Einstein, Ghost Particles, and Other Conundrums All Perhaps May Solved By One Unifying Idea
.
.
A Brief Synopsis; low energy particles may be used to unify Einstein's equivalence of gravity and centrifugal force by way of resilient pressure of the particles being what they have in common. Click Here for more. Even so if the earth has the implosion of these particles why isn't it gaining mass?
...
This may seem to be not in proof of the idea the low energy particles would create the pressure of both inertia and gravity. A solution that could also explain 10 or more otherwise unexplained conundrums in physics (e,g.why older galaxies weigh more than new with no visible source of mass)may be because low energy virtual particles are also with resilient scattering and expansion somewhat after the implosion so the weight would not be much increased, with as much implosion as expansion of the field. The secondary resilient expansion would also be why the galaxies and other bodies like the Pioneer starships move faster than a simple causology of the force of gravity would allow, as the expansion of the field would thin out with the reradiation of the particles. The lower energy implosive wavelike higher speed gravitational component unique to gravity and not inertia would have reduced resistance and higher efficiency, and the gravity would fall off more slowly with distance. (The Pioneer anomalies are as if a small acceleration of the spacecraft toward the sun.) This idea of Dark Gravitational Energy DGE combined with Dark Gravitational Matter DGM (a fifth and sixth force at the center of each massive body) might also explain why the galaxies aren't torn to bits by the massive black holes; the outward expansion within the "heliopause" of the GE (Gravitational Energy) would cancel much of the implosive force even if the implosion itself is stronger for the galaxies with the DGM, at greater radii, the field would be without "renormalization" and mostly the implosive component of both the higher speed waves and the implosive particles carried inward by the waves would be in power. And by way of Einstein's belief that pressure increases mass, the implosion of the low energy virtual particles would also explain the recent finding that more ancient galaxies nearer by have more mass than distant galaxies without the old vintage. The source of the mass would be by the implosion of the particles from the field over billions of years that would then recirculate outward from the central black hole and settle down into more usual mass like Sirius MTV or other stars! Implosion of the field may explain the observation of bodies with high energy output of the beams with no surrounding disk like the Milky Way because the implosion of the low energy field would be the source of the mass of the radiation by the continuous implosion of the particles, The disks were believed to be the source of power before these high energy beams were found with no obvious modus vivendi. This was a problem to those who had tried to explain these objects as if powered by the implosion of the disk. With no disk there seems to be no way they could have sustained reactions seen. No fuel, no fire. The implosion of the particles would be a good explanation via an unseen implosion of the fuel. DGE and DGM would also solve other problems like why the halo of the Milky Way seems to contain 97% of the mass of the galaxy, gravity may have the needed mass.
Astronomy proves in the early universe the mass of galaxies have a mass of about 30x while somehow galaxies more of our own realm with more evolution are 1000 times heavier than central black holes. Scientific American March 2009 page 23 Astronomy says Christopher Carilli of the National Radio Observatory at the American Astronomy Observatory and his colleagues in January argue that "Black Holes were first and somehow-by unknown science-added the galaxy around them. Another problem is that a black hole can't build up a galaxy, if anything, it should tear them to bits." And the galaxies seem to be spinning so fast the centrifugal force by simple math should make them noncohesive here too. And they all rotate as a solid body, not like the solar system with it's spiral of the outer planets moving much slower.
Astronomy proves in the early universe the mass of galaxies have a mass of about 30x while somehow galaxies more of our own realm with more evolution are 1000 times heavier than central black holes. Scientific American March 2009 page 23 Astronomy says Christopher Carilli of the National Radio Observatory at the American Astronomy Observatory and his colleagues in January argue that "Black Holes were first and somehow-by unknown science-added the galaxy around them. Another problem is that a black hole can't build up a galaxy, if anything, it should tear them to bits." And the galaxies seem to be spinning so fast the centrifugal force by simple math should make them noncohesive here too. And they all rotate as a solid body, not like the solar system with it's spiral of the outer planets moving much slower.
..
Many think all this may have something to do with matter like "Weakly Interacting Massive Particles". The problem is no exotic forms of matter have yet been found in the lab or elsewhere, yet by the bending of the starlight by which its presence is also deduced it seems it should make up 97 percent of the matter of the universe. What keeps the globular clusters, beehive clumps of 100s of thousands of stars moving above the plane of the galaxy in a spherical shape, not a disc that would flatten out with so much spin? From their high speed and that they don't fall into the galaxy, it's been concluded there must be unseen mass to move them at high speed and so they stay above and below the disc of the Milky Way. It's been recently proposed by Paul Marmet on his site that the real source of all the missing mass is the "merely huge" clouds of hydrogen they've seen with machines to measure them. One problem with this is that the halo would gravitate and light up, there's nothing to keep more common mass like this from forming stars of the ordinary type. Thus if star clusters in a sphere around the galaxy are moving as if in the presence of strong gravity, there should be much light between the clusters and the center of the gravity of the spirals like the Milky Ways which are not seen. Others have offered up the idea that the missing mass of the spheres of the galaxies are just dwarf stars that have burnt out all the fusion power fuel, here too the problem is that these stars would gravitate to black holes and usual matter would fall into them with the outward radiant light. In relativity there doesn't have to be fusion or fission for matter to convert to energy, just accelerate it to the speed of light to radiate out the energy, meaning that even if all the matter for fusion is burnt out by the dwarfs, there would still be lots of light and energy given off as it would fall into these black holes formed by the hydrogen or dwarfs that would make up the missing mass and this is hasn't been found.
..
Others say plasma is the answer. By the physics of Alfven (he won the Nobel prize in the 50's) the stars might act like ionization machines, creating stronger lines of force of the electric fields than the usual inverse second power radiation law of Newton, so the force seems to fall off more like 1/d than 1/d2, with a stronger force holding the galaxies in one solid body like matter around us. One interesting motif used in support of Alfven's physics is that if you take a field of plasma in the lab and add a strong electric field it forms a miniature of the Milky Way right on the shelf as Eric Lerhner says in his book, The Big Bang Never Happened. There may be more to dynamics than plasma physics, because if plasma is holding the galaxies together with the missing mass just being hydrogen even if not illuminated for some unseen physics, it would presumably be what holds super-clusters of galaxies together since they have a lot of dark matter too, and if ionization is the cause we wouldn't just expect to see radiation from black holes from this hydrogen between the super-clusters, we would also expect to see much plasma and they would rotate as a solid body if the same physics were involved, a prediction of the plasma scenario. Likewise nothing is seen outside the solar system blocking our view to the stars that would presumably cause the same change in acceleration that is causing the Pioneer 10 and 11 starships to accelerate at a rate that's thrown them both off the path of known gravity by about a light second, 300,000 Km. The Pioneer's motion can't be explained by friction with plasma, there's not enough plasma seen.
These ideas about dark matter and dark energy seem to be "a shot in the dark" (other than DGE and DGM and perhaps plasma) as it were because most of these proposals don't even explain some of these problems and all of them have serious edits to be of worth, like moving the physics around in the train station with the rest frame in motion! Here's a possible way to unify all these ideas via improvements of
..
..
The Ghost Particle Causology....
~~
This is what I and others have use to explain both gravity and centrifugal force as being much alike in e.g Einsteins Equivalence Principle caused by the resilient pressure the particles exert in both the centrifuge and for gravity, and the reason they are also unalike with gravity needing more mass to exert the same force, ect. would be explained via a lower energy higher speed component of the field, and by this use of my addition to the science centrifugal force would be a sort of gravity without motive power. (The motive power itself would never wear out or run down so the cosmos wouldn't fizzle out all the energy over the infinite time of matter neither being created or destroyed.). Even so the ghost particle causology and my improvement of it in the general physics (General Wave Dynamics, GWD) has at least one serious drawback as it was originally proposed, not just the difference in gravity and inertia (as would be solved by my belief in GWD by the one component inertial field and the two component field of gravity). The problem with the virtual particles is about the mass of the earth. All mass that exerts pressure is solid. But if the Earth has all these somewhat massive particles flowing in where is all the increase of mass? This would be a problem for the original ghost particle causology (not my own) and it would seem it would fail by this because the mass must be large because it exerts the equivalent force of wind rushing up to hold you up in the air like in some of these machines that they have where you get in the machines they tour the country with and big fans lift you up in the air by the pressure. To achieve the same downward force of the gravity the ghost particles would presumably have to have an equivalent amount of mass or energy density. So the earth would seem to be gaining a large amount of mass per second by way of the inflow of the mass of these particles. Where's all the extra mass? As in GWD it seems more of worth to unify mass and inertia by the virtual particle physics. My possible explanation about this and other problems like the addition of the masses of galaxies with time may be that the particles flow in at one wavelength and then scatter at the center and then radiate out in more spherical shape at lower energy. Much like the sun with the inner implosion of gravity and the expansion of the light at another wavelength, this is a simple possibility that would explain why with all the force of weight of billions of tons of rocks of the earth and even with much squeezing, the net amount outflow of radiation from the earth is trivial. The problem of the disproof by the outflow of the resilient particles causing anti-gravity would be solved by the scattering which could lower the pressure they would exert, relieving the mass without much outer expansion of the field.
~~
This is what I and others have use to explain both gravity and centrifugal force as being much alike in e.g Einsteins Equivalence Principle caused by the resilient pressure the particles exert in both the centrifuge and for gravity, and the reason they are also unalike with gravity needing more mass to exert the same force, ect. would be explained via a lower energy higher speed component of the field, and by this use of my addition to the science centrifugal force would be a sort of gravity without motive power. (The motive power itself would never wear out or run down so the cosmos wouldn't fizzle out all the energy over the infinite time of matter neither being created or destroyed.). Even so the ghost particle causology and my improvement of it in the general physics (General Wave Dynamics, GWD) has at least one serious drawback as it was originally proposed, not just the difference in gravity and inertia (as would be solved by my belief in GWD by the one component inertial field and the two component field of gravity). The problem with the virtual particles is about the mass of the earth. All mass that exerts pressure is solid. But if the Earth has all these somewhat massive particles flowing in where is all the increase of mass? This would be a problem for the original ghost particle causology (not my own) and it would seem it would fail by this because the mass must be large because it exerts the equivalent force of wind rushing up to hold you up in the air like in some of these machines that they have where you get in the machines they tour the country with and big fans lift you up in the air by the pressure. To achieve the same downward force of the gravity the ghost particles would presumably have to have an equivalent amount of mass or energy density. So the earth would seem to be gaining a large amount of mass per second by way of the inflow of the mass of these particles. Where's all the extra mass? As in GWD it seems more of worth to unify mass and inertia by the virtual particle physics. My possible explanation about this and other problems like the addition of the masses of galaxies with time may be that the particles flow in at one wavelength and then scatter at the center and then radiate out in more spherical shape at lower energy. Much like the sun with the inner implosion of gravity and the expansion of the light at another wavelength, this is a simple possibility that would explain why with all the force of weight of billions of tons of rocks of the earth and even with much squeezing, the net amount outflow of radiation from the earth is trivial. The problem of the disproof by the outflow of the resilient particles causing anti-gravity would be solved by the scattering which could lower the pressure they would exert, relieving the mass without much outer expansion of the field.
..
Centrifugal force and gravity are not the same. Centrifugal force would flatten the galaxies by way of it's greater strength than gravity. The only long range forces are gravity and electromagnetism, i.e. about the speed of light. Electromagnetism is much stronger than gravity so in addition to being disconnected by Einstein's "slow speed of light" it's also bound well by the electromagnetic field in both a tight and loose connection. The cause of the galaxies pancake geometry would be caused by the loose connection at the outside of the disc and the strong connection of the poles. If you have a sphere made of flat bands like springs that bend around from pole to pole like the lines on a world map to form the sphere and then you spin the sphere, it levels out to a more and more flat shape like the galaxy caused by the strong force of adhesion at the top and tip while the band has reduced connection around the equatorial zone. The centrifugal flattening is caused by both the stronger attraction below and higher and the reduced attraction around the outward radii, this would be because electromagnetism is both attractive and expansive. But since gravity is not seen to be much expansive, if it does expand, its flattening may be reduced compared to the flattening of just the centrifugal force. If there were much resilience of this expansive component of the field we would fall off the earth, so the scattering radiation would be spherical. Even so this component of the field would have some mass and exert some pressure so energy is conserved because all mass attracts at least somewhat. The 1/d law when drawn on a diagram of the massive bodies in motion is not an exact law, it's more like 1/d somewhat more and then with higher radii it falls off. This could be because the two long range forces of gravity and the centrifugal force of electromagnetism are combining in more complex ways caused by how a gravitational sphere would combine with the more leveled out centrifugal force, if it were simple empty space time like Einstein believed, the galaxy's would be simple and without the bulge at the center, the spiral, and then the solid disk with constant force, and then the force falling off at the edge..
There have already been some experimental proofs of the low energy particle causology without use of this elaboration tried with just the implosion of the field and no expansion. If black holes are indeed imploding in huge gulps of the field, they should be gaining mass. And research has proven that they do add weight but at half the rate this version without reradiation like in my own causology allows. This would seem uncoincidental.
..
CLICK HERE FOR the New Scientist site
http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn6495-black-holes-haunt-ghost-particle-theory.html.
http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn6495-black-holes-haunt-ghost-particle-theory.html.
A motif Einstein used about what he named "spacelike and timelike intervals" may be of worth here. Many people think that Einstein only believed there was no travel faster than light possible. Actually he was more generous to future would be geniuses and other mavericks of physics. He said in essence, "Faster than light seems impossible based on all the experiments we have in the 20th century, even so if it is so, here are what I think are the motifs faster than light may use." One of his conclusions was about the famous EPR faster than light "action at a distance". Another is his map of the physics weather in the year 2025 about the more unheralded spacelike and timelike intervals, one faster than light, the other slower. Where Einstein got this idea is a mystery, perhaps from Poe who believed in unified spacetime years before Einstein. Spacelike and timelike particles (photons) had indeed been found in the lab by the 1970's, one has mass but no inertia and the other type has inertia but no mass, this is what the experiments show. In the 80's when I read about this discovery in my 20's like most I still believed in the impossibility of faster than light. So in those days I hoped to save poor rich Einstein from contradicting himself, poor him if he was just having a bad light-year all month! In his time antiparticles were more unknown, he was before the time of Feynman (the Nobel laureate). Feynman's conclusion was that antiparticles are actually time reversed for a bit right after an interaction (then they mingle with the matter nearby and aren't time reversed. This makes sense if time is well known in higher physics to be a curve and proportional to frequency and time is always found to be measured by periodic fluctuation, so each particle in subatomic physics is like a small clock. If the spin is reversed like with matter and antimatter, the time is reversed for just a while ). I thought "This seems familiar. The antiparticles and particles and Einstein's belief in the space and timelike intervals are reversed in time too. If so perhaps Einstein's conclusion of faster than light about the intervals would be slower and it was more in tune with the findings of more common (later 20th century) physics." The mass and inertia of the virtual spacelike and timelike particles seem much like matter and antimatter, this general distinction would give them their opposition, explaining the reversal of sign, while at the same time saving Einstein's "error" of faster than light. He thought the zero interval was at the speed of light but I think intervals like spacelike and timelike it may actually be faster or slower in general and is a general idea useful for any balanced action reaction pair with a different zero interval and highest speed depending on what it is.
In light of my more recent conclusions about the possibility of Faster Than Light in GWD (there are many recent experimental and some classic evidence for you in favor of GWD CLICK HERE..) I think the idea of these two intervals may actually in general be more like Einstein believed about faster than light. I think they could be the two components of the Faster Than Light gravity field I described above in use of both the distinction and the unity of gravitational and inertial mass. For gravity not inertia both components would be present, a lower energy much faster than light wavelike attractive component would achieve the motive power of gravity (waves attract and unify) and the ghost particle component which would move slower but perhaps both slower and faster than light even if not nearly as fast as the wavelike field. (The more dense [virtual] field that would mediate between the motive gravity and the electromagnetic field would be essentially the already well proven matter wave field of Quantum Electro Dynamics or a near energy field to it. To prove the higher speed component to explain the distinction between gravity and inertia Einstein omits, the longer wavelength would have a definite speed, hopefully as Maxwell used to predict the speed of light well based on the field density. Less density higher speed of the wave (like light). So the predicted speed of the low energy component of gravity by my causology would be proof of the two component field as I say in the experiments on my physics Synopses Page.) The more dense particle component would both apply the pressure under motive power of this higher speed lower energy implosive waves to cause gravity and then radiate out. And in this possible explanation it would make the mass of black holes have the value of implosion just half that of the basic virtual particle causology because the wavelike component would be just half the value of the particle component because they would be indeed much like matter and antimatter, the same and equal but opposite, except the particles like matter would scatter and waves like antimatter wouldn't. Thus most of the ghost particles falling into a black hole would be scattered and reradiated out mostly cancelling 50% the mass while the waves might continue imploding, creating the mass that actually increases by 50% overall by way of the conversion of the pressure to mass, another motif of Einstein's belief. Half the field is particulate, half wavelike. Like the earth, black holes may have both the implosion and rescattering of the particles but black holes in addition could also convert the low energy component of the field to mass. The black hole mass found by the astronomy research is not the exact 50% because the scattering relative to the implosion would be a bit more complex because particles are a bit more complex than fluids. For more massive black holes more of the particles would be held in the field by the implosion.
~~
The reradiation of the ghost field outward would offer a possible way to explain why many think gravity may change like with the Pioneer spacecraft at great distances,
..
By the related physics the galaxies may not be torn to bits by the central black hole. At near radii the gravity caused by implosion of the field wold be cancelled more by more reradiation of the particulate field and the force at greater distance wouldn't be cancelled so much as the radiation field thins out, so the implosive field at greater radii could be stronger with reduced resistance to the implosion accelerating both the galaxies and the Pioneers more.
..
The gravity would be stronger at both near and far distance from the source because of the superdense DGM at the center of each galaxy by way of more implosion of the field, and the galaxies wouldn't be torn apart by the balance of the field radiance at near radii while with more distance with thinning of the radiation of the field even with reduced shredding the force would drop off more slowly.
...
As I say on my main physics page. (Fifth and sixth Force) energy of the field would be converted to a superdense mass in the center of each of the more massive bodies or somewhat with the Pioneers. The Fifth and Sixth forces of the DGM would be created only out of gravity and not stable in motion outward so these heavy particles wouldn't be found anywhere else or near us.
The dark energy/DGE itself would be the radiant virtual particles, having resilience because they're dense like in the fan machine where near the woman when she wears a watch or pearls at 200 mph, in high speed celebration! Thus they could add to the centrifugal force somewhat while the dark matter would increase the cohesive force a lot so the result is that the overall force holding the masses would be stronger and fall off faster at near radii but it would have more power with more distance falling off more slowly with increased radius, and the problem of the galaxies adding on more mass without source seen added on would seem to be caused in this scenario by the implosion of all low energy particles that would then be bound to the galaxies in loops adding more and more mass over time to make the stars and other matter, so the galaxies would literally be made of the field mostly but we are anyway from celebration and for celebration, moms are are already here! (The cosmos as a whole wouldn't put on infinite weight over infinite time with energy neither created or destroyed because by definition there's no mass outside the cosmos to draw inward so the mass would stay the same and we wouldn't have been engulfed in the infinite radiation. In my version of Vortex Cosmology the galaxies would be shredded up at the end of each cycle of expansion implosion by the high energy so they wouldn't build up forever.)
~~~
This would not be either or about the radiant implosive particle causology and plasma physics, Alfven was a genius and won the Nobel prize, in the days when physics was more physics. While I believe plasma can't explain what holds the superclusters together with no light between the galaxies there, the coincidence of the small whirl of gas when charged being like a more massive whirlpool when you look up to see the cosmos seems improbable. So I believe the plasma physics are of worth by way of the ionization to hold the milky way and other galaxies as solid bodies. Even so there is not much plasma to speed up the Pioneer anamolies or between the larger masses so this may be because of the reradiation of the low energy particles. The massive orbs like superstars are seen in many observations to have the center of mass without any visable mass, this could be DGE but not optical or other mass, if it were black holes there would be light as all the hydrogen falls in.
The dark energy/DGE itself would be the radiant virtual particles, having resilience because they're dense like in the fan machine where near the woman when she wears a watch or pearls at 200 mph, in high speed celebration! Thus they could add to the centrifugal force somewhat while the dark matter would increase the cohesive force a lot so the result is that the overall force holding the masses would be stronger and fall off faster at near radii but it would have more power with more distance falling off more slowly with increased radius, and the problem of the galaxies adding on more mass without source seen added on would seem to be caused in this scenario by the implosion of all low energy particles that would then be bound to the galaxies in loops adding more and more mass over time to make the stars and other matter, so the galaxies would literally be made of the field mostly but we are anyway from celebration and for celebration, moms are are already here! (The cosmos as a whole wouldn't put on infinite weight over infinite time with energy neither created or destroyed because by definition there's no mass outside the cosmos to draw inward so the mass would stay the same and we wouldn't have been engulfed in the infinite radiation. In my version of Vortex Cosmology the galaxies would be shredded up at the end of each cycle of expansion implosion by the high energy so they wouldn't build up forever.)
~~~
This would not be either or about the radiant implosive particle causology and plasma physics, Alfven was a genius and won the Nobel prize, in the days when physics was more physics. While I believe plasma can't explain what holds the superclusters together with no light between the galaxies there, the coincidence of the small whirl of gas when charged being like a more massive whirlpool when you look up to see the cosmos seems improbable. So I believe the plasma physics are of worth by way of the ionization to hold the milky way and other galaxies as solid bodies. Even so there is not much plasma to speed up the Pioneer anamolies or between the larger masses so this may be because of the reradiation of the low energy particles. The massive orbs like superstars are seen in many observations to have the center of mass without any visable mass, this could be DGE but not optical or other mass, if it were black holes there would be light as all the hydrogen falls in.
..
...The way to DGE seems to explain Relativity better than Einstein's causology and would be left with the problem of the mass of the Earth increasing without a way to recirculate or reradiate the particles. All the other ways out of these observations to fit the cause have the problem of no connecting or radiant mass being seen. While there may be other reasons for these effects, the GDM and reradiation of GDE are along the lines of attack others have believed to be the best way out via mass business booming outward a bit as it were. They arrived at this belief after deliberation on all the other ways to explain it like the above, and not with just luck to reach this conclusion that many think is the most probable.
..
..
Gravity is unlike most other mass being transparent except to our machines. To have the Pioneers move fast and Mercury move mostly the same may be about field efficiency, all fields max out sooner or later or they would be infinite. There are many ways like the mass and density of the planets or where the orbits of atomic electrons increase from small to more, then fall off in energy. The usual 1/d 2 law is well proven for near distances and the laws of radiation like 1/d2 or Coulomb's Law would be by the GDE field. Whatever dark matter and dark energy are it seems they have to both change at both near and distant densities and radii like this and presumably be moving past us all the time and if dense it would presumably be easy to find with our machines. Gravity is invisible to astronomy and it's a long range force, an advantage which exotic subatomic particles of heavy mass to make the high power mass implied by the effects seen like the bending of starlight are without. In my explanation the DGM is removed away from most other mass inside the massive bodies by instability with stability inside only and conversion to more common matter outside when fizzing out. While by this the idea of DGM can be allowed inside massive gravity power sources, if dark energy exists it must be all around. It can't be electromagnetic or optical because light and electricity are not dense and radiate and absorb light, and the only other long range force is gravity. (There are two ways to make the galaxies spin faster without expansion reduce centrifugal force or increase the gravity. Centrifugal force could be the cause by way of Einstein's seperate points of space time because of the disconnection of the "slow speed of light". At greater distances the centrifugal force would be more constant and more nearly with no connection by way of the electromagnetic field [like the linear motion of inertia of Special Relativity, i. e the speed of light so I believe electromagnetism and Special Relativity may be the cause of inertia] so the force could be more constant with distance from the center of massive bodies. This hypothesis could be distinguished from the change in gravity instead by the reduction in centrifugal force with no or 0 connection giving no resistance to the change in acceleration. This would be with no radiation emmitted around the outside of the massive spinning whirlpool. On the other hand a change in gravity without changes in the inertia would plough into the electromagnetic field of the centrifugal force and so the changes in gravity would give off more braking radiation for massive sources like the Milky Way. Another possibility is that the plasma model may make the visable matter unified by electromagnetic ionization of the stars, because it would seem too random for gravity (an acceleration) to almost exactly be nonlogarythmic with the entire disk moving as a solid. On the other hand, there are masses all around us that are made solid by electromagnetic forces like this. Even so I believe a combination of both plasma and DGE/DGM may be the answer since as I say there are other things plasma can't explain like the dearth of plasma seen for the Poineer spacecraft and there being no illumination for the center of some superclusters or no disk for some high energy radiant beams seen while most are with the discs. It's possible since the centrifugal force of a galaxy seems to be low energy electromagnetism like the speed of light in relativity and uniform motion, and the plasma is higher energy, the centrifugal force creating the braking radiation may either the same or increased.) If the assumption of a low energy field is the way to solve the dark energy puzzle a simple change in the efficiency of the particles and their scattering or absorption from small to greater radiation may be how Mercury's motion and the other motions would be caused in a unified simple way. Since the limit of the halo of the Milky Way and other giant masses might be a gradual thinning out of the DGE, the efficiency of gravity would drop off more slowly, then more at the outer edge of the heliopause of the DGE. This would be why there seems to be 97 per cent of the mass of the Milky way in the sphere around the plane of the Milky Way, bound up as DGE by the DGM. Like all mass DGE would attract somewhat and so it would first be imploded by the field and then with reradiance it could reexpand to the realm of the halo and fall back in in cycles retaining much of the mass that was imploded by the attraction of the field.
..
Gravity is unlike most other mass being transparent except to our machines. To have the Pioneers move fast and Mercury move mostly the same may be about field efficiency, all fields max out sooner or later or they would be infinite. There are many ways like the mass and density of the planets or where the orbits of atomic electrons increase from small to more, then fall off in energy. The usual 1/d 2 law is well proven for near distances and the laws of radiation like 1/d2 or Coulomb's Law would be by the GDE field. Whatever dark matter and dark energy are it seems they have to both change at both near and distant densities and radii like this and presumably be moving past us all the time and if dense it would presumably be easy to find with our machines. Gravity is invisible to astronomy and it's a long range force, an advantage which exotic subatomic particles of heavy mass to make the high power mass implied by the effects seen like the bending of starlight are without. In my explanation the DGM is removed away from most other mass inside the massive bodies by instability with stability inside only and conversion to more common matter outside when fizzing out. While by this the idea of DGM can be allowed inside massive gravity power sources, if dark energy exists it must be all around. It can't be electromagnetic or optical because light and electricity are not dense and radiate and absorb light, and the only other long range force is gravity. (There are two ways to make the galaxies spin faster without expansion reduce centrifugal force or increase the gravity. Centrifugal force could be the cause by way of Einstein's seperate points of space time because of the disconnection of the "slow speed of light". At greater distances the centrifugal force would be more constant and more nearly with no connection by way of the electromagnetic field [like the linear motion of inertia of Special Relativity, i. e the speed of light so I believe electromagnetism and Special Relativity may be the cause of inertia] so the force could be more constant with distance from the center of massive bodies. This hypothesis could be distinguished from the change in gravity instead by the reduction in centrifugal force with no or 0 connection giving no resistance to the change in acceleration. This would be with no radiation emmitted around the outside of the massive spinning whirlpool. On the other hand a change in gravity without changes in the inertia would plough into the electromagnetic field of the centrifugal force and so the changes in gravity would give off more braking radiation for massive sources like the Milky Way. Another possibility is that the plasma model may make the visable matter unified by electromagnetic ionization of the stars, because it would seem too random for gravity (an acceleration) to almost exactly be nonlogarythmic with the entire disk moving as a solid. On the other hand, there are masses all around us that are made solid by electromagnetic forces like this. Even so I believe a combination of both plasma and DGE/DGM may be the answer since as I say there are other things plasma can't explain like the dearth of plasma seen for the Poineer spacecraft and there being no illumination for the center of some superclusters or no disk for some high energy radiant beams seen while most are with the discs. It's possible since the centrifugal force of a galaxy seems to be low energy electromagnetism like the speed of light in relativity and uniform motion, and the plasma is higher energy, the centrifugal force creating the braking radiation may either the same or increased.) If the assumption of a low energy field is the way to solve the dark energy puzzle a simple change in the efficiency of the particles and their scattering or absorption from small to greater radiation may be how Mercury's motion and the other motions would be caused in a unified simple way. Since the limit of the halo of the Milky Way and other giant masses might be a gradual thinning out of the DGE, the efficiency of gravity would drop off more slowly, then more at the outer edge of the heliopause of the DGE. This would be why there seems to be 97 per cent of the mass of the Milky way in the sphere around the plane of the Milky Way, bound up as DGE by the DGM. Like all mass DGE would attract somewhat and so it would first be imploded by the field and then with reradiance it could reexpand to the realm of the halo and fall back in in cycles retaining much of the mass that was imploded by the attraction of the field.
.....
The Earth is not gaining much mass because presumably most of both the mass and energy from the implosive field would be completely rescattered and flow back out. Small black holes would perhaps retain more of the field than the Earth while the main claim to mass the black holes would have may be the conversion of the lower energy implosive field to mass at the "singularity" by mass energy conversion. This was an idea of Einstein's that pressure increases mass. Even so a more massive black hole might attract more of the ghostly field than a smaller massive gravity mass of this type perhaps by the way of the amount of resilience and scattering of this field, more complex than the empty space time Einstein believed in.
...
At the higher mass and distance, galaxies would both retain more of the particles in the aurora and also have more of the energy of the field converted to mass, so the Earth may win some, lose some, mass and going from intermediate to larger masses like the galaxies, the rate of gain of mass might increase, and for more massive bodies like the Milky Way the same processes would be most efficient where both implosion of the particles and the wavelike attractive component of the field would be converted to mass. So by a roundabout way I agree with Hawking's idea that a large massive body only adds on mass and this was also Einstein's belief, except ghost particles also could explain more about gravity and Relativity.
The Earth is not gaining much mass because presumably most of both the mass and energy from the implosive field would be completely rescattered and flow back out. Small black holes would perhaps retain more of the field than the Earth while the main claim to mass the black holes would have may be the conversion of the lower energy implosive field to mass at the "singularity" by mass energy conversion. This was an idea of Einstein's that pressure increases mass. Even so a more massive black hole might attract more of the ghostly field than a smaller massive gravity mass of this type perhaps by the way of the amount of resilience and scattering of this field, more complex than the empty space time Einstein believed in.
...
At the higher mass and distance, galaxies would both retain more of the particles in the aurora and also have more of the energy of the field converted to mass, so the Earth may win some, lose some, mass and going from intermediate to larger masses like the galaxies, the rate of gain of mass might increase, and for more massive bodies like the Milky Way the same processes would be most efficient where both implosion of the particles and the wavelike attractive component of the field would be converted to mass. So by a roundabout way I agree with Hawking's idea that a large massive body only adds on mass and this was also Einstein's belief, except ghost particles also could explain more about gravity and Relativity.
..
Because of the advantages the causology may have these physics of the low energy field may explain the Pioneer anamoly, why galaxies spin at a faster rate, and so on as in the above, while at the same time saving the virtual particle causology and improving relativity, both in cause and in use of potential improvements. For instance Faster Than Light wave motion may be possible for networking (by changes in the density of the field) and even for the possiblity of antigravity (if centrifugal force like gravity is caused by the pressure of the particles "aim the centrifugal force and the flow of the field up or down inside an wheel with oscillation and there would be more or reduced weight".). This would not be possible in Einstein's relativity because he believed space time is just empty so the speed of light is constant by the particle of light not interacting between emmission and absorption where the observer sees the light.
...
Another reason to believe particle radiation and reradiation may be the real cause of these problems is the question of why there are no medium weight black holes as recent evidence has found. Click Here For New Scientist Site; Evidence For No Medium Weight Black Holes . While stars on the main sequence may seem to be limited in mass and to thus form black holes of a maximum size, there's no reason to believe that these black holes couldn't coalesce into medium sized masses without another component of the physics because if their escape velocity is faster than light so they would tend to cohere, no radiation pressure outward would be available to them to either use to slingshot past the nearby stars and matter to hold off collapse by way of the radiation. The reradiation of somewhat resilient nonoptical particles would be how they could hold off the coalescence even with faster than light implosion of the field. Medium mass black holes would be a sort of star of more mass than the main sequence, it not being with enough force to make more massive stars (the stars on the main sequence with more mass just have a shorter lifetime so stars are limited in mass and lifetime by the limited fuel for fusion). Once a black hole was formed by the more common main sequence star's collapse, like a star itself it would have great distance to another star or black hole. Though it's stellar speed may be enough to give it inertia enough to not collapse for most of them formed from stars of the main sequence and even if this may be why there are generally no medium weight black holes, this explanation fails for the stars of globular clusters which move in a swarm and don't rotate fast enough to stave off the implosion. It seems there would be a medium weight black hole in the center of each globular cluster if so. A better way out may be if the DGE is first in implosion and then reradiation, thus the stability of globular clusters without a medium weight central black hole is another possible problem the Radiant Reradiant Particle Causology may solve. You may see the sites that try to prove the cause of globular clusters not having medium mass black holes and why they don't flatten out or collapse is hydrogen and high energy electric fields. The problem is that if the globular clusters were just hydrogen they would start to spin and flatten out (making them not globular clusters and they may be named www!) As you may see on the Wikipedia site about globular clusters, they are tightly bound and they should either start to spin and flatten out or something quite radiant is reducing the angular momenta of the stars that are there. With implosion of more common matter there would be medium black holes at the center, and if the low energy field may easily reradiate it would both reduce implosion and coalesence while radiation of the angular momenta may reduce flattening and spin. The implosion and reradiation of the field might make the stars and black holes of a globular cluster much the same in terms of general dynamics; the implosion by way of my conclusion about the spacelike and timelike intervals making a black hole of just 50% of the mass would also mean the force of implosion and reradation may be almost in stasis so the stars and black holes would be at an unchanging radius even far from the center based on the possible physics of implosion and reradiation even at faster than the speed of light, or because of this to be exact since if the speed of light were the limit for the implosion there would be no reradiation and the stability of globular clusters would be by way of plasma, but this would implode to the center and make a medium sized black hole and this from a heavier implosion is not found. If the implosion and expansion of the field is much lighter and faster than light it could more easily reradiate out from the center of the globular cluster with it's greater resilience and lower rest mass so no dense region of a medium weight black hole would need to be at the center of these beehive star systems. The escape speed around a black hole still would be near the speed of light or higher, it would be at another wavelength for the implosion than the expansion, like the sun implodes the gravity at one energy and reradiates at another, at longer range they may be in stasis, while at near radii the force would be stronger.
..
For black holes formed with stars nearer to the main sequence and outside the globular clusters greater mass would make them more prone to coalesce without reradiation of the low energy field, so this is a prediction of the reradiation of the GDE. The amount of implosion and reradiation can be found by the physics, and from it the possible amount of reradiation to fit the black hole masses known with 50% of the mass. The reduction in numbers of medium mass black holes would be determined via the same momentum as the parent stars with the extra reduction in the number of medium black holes caused by the predicted amount of resilience of the expansion of the field. Galaxies with much more mass would be massive enough to coalsce both the black holes and the DGE. Thus giant and small stellar type black holes would be found but none of medium size.
So the idea that the low energy field implodes and reradiates may explain why there are no medium sized black holes and these ten otherwise seemingly unrelated motifs (as in "without cause by any other physics yet seen than GDE and GDM");
Why superclusters of galaxies have no radiant mass of the center of gravity,
How high energy beams have no disk and would have no way to maintain power seen, the disk for the power is replaced by the implosion of the low energy field.
Why the galaxies are spinning faster without explosion,
Why they gain mass with time;
Why they aren't torn to bits by the gravity of central black holes,
Why they rotate as solid bodies and why they don't have an exact 1/d law (explained not Einstein's empty space time but by the more complex physics of particles, the sphere overlapping the disc of the galaxy, and so on.)
Why black holes have half the mass;
The spacecraft amamolies;
Why the earth isn't putting on lots of weight,
While at the same time unifying gravity and inertia....
To prove this may be by way of a two mass experiment of more common physics. If you take the two masses say one of 30 pounds and the other of 20 and adhere them well to an L shaped boom and throw them up in the air spinning they will rotate around a central point "in empty space" that changes as if it's not empty at all as Einstein held; the more mass the one has the nearer the center of mass moves to it, in a regular way the heavy mass times the shorter distance always equals the lighter mass times it's greater distance to the center of mass from it. Empty space seems to have more resiliency and motion than Einstein believed! It seems unusual that empty space seems to be moving with the masses as they move around when they are thrown in the air. To me Einstein, seems like a comic about this about the field being with no mass or energy, if the EinFeld Show reruns 10,000 years! If it's with no energy or mass, how does it have these definite motifs?
I believe the field of the two masses may have the two components, an imploding component made of the low power particles more like an off side 8 sign with two different masses that would reach a zero or the lowest value at the center of mass (Maximum compression of the field) and this combined with the possible reradiating more spherical field. The two components might reinforce or subtract. Whatever the value of the implosion the expansion would subtract that much of its component from it. The implosion is more complex because it's both linear to the center of mass and round around both masses, but the expansion may be more spherical and a lower energy component. And two distinct masses could have two rates of expansion/implosion with the resulting center of mass changing a bit more. The larger mass like the galaxies would spin faster in the same order of magnitude as the Pioneers are moving. You would have different values of the implosion at different angles with the resilience but the same amount of the simpler spherical reradiaton would be subtracted from these amounts. To measure them since the atomic clocks would measure the density of the field as in Einstein's General Relativity this would be one way to measure it if it exists, another way would be by machines like the Torsion Machines or other machines used to measure gravity.
..
Even so I don't agree about the atomic clocks slowing down with more mass like Einstein believed. (Click Here for Why..)
...
I believe this In the center of the compression where the force is strongest the field would be like an ice skater with arms in and moving faster. All time is well proven to be measured by periodic motion, so with more spin and more mass at the most inside, the atomic clock might tick at higher speed with each small clock of all the particles of the field being generally under cohesion. While I don't have access to these particular machines, this idea could also be tested with spheres and mass all the way around the outside, with the L shaped beam and masses and with the measuring machines in the center of the globes and weights on the outside. If this idea is true in disproof of General Relativity as I say on my main physics page the time will be faster with more mass and it might be proportional to the density of the field.
..
...Star clusters moving around the Milky Way above the plane could be caused by the explosion reradiation of the scattering field of the particles. A sphere if with a bit of resilience to move the star clusters above the Milky Way, and if the forces are the same the solar system might be like a small Milky Way with the same visible plane and the spherical field. The outward sphere of the ghost particles would reach a maximum of expansion, at the DGE particle heliopause both for the galaxies and the solar system. Particles being more discontinuous could have more friction and resist the more continuous waves of the gravitational attraction. Thus at the nearer distance like the planets the more common 1/d2 law would hold while at greater radii with more reradiation and the limit of the ghostly radiance the efficiency of the gravity could improve. This would be why the galaxies spin at higher speed than by conventional gravity. An experiment to prove if the motion of the stars above the Milky Way and the Pioneers are the same may be to send another probe above the plane of the solar system at closer distance or with observations of asteroids with high inclinations to the orbits of the planets. If the scattering field of the gravity is a round sphere and not attracting the plane as much and the centrifugal component tends to level out, with a mass above the plane of the solar system, its motion would perhaps be both a bit moreso because of the lifting of the scattering field along with the usual outward motion seen with the Pioneers. Thus there could be another component of the motion not seen in the Pioneers yet because in the level plane of the solar system, the buoyancy of the radiant globe of GDE would there be at exactly right angles to the motion of the ship. If a comet or other mass nearby may move it above the plane for a bit, the rate of the return to the plane may be enough to prove this or not without further boost of price, especially if it's nearer in to the possible center of the outward flow of the field. The idea of a spherical radiant DGE halo could also be in the related motif of the motion of masses like stars headed outward from the center of a galaxy (where the gravity is more like 1/d than it should be by Newtonian physics) as they sometimes do because of explosions ect. inside the area of where the ghost heliopause might be. By Newtonian physics they would be moving outward and down toward the plane of the galaxy by gravity, inertia and centrifugal force. With the extra DGE spherical component at an angle upward to the plane, the outward motion would be a bit more upward, all else held the same. The galaxies spin in a spiral nearer the center like with more common gravity, so this effect could be stronger halfway from the center. The implosion is non spherical because there is more and more implosive mass at the ecliptic, so the expansion of the DGE might be more spherical if about radiation. This could be the cause of the two bulges in the N and S hemisphere of the Earth and would have a related effect for masses like the sun. With more water in the S hemisphere of the Earth there would be more outer bulge, water is lighter so it expands more, and so too for the bulges with the Earth tilting higher or lower than the plane of the moon's orbit. The bulges wouldn't increase or decrease so much with the tides if they are partly caused by the gravitational radiance. This effect is no more than one part in 10 to the 7th by the size of the bulges so only a force of this magnitude would be seen in the above experiment with the booms and machines like the Torsion Machine or the atomic clocks. A comparable expansion of the galactic halo might also be of the same magnitude or about a light year. While it would seem from the basic physics that the bulges like the pear shape of the earth would be caused just by the gravity of the moon, other planets like the giant planets also have the bulges so they're not not caused by gravity so much. The bulges are the same as the resonances of the geometry of hydrogen atoms of 2d orbitals, but there are no gravitational tides in the subatomic realm. There are indeed matter waves that are the electrons component and there could thus be some radiance here of the same as Radiant Reradiant DGE. Just as in geophysics the Pacific ring of fire and the Mid Atlantic Oceanic ridge may have been caused by two quite unrelated events like the capture of the moon as is now believed and the slow heating of the Earth causing the slower Atlantic plate motion, the bulges may not actually be caused mostly by the tides, and may not have been found yet on the sun because the electrical and magnetic solar storms may make the shape more in a sphere by way of the radiation. Even so, during the 11.2 year minimum with the reduced radiance the bulges might be found providing they are of the right magnitude to be of the same cause as the changes in the Pioneer motions, not just in a planar geometry, but also with the equivalent outward radiation in a sphere, essentially if this for the Sun is found to be with the higher and lower bulges like the earth and in the shape of giant planets, if this is true it definitely wouldn't be caused by the gravity of the moon.
..
...Motifs as small as the shift of the orbit of Mercury in Einstein's General Relativity are known. The Pioneer anamoly is 1/100 that of Mercury's motion. This is a problem for any other cause of than this by way of the virtual field with the masses moving too fast by way of the older ideas about gravity or whatever it is that's causing the motion of the more distant and higher speed bodies to move as they do. Gravity at the close radii could be more balanced by both implosion and expansion of the field, while beyond the "heliopause" with reduced resistance by the low energy particles, the gravity would be more constant and with higher efficiency. The limit of this heliopause may not have to be a definite edge, with higher and higher efficiency with higher radii. With all the things the Radiant Reradiant DGE particle causology may explain well it might alternately be solved by some small change in causology without changing what would be the basic physics of the virtual field. Another possible way to explain why the low power increase in the implosion of the field is strong enough to move the Pioneers while it may not be strong enough to move Mercury or the Moon as much may be because like a beach ball on the oceans waves a small mass doesn't need as much energy to move it as a giant mass like a planet or an ocean liner, so it might not show up for the planets or the moon at lower resolution and in the plane of the planets but may for the above about the higher and lower bulges of masses like the Earth and the Sun. Even so the unifying change might actually be much smaller for the moon, larger for the starships and the galaxies and in the experiment with the two masses and the atomic clocks and the Torsion Balance and so on..
..
While as I say even so the one simple possible change of low energy implosion and reradiance could explain the above 10 otherwise unexplained motifs about the galaxies, the Earth and Relativity, and so on. No other causology like e.g, the Weakly Interacting Massive Particles, the plasma not seen, or other causes than gravity may be as good. While this is yet unknown physics, to me it seems more probable than any other cause you may read about here in 2009. Gravity is long range, and unlike the only other force long range electromagnetism, gravity is not visable even while we rest here in it's radiance. This may not turn out to be the cause of those 10 unexplained problems but to me it seems to be the best yet.
..
..
..
....
WHY GDE RADIANT/RERADIANT PARTICLES MAY NOT POWER SPHERICAL COSMIC EXPANSION
...
..I liken the cosmos to a possible equivalence of the dynamics of the masses like a galaxy with the same physics even if on a huge scale of a higher cosmic level of mass energy. This could unify the known physics of galaxies via the same motif of the cosmos at large, achieved via the uniformity of physics. The overall implosion of gravity is more the winner so no mass is lost over time and fizzled out in violation of energy conservation. The low energy field has been used by some to explain the expansion and acceleration of the cosmos observed. Certainly the speed of light limit would also mean no acceleration (beyond a definite distance light with 0 connection is 0 and the expansion would be uniform, thus the acceleration observed seems to be more evidence for my belief in my causology of General Wave Dynamics and the possibility of faster than light.). The field could no longer connect up to transmit force and if it could the force being electromagnetic would be much stronger than the amount of the acceleration (the electromagnetic field would perhaps set the cosmic expansion of the cone in motion at the center of the cosmos but would be out of reach of an acceleration with more distance). The small value of acceleration has been a problem about dark energy, why not a giant outward motion or 0? If you have DGE imploding at faster than light at one wavelength and expanding at another the small value of the cosmic acceleration would be no problem, the two fields cancel mostly even while there's more outward motion of the cone.
..I liken the cosmos to a possible equivalence of the dynamics of the masses like a galaxy with the same physics even if on a huge scale of a higher cosmic level of mass energy. This could unify the known physics of galaxies via the same motif of the cosmos at large, achieved via the uniformity of physics. The overall implosion of gravity is more the winner so no mass is lost over time and fizzled out in violation of energy conservation. The low energy field has been used by some to explain the expansion and acceleration of the cosmos observed. Certainly the speed of light limit would also mean no acceleration (beyond a definite distance light with 0 connection is 0 and the expansion would be uniform, thus the acceleration observed seems to be more evidence for my belief in my causology of General Wave Dynamics and the possibility of faster than light.). The field could no longer connect up to transmit force and if it could the force being electromagnetic would be much stronger than the amount of the acceleration (the electromagnetic field would perhaps set the cosmic expansion of the cone in motion at the center of the cosmos but would be out of reach of an acceleration with more distance). The small value of acceleration has been a problem about dark energy, why not a giant outward motion or 0? If you have DGE imploding at faster than light at one wavelength and expanding at another the small value of the cosmic acceleration would be no problem, the two fields cancel mostly even while there's more outward motion of the cone.
..
There is an increase of mass of high powered masses like the Milky Way with time and with more gravity than electromagnetism and other forces to wind up the cosmos. Overall the amount of cosmic gravity would remain the same because of resistance to the implosion but for galaxies and other massive bodies the mass would increase with time. This is sort of a revival of Steady State Cosmology with massive enough implosion so these masses would be augmented with time, and this was not found for more common masses and distances to prove the Steady State because the gravity isn't strong enough to augment the mass. This mass augmentation of the galaxies would be a component of the motion that would cause (some more) slowdown with time of the cosmic expansion than seen in the Stady State cosmos otherwise by more mass with more gravity so more attraction.
.
..It seems gravity is the prime mover and is not in balance, as in stellar fusion continually wringing energy and mass out of the field, while at higher energy the field near us is in balance of e.g. equal and opposite electric charges, so while energy is conserved for all the measured fields and masses in our realm of the cosmos with a balance between the balance of electric charges and other nearby fields and the imbalance of the low energy field, gravity implodes more and electromagnetism expands in uniform motion so it must have the outside inflow of imbalance to keep it in motion. Something must be holding the cosmos together if mass energy near us is conserved and so has existed and will exist for infinite time and gravity in it's own realm must be imbalanced. It may seem that gravity is wringing out energy from the earth and sun and violates energy conservation, and if it were without bound the sun would put on more and more weight like the galaxies, with reradiation this would not be so. If the gravity would be without limit it's possible it's limited by the quanta and the implosion can go to a radial limit of Implosion and no more. In time however, the field is without limit and won't run out of power. Einstein believed that the acceleration near the Earth is an acceleration through time even if we are at rest and not in motion around the world in a ship or a real big pair of vamps. This is not exactly like Mcutcheon's Expansion causology, which I've read makes no other predictions than Einstein's General Relativity. The problem with more expansion than implosion of say the Earth's gravity is that we would be at the speed of light in less than a year and put on lots of mass at these high speeds. The expansion of the field would be lower energy than the Implosion so not of the value Einstein and Mcutcheon would have in my causology. Because of the lower energy the Reradiation may have it wouldn't have the problem of us accelerating to the speed of light and so on. While my causology has any value of expansion to implosion possible up to 100 percent with them almost equal, the implosion always wins out. I've held that gravity may violate energy conservation and if it balances mostly because of the limit of implosion there would always be at least a bit of force left because the balance is never all the way up to 50/50, Implosion to Reradiation. The low energy of the gravitational field would seem to make it semi quantum, the quantum of gravity is needed to make the quanta of subatomic physics from the basic field and because gravity unifies the field with wavelike attraction it would be mostly wavelike and so much of the flow of the field would flow over the quantum wells of the gravitational field with almost no friction, so it never wears out or runs down, by being low energy enough to sidestep energy conservation. This may be the worth of gravity powered machines.
..It seems gravity is the prime mover and is not in balance, as in stellar fusion continually wringing energy and mass out of the field, while at higher energy the field near us is in balance of e.g. equal and opposite electric charges, so while energy is conserved for all the measured fields and masses in our realm of the cosmos with a balance between the balance of electric charges and other nearby fields and the imbalance of the low energy field, gravity implodes more and electromagnetism expands in uniform motion so it must have the outside inflow of imbalance to keep it in motion. Something must be holding the cosmos together if mass energy near us is conserved and so has existed and will exist for infinite time and gravity in it's own realm must be imbalanced. It may seem that gravity is wringing out energy from the earth and sun and violates energy conservation, and if it were without bound the sun would put on more and more weight like the galaxies, with reradiation this would not be so. If the gravity would be without limit it's possible it's limited by the quanta and the implosion can go to a radial limit of Implosion and no more. In time however, the field is without limit and won't run out of power. Einstein believed that the acceleration near the Earth is an acceleration through time even if we are at rest and not in motion around the world in a ship or a real big pair of vamps. This is not exactly like Mcutcheon's Expansion causology, which I've read makes no other predictions than Einstein's General Relativity. The problem with more expansion than implosion of say the Earth's gravity is that we would be at the speed of light in less than a year and put on lots of mass at these high speeds. The expansion of the field would be lower energy than the Implosion so not of the value Einstein and Mcutcheon would have in my causology. Because of the lower energy the Reradiation may have it wouldn't have the problem of us accelerating to the speed of light and so on. While my causology has any value of expansion to implosion possible up to 100 percent with them almost equal, the implosion always wins out. I've held that gravity may violate energy conservation and if it balances mostly because of the limit of implosion there would always be at least a bit of force left because the balance is never all the way up to 50/50, Implosion to Reradiation. The low energy of the gravitational field would seem to make it semi quantum, the quantum of gravity is needed to make the quanta of subatomic physics from the basic field and because gravity unifies the field with wavelike attraction it would be mostly wavelike and so much of the flow of the field would flow over the quantum wells of the gravitational field with almost no friction, so it never wears out or runs down, by being low energy enough to sidestep energy conservation. This may be the worth of gravity powered machines.
..
For our realm of the cosmos in general it may be possible that the cosmic expansion is also just at the jet where the Earth and the Milky Way are in motion (and the other distant cone). Acceleration would be caused by the considerable electric and mass attraction between the ionized jet and the presumed cosmic disc too far to be seen yet. This could be why the cosmic acceleration is speeding up and what the Wilkenson Observatory found if the cosmic symmetrys are caused by the cones at the most vast cosmic size resolution yet seen. As in the image on the link, the cosmos is symmetrical with a dot and two symmetrical zones on the side as if when we look down the jet toward what would be the center of the cosmos (because with a shell from a cosmic explosion we see the sides more than the middle of the bubble heading in line with us toward the Earth.) Even if Double Vortex Cosmology has more overall cohesion than outward motion, the expansion of a spherical cosmos wouldn't be powered by DGE particle expansion because in general the cosmos may be the same as the galaxies themselves, with the same general physics at a larger scale and like these giant masses they wouldn't expand more in general than implode, while there are cones and the halo, the halo is more predominant for the galaxies and would seem to be so too for the cosmos. The implosive reradiant particles and the particles aren't strong like the more high power electromagnetic fields at the center to boost a vast expansion of the cosmos so here too I favor a combination of the DGE and the near range magnetic fields both to power the expansion with always more implosion than outward motion in general. Ultimately all expansion and attraction may be caused by the Radiant Reradiant Field, if powered itself by the lower energy component. The electromagnetic field would be an energised up version of the virtual particle field that would connect up the lower energy field to the more common electromagnetic field around us, and so too the strong force would be an energised version of the electromagnetic field. Conservation laws are from simple to complex in subatomic physics from the weaker force of electromagnetism to the stronger forces, and all the field obeys energy conservation so all the higher energy fields would be made of lower energy fields. One basic gravitational field energised up to the other forces would unify the physics. Actually the outflow of the jets of both the cosmos and the galaxies would cause some mass reduction, this would be more than outweighed by the implosion and recirculation of the DGE. If there is cosmic expansion I believe it's local and in my cosmology the Hubble expansion would be caused by Implosive/Reradiant Low Energy Particles between the particles of the magnetic fields and would be caused by the fifth and sixth or more forces at the center of the cosmos powering the expansion that would almost continously connect to the huge magnetic fields that have been well proven in all the visible cosmos, if like the galaxies the halo of the cosmos won't expand to conserve energy and not have the cosmos wind down. Low energy particles may power nearby cosmic expansion but the conservation of energy would be violated for electromagnetism if there were only outward motion of the field and this is doubtful. Here's my complete explanation and some possible predictions of DOUBLE VORTEX COSMOLOGY . Thanks for Reading This Page.
..
