[guest39538]

There are two fractal systems at work. Both have there own fractal density. Energy and mass. The next fractal size up is BH's where our mass is its energy. What moves the electron?

I keep getting asked this question, what moves an electron?   I thought  a force from other electrons? 


They will sort of jump about attracted to other things.

Maybe a change in entropy of another particle/body makes the electron move,  if you can imagine 2 stones of equal size side by side.    If one of the stones was to say lose some q- from its entropy, the entropy becomes more pos attracting more neg and of course vice versus. 

[GoC]

You are describing kinetic energy and kinetic style entropy. The electron has perpetual motion. One lone H electron will cycle indefinitely most likely.

Put a clock that measures by cycles of the electron in the center of the earth the electron increases its cycle distance with dilation to slow down its tick rate. Put the clock in outer space and the cycle distance contracts to speed up its tick rate. No kinetic transfer from other electrons. The electron travel distance is a marble to a football field for ratio. It's unlikely electrons ever touch (except to disintegrate back to the c base energy).

[guest39538]

You are describing kinetic energy and kinetic style entropy. The electron has perpetual motion. One lone H electron will cycle indefinitely most likely.

Put a clock that measures by cycles of the electron in the center of the earth the electron increases its cycle distance with dilation to slow down its tick rate. Put the clock in outer space and the cycle distance contracts to speed up its tick rate. No kinetic transfer from other electrons. The electron travel distance is a marble to a football field for ratio. It's unlikely electrons ever touch (except to disintegrate back to the c base energy).

Ok, to be honest Goc I think the Proton emits an electron field rather than an electron attracted to a proton. I picture a single particle absorbing c energy then inside the proton the c energy holds in place building up to emit an electron field, I would have no way of knowing this though or testing it as atoms are so small we can only second guess.   Is there any evidence that shows the electron moves to begin with?  or are we just talking about assumptions to begin with which makes a big difference in how we should view things.

[GoC]

We can detect through indirect measurements. Everything is subjective. The BB was voted on by the 13 most respected scientists of their time. The vote was 12 to one. You cannot vote something into existence in physics. The ones who voted did not have the information on BH's being 30,000 AU but the teaching of the BB is automatic.

The consensus in the past was the sun revolved around the earth, the earth is flat and if you sailed to far you would fall off the earth. Science should need only one observation incompatible with theory to reject a theory.

The subjective theory that explains all observations to date is the best we can expect.

X-rays prove electrons move but does not prove electrons travel through space. The affect of the electron moving through space is all we can determine by indirect observations. Same as the photon.

[guest39538]

We can detect through indirect measurements. Everything is subjective. The BB was voted on by the 13 most respected scientists of their time. The vote was 12 to one. You cannot vote something into existence in physics. The ones who voted did not have the information on BH's being 30,000 AU but the teaching of the BB is automatic.

The consensus in the past was the sun revolved around the earth, the earth is flat and if you sailed to far you would fall off the earth. Science should need only one observation incompatible with theory to reject a theory.

The subjective theory that explains all observations to date is the best we can expect.

X-rays prove electrons move but does not prove electrons travel through space. The affect of the electron moving through space is all we can determine by indirect observations. Same as the photon.

To me Goc , it sounds like with theory, who ever can talk the best believable ''crap'', wins the day. However I like to think only objective and try to leave no stones un-turned.

What doe's 30,000 Au mean? 

[Demolitiondaley]

We can detect through indirect measurements. Everything is subjective. The BB was voted on by the 13 most respected scientists of their time. The vote was 12 to one. You cannot vote something into existence in physics. The ones who voted did not have the information on BH's being 30,000 AU but the teaching of the BB is automatic.

The consensus in the past was the sun revolved around the earth, the earth is flat and if you sailed to far you would fall off the earth. Science should need only one observation incompatible with theory to reject a theory.

The subjective theory that explains all observations to date is the best we can expect.

X-rays prove electrons move but does not prove electrons travel through space. The affect of the electron moving through space is all we can determine by indirect observations. Same as the photon.

To me Goc , it sounds like with theory, who ever can talk the best believable ''crap'', wins the day. However I like to think only objective and try to leave no stones un-turned.

What doe's 30,000 Au mean?

I think it means 30,000 Astronomical units. 1 AU is I believe the distance from the Sun to Earth.

[GoC]

To me Goc , it sounds like with theory, who ever can talk the best believable ''crap'', wins the day. However I like to think only objective and try to leave no stones un-turned.

What doe's 30,000 Au mean? 

Ok I will put it in terms that might allow an objective opinion. We determine some BH's to be on the order of 3,000,000.000,000 miles in diameter. Our sun as a Black Hole would be about 1.7 miles in diameter. The life cycle of our sun is about 10 billion years. The larger suns cycle is shorter but what is average? Our 4.5 AU will combine with Andromeda's 25 AU to form a 30 AU BH.in 4 billion years from now. How long before a galaxy has enough dead suns to even form a BH?

Do you have enough information to have an objective opinion about the universe only being 13.6 billion years old?

I follow relativity and find it to be a beautiful mathematical interpretation of the Universe. I follow the Big Bang mathematics using Black Holes as a standard and the math does not work. You can disprove a theory if it does not follow math and BH's math disproves the BB theory for distance and time. Math is only a tool and cannot prove one theory over another when two different theories follow the same math.

An objective opinion is best with the most background information of observations. You can be lucky with little background information but you can only be good with studying as much information as you can that is available.

For instance a little information about Relativity will make you think the theory is crap. When you fully understand the seamless structure between GR and SR there can be no other explanation of the observables.

[guest39538]

To me Goc , it sounds like with theory, who ever can talk the best believable ''crap'', wins the day. However I like to think only objective and try to leave no stones un-turned.

What doe's 30,000 Au mean? 

Ok I will put it in terms that might allow an objective opinion. We determine some BH's to be on the order of 3,000,000.000,000 miles in diameter. Our sun as a Black Hole would be about 1.7 miles in diameter. The life cycle of our sun is about 10 billion years. The larger suns cycle is shorter but what is average? Our 4.5 AU will combine with Andromeda's 25 AU to form a 30 AU BH.in 4 billion years from now. How long before a galaxy has enough dead suns to even form a BH?

Do you have enough information to have an objective opinion about the universe only being 13.6 billion years old?

I follow relativity and find it to be a beautiful mathematical interpretation of the Universe. I follow the Big Bang mathematics using Black Holes as a standard and the math does not work. You can disprove a theory if it does not follow math and BH's math disproves the BB theory for distance and time. Math is only a tool and cannot prove one theory over another when two different theories follow the same math.

An objective opinion is best with the most background information of observations. You can be lucky with little background information but you can only be good with studying as much information as you can that is available.

For instance a little information about Relativity will make you think the theory is crap. When you fully understand the seamless structure between GR and SR there can be no other explanation of the observables.

Do not ever misunderstand my intentions, I also agree in the elegance of Einsteins work, however Einstein was limited to what was already known and only had what was known to work off.   However if the logic of Einstein can be easily broke down to be false , then it must be false logic although some logic of his is accurate and true.
When I consider the ''whats'' Goc, I try to consider nobodies work and try to think for myself how things work,  sometimes I recall information for comparison, this sometimes re-enforces my ideas.

[guest39538]

I would explain a BH to be liking to an oblate.

[GoC]

I take the approach of challenging the ideas of others using the observations available. I challenged Relativity until I understood.

I gave information of why I do not believe the theory of the BB for time and distance. There should be enough information given to have an objective opinion on the BB.

Do you believe in main stream's theory of the BB for time and distance?

[GoC]

I would explain a BH to be liking to an oblate.

Why? And how much oblate?

There is a spherical bulge in the center of galaxies which suggests it would be minor.

[guest39538]

Do you believe in main stream's theory of the BB for time and distance?

I part believe in it, before the big bang I do not agree there was nothing, I think however this is down to the definition of nothing.
I think time existed before the big bang but like Newton thought and Absolute, then I believe we have relativistic time which can be manipulated in thinking to make out things that don't happen. 
I do not think space is expanding the way it is explained to be expanding. Also I think anti matter is much more simpler than anti matter. I think anti matter is actually light/radiation.

[guest39538]

I would explain a BH to be liking to an oblate.

Why? And how much oblate?

There is a spherical bulge in the center of galaxies which suggests it would be minor.

I think this because I am about 99.9 percent certain a BH spins. Everything else in the Universe seems to spin , so  must a BH.

[guest39538]

ps. a spinning BH explains curvature.


Also I think something pushes back at the South or North pole of the Earth.

Added- When I consider gravity Goc, I consider the reverse, I consider all things are being pushed to the center, but the opposing forces of likewise charge etc makes orbits and stops the objects touching. But I only think this if I am thinking BH which I image to be like a spacial Maelstrom.

[GoC]

I just got up and spun. Did it make you spin? I do not disagree that BH's may spin but BH's do not follow Relativity inside of the BH.

Curvature is a two dimensional explanation of a 3 dimensional gradient dilation. There is no dilation change within a BH.

[guest39538]

I just got up and spun. Did it make you spin? I do not disagree that BH's may spin but BH's do not follow Relativity inside of the BH.

Curvature is a two dimensional explanation of a 3 dimensional gradient dilation. There is no dilation change within a BH.

You are spinning with the Earth Goc.  Try Goc considering a BH to be liking to magnetic bottling of plasma.  Maybe you may ''see'' why I ''see'' spin there and compression.

[GoC]

I just got up and spun. Did it make you spin? I do not disagree that BH's may spin but BH's do not follow Relativity inside of the BH.

Curvature is a two dimensional explanation of a 3 dimensional gradient dilation. There is no dilation change within a BH.

You are spinning with the Earth Goc.  Try Goc considering a BH to be liking to magnetic bottling of plasma.  Maybe you may ''see'' why I ''see'' spin there and compression.

There is no magnetic possibilities with BH's because there is no motion in a BH. There is no gradient dilation inside a BH. Every position is equally unmoving relative to every other position within the BH.

[Alex Dullius Siqueira]

Would be wrong to assume that C of gravity does not compress matter, but that instead assume that "C of gravity spins energy". Gravity spins the energy that matter? Therefore matter is not related directly with gravity.
  Matter being a final product of spinning C state of energy in function of gravity, and once again, the final product being recycled from outside in the very system that has created it?

I suppose c of gravity is the velocity of gravitational waves, which is the same value c. This velocity spins energy?

 I'm changing my perspective.
 The electron does not spins. It is sipping without meanings.
 The electron very existence offers to C state of space a point of reference.
  The electron is detected and the environment starts to spin itself around the point of least energy(electron).
  Electron dilates space creating a pitch a 3D vortex "on space" that can be explaining as a hole on space.

  The electron is now absolving(submited) the kinetic energy of the free fall towards itself.
 By doing so it starts to psychically spins and when it does, the spinning electron starts to cause "loose ends/photon"
  Photons being electrons attempts, happening around the electron and happening in function of its presence.
  Photons are "infusing" the center of the event with kinetic energy that will starts to give to the electron geometry and subsequently mass as it starts to store the energy. Now causing entropy.

 Gravity starts to occur as a "cause/effect", it's to blame quantum mechanics.
 Quantum mechanics is the source of the spinning electron.
  So the spping electron is on itself a effect of quantum mechanics.
 Gravity stats to enter the scene because:
 The source of the effect, has now on (macro scale) started to re-clycle the quantum mechanics and re-appling over the cause of it's effect.

  Gravity is quantum mechanics reading a planet as being a particle.
  The spinning electron is the reason why energy is conserved.
 The spinning C is avoiding everything to "fall" towards the point of least energy(electron/inner core).

 Gravity has no source of rits born from the interaction of the sppining electron source back onto the effect of the sppining electron effects itself has caused in the first place.

 Gravity is the "source of the cause" affecting the effect of the very cause it has caused.
 Leading to gravity being a effect caused by the effect of its own cause,

 Quantum mechanics is telling C of space that those planets are particles, and starts to reintegrate the effects of its own effects back into the cause, leading to relativity?

[nilak]

If we look at a light beam carrying angular momentum, if seems like there is force that makes the beam keep the spiral trajectory. We could say there is a force between the opposite sides of the beam and even calculate this force using newtonian concepts. However, we know, everything lies in how these beams propagate. The helical paths of the Poynying vectors, when we look towards a the fundamental level, are clearly not generated by such a force but by light interference. I will call such a beam fermi-like wave or matter waves, because is the direct correspondent to a beam of fermi particles.
The figure is a vague schematic representation of the phenomenon.
In the figure, the particle 1 is a fermi-like wave and it is accompanied by some phenomenon that is electromagnetic. I will call this phenomenon negative pressure EM waves or negative radiation. This negative radiation can clearly travel at the speed of light because it has no orbital angular momentum. However, if orbital angular momentum negative radiation is produces it would behave like negative pressure matter. How this negative radiation is produced, I don’t understand, but the hypothesis seems to require it. It needs to make particle 2 gain energy and accelerate towards the source of the radiation. The direction of the negative waves produced by the source matches the gravitational field lines, and it would cause the fermi-like wave to accelerate in the direction of the source. Apparently this radiation has exactly the opposite effect that regular electromagnetic wave have. The radiation seems to have the properties of dark energy.
What is clear and very important is that fundamentally we cannot say the negative pressure radiation produces a force because my concept doesn’t allow forces. Forces can be attributed to objects, or corpuscules, but not to waves. Therefore, first we need to understand how reguar EM waves create a pushing like effect on helicoid structure waves (fermi-like waves). This can be achieved only by analyzing interference, and could be an important thing towards understanding gravity.
According to my concept, because my assumption is that everything is explained by EM filed waves, all waves interact only through interference. Therefore, as it goes down a gravity well, a fermi-like wave increases its energy and its velocity. Also, if a wave has a direction with a component perpendicular to the gravitational field lines due to interference with the EM perturbations produced by the object that produces gravity, the wave will propagate by modifying its trajectory towards the massive object. But, everything should be explained by interference.
In GR, acceleration is thought to be equivalent to gravity. My concept explains inertia as the conservation of the shape of a an EM wave. If it is a plane wave, its shape is basic and it is still conserved, therefore, it travels at constant speed, c. Helicoid waves keep their speed as long as their shape is conserved. Accelerating a fermi-like wave is basically altering its shape, making the helix pitch which is done by increasing its energy. A planewave comming from behind will increase its energy. Also, if the gravitational wave (negative pressure wave) comes from ahead it will also increase its energy, but only if the fermi-like wave is moving towards the source of the negative pressure waves. However, when the fremi-like wave doesn’t move towards a source it means it is pushed by a plane wave from the direction of the gravity source or there is a centrifugal effect. Hence, the effect the same as given by am EM wave, except that it acts for inversed direction.
I’ve used the term negative radiation to explain something that interferes with fermi-like waves and EM waves in a particular way. Now, my hypothesis is that gravity is produced by something similar to what GR says. If we have an OAM wave that is very slow, there is a certain level of excitation in the EM field in the region of space it occupies. However, the excitation of the field at a certain distance from the orbiting wave should not be zero. This is required to explain my hypothesis. The electric and magnetic field values should gradually decrease as we get further away from the wave. If any other wave interferes with those values of the EM field, it should produce the gravity effects. This way there is no need for another field to explain the effect.
Gravity must be a force just like any other force. Interferences between fermi waves and EM waves, create illusions of all sort of forces. The best example are OAM light beams where photons twist in the beam as though attracted by each other. But in this case, it is known that the effect is produced by ligh interference.

[GoC]

If we look at a light beam carrying angular momentum, if seems like there is force that makes the beam keep the spiral trajectory. We could say there is a force between the opposite sides of the beam and even calculate this force using newtonian concepts. However, we know, everything lies in how these beams propagate. The helical paths of the Poynying vectors, when we look towards a the fundamental level, are clearly not generated by such a force but by light interference. I will call such a beam fermi-like wave or matter waves, because is the direct correspondent to a beam of fermi particles.
The figure is a vague schematic representation of the phenomenon.
In the figure, the particle 1 is a fermi-like wave and it is accompanied by some phenomenon that is electromagnetic. I will call this phenomenon negative pressure EM waves or negative radiation. This negative radiation can clearly travel at the speed of light because it has no orbital angular momentum. However, if orbital angular momentum negative radiation is produces it would behave like negative pressure matter. How this negative radiation is produced, I don’t understand, but the hypothesis seems to require it. It needs to make particle 2 gain energy and accelerate towards the source of the radiation. The direction of the negative waves produced by the source matches the gravitational field lines, and it would cause the fermi-like wave to accelerate in the direction of the source. Apparently this radiation has exactly the opposite effect that regular electromagnetic wave have. The radiation seems to have the properties of dark energy.
What is clear and very important is that fundamentally we cannot say the negative pressure radiation produces a force because my concept doesn’t allow forces. Forces can be attributed to objects, or corpuscules, but not to waves. Therefore, first we need to understand how reguar EM waves create a pushing like effect on helicoid structure waves (fermi-like waves). This can be achieved only by analyzing interference, and could be an important thing towards understanding gravity.
According to my concept, because my assumption is that everything is explained by EM filed waves, all waves interact only through interference. Therefore, as it goes down a gravity well, a fermi-like wave increases its energy and its velocity. Also, if a wave has a direction with a component perpendicular to the gravitational field lines due to interference with the EM perturbations produced by the object that produces gravity, the wave will propagate by modifying its trajectory towards the massive object. But, everything should be explained by interference.
In GR, acceleration is thought to be equivalent to gravity. My concept explains inertia as the conservation of the shape of a an EM wave. If it is a plane wave, its shape is basic and it is still conserved, therefore, it travels at constant speed, c. Helicoid waves keep their speed as long as their shape is conserved. Accelerating a fermi-like wave is basically altering its shape, making the helix pitch which is done by increasing its energy. A planewave comming from behind will increase its energy. Also, if the gravitational wave (negative pressure wave) comes from ahead it will also increase its energy, but only if the fermi-like wave is moving towards the source of the negative pressure waves. However, when the fremi-like wave doesn’t move towards a source it means it is pushed by a plane wave from the direction of the gravity source or there is a centrifugal effect. Hence, the effect the same as given by am EM wave, except that it acts for inversed direction.
I’ve used the term negative radiation to explain something that interferes with fermi-like waves and EM waves in a particular way. Now, my hypothesis is that gravity is produced by something similar to what GR says. If we have an OAM wave that is very slow, there is a certain level of excitation in the EM field in the region of space it occupies. However, the excitation of the field at a certain distance from the orbiting wave should not be zero. This is required to explain my hypothesis. The electric and magnetic field values should gradually decrease as we get further away from the wave. If any other wave interferes with those values of the EM field, it should produce the gravity effects. This way there is no need for another field to explain the effect.
Gravity must be a force just like any other force. Interferences between fermi waves and EM waves, create illusions of all sort of forces. The best example are OAM light beams where photons twist in the beam as though attracted by each other. But in this case, it is known that the effect is produced by ligh interference.

Except all waves of the spectrum travel at c.