A Mechanism for Inertia or Gravity by Way of Low Energy Light..

Here I will consider how inertia may be related to the idea of low energy photons.

Theorists such as Bernard Haisch who's an astrophysicist at Lockheed Martin in Palo Alto CA and others have proposed that inertia and gravity are both caused by interactions of the common heavy quanta around us with low energy photons.

The idea is simple in essence..

The heavy and a light mass accelerated with the same force move at different speeds because the heavy mass has more surface to interact with low energy photons.

This would also be the cause of the Lorentz contraction by way of pressure about which relativity has no comment at the moment!

  Haisch believes that in uniform motion the low energy photons are the same in all directions around you.. however with acceleration they then start to exert the force of inertia..

 But I want to talk about why the photons would exert force only on the mass in acceleration and not in uniform motion as we might expect..

If the particles are bouncing off of the heavier mass, it might seem reasonable to expect that they would radiate back out and cause things like mass induction or friction which are not found..

  Another question I'll discuss here is about why the planets would seem to plow through this low energy field and yet show little change of the force exerted by the low energy photons.

  In my earlier work I considered that it was possible that light could have the huge snapback by way of the resilient medium Maxwell used with the experiments proving the exact speed of light by way of the degree of the snapback. More particularly I invoked the idea of waves at long distance but at close radius the light has the snapback.. otherwise friction is a major problem with this idea, even while Maxwell, Newton Feynman and others considered particles as a potential method of explaining inertia and gravity by this simple mechanical method.

Newton used an experiment with two spinning discs..each has an inertial sensor we might call a weight, a small weight that would reflect the motion of each wheel..

When the inner disc is attached to the outside spinning wheel, it shows the same force, and both of them show the outward motion of the small weights..

But if you disconnect the wheels while the inside wheel is spinning and the outside wheel is at rest, only the inside wheel is showing the influence of the centrifugal force. And this would seem to be at short range like my idea about the snapback of light. The inner wheel when it's spinning might only be interacting with the constant field in its immediate vicinity.

 There is no mass induction here.. my solution to this problem is about how acceleration is not the same as linear motion.

  The constant field which might make up the resilient medium that Maxwell considered about predicting the speed of light, would be the Higgs' field.

  Another way of expressing the idea that acceleration is not the same exactly as uniform motion is about the recent discovery that pi shows non-patternacity about repetition of its decimals. For the repetition of a number like 1 the probability of repeating again with an extra round is 60% less..

  My belief is that this shows the  essence of the idea that acceleration is not the same as uniform motion..

  The non-patternacity of pi might be because the flat field is like a box and as it interacts with a spinning mass it's not the same on the sides of the box as the corners.. the corners are somewhat jagged and so when a number in pi tries to land here there is instability and this gives the result as seen (which is not an any one base but in all the bases they find which mathematicians consider to be evidence something about this is more fundamental than just the base).

If the quanta bounce off a mass in accelerated motion it's been unsolved about why they also don't just bounce off a mass in uniform motion, and slowing motion of the spin of the quanta by the Higgs particles and this would be because only during acceleration are both acceleration and the constant field interacting.

  Otherwise as by a simpler cause I would expect the particles would be there even if in uniform motion exerting force, and this doesn't happen.

  Thus the fact that relativity seems incomplete may be the solution to how inertia actually operates. The distinction between linear and angular motion which relativity really doesn't explain or make distinct would be how and why phenomena like a gyroscope moving in uniform motion is not the same as the acceleration of the gyroscope..

  Maxwell noted that the low energy field is not particulate because if it was a gas you could weigh it and it would have weight.

A gyroscope shows changes in the force only with changes in acceleration and not uniform motion and this is simple to explain if measurement of the angular motion's interaction with the constant field is the most significant event here.  This is one of the reasons I consider relativity to be incomplete because it's only about uniform motion, and my idea is about dynamics and not just about measure of motion without asking why things move, as I'll show you if you like on the link at the end of the page..

  As you move around the room and change your direction it's easy to feel the change of the field and yet we would ask why if you shake around a lot the room doesn't shake with you as much, at any rate not out West in Reno!

Like the Feynman diagrams, the low energy particles are only a sort of potential energy and don't show any influence until they reach the radius of action ROA which is a narrow radius inside of which the waves are converted to particles where they have the huge snapback.

That the Feynman particles are fundamentally unlike the heavy quanta is expressed by the evidence that you can't bring the particles to zero radius or they would have infinite mass. It would seem the field will be doing this constantly but the infinite mass is not in evidence.

 A related event is about comparison of the round and the constant field when you plug the equations for Gravity into quantum mechanics you get infinitys.

The snapback is only inside of the ROA..

The force is exerted by these virtual photons.. You might ask why they don't just bounce off and show the effects like the motion of the planets through the field or events that were used to supposedly disprove Maxwell's idea about the speed of light when the air from a bell jar is removed with reduction in volume of the sound or just the spinning wheels as Newton considered.

 These are all related problems about friction and I think they all have the same underlying solution.

My belief is that inertia is communicated in it's most fundamental essence at the radius like of the light or of the quanta.

In essence the quanta or the light might pick up energy from the Higgs field, and borrow it for a while to cause the huge snapback and then radiate back out but only as a flat Higgs field also..(The internal mass of quanta like an electron has the snapback because of the evidence about deep in elastic scattering experiments and the enormous success of Renormalization one of the most numerically well proven ideas in physics.)

 In order to cause the force of the huge snapback nonetheless, my idea is that even while the dark matter is low density it's also at super high speed by my hopeful generalization of Maxwell's method I use. This is because you lighten up to travel faster, more particularly the in waves and the out waves as in renormalization cancel out almost completely. Dark matter and dark energy make up the main part of the energy of the cosmos so this is a possible way this large energy is all around us and yet we can't see or feel it.

 The in and out waves even if they're huge are subtracted out by the math and the result even with the huge mass internally for the electron is that the external mass is actually quite small by subtracting out the two types of waves. 

 I believe gravity is may be a much much higher speed event to radiate in and not out as LIGO has found which would be inertia.

My Belief about the Speed of Gravity 

 Like Newton or Van Flandern I had believed that gravity had huge or or extremely high speed due to its low density by Maxwell's method, and because of events like the zero displacement of light which Van Flandern also notes.

 His calculation was that the speed of gravity was comparable to what I had believed. My predicted speed was 10 times 10 to the 37 times the speed of light because it's that much "lighter" in energy.

However I now consider that the low energy waves may go between the classic electromagnetic field lines. This may cause them to not have nearly so much friction or flexing by the quanta on the sides of these field lines to speed them up due to the change of phase and so they may move at much higher speed, perhaps nearer to what Newton believed. 

 But the idea that none of the information would make it through for something like the EPR or tunneling is not probable or we couldn't measure the event at all..

While the classical electromagnetic field lines are obviously there to cause the lines of magnetic induction seen with iron filings..these lines themselves don't have friction problems because while they're higher energy than the Higgs' field, they would still be virtual and not high enough energy to cause friction..

 If LIGO has found gravity instead of the radiant outward flow of inertia by the classical field lines then I would ask why gravity itself doesn't radiate out. Otherwise we should readily be able to find heating and other events of this type by way of LIGO. 

 After all if gravity waves are at the speed of light by Einstein's idea they would actually be particles because they can't be influenced from emission to absorption in order to have constant speed. And certainly if they're particles they'll radiate out. This will have radiant heating or radiation pressure and this is not known for gravity.

 If gravity is an acceleration as I believe and it's got an overlapping change of both wavelength and frequency being the opposite of relativity's constant speed of light which only changes wavelength not speed, it will need something to keep it coherent over distance for the acceleration to take place. And I believe that while the speed of gravity may be much higher than the inverse method of simply saying that it's that much lighter it would move that much faster, it's still going to be finite even if really high speed, and the degree to which it will be finite will also measure things like the displacement of gravity for which no change has been found yet.. 

 Also a slight tendency for mass induction might fit well with the idea of dark matter and dark energy of this type, by just these changes of friction which are not a problem but which may be of value to our understanding of dark matter and dark energy.

  I think the cause of dark energy might be caused by separation of the low energy electromagnetic field lines over great distance even if the field is mostly inert. In this idea due to its interaction with the low energy electromagnetic field lines, once in awhile the dark energy waves will be converted to higher energy particles, and these would then exert the force of the cosmic acceleration.

    Two separate lines of theory and experiment seem to both show that dark matter makes up 4/5 of the mass of the universe.   If the Higgs' field is thus the same as dark matter or dark energy and also is involved with centrifugal and centripetal force, this might solve the problem about why it's been so difficult to find more evidence..

 In essence by this explanation, the Higgs' field doesn't so much radiate in to cause the snapback of light or the quanta, a field of high potential energy that the quanta then tap into to cause events like the speed of light exactly..

  The low energy Higgs' field is constant and so when you weigh it, it's dark matter so it's completely inert by most measures of influence.

You might say if you shake a mass there would seem to be scintillation of the quanta of the mass and this should be easy to find and so far this type of event hasn't been found and yet as you move around the room there's direct evidence for the influence of the constant field.

Or if you're going up the highway and the driver in the opposite lane moves past if they're both going around a hill and accelerating this kind of influence of the mass would seem to imply there might be a wave of that inertia and it would splash you from the other side.

But if both masses are just picking up mass from the constant field with the snapback only at short radius and then reradiating it out as a constant field also, 

this might allow the snapback without the major friction problems, which many had noted for gravity.

For example Feynman showed with the math that if there were particles for gravity, the Earth would need to gain two Earth masses per second. Others considered how there would be huge friction problems and mass would have to have enormous permeability if the low energy particles cause gravity by way of the low energy photons.

  So this idea of the near zero entropy of the Higgs' field and how the field is nonetheless there but also that it has the large snapback inside the radius of Action, and radiates back out only as a constant field also, might be an explanation for both how inertia and gravity have strong influence like centrifugal force yet without the problems of friction that particles might cause this would have otherwise.

  For example in this idea the speed of light is constant because the light is comparing itself as it radiates out with the constant field and this comparison of the spin of the light with the field gives it its law of radiant energy. In a way this interaction of the flat field with the acceleration like of the light would be a measure of the quanta of inertia in a "roundabout" way.. it may also be about the geometry of the cosmos. 

 I would hold that all the fields need to compare themselves to other parts of the field in order for energy to be conserved.. Scientists have always believed since they started to research about this in the days of Newton, it's inconceivable that you could have you have centrifugal without centripetal force.  

Einsteins relativity says there's nothing there to be compared with and therefore a quanta for inertia like what I call the Low Energy Higgs LEH you'll see on my link below may be useful for energy conservation.. 

 I identify the Low Energy Higgs' with Einstein's hope to use a low energy particle to solve the uncertainty problem. For example recent so-called low energy quantum experiments seem to show that Einstein was partially correct about  Schrödinger's Cat.. 

 The LEH would be important to the mass snapback for the electromagnetic component of inertia because they would resonate in combination with the field like inside of the light quantum and neither by themselves because either the light or the LEH wouldn't have the snapback without being combined by resonance. Outside the heavy quanta the LEH are just waves.

As you see on my post link, if you like to read more I think the LEH may also be integral to the EPR.

 Research with the possible influences of dark matter have put a limit on how much its input can jostle the quanta like electrons and come up with no results like Einstein asked if we knew what we were looking what will we call it? No, yes!

In my writing here the Higgs waves are constant even if of high energy and they are able to change with the motion of the matter really fast and adapt to changes like the motions of the quanta so they're totally smooth like the complete continuity that Einstein thought of for space and time except, the low energy field is something else with different physics and not continuous at higher speed and over short time duration.

 Another question would be why with the large centrifugal force of the atoms, there's not a major amount of radiation outward of the heavy quanta like of the Earth when gravity only seems have influence that's lower energy compared to this. 

  Gravity wouldn't be like a complete loop because it's based on lower energy and is only attractive. 

 But for the quanta there are the orbital limits and I believe these are caused by the loops of electromagnetism which are closed loops unlike the gravity or the radiation of the light which are of more unlimited range. And by this the quantum orbitals limit most of the radiation from making it in or outside of the quantum realm. 

 Nigel Calder in his book Einstein's Universe, holds that gravity works by laying down tracks like for the moon around the Earth. This brings to mind the idea that there is a track all the way around the Earth for the moon but unlike the quantum loop, there's no evidence causing it to continue all the way around or there would be major changes in the orbits of bodys.

 One idea about special relativity is that the Lorentz contraction only takes place in the line of motion.. this might be because of the displacement of the field whether it's of displacement of the Higgs or other fields into a sort of tube that doesn't interact as much with the sides because it's polarized like Newton discovered about light. 

 This is essentially my description of why the x and y coordinates of the ballistic arc are completely independent.. the low energy field shows displacement which means the light is coming in and a more linear path towards that body in motion and this is important to inertia.

 But inertia and gravity would not be equivalent and so the gravity passes right through the tube with no resistance much. Here again though, the field is measuring the linear motion relative to the angular momentum in a definite way. 

 The external waves of the Higgs' dark matter field would radiate out as much energy as the gravity or inertia would involve but because of the loop of the quanta they don't radiate out  more radiation as they would if they were nonquantum like the moon or the Earth..

 This will be because here again gravity is not the same as the quantum of light Einstein promoted so much for relativity because the quanta would have these orbitals that keep it from radiating out a lot of energy but gravity and inertia would still be radiating in and out out the considerable waves of the constant field about the Higgs on the outside, because they're long range forces.

 

CLICK HERE for a site about how scientists are trying to find dark matter and how there's a limit by how much it would jostle different types of mass. 

 Even so as I say above they're assuming that dark matter is a particle which Maxwell thought of as only a wave because you can weigh a gas but there are no particles if it has no weight. 

 So perhaps the assumption of so many searches for dark matter are based on incomplete consideration of the evidence..

 And perhaps older science like Maxwell's idea which still has that one major general evidence for it.. contrary to what relativity tells us about light being a quanta and all the science is done, Maxwell predicted the speed of light exactly based on the resilience of the force between the waves of plus and minus charges. 

 To me this is the elephant in the room about relativity and above all else Einstein assumed that the speed of light is the top speed all else fits inside.

 But if we allow perhaps a phase change of the like the possibility of dark matter being a superluminal superfluid and also that this only takes place on the outside of the quanta so you don't have problems like gravity becoming super strong inside the quanta or shielding or having quantum numbers, there's no need to assume that dark matter is a quanta if perhaps the wave method of light is already well established and more about dark matter and dark energy.

 It's been said we can fit the waves into the quanta so that they drag them along presumably and so relativity is saved from all the 40 or so wave experiments of classical physics that otherwise seem to be an embarrassment to relativity. By this idea light carries itself by one of Einstein's famous quotes is that it's impossible to imagine a fundamental particle that can emit and absorb a wave.. so sooner or later, it seems the waves are going to revive and be doing well!

  Here's the link below to what I consider to be one of my best pages about science.. my ideas have been an ongoing event of about 40 Years of improvement and like Einstein I may have gone through some false leads before I got perhaps my best solutions.. 

  I thought LIGO initially would measure the higher speed of gravity like Van Flandern believed and I certainly believe that gravity may be much much faster than light..Just one experiment like this is not necessarily a guarantee of the most sound science.. Most futurists are inefficient but eventually they often find solutions in months ahead!

 The evidence that LIGO has found events about something that travels at the speed of light about gravity by definition seems not to be gravity, because it would have problems like gravitational radiation pressure and heating or friction if gravity is quantum in nature like this and a quanta at constant speed, because gravity is an acceleration not uniform motion as in relativity..

 Click Here For More..

 

.