Comic Cosmic Paradoxes About Energy Conservation

...My conclusion has been that because of Energy Conservation all the forces are created out of the same basic field. The conservation laws in subatomic physics show that when going from a weaker to a stronger force like electromagnetism to the stronger forces, the number of conservation laws that are obeyed are increased. For example electromagnetism obeys charge conservation of electric charges and mass energy conservation, but the strong force obeys both these laws and more, as if piling on the mass from a simple to a more complex machine, like life. If the forces are all made of mass and energy and the same it's just that the lower energy force piles on the mass to make the higher energy force, this makes the higher energy force yet and so on from simple to complex like in the evolution of life or the evolution of science, all higher energy mass comes from lower energy mass sort of like how all life in biology comes from other life and all later science has come from earlier science. So you have the three forces of subatomic physics in a pile of energy, weaker to stronger, simpler to complex, much like evolution. Gravity would fit in at the base of the pile because it's the lowest energy field that would implode to a certain level to create the electromagnetism, the electromagnetism would become dense enough to create the strong force and so on. With what I have I have the power to never worry the world "What do you have?" "257 stations and an oil heater instead of a ceramic heater, even if it doesn't work my life is safer!"Gravity is the foundation field because all energy is one by energy conservation and gravity is the only universal force that all the other forces speak.


Thus gravity would be the prime mover winding up all the cosmos and is the foundation of physics, this would be why Newton and Einstein were so important to science, the basic science of gravity determines the rest. Newton wrote he was to "Demonstrate the frame of the universe."

The ancient greeks asked the question, how does the unity of the world and the disunity from this arise around us? Or if the foundation field of gravity doesn't shield, and yet all is created out of this field by the above, if gravity doesn't shield in any experiment yet seen, how can shielding arise? On the one hand if you believe gravity were the foundation field it seems because of energy conservation if both the shielding and the unity are by way of the basic field, the only way to allow the unity of all the forces by way of gravity would be to have at least some shielding, even if a bit.

Einstein said, "The most incomprehensible thing about the universe is that it's comprehensible." Where did the first field come from if all is created by gravity to unify the physics for energy conservation? The cosmos had no beginning and will have no end in time because energy is neither created or destroyed. Actually it can exist forever if it was never created and not violate energy conservation. With no time of creation, creation wouldn't have taken place even with an ordered physics. All creation needs time. The field may not have been created because of energy conservation with infinite time by circulation of the field as in Double Vortex Cosmology (where the big bang is not cosmic but would rather be a limited outflow of a jet of the cosmos which would recycle the field at the disc with two radiant outflows and a disk with physics much like that of galaxies in infinite continuous loops in time, just like the field of the earth, and may be the cause of higher speed cosmic expansion under power with more distance from the source via ionization.). This would mostly just leave the problem of how shielding would then arise out of this field and where energy conservation perhaps would not actually hold. Even so if not created it's unexplained how the cosmos exists, and how so much regular order arises from it.
..
If energy is conserved the cosmos wasn't created, and if it wasn't created where has all the order come from? Can order arise out of nothing? If so energy isn't conserved!

..

Order seems to need creation because nothing is nothing and has no physics, while order is regular. Order and nothing seem to be incompatable.

..

There seems to be no way to go from nothing to order, thus the cosmos has always existed without cause. The problem is, all around us there seem to be a plethora of sources of our energy and mass..These contradictions, like St. Augustine's proof that most arguments for infinity can be reversed around to argue for finitude, by the same proof seem to say the cosmos (gravity perhaps without quanta so wavelike) is creating and winding up the cosmos so it doesn't run down, while the rest of higher energy physics may indeed obey energy conservation because the quanta of Emc2 always relate an exact amount of mass to energy..at longer range and lower energy, even if energy conservation is mostly conserved with thermdynamics, the gravity with it's lower friction waviness would have reduced resistance and flow like a superfluid as is believed by many in physics.

Gravity may be continually winding up the cosmos in more unbalanced creation of the field so it doesn't run down over infinite time,

Another possibility is about the simplicity of gravity. Beyond the 20th century physics has been reduced down to three elements to make all the cosmos, the three subatomic building blocks of the atom, protons neutrons and electrons. If gravity is the foundation it's even simpler; the gravity is almost complete with a bit of solid shielding to then make the implosion rebound and make the electrons with the speed of light between them by way of Maxwell's resilient medium, this would then implode to make the strong force, and so on. If the field is simple, all the order arises from this, like building a complex building from 3 simple blocks, the complexity and the order may be simpler than it seems even for the complex quantum numbers of the heavy particles. Instead of all the order having been caused by luck it would just have one simple element, motion of the field, which couldn't be predicted without the assumption in faster than light spin to create the mass and quantum numbers of all other physics than the electron, gravity and light, more mass more spin in ways that the speed of light just for electrons may not allow, otherwise the cosmos wouldn't be so unified by the law of energy conservation and the other conservation laws. Thus the cosmos would be almost without cause, the implosion of the basic field and a bit of shielding, that would be it, this is much more like the void beyond the most distant reach of the cosmic field, which is not created. It may seem about this about ease of cause to be almost as easy for the cosmos just to disappear. If nothing much definite created the cosmos, it would seem easy for us to eventually one day create other physics. This ease of collapse seems well disproven by energy conservation mostly, and there would have been a large number of advanced civilizations who would have tried this if so for whatever reason, like more advanced science, and if there were much possibility of this we wouldn't be here or we would see the physics of these star systems changing a lot, not impossible but there's no evidence for large scale changes in physics, at any rate (smaller scale changes are not ruled out). So the paradox would seem to still be possible disproof of (absolute) energy conservation. If there's no creation by Energy Conservation even with the order of the life of the world the ancients named Cosmos this is evidence that it was created or that it's continually being energised;

Because of these contradictions about energy conservation gravity may become more efficient at lower energy as the galaxies all spin faster than they should, the Pioneer anamolies, and so on (both "starships" are accelerating too fast around the sun at greater distance....

You may here some say that gravity is not perpetual motion because if you add pressure to the side of a van it doesn't move and no work is done. Consider that after an hour of weightlifting without moving the weight above you have more of a health boost and are more fit than the those who say this is so. While (gravitational) energy may not be conserved by this about all machines needing an outside power supply so gravity would add in more force continually, gravity does definitely interact with the other forces, so even while gravity may add in more motion of the field, it also must be unified to one field by what energy conservation there is, not an insubstantial realm of physics. This added in force also would solve the problem of all motion coming from other motion, which is a self evident truth like Aristotle who believed smoke rises because that's the most natural, and this natural way of proof is proof of all there is and of nothing as Carl Sagan would say.

With extra motion powered by the basic field this is no problem because all motion doesn't come from other motion. Although this is just one extra step up and doesn't explain where the extra motion comes from or what it is, it means at any rate all observers aren't equal like in relativity which allows only a democratic cosmos with all observers and thus all proofs equal, with extra force added in to distinguish between truth and false, the "boss" of gravity to some extent would have a way to determine who was laboring or not (in real physics, and we couldn't live without some weight lifting or a bit of discomfort to make us stronger, research shows we learn the best when we're somewhat uncomfortable, why do we go to labor Einstein may have wondered? In general we and the field need a reliable way to distinguish force from nonforce by way of the work being achieved.

In Einstein's physics the earth would go in a linear motion around the sun and the sun would also rotate around the earth, obviously if it doesn't this is evidence in favor more of the Heliocentric and other more gravitationally centered physics. The extra motion of higher gravitational efficiency at greater distance and lower energy could thus be a disproof of (absolutely) Special Relativity.

As I say, in recent astronomy it's been found that The Milky Way and other massive bodies are seen to spin so fast the centrifugal force would make them expand without limit in an explosion if gravity is in the law of radiant energy of more common physics around us. Some believe that gravity may actually have a more constant force with distance law, as "observed" a lower efficiency would fall off more rapidly with more distance, a higher efficiency would hold the mass with more force.

There is another possibility about the problem of where shielding of just one unified field of energy conservation might come from, this too from religion. Many religions of the world believe in not just one creator but two, like Yin and Yang, God and the Devil. If it's difficult to derive shielding from a perfect gravity or evil from a perfect god, some may say there wasn't just one creation, but two. To explain centrifugal force and shielding from the one basic field by this second "religious" explanation, we might believe there was another creation that coexists with the main creation, a sort of negative physics. There are three problems here, first we have to assume not just one creation as Einstein would debunk but two. As improbable as just one creation would seem, two would seem even more than Einstein's belief about it being incomprehensable. The second problem is about the "second creator" being about the same energy as the first but not quite. Gravity wins out over centrifugal force or the cosmos would have expanded out over infinite time via violation of energy conservation and entropy (what would otherwise be thermodynamics' violation of energy conservation, gravity to unify the field seems to violate energy consevation even more, or the universe would have fizzled out, so gravity has "extra" binding energy) this seems too coincidental. If the second creator was truly by another origin and random in its cause, why would it always be second and in moderation and also unchanging? The third problem of the "two creators" and Yin and Yang is about how the second creator is present in all the cosmos, if it really was a second creation why would it exist in all the physics around for billions of light years? If it were a truly seperate creation it would seem to be in just its own seperate realm of the cosmos, not continually and intricately interwound in with the main creator. It's been said by most in physics it's impossible to imagine centrifugal force without implosion to balance the field.

Thus there would be three problems with the causology of two creators in physics and just the problem of shielding if one creator. This would seem to be more in favor of one field in physics that just changes with changing conditions of the field.

Because of these three problems, like Einstein I believe in the unified foundation field which has just the one somewhat difficult problem of unity, not three more difficult problems, (twice as much creation as Einstein's uncomprehensable cosmos, it being almost the same energy, but not quite, just by coincidence, and especially it being so intricately interwound) with the proof of union by way of shielding and centrifugal force arising from a field that may only seem to be without this type of science.

Possible proof would be if gravity shielding is found by way of the observations of changes in the orbits of other higher density masses by way of eclipses.

The lower energy efficiency boost is only seen on the scale of 10s of thousands of light years (>2Kps) and this about gravity being more efficient at lower energy because of too much unity and less efficient at higher mass density and with shielding because of contradiction seems related, so it may be possible to expect that the shielding may be of the same general order of magnitude. Thus the only mass density that would be high enough to cause shielding and be observed might be comparable to that of the increase in efficiency at lower energy since the two would seem to be a sort of balanced set, the only shielding seen would be between the small centers of masses like the Milky Way and this wouldn't be seen in usual physics because of the mostly uncommon event of the small realm where the eclipse would have the change in the orbits of the eclipsing masses (the eclipses would have to line up over huge distances) and this might explain why shielding isn't seen more often. Even so the galaxies are spinning faster than they would otherwise and this is made quantitative by way of how strong gravity is in general. The extra energy input and efficiency which would be needed to make the cosmos never wind down or radiate out more than in so energy is not lost to the cosmos by radiation (thermodynamic energy is conserved) would by way of the balance of the two causologys, one by contradiction for shielding and reduced efficiency at high density, the other by too much unity as evidence for increased efficiency a low energy and the force falling off more slowly with greater distance. The observed increase of the efficiency at great distances and lower energy may offer us evidence about the mass density it would take to cause shielding that may go with the higher speed motion of masses with eclipse like the Milky Way.

Thus it's possible if there is more efficient radiation at lower energy and greater distance (which would be increased efficiency), there may be shielding to that degree at higher energy.

This isn't like Aristotle's belief that smoke rises because it's the most natural or other circular reasoning, because though they are in opposition, they may be rather like adding higher and lower notes to the song of physics, both of these conjectures may be provable by experiment. In a way the activities of someone like Sir Issac Newton who was the great unifier of physics in the 17th century, or Einstein with general relativity were circular because of this. Circular more definite, solid reasoning is not in error, just if without proof. And if gravity has more efficiency this would be of worth because it would be more change in our saavy as in the history of physics.

On the MetaResearch site about "Range Of Gravity" author Tom Van Flandern offers up his belief that high speed FTL particles may be the cause of how gravity works. "Particles of finite speed even if much faster than light would have a finite distance to travel before they would scatter, and beyond this distance, gravity would not be viable as a force." Thus by a causology of gravity as a particle and shielding alone (the scattering is a somewhat strong interaction like shielding) we would not believe gravity would be in operation in any sense at great distance. Flandern offers the possible way out that at higher distances each star or other unit of the mass would attract the star near it, like links in a chain, with no general field connecting them up. The problem with this is that while this based on the particle causology would possibly hold the Milky Way by the link of each massive cloud of dust, no dust or stars are between the superclusters so they would have no field to connect them, and this would be a problem with any particle causology. For this reason and others (see my synopses link.) I believe gravity may be caused both by a much higher speed, lower energy wave and the more prosaic FTL particles, also much Faster Than Light even if not nearly as fast as the wave. Waves attract and unify and this is what the basic field would be about. If the particles are resilient and scatter after a distance R, they could only radiate outward not in because particles unlike waves by definition are discontinuous and would radiate, and gravity is implosive only. So by the particle physics gravity would have reduced strength than the 1/d 2nd power law not more, like the 1/d force assumed to be proven by the spin of the Milky Way. My belief is that gravity would have the more dense and FTL particles, but only with the much FTL yet more wavelike field to implode the particles and overcome the scattering is an FTL particle component cause of gravity of worth. The FTL particle component would be used in General Wave Dynamics to explain why centrifugal force is so much like gravity, yet with no gravity in the centrifuge where the more dense particles would press outward on the mass. The much higher speed much FTL lower power field of the gravity would be gravity only (not gravity and centrifugal force both) and why gravity is unlike centrifugal force. For instance you can't cancel gravity by reversing the starship boosters or make it reverse, and a small gyroscope can cancel the huge gravity of the earth, if they were just the same as in relativity, they would be the same.) But the usual force of 32 ft of the earth is much like the centrifuge, so they would have the same dense field in common and the lower power field to mostly move the gravity.

Two other ways the Milky Way may operate and spin at high speed as a solid body without too much centrifugal force may be by plasma ionization where all the stars cause so much of this the fields between the stars make a giant sort of solid field, like matter in the room around us held together by the electromagnetic fields of the matter of the atoms of the sofas and other furniture of time around us, a force much stronger than gravity.. The core of the galaxy (I believe it may be made of a fifth and sixth force found only in supermassive bodies like black holes, the particles would be stable under pressure but would fizz out to cosmic rays to power the jets which can't be caused by fusion) being so dense would spin fast and the "solid" outside stars would be powered like a wheel with a motive power source. If this is the real cause of the motion, the gravity would be unchanged. The gravity would go through the ionized field with no problem so the gravity would make each star seen by the Hubble precess at a higher rate as is common in more earthly realms and this would be one proof of the way of ionization as the cause of the observed rate of spin. Since the more distant galaxies of a cluster have no plasma in the room that seperates them with no stars lit up the superclusters by definition will be spinning by the usual 1/d2 law.

Another way to explain the higher speed spin may be by way not of increased gravity or a solid body like the masses around us, rather centrifugal force may be reduced at great distance due to the "slow" speed of light. Centrifugal force is caused by linear motion, linear motion tends to be uniform and in uniform motion Special Relativity holds, so the slow speed of light is about disconnectivity and thus centrifugal force. With greater distance beyond a certain radius there is no more than no connection by way of the light so the centrifugal force would stay constant beyond this, since the ratio of centrifugal to centripital force is between gravity and the outward force of the centrifugal force, if one is changed so is the other. Even so like with the ionization and dense mass in the center of each giant massive wheel (of sound, the cosmos rings like a bell, saving on the internet rates however!) the field would be unchanged and so here too the stars would all precess at another rate than via the gravity being changed, and because 0 connection is 0, the superclusters would spin more like the galaxies, as a solid body. While the change in centrifugal force seems to be ruled out, at least for the cause of the galaxies motion, the plasma seems to possible because Actually superclusters, like galaxies spin faster. Click Here. No plasma for the superclusters would allow the faster spin, not as a solid body. It's to be noted that as Eric Lehrner says in his book The Big Bang Never Happened in plasma experiments in the lab when the forces are in balance a small exact replica of a galaxy complete with spirals is seen. Thus both the solid 1/d motion of the galaxies and more common 1/d2 motion would both be easy to explain by Alfven's plasma physics Lehrner promotes in his book. On the link the author concludes that the reason the superclusters spin so fast may be because of a lump of dark matter at the center of each mass. The problem with the dark matter is that if 97% of the cosmos was dark matter and it has all the gravity, there would be much implosion of it or plasma with any normal matter in contact with it, and almost all the matter would emit large amounts of radiation, not just in the center of superclusters, in all the dark matter that mixes with the more common mass, rather like antimatter in contact with matter. If this interaction is the cause of the cosmic rays and no light is seen in the center of the giant masses because the mass would have engulfed the light itself, the dark matter would seem to have a zone around the outside where the cosmic rays would still be caused and able to reach us. Thus the ionization of mass at edge zones is a definite prediction of the dark matter causology if dark matter is dense. Gravitational dark matter around the halo GDE may not be dense mostly, when matter is superdense in my belief, it may be GDM, Gravitational Dark Mass like in supermassive stars.. That dark matter is well used to explain gravitational lensing and the presence of which would speed up the outer rate of spin of galaxies, may be either for GDE or GDM, all unified in one field. Even so the border zones would be found for all supermassive bodies. If it's massive enough to bend light it will implode more massive particles more so. This wouldn't just be Hawking Radiation, with each implosion of mass like a star or moon there would be a large amount of noncontinuous radiation in flux emmitted from the zones that would change month by month or year by year on both sides. Plasma needs a connecting link between the supercluster galaxies which is not found in order to link them up so they are not expanding even with high centrifugal force. If the edge zones or other bridge of mass is not found this seems to imply that either gravity or centrifugal force with other efficiency is involved.

Another way to prove if the center of the superclusters is a black hole may be via the redshift of the light that moves through the field around it. Even if the massive black hole may be too large to see and even if the edge where the dark matter meets the more common mass is not seen because the dark matter is seperated from the light by the large centrifugal force, the dark mass would still be proven by the redshift of the disk around the giant mass. Even if the mass is small the field would be large and spin so the light from more distant realms could be redshifted and focused on one side and subtracted on the other. Dark matter in general would have a redshift if blended in with other matter, raising the general redshift seen from a distance, this would help add more proof of dark matter if it exists.


Van Flandern says atomic clocks are seen to synchronize with GPS even with the "slow" speed of light even though Special Relativity says this is impossible. Einstein mostly believed that light is a particle in Special Relativity (in contradiction with his conclusion that light is both a wave and particle in quantum physics) because a particle of light would have constant speed and wavelength only if it didn't interact between where it was emitted and absorbed with high speed or other observer, a wave is continuous, so it would "flex" and change speed. A constant speed of light is what observers see in uniform motion, so Einstein's improvements in subatomic physics are actually inconsistent with his belief about Special Relativity. In my causology of General Wave Dynamics, GWD, the light would be slow but the matter wave that makes it up may be much faster, even so because it's what makes up the wave like water makes an ocean wave, the GPS clocks would synchronize the most in disproof of Special Relativity if the wavelength of the light between the distant and near clocks is greater than or equal to the distance between them Any shorter wavelength than this distance would have reduced reliability of the clocks, because in essence the wave at shorter wavelengths is disconnected and particulate with no connection of the clock and the earth if measured just via light. (Matter waves in GWD if measured seperately themselves being lighter than light and causing the synchronization would be FTL. Atomic clocks so far in 2008 are synchronized by light only.) The disconnection of centrifugal force (making it stronger with increased radius and constant rpm and mass) may actually be caused by the slow (even if much FTL) speed of the matter wave. At close distance, more of the waves of short and long wavelength connect, at greater distance just the longer waves reach, then finally with no more than 0 connection if 0=0 the force would remain constant at greater distance, causing more constant force distance seen for the galaxies. The loss of connection seen with the atomic clock synchronization would be changing at a rate with increased distance from the earth that would be in accord with the change in wavelength, as less and less of the speed and wavelength of the low energy matter wave would reach. So if the slow connection of the field is the cause of centrifugal force and the higher than more common rate of spin of the galaxies, the synchronization of clocks would lose the connection at a rate that would approach the limit at 2Kpc, and with more distance the force in the dynamics of more massive bodies would be constant beyond that.

..

The rate of precession of the stars and the superclusters rate of spin and mass may be how to resolve this. With reduced centrifugal force we might expect both more mass than relativity and higher rate of spin. With the plasma, and reduced plasma density over greater distances we would expect a more common physics and no increased spin, and with stronger gravity we would ask why the speed of spin rises rapidly out to where the disc starts and then is constant.

Advantages and Disadvantages;

PLASMA No Plasma Is Seen For Superclusters, Can both explain both solid body and more common 1/d2 rotation; wouldn't explain gravitational lensing because we would see the plasma, it would gravitate to stars, DGE would not necessarily have this problem;

Reduced Centrifugal Force; Predicts The Superclusters Spin Faster, They Do; More Mass of Superclusters Allowed; Stars Precess Faster because of reduced centrifugal pressure with the same gravity, Fits in With "Slow" Speed of Light, May be The Cause Of Pioneer Anamolies

Stronger Gravity DGE DGM; More Mass, Higher Spin Allowed; No Explanation For Spin Faster At 2KPC; Stars Precess Faster, Possible Explanation of Pioneer anamolies

For whatever could bend light like DGM; Border zones of lots of light emmision and Red Shift Assymetry on Both sides of DGM, (though not DGE being less dense) plus general increase of gravitational redshift near the dark matter or DGE. The change in speed of rotation and the gravity too may be caused by DGE. Centrifugal Force wouldn't be the cause here either if dark matter also explains gravitational lensing well.

Plasma of the three possibilitys above seems to be ruled out because if it were heavy enough to bend the light we would see it and the plasma stars, therefore DGE or changes in gravity or centrifugal force seem the most probable explanation and the predictions like the speed of precession of the stars and more mass and higher rate of spin for the superclusters would be allowed, redshift asymmetry on both sides of the spinning mass in particular may illuminate us. This may only be true however for the smaller number of supermassive bodies we find that are with the disc aligned with us, not the poles.

..
PHYSICS SYNOPSES
..