical clock. Same for the photon increase in distance. The scalar of the electron and the scalar of the photon are equivalent.

If mass is attracted to less energy state the why mass is attracted to objects that have a high energy density ?
Can you explain?

BH's have no fundamental energy and yet main stream considers it the most energetic.

What is a scalar of an electron?

It's new radius from expansion.

My model can work with a static medium but I don't have the mechanism for gravity. It is only a hypothesis that could be caused by EM interference. The idea of dilation of the energy that causes gravity could be something and it could work with the interference hypothesis, but I don't see something clear. EM waves are quite different than normal waves like water waves, sound waves or string waves and I find their behaviour hard to predict.

But if the medium can flow, I can explain it by a flow in the direction of the EM field excitation which corespond to an area with higher energy which is equivalent to higher mass. However, there are problems with  this version as well, like what happens to the medium if it flows towards a volume of space? Its density should increase continuously. There are also other problems.