"Did God have a choice in creating the universe?" Einstein asked. Did he have a deadline to meet and so just picked a number for the electron's mass and charge, perhaps his birthday or just the number he won the lottery with? My belief is that gravity is the foundation force that links all the other forces up because it's the lowest field in power. In the history of physics our knowledge of gravity with Einstein and Sir Issac has been the more important to the advance of physics than our knowledge of, say sound. In subatomic physics by the conservation laws each force has the properties of all the forces below it plus its own additional motifs, as if piling up with the center of the pile having all the basis of the force below with its own piled on motifs. If each force is founded by it's basis, if gravity is the lowest power field it would be the source of all the rest. Thus to answer what causes the parameters and all there is gravity may be the source of from which all the rest is derived. All is made of gravity and energy conservation. Since the field would be first derived from a gravity field, if god were starting with a basic field that was not combined together to form the motifs of the higher fields, what would god ask himself in order to create the other fields from this?
THE FIRST PRINCIPLE
The self preservation of the field by definition may be the first principle, because without what would make the field self preserving it would not exist. ..
THE SECOND PRINCIPLE; THE FOUNDATION FIELD MUST ATTRACT BECAUSE OF THE FIRST PRINCIPLE
If the low power field existed, it would attract, not expand because if it expanded more then implosion it would evaporate away and the self preservation of the field would be violated. ..
THE THIRD PRINCIPLE; ABSOLUTE PHYSICS ARE NOT ALLOWED
Physics at no one time in space is ever infinite (an infinity of time is necessary for energy conservation) because "actual" nontemporal infinity is absolute and it would have infinite mass to engulph the cosmos and if the field were absolute it would be unchanging, exactly the same as void so field preservation would rule out infinities. So the distance between two points of mass would always be finite.
.
If the field attracts it will by definition attract inward to the point of attraction because if it much attracted to many points outward it would be expansive, violating field conservation by these three definitions of all there is. If it isn't infinite and attracts to definite sources it wouldn't implode infinitely, this too would violate the foundation of the field. So this is evidence that the inner flow must be stopped. This isn't stopped by the implosion, or the field wouldn't be preserved (because of The Third Principle about no infinities.) If black holes had infinite implosion, they would weigh more like the sun with all the lighter mases orbiting around them so black holes couldn't orbit around anything else like the center of a galaxy. This is disproof of infinite implosion. Implosion is necessary but no absolute implosion is, so in general physics the field would just implode to the density of the electromagnetic field, the second level up from gravity. The implosion is non absolute because once it flows in at the wavelength of gravity it would build up density so heating such as the solar or earth power would go on and the heat would flow out so the infinity would be stopped and energy is conserved for The First Principle. The amount of gravity that flows in is exactly (minus the work done) the same amount of heat flow out. This is the law of conservation of mass energy and this is the law of the conservation of linear and angular momentum, so this explains from these principles why all there is is in motion. About the Speed of Light If you have the basic density of this field you can derive the speed of light and the top speed of other forces by the same general method Maxwell used by the top speed being the inverse of the density of the field which attracts and energises up from gravity to electromagnetism, the next level up in power, the lighter the electromagnetic field the faster the speed of light by Maxwell, the lighter the mass the the faster it goes. The spacetime is not empty like Einstein thought but filled with the low power fields. (This has been proven by the Lamb Shift of hydrogen in the 1950's, and of course by motifs like induction of magnets where one charge influences another with the "empty room" between and the iron filings of the magnets also prove that the fields are present, ect. Otherwise, empty space has a lot of definition! A rocket exhaust must react against the field to change it's motion.) The+ and - electric charges attract and the density of their field is the same as the constant speed of light (but not highest speed because gravity being lighter than light may travel much faster without much relativity of gravity, if it's of low power with much reduced interaction). With the electric charges always found to be constant in all the cosmos, the charge and mass of the electron (mass because it's from the gravity field) are ultimately derived from the attraction and bunching up of the main field. It would bunch up with a certain amount of ease but the short range resilience of the electron balances it so the electron has finite mass and charge. The electron's mass would be an expression of its electro-magnetism converted to gravitational terms. While it's as if they are separate forces the gravity of the electron would passively "reflect" the amount the gravity is worth because gravity is weak and doesn't shield (as in historic eclipses of the moon. If there were even the least change of the gravity going through the moon, the times of the eclipses would change). I think this is so because when you change the electron volts you would change the mass a bit by Einstein's mass energy motifs but the gravity has no shielding at the usual energy. So it's the same with a large proportionality constant but just as if a reflection. If gravity and inertia were the same as Einstein held, they would be equally strong and so it wouldn't take the large mass of the earth to make the same force a small gyroscope can use to counteract the force of the earth's attraction. Any motion of any sort would be reflected this way not in just the higher energy levels, but in all the lower levels, of example if you change a proton, you would not only change the strong force but it's electric reflection (more actively) and gravitational reflection (more passively) of the events that change the proton, to move the strong force is to move all three (by moving it and other changes also) and to change the electrons electric charge if so would change its mass. If the charge were twice, the mass would also almost be double. The mass would reflect the equivalent amount of gravity the electric charge information is made of. Since there are many types of complex properties subatomic particles have, a simple reflection is not necessarily the amount of mass a particle would have, there would be weighted values, some of more value and some of less. Since all is one by energy conservation there is an underlying unified measure of the value, this value may turn out to be how well the field preserves itself and builds itself up compared to the downward tendency of how a high level of power like a mountain tends to erode beyond a medium height, this is also of value to finitude of the field, or it wouldn't be there the higher level of life like you and me would live forever like energy conservation where mass is neither created or destroyed. There must be a simple underlying principle like the most important measure of all the properties of subatomic physics being about lifetime because of energy conservation's unifying power. Perhaps ultimately the reason we are mortal would be because of the instability of the higher powers of the field, so what powers a whirlwind also makes us eventually unwind. Higher information can be created and destroyed, a sofa out of the same matter can be converted to a cushy bed, and the sofa may be gone but the more basic forms of energy are always indestructible. The creation and destruction of higher information thus disproves a basic tenet of information theory, that mass energy is the same as information. It is at low power but not necessarily at the higher energy levels. Either of these two main motifs of the value of building up (centripetal) or the value of dissolution (centrifugal force) may increase some of the weighted value of the properties that would deem the gravitational mass of a particle. The value may be known by how it would change the particle's half life if the value itself was changed, and relative to other subatomic properties of the particle. Obviously there may be other motifs that may be not as important as what mediates the implosion and expansion of the forces of subatomic physics. However just as in the history of science savvy of the extremes such as the small and the giant are the most import to the result of the computations the extremes are what make the most important change. Since gravity would be the source of the other forces and they all have friction the gravity would have a bit of effort used to read the reflections it would multiply itself a bit with as nonlinear forces do, and so the predicted masses of the particles would all be just a bit higher than with no gravity, not lower since although work would be being done to extract the information, gravity pulls us downward so would be the opposite of the usual expansion of the random motion of the other forces that lift us up against the gravity, when usual work is done the mass goes down, when gravity attracts it attracts more mass to more mass, so the particles may weigh just a bit more. The idea here is that if Field Preservation is the source of all there is, properties in subatomic physics that would cause more Field Preservation would get more of the value. All else the same, if physics chose between what would preserve the field or not, it would choose Preservation in such as conservation laws, especially about centripetal force with extra implosion since implosion is more important than expansion to the Preservation of Field. This is necessary for mass in usual life to be solid and not expand.
PLANK'S CONSTANT
Planck's Constant is essentially a measure of rate of flow (of quanta) of the constant motion of subatomic physics, this is the same as the conservation of linear and angular momentum (quantity of motion) so the source of it is the energy conservation derived from the Three Principles. Planck's constant and all the quanta of subatomic physics may be derived from the only or one of the few numbers in subatomic physics that isn't huge or approaching 0, the fine structure constant. The fine structure constant (the ratio between the strength of the strong force and electric force) arises from the resonance (at the two main levels other than gravity, of electromagnetism and the strong force) of the first field (gravity) since it is just a ratio of two of these general resonances. Since the fine structure constant is an inbetween number like we find in ordinary life all around us, it would be what the big and small numbers are linked by in quanta the small packets of power. If there were no inbetween link like the fine structure constant, the extremes would be unlevel and infinite, ect. So the combination of the extreme numbers like the speed of light and the fine structure constant (in pairs because of the actions and reaction of energy conservation) would explain why there are quanta like Plank's Constant in subatomic physics. A bit more or less implosion of the main field and there would be more or less of the amount of the motion. While the main field is no doubt not able to be determined from non axiomatic principles, Planck's constant is derived from it not vice versa. Einstein's intuition was that The Uncertainty Principle was of dubious worth. In my formulation it would be derived from the foundation no more than just by the coincidence that the strong force is about at electromagnetism's energy level. (The first field powers up to make the electricity and this powers up to make the strong force). The Uncertainty Principle in subatomic physics holds that the probe interacts with the measured particle and adds so much power the more power you add the more it contracts (the opposite of usual mass where if you add more weight a mass occupies more room). This means if the Uncertainty Principle is true the conclusion would be it always takes the power of the probe higher than a certain level to create the particle observed or the observed particle doesn't exist. Einstein said, "Do you honestly believe the moon doesn't exist when you don't look up to see it?" The reason the particle and probe are about the same energy just in subatomic physics would be because it's just coincidence that the measured mass of either electric charge or a strong force particle such as a proton or meson is about the same power as the probe also made of one these types of force particle. The gravitational field from which they would be derived could have anywhere from huge attraction to approaching 0, and so the two resonances of electromagnetism and the strong force (and thus the ratio between them the fine structure constant) might have any value derived from the field of gravitation. The First and Second Principles are more qualitative than quantitative. So the resonances that create the electromagnetic field and the strong force from it themselves could be at any ratio instead of the fine structure constant's 1/137 because exactly how much the gravitational field would attract itself and thus how much the relative strength of the strong force relative to electricity would be is axiomatic. If it were no more than coincidence Einstein and others like myself would be wrong about the world being probabilistic or not and usual vision wouldn't work by the light being of much reduced energy than what is perceived. The idea that low power probes would get around this just as the moons light with our vision was Einstein's own and in Einstein's time it was not proven. However, low energy quantum experiments of the past few months seem to uphold Einstein's conclusion about this.
. About Einstein's idea that "God does not play dice with the universe" I agree like much with Einstein because QM with no way to know where each particle is would violate energy conservation in much the same way the disconnected points of Relativity would expand out and evaporate, and energy would be lost.
While Einstein may have missed the connection here about relativity (if god does not play dice, the seperate points of space time of relativity wouldn't hold, with the "slow" speed of light over much distance not connecting well, perhaps he was unsavvy because it's more connected by the quantum of light which is not a wave in Relativity than in subatomic physics) if the cosmos is acausal and foamy based on quantum physics why aren't we just waves?
Obviously since both waves and particles are what the find in subatomic physics in the wave particle duality, the particles win out generally in the small realm till we find the most elementary particle, perhaps the Higgs.. The most basic field would be waves and nonquantum because gravity is so low in energy and nonsolid like a wave, and it's attraction of continuous unifying power is wavelike unlike discontinous particles, which are more disconnected, unlike attraction. The basic field would be wavy so it would have no friction and never wear out to keep the cosmos moving forever.) More basic elemental particles are needed to explain how the quantum numbers, mass and charge and so on, always turn out just the same and this internal structure could only be explained by smaller subcomponents (than even the fractional charges) because they have all the complex yet mostly unchanging properties in time.
A dot has no stucture so it can have no other properties than it's a dot. Machines with complex properties must have subcomponents. This may be where Einstein got the idea that "god doesn't play dice with the cosmos".
Even though I think waves are more acausal are ultimately more elementary, there's more reason to believe by the evidence in the experiments that uphold Einstein's conclusion, the quantum realm is more causal than acausal which we may eventually prove more definitely. If gravity pulls us down, and is of much lower energy density.and the opposite of the usual electric force that lifts us, the Uncertainty Principle wouldn't apply to physics in the room all around us at our size of scale in more common room, the more mass you add the more room it takes up instead of the opposite in quantum mechanics. If the particles are made of gravity and gravity is much lower in mass density than the other forces, the Uncertainty Principle says that more mass takes up reduced room, and vice versa I think, so if the mass is hugely smaller of the building blocks like the Higgs, you would have the small small waves of subatomic physics made of hugely larger waves of gravity. So this is evidence in favor of the small elements of gravity that make up the subatomic particles being smaller in size and mass than the usual motes, explaining for example why the masses of all the particles are not seen to be in any larger basic unit of the building block of the mass, even with them always being like prime numbers unchanging on the line of lower to higher mass. There would be an ultimately smaller particle as in the low energy physics experiments of Einstein and the field of quantum physics would be with higher resolution.
If gravity that the subatomic particles are made of was much faster than light because when mass is reduced the more speed you go by F=ma, less mass, higher speed, energy conservation would be upheld because god would know where each sub particle was with much resolution, all would be known to god. You wouldn't have unconnected mass foaming outward. And since the main source of the foaminess would be just from the coincidence that the probe is about the same energy as the measured particle I agree with Einstein, so mass at this usual resolution we're at is without this coincidence since the light is of insubstantial size and helps you know about the box. In the search for the element that would be building blocks of mass like the Higgs particle, they think it has a much higher mass, the problem here may be that the Higgs particle would have much more mass than the particles it would build up, so no conservation of mass energy. If the gravity particles would have inverse uncertainty, perhaps the gravitons of the right power to add the mass would be at the opposite energy. So the mass that they would look for would be exactly as much lighter than the predicted value of the Higgs would have been heavy with the exception perhaps that the gravity has much reduced force of self cohesion so would be at another value than a linear scale would. This would explain why they haven't found the Higgs already. Even if the Higgs is found, it would be made of gravity and of gravitons.
.
MORE About FOUR DIMENTIONS These are some ways some of the basic physics may be derived from the simple source of field conservation. However, even if the source of time is found by this, 3d space is unexplained since time is always one dimentional and just without explanation. If time is sufficient at one dimention, why would space be of 3 dimentions not two or one?
If gravity and inertia are the same exactly as Einstein held then presumably both the attractive and the expansive centrifugal force component of the fields of all particles would attract by the same amount and to make them the same they would be equal and gravity would neither attract or repel and if all the field is unified by energy conservation nor would any other force. Since it's only attractive gravity would seem to not interact as much with the outwardly moving centrifugal component of the field of each particle. The proportion of attraction increases with increased mass but augumentation of the attractive component of the field the same amount would allow no change in the mass so by a basic interpretation of Relativity more mass would also have the same weight so all masses would weigh the same. All the subatomic physics have an implosive component and this component connects up all the fields by attraction to the field beside it or inside. This would explain the union of the fields by both energy conservation and gravity, they would have many unlike motifs caused by the centrifugal forces but they're all connected by the attractive component of each force even with what would seem to be distinctions in the field and quantum numbers, and so on as more energy is added on to each subatomic or massive field. As it's been said the underlying reality of the world is what's the most real, and the outer vision we see is a sort of illusion or mirage compared to the import of the attraction of the cosmos. This is what the conservation of the field By The Three Foundations would have.
To explain why there is shielding of any other force and so a limit on implosion, I agree with others who say expansion without implosion is inconcievable in a system that has stability. So if each particle always has both an imploding and expansive component, gravity shielding/antigravity wouldn't usually be found because while there would be an expansive component of each particle and this would always be unified in one to one correspondance to the implosive component, the gravity would mostly resonate and attract the implosive component for the most of it which seems plausable because gravity has no expansion.
Ways To Modify Einstein's Gravity Waves using such as centrifuges (the same as gravity in General Relativity) aimed inward to focus the wave.
-
Evidence for a Fifth and Sixth Force
.Black holes of implosion without limit would be unallowed because infinite mass density is not allowed by the Third Principle. Black holes without jets and with infinite implosion would violate energy conservation, the mass energy falling in would be being destroyed and lost to the cosmos. This would explain the power sources of the jets of galaxies, lots of gravity in and a fifth and sixth force of power so much it would stop the infinity of the implosion, and expand out with so much force fusion can't be the source. This would also explain the unusual spectra of the jets, like no mass found anywhere (Except, well, right here at Science Revels of R&D.). They find that all the galaxies spin faster than Newton's law of gravity predicts and more as a solid body which seems to violate conservation of angular momentum. The farther reaches of such as the solar system go around faster than they should via Newtonian Gravity. If there is much mass in the centers of the galaxies this high density of the forces may be the power source of the spin. The solid rotation may be from another source, the ionization by the stars of the fields between them. Obviously with an atomic power source, the stars are a real ionization engine, much charge is between the stars and the stars often have the opposite charge of the room surrounding them. -.
The opposite charges would attract once the charges were powered out so would try to go to the stars to be boosted out for another go. With the short range expansion balanced by the inward contraction this sets up field lines that are like fibers in electromagnetism. The gravity would make the outer stars and dust spin fast by it's stronger power source from the center connected to the outer stars via the fibers of the ionized electric fields. If the stars are bound up in a web of the fibers they would spin more as a solid body. They think the Law of Sir Issac may be disproven because the space probes as they go outside the solar system are falling somewhat faster than the Law of his invention. I think this may not be the exact same rate of fall about this because it may be just by coincidence if the galaxies spin is because of the ionization of the stars. The probes may fall faster for another reason; if they are outside the heliopause out of the solar wind, which usually would be a field that would cause some friction, most masses would fall slower when nearer the sun.
.The idea that the center masses of galaxies would have much denser mass is a better explanation of the attraction of large masses to dark matter they can't see with the Hubble or other giant image machines. If dark matter is matter and necessary to explain most of the motions of galaxies, while the particles they are made of in the cosmic rays from distant realms. no dark matter would be found blended in with cosmic rays that reach the earth. The theory of the fifth and sixth force would offer an explanation. Gravity would meld the force particles and make them stable by its force of compression. In subatomic physics, generally the heavier a particle is the more its life time is reduced (violating Einstein's idea that time slows down with more mass density which e.g. is evidence as I hold of more than Relativity being possible) before it evaporates to other subatomic particles. So the particles of the fifth and sixth force may be stable by tendancy to expansion with all the compression, when they would boost out of the jets they would expand and rapidly convert over to the usual particles of subatomic physics. These would be high power no doubt and this may explain the source of the otherwise unexplained cosmic rays. The source of the cosmic rays we find may be mostly from the center of our own galaxy. This would solve the problem of Einstein's theory that all high power rays like gamma rays from outside the galaxy would impact so much with the lower power light they wouldn't reach the earth. Click Here for more. If the power source is mostly the black hole in the center of the Milky Way, the cosmic rays (converted over from the higher energy particles of the Fifth and Sixth force) would reach the earth wuthout so much chance of interaction with light or other intervening particles. It would be from a big center mass instead of lots of small masses. With more gravity in even distribution the galaxies would all not spin as solid bodies. An explanation of the spin of the galaxies of the stars by stellar ionization lends itself to the solid rotation observed, and a strong central power source would explain the source of the spin it was connected to. If gravity were in even distribution, the outside would spin slower. So if the source of the cosmic rays is inside the Mlky Wy, it would also be mostly from the center.
.. .Since Field Preservation and all the motion of energy conservation would be the field implosion, limited changes of the field may be possible by eventually cutting the lines of gravity, and using this to change the properties of the particles by changes of the source of power. Obviously if gravity is mostly the one of attraction and the Three Principles are the source of all we are, just as a medium size river is easier for us to control than the tiny droplets of weather of huge number just when the small rivers flowing from the first field become substantial is the point where they become of value (this sort of "weather control" of the field would ruled out for large scale physics by the infrequency of the change of the general field we find werever we look in the cosmos so none of perhaps untold numbers of advanced civilizations have changed it at any time, so most must have failed so we may also fail in this endeavor and the uniformity of the laws of physics is valid as far as astronomers and others can see). Imploding inward however the river might be diverted in flow and the power harnessed for many purposes, including changing the exact patterns (properties) of the particles downstream with more ease than stopping them downstream. Just where the point would be where the small rivers are too small for any useful power is just luck. Sooner or later though if the field has not been changed by other civilizations we may reach a point where we won't be able to do more than accept what the field decides.
There is the theorem that there is no information sent in the signal between the packs boxes and Savannah; and my conclusion is if there were a strong enough signal between electrons to influence them we would be engulfed in lots of energy not seen in common physics. The belief seems to be that the two events in Yazoo and Peoria are the same event and no signal is sent between them. Even so in magnetic induction e.g. the fields are in power so they might even be strong enough to cause it if those who believe in this use of quantum physics are right. There must be some reason why this was believed to have been of worth to quantum cryptography (this was to be where the box and packs are in union so if the other had been modified, Ron or Betsy would know, making it safe about sending memos like for web sites or online banking). MORE ABOUT QUANTUM CRYPTOGRAPHY AND THE WEB. While this would seem to have been a conclusion of those who know well, the boxes in union and with no signal seems like just no signal from a box to the box, no better than what we are already wize about in physics.
At http://newscientist.com/ they say they've used the mass of Jupiter to measure the speed of gravity waves indirectly based on just a rearrangement of Einstein's General theory of Relativity and it seems by this motif of gravity to just be at the speed of light. I think just if its based on the Einstein's General Theory by the above, this is no guarantee it's so if the speed alone is not seen. As you see above about what Einstein and I think about the Uncertainty Principle, assumptions about how a measurement is achieved are no guarantee they're not assuming what they're trying to prove, by making Einstein's assumptions that gravity is relativistic and that it's speed of light to plug in the formulas they use. This Wikapedia site about the speed of gravity (experiments) agrees with my conclusion that changes in mass density based on a limiting speed are no way to prove what that speed is, the speed itself is not proven anywhere in relativity, it's just a speed which all the rest fits in, and Einstein offers no proof of the speed, so just from the start gravity might be any speed and we would match the physics instead of just assuming the speed of gravity to be the speed of light.
Whatever the speed of gravity I think it may be proven well by using the Torsion Balance machine of the type that were used to measure gravity in the late 1700's with just two masses, say 5 and 10 pounds, on a weighin beam. When a mass swiveled round the other would move a bit. To measure the speed of gravity a machine like this of enough mass by the Law of Sir Issac to fit the stars would read the wave from a solar event, the most explosive in the solar system. If the speed was faster than light it would be perhaps instantly seen on the machine, and a half an hour later, the light at the speed of light would arive from the same event. This would be disproof of the Jupiter gravity experiment, even if it's just at the speed of light, it would be the advent of gravity wave astronomy, this is my own innovation. MORE.
My General Ideas in Physics/Synopses
Faster than light motion can be proven in other ways than this.. A proof of mine that light itself must be held in one wave by a signal inside the light wave, sometimes miles in wavelength. The inside wave must go at the speed of light plus the speed it takes for it to send information necessary to hold the light wave by cohesion in a coherent wave. This makes sense if the light is actually made of gravity powered up and the gravity is at higher speed. Even my fish can't talk on the wave this good- she's with a real cost saving telephone co.-she just yellows real well! .............
-
MRI they say is a hoot, if you wear your watch when you go in the machine you'll sail around the room!
Thanks to outflation when I can carry the cash to the store, I'll have enough lunch on the round trip.
What's more powerful than an ohnosecond when my computer goes out? An Inoashack#repairinjusthalfhourinfomercialhour!
About stars, If I were rich, I'd earn lots and lots of cash and lunch in diners with Meadow Williams-after all, she's a person of real excellence in her field!!
.
TIME
..
Time is well known by all experiments to always be found to be measured by cycles so if the basic field would spin and other fields from it would spin, this would be the source of time. The subatomic particles and worlds would all spin like (non cyber) wrist watches with millions of wheels in wheels. The flow in equals the flow out of energy (with a good bit more in than out of the cosmos as a whole to preserve the field) from the First and Second Principles and this is a law of conservation of quantity of motion, and the law of quantity of motion and momentum thus derived is always one of both linear and angular momentum. When linear motion is slowed spin speeds up. So time is always about momentum generally, from this it generally follows that time being spin is achieved by the 3 Foundations of Physics, Implosion More Than Expansion, Some Centrifugal force, And No Absolutes. (If it were about brains I would be a van fan. They've found the mouse gene that is almost the same as our gene that makes us learn math well. I think this is just usual, by the way where's the van loaded with mozzerela outside?!) All implodes because of the First and Second Foundations so it forms a round motion sidewise and all is in motion, so sidewise nonlinear motion follows generally from this, and time is known to always be measured by cycles and the rotation of mass would be what all the world is made of. This predicts that while 0 spin particles are found in physics they would be composite only and no ultimate elementary particles would be without spin or time and it's motion from which all force and all there is would be caused by would be stopped. So this is the general origin of our hours and months, and explains how we are able to move through time without having to move through space, the particles to move through time just spin around.
.
It's been well known to physics since the mid 20th century that time is an acceleration and also that the frequency of particles is proportional to time in a system, both of these ideas fit in with the particles as the cause of why time flows. Feynmann thought in the subatomic realm if you reverse the spin and make a particle an antiparticle it's reversed in time for a while before it blends in with the rest of the surrounding field. If you reverse the spin of a common mass in the laboratory, you won't go backward in time even if the time is achieved from the spin because while each particle marks time, when they are in complex flow, it's like rolling dice (non Abelian) and can't be reversed with present science well. (Time reversal would be achieved just by moving particles of the right mass and energy to the right location based on a stored record of where to move them. This is a simple theoretical idea about time machines, and proves they aren't impossible. The main problem about time travel to the past would be about the size of the machine; because the ancient world doesn't exist now it would have to be rebuilt piece by piece to have an ancient world to visit, this would take a GREAT machine of BIG power, and many people would lose their money, if my wife is waiting for 1981 to come again, I'll buy her a way cool cyber AR headset for christmas!)
. The idea that all is both expanding a bit like the earth heating a bit by pressure and contracting (more) would have more proof by The First Foundation of the continuation of field. By this definition the long range implosion of the field would always outdistance the expansion (the cosmos would be a sealed sphere generally or perhaps the field would form a much bigger outline of the shape of the field with such as jets if the cosmos is not round) and energy conservation, being a method of maintainence of the field would be always so. I have believed energy conservation is just as a balance of weights on a balance (to maintain the in and outflow like a debit sheet in accounting) except with mass and energy.
.
It's been well known to physics since the mid 20th century that time is an acceleration and also that the frequency of particles is proportional to time in a system, both of these ideas fit in with the particles as the cause of why time flows. Feynmann thought in the subatomic realm if you reverse the spin and make a particle an antiparticle it's reversed in time for a while before it blends in with the rest of the surrounding field. If you reverse the spin of a common mass in the laboratory, you won't go backward in time even if the time is achieved from the spin because while each particle marks time, when they are in complex flow, it's like rolling dice (non Abelian) and can't be reversed with present science well. (Time reversal would be achieved just by moving particles of the right mass and energy to the right location based on a stored record of where to move them. This is a simple theoretical idea about time machines, and proves they aren't impossible. The main problem about time travel to the past would be about the size of the machine; because the ancient world doesn't exist now it would have to be rebuilt piece by piece to have an ancient world to visit, this would take a GREAT machine of BIG power, and many people would lose their money, if my wife is waiting for 1981 to come again, I'll buy her a way cool cyber AR headset for christmas!)
. The idea that all is both expanding a bit like the earth heating a bit by pressure and contracting (more) would have more proof by The First Foundation of the continuation of field. By this definition the long range implosion of the field would always outdistance the expansion (the cosmos would be a sealed sphere generally or perhaps the field would form a much bigger outline of the shape of the field with such as jets if the cosmos is not round) and energy conservation, being a method of maintainence of the field would be always so. I have believed energy conservation is just as a balance of weights on a balance (to maintain the in and outflow like a debit sheet in accounting) except with mass and energy.
MORE About FOUR DIMENTIONS These are some ways some of the basic physics may be derived from the simple source of field conservation. However, even if the source of time is found by this, 3d space is unexplained since time is always one dimentional and just without explanation. If time is sufficient at one dimention, why would space be of 3 dimentions not two or one?
The answer may be about the implosion being of most worth to my formulation. If you implode a line, it's not stable and essentially won't stay in a line, it compresses not to one or two dimentions (the circle with compression isn't stable either, it folds over into a 3d mass). There are two dimentions of the circle spinning but this tends to implode to the sphere because of the maximum implosion of the First Principle. The sphere spins because of time and this is a stable configuration, time for the time and third dimention of space and the other two dimentions for the outer spin zone of each particle, the circle. The electric type of field common to all the space time particles implodes in the equatorial zone, deeper in the magnetic type of field reradiates in both N and in out from the S, and this is balance between attraction and reradiance, not so much a balance of 3d and time, rather between the 2d circle and the time being also caused by the third dimention of both the spin of the particles all with two poles, in order to spin, much the same as the third dimention of space. One tropical zone and two poles seem fundamental to three dimentions for all particles, and they may arise naturally from simple implosion and reradiance of the most basic field. Thus the 3d world around us would be derived from the Field Implosion, if the field was expansive more than attractive, 1d expansive lines or 2d physics would be all that was.
The idea of more dimentions than three seems interesting, the argument here is considerably evidence based but not solid. Math pundits think of say x to the fourth power or the 6th power or whatever. Predictions are made, and the physical proof inevitably seems to prove them. One definition of a dimention is simply "an extra way to move". Here we must decide on what the definition of a way to move is. A way for what to move? If we look at the three four dimentions of physics not math, there are no extra dimentions found. The definition of dimension as a way to move allows many more complex "dimensions" than just these ways. Like inventions that are more and more complex in the patent office as we see in time, there are no more basic dimentions these innovations are based on. So the idea of the higher dimentions seems like using a looser higher level definition of the word, like the idea of information being conserved. If you use an all purpose definition that allows lots of creative combinations there is lots of proof found. I believe these more complex definitions are not so fundamental and the basic four dimentions, and are not limited by their ability to combine to higher levels of information, rather, the basic 4 dimentions are simple because all physics are based on action reaction pairs. There is no further implosion beyond the third and fourth dimention of time, so all other ways to move are in outward combinations of these particles. We may call them higher dimentions and they even may be combined in ways that act like the more fundamental particles, and with evidence that this is proven. After all these higher levels of information are derived from the basic 4d fields so they may seem to have have much in common. Even so try as we like, we can't move in the 5th dimension because these are derived not fundamental like the 4 dimensions of implosion and reradiance.
Energy conservation needs to be simple to cause all there is so the 4d with it is no more than a sphere. The sphere implodes from on or two dimensions, and when the third and fourth dimension were reached the reradiance would mostly be complete with 4d. The two jets like the jets of a radio galaxy form 2d of time and one of space, because time is about periodic loops and the sideways spin of the disc is a loop of 2 more. Time is more fundamental than space because we always move through time, even at rest, but not through space. Implosion and reradiance fit in well because they do this in a simple way by way of this.
Why it implodes to its level of reradiance and no more or less itself would be derived from the axiomatic ratio of radiance to resilience of the basic implosive field of gravity. Einstein's question about the electron asked thus by the ancient greeks may never be answered. Even so we may find more about the basic low energy field with more experiments like the "low energy quantum experiments" that seem to support Einstein about the Uncertainty Principle, and so on. Of course waviness is still there, so I believe Einstein was only partially correct at best. Indeed it seems waves are more fundamental than particles because gravity is a lower energy wave as I say here. Einstein who discovered the wave particle duality was in contradiction, and there are many contradictions Einstein believed in.
There are 3ds of space, but any particle in space has another d of time. Since time is just the spin of all particles by the idea that time is proportional to frequency, which has been well proven, if the definition in math of a dimension is just an "extra way to move" like the spin of each particle, there may be as many dimensions of time as there are particles, which is in turn explained by the conservation of momentum being derived from the above, so any property of any particle would have another dimension of time. If quantity of motion is conserved and it's both spin and linear, any property of any particle including mass and energy would always be derived from some sort of spin and linear motion. More ds of time are easier to explain than just one because there are lots of degrees of freedom (channels of motion) in physics. Perhaps the main reason the smaller dimensions like about quantum numbers are not found usually would be most of the ways to move are by the strong force and it's a short range force. If these degrees are derived from the way a given field moves however, the usual four degrees of our life would be derived here from the only long range forces we know of, thermodynamics and gravity. The above derivation of time is from this, since almost all our information about day to day life is from the electric field and the Fine Structure Constant And the source of the three d fields may be from something like the usual thermodynamic fields being at 90 degrees. The extra degrees of freedom would be because of the amount of expansion of the radiation/unit of radius. In other words, if light were more dense, the ratio of a circle would be reduced so reduced mass would fit in the same amount of space, or the opposite, with more room, your Isuzu would have more room inside than outside, space compression technology! If the Uncertainty Principle were untrue like Einstein believed the problem is that while a room of mostly empty field between the atoms might be stretched out, to make us small sized, this may also damage and change our compounds of biology we have evolved because of the stretching. While this may make a good trunk for a van-(you'd just stuff more and more in and the room would go on stretching and stretching) stretching a field might allow more room between the same sized boxes you would put in the room, but the boxes with science of just the 2000's would have to remain the same size because of all the power it would take to compress them. This is even with the mass of protons and such in atoms just taking up a ten thousandth of the room. With all that room in most of matter this goal may actually someday be achieved, without much change in the compounds or with special elements (if achieved, this would be a completely distinct form of matter with perhaps high speed chemical reactions of the compounds due to the faster spin of the electrons with reduced distance around the orbit) that would be alright and wouldn't be damaged much by putting them in a field of this type. More than changing the energy density of light, compression technology of this type would seem to necessitate the change of thermodynamics. Special Relativity and the speed of light are well proven and so is the density of electric charges being constant by Maxwell's formulation. The speed of light was constant and exactly what Maxwell predicted it to be when they found it according to the density of the waves of the electric field generated by the charges. So if the volume of area is determined mostly by the density of the field and this field is always quantisized, this would explain the stability of our usual four dimentions. The distance from here to the stars wouldn't be expanding and shrinking.
.
. While with the science of super pressure they compress much, perhaps eventually we may rewire the electric field of hadrons like protons and neutrons to do all the heavy lifting and implode the electrons more. The Electroweak theory of subatomic physics unifies the electromagnetic physics with the weak force, both of which have two opposite charges and are mediated by a particle between the charges (light and the W particle) so energy is conserved. If the weak force in the hadron could be turned off by addition of another cancelling charge like an electron and a proton cancel for overall 0 charge, since the weak charge, like the electric charge tends to cause expansion of particles (heat flows mostly from hot to cold outward) this may reduce the centrifugal force of the nucleus of the atom and draw the strong force in perhaps changing the general density of the electric field and pulling the electrons in.
Even if this is a causology from which all else is derived, it would not be a way of "looking into the mind of god" any more than knowing the particles and forces of subatomic physics. Even if all the cosmos is derivable from the field, "when the cosmos was created we weren't consulted" is no explanation where god got the first field or why he or she used how much field to power the other forces. A way to reduce this to more simplicity yet may be just that if energy is conserved and is neither created or destroyed, it's always been here and always will be for an infinity of time. (This is not what I name and "actual" infinity existing all at once where a particle or the cosmos would have infinite mass and so infinite gravity would exist and we would be out of the hot socks because the infinity would overpower us and be a violation of the Third Foundation of no infinities allowed. A "potential" infinity of time step by step is allowed because of energy conservation [the 2nd most well proven idea in physics] and this wouldn't violate the Third Principle. Energy is neither created or destroyed so has existed and will exist forever.) The expansion of the cosmos we see would be just a local expansion, balanced elsewhere by contraction. The mass of the expansion itself won't be enough to close the cosmos, this mass would be in other realms, perhaps if the expansion is from a giant cosmic jet with another on the other side, there would be a disc like galaxies from the same general physics (of jets and a whirlpool washer) and this is where the mass to close the cosmos would be. It may solve many problems in cosmology and cosmogony. For instance the assymetry between matter and antimatter would be because one jet we are near would have more plus than minus charge to power the cosmic expansion observed by electrostatic repulsion, the cosmic acceleration seen would be caused by the expansion and then attraction of opposite jets as they meet the disc for another cycle of implosion at the disc and then expansion outward once more of the two ionized jetws, all powered by the gravity in infinite time.) More about The Cosmic Jet Theory; COSMIC JETS AS AN EXPLANATION OF ACCELERATED COSMIC EXPANSION. .
.Like a set of dominos that at the fall of each set of dominoes is finite but because of gravity keeping all the matter in motion to preserve the cosmos would go on with no start or finish and of infinite duration. At any given point of the motion the same number of dominos would always fall and the number would always be finite so the Third Principle applies here. I think it was Saint Augustine who proved that many of the same debates for infinity can be rephrased in reverse and used to prove the cosmos is finite. If time is well believed by physicists to be from a round motion because of it being always derived from periodic fluxuations and a sphere's spin is periodic because it wraps around, and space is linear because the more room a particle has to move in the straighter the line it travels in, time may be thought of as the opposite of space. A line that is straight is the opposite of a rounder line; centrifugal force is the opposite of inward implosion. So if the cosmos was found to be finite in space it would follow it was infinite in time. I say this about the idea of the creation of the cosmos since if time is infinite, it wasn't created by god one day in any sense of time I can imagine. So the question of where god got the field and how much is like asking when he or she created the cosmos, it's always existed and always will, with no definite moment of explosion. Gravity is the prime mover (since if no prime mover were present all the cosmos would wind down thermodynamically over infinite eons). "God" either didn't create the cosmos-or this is theoretical evidence sciencewise! No doubt finding ways of linking the subatomic realm with our usual life like Einstein with his idea about the Uncertainty Principle may be of value. Since the parameters of subatomic physics may be derived by using these principles of Implosion, Some Expansion, and No Actual Infinities and usual physics such as of fluids for the speed of light (and other forces speeds Einstein's theory doesn't explain see FASTER THAN LIGHT) to achieve explanations for how subatomic physics is so unusual, and link our usual life with the parameters without disproof will be important to physics. ..
..
ABOUT The POSSIBILITY Of GRAVITY SHIELDING
Perhaps eventually with the advent of gravity wave astronomy we may look far enough to see distant realms where other physics exist we may measure and compare the Three Foundations with. (To achieve gravity wave astronomy or modulation if it's faster than light because it's faster than light we may need a much faster clock to measure it, this may be the clock Einstein's Spooky action on a chip they have devised. More about Gravity wave astronomy/machines..) One prediction about this type of astronomy may be about gravity shielding. If gravity is the foundation force and the other forces would all be derived from it, and they shield, it seems inconceivable that gravity wouldn't shield. So to unify gravity itself with the other forces shielding would be necessary. This may be found in triple stars that eclipse or in more massive eclipses. Gravity with the centripetal implosion would be the opposite of centrifugal force, and the centrifugal force may be caused by electromagnetism since it's about straight line motion, and this is the same as when the speed of light is in Special Relativity. Since gravity implodes and centrifugal force flows out and is local like the local times of Einstein where each point is seperate because of the speed of light not reaching so has no source they find for the centrifugal force, the gravity would be reduced with the eclipse but the centrifugal force would continue the outside stars motion in a more linear path.
.
. While with the science of super pressure they compress much, perhaps eventually we may rewire the electric field of hadrons like protons and neutrons to do all the heavy lifting and implode the electrons more. The Electroweak theory of subatomic physics unifies the electromagnetic physics with the weak force, both of which have two opposite charges and are mediated by a particle between the charges (light and the W particle) so energy is conserved. If the weak force in the hadron could be turned off by addition of another cancelling charge like an electron and a proton cancel for overall 0 charge, since the weak charge, like the electric charge tends to cause expansion of particles (heat flows mostly from hot to cold outward) this may reduce the centrifugal force of the nucleus of the atom and draw the strong force in perhaps changing the general density of the electric field and pulling the electrons in.
Even if this is a causology from which all else is derived, it would not be a way of "looking into the mind of god" any more than knowing the particles and forces of subatomic physics. Even if all the cosmos is derivable from the field, "when the cosmos was created we weren't consulted" is no explanation where god got the first field or why he or she used how much field to power the other forces. A way to reduce this to more simplicity yet may be just that if energy is conserved and is neither created or destroyed, it's always been here and always will be for an infinity of time. (This is not what I name and "actual" infinity existing all at once where a particle or the cosmos would have infinite mass and so infinite gravity would exist and we would be out of the hot socks because the infinity would overpower us and be a violation of the Third Foundation of no infinities allowed. A "potential" infinity of time step by step is allowed because of energy conservation [the 2nd most well proven idea in physics] and this wouldn't violate the Third Principle. Energy is neither created or destroyed so has existed and will exist forever.) The expansion of the cosmos we see would be just a local expansion, balanced elsewhere by contraction. The mass of the expansion itself won't be enough to close the cosmos, this mass would be in other realms, perhaps if the expansion is from a giant cosmic jet with another on the other side, there would be a disc like galaxies from the same general physics (of jets and a whirlpool washer) and this is where the mass to close the cosmos would be. It may solve many problems in cosmology and cosmogony. For instance the assymetry between matter and antimatter would be because one jet we are near would have more plus than minus charge to power the cosmic expansion observed by electrostatic repulsion, the cosmic acceleration seen would be caused by the expansion and then attraction of opposite jets as they meet the disc for another cycle of implosion at the disc and then expansion outward once more of the two ionized jetws, all powered by the gravity in infinite time.) More about The Cosmic Jet Theory; COSMIC JETS AS AN EXPLANATION OF ACCELERATED COSMIC EXPANSION. .
.Like a set of dominos that at the fall of each set of dominoes is finite but because of gravity keeping all the matter in motion to preserve the cosmos would go on with no start or finish and of infinite duration. At any given point of the motion the same number of dominos would always fall and the number would always be finite so the Third Principle applies here. I think it was Saint Augustine who proved that many of the same debates for infinity can be rephrased in reverse and used to prove the cosmos is finite. If time is well believed by physicists to be from a round motion because of it being always derived from periodic fluxuations and a sphere's spin is periodic because it wraps around, and space is linear because the more room a particle has to move in the straighter the line it travels in, time may be thought of as the opposite of space. A line that is straight is the opposite of a rounder line; centrifugal force is the opposite of inward implosion. So if the cosmos was found to be finite in space it would follow it was infinite in time. I say this about the idea of the creation of the cosmos since if time is infinite, it wasn't created by god one day in any sense of time I can imagine. So the question of where god got the field and how much is like asking when he or she created the cosmos, it's always existed and always will, with no definite moment of explosion. Gravity is the prime mover (since if no prime mover were present all the cosmos would wind down thermodynamically over infinite eons). "God" either didn't create the cosmos-or this is theoretical evidence sciencewise! No doubt finding ways of linking the subatomic realm with our usual life like Einstein with his idea about the Uncertainty Principle may be of value. Since the parameters of subatomic physics may be derived by using these principles of Implosion, Some Expansion, and No Actual Infinities and usual physics such as of fluids for the speed of light (and other forces speeds Einstein's theory doesn't explain see FASTER THAN LIGHT) to achieve explanations for how subatomic physics is so unusual, and link our usual life with the parameters without disproof will be important to physics. ..
..
ABOUT The POSSIBILITY Of GRAVITY SHIELDING
Perhaps eventually with the advent of gravity wave astronomy we may look far enough to see distant realms where other physics exist we may measure and compare the Three Foundations with. (To achieve gravity wave astronomy or modulation if it's faster than light because it's faster than light we may need a much faster clock to measure it, this may be the clock Einstein's Spooky action on a chip they have devised. More about Gravity wave astronomy/machines..) One prediction about this type of astronomy may be about gravity shielding. If gravity is the foundation force and the other forces would all be derived from it, and they shield, it seems inconceivable that gravity wouldn't shield. So to unify gravity itself with the other forces shielding would be necessary. This may be found in triple stars that eclipse or in more massive eclipses. Gravity with the centripetal implosion would be the opposite of centrifugal force, and the centrifugal force may be caused by electromagnetism since it's about straight line motion, and this is the same as when the speed of light is in Special Relativity. Since gravity implodes and centrifugal force flows out and is local like the local times of Einstein where each point is seperate because of the speed of light not reaching so has no source they find for the centrifugal force, the gravity would be reduced with the eclipse but the centrifugal force would continue the outside stars motion in a more linear path.
If gravity and inertia are the same exactly as Einstein held then presumably both the attractive and the expansive centrifugal force component of the fields of all particles would attract by the same amount and to make them the same they would be equal and gravity would neither attract or repel and if all the field is unified by energy conservation nor would any other force. Since it's only attractive gravity would seem to not interact as much with the outwardly moving centrifugal component of the field of each particle. The proportion of attraction increases with increased mass but augumentation of the attractive component of the field the same amount would allow no change in the mass so by a basic interpretation of Relativity more mass would also have the same weight so all masses would weigh the same. All the subatomic physics have an implosive component and this component connects up all the fields by attraction to the field beside it or inside. This would explain the union of the fields by both energy conservation and gravity, they would have many unlike motifs caused by the centrifugal forces but they're all connected by the attractive component of each force even with what would seem to be distinctions in the field and quantum numbers, and so on as more energy is added on to each subatomic or massive field. As it's been said the underlying reality of the world is what's the most real, and the outer vision we see is a sort of illusion or mirage compared to the import of the attraction of the cosmos. This is what the conservation of the field By The Three Foundations would have.
To explain why there is shielding of any other force and so a limit on implosion, I agree with others who say expansion without implosion is inconcievable in a system that has stability. So if each particle always has both an imploding and expansive component, gravity shielding/antigravity wouldn't usually be found because while there would be an expansive component of each particle and this would always be unified in one to one correspondance to the implosive component, the gravity would mostly resonate and attract the implosive component for the most of it which seems plausable because gravity has no expansion.
-
When calculating the proportionality factor of the implosion of all the fields, since we know how much it implodes and with how much force and field flux is used the explain the mass of a particle, the gravitational field can be calculated by how much its acceleration is increased by that amount of flux. Gravity can interact with other implosive fields according to the strength and flux of both the attraction of the heavier field and that of gravity with it's known strength. If the implosion of mass and the centrifugal expansion of the inertia were the same as Einstein held and all the fields both inertial and implosive attracted, gravity would be about twice as strong because the centrifugal and expansive components would both be attracted by the same amount of gravity.
-
Shielding and antigravity would be related ideas because if you had a gravity shield near the earth, above it you would weigh nothing, so centrifugal force with the same expansion on the inside top of the wheel against gravity would imply that if gravity interacted much with the expansive component of the field itself it would shield, and this would not be Field Preservation without implosion.
Shielding and antigravity would be related ideas because if you had a gravity shield near the earth, above it you would weigh nothing, so centrifugal force with the same expansion on the inside top of the wheel against gravity would imply that if gravity interacted much with the expansive component of the field itself it would shield, and this would not be Field Preservation without implosion.
-
While it may seem that if all the other forces are energised up gravity, then electromagnetism, then the strong force, and higher, all created out of the lower energy field and if some of the forces shield, if they were all one, gravity being the same would shield. But Field Preservation would hold that the implosion would be more important so the central implosion of each particle would have the connection (by way of the more important implosion) with all the implosive fields below it and gravity too. If the implosion is mostly seperate from the shielding or expansion of each field, this would explain why gravity mostly doesn't shield. If it ever did it would seem to violate the pattern of the conservation laws of subatomic physics (that I would extend to gravity) where the strong force field has all the quantum numbers of the lower energy electromagnetic field and more properties of its own and so on with the higher energy forces, all of them held together by attraction like the acceleration of gravity, so gravity would interact with them all without shielding. Even so the expansion and shielding of the forces would all be made of the same mass and energy of the basic lower power field of gravity. If there is shielding and the shielding is created out of the gravity it seems like gravity would shield, in essence what holds us up to counteract the implosion of gravity like the electric charges is doing so. It would seem too coincidental to believe that the field has both implosion and expansion and they are both from totally different sources and that they balance well while having nothing in common. So while Field Preservation may much reduce the amount of shielding with the union of the field being most important it would seem inconcievable that some gravitational shielding might exist. -
While it may seem that if all the other forces are energised up gravity, then electromagnetism, then the strong force, and higher, all created out of the lower energy field and if some of the forces shield, if they were all one, gravity being the same would shield. But Field Preservation would hold that the implosion would be more important so the central implosion of each particle would have the connection (by way of the more important implosion) with all the implosive fields below it and gravity too. If the implosion is mostly seperate from the shielding or expansion of each field, this would explain why gravity mostly doesn't shield. If it ever did it would seem to violate the pattern of the conservation laws of subatomic physics (that I would extend to gravity) where the strong force field has all the quantum numbers of the lower energy electromagnetic field and more properties of its own and so on with the higher energy forces, all of them held together by attraction like the acceleration of gravity, so gravity would interact with them all without shielding. Even so the expansion and shielding of the forces would all be made of the same mass and energy of the basic lower power field of gravity. If there is shielding and the shielding is created out of the gravity it seems like gravity would shield, in essence what holds us up to counteract the implosion of gravity like the electric charges is doing so. It would seem too coincidental to believe that the field has both implosion and expansion and they are both from totally different sources and that they balance well while having nothing in common. So while Field Preservation may much reduce the amount of shielding with the union of the field being most important it would seem inconcievable that some gravitational shielding might exist. -
The mass density at which the shielding would start is derived from the known amount of shielding density of electric charges, and then just converted over to the much lower density of the gravity, which is 10 x 10-37 the strength of the electric field, if they are unified by this causeology. The amount of gravity then needed to compress its own field is the same 10 x10 to the 37th power. While the amount may not be large with the sources of the jets of massive bodies, it may be possible, with density so high. However if gravity and electromagnetism like in Einstein's theory are unified gravity would be essentially denser like electricity (at low electromagnetic high power gravity wavelength) so some shielding might occur at mass densities at moderate densities inbetween, like just inside of stars and this shielding could perhaps be proved via slowing of eclipses of three star systems or eclipses of more than two galaxies.
Another possible result of shielding would be where an orbiting mass would have the center shielding from the mass on the other side of the central body so it would make all the masses going around it a bit slower and out in slower evolution with eclipses than implied by all the gravity of the seperate particles that make up the masses. This effect might not show up for less dense bodies like the sun or earth. With statistics this may be generally provable or disproven by how close planets like ours are to stars of the same mass as our sun when created. Paleogeologists think the earth originally had a much denser outer layer, but have no causology of what happened to it. If the planets were near the sun it would have blown off a much larger outside layer of earth. (They haven't yet found exoplanets in early evolution of stars). The shielding here would not be the same as the slow outward tidal slosh of the moon, it would be a seperate motif.
Another possible result of shielding would be where an orbiting mass would have the center shielding from the mass on the other side of the central body so it would make all the masses going around it a bit slower and out in slower evolution with eclipses than implied by all the gravity of the seperate particles that make up the masses. This effect might not show up for less dense bodies like the sun or earth. With statistics this may be generally provable or disproven by how close planets like ours are to stars of the same mass as our sun when created. Paleogeologists think the earth originally had a much denser outer layer, but have no causology of what happened to it. If the planets were near the sun it would have blown off a much larger outside layer of earth. (They haven't yet found exoplanets in early evolution of stars). The shielding here would not be the same as the slow outward tidal slosh of the moon, it would be a seperate motif.
Ways To Modify Einstein's Gravity Waves using such as centrifuges (the same as gravity in General Relativity) aimed inward to focus the wave.
-
Evidence for a Fifth and Sixth Force
.Black holes of implosion without limit would be unallowed because infinite mass density is not allowed by the Third Principle. Black holes without jets and with infinite implosion would violate energy conservation, the mass energy falling in would be being destroyed and lost to the cosmos. This would explain the power sources of the jets of galaxies, lots of gravity in and a fifth and sixth force of power so much it would stop the infinity of the implosion, and expand out with so much force fusion can't be the source. This would also explain the unusual spectra of the jets, like no mass found anywhere (Except, well, right here at Science Revels of R&D.). They find that all the galaxies spin faster than Newton's law of gravity predicts and more as a solid body which seems to violate conservation of angular momentum. The farther reaches of such as the solar system go around faster than they should via Newtonian Gravity. If there is much mass in the centers of the galaxies this high density of the forces may be the power source of the spin. The solid rotation may be from another source, the ionization by the stars of the fields between them. Obviously with an atomic power source, the stars are a real ionization engine, much charge is between the stars and the stars often have the opposite charge of the room surrounding them. -.
The opposite charges would attract once the charges were powered out so would try to go to the stars to be boosted out for another go. With the short range expansion balanced by the inward contraction this sets up field lines that are like fibers in electromagnetism. The gravity would make the outer stars and dust spin fast by it's stronger power source from the center connected to the outer stars via the fibers of the ionized electric fields. If the stars are bound up in a web of the fibers they would spin more as a solid body. They think the Law of Sir Issac may be disproven because the space probes as they go outside the solar system are falling somewhat faster than the Law of his invention. I think this may not be the exact same rate of fall about this because it may be just by coincidence if the galaxies spin is because of the ionization of the stars. The probes may fall faster for another reason; if they are outside the heliopause out of the solar wind, which usually would be a field that would cause some friction, most masses would fall slower when nearer the sun.
.The idea that the center masses of galaxies would have much denser mass is a better explanation of the attraction of large masses to dark matter they can't see with the Hubble or other giant image machines. If dark matter is matter and necessary to explain most of the motions of galaxies, while the particles they are made of in the cosmic rays from distant realms. no dark matter would be found blended in with cosmic rays that reach the earth. The theory of the fifth and sixth force would offer an explanation. Gravity would meld the force particles and make them stable by its force of compression. In subatomic physics, generally the heavier a particle is the more its life time is reduced (violating Einstein's idea that time slows down with more mass density which e.g. is evidence as I hold of more than Relativity being possible) before it evaporates to other subatomic particles. So the particles of the fifth and sixth force may be stable by tendancy to expansion with all the compression, when they would boost out of the jets they would expand and rapidly convert over to the usual particles of subatomic physics. These would be high power no doubt and this may explain the source of the otherwise unexplained cosmic rays. The source of the cosmic rays we find may be mostly from the center of our own galaxy. This would solve the problem of Einstein's theory that all high power rays like gamma rays from outside the galaxy would impact so much with the lower power light they wouldn't reach the earth. Click Here for more. If the power source is mostly the black hole in the center of the Milky Way, the cosmic rays (converted over from the higher energy particles of the Fifth and Sixth force) would reach the earth wuthout so much chance of interaction with light or other intervening particles. It would be from a big center mass instead of lots of small masses. With more gravity in even distribution the galaxies would all not spin as solid bodies. An explanation of the spin of the galaxies of the stars by stellar ionization lends itself to the solid rotation observed, and a strong central power source would explain the source of the spin it was connected to. If gravity were in even distribution, the outside would spin slower. So if the source of the cosmic rays is inside the Mlky Wy, it would also be mostly from the center.
.. .Since Field Preservation and all the motion of energy conservation would be the field implosion, limited changes of the field may be possible by eventually cutting the lines of gravity, and using this to change the properties of the particles by changes of the source of power. Obviously if gravity is mostly the one of attraction and the Three Principles are the source of all we are, just as a medium size river is easier for us to control than the tiny droplets of weather of huge number just when the small rivers flowing from the first field become substantial is the point where they become of value (this sort of "weather control" of the field would ruled out for large scale physics by the infrequency of the change of the general field we find werever we look in the cosmos so none of perhaps untold numbers of advanced civilizations have changed it at any time, so most must have failed so we may also fail in this endeavor and the uniformity of the laws of physics is valid as far as astronomers and others can see). Imploding inward however the river might be diverted in flow and the power harnessed for many purposes, including changing the exact patterns (properties) of the particles downstream with more ease than stopping them downstream. Just where the point would be where the small rivers are too small for any useful power is just luck. Sooner or later though if the field has not been changed by other civilizations we may reach a point where we won't be able to do more than accept what the field decides.
.
.I think in accord with Einstein, gravity is electromagnetic in nature because in a centrifuge the force may be near to gravity in the properties of its acceleration with no gravity around to power it, and the only other long range force present in the centrifuge the particles there have in common is the electric field. (This is from the above about the speed of light being limited so the source of centrifugal force is from the points of the field being seperated by a loose electromagnetic connection). The low power electromagnetic field would flow through us in the spin and its flow would press down on us when we whirl around in a summer Whirl O Whirl machine. Gravity has no shield with usual metal plates, I think the usual gravity near the earth's surface has to be of near electromagnetic energies to resonate with the usual masses like in the centrifuge. The question may be, if electromagnetic fields may be shielded and gravity would be electromagnetic, why can't we usually shield gravity and inertia? One reason may be although the field flows around the outside of such as atomic nuclei, the overall density of usual atoms may be usually just too low in density to shield, and this lack of friction would also explain why the basic field of gravity never wears out or loses power. The electrogravity of Einstein and this theory would flow through most of the empty room of the atoms with just the interaction mosrly via fluid pressure of the outside surfaces of the atoms surfaces. This idea may be proven if uranium or other heavy atoms, with reduced surface area of the nucleus compared to its mass would fall at a different rate than atoms such as hydrogen. If super dense solids made just of hadrons such as protons and neutrons may be made stable so plates would be of much higher density without the unstability of uranium this may be a way to shield the lines of the gravity.
.I think in accord with Einstein, gravity is electromagnetic in nature because in a centrifuge the force may be near to gravity in the properties of its acceleration with no gravity around to power it, and the only other long range force present in the centrifuge the particles there have in common is the electric field. (This is from the above about the speed of light being limited so the source of centrifugal force is from the points of the field being seperated by a loose electromagnetic connection). The low power electromagnetic field would flow through us in the spin and its flow would press down on us when we whirl around in a summer Whirl O Whirl machine. Gravity has no shield with usual metal plates, I think the usual gravity near the earth's surface has to be of near electromagnetic energies to resonate with the usual masses like in the centrifuge. The question may be, if electromagnetic fields may be shielded and gravity would be electromagnetic, why can't we usually shield gravity and inertia? One reason may be although the field flows around the outside of such as atomic nuclei, the overall density of usual atoms may be usually just too low in density to shield, and this lack of friction would also explain why the basic field of gravity never wears out or loses power. The electrogravity of Einstein and this theory would flow through most of the empty room of the atoms with just the interaction mosrly via fluid pressure of the outside surfaces of the atoms surfaces. This idea may be proven if uranium or other heavy atoms, with reduced surface area of the nucleus compared to its mass would fall at a different rate than atoms such as hydrogen. If super dense solids made just of hadrons such as protons and neutrons may be made stable so plates would be of much higher density without the unstability of uranium this may be a way to shield the lines of the gravity.
.The natural way for hadrons to go is in a sphere like in the hadrons of uranium. At higher numbers of hadrons like uranium, they become more unstable. To stack them in an unusual way like tetrahedrons may eventually be achieved by stacking them with skill. The proton is not round itself, it's actually been found to be shaped like an exercise weight, and protons and neutrons are of complex construction so methods may be found of stacking the hadrons where the outside shape of the stationary wave is attractive because of the strong force or solid because of the centrifugal force that must fling out the strong force or it would implode (the centrifugal force must be at least as strong, the strong implosion is known to be only attractive). This may be a method of construction of what I dub hadron solids, a super dense super strong material of usual weight, or usual density material of super light weight. This goal would revolutionize materials science and would have use in all sorts of machines. If your Lexus was in a jam, it would just weigh 50 pounds, so it would be a helicopter van. If it crashed it would be safer (it would be strong, and having reduced inertia, would perhaps even rebounce up in the air! And it would be a submarine, and a boat. Mass to orbit would be hugely cheaper, I would finally reach my healthy mass energy, and weigh stamps!) You may have heard about the stuff of heavy stars. If you had a spoon of it and dropped it ("you could hardly do otherwise") it would be so heavy it would drop by the gravity of the earth and out the other side and return, punching holes in the earth till it stopped at the center. So the hadron solid would be blended in composites with usual materials. The hadron solid would be in plates or strengtrening hexagonal rods like nanotubes but of much reduced width and much more strong so it would be more lightweight. Like the three dimentional spoon of starstuff which is 10,000 times as heavy as usual mass, it would be just one hundredth the density of the same material, but with 137 times the strength or perhaps much more if a bit more dense.
"If gravity is electromagnetic and this is shieldable, why are gravity and inertia and centrifugal force nonshieldable at usual energies like with metal plates?" Like a superconducter or a superfluid as some physicists now think, the resistance of the gravity may suddenly just stop below the usual energy levels of usual subatomic particles, explaining why no lower power particles are found. Obviously with no shielding of gravity and it's constant flow, this idea may be of worth. There may be no stable particles at lower energies with not enough extreme power to make quanta so no stable particles may exist of energy lower than that of light. The standard explanation here is that the waves of lower power exist and their energy is measurable by the Lamb Shift of hydrogen discovered in the 1950's. They are just too small to make it over the side of the lowest quantum in power, that of light, so we can't see them by usual motifs. If they are near enough in power to electromagnetism to influence it in such as magnetic induction or just a magnet where the field operates in "empty" space there is no reason to suppose the field would suddenly be 0 at that energy.
"If gravity is electromagnetic and this is shieldable, why are gravity and inertia and centrifugal force nonshieldable at usual energies like with metal plates?" Like a superconducter or a superfluid as some physicists now think, the resistance of the gravity may suddenly just stop below the usual energy levels of usual subatomic particles, explaining why no lower power particles are found. Obviously with no shielding of gravity and it's constant flow, this idea may be of worth. There may be no stable particles at lower energies with not enough extreme power to make quanta so no stable particles may exist of energy lower than that of light. The standard explanation here is that the waves of lower power exist and their energy is measurable by the Lamb Shift of hydrogen discovered in the 1950's. They are just too small to make it over the side of the lowest quantum in power, that of light, so we can't see them by usual motifs. If they are near enough in power to electromagnetism to influence it in such as magnetic induction or just a magnet where the field operates in "empty" space there is no reason to suppose the field would suddenly be 0 at that energy.
.
EINSTEIN'S GHOST
The "spooky action at distance" of Einstein is where in the lab, two particles of say spin up and down are combined and then seperated by such as 10 miles or 10 million miles and if the spin of one is down, the other always may be up as if a signal was sent between so it is said one electron "knows" if the other electron changed by an instantaneous signal sent between the two.
An explanation I've read about was the action at a distance was like Betsy and Ron with packs and boxes at a hotel in Savannah. One has the spin down and the other has a spin up box. They close their boxes without looking after aligning the contents of the boxes some definite way. One goes to Yazoo and the other to Peorioa. They both open boxes there and they see that the spins are in harmony. No signal was sent between the two boxes (the spin of the particles in each box preserved the spin information without any faster than light signal between the boxes) so in this interpretation it's not "action at a distance". If the spins could be changed repeatedly and correlate from a distance, since this would be a signal sent faster than light the above causology or perhaps a related way would be necessary to explain what action at a distance is, I think it may perhaps be more proof of faster than light radio, FM with the web sight seen! If the signal falls off with distance like usual radiant energy and is faster than light, since it can't be light that "is" faster than light and the only other long range force known is gravity, this would both be disproof of the so called Noncomminication Theorem, that supposedly disproves Spooky Communication at A Distance. If it falls off by the inverse distance to the 2nd power it would be gravity.
There is the theorem that there is no information sent in the signal between the packs boxes and Savannah; and my conclusion is if there were a strong enough signal between electrons to influence them we would be engulfed in lots of energy not seen in common physics. The belief seems to be that the two events in Yazoo and Peoria are the same event and no signal is sent between them. Even so in magnetic induction e.g. the fields are in power so they might even be strong enough to cause it if those who believe in this use of quantum physics are right. There must be some reason why this was believed to have been of worth to quantum cryptography (this was to be where the box and packs are in union so if the other had been modified, Ron or Betsy would know, making it safe about sending memos like for web sites or online banking). MORE ABOUT QUANTUM CRYPTOGRAPHY AND THE WEB. While this would seem to have been a conclusion of those who know well, the boxes in union and with no signal seems like just no signal from a box to the box, no better than what we are already wize about in physics.
Even so it may be possible. If so t
he following would be my best second level way to solve this; If the force of gravity was electric also as Einstein also thought and if gravity is faster than light because it's lighter than light (the lighter you go the faster you go) perhaps the electricity below a certain level of power such as of the radiation of light although losing resistance and travelling much faster would have almost the same wavelength as the "spooky action" of Einstein. So the field of the particles if they had a characteristic enough signature like two pieces of clay might be changed well by the spin so it would be retained by the shape memory of the particles. If the electrogravity was strong enough because it was more electric than gravitational and so of higher, near electric wavelength of the light, this strength, high speed and "memory" of the electrogravitational field would be an explanation of the action. It would have to have the near strength of electromagnetism like an antenna has to have the same width to resonate with a transmitter as the station to pick up the show, the foam memory to influence which electron was changed from a large distance, and the lightness of gravity for its high speed. To explain this it's gyroscopic stability between the time when it started and is finished, may explain the spooky action of Einstein he said "eek!" and "eich!" about. If the first explanation is disproven merely by changes of boxes without first unifying them (if once why not twice), the second (faster than light) explanation (or based on these lines of the physics) may actually be more probable. Even if faster than light is not found in the EPR, neither is sound through air faster than sound through the earth and this isn't disproof of faster than light elsewhere in physics being not impossible See my physics synopses for more.
At http://newscientist.com/ they say they've used the mass of Jupiter to measure the speed of gravity waves indirectly based on just a rearrangement of Einstein's General theory of Relativity and it seems by this motif of gravity to just be at the speed of light. I think just if its based on the Einstein's General Theory by the above, this is no guarantee it's so if the speed alone is not seen. As you see above about what Einstein and I think about the Uncertainty Principle, assumptions about how a measurement is achieved are no guarantee they're not assuming what they're trying to prove, by making Einstein's assumptions that gravity is relativistic and that it's speed of light to plug in the formulas they use. This Wikapedia site about the speed of gravity (experiments) agrees with my conclusion that changes in mass density based on a limiting speed are no way to prove what that speed is, the speed itself is not proven anywhere in relativity, it's just a speed which all the rest fits in, and Einstein offers no proof of the speed, so just from the start gravity might be any speed and we would match the physics instead of just assuming the speed of gravity to be the speed of light.
Whatever the speed of gravity I think it may be proven well by using the Torsion Balance machine of the type that were used to measure gravity in the late 1700's with just two masses, say 5 and 10 pounds, on a weighin beam. When a mass swiveled round the other would move a bit. To measure the speed of gravity a machine like this of enough mass by the Law of Sir Issac to fit the stars would read the wave from a solar event, the most explosive in the solar system. If the speed was faster than light it would be perhaps instantly seen on the machine, and a half an hour later, the light at the speed of light would arive from the same event. This would be disproof of the Jupiter gravity experiment, even if it's just at the speed of light, it would be the advent of gravity wave astronomy, this is my own innovation. MORE.
My General Ideas in Physics/Synopses
Faster than light motion can be proven in other ways than this.. A proof of mine that light itself must be held in one wave by a signal inside the light wave, sometimes miles in wavelength. The inside wave must go at the speed of light plus the speed it takes for it to send information necessary to hold the light wave by cohesion in a coherent wave. This makes sense if the light is actually made of gravity powered up and the gravity is at higher speed. Even my fish can't talk on the wave this good- she's with a real cost saving telephone co.-she just yellows real well! .............
-
MRI they say is a hoot, if you wear your watch when you go in the machine you'll sail around the room!
Thanks to outflation when I can carry the cash to the store, I'll have enough lunch on the round trip.
What's more powerful than an ohnosecond when my computer goes out? An Inoashack#repairinjusthalfhourinfomercialhour!
About stars, If I were rich, I'd earn lots and lots of cash and lunch in diners with Meadow Williams-after all, she's a person of real excellence in her field!!
I think I'll go to the cash store-while it may be a luxury-think of all I'll save!
Electricity was a boost for Einstein however. Listening to a tape player was so fast for him- when he'd just listen to the rewind at usual speed!
-----
