Mathematician E. Burger of Williams College says, "A satisfying sharp, definite definition of number is unavailable to us." And Einstein said in his famous comment, "God does not play dice with the cosmos." While we often read about how the latest evidence in subatomic physics is hoped to be used to prove or disprove that the universe is causal or not, I think it's actually more nondeterministic than causal, because Einstein's assumption of no subatomic foaminess has the problem of the outward expansion of entropy because foam expands via its internal motion. The problem with quantum foaminess would be that the cosmos would expand outward forever, violating energy conservation with power radiated outward and lost to the rest of the universe. On the other hand foamy waves of inward implosion (like gravity in my formulation) may be of worth to physics. I think because gravity may be the foundation force from which all is energised and gravity with all observations is only implosive, this would mean that mostly gravity is a continuous wave to unify seperate points. All other forces would be derived from this basic low powered field, with each higher force derived from the force below it (like in the hierarchy of the conservation laws in subatomic physics, going from lower energy like electric charges to higher more is conserved while all is conserved from the field or fields below it). Since all would be ultimately derived from the foundation force, this explains energy conservation and other motifs like the uniformity of nature because all would be derived from this field. While gravity would be a wave, I think it will also be somewhat discontinuous, since if it's the foundation force, the solid discontinuity of other forces must come from somewhere, and so would be derived from this basic field (which predicts that in experiments or observations like high energy astronomy, gravity would shield somewhat). The implosion of gravity would mean it's unifying, in other words it's continuous more than not, this is why I think it's wavelike (actually I think would be many overlapping continuously changing waves to cause the continuous acceleration).
.As I say on the link about "what's the smallest size of the cosmos?" I think the assumption that the cosmos is fundamentally discontinuous leads to contradictions not found in the assumption that waves are more fundamental. One problem about discontinuous building blocks is that there must be a smallest limit of discontinuity because all around us would be infinite divisability and complexity from it and this is not seen. So while therefore a smallest particle must exist, if an ultimate building block of the cosmos exists it must be divisable to explain all the change and life around us from this building block. But if it's divisable it must not be the smallest and so on ad finitum to an infinite implosion of wheels in wheels, that would have infinite mass, disproven by experiment. So there must both be a smallest limit to explain change and no limit because an ultimate particle is indivisable, unable to change, but all energy is change. Contradiction is, after all, what discontinuity is about.
Waves, on the other hand, being continuous don't have this type of contradiction. The foundation field if made of waves could have almost complete continuity down to zero size and outward, meeting no resistance as it would flow between the interstices of the other subatomic motes (like the Higgs, an elementary mote theorized by a physicist named Higgs about 40 years ago), this would be why gravity never wears out or runs down.
.
Because energy conservation says that energy can neither be created or destroyed, my belief is that the expansion of Big Bang cosmology is not all the cosmos is about. I believe the cosmos can't be pulled out of a hat. Unlimited expansion would violate energy conservation. In my cosmology like with the usual matter and energy around us the expansion is not the entire physics, I think it may be just a regional expansion limited in our realm of the cosmos. Others and myself believe may be there may be worth in a cosmology that uses loops of flow of the mass and energy, like the magnetic field of the earth, out from the N and S poles and in at the outer wheel of the cosmos, closing the loop so no mass or energy is lost over infinite time. (This explanation has the advantage that the closed loop allows local expansion at the poles without violation of energy conservation. Gravity would be the perpetual motion prime mover that would wind it up continuously. Click Here for my complete explanation of the many conundrums and possible explanations based on older and new evidence for them via my version of cosmology. Since gravity holds the cosmos together so energy wouldn't be being radiated out and lost to energy conservation, the implosion and gravity's wavelike foundation would in general be of more worth to the cosmos than discontinuity.
.
. I believe discontinuity may be derived from waves by way of implosion creating pressure to resist the implosion at shorter range like the solar gravity inward and then it's heating expansion outward (so there's not infinite implosion that would also violate energy conservation) via another wavelength, but not waves like gravity (that attract and adhere) from discontinuity. You can more easily make higher energy divisable particles out of mostly indivisable waves, by compression of the waves like gravity, but to make low energy indivisable waves out of divisable particles is more improbable, because the general flow of the field is more from the general foundation of gravity to the higher energy fields, and this general flow of gravitational entropy in and electromagnetic entropy out is not symmetrical because gravity, being the foundation force would be more basic to the cosmos. All forces communicate with gravity, the other forces are not always conversant in the same language. If there were no waves that unify the discontinuous elements, the particles would move in more and more linear motion and expand without limit, so waves actually are necessary for particles to be created and sustained but not vice versa.
. It's been well proven and easy to prove (e.g. in subatomic physics) that all there is in the cosmos is based on symmetries, what changes and what stays the same. It's impossible to imagine a world were all was one in a big fuzzy blob because there would be no change and all the world and all life around us is in constant change, nor the opposite; a world were just 100% random change like the random hen's tracks of subatomic physics it would be inconcievable too because this would be too much change to find coherence. So all there is would have both the change and what remains the same, and all sets are structured (at the least) by this motif. This is where our most worthwhile definition of number would be derived from, more waves and (some) discontinuity, 25 fitness rooms are more than 24, while the price of yoga exercises are the same.
. Since number is derived more from the waves than discontinuity, if waves are more the important field and discontinuous particles of subatomic or more physics are created out of foamy waves this would be disproof of an absolute definition of number. Waves are in continuous change we couldn't live without.. If the definition of number was too sharp and absolute there would be no change. Like science and life better uses of numbers may be found without limit in sight, but life or science is ultimately a mystery. We accept what science is, and how gravity works may be achieved via more science, but not necessarily why. Foundations of math like number are the cause of all there is. So we may find of the elements of the cosmos in general are waves, but we may never actually go beyond this level.
That the motif is so all encompassing would explain why this idea of number as symmetries is of value, so it would have no absolute definition, there will always be more uses but no more definitions. The method of science has stayed the same since it's invention, and it may always stay the same
A problem is about creation not just maintenence of the field by the constant labor of the field. If the foundation field created itself, it would have violated energy conservation, one of the most well proven beliefs in physics. Energy conservation is via symmetries like action reaction pairs to balance the energy, and it's based on a balance between balance (like the opposite electric charges lifting us up) and imbalance (of gravity pulling us down) the many and the one, like science itself with a simple part like experiment, and a more complex part like theory or explanation. So it would seem any major disproof of energy conservation like gravity's creation would be essentially disproof of science, and so I think there was never a day when god said, here's nothing, I think I'll create this field. How could he have, even if there were a way, no explanation exists about why the field chose to implode just to where the electric field would then rebound and from the energised field the other complex forces were created (although if this is accepted, the events where in subatomic the same particles are made of the same amount of mass each time and most of the complexity would be explained via being built out of the basic field's implosion to make the particles that then would make the rest of the fields in a generally unchanging way once the initial implosion and expansion of the basic field and outward heat are accepted as the foundation. The implosion and expanson are unchanging their balance would be are the cause of each particle's mass and the more general balance would be axiomatic). We know from eclipses gravity has no delay and in all observations never wears out or runs down but this is perpetual motion. If entropy is winding down as the universe's electromagnetic clock expands outward over time, shielding of electromagnetism, and most of what we see would be derived from waves and perpetual motion, exactly how may eventually be found in the matter waves of subatomic physics. The assumption of the existence of these waves make quantum electrodynamics the most well proven theory in the history of science in terms of the numbers to 50 decimals like the derivation of the charge and mass of the electron. Gravity changes relative to other forces via these waves. I think these are indeed waves of non electrical or other mass, they are pure mass. The field is lower in power than the electric field but higher than the basic gravity wave field. If these waves are the main component of the gravitational field (they're stronger and more dense so may have the most flex of this component of the field) and the gravitation implodes to create the other fields by way of the mediation of this field, changes in the matter wave field as it implodes may tell us much of worth about shielding, entropy, and how the basic field would energise up via fields made of it at intermediate energies that would create all the rest, sort of like moving a river upstream to improve the land downstream via shields.
I disagree with Einstein about these fields being just empty space because for example
securing three masses on a boom and spinning them up in the air moves the center of mass without change of radius they rotate about in the so called empty space, which is well explained by the small masses making a definite change in the field. If there were nothing there, nothing times nothing is nothing, so changing or moving the masses wouldn't change it. And just by moving a mass the field is also changed to follow it. See also antigravity on my Physics Synopses page for a possible way to change the field or shield via centrifugal force, which, e.g. makes us weigh more in Alaska than in the West Indies via the cancellation of the field. Click Here for possible ways to make gravity wave lenses using proton solids and how to generate gravity waves.
If gravity is perpetual motion and continually winding up the entropy as it winds down electrically over infinite time as the 2nd Law, with energy created locally but neither created or destroyed overall, the gravity always creating more energy would be infinite. The field is finite in space and infinite in time with the gravity in continual implosion, like the mass energy of the earth. The question of why may also eventually be answered by the shielding motifs and seeing how the field changes as we go upstream. We might have five types of physics inside these small bubbles of modified field, each for a special use, one for electronics, one for power and one for life science.
.
THE TENDANCY OF THE THEOREM OF TIME AS WAVES TO BE UNVIABLE
All time is known in higher physics to be measured by periodic fluxuation and it's also an acceleration, both are about spin. The particles of subatomic physics in my physics would be like small spinning clocks, marking out the hours by way of the regular rotation, one rotation is one complete time unit.
Time is known in higher math to be about accleration and nonlinear and the more linear the motion is, reduced mass is present and the larger the volume of space. It's impossible for a line to be both linear and round at one time, so if time is about acceleration the opposite of time is space. Space is more about waves with larger size and more wavelength and time is more about particles. As I say above I think waves are more fundamental to the general frame of physics with gravity we would have to have both waves and particles to make our world. So continuous waves are good for fields and more elementary, and discontinuous building blocks of the cosmos would cause time where the field is more solid.
It's another well known theorem about time that the measure of time in a system is proportional to frequency. While this would be just a measure of how fast each particle spins, if waves are not the same as particles and time is mostly measured by particles, a prediction of this explanation of what time is about is that while this theorem about frequency would work well with particles and makes viable derivations it would generally not describe time well for waves, because they are more complex and nonperiodic, they move fast and change more. The experiments to prove time as frequency would work well for particles, but for bigger and bigger low energy waves the theorem that time is about frequency would fail. While not precise, if the frequency is slowed time would also be seen as stopped, this would be how gravity is the source of the perpetual motion all around us, it would be a sort of eternal power source. If it changed ever it would run out of time. Thermodynamics is the source of the time flowing around us more than gravity, our savvy about time in our bodies and our world is almost totally thermodynamic and it's the information we've evolved in most of what our idea of time is.
.
Waves measure space with more fecility because the distance from here to say Alpha Centuari is constant. There are few particles in the space between us and more distant realms. It's much easier to just send waves from point A to point B than to line up a wire made of particles all the way from here to a distant realm of the cosmos (but my mom would always roll up the shade of my starship when I was outside at 12 at night!). Electromagnetic waves tend to expand out via entropy but since the distance remains mostly constant, with few particles, constant distances with time would be explained with overlapping waves with cohesion like gravity (attraction) balanced with the electromagnetic field (entropy, or the tendancy to expand). These are the only long range forces present between the here and a distant star. The distance measured would be constant via a resonation of opposite waves.
Locally, discontinuity and waves are not the same. If space and time were the same as in Relativity when you have a continuous sliding scale, with higher speed motion through space you have reduced motion through time and this would be expected by conservation of momentum, with increased linear momentum you have reduced angular momentum of the time, both are momentem, more of the one less of the other. The particles of Einstein's starship would be like helixes that would stretch out with more motion through space at higher speed, slowing the rate of frequency relative to the observer at rest of each small clock as the line is more stretched out because the motion through space is redshifted, so what's lost by the spin is won by the linear motion of the redshift, a simple mechanical explanation of what goes on at near the speed of light based on conservation of linear and angular momentum and the field not being empty like via Einstein. If time were the same as the field of waves and have the 0 speed through time at the speed of light and a sliding scale is used to unify space and time via relativity, when you slow down from the speed of light to rest, you would have the opposite because high and low speed are opposite. If you have a 0 rate of time at the speed of light, if you slow to rest, you would have infinite speed of time (I use this hour of my month saved to sign up for fizz on the www) so since they aren't this would be disproof of the general idea that space and time are the same.
Space and time are the same generally as an exact ratio of linear and angular momentum, but locally they aren't, and both change and lack of change are of worth. To heat lunch who uses a blendor?!
Particles aren't the same as waves because you can't have both at the same place and time at one time and this is what I think Einstein's explanation lacks. The efficiency couldn't be improved if mass and energy or space and time were the same because they would be exactly the same and equal. Solar mass and energy e.g. would convert instantly instead of billions of years. I explain life via hot socks!
.
WHY REVERSED SPIN IS NOT REVERSED TIME
If time is caused by particles spinning like small watches, it would seem that if you just reversed all the spins you could reverse time. Time reversal has not been found to be a property of subatomic physics and this would be because of time as frequency being more common with particles than waves. You can have the spins of particles rewinding after a collision as Feynmann (the nobel prize laureate) believed, but the reason "time reversal" is actually seen to be just for a while after the subatomic impact of two subatomic particles would be even while they are simple, the waves they would plough through at more distance would be more complex, and not of use to actually reverse time. Complexity isn't as easy to reverse as simplicity, because there's more of it. Because the theorem that time is frequency would apply to all waves or particles both since both waves and particles have this property, time reversal if so would be possible in all of subatomic physics, not just mostly about particles. If it were about both waves and discontinuity, time reversal would be possible and like mass and energy, space and time would be the same in all respects. Even though time would be about angular momentum, while you may say if you spin around to the sound of the AM/FM is disproof of this about time and spin, you're not rewinding to months of another era of 1979 BC, because you're not a giant simple particle. You're many, and complex, plowing into complex waves. And you've just spun around once, your electrons and protons have spun many more times in the moment than your one rotation. Only at comparable speeds of rotation would you influence the mostly electromagnetic cause of time. Other types of spin like the spin of the proton's strong force or lower power fields are not in our usual concious awareness even if they are about angular momentum and time because they spin at other rates so much they have had reduced influence on the evolution of our ideas about time. If we evolved as a living star system, and were living on a large scale of distance we might think of gravity and our worlds as having the cause of another sort conciousness about time. For example, a planet moving counterclockwise looks much the same in a film rewound than in foreward clockwise motion of the cinema.
More About Mass Energy Conversion
.
