Why Do Opposite Charges Attract If Derived From A Basic Unified Gravitational Field?

As I say here I believe in the possible way of a modern version of La Sage's particle physics to be the cause of gravity.


Particles not waves could explain many low energy phenomenon. What a rocket ship exhaust presses against to move and zoom ahead would be a field with resilience. This would be the cause of friction. The lower energy field wouldn't seem to be only wavelike because only a basic field with some friction would create the higher energy fields with resilience here too if all the math is unified of all the forces. Gravity and centrifugal force seem to fit well with a particle causology. A flow of the particles at near 32 ft near the Earth would lose pressure and have near 0 force on the mass as they fall in the rest frame; the particles flowing beside you as you fall are almost at your speed, they have "sides" because they're particles thus you feel no force by way of the somewhat discontinuous component of the basic field, and at rest you are being pressed on by the same. So too, centrifugal force and inertia would be caused by radiance outward of the discontinuous particles, particles like of a gas radiate outward because they are discontinuous.


I imagine the basic field to have a fundamentally asymmetrical nature. Gravity seems to implode without balance to the center and yet the higher energy forces are in balance because of energy conservation. This seems like the many and the one in philosophy, or the fundamental symmetries of Noether's; all is a balance between balance and imbalance, change and motion. I ask a simple question; if all is in balance, like Newton's third law/energy conservation why hasn't all there is come to a stop long ago, gravity being imbalanced would be the "prime mover". Alone, energy conservation is more circular. If all motion comes from other motion, where does the other motion come from? This seems unscientific since science is derived from change by new experiments and new ideas, and if all the change is constant, itself the change is resistant to reasoning by science.

If gravity seems unbalanced, how does a force like electricity in balance arise from it? I believe the basic field has resilience to some extent and that Einstein was also true when he predicted the field has low energy reradiance, now proven by the research with pulsars and the rate of slowing, by radiance not just gravitational implosion. This would also be the cause of the cosmic acceleration found recently as Einstein also wondered about and then redoubted. Einstein Maxwell and Newton considered a particle foundation but the physics to prove this may now be in reach, see below.


If the basic field is both attractive and somewhat particulate and reradiant, note that all the basic components of the higher energy fields are present, with the notable exception of energy conservation. The basic field is imbalanced by the Noether's definition. There is a balance between energy conservation and balance and the lack of balance or gravity, and imbalance is needed for the cosmos to have extra energy to hold it together or it would have fizzed out to 0 density ages ago. The higher energy fields are balanced and obey energy conservation by way of conservation of linear and angular momentum, the quanta are always in an exact ratio of the mass to energy; more mass always spins faster for the higher energy fields.



This is why Emc2 holds so well, quantum wells "by looks" or distant light holds the momentum in the wells. With the quanta, if there is more mass there is exactly that much more spin, an exact transformation of mass to energy, mass and energy are not the same e.g one is linear and the other is angular, one is more about the plenum and the other more about realms where there is lower mass density, like gravity and special relativity, I think of them as opposite, ect. At lower energy for the more basic field there's no need for an exact conversion of mass to energy by the same type of formula F=ma except the a unlike the c2 of the equivalent high energy equation isn't a constant, that is it has some discontinuity to cause friction and the 32 ft acceleration of gravity, even so it's not quantised, so gravity may flow more like a superfluid. The looseness of the "low energy quanta" allow almost complete reduction of friction, indeed because of gravity's necessity to wind up the higher energy fields, I believe gravity may actually have negative entropy.

Instead of asking the common question of how gravity with "like charges" attracts, when the other higher energy forces, with opposite charges attract, I would ask the opposite. Why do opposite charges attract, when all the field is indeed unified by energy conservation? The more mass you have with gravity, the more it attracts, if it's mostly a wave because of flowing energy both the idea that opposite higher energy charges attract and that gravity is mostly of implosion would be from the basic field having both reradiance and implosion with resilience, and something extra the low fields lack, quantum wells.



If we have two opposite electric charges, by an old fashioned definition we see in the textbooks the positive charge radiates out and the - has implosive field. By energy conservation this is too simple because the outflow of the field would soon lose all its charge, and the imploding field would win all the mass of the outward flowing radiance. This isn't actually so because there is the magnetic field to consider that completes the loop mostly in the opposite direction, neither particle loses or gains much mass with time. So too with magnetic poles we see that opposite poles attract by the same method without loss of energy. The problem might seem to be about why though two outflowing like poles repel, so too do two inflowing like poles. If they inflow like two implosive air pumps on either side, it would seem they would move nearer, not farther. This problem is also solved by here the electric fields completing the loop. When two N magnetic poles radiate magnetically the electric loop that completes the loop is not as strong as the magnetic component and the magnets repel, but when two S poles meet the magnetic field isn't the cause of the reradiance, the electric field is the cause here. Note that the magnetic and electric are mostly equivalent, NN and SS are reradiant the same. Einstein used the idea of the equivalent motion of either a magnet or a wire to cause the change in the electric current, it didn't matter which was at rest, either motion was equivalent. I think of this much like the equivalence of mass and energy too, since the relativity of motion itself is closely related to it in SR.



If mass and energy are equivalent electric and magnetic fields would be too. If gravity has a low energy precursor to these fields and it's mostly unbalanced, I believe its particles may have a "magnetic" component that would be somewhat like the higher energy fields but because of the opposition of mass and energy, gravity pulls us down to one and the electric and other balanced fields radiate out to many. Thus there may be important distinctions. Usual higher energy magnetic fields are caused by motion. If gravity is the opposite and the more at rest you are the slower in your average motion (not exact like Emc2 because of the looser connection of F=ma) this possible magnetic way of gravity by updating La Sage's method would be the opposite. Unlike higher energy magnetic fields, they would operate by greater rest not motion.

Second the electric and magnetic are not equivalent so at lower energy the poles of these magneto gravity particles may have attraction one one side by way of implosion as we might expect because of them being like two imploding pumps on either side, and on the other side, they might have just some mere resistance to the implosion due to the resilience. The resilience is much lower here so it would merely slow the speed of the imploding particles flow that would cause the gravity, even so there would be some resilience to explain the cause of the quantum at higher energy and friction and so on as I say above. I believe there would be no electric equivalent to gravity only more magnetic, because in truth only higher energy electric fields are quanta, not magnetic charges as are well known by way of the problems about union of relativity with QM as Dirac believed. Why no magnetic monopoles if both relativity and QM are true? Because either relativity or QM is wrong and I believe it may be relativity in general, even the foundation of special relativity itself. Einstein said if one of his ideas go they all go.

Thus as I say on my link about La Sage's belief, I offer my more elaborate way to gravity. The particles are there it seems, but they may not be the same as the higher energy balanced particles of electric and magnetic realms, and they may violate energy conservation and have other special attributes. The galaxies are all seen to be spinning too fast in violation of either gravity or centrifugal force, so gravity may be violating energy conservation. It's been said that with these higher speed spinning masses we may be seeing "massive violations of relativity" and I believe this is possible. Mass and energy or gravity and inertia may not be equivalent at lower energy because mass is heavy and energy is light, and all mass energy conversions would be much faster than 8 billion years for the sun, there would be as much matter as antimatter as Dirac believed, mass would be as easy to convert to energy as energy to mass and so on.

About how opposite particles attract from a basic field of attraction only, the basic field may operate by implosion and then reradiation of the gravitons in cycles. This is why the Earth's gravity is stronger near the surface than the center, the particles might be assymmetrical, exerting pressure on on the inside and attraction more on the way up to the surface. At the lower energy of gravity though the basic field has resilience it's not enough to make the higher energy quantum wells, when the field implodes to enough density, the wells are formed and the field reradiates here too in cycles, but the well has shielding because even if made of the basic field it's more dense. When the shielding is reached the charges are in electric quanta and for other higher energy forces where energy is conserved, and attraction and reradiance are balanced. The component of the high energy field that's quantased is the electric charge. This would be absent in low energy mostly non quantased gravity. The higher energy fields are balanced but the lower energy fields being with extra energy to wind up the other fields essentially may have more implosion than reradiance. In E=mc2 there's a balance of like charges with inflow equal to outflow to make the electric and magnetic equal by Einstein's evidence for special relativity. There would be essentialy extra inflow by way of gravity that other fields lack solving problems like why all the older galaxies have 1000 times more mass than young systems, astronomers have otherwise unsolved. Actually there is more ease of flow and though the Earth isn't gaining much weight, almost all or more of the efficiency of the field may be in reach of the information by its own action. Inertia is a sort of ineffiency of the field, and the "slow speed of light with higher energy fields" might cause disconnection so locally the field here would both shield and reverse sign to repel as much as attract where the low energy field would mostly attract. At high energy the field is as particulate as wavelike or more because the slower speed of light would mean e.g. the moon is disconnected from the earth somewhat by the 1 light second delay, with gravity faster to over power it so it doesn't sail away so there is a mostly balanced particulate/wave disconnection of relativity for higher energy forces gravity is without. In order that the field of higher energy opposites attract, they would be shielding and not efficient and attract because the want to "know more" like a cash hero winning more. If the distinction of the high and low energy fields is indeed that entropy is reversed, where in the lower energy field likes mostly attract, at higher energy the waves and particles are in balance so likes repel as much or more at any rate and by reversal of sign for higher energy, unlikes attract here more also. Mostly the basic field would have no unlikes like electric charge because there are no quanta here there would just be some semi quantum resilience of the field. The likes are rearadiant because of the resilience it shares with all the fields including the foundation field, at higher energy there is balance. And the higher energy fields actually have more discontinuity than implosion due to thermodynamic entropy so mostly it's reradiant after the implosion of the lower energy implosive fields reach the level of the photon or electron, this is why the idea that opposites at higher energy attract wouldn't fit the attraction of one more unified field. Gravity may have mostly waves that attract somewhat or repel somewhat but more attraction than reradiance. Particles being the opposite of waves have more resilient short range expansion, entropy though they have much in common with the basic field. The waves build up to the quanta, the quanta have nearly equal wave and particle resilience, the likes repel likes, and by equal reversal (or almost) of sign at high energy, the unlikes attract. Unlikes in the basic field would be mostly not found so all is unified by energy conservation and the other conservation laws of physics.


Recent experiments with "low energy quantum experiments" of the type Einstein might have praised have finally found a way around the Uncertainty Principle! Much smaller amounts of interaction energy are being measured than a single photon by clever tricks like twisting the polarization of the light to "wring out" a smaller bit of energy that reacts with the other particles in a much more resolute way as far as sharpness of resolution is concerned. Einstein believed if we had a low energy particle we would get around the Uncertainty Principle by reducing the energy of the particle, he boldly believed "all is not all relative to the observer" in physics of his more 1920's vintage after all, why would he? This would be the end of quantum cryptography as I predicted a few years ago, no matter and energy are as powerful as the number line and prime numbers to make super codes since no other operations than the four basic math paradigms are likely to be seen. Mass is too simple to not find a way to change it in other simple methods that the quantum of light may "not know" of. More important to my belief, we may be able to measure down to the level of La Sage's fundamental discontinuity. The machines they use might show a bit of resonance that would be the sign of a new type of matter. If the light and all the other fields are of enough power to influence common mass and energy all around us, I think it's possible these new experiments may be more enlightening than relativity, and if we divide the energy smaller than the photon it may be worth more experiments to see if the speed starts out at c for the entire photon say when it's one quantum and then as we divide up the light and the mass is smaller, if you lighten up to go faster, the speed of the wave or other signal might go faster and faster than light (for evidence and comment, click here for my Synopsis of Faster Than Light based on my hopeful improvement Maxwell's idea). While this may not be so if the quantum well not the inner flow of the well is the limit of the speed, I think this is worth more research however. (To measure the speed the electric fields of the two start and stop points of the signal themselves wouldn't go faster than light by way of the "electromagnetic" speed of light of relativity, but the signal sent and received itself would be by the changes of the two points, like parallel processing of computers. The seperate machines compute, then combine the measure, more than seperately. If you have two stars and the signal between them was faster than light measured by electromagnetic machines with electromagnetic components, no part of the machine would be faster than light by relativity. Even though the signal was lower in energy, with enough sensitivity of the machine we might find if it's faster than light.)

If the particles of gravity are flowing down at the usual acceleration of 32 feet around us they may be of considerable mass, though not as massive as a photon or other particles known or we would have already found them. They may have lower/moderate mass because the force of gravity is strong enough to hold us tight to the earth though the might particles move at this speed. As I say on the link about Lasage's idea, the field would perhaps isotropic with a regularizing tendancy needed to overcome the random radiance of the entropy's outward flow of more common heat. Therefore it would be isotropic in a sort of lattice of cubes that would have a slightly more narrow inner side of the box for each lattice. This would be how gravity would know in from out because of the asymmetry of each particle's N and S poles as if tiny wedges to make the world and other radiant laws of physics like Couloumb's law also round. The difference of the N and S poles would be because by the distinction ofmass and energy. If they were completely equivalent, all in the cosmos would be one and there wouldn't be much going round.

Let's suppose the particles are indeed isotropic, and they are vibrating with a constant frequency at any given point of the field like the 32 feet of the earth near the surface. I propose an experiment like the one above using polarized light with motion. If the particles are indeed there and have low/moderate mass, the mass may be near to the level of the experiment. If we make the apparatus of the machine movable, like on a track and if we move it down at the usual 32 feet per second there is little interaction with the particles moving along with the machine. Here we might find no vibration of the small particle created by the poalrization of the light. If we stop the machine in the field and the vibration starts because the particles are about the same as the gravitons, the acceleration of 32 feet would be a direct measure of the number of particles flowing past the machine's particle at this speed, and if we accelerate the machine up, perhaps there would be a boost to the frequency like this too.

I believe this particle might be the particle that has all the value of the Higgs except of lower mass. If the Higgs' has huge mass, where's all the huge mass in all experiments? It may be of low and intermediate energy to unify gravity with the fields of subatomic physics, by way of the matter waves. The problem of quantum uncertainty and entanglement might be explained by a large number of small particles making up each particle like light particles. When two particles are entangled, my explanation of how one particle "knows if the other has been changed" is that each particle has to have some unique signal, to continue in resonance after seperation of the two fields if they're first blended in at short range. If the photon is just a wave with no internal substructure it can't have any code, a blob is just a blob. If there are a large number of complex subparticles like these low energy Higgs' not only do they change in unique ways with the interaction, they also maintain the harmony after the interaction, to keep the connection as unified by resonance. Waves can resonate but they need a structured particle basis. Particles control the general flow of waves better than waves control particles, here again the mass energy inequivalence.

Another problem the low energy particles would solve is about causal connections. If one incoming particle always has the same output of the interaction, no substructure is implied. If there are many outputs of the same experiment we might either hold as some do that Einstein's idea of realism must be wrong, information is in more than one place, there can be no simple pictures to explain all of physics. If we assume a complex realm of low energy subparticles, there is underlying simplicity. The reason we get a different result each time isn't because logic fails, it's just that the foundation is not seen. Lest say there are 20 types of these gravitons or Higgs' what have we's for the photon. the incoming probe hits the outer quantum shell. There there are say 5 types of the "gravitons". Because each particles makeup by way of previous interactions is complex and unique by way of the idea about entanglement above, most interactions may have a random element, leading to what may seem random output. Einstein was a determinist, he believed that if we know all the states of all the particles in the cosmos we could know all there was that could be beyond in time and reruns of boss Hogg of the 90's.. Lets say we find some way to find the subparticles like by polarized light or by other methods, not impossible, e.g. there are 95 proofs that right triangles are with x x and z being Pythagorean. if we could find all these subparticles we might control much of the flow of the waves they channel. The time diagram of particle interaction might show all the known small subparticles of both particles like larger light particles in the interaction. If we change the initial particles in a known way we change the flow of the waves they channel downstream also predictably.
..

Megafauna, Why Were they Mega and not Smaller?

This has been an unsolved mystery. Why were the dinosaurs so tremendous, far gianter than any land fauna since. Why are the whales the largest living in time? Why were the icea ge megafauna somewhat large but not so as the dinosaurs? Why were there great dinosaurs yet no giant cold blooded whales in the Mesozoic?

The answer seems to be, the amount of territory available to the fauna and the amount of food in this realm, what makes food available is good weather! The dinosaurs and the whales have one thing in common, good weather for them. The land was unified in the time of the dinos and the weather was good. The earth was spinning faster so the dinosaurs if cold blooded as I believe they were would have had neither too much overheating in the daytime and more important, no shock of PM cooldown as reptiles have now. The sun was in an interglacial age for much longer so it may have been burning hotter. The dinosaurs wouldn't have been warm blooded because they wouldn't have needed or wanted to overheat. They were far too great to have been able to function in the heat, even if more constant. The warmer generally constant temperatures would have been good for endothermic life. Even so the earth is slowing down because to the tides and reptiles today are much smaller even if they live in the tropics because of the nightime stress of the cool, it's often below freezing at night in the desert.

So too, too much constant temperature may have been the limit to the size of the earlier cold blooded fish in the time of the dinosaurs. If the fish arose sooner in evolution, they might have been larger even before the dinosaurs. Life thrives on not change or the lack of change. It thrives on optimi-zing, when the whale zings! This is why science shows living in the suburbs is healthier than the city or the country or why the bourgeois are healthier than rich and the poor, same hour, life is real! For a cold blooded fish in more constant warmer waters like in the mesozoic life they would have improved if more optimum change was there, the lack of change of temperature like now may have limited their size the. Later the whales being warm blooded had the more extreme temperatures each AM and PM above the surface enough to create the better levels of temperature that helped them thrive. Like the dinosaurs they had a vast realm to explore and search for a vast amount of healthy food, even more than they. Business tends to become giant only if there is a large stable economic base, in history the cities North of the alps in Europe were smaller and not so old while the cities in the South were large and of enormous antiquity, for much the same reason, whales and dinosaurs were giant because of the giant stable temperatures in their domain over great ages of time.

The whales were even larger than the dinosaurs because they have an advantage of buoyancy, even today, shipping by water is by far the cheapest per pound shipped, land sea or air.

That the dinosaurs were endotherms would also fit my picture of how they went extinct and the rise the birds and mammals; the land bridge submerged about 87 million years before the cretaceous dinosaur impactor between Patagonia and Antarctica; the land bridge would have made the S with a continuous belt of water different from the land of the N and this would have caused torque and the tilting of the earth (seasons). The dinosaurs if endotherms, would be in an ever nearer zone of the tropics, and the comet would have caused their demise, essentially just by luck. Some say they were showing "signs of old age" in their evolution, but species like corporations in business are theoretically immortal. The stress seen would be because of the worsening weather. If the dinosaurs were killed just by luck, it seems more possible they could have one day evolved to higher levels of intelligence. Some dinosaurs had both hands almost like more evolved life, large brains, and upright locomotion. The birds and mammals being warm blooded went N and S with the new weather, occupying the large areas left by the dinosaurs, so they were saved from the comet, ect.

The smaller large power base would explain why the ice age fauna were giant but not so giant as the dinosaurs. The megafauna had a great source of nourishment from the glacial lakes that dug up the soil by the glaciers so a large supply of healthy nutrition was in reach. Since the climate was cool, they weren't inclined to overheat and if it was cool at night they were warm by being warm blooded. The reason they were not more giant yet was because of the limits of the food power base, after the breakup of the more unified dinosaur continent the East and West hemispheres were a smaller food and power base for the ice age megafauna than the dinosaurs or whales. It's been estimated at any one time there were just 6 T Rexes in N America, even as giant as they were, there were no more or less because they were integrally based on the land, no more land no more size beyond a certain level. More good land more size no doubt, but there was a limit even here.

You may have read of perusaurus, the giant alligator like reptile that was even more giant than the dinosaurs. This behemoth lived in Peru about 37 million years ago long after the dinosaurs, one you may not have heard of because Perusaurus wasn't a major trend in evolution like the dinosaurs. Giant size evolution has thought of often, in truth we are larger than the ancients like in Pompeii. Unlike the dinosaurs Perusaurus had only the small power base of the amazon basin so like the Maya civilization compared to Eurasian civilizations which historians think got the advantage in history and colonization because of a larger power base of good weather East to West with other land with a N to S weather pattern. Historians believe history was like this because all the advantages like in science were conferred to all involved in the weather band, so the W built up power like naval power or the compass to colonize the New world. Thus perusaurus even if great for some time, even more than the dinosaurs wasn't able to maintain its power base if fickle since "smaller businesses" are often more prone to failure than a giant business, like the dinosaurs.

It's believed by others that bees and other insects have been limited in their evolution by the breathing tubes they use from the outside of their skeleton to their inner respiration. Supposedly the physics of the air are a limit to the available oxygen insects can use and this would limit their evolution to giant size. That there were giant bees and other related life in the Paleozoic seems to need better explanation, so my belief is that the other limit of the common diurnal 24 hour temperature stress is a major cause of the limit of the size of bees. This may be proven or disproved by experiments with large bees and better "indoor weather" over generations. If the bees are larger than than the physics of the air might allow, the temperature here too may have been one of the main influences on size in evolution.
..

A Rescue System May Uplift And Save us From Math at 20 Stories

We read of the patent on the spiral loaded on trucks to save those in high rise emergencies. This "slide" would be hauled through the roads to the building and then raised to the roof and the people above would slide down to safety, "whee!" sounds like celebration!

This seems to have the problem of the size of the slide, tough to move under lights and overpasses to reach where the fire is. Another possiblity is permanent towers on the outside of each building and though this would be as expensive as ladders it would at least fit in with the look of many hi rise luxury constructions. They might say stairs outside, so old fashioned, so the elevators might be in more plans and safety codes. Even so this would still cost a lot.

The new rescue winch for people stranded on the top of high rise buildings as in fire or rain uses a seat the person unwinds the winch down to the ground and safety. There are those who believe these need to be improved for rescuing more people at once. By using a larger box and lowering it from the roof after tossing the wire with another safety module on the other side more people can be saved from the roof. The box to reach the top of the roof the box would be mostly vertical and have a rail at the top so the person would climb in the box without fear of falling. On the base of this vertical box would be wheels to keep it somewaht distance from the building if needed. At the base of the box a special safety system on the outside might be used perhaps with airbags to land reasonably well if the box actually would fall in some percentage of the time since no machine is perfect, inertial stabilizers inside might be used to make it land correctly.

The box is believed to be also T or cross shaped since it could reach people in windows too as it rises and lowers for more safety sooner so there could be more floors reached to save people sooner. A horizontal box could be used to reach more of the floors below the roof via windows sooner. This would also be a useful way for firefighters and other safety personel to reach much higher up the building sooner.
..