Narwhol this is for you:
Tat
You are getting the idea, it comes down to how you define space.
At WSM it is defined like it was before Einsteins time. Space is that all encompassing vastness. In that sense, the latent energy density of space is part of Space, but that is not how science defines it now.
Shortly after relativity was confirmed by the bending of light, others, like W. De Sitter, defined it as the just the 4 dimensions of Height, Width, Depth, and Time. so by that definition, the energy density is just something contained within space.
With this more limited concept of space, and the use of Einstein’s field equations, it was ‘proven’ that under enough gravity, the 4 dimensions would curl up into a single point. The Big Bang was born.
Problem is, Einstein is not around to ask what his idea of space was, and the writings he left does not clear this matter up.
Thus when current scientists look at WSM theory, and space as a wave medium, They see it as a contradiction, and WSM as invalid. My theory is in harmony with all aspect of WSM, except saying that Space is the medium for wave propagation.
So I must use a different approach, and “slip in through the back door” of modern physics by finding the medium of wave propagation that does not use the word ‘Space’ and do so in a sound, mathematical accurate fashion.
Geoff’s approach to this problem was to tell moderen physicists what they got wrong. This approach only angers most, and makes them dismiss WSM as a quack theory, without giving it an honest look.
My approach is to show them what they got right, while building my case at the same time, and let them figure out what they got wrong on their own. This makes them part of the discovery process instead of alienating them at the start. If nothing else, it get them to read the whole theory before they make up their minds.
Some of the most outspoken members of the science forums will not even comment on my work, one way or the other. Even Zepher and AlphaNumeric have not said one word in regards to my work. A “No Comment” from those two was more than I could hope for.
This approach has lead to some things that before, other said could not be done. I have developed an intuitive model of the Quantum Mechanical processes within the nucleus. It has long been believed that an intuitive model of QM processes was impossible, they even teach that in basic quantum courses.
Remember my WSM version of the electron orbit. I have expanded it to the whole atom and reconciled it with the QM models and EM theory. I have been a busy boy since the forum was shut down for repairs.
Jufa
I understand your point, but if you look at the whole, it is a mute point.
Energy creates matter, matter creates gravity, gravity causes a change in energy density, changes in energy density causes changes in the mass of matter, changes in the mass of matter causes changes in the force of gravity, and on and on and on.
You have to start somewhere in this mess.
So I started with the lightest particle, the electron and proceed from there.
As for the problems with infinity, no problem. We are dealing with the finite region of our universe, the infinity beyond it does not effect anything except the Law of conservation of energy, which only applies to closed systems.
Also on the “energy of gravity” and “But how can one measure this curve of gravity when it is light that is the ruler?” these are answered in Einstein’s Field Equations, where he correctly predicted the curvature of light some 80 years ago, so this is not a problem either. Also this statement is wrong, “But light itself is the energy which gravity contains” Photons, which are the transmitter of light, come from the electron and changes in its orbit. The energy they contain is excess energy not needed when the electron drops to a lower orbit. Gravity is so weak on the atomic scale as to be insignificant. Electromagnetic forces rule at this scale, and photons are an electromagnetic in origin, not gravitational.
The order I presented my findings in was based on many factors, which are too many to recount here. I am writing my paper with a critical review of my peers in mind, as long as physicists understand my point, I am happy, and so far they have had no problems with the order of my paper. After it is published, I may write a book to explain it in simplified terms for others, if I live that long. I ain’t no spring chicken. Thus I do not have time to waste as I am working day and night now to finish this before I kick the bucket.
Charles
———————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————-
Aireal, you state:
Jufa
I understand your point, but if you look at the whole, it is a mute point.
Energy creates matter, matter creates gravity, gravity causes a change in energy density, changes in energy density causes changes in the mass of matter, changes in the mass of matter causes changes in the force of gravity, and on and on and on.
You have to start somewhere in this mess.
In looking at the whole, my position cannot be mute. How can energy create matter if matter was not energy? how can matter create gravity if gravity was not energy? How can you separate the two from the one and then say it is the fragments which must be dealt with to determine density and the changes when the birth of eneregy and gravity is fathered by energy?
And this logic goes towards the infinity and finite establishment you presented.
Einstein’s Field Equations dealt with relativity of point to point spherical. Einstein did not deal with the entire spectrum of space vastness. This is why Einstein, before his death, was writing on “The relativity of Everything.” It was to include the linkage of all being of one properity relative to a metaphorical mystery which continuously cause the confusion of ideas in the scientific community.
Aireal, on a personal note. Why should you worry about others acceptance of your work? Had Ben Franklin worried, or A. Bell, or L. Pastuer, or Edison, or the Wright Brothers, or H. Ford, or A. Carnegie, we would still be living in the dark ages.
Push on I say. Follow your bliss regardless!
jufa
——————————————————————————————————
Jufa
Thank you for those words of encouragement.
One of the points I am trying to show is that space is not curved as suggested by the field equations. But there is an unwritten rule in physics.
Thou shall not mess with Einstein. Relativity is like the holy grail of physics.
If I start with gravity and relativity. As soon as I suggest that Einstein made even a minor error, no one will finish reading my paper. It will be disregarded as a quack theory before they finish reading it. If they finish reading it that is.
So I slowly build my case, then drop that little bombshell at the very end, after they have read all the supporting evidence.
By only dealing with finite cases along the way, I can accomplish that. It is not the easiest nor the most logical way to proceed. But with the state of mind of current physics, I have little choice.
Only a theory that has passed peer review will even be considered. Many others have tried various means to get their work seen without peer review, it fails 99% of the time. Once labeled a quack, no one will even look at future work you do. Sad, but currently true.
Once my general paper has passed peer review, I can approach the problem in any manner I see best in future work, like the manner you suggest.
Charles
This boards opposition to my putting a brand new flavor in its ear is easy. On christian, atheist, Buddha, theist, and even new age board, they say they want to leave the dogmas behind and go where no man has gone before. But when they see someone is not a conformist thinker concerning religion, non-religion doctrines, they will attempt to set their ass on fire.
