0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

I didn't glean from this that gravity was a result of the expanding universe. Do you have two different notions?

Well; you're still thinking anyway. [] Speculation can run rampant. I suspect that the photons consist only of electric and magnetic amplitude change. When I read your description of dot waves, I see photons. []

You like to assume that the balanced blend is everything. However as far as the gravitational field is concerned it appears that gravity is a surface tension.

Quote from: jerrygg38You like to assume that the balanced blend is everything. However as far as the gravitational field is concerned it appears that gravity is a surface tension.V: I read your objection but it didn't change my concept about gravity. GG:My surface tension theory is only one day old. I need a few weeks or months to feel comfortable about it. It was just a new idea I awoke with. I like it but time will tell how I feel about it.V: My own speculation about alternative theories began as an attempt to understand why we must abandon the concept of flat space-time.GG: Okay.V: That was such a compelling thing that there must have been a very compelling reason. It turns out that there was no compelling reason to abandon the concept of flat space-time. The Lorentz version of the cause of relativity phenomena works just fine.GG: I always preferred Lorentz until recently. I always thought Einstein was wrong. I wrote my Doppler Space Time based upon Doppler equations, which produce the exact same equations as Einstein.V: Einstein offered no cause, just easier maths.GG: I came to realize that Einstein’s equations produce the best mathematical fit to a more complex non-linear solution. His curved space-time really only describes the interaction with the gravitational field. Now as I see gravity as a surface force it become more clear to me that light will flow around the sun as it follows surface gravitational planes. Thus Einstein’s Equations are a very close approximation to gravitational reality. Therefore Einstein produced an excellent mathematical fit to reality. Einstein did not show that the forward mass field is stronger than the rearward mass gravitational field. There he did not understand a very important point. The other problem is that the Michelson Morley experiment is null and void. It proves nothing because the gravitational field adjusts the speed of the photon as it nears the Earth. The photon does not travel at constant speed. Relativity is therefore false. The differential photonic speed is delta Earth speed verses the sun. As the photon nears the Earth, it becomes connected to the Earths gravitational field. Therefore all along the way the differential speed decreases. By the time the photon reaches the Earth it speed is C relative to the test instrument. Therefore the experiment is invalid. Einstein did not realize this.V: And you must then accept the crazy notion that empty nothingness can possess a property that can allow it to expand, contract, and change shape. To me that is complete utter nonsense.GG: I do not have empty nothingness. Space is filled with dot-waves and the more dot waves in space the larger space is. As all stars disintegrate in the future space will be a maximum size. Then it will contract toward a pinpoint. Actually the minimum size will be the Plank volume times the number of protons in the universe.

I don't understand why you give so much importance to the Planck spacial dimensions. Is it something that just feels good, or is there an underlying reason for it?

As I started to study Plank, I came to realize how brilliant he was. Several professors criticized my work for not building on the work of others. Therefore I eliminated my minimum dot size in favor of Plank's.

Quote from: jerrygg38As I started to study Plank, I came to realize how brilliant he was. Several professors criticized my work for not building on the work of others. Therefore I eliminated my minimum dot size in favor of Plank's.Okay; that makes sense. I think you might also make more headway if you avoided creating new particles. Your theory would work just as well if you just assigned the dot-wave qualities as special properties of the electromagnetic field. You would probably only need to give the field a little tweak to bring it into compliance.

If you can find the smallest quanta, then the electron is composed of so many quanta. The proton is composed of 1836 times the quanta of the electron. The photon is composed of much less quanta. Therefore from my viewpoint, I break the universe into the dot which is the smallest quanta.

Quote from: jerrygg38If you can find the smallest quanta, then the electron is composed of so many quanta. The proton is composed of 1836 times the quanta of the electron. The photon is composed of much less quanta. Therefore from my viewpoint, I break the universe into the dot which is the smallest quanta.The charge of my high energy dot wave is 5.39E-37. It takes 2.9718E17 minus dot-waves to make the charge of an electron. I have broken the quanta of the field to a very small number.An electron comprised of one wave length of gamma radiation resonating in a loop one wave length in circumference is one quantum of energy-time. If it takes two dot waves to make a photon, and a dot is one quantum wouldn't that make a photon two quanta?

If you can find the smallest quanta, then the electron is composed of so many quanta. The proton is composed of 1836 times the quanta of the electron. The photon is composed of much less quanta. Therefore from my viewpoint, I break the universe into the dot which is the smallest quanta.The charge of my high energy dot wave is 5.39E-37. It takes 2.9718E17 minus dot-waves to make the charge of an electron. I have broken the quanta of the field to a very small number.

I'm talking about real quanta. A single photon is one quantum by definition.