Mass If Shieldable By "Renormalization" Why No Eclipse Shielding?

Renormalization, the most accurate physical theory ever devised (until recently when the pulsar slowing rate predicted by General Relativity was proven by eclipses) is not complete. Initially there was the problem that the loops of the field by the Uncertainty Principle seem to get stronger with reduced distance, to zero distance when the mass would be infinite. This was then solved by finding the opposite component of the field and subtraction allows a finite residue, with the right mass and charge of the electron, not infinite. While this is no problem for the electric charge since it shields anyway, The mass itself would otherwise be infinite, so renorm works by assuming mass can be cancelled. The problem here is this is also a form of shielding and gravity doesn't shield. (The inertia of the electron seems no problem because inertia as in GR has no source and is internal.) The mass however would be huge and if it could be subtracted and it would seem to shield like in eclipses. I think of the friction as a sort of antigravity, the tides of the moon are a short range result of the mass of the electron or other particles, and this makes the moon slowly spiral out. Or more exactly the shielding of the electric charges by the renorm. If we can shield gravity by way of the electric charges why not gravity itself? Something otherwise is with gravity. In the next post I consider the evidence for an intermediate energy field aurora around each mass neither as dense as the electric field or as strong as the mass field of gravity. This would be important to dark matter, ect. Here may be the solution to the problem of gravity and renorm. If gravity would interact directly with the mass of most subatomic motes it would have to be at their wavelength and so a particle and so it would not only be not gravity and much more massive, it would also already shield. However if each particle and mass has an aurora it has higher volume and the volume itself would be lower energy more like gravity, gravity lite. Only locally is the mass huge and only the subtacted value is seen. Even so some of the gravity waves would hit the actual masses even if just the small actual zone of the electron and so at super high densitys like the eclipses of black holes we might see some slowdown via the shielding. Though possible this would be tough to find because a singularity is not great and the distances are vast somewhat.


The mechanism of the field would seem to need reversed entropy so gravity winds up the cosmos so it would seem to have wound down over infinite time of energy neither being created or destroyed, you might say entropy is not a change in the energy of the cosmos just a rearrangement of it. But high energy physics like quanta is mostly conservation of information and if all the matter was rerraranged into a cosmic fizz this would essentially violate energy conservation. If the low energy interaction of the gravity waves with the more nonwaved but still mosly wavelike components of each halo, the entropy would be easier to generally overpower, gravity imploding not reradiant so much (except at the lower energy as Einstein thought to conserve field momentum. If the earth was imploding only, it would gain two earth masses a second. The lower energy reradiant field wouldn't exert as much force as the higher energy fields so we don't fall of the earth.). Thus gravity unlike the other forces seems to be a sort of one way valve for force and the force it would exert is by overpowering the entropy. Particles alone couldn't acheive this because the are disconnected so the field would be mostly wavelike and this would be continuous attraction. In order to directly impact a renormalized zone gravity would need to be a dense particle so it would be by definition non implosive, a contradiction, so the halo would explain the low energy modus of operation. Each mass has the field, which would interact with the lower energy waves and the waves don't mostly have to be particles for the field to find out each zone of mass and unify it. The entropy reversing is easier to achieve via waves than particles because they are continuous, even though some particle force is needed for general discontuity like the heavier particles and to explain why when you fall there's no force in your rest frame. The particles flowing along with you are in mostly discontinuous connection and exert pressure once you are at rest on the roof by their motion of just 32 feet/second.

I believe no doubt experiments are being done to find the Higgs'even so Hawking's idea that there is no unified field probable I disagree with. Imagine a city where we have all these roads and steps and bridges and other definite ways to reach the other side by travel, taxicab geometry lives! The city and ways to reach are set and we might say each special road and zone is basically disconnected from the other side; we can't ever reach the other side without obeying all the signs and no faster than light travel is allowed as far as trains and stations and old old watches are involved. If the connections are not obvious we might say the street is unchangable and so all we will find is not a unified field ect.; rather we find just a set of mosaics that are disconected, loosely connected and not unified. Imagine a low energy Higgs' like Einstein's low energy particle he used to get around the Uncertainty Principle. If this is a fundamental particle with which to build the city, you have a new block and new streets, a whole new world of states of matter and perhaps the constants are changed and explained. All the fundamental reality is proven or controlled. I truly believe in one field because energy conservation is well proven for all physics, this is a good reason to believe Hawking is wrong here. He's good to popularize science though I think he's wrong in this event.


Some believe in many Higgs' and I believe the two main things the Higgs' are predicted to be used for are in contradiction. A higher energy Higgs' may be used to unify electromagnetism well as is needed to "make the muon weigh" but the claim that it can also be used to be the fundamental source of mass seems contradictory. High mass and low mass are not the same. Thus the prediction of the high energy Higgs' like the LHC may not itself be the low energy mass particle. There are many masses of subatomic particles and it would take a lower energy wavelike Higgs' to not cause a huge quantum jump of the masses as measured, in other words, the graviton, the particle who be Higgs'.

It could be argued that renorm could be used to make the Higgs' have low mass externally while the higher mass just for the heavier fields but if there were a much huger number of the heavy particles, each small bit of shielding by the gravity could cause delay in eclipses not seen. A smaller number of noneclipsing particles would be easier to explain no eclipsing yet found compared to more with more huge surface area, ect.

More about The Low Energy Particle; Recent Experiments



(Link to site about the twisting light experiment).