More About Einstein's Idea, The Moon Really is Up, Sidewise and "Mostly Non Siderial"
..
On my main physics page (Click Here) I replace Einstein's E=mc2 with the more general F=ma which seems to be more of worth than just Special Relativity. All around us there are many speeds of motion, why should we believe all is determined just by the quantisized speed of light, for instance life in biology favors more continuous jumps of atoms like nonmetals over metals. As I say on my synopses if the m or mass density of the force is small, the theoretical speed like of the gravity may then be much faster, explaining structures like the Great Wall in cosmology that wouldn't have had time to form with just gravity at the speed of light, and how information like about the wavelength of the light in special relativity can be changed before the light reaches a high speed starship. If all components of the field considered with the matter wave also are already at the speed of light here, in Special Relativity there could be no change in the information about the wavelength. (See physics synopses link or link below for more.) One disproof of the relativity of gravity is, if gravity is exactly like relative motion, why does the moon with less mass fall around the earth with more and the earth in turn with less mass falls around the sun? (The more mass and gravity you have, the more priveledged and non relative your rest frame is, some observers with gravity are more priveledged than others, and this wouldn't be so if gravity and inertia were the same, so a second component of the field would be needed to explain the distinction.) For these and other reasons mentioned on my synopses page, F=ma seems of more worth than Einstein's belief to physics. On THIS LINK about the two components of the gravitational field I consider the evidence for a two component gravitational field, a faster than light but lower speed more masssive component made of near electromagnetic energy particles perhaps like the Higgs but of lower mass and more numerous to explain why inertia and gravity are mostly alike in Einstein's Equivalence principle, and a higher speed much faster than light component that would explain what's unlike about gravity that relativity ignores.
This idea that F=ma is the more general equation allows the interesting possibility that just like in common room physics around us there are degrees of quantization, otherwise, where would so much of the continuous physics around us come from? As I say on the link (above and at the end of the post) about the hypothesis of the two component gravitational field, a lower than electromagnetic energy component may explain centrifugal force by way of outer pressure of this relatively dense component of the field. While these virtual particles are measurable indirectly by way of physics like the matter waves of QED and Lamb shift of hydrogen, they are considered to be too low energy to be measured directly. Are these particles stable? If quanta were absolute as the constant speed of light in Einstein's physics hold all physics is from the speed of light, so the virtual particles here couldn't have a more gradual quantization. By this I mean they're at a given power level because there's proof they exist and if they were totally without some stability they would have foamed away over time, and as in the Standard Theory, the virtual particles are what give the "real" subatomic particles their mass, they are the subatomic foundation of particles of definite mass, so they would also be stable.
Relativity holds there is just one quantum that of light and electrons because of the constant speed of light, this is about the c in E=mc2, controlling all the rest of physics. But if more of the a of F=ma speeds are allowed than just the c of E=mc2, this could mean there are more levels of quanta allowed, with no ultimate distinction or not so much distinction between the quanta and the more continuous flow of the other fields. While the virtual particles are not directly measurable, this doesn't mean they aren't quantisized, even so they may be quantisized at another energy. By this I mean all the mystery of quantization may be simplified to say just that you have two types of forces for any mass or wave in the cosmos, that which causes attraction, and the expansive force, and both must be in all there is. Quantization is just where both forces, expansion and attraction both, are relatively strong, creating the particle with an outer more solid wall of mass and an inner more flowing field. In special relativity light is stable in speed, but the waviness of light within this frame is fluid and continuous. Virtual particles like the higher energy Higgs field of gravity I speak of would have a sort of lower energy quantization; the attractive force of the wall of each particle is reduced and the waviness may also be reduced (so that the forces balance and it's not infinite with too much expansion or contraction). This more continuous field not allowed by relativity explains one major problem in the quantum causology; if all is in quanta, why do the subatomic particles have masses that are nonquantisized in a seemimgly continuous distribution from low mass energy to more? The presumed subparticles like the Higgs have to have some type of stability and so be a bit quantisized, but if it were totaly about the speed of light it would already have been found in the lab. If the Higgs were as hugely massive to be small enough in size as many believe it would have strong cohesive force and so would be so quantisized and ionizing the physics it would involve already would have had influence on all the experiments ever done, this is why I believe in a Higgs of somewhat lower energy than electromagnetism to unify the quanta with more continuous physics. So it would seem they will never find a high energy Higgs in the machines like the LHC, lower energy would be where to look. Like Einstein's causology I believe this about the mass of the Higgs needed to explain the much smaller size they would have to have to fit inside the larger particles like a proton as subparticles is an important disproof of the Uncertainty Principle. They need to have subcomponents, but they would have to have huge mass and huge ionization if the Uncertainty Principle is the most general.
As Einstein said, "Do you honestly think the moon is not up there when you don't look up to see it?" In the Uncertainty Principle because there are high energy quanta, it takes a certain amount of energy to tip over the bucket to measure and change a particle. Einstein asked why this is not common in usual room flavor of mocha and fizz science where you use a much lower power particle of light to measure say a take out pizza without much changing it, who has 75$ for a Veggie when your box you watch is FM? In other words, there's no need that the measuring ray is near the same energy as the measured subatomic particle and that the probe would always change it much. There is with this idea of low energy quanta a way to allow a lower energy particle that would itself be quantisized enough to have internal stability but that would also not interact so much with the measured matter like the light with the cushion. I think this is possible at least, like the cushion and the radiant illimination of the lower energy of in a room, or just when my feline reads the web! (I say yesterday they found a cat in the hood of a Chevy after 40 miles at 50 miles purr hour, the Evening Mews, The engine was purring and they called Meowco! The SPFA was involved, The Society For the Praise of Felines in Automobiles!) While it may not turn out to be so about this idea of Einstein and my possible augumentation of it because the higher energy measured particle may so much change the lower energy measuring beam no more information may be extracted, like a high energy whirlwind, a much lower power ray of light of the good resolution might see through it. I agree with Einstein about this being possible. Even with water in a tub when it flows with a slosh of the funnel of water if you have a much faster lower energy wave to see it the light may often outdistance the downward stretching of the flow, and as I say above and in my physics synopses it's possible the low power waves are indeed faster than light. This may be how the Uncertainty Principle may thus be linked with the more continuous physics around us. The 20th century idea of quanta is without any explanation of waves, if the quanta were totally discontinuous this wouldn't be possible.
Will there be a quantum theory of gravity? If as I say on my page about The Higgs "and waves or particles?" gravity may be the foundation force to unify all the fields such as with energy conservation because all the forces speak gravity and it's cosmic. Particles are discontinuous so they have inherent contradictions not found in the causology of waves. If gravity is the foundation field and it's always attractive and thus it's moreso a continuous wave, waves are more fundamental than particles. Gravity being of much lower energy may be just too weak to attract and be in quanta. The higher energy component in a summer circus wheel of the gravitational field would thus be the closest to a quantum causology of gravity we would be able to achieve. Even with it's lower power of quantization by changing this field like the spins of its component particles we may come the closest to actually changing gravity in the lab with machines in ways like in the subatomic physics of 2008.
..
On my main physics page (Click Here) I replace Einstein's E=mc2 with the more general F=ma which seems to be more of worth than just Special Relativity. All around us there are many speeds of motion, why should we believe all is determined just by the quantisized speed of light, for instance life in biology favors more continuous jumps of atoms like nonmetals over metals. As I say on my synopses if the m or mass density of the force is small, the theoretical speed like of the gravity may then be much faster, explaining structures like the Great Wall in cosmology that wouldn't have had time to form with just gravity at the speed of light, and how information like about the wavelength of the light in special relativity can be changed before the light reaches a high speed starship. If all components of the field considered with the matter wave also are already at the speed of light here, in Special Relativity there could be no change in the information about the wavelength. (See physics synopses link or link below for more.) One disproof of the relativity of gravity is, if gravity is exactly like relative motion, why does the moon with less mass fall around the earth with more and the earth in turn with less mass falls around the sun? (The more mass and gravity you have, the more priveledged and non relative your rest frame is, some observers with gravity are more priveledged than others, and this wouldn't be so if gravity and inertia were the same, so a second component of the field would be needed to explain the distinction.) For these and other reasons mentioned on my synopses page, F=ma seems of more worth than Einstein's belief to physics. On THIS LINK about the two components of the gravitational field I consider the evidence for a two component gravitational field, a faster than light but lower speed more masssive component made of near electromagnetic energy particles perhaps like the Higgs but of lower mass and more numerous to explain why inertia and gravity are mostly alike in Einstein's Equivalence principle, and a higher speed much faster than light component that would explain what's unlike about gravity that relativity ignores.
This idea that F=ma is the more general equation allows the interesting possibility that just like in common room physics around us there are degrees of quantization, otherwise, where would so much of the continuous physics around us come from? As I say on the link (above and at the end of the post) about the hypothesis of the two component gravitational field, a lower than electromagnetic energy component may explain centrifugal force by way of outer pressure of this relatively dense component of the field. While these virtual particles are measurable indirectly by way of physics like the matter waves of QED and Lamb shift of hydrogen, they are considered to be too low energy to be measured directly. Are these particles stable? If quanta were absolute as the constant speed of light in Einstein's physics hold all physics is from the speed of light, so the virtual particles here couldn't have a more gradual quantization. By this I mean they're at a given power level because there's proof they exist and if they were totally without some stability they would have foamed away over time, and as in the Standard Theory, the virtual particles are what give the "real" subatomic particles their mass, they are the subatomic foundation of particles of definite mass, so they would also be stable.
Relativity holds there is just one quantum that of light and electrons because of the constant speed of light, this is about the c in E=mc2, controlling all the rest of physics. But if more of the a of F=ma speeds are allowed than just the c of E=mc2, this could mean there are more levels of quanta allowed, with no ultimate distinction or not so much distinction between the quanta and the more continuous flow of the other fields. While the virtual particles are not directly measurable, this doesn't mean they aren't quantisized, even so they may be quantisized at another energy. By this I mean all the mystery of quantization may be simplified to say just that you have two types of forces for any mass or wave in the cosmos, that which causes attraction, and the expansive force, and both must be in all there is. Quantization is just where both forces, expansion and attraction both, are relatively strong, creating the particle with an outer more solid wall of mass and an inner more flowing field. In special relativity light is stable in speed, but the waviness of light within this frame is fluid and continuous. Virtual particles like the higher energy Higgs field of gravity I speak of would have a sort of lower energy quantization; the attractive force of the wall of each particle is reduced and the waviness may also be reduced (so that the forces balance and it's not infinite with too much expansion or contraction). This more continuous field not allowed by relativity explains one major problem in the quantum causology; if all is in quanta, why do the subatomic particles have masses that are nonquantisized in a seemimgly continuous distribution from low mass energy to more? The presumed subparticles like the Higgs have to have some type of stability and so be a bit quantisized, but if it were totaly about the speed of light it would already have been found in the lab. If the Higgs were as hugely massive to be small enough in size as many believe it would have strong cohesive force and so would be so quantisized and ionizing the physics it would involve already would have had influence on all the experiments ever done, this is why I believe in a Higgs of somewhat lower energy than electromagnetism to unify the quanta with more continuous physics. So it would seem they will never find a high energy Higgs in the machines like the LHC, lower energy would be where to look. Like Einstein's causology I believe this about the mass of the Higgs needed to explain the much smaller size they would have to have to fit inside the larger particles like a proton as subparticles is an important disproof of the Uncertainty Principle. They need to have subcomponents, but they would have to have huge mass and huge ionization if the Uncertainty Principle is the most general.
As Einstein said, "Do you honestly think the moon is not up there when you don't look up to see it?" In the Uncertainty Principle because there are high energy quanta, it takes a certain amount of energy to tip over the bucket to measure and change a particle. Einstein asked why this is not common in usual room flavor of mocha and fizz science where you use a much lower power particle of light to measure say a take out pizza without much changing it, who has 75$ for a Veggie when your box you watch is FM? In other words, there's no need that the measuring ray is near the same energy as the measured subatomic particle and that the probe would always change it much. There is with this idea of low energy quanta a way to allow a lower energy particle that would itself be quantisized enough to have internal stability but that would also not interact so much with the measured matter like the light with the cushion. I think this is possible at least, like the cushion and the radiant illimination of the lower energy of in a room, or just when my feline reads the web! (I say yesterday they found a cat in the hood of a Chevy after 40 miles at 50 miles purr hour, the Evening Mews, The engine was purring and they called Meowco! The SPFA was involved, The Society For the Praise of Felines in Automobiles!) While it may not turn out to be so about this idea of Einstein and my possible augumentation of it because the higher energy measured particle may so much change the lower energy measuring beam no more information may be extracted, like a high energy whirlwind, a much lower power ray of light of the good resolution might see through it. I agree with Einstein about this being possible. Even with water in a tub when it flows with a slosh of the funnel of water if you have a much faster lower energy wave to see it the light may often outdistance the downward stretching of the flow, and as I say above and in my physics synopses it's possible the low power waves are indeed faster than light. This may be how the Uncertainty Principle may thus be linked with the more continuous physics around us. The 20th century idea of quanta is without any explanation of waves, if the quanta were totally discontinuous this wouldn't be possible.
Will there be a quantum theory of gravity? If as I say on my page about The Higgs "and waves or particles?" gravity may be the foundation force to unify all the fields such as with energy conservation because all the forces speak gravity and it's cosmic. Particles are discontinuous so they have inherent contradictions not found in the causology of waves. If gravity is the foundation field and it's always attractive and thus it's moreso a continuous wave, waves are more fundamental than particles. Gravity being of much lower energy may be just too weak to attract and be in quanta. The higher energy component in a summer circus wheel of the gravitational field would thus be the closest to a quantum causology of gravity we would be able to achieve. Even with it's lower power of quantization by changing this field like the spins of its component particles we may come the closest to actually changing gravity in the lab with machines in ways like in the subatomic physics of 2008.
~~~
~~~
~~~
~~~~
...
