A Possible Mechanism for Gravity Seen Via a Comic Zoom, Outside the Wave; In More FM Stations... Can entropy be reversed for higher energy systems? Newton, Maxwell and many others were inventors of ways to try to describe gravity by way of particles. They may not have have had as much justification as in our latter day world of physics where many more experiments have been done and where the depth of physics is more with time in the range and breadth of it's reach. Here's my main idea, gravity seems to reduce entropy, that is it has entropy in the opposite direction of all other entropy, winding up the universe where otherwise heat flows from hot to cold, if it has only outward radiance, this would be what wound it up.. If we eventually find that gravity is made of both waves and particles the interaction between the two might be in a loop, first changing the speed then the wavelength and frequency, and more repeats, the acceleration of gravity. If we have a lattice of crystals and waves of low enough energy so they're almost pure waves are moving through them in opposite directions, the motion of one in the opposite direction could change the speed just so the tendency to reradiate is overpowered, "extra" implosion of the field, as in solitons (see below). In thermodynamics this is not found because the higher energy particles have sides, they are particulate. In general particles radiate outward because they are by definition disconnected, and reduced force connects them. I believe gravity being.lower energy may undergo a phase change like a superfluid as some have thought and if superfluids or a BEC are nearer to overpowering entropy, I would ask, why not more? Particles and antiparticles are found. Reversed entropy, like the wheel may not have been found for millions of years of evolution, and neither were antiparticles even so they exist. The lattice of the waves and particles might have to be mostly wavelike, like photons of the right energy because it may be this low energy waviness and lack of sides that might overcome the reradiance. If an actual machine like this is built I believe it may be more important to our understanding of physics of gravity than as an energy source because other ideas like fusion may give lots of power cheap, as in focus fusion or my own idea of Inertial Focus Fusion, IFF. Supposedly two Japanese physicists had found that a spinning gyroscope weighs less than a nonspinning gyroscope More experiments seemed to show no such change or the change was caused by the bearing vibrations. Even so the researchers agree that changes in the spin will change the mass by way of relativity, even though the changes are too small to be observed directly. I believe this may be so if gravity is the foundation field from which other fields are energized up to explain things like energy conservation and the other conservation laws being upheld from low energy like this to more and more conservation laws upheld for electromagnetism and the strong force. There may be fundamental things gravity causes the other forces are derived from, i.e. the three dimensions of space and the one dimension of time may be derived from gravity's implosion. Gravity exists in the four dimensions and the other forces do too so it seems logical the dimensions are derived directly from gravity. Other forces reradiate, but they do so in three dimensions of space with more holding the field together than the reradiance here. The small particles that may have spin up or down may be fundamentally asymmetrical. Coulomb's law, like the law of gravity is based on radiant energy, the force between electric charges is inversely proportional to distance, and by Newton's observation that this is based on the geometry of radiant spheres (the area of a sphere is proportional to the second power of its radius, 4 pi r to the second power). Something fundamental may be caused by more implosion than reradiance, the ratio of the radius to the outside of a circle. If there were fundamental particles they could form a 2d circle, and because they have spin because all there is is time dependant like gravity, the particles might aim the wedges inward to the source of mass and have spin, extension outward to 3d at right angles by way of the centrifugal force being an outward force to form spheres. (Time is well known by some basic theorems to be about frequency of waves or particles, more frequency per second is more time. While stationary we are moving through time by the spin even if not in linear motion.) Time would also be derived from the spin of these small particles like small clocks, for a similar reason to the idea about space being derived from gravity and the other forces then derived in 3d from gravity, time also would be derived from gravity and then the other forces would exist in time from the basic foundation of the particles, if gravity obeys the conservation laws like rotational or mirror reflection and it's the most basic field and the other forces are in union with the same laws and if they are derived from gravity, the dimensions of all the fields would be caused by the most basic geometry of the foundation field. The small wedges by relativity we may have reason to believe in by the above, each like a slice of the pi in the cosmos. In relativity, gravity is not a force; it has no source like inertial forces if Einstein was trying to fit Special Relativity into gravity which isn't relativistic in my nonrelativistic way of what I call General Wave Dynamics GWD because the Earth is more at rest than the Moon and the Sun is more at rest than the Earth. GWD involves more than description of force or uniform motion, it also describes the causes of motion like the acceleration of gravity where force is acting. If we imagine space is uniform or empty, by relativity, the wedges don't exist and gravity is neither up or down, isotropic. If we assume there is a source, the earth has more of the source than the moon and the sun has more source than the earth and is more at rest, so I think relativity may be wrong about gravity, and thus the radiant law of both gravity and Coulomb are explained and unified.

  First I want to show you how this might operate by way of the particles, then I'll consider the objections to this possible mode of gravity based on this model and more. In GWD at the more fundamental lower energy mass and energy don't operate by way of Emc2, here they operate by the low energy equivalent F=ma; this is not a mostly an equation of quanta, c is replaced with the more fluid value of a which is not a constant. Thus with relativity more mass gives us more energy, but for ma the more mass has the slower it moves for the same force. In truth, by relativity the low energy law wouldn't be possible, more mass more energy works well for special relativity since the mass here is actually derived from motion so the mass energy equivalence of SR is actually more like an energy/energy equivalence, and this law of F=ma can't be derived from relativity but I believe relativity is derived from F=ma, gravity is much lighter than light so it may be much faster than light. The moon has more energy and less mass so it moves faster around the earth not slower. One of the first problems with a particle basis of the world is about discontinuity; particles radiate outward because they have "sides" this works fine for centrifugal force and is indeed how I explain inertia in GWD, but as expected in GWD is mass and energy are distinct and gravity isn't the same as inertia we can't use the exact equivalence principle to explain gravity, gravity implodes inward, in nonradiance. So as I say on this site I use particles to be the cause of centrifugal force and gravity has an extra component of much higher speed. The speed of the wave I derive by Maxwell's method he used to exactly predict the speed of light based on the force between the charges, more density higher or lower speed. Thus from F=ma, if the local force is measured and the more general mass is taken to be the intrinsic strength of the force, not the force itself, gravity's strength is quite small, so the speed would be much faster than light (as in the EPR). In support of this on this page I offer both many lines of evidence and reasoning and some falsifiable proofs of GWD and faster than light, e. g. as I say the Wilkinson observatory shows that the universe has symmetric sides, my explanation here is that gravity being the only long range force here other than light is a signal so it would be much faster than light to unify the sides. The speed of the wave is important to gravity because it always adds more implosion than the particles might reradiate, outdistancing the particulate speed of light Einstein believed in for SR in relativity that's disconnected and so wouldn't cause the faster unifying waves of gravity, or there would only be radiation to zero density in time. The particles themselves are special to gravity. Because of the general opposition of mass and energy particles with mass would be made up of the mass type particles and the field would flow with the energy type particles under the influence of the more implosive waves. Gravity always has to have a source so it needs anisotropic alignment of the waves field and both types of particles. This alignment and the higher speed would be important because the N pole of each mass particle would be able to align with the general direction of the field, and a particle spinning around at the speed of light would always have to know the direction of the field to attract and if not it would be at merely the speed of light. The particles would have high alignment rates to the field, much faster than forces like electromagnetism, this would be how Einstein's space time would be so passive (yet it exerts force like induction or the pressure like the rocket's exhaust, by Maxwells belief). The particle's alignment rates would always have to be faster than the amount lost by particulate radiance. The radiance of particles would be a problem for gravity and particles because unlike waves they are discontinuous and radiate out. Even so particles are all around us presumably from the basic field, so we can't do without them even in gravity, even if to a reduced degree. In truth to cause gravity in my belief the waves must always have more alignment here than the particles can cause. Gravity is real weak, as forces stay or don't go. The basic anisotropic field doesn't have a lot of power, but it could make up for this to overpower the particles by much higher speed, and this would explain Einstein's belief that the field is as if passive space time. In truth complete passivity would violate cause; Aristotle believed a field of 0 density or vacuum would have infinite speed of propagation of the waves via no resistance, this may be reversed to say if gravity has finite strength it has finite speed and finite speed is not instant to align as Einstein might have believed, just perhaps at such a rate that it seems instant by measuring with "slow" light of relativity. The operation method of gravity could be as follows; the wave aligns the implosive energy particles which being opposite of the mass particles are well aligned with the opposite polarity, N (flowing out) energy down, the opposite N (flowing out) mass up are opposites, this makes the massive real particles and is the cause of their mass. These particles are more wavelike than particulate and this is important because gravity doesn't shield. (Or certainly at least, the particulate component is always less than the attraction of the waves.) As I say here the higher energy particles may each in turn exclude the one below it and this is the cause of particulate events. The electric field may exclude the gravity by compression of field lines and the strong force excludes electromagnetism, ect. with the necessity e.g. as in confinement in QCD of the fields converting back to fit the lower energy fields at longer range and lower energy, thus though fractional charges being lighter than light in GWD are locally in disproof of relativity to have conservation laws relativity is without, they always convert over to the speed of light so (special) relativity is proven so often at medium energys. Since field exclusion is at the foundation of physics it may be important to all fields and gravity too. Each field of higher energy has all the properties of the fields below plus some extra, the "hierarchy of conservation laws" so each essentially disproves the one below it in a special sort of way. Electromagnetism might disprove gravity by being antigravity, and the strong force disproving electromagnetism at shorter distance by being somewhat faster than light ect, as in Chou's tunneling experiments (see my synopsis upper left of page for more). The electron for example might combine to compress the gravity so the smaller particles Einstein believed were possible to solve the Uncertainty Principle exert pressure on the outside of gravitating stuff as La Sage believed in the 1600's. Though he had no knowledge of wave and bosons and relativity, the truth abounds in the golden ages of the 1600's and La sage was aware of the foundations of physics. There were 100 automobile companies already in business by 1900 and many of the great ideas were devised early. Sir Issac Newton considered La Sage's method, and his comment when asked how was "non fingo hypotheosis", this has been mistranslated to him saying "I don't frame a hypothesis" When actually the better translation is "I don't feign a hypothesis" meaning, he was considering a solution but that he perhaps was without a method.

 To create an implosive wave against entropy, in this way to explain the microstructure of bosonic fields like superfluids and gravity after each impact of the N mass and N energy, between the next impact, the implosive wave nature of the field overpowers the energy otherwise lost to the particles here and adds a bit more, an acceleration, the acceleration of gravity. With mostly wave power of the particles, the N of the energy particles wouldn't have so much shielding. Even so there must be enough resilience to explain the cause of the particles in common physics around us to have a basic cause, and although Einstein believed in low energy particles his other belief in Relativity has no comment about this. La Sage's method needs a way to both resilience to exert the force and yet not have problems with shielding, so the collisions would be short range only, and overall there must be more implosion than reradiation. The small particles would hit only on the outside of each heavier particle like an electron, then be excluded from the electron and the exclusion would exert the pressure of gravity. this is important since if there were a complete wave all would be one and there being no particulate distinction, there would be no distinction of any of the fields either, no conservation laws, all would be unified. When the N down energy particles reach the center of a massive body their speed is zero and there is actually no force of gravity there like being at the top of a mountain in the center of the world, lots of pressure, well somewhat like, you fall off to either side. The slowing of the energy particles is caused by the general higher speed wave speeding up towards the center of gravity to conserve momentum considerably, in GWD because gravity is the opposite of relativity, since light slows down in the field, the gravity wave speeds up "to conserve momentum" here also and also reduces wavelength, the compression of gravity, the opposite of the redshift of relativity (at another wavelength). The particles being opposite by the opposition of mass and energy in GWD move slower and slower near the center, then reradiate by exclusion of the field. Thus at the center of gravity Le Sage's problem of how the particles cancel at the center only by impact (and the problem of shielding) may be solved. In this explanation of gravity or reversed entropy the general wave actually only exerts force by first moving and in resonance with the particles. The waves alone don't interact directly, the force of acceleration and centrifugal force are measured by speed of the particles alone. (The waves would be higher speed, and if we are in acceleration to fall we feel no waves, yet when at rest there is the force, this wouldn't be true if the waves are higher speed as waves tend to be (think of the light in SR always faster than the electrons or other particles). We feel the particles to explain weight and the particles exert no pressure as we fall, high speed waves being less different in speed of our fall would exert force in our rest frame even if we fall. Thus particles seem needed to explain fall and weight, yet the waves being continuous are still needed to explain gravity in general yet we never feel them, also explaining Einstein's belief in the equivalence of gravity and inertia.

  Inertia is often called pseudo gravity; I use distinct waves to explain the distinctions Einstein overlooked, yet the same particles for both to explain the (only general) union of gravity and inertia. This would be why, even though inertia and centrifugal force seem to be a sort of unpowered gravity without motive power, in GWD gravity mass and energy or inertia are alike in general though not exactly, and Einstein thought gravity and centrifugal force are alike, both are caused the the motion of resilient particles. We feel the effects of the waves acting on the particles and then on us to cause gravity and the roughly equivalent force of centrifugal force by the particles natural tendancy to radiance without the gravity wave overpowering the radiance. (Gravity and inertia are almost, but not exactly the same important via mass energy inequivalence in GWD). In either case being almost the same force as in centrifugal force is where the gravity wave is not felt or present while the particles are felt in both. (If it's not felt for either force, it may be there even so for gravity in order to be the way gravity overpowers the radiance of the particles, otherwise e.g. they would radiate both for gravity and centrifugal force.) This would also be why when you fall the waves being much faster would exert no force in your rest frame and at the center of mass of rotation of mass there is no force; the gravity wave is moving the fastest there past the falling mass, yet no force is felt there. In GWD gravity speeds up when by electromagnetism light slows down, due to the fundamental opposition of gravity and electromagnetism or the speed of light and relativity to conserve energy, or like the more fundamental opposition of mass and energy. (Gravity implodes to oneness, and electromagnetism like light and in relativity radiates out to many by entropy. Gravity is cancelled by accelleration, inertia is cancelled by uniform motion, gravity is a plenum, inertia tends to the vacuum and so on.) If gravity is an implosion and the implosion to the center is from all sides otherwise we might expect the force to be stronger at the middle of the Earth actually it's much nearer the surface.. My explanation of attractive force was like a continuous line of twine between two points, the two sources would wave the wave and this would add attraction by moving them together, the faster wave attracts more by "crunching up". The problem with this for gravity seemed to me to be, what wave accelerates itself at the center more than outside, of it's own accord and why is it smaller at the center, the compression of the force to the center of the Earth? If the gravitational entropy is continually decreasing, and the wave is being with implosion by way of the particles, then both waves and particles and radiance and reradiance for particles would exist for gravity like all the other forces too. I believe mass is different from energy like the wave, so mass is needed for gravity, and gravity centers to mass, perhaps by this method of the lattice. Monte Carlo methods are the mainstream explanation for QCD and electromagnetism; at higher energy the edge of the larger lattice confines the tubes of force so it stays more constant with distance as measured, and with the smaller and smaller lattice at the predicted strength of the force, the electric field suddenly is radiant in the 3d field seen in real experiments at just the energy predicted. It seems logical to try to extend the lattice to the ultimate field of gravity, so the idea that gravity too might also be in a lattice is possible. The field seems to need to have some sort of wavelength and speed link of the lattice, in my explanation for gravity or entropy reversing systems of this type if possible to understand gravity or even to have more and more thermodynamic energy (if our fusion plans don't pan out with all the gold in the ocean to filter) the wavelength on a small scale and in larger entropy reversing machines would always have to change before the radiant force would outdistance the cohesive force. The lattice would be essential because random orientation of the particles wouldn't allow the waves to resonate and have more regular attraction than isotropic physics. This way or a method like it may be nature's method of making gravity implode. It's perhaps mostly wavelike and simple. More complex entropy wouldn't reverse as easily. Particles with weighted values of entropy in thermodynamics are complex, so they're more radiant than implosive. Even if gravity or other systems might reverse entropy, a system of this type would work best if simple. This may not be a problem with gravity because as we know it it's almost all a blend of the field of GR, or GWD, at low energy it's simple because it has the fewest conservation laws conserved.

  In my way to improve La Sage's idea, when the energy particles reach the center, the S (implosion) of the mass is now attracting the S of the mass particles above, so the energy particles start to accelerate upward. As they move upward they encounter the mass particles inducing the field to implode more than reradiate. The mechanism is simple by way of the spacing between the particles, a change in the wavelength downward is more than offset by a change in the position of the particles as they move up or down, the loop of acceleration and changes in frequency would then cause another change in wavelength and so on, the acceleration. This might be somewhat like the use of solitons to make phone bills save more; the wavelength is set to change at just the right rate by the motion of the wave the force of the wave that would have caused it to disperse is set to the attractive component of the wave found in all waves or they would continually accelerate or decelerate. The actual force of gravity is strongest near the surface of the earth because the particles would go in and out and then reimplode in in cycles, Einstein's belief in empty fields (other than his belief in the reradiant field if used perhaps with the low energy particles) couldn't predict this. This would also be the mechanism of how the quantum wells are created, by optimization near the surface of the particle forming the well by in and out motion. If we have a globe like say a beach ball and it has a round geometry, it also has three dimentions of space, x, y and z, we know this because all the coordinates can be described by this and because there are smaller particles that also have the three coordinates. One reason I believe in smaller particles like Einstein's low energy particles he used to try to get around the Uncertainty Principle is because just like the larger globe, the smaller globe has a ratio of pi the same; all acceleration is measured in 2pi radians. If there was no fundamental limit yet seen to the physics and there were no smaller particles yet in subatomic physics we might expect to see changes in pi, because of the same division into more fundamental elements assumed. Otherwise the spiral in of the field and its strong flux would seem to change pi. If the components are digital and in a lattice, pi is the same here as in Euclidean geometry based on the x y and z to fit the grid. As I say here I had been of the general belief that Maxwell was wrong about the his demon that could be smart enough to find the atoms of a gas and open a door and separate the hot from the cold air in violation of the second law of entropy. There is no guarantee with a finite amount of energy needed to solve a finite problem the demon couldn't win, but if he was a good elf, more and more finite problems are being solved all the time. Now I read in Scientific American about how they've built a machine to cool gasses and other masses to supercool temperatures by using a laser "valve" so the "heat actually flows from cool to hot." I believe in truth instead of using random particles we might improve the reduction of entropy of the laser valve by the machines in the article by regularizing the field to copy this possible method used by gravity and learn more about it by way of anisotropic orientation of the particles. The above or perhaps another entropy rewind method of the way to gravity would wind up the cosmos against entropy otherwise in cosmic wisdom the universe would have wound down to a haze of subatomic particles, gravity winds up the cosmos or we couldn't be here. You may say this is bad for entropy; all around us we see no disproof of entropy, why would just gravity be so? Couldn't we just engineer reversable systems to make all the heat we want to flow from cold to hot with other forces and systems to possibly learn more about gravity? As with Maxwell's Demon and gravity, I believe this is possible, like solitons used in a more complete sense, if gravity indeed has negative entropy.

A problem with La Sage's gravity method, which this is hopefully an improvement is about the great permeability of mass, in my way of looking at this this is solved by the mostly empty space between subatomic particles and the exclusion of the gravitons by them and the permeability is also caused by the net gain of speed of the particles traveling through it by the entropy overpowered with each loop. This would also solve the shielding problem, if some resilience, there must be shielding. You may say why stop there, if some acceleration and it's self powered, why doesn't the Earth just keep on speeding up as it travels, this would be because the field spills over and reradiates, the quantum cups of stronger forces holds just so much field and gain no more mass than this with time. This would also solve the other problem of the particles that by their inward radiance to explain the force seen near us Feynmann seemed to calculate the earth would gain huge mass in a second. Einstein believed in a reradiant low energy component of the field, i.e. e.g. to explain cosmic acceleration, because of the one way valve of the particles being resilient NN as the energy particles would fall inward and implosive on the way up giving force more down than up. Even if the low energy field is there there is still no antigravity of the reradiant particles or we would fall off the earth, even though the reradiant field is needed to explain problems like the radiation outward of pulsars, and causal problems, as I say below.. the problem of the permeability may be related to another version of Einstein's idea of getting around the Uncertainty Principle by a low energy particle, recent experiments seem to prove him more right (than completely in woe!) this would be because like the wave particle duality there may seem to always be some particulate physics in all there is. By this I mean there may be lower energy particles than the Uncertainty Principle allows, so they have much lower mass and might align to the field with much more speed and reliability, less mass is easier to move at high speed.. Gravity implodes to a common cause, this seems to say the foundation of the laws of radiant energy might be caused by the basic implosion of gravity. ..

As on this link http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Le_Sage%27s_theory_of_gravitation there are the following objections to La Sage's particle gravity; Porosity Permeability Problem of matter; The La Sage field has has to be extremely penetrating to go through common mass to exert the force. My solution is that the field may be of the field exclusion and the negative entropy too so there is negative porosity (a net gain of energy) and this would also reduce the flux needed to exert the force and other problems like the following


In my belief the particles are moving slowly at just near 32 ft near the earth, you feel no force in your rest frame as you fall, the particles are moving along with you but not influencing you so much, they don't have to be so fast to penetrate because of the negative entropy, thus there needs to be no more energy in than that of the force of an air fan lifting you up at 350 mph in some machines like they travel around the country giving rides, this is not a huge flux like the permeability problem would need.


Speed of Gravity

According to Le Sage's theory, an isolated body is subjected to drag if it is in motion relative to the unique isotropic frame of the ultramundane flux (i.e., the frame in which the speed of the ultramundane corpuscles is the same in all directions). This is due to the fact that, if a body is in motion, the particles striking the body from the front have a higher speed (relative to the body) than those striking the body from behind - this effect will act to decrease the distance between the sun and the earth. The magnitude of this drag is proportional to vu, where v is the speed of the particles and u is the speed of the body, whereas the characteristic force of gravity is proportional to v², so the ratio of drag to gravitational force is proportional to u/v. Thus for a given characteristic strength of gravity, the amount of drag for a given speed u can be made arbitrarily small by increasing the speed v of the ultramundane corpuscles. However, in order to reduce the drag to an acceptable level (i.e., consistent with observation) in terms of classical mechanics, the speed v must be many orders of magnitude greater than the speed of light. This makes Le Sage theory fundamentally incompatible with the modern science of mechanics based on special relativity according to which no particle (or wave) can exceed the speed of light. In addition, even if superluminal particles were possible, the effective temperature of such a flux would be sufficient to incinerate all ordinary matter in a fraction of a second.

.. .. ...
Possible Solution. There is now evidence as I say for faster than light motion. Gravity being lighter than light may propagate faster than light, all the relativistic efects might be gotten around by a phase change to jump the quantum notch by way of a phase change to superfluid, ect. To say the observer is absolute would need complete control over the distant high speed observer's events, not just the speed of replay of the movie. Synopsis of Faster Than Light 4U.

The lack of heating would be caused by the same method as superfluidity which has negativie emntropy flowing from hot to cold.


As shown by Laplace, another possible Le Sage effect is orbital aberration due to finite speed of gravity. Unless the Le Sage particles are moving at speeds much greater than the speed of light, as Le Sage and Kelvin supposed, there is a time delay in the interactions between bodies (the transit time). In the case of orbital motion this results in each body reacting to a retarded position of the other, which creates a leading force component. Contrary to the drag effect, this component will act to accelerate both objects away from each other. In order to maintain stable orbits, the effect of gravity must either propagate much faster than the speed of light or must not be a purely central force. This has been suggested by many as a conclusive disproof of any Le Sage type of theory. In contrast, general relativity is consistent with the lack of appreciable aberration identified by Laplace, because even though gravity propagates at the speed of light in general relativity, the expected aberration is almost exactly cancelled by velocity-dependent terms in the interaction.


Comment; Van Flandern and others have thought of this and calculations show that the actual value will fit just as well via the way of superluminary gravity due to the evidence showing no aberration; it's as well explained by high speed gravity because the displacement is low as observed for a much higher speed wave.

The EPR has a minimum value for the speed of propigation at 1,000s or millions of times the speed of light.


Range of Gravity

In many particle models, such as Kelvin's, the range of gravity is limited due to the nature of particle interactions amongst themselves. The range is effectively determined by the rate that the proposed internal modes of the particles can eliminate the momentum defects (shadows) that are created by passing through matter. Such predictions as to the effective range of gravity will vary and are dependent upon the specific aspects and assumptions as to the modes of interactions that are available during particle interactions. However, for this class of models the observed large scale structure of the cosmos constrains such dispersion to those that will allow for the aggregation of such immense gravitational structures.

A related objection some raise is about the range of a finite force, a finite quanta gives a finite range. If the gravitons are somewhat particulate why does it have infinite range?


But a force like electromagnetism has infinite range and its quanta and particles are finite, light and electric charges.


Absorption

As noted in the historical section, a major problem for every Le Sage model is the energy and heat issue. As Maxwell and Poincaré showed, inelastic collisions lead to a vaporization of matter within fractions of a second and the suggested solutions were not convincing. For example, Aronson. gave a simple proof of Maxwell's assertion:

Likewise Isenkrahe's violation of the energy conservation law is unacceptable, and Kelvin's application of Clausius' theorem leads (as noted by Kelvin himself) to some sort of perpetual motion mechanism. The suggestion of a secondary re-radiation mechanism for wave models attracted the interest of JJ Thomson, but was not taken very seriously by either Maxwell or Poincare, because it entails a gross violation of the second law of thermodynamics (huge amounts of energy spontaneously being converted from a colder to a hotter form), which is one of the most solidly established of all physical laws.


Comment; Something must be winding up the cosmos; if heat always flow from hot to cold, how did it ever get hot to begin with? Sooner or later some general mechanism of reversing thermodynamic entropy  is necessary to explain why the Earth and the other fields are held more by attraction than this type of entropy.


"According to the principle of mass-energy equivalence, if the Earth was absorbing the energy of the ultramundane flux at the rate necessary to produce the observed force of gravity (i.e. by using the values calculated by Poincaré), its mass would be doubling in each fraction of a second."

This would be explained by both the lower flux method of superfluid bosonic fields and exclusion to reduce the friction by the same method like gravity, combined with my hopeful use of Einstein's idea of a reradiant low energy field, explaining cosmic acceleration, as I say here, Einstein, Ghost Particles and Other Conundrums Solved by the reradiant field... .


Coupling to Energy

Based on observational evidence, it is now known that gravity interacts with all forms of energy, and not just with mass. The electrostatic binding energy of the nucleus, the energy of weak interactions in the nucleus, and the kinetic energy of electrons in atoms, all contribute to the gravitational mass of an atom, as has been confirmed to high precision in Eötvös type experiments. ^[This means, for example, that when the atoms of a quantity of gas are moving more rapidly, the gravitation of that gas increases. Moreover, Lunar Laser Ranging experiments have shown that even gravitational binding energy itself also gravitates, with a strength consistent with the equivalence principle to high precision — which furthermore demonstrates that any successful theory of gravitation must be nonlinear and self-coupling.^[ Le Sage's theory does not predict any of these aforementioned effects, nor do any of the known variants of Le Sage's theory.

GWD has nonlinear, negative entropy (acceleration). That mass weighs more when hot in small degree with SR seems less important or general than an airship, add more heat and it lifts via power. The problem with any particle way of gravity is that particles will radiate. Even with the particles, the waves to unify would be more important yet. More below.

.
GRAVITATIONAL ATMOSPHERE PROBLEM

The problem of the particles hitting the outside of the field of bodies like the Earth and slowing the Earth in a few million years by way of friction as Feynmann showed would be solved by the reduction of the entropy of each of the particles, the particles would not only impact they would also increase the force of gravity with each small reaction of the loop. (The particles don't slow down a starship in SR because research has been done to find if the ghostly particles double at the right rate to fit in SR, and they fit exactly; i.e. the doubling of speed gives 8 times the frequency of the particles, in GWD this is at the right rate because during acceleration the forces and the particles and "speed of light i.e. wavelength=momentum=speed, something about motion" are changing. In GWD they are frozen in with constant motion by the balance of the electric charges by Maxwell's method he used to predict the speed of light so well based on the density of the field from the force between the charges caused by the constant charges. This is how I reconcile Einstein's idea that there is no force, nothing there, and the light is unchanged from source to observer, particulate, yet Maxwell predicted the speed of light well based on wave mechanics using continuous flux to change the information about the redshift of the light before it reaches the high speed starship observer. In GWD only a faster than light lower energy virtual field could connect between the ship and light to shape and mold the field before it reaches the ship. To explain the speed of light, like the weight and counterweight of elevators the constant internal cohesion of the electric charges for the wire of light in balance would maintain constant motion even with the particles just so there is more resilience in SR than needed to overpower the resistance of the particles).



I believe from the first principles above that gravity may be based on particles as Maxwell and others believed, small wedges with fundamental asymmetry to cause the laws of radiant energy. Spin up would weigh somewhat more than spin down. In this possible way of operation one side of each would exert shorter range inelastic collision and the other side would be a funnel. The cones and funnels of each particle would be the cause of the geometry and how gravity would distinguish up from down, relativity allows only for constant fields. Because in GWD mass and energy are generally the opposite so by the more general F=ma more mass moves slower than if it also had more energy where by relativity all mass would fall and move at the same rate with no acceleration seen anywhere and the constant speed of light via no change in its wavelength and thus its internal momentum (or "speed") the opposition of mass and energy would make mass have the spin up, and the higher speed particles falling into the mass more at rest might have spin down. As above, the falling spin down particles would impact the spin up mass particles with resilient pressure on one side when the mass was more at rest when falling in.

Another problem about relativity is about the radiant energy deduced from the Nobel Prize winning work in recent years about the change in speed of the pulsars, if gravity implodes at the speed of light as Einstein believed, how can it reradiate at all? You may know Einstein also believed elsewhere that there is a reradiant low energy field some call the cause of the accelerating cosmic expansion now observed, ect. The main problem is about causal implosion. If gravity is only implosive a pond with the waves around the outside would start the event and then we have the somewhat comic physics result that the stone in the middle of the pond would then rise up and be the cause after the outside waves radiate in, this is why like Einstein I believe that gravity has a major reradiant component just like the other forces. The main question would be why gravity doesn't also have "antigravity" from this reradiant field, this would be because on implosion the N of energy (outflow) meets opposite N of mass (out) and there is some resilience to exert the force, and after the energy particles reach near the center and start to reradiate they would still have S (implosion) attracting the S (implosion) of the stationary mass particles and on the upward radiance during which much of the acceleration of gravity was caused by the resonance of the waves and particles in relative motion, the energy particles might move through the other particles with much reduced resistance, like a one way valve for force. The rocks weigh much by the particles in one direction but on the way up there is no force exerted even though the particles are there to explain the problem about reradiance and cause and effect. In other words funnels would attract and cones would have more resilience, even while funnels to cones, N S energy particles radiating upward would be mostly wavelike and thus the field would reradiate without causing antigravity. In general I think because gravity is the foundation force at the base of the hierarchy like the union of mind and body in many religions in general gravity may be much closer in wave and particle changes, you may say it's the foundation, how is it higher. Actually agriculture is the basic field of life, yet the lower field, yet the word agros field is from the word acros, highest also. Agriculture unlike a painting or donations to business nonprofits is true immortality some may say, what agriculture creates will be immortal in a sense. The waves and particles might change phase at high speeds and move at high speeds, so the problem of the wave and particle duality predicted though not solved by Einstein may be here solved. The idea unifies gravity with the other forces because they also reradiate, but gravity seems unusual in contrast to other forces in that it's not repulsive. This may be how gravity might operate, the important idea is there seems to need to be a way to reverse entropy, and we may be able to see if systems like the entropy reversing wave machine are of value (and if the more wavelike component of the machine acts as if it may converge toward negative entropy if the particlate component of the field is subtracted out) and perhaps learn more about gravity somewhat like experiments with Hawking Radiation in the lab to see if they act as if, except with more general worth. I believe this way or perhaps some other like it may be the actual modus operandi of the "prime mover". Gravity waves themselves may soon be in reach via new IP machines that will use a shock wave to hopefully generate a wave by nuclear density of enough known force as in neutron stars to finally make them reliably, ect.

The "particles of motion" not mass at rest would implode to the center of the Earth and then start to reradiate. The higher speed of most external waves are needed to hold the mass to more implosion since waves are continuous and attract and are more fundamental. Particles are by definition discontinuous and reradiate like the centrifugal force or the particles of a gas. This is a fundamental problem of any particle or quantum method alone used to cause gravity, particles radiate, and gravity seems to be mostly implosive, for this reason I believe gravity has both much faster waves to attract, and particles at the usual 32 feet per second, except inertia would be a sort of gravity without motive power. The Equivalence Principle as I say here (on the click me! site) unifies gravity and inertia; even so it fails to mention the important differences gravity and inertia have; e.g. gravity can't be transformed away by choosing the right frame of reference, it can't be turned off and on by stopping an elevator, it's of vast difference in strength, and so on.


The problem of gravity shielding would arise in GWD by way of how gravity "edits' the speed so it's faster than light by a phase change. At low enough energy gravity would have what I call "low energy quanta" that are more wavelike than usual Emc2 quanta, i.e. they obey F=ma for a looser connection, that also allows faster than light motion by way of changes as for other boson fields in viscosity of the field. Angular momentum and thus mass energy isn't connected so definitely at lower energy as with the higher energy E mc2, the sun has 97 % of the solar system's mass and just 3% of the spin due to the history of the solar system like the T Tauri. In reradiance the particles would be more completely wavelike in relation to each other than other fields passing through each other like neutrinos without loss of acceleration. Both the masses and the reradiant particles would accelerate because of the more wavelike attraction and the change of phase to the more general F=ma would thus be the cause of the acceleration of gravity.

The question of why no induction of the fields unlike other fields like the electric fields would be because of the asymmetrical foundation too. The field is mostly implosive, so you drive a car up the superhighway and there's no shock wave as it drives by even though it has easily measured inertia as you go around or slow down or speed up. The field only has inertia in line with axis of motion by relativity, more directly ahead of the car. Induction is established to be much like resistance to change in electrodynamics, that is a sort of friction or delay in changes in the field. There would be reduced induction with gravity because of both the phase change and the much higher speed of gravity being also more wavelike in general, so there would be reduced induction by way of faster reaction times and more speed to change the phase. I myself have tried experiments to see if I could find induction of fields like spinning gyroscopes, and this has indeed been tried by many in science, yet with no result. My conclusion of the experiment as I describe on the link was that either inertia and mass were not equivalent and relativity fails (as we would expect in my improvements via GWD, "if centrifugal force is gravity" there would be gravity upward around the inside of an oscillating wheel) and we might find faster than light waves for gravity or the strong force or we would have antigravity, either way physics may win. The implosion of F=ma makes the more mass more at rest by F=ma even though there's no wave of induction seen or felt.


Where are the particles Einstein believed in that could be the cause of gravity here too? Einstein believed in low energy particles that were a way around Quantum Uncertainty as I say on my next post below. Einstein's idea here seems helpful in explaining the problem of the Lamb shift of hydrogen that Lamb won the Nobel prize for in the 1950's, this is described as due to the attraction of the low energy field in loops. By the Uncertainty Principle, the reduced distance has more mass; thus even a low energy field will have a huge mass of seething particles that would cause the measured change in the energy of the hydrogen atoms. But the particles are not seen directly, so I think it's possible they might be described just as well by lower energy waves and particles that act like they're more particulate and quantum than they actually are. Another problem is that if the radius of the loops goes to 0 size, the mass is more and more by the loops; thus at zero size there must be infinite mass, of an "empty field". This is another reason I agree with Einstein about the lower energy particles not obeying the Uncertainty Principle.


If indeed they exist we might expect the low energy particles to be much smaller than in common subatomic physics. Thus I think it's possible a wave like the common matter waves might be focused to smaller wavelengths than any quantum of common type, after all they are indeed continuous in all ways measured. (To keep them from "bunching up" into quanta I think we might lower the amplitude of the waves). If the frequency is much higher because the speed may be much faster than light in GWD, the frequency might be adjusted to fit and illuminate the small particles, and another machine of the reversed process might then pick up the field thus modulated by illumination to find out about these particles. More on this page...


Black Holes have been found to have increase in mass with time as Einstein believed for massive bodies, but the rate of increase is just half that predicted by the ghost particle believers in ghosts; If the mass particles are indeed the opposite of the energy particles all of the mass particles would be retained and the energy particles could reradiate upward. Thus the missing mass of black holes may be evidence for the quantum of gravity. Click Here for the article in New Scientist. Mass and energy would be reversed at the most fundamental level, and this would also be how antiparticles of higher energy fields could arise from a basic seemingly non reradiant field (Latin deep is fundamental). Only at the higher energy of massive bodies would the more exact opposition of mass and energy for gravity be more probable, ect.


The "particles who would be Higgs' if with huge mass by the Uncertainty Principle to explain their small size would have trouble being the cause of all the quantum continuity seen in subatomic physics; a massive particles attracts itself more and thus is much more discontinuous.

If my interpretation of the black holes observed mass being evidence for quantum gravitons is true, their mass may be something more like neutrinos, at higher energies neutrinos are seen to be so powerful they can ionize heavy particles. This density is comparable to that found in stars like pulsars. Neutrinos at high speed exert some pressure and the gravitons at 32 ft per second might exert more pressure; thus the mass of both types of gravitons may be somewhat similar to neutrinos and so it may be much easier to find them than has been believed, if gravitons are indeed near enough to the physics of particles like electrons and heavy particles indeed to essentially by the mediator of all the complex fields there instead of the Higgs' though it's energy may be lower than a minimum to explain why it hasn't been found yet, by the unity of the fields because of the conservation laws, it seems possible the La Sage idea may not be far from us, not nearly as massive as the Higgs' but strong enough to cause the measured mass moments and the mass of subatomic physics ect. Neutrinos are electromagnetically influenced so they are quanta and have sides and a small magnetic moment, thus they interact more strongly than the lower energy gravitons and may be easier to find.. The continuity of mass in subatomic physics puts a limit on the mass of this particle; it's mass can be no more than the amount that could create less resolution than observed. Like a film of pixels, if the resolution is higher than amount a, the mass of the pixel is also involved for films and life in pictures. On this page there is a discussion of recent "low energy quantum experiments". Einstein believed there might be a low energy particle to get around the Uncertainty Principle. These experiments use effects like the rotation of light to reduce the energy as low as needed to measure a feline like Scrodinger's Cat by e.g. putting a low energy quantum mouse to see what the mouse does to "see" the cat. I agree with Einstein that if there is a low energy particle, by the necessity of the need for a somewhat discontinuous field at any rate to make the world around us have discontinuity too and to explain gravity, so my basic question here is if we could reduce the amount of the low energy interaction enough to find Einstein's basic low energy particle, a way to find a particle that would be Higgs and a particle as important as the electron or the proton no doubt. Perhaps the reason substructure of the electron has yet to be found is because of the jostling of cohesive fields; the incoming probe shakes the swimming pool so much at such high speed of the waves it smooths out the underlying structure. Another experiment of low energy might be to slowly move two electric charges in or out over months or years to find the signal of the resonance of Einstein's low energy particle. An important question by my belief in the possibility of Faster Than Light is about the smallness of the experiment. By rotation of the light the photon is not a quantum limit to the mass; any degree of the energy reduction of the interaction of the light quanta is achieved. Thus the quantum of light is divided and the limit of the quantum of light may no longer be the limit on the speed of light in relativity at short distances inside the photon. It's lighter than light so it might be faster. I've tended to believe this is true since the light reaching a starship at high speed has already changed it's information about the wavelength and it's a signal before it reaches the starship, that is as Einstein believed about the EPR.


 That the basic field is perhaps based on the "geometry of the wedges" would be why pi is unchanging for all the other forces; if the basic particles are indeed quanta, the ratio of pi would be unchanged "all around" because of the nature of the fundamental field, not to universal to any other field, e.g electromagnetic or the strong force, than gravity. There would always be the same number of gravitons in most matter to make the edge of the wheel or sphere; thus pi is always the same. 

It's believed by many that pi may change for massive bodies like black holes or galaxies as they are all seen to be spinning faster than they should by conventional gravity, this arises readily in my particle theory of gravity because all masses would have a halo of the particles and it wouldn't reach beyond the outer limit so the mass is finite, for larger lower density bodies like galaxies the halo is retained but for higher levels of gravity like black holes, the aura might radiate out under the greater acceleration outward, at longer distance and lower energy density gravity holds on to the aurora, without so much resistance from the radiant halo, and like a hot mass the particles may boil off with higher local density, even though gravity always wins in general.. Inside the aurora, the usual ratio of the geometry would hold by the balance between the implosion and reradiance, at higher radii only the more implosive field would prevail, thus the galaxies, and the Pioneer would both have more acceleration due to gravity than if pi were not round.


Wealth and Riches to You!

Have you seen that ad where the dude is asking for financial advice; First he asks the lady in the restaurant who works there, then he asks the employee in the drive through at the fast food, then he asks his dog in another zoom. These financial advisors may have been unaware that research shows they are no more unreliable than throwing darts to pick the winning stocks or commodities. Sure enough just like in the ads, the weather is a good financial advisor! I'm not an advisor in the sense of risking thousands and thousands like in the ad, actually the risk is like 10 cents in some of my business plans, with a much higher payoff if you win, click here for more.
..