0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Q-E could be gravity then, right?The Q-E status of each is not being changed, gravity is not electrodynamics, their distance has changed though. Why isn't gravity akin to Q-E?
Yet you said that there is no evidence to suggest Q-E is altered by a change in distance between entities in Q-E.
Gravity isn't marbles. It's not a gross thing as we think it is walking on a planet. Its far more refined, well, should be.
Surely gravity has its nuances on a quantum scale?
What algorithm of probability?
What am I getting at?
Well, there's a lot we don't know about Q-E, how space can expand in between particles in Q-E, presumably, right?
Put it this way, if space expands between two masses, in a star galaxy thing, and these galaxies show no change in shape, no change in gravity, yet space is expanding in between them, and you know what I am referring to re. a previous post, what's the difference between that and two objects in Q-E?
but does gravity crash the status of Q-E between particles?
If not, why can't gravity according to its formula of distance and force as Newton proposed be a part of the Q-E status between particles
and thus be a type of "infinite speed" of propagation?
Has there been any theories in history along this possibility?
If space is expanding therefore, by this reasoning, between galaxies in Q-E, they would get "bigger".
This sort of thing:http://www.sci-news.com/astronomy/science-universe-not-expanding-01940.html
you fail to see the forest for the trees, like a few others.
Can I answer your question?
and gravity isn't concerned with spatial changes (other than proper gravity "d" equations)
how are you developing this Dyson sphere of G influences with an expanding universe for "galaxies"?