I-try

Physica. Your statement: You clearly didn't understand my point about entanglement. The point wasn't about entanglement mechanics is was about what constitutes science. Because entanglement couldn't be tested it was classed as philosophy until the maths was completed and an experiment could be done. Answer: I have no trouble understanding the difference. I preferred to take the opportunity you provided to provide information from ?, that attempts to remove the need to refer to the spin of a photon, and further provide a physical backed reason for believing that measurement is the cause of that anomaly. I stated the following that you chose to ignore. Quote: Your statements regarding entanglement are noted, and in reply I would suggest that post number 36 may be of interest because despite the deliberate mistake, a photon can be propagated in any single direction and oscillates between having a wave nature to that of a more dense energy state. Irrespective of the deliberately incorrect information supplied, electromagnetic generated photons have either a quasi positive or negative nature. A photon split into two parts would both be either quasi positive or negative in nature; interference to one by magnetic measurement would have a high potential to retard, accelerate or deflect, and therefore could change its nature. According to ?, when generated, a photon has only a uni-directional nature, and unlike a massive particle, a photon cannot generate a gravity field to cause the gravitational effect. According to ?, at the fundamental level of reality and universe wide, there are only the above referred to equal but opposite two time-like periods. With regards to the problems you set in what you imagine is a test of ?; either your logic is suspect (I could have easily obtained an answer) or your sense of fairness is. I have stated on many occasions that I have never studied mathematics; being only interested in the fundamental dynamic nature essentially underlying physics. The calculations in ? pertaining to such as the maximum rate that an electron can oscillate were derived from the nominal radius of an electron, the speed of light, arithmetic and a calculator, plus ? requires an electron to oscillate. Your question regarding the elastic collision (elastic only supposes no mass transformation) of two ridiculously excessive massive particles requires an understanding of Cartesian Coordinates, the equation for momentum and apparently high school mathematics. Because you stated they collided, body B could not have started to move from the centre of usually drawn coordinates that provide both positive and negative coordinates; and body A would have to have started to move ahead of B. Also to provide a reasonable accurate answer, there would be a need to state that it was a centre of mass collision. With regards your other question requiring the kinetic energy, a student could use the equation, kinetic energy equals one half MV^2 after finding the velocity obtained from the ratio of 2 is to 9.81 metres a body falls in one second. I issue the following challenge to you because of your statements regard my knowledge of basic physics, and for no other reason. Would you be prepared to debate me regarding the accuracy of the gravitational effect of the Earth being exactly equal to 9.81 newtons for a kilogram of mass, and as derived from the force necessary to horizontally accelerate a kilogram of mass to a velocity of one metre during a period of one second. Also how is the velocity of one metre per second per second achievable when the kilogram mass is only displaced half a metre during the first second. With regards to me being arrogant, then with regards to the mainstream community ever obtaining a knowledge of gravity and gravitation, (excepting with regards to the prevention of unnecessary wasting of human endeavour and large cost to the community) I couldn't care less because of the shabby attitude displayed by mainstream science regarding ? over more than 40 years. Also, it is obvious that the world community have concerns other than thinking about physics. It is the hope of being able to establish a belief in the Gravitational Thermodynamic Effect that enables me to persist for so long. A large body such as our moon rapidly approaching Earth to close passing distance, would cause catastrophic rapid heating to all of Earth's mass. Unfortunately, an understanding of the GTE requires an understanding of the fundamental dynamic nature of matter, that has to be capable of describing gravity, gravitation, and all other phenomena.

Strange. On several earlier posts sufficient to inform those interested, the use of ? in future was to be read as referring to my work. Those new to the thread would be informed if they started with post number 1. Inatfaal. Thank you for your reply to my question regarding the lack of replies or questions concerning my posts, and I note the reason you provided. If that is the general attitude, then why don't they quickly demolish the provided concepts by the use of questions and statements concerning physical accuracy, instead of repeated references to my previous admitted lack of mathematical ability. I asked the question because most posters are generally quite generous with the provision of physics backed criticism of most threads. Even so, there were no replies or questions resulting from my posts 34,35.36, 37 and 46 where information concerning ? was provided. My comments made on early posts such as the need to refer to relativist momentum instead of relativistic mass received no comment or question despite the fact that a reason for that statement was provided. Also, there were no comments or questions concerning my comments such as the scientific community would be more accurate if they referred to the gravitational effect rather than to gravitation pull or the pull of gravity. I have what I consider to be valid physical reasons for providing those comments. Your reference to my attitude regarding the ability of the youth of today leaves me wondering why you made that statement, and why you felt the need to refer to yourself.

Physica. I, unlike a lot of posters, make an attempt to answer the relevant details contained in all posts directed to me. Also , I have other commitments besides answering posts. I will provide answers to your two posts when time permits. And hello again to you hoola. Thank you for your information on post number 42. It appears that you are the only person posting to Speculations prepared to ask me a question pertaining to the physical realities attempted to be explained in my posts. I have always held the belief that a person with a genuine interest in attempting to understand the presently unknown regarding the how and the why that provides the basic reality of physics and mathematics, would display an interest irrespective of the lack of mathematical equations. There is no lack of interest in the how or why of gravity and gravitation being indulged in on this and other forums, and the lack of discussion regarding the general absence of mathematical explanation is not surprising. To date, the mathematics pertaining to gravitation supplied by Newton and Einstein mainly refer to measurements derived entirely from the gravitational effect that is also mistakenly referred to as gravity. The present concept appears to be that gravity and gravitation are one and the same phenomenon that originates from matters intrinsic ability to generate a mysterious attractive phenomena generally referred to as the pull of gravity. Also, there are no mathematics attempting to explain the fundamental how or why simply because science can function efficiently without that knowledge. The mathematical derived curvature that lead to the concept space-time, and idea of gravity provided by Einstein, can perhaps be regarded as an exception. Even so, I am not aware that QM has measured and supplied the mathematics regarding the energy in a single fundamental quantum wave, graviton or gluon. If QM has not, then why should I be expected to do so. The lack of knowledge regarding the nature of gravity and the gravitational effect, unfortunately leads to misconceptions such as the existence of constantly reoccurring gravitation induced waves emanating from two relatively rapid orbiting, excessive massive bodies. Your statement regarding your lack of understanding of the referred to Gravitational Thermodynamic Effect is not surprising because it demands a strict instant by instant compliance of all phenomena with the laws of conservation of energy and momentum. Relative to the Earth's mostly accelerating state during its orbiting of the Sun, (also Io's relatively rapid orbiting of Jupiter) mainstream science appear to believe that its ok if momentum is only conserved when the Earth returns to any given point in its orbit. Presently, mainstream science believes that the excessive volcanic activity on Io is due to what is referred to as gravitational squeezing, and the unexpected heating registered by the spacecraft Rosetta with regards the comet it is orbiting, results from the general sooty nature of the comet's surface. In that regard, then if the sooty nature is the correct reason for the unexpected heating, then as the comet travels away from the Sun, equal heating should be expected for any comparable distance to the Sun, when the different due to the direction of motion is allowed fore. If after the referred to allowances are made, then instead of the now expected heating there is unexpected cooling, then perhaps mainstream science may be prepared to examine ?. You would need a reasonable understanding of the fundamental pertaining to ?, to have an understanding of the GTE. In answer to the last couple of statements you made in post number 42, then on my posts numbers 34,35.36, 37 and 46 you can find information concerning development of physics. Post number 46 provides a 1 + I = 2 basic foundation for the human invention of mathematics. Post number 46 also contains a logical physical reason why the phenomenon of entanglement can be explained as occurring due to measurement; then so like on the other posts referred to, all have been ignored with regards the provision of comment.

Quote. The problem is that I-try doesn't really understand what science is. A classic example between the difference between science and philosophy was quantum entanglement. There was a problem. Experimentally they couldn't work out if the act of measurement caused the 2 particles to spin in opposite direction. Because of this it was also hard to determine if there was entanglement or that the particles were already opposite the time there were separated like gloves. Because they couldn't develop and experiment with testable predictions the whole thing got put down to philosophy not science. It came back into science when Bell The problem is I-try's waffle is that it offers no testable predictions. In fact the building blocks of the theory offer no predictions so we can't even tell if it is consistent with previous experiments. Physica. Judging from your comments in the quote above, it is obvious you have not read or attempted to understand ?. A person when deeming themselves qualified to be adversely critical of a post, they should at least read and attempt to understand the information provided. In that regard and to stay relevant to each of the threads The way I-try Views Energy, and Gravity according to I-try, I have been posting relevant to the title of each thread. It would make for an easier understanding of what I am attempting to explain if they were combined under a title such as The Fundamental Dynamic Nature of Physics by I-try. The reason being that in one thread the information provided regarding the basic nature of motion and potential intrinsic energy at the fundamental dynamic level of reality, is vital for an understanding of the phenomena now not understood at our macro level of reality, and attempted to be further explained on the thread titled Gravity by I-try. For instance, in a post already provided in the thread titled The Way I-try Views Energy, there is a description of the amassing of primeval energy at the fundamental dynamic level of that we call reality, then if that post had been critically examined, the following phenomena would have had a fundamental base for an understanding at our level of reality. The phenomena referred to includes that we refer to as mass, energy in all forms, gravity, and a fundamental reason leading to an understanding why an electron and a positron are exactly equal but entirely opposite. To test interest, I provided an inaccurate statement regarding equal but opposite that should have been easily spotted because it was so obviously incorrect. The referred to incorrect statement should not have prevented a physicist from extrapolating that concept as providing a potential explanation of electrons and positrons at our level of reality. Also, the posted description in the thread Gravity by I-try regarding the gravity field of an electron that half an instant later (time relative to an electron) results in that electron's electric field, is only relevant to an electron free of the affects imposed on an electron forming a part of bulk matter. There is a dominant physical reason why when forming a part of bulk matter, the continuance of the electron's electric field cannot be provided by gravity. It was for that reason why I expected the descenting replies that did not eventuate: thereby instilling the belief that by continuing attempting further communication is a waste of time that I cannot afford. However, if you or others are sufficiently interested to read and attempt to understand ?, I will attempt to answer and provide clarification to all questions of a physical nature. Your statements regarding entanglement are noted, and in reply I would suggest that post number 36 may be of interest because despite the deliberate mistake, a photon can be propagated in any single direction and oscillates between having a wave nature to that of a more dense energy state. Irrespective of the deliberately incorrect information supplied, electromagnetic generated photons have either a quasi positive or negative nature. A photon split into two parts would both be either quasi positive or negative in nature; interference to one photon by magnetic measurement would have a high potential to retard, accelerate or deflect, and therefore could change its nature. According to ?, when generated, a photon has only a uni-directional nature, and unlike a massive particle, a photon cannot generate a gravity field to cause the gravitational effect. According to ?, at the fundamental level of reality and universe wide, there are only the above referred to equal but opposite two time-like periods.

Endy0816. Thanks for providing the reason for your lack of interest in my posts. I am surprised because as far as I can ascertain via the www, I am attempting to provide the only comprehensive explanation in the literature of the fundamental dynamical nature of phenomena underlying our concepts of that we call reality, and appearing to be capable of providing logical answers to phenomena now referred to as anomalies. To date, I have posted (in post number 36) information derived from ? that requires and attempts to explain why light is proportionally deflected from its line of travel when travelling at an angle across the direction of travel of a gravity field. In the other thread Gravity by I-try, an abbreviated attempted description of gravity and electric field of an electron is provided along with other information that I expected would have qualified for at least one reply. Had there been a reply, I would not have been talking to myself. In that regard, it appears that and due to replies provided on Speculation, most threads in Speculation are automatically regarded as suspect and rightly so.

Strange. Your comment of post number 38 is typical of you because you require that only the measurable can be regarded as scientific. Attitudes similar to that belief are part responsible for the lack of mainstream knowledge regarding the how or why regarding the fundamental dynamic nature of phenomena such as gravity and gravitation. You have demonstrated an ability to consistently spot errors in many other posts that you obviously consider to be gibberish, so I have provided two errors that should have been obvious to the scientific qualified who actually read and attempt to understand the proposed dynamic base underlying our concepts of that we call reality. It is very significant that you have avoided providing any semblance of an answer to my questions to you that are located in the bottom paragraph of post 30.

I am in complete agreement with the information supplied by Studiot in the quote above. In that regard, perhaps those able to do so should examine the concepts and mathematics provided by the authors of the paper located in the link provided by Imatfaal in post number 7. If the mathematics cannot be faulted and the concepts drawn are in conformity to the mathematics, then that is an example of the astounding precision of mathematics and the commendable ability of the authors of that paper.

Imatfaal. Thanks for the link you provided in post number 7. Whilst I was unable to understand the mathematics provided by the authors, I was able to understand some of the their argument about which I will not be providing comment. However, I am in agreement with their findings that the radiation resulting from acceleration of an electron by the gravitational effect is too feeble to be measurable. In that regard, perhaps I should have also underlined the word measurable in post number 4.

Vitality00. Both Studiot and Swansont are correct regarding radiation resulting when an electron is accelerated. However, there is no measurable radiation resulting from the acceleration of an electron if the acceleration is induced by the gravitational effect. Also, the vector quantity of e-m radiation would be dependent on the magnitude of the accelerating force instantaneously applied. The radiation referred to is always transmitted perpendicular to the direction of enforced acceleration and at the speed of light.

Imateaal. I have been concerned for some time now regarding the lack of comment regarding controversial statements made in several earlier posts. In post 36 there is a deliberate error made (attempting to test interest and quote provided below) regarding the out of phase of the central points of adjacent volumes, and because there are people claiming to be a physicist or engineer posting to this forum, I confidently expected to congratulate them for providing a correction. In that regard, there appears to no interest concerning a possible glimmer of credence or attempt at a critical analysis of ?. The fact that there seems to be an eager willingness to mainly provide dissenting criticism on all other threads appears to indicate a total lack of interest in ?. If I am correct in that belief, then to continue would be a wasting of time that I most certainly cannot afford to do. I would appreciate any comment you or others may care to make and will act accordingly. Quote. When we give our attention to a point in space that is a wavelength distant from the primeval energy amassed center point of the larger imagined sphere described in post 35 for CMBR, and serving as an example of that which transpires at the microscopic level of reality – a point at the center of the next adjacent spherical volume- then a wavelength later following the central amassing of energy, the point referred to would experience an amassing of energy, and the amassing would be out of phase with regards to the amassed energy of the originally referred to center point by a time period of a wavelength. In the example referred to, each immediate adjacent amassing of energy would form a unit of virtual matter that is exactly equal to all other units by the manner of primeval energy density amassing. Therefore exactly equal with regards the primeval energy amassing process and opposite in time. Adjacent volumes would experience an expanding of energy whilst the other is experiencing the contraction of energy towards its center point. the amassing would be out of phase with regards to the amassed energy of the originally referred to center point by a time period of a wavelength. Not correct, it would be in phase at all referred to time period of that point in the ongoing cycle referred to. the amassing would be out of phase with regards to the amassed energy of the originally referred to center point by a time period of a wavelength. Very obviously not correct.

Returning now to continue with regards to the attempted description of the formation of a unit quantity of virtual matter, and further to a description regarding the propagation of photons. Perhaps on this forum, a later explanation of the creation of an electron and the exactly equal but entirely opposites nature of positrons and negatrons may be provided. That ability is substantially enabled by the relevant information provided in post number 35. An inventive analysis of the information supplied in post number 35 regarding the fundamental dynamic mechanics of the amassing of primeval energy, (thereby assisting towards a final amassing to C2 when a matter particle is created) also provides evidence of a universe wide existence of a parameter capable of allowing the straight-line propagation of photons. When we give our attention to a point in space that is a wavelength distant from the primeval energy amassed center point of the larger imagined sphere described in post 35 for CMBR, and serving as an example of that which transpires at the microscopic level of reality – a point at the center of the next adjacent spherical volume- then a wavelength later following the central amassing of energy, the point referred to would experience an amassing of energy, and the amassing would be out of phase with regards to the amassed energy of the originally referred to center point by a time period of a wavelength. In the example referred to, each immediate adjacent amassing of energy would form a unit of virtual matter that is exactly equal to all other units by the manner of primeval energy density amassing. Therefore exactly equal with regards the primeval energy amassing process and opposite in time. Adjacent volumes would experience an expanding of energy whilst the other is experiencing the contraction of energy towards its center point. Thereby allowing a preview of the existence of and explanation of equals and opposites. It is absolutely imperative for the reader to understand the time-rate-of-change between the primitive version of positive or negative referred to by ? as primary energy – virtual matter - to arrive at an understanding of a later attempted explanation of the creation of dissimilar matter particles. The idea of destructive wave interference is not relevant because the intrinsic force due to motion however minute is never lost. Presently, the propagation of a photon through space is described due to its wave-particle nature. The electromagnet field of the photon producing its particle nature and as the particle progresses through implied empty space, the moving particle produces an electromagnet field, and so on until the photon is compelled by circumstances such as collision, to transform to another form of energy. There is no explanation given with regards to the how or why of the referred to ability of a photon. In that regard, imagination is required for the reader to gain an understanding of the dynamic mechanics as the photon progresses instant by instant (time relative to virtual matter) via the parameter established by the alternating nature of virtual matter. To begin, then in our imagination we witness the creation of a light photon, whereby a unidirectional reinforcing of the primeval energy involved in the alternating creation of several units of virtual matter has occurred. By allowing a slowing of all motion, we can follow the instant by instant zigzagging deviations from a straight line direction taken by a photon that on our level of reality becomes a strait line propagation. We can also witness in fine detail, the gradual condensing of what is referred to as the photon's electromagnetic field to fleetingly assist to form what is referred to as a particle, (unbalancing of virtual matter) that immediately transforms back into a magnetic type of field. In the process referred to, the reinforcing of primeval energy by the directional energy of the photon, would be in the form of a constant, directional unbalanced alternating partial compression and expansion that is exactly unidirectional transferred. In the explanation provided above, units of virtual matter are to be considered to be stationary in space during the propagation of a photon, and only the uni-directional unbalanced energy is undergoing rectilinear propagating. The magnitude of path deflection of a photon would be mainly dependent on the gravity indued speed and direction of the parameter responsible for the dynamic nature of virtual matter. If in the light of the above, if we imagine a volume of space consistent with that involved with the measurement of the deflection of starlight when passing close to the Sun, then the inward speed of motion of the Sun's gravity field has already been measured for that starlight passing distance. If the mathematicians posting to this forum compared the magnitude of deflection that resulted due to the inward motion of the Sun's gravity field that occurred at that distance during the passing time, and applied the inverse of the square of the distance law, they would find that the magnitude of deflection would be totally inadequate relative to the E = MC2 of the Sun. ? requires the inadequacy and automatically supplies a logical answer that is consistent with well known physical phenomena. The reference to a magnetic type of field in this post has a much later required explanation regarding the generation of a magnetic field by the motion of an electron. Although at this stage in the many explanations of phenomena provided by ?, the magnetic field of electrons cannot presently be attempted to be explained, even so, the universally eternally present underlying dynamic parameters referred to above and in post 35, allowing for an eventual explanation. The posts in this and other thread provides an indication for the original statement that ? is comprehensive throughout, whilst providing explanation for phenomena ranging from the fundamental dynamic level of reality to that consistent with conditions pertaining to our galaxy.

Because the gravitational interaction of two electrons is believed to be approximately in the order of 1037 weaker than the electromagnetic, I therefore expected the vast difference to be stated as opposing my statement in post 21 regarding the physics involving the gravity and electric nature pertaining to a proposed cycle of an electron. Because there was no comment and to remove any lingering doubt, the following is provided. Before doing so, I would appreciate advice as to why there has been no replies to my more resent posts. Whilst I appreciate the opportunity to present an outline of ?, the lack of replies is reminiscent of my 40 + years of no comment. Mainstream science appears to treat gravity and gravitation as different aspects of the same phenomena. In that regard, it is a correct belief according to ?, except for there is a total lack of knowledge of the how and the why of the relationship, and that relationship can become complicated due to changing circumstances. ? attempts an explanation by providing what appears to be a logical physical relationship as follows. Gravity instant by instant (time relative to an electron) provides the ongoing reality of an electron as stated in post 21, and the gravitational effect indirectly results because of interference to the magnitude of gravity acting on inter-competing bodies. There are more complicated reasons why gravitation between bodies can change due to a change to velocity. Also, there is a large amount of physical phenomena required to be explained by the postulated nature of gravity being referred to. For instance, the magnitude of the complicated parameters acting on and between an electron and a positron are critically dependent on distance of separation. At the distance of electron-proton (implying an in-bedded positron supplying the proton charge) separation in an atom, the gravitational interaction would be extremely weak. Even so, at electron-positron approach prior to physical contact, ? both explains and requires that relative to the amassed energy involving the mass of both particles, the gravitational effect would exceed the strong nuclear force operating between nucleons. To attempt further clarification of the first statements of this post concerning the difference between two electron's gravitational effect on each-other verses their electrical effect, we can examine two electrons temporally compelled to remain at a ten centimeter proximity to each-other, and during the period involved with only one cycle of an electron. ? requires that a portion of the outgoing electric field expelled at speed C from each electron, impacts on the other whilst it is in the act of expelling electric energy, thereby resulting in a repulsion magnitude that would diminish according to the square of any increasing distance. In that regard, there is quite a lot of resulting physical phenomena such as radiation propagated perpendicular to acceleration direction; also there is the increase to kinetic energy and momentum that result and must be explainable by postulated local parameters acting on an electron. With regards to the difference between the gravitational to electrical effect, the electrical effect travels outwards from the electron at speed C, whereas, it would take in excess of a million orbits of the Earth around the Sun for the gravitational effect of an electron during one cycle, to cause a unit of that which ? calls primary energy and located at a distance of ten centimeters, to move a distance of one millimeter towards the electron. Thereby rendering the referred to gravitational effect between two electrons separated by ten centimeter to be practically non-existent. The calculation referred to is derived by allowing the explosive ingress of half primary energy acting on an electron from one direction to be at speed C, and then the incoming speed of primary energy acting from that direction and due to increasing distance, diminishing by the square of the distance. Relative to the statements made in this post, the ten centimeter separation of the lead spheres in the Cavendish experiment was a measurement of their gravitational effect . To the best of my knowledge, the magnitude of the total spherical gravity acting on an electron has never been attempted or measured. Despite the previous statement, the description of the gravitational effect provided above is an indication of the magnitude of gravity acting on an electron from one direction; thereby implying that an idea of the total gravity can perhaps be found by a multiplication of the speed C magnitude gravity acting on an electron from one direction, by the number of all other relevant spherical directions. The above description implies a stationary state for the electron and does not include the impact occurring at the electron's center of mass. Those who attempt to provide a description of the fundamental dynamic nature of gravity, should be aware that to be credible, then ultimately, their idea must be physically involved with the description of all physical phenomena. The fundamental dynamic nature of gravity cannot be described in isolation from the remainder of physics.

Mainstream science has various concepts pertaining to matter considered to be either at rest, in uniform motion or undergoing acceleration. The concepts of the fundamental dynamic nature of mass and energy being the least understood of the concepts referred to when motion of matter is being discussed. In that regard and perhaps provide logical information that may promote a more complete understanding of mass and energy, it therefore becomes necessary to direct our thoughts towards the basic level of that we refer to as reality. To do so requires a step or two away from science based on the measurable, by attempting to imagine the fundamental dynamic nature of the not measurable but essential phenomena required to provide an understanding of mass and energy. Presently, reference is made to the gravitational mass, the inertial mass, rest or invariant mass, and at high velocity to the relativistic mass. Professor Albert Einstein went to considerable effort to indicate that the inertial mass was exactly equal to the gravitational mass. Also, his conclusions drawn from his statements regarding inertia and energy indicated a similarity when he stated that: The mass of a body is a measure of its energy content. The referred to statement was further emphasized by his equation E = MC2. He indicated that there was an apparent difference by stating that the energy is measured in ergs and the mass in grams. There are a number of subtleties pertaining to how the concept of mass became a measure of the energy content of matter, and also with regard to their relationship. Because this thread is concerned with a discussion concerning the fundamental dynamic nature of energy, then for that reason, and assisted by ?, there will be an ongoing attempt to provide an analysis of its fundamental dynamic nature, and of the mysteries pertaining to its association with matter. An explanation why the speed of light is involved and requires to be squared will also be attempted. In compliance with the statements of the last paragraph above, I invite you to accompany me on an imaginary journey involving descending several levels of reality to that of the fundamental dynamic level. Extant at the basic level of reality being analysed, the only pertinent concept most prominent in our knowledge of physical reality is motion, an ability to move, and the potential energy known to be essentially associated with all motion. At the referred to level of reality, there is a need to relinquish concepts relevant at our level except for the intrinsic potential energy essential to enable an understanding of the fundamental dynamic nature of an ability to move. In compliance to the statements made in the paragraph above, ? postulates that the only logical fundamental dynamic concept suitable to explain physics at our level of reality is the intrinsic potential energy that must accompany a primeval ability to move. Therefore, ? requires the universe wide existence of primeval motion in the form of microscopic short wavelength waves that are propagating at speed C in all directions, and thereby bestows reality to that we refer to as space. ? makes no attempt to provide an explanation regarding the original creation of that which bestows reality to space except to say the following: If an electron can produce an electric field, and an electron is created from the intrinsic potential energy extant with a primeval ability to move, then there is logical reasons to believe that the intrinsic potential energy accompanying a primeval ability of movement at speed C, encompasses the fundamental attributes necessary to enable an electric nature. The discovery of the cosmic microwave background radiation that was eventually observed to arrive at the antenna from all directions, was fortunate to enable a measurable macroscopic example of the not-measurable microscopic wave-energy concept that ? attempts to explain. Before continuing with the attempted explanation of what ? refers to as primeval motion and energy, a statement regarding the CMBR is important to an understanding of the postulated fundamental dynamic reality. Because relative to any small volume in that we call space, both the CMBR and the postulated primeval energy are to be viewed as arriving at and crossing those referred to volumes from all directions at speed C, it is now necessary to request that in the case of the CMBR, you imagine a spherical volume with a radius equal to the wavelength of the CMBR, and temporarily stop all motion at the surface of the sphere. You should find that at the surface referred to, small sections of CB microwaves are poised to travel at speed C towards a center point of the spherical volume. By allowing motion to continue, then at the crossing of the center point and relative to the energy extant to CMBR, there would be a instantaneous temporary reinforcing of that center volume approximately equal to C2 ; thereby fleetingly forming a unit of virtual matter. If you continue to imagine the progress of the energy extant in the C2 central volume amassing, there is an expansion in all directions that culminates in the referred to intrinsic energy of motion taking part in the constant repetition of the amassing-expansion cycle in similar volumes throughout the universe. The above amassing is required in the reality of space despite the fact that the antenna utilized to make the discovery was only capable of receiving incoming microwaves from less than half the spherical directions referred to above, even so, the reception magnitude of primeval energy would have been much greater than provided from a single CB microwave. By the assistance of the oscillatory amassing of the CMBR as described above, it is easy to imagine universe wide activity being constantly generated in all such volumes. In that regard, the explanation provided for the CMBR becomes a macroscopic example that is exactly similar to that which transpires in the microscopic case postulated by ?. The microscopic case requires the universe wide existence of primeval motion in the form of microscopic short wavelength waves that are propagating at speed C in all directions, and thereby bestows reality to that we refer to as space. The short description provided above regarding the momentary C2 amassing of primeval energy in the form of units of virtual matter, is the base on which all phenomena irrespective of reality level is attempted to be explained by ?. By the statements presented above, I am open to a challenge regarding the synchronizing of the CMBR. In that regard, the fact that irrespective of the direction the antenna responsible for the discovery was pointed, no change to the wavelength of any of the incoming waves was detected. Also, irrespective of how chaotic wave action may be when first created, interaction between the energy extant in each wave would eventually result in synchronisation. Energy amassed to a magnitude of C2 would require synchronization as is evidenced by the well proven equation E = MC2 .

The information to be posted here and later on the thread Gravity by I-try, relates to the fundamental dynamic nature of that which I believe underlies and indirectly provides the recognised physics at our level of reality. The information is derived from my almost lifetime attempt to provide physics with a logical conceptual idea of the dynamic nature of that from which our level of reality was and continues to be instantly re-created. The last statement is not to be understood as implying a belief in the Steady State Theory proposed by Professor Fred Hoyle, whereby new particles are to be imagined to be continually created throughout the Universe. To refer to my work, a question mark ? will be substituted. The previous attempt at providing an understanding of the fundamental dynamic nature of the potential intrinsic energy essentially associated with motion however slight the movement, was not accepted mainly because mainstream science appears to perceive the reality of energy and motion as directly resulting only from the motion and presence of matter. That concept appears to result from a belief that the original creation of matter particles was completely accomplished so that they were enabled to self create all the attributes now believed attributed to them. In that regard, the opposing argument regarding the creation of matter to be later explained relative to ?, is not an attempt to revise the practical application of physics. The attempt is to provide an insight to the present mysteries extant in physics by a revision of the how and why that is presently lacking because physicists regard referring to the unmeasurable as unscientific. In that regard, ? closely relates the measurable to the unmeasurable by the use of the measured microwave background radiation. Although an idea of the fundamental dynamic nature of the proposed foundation for physics has been attempted on other posts, a more complete explanation will be attempted on my next post to this thread. In that regard, my challenge to those who have an interest in contemplating the nature of the reality underlying physics at our level of reality, is to provide a logical concept that does not include the potential intrinsic energy essentially accompanying an ability to move.

Hoola. With regards to your posts numbers 28 and 30. My posts that refers to acceleration in excess of that expected to have occurred due to Newtonian gravitation as Pioneer spacecraft bypassed Jupiter; also the unexpected slowing observed as its distance from the Sun increased, both were explained in detail and required by ? before the launching of Pioneer. Unfortunately for the acceptance of the information regarding physics contained in ?, I was not aware of that ability until it became Pioneer's two anomalies. Also on post 17 I stated: On other posts, the reason why the Pioneer spacecraft received acceleration in excess of that expected from the Newtonian version of gravitation resulted because the gravity field of Jupiter is varied in proportion to its orbital velocity. The gravitational effect adjusts accordingly. I propose in ? that there is an unrecognised force referred to as Particle Force, requiring that irrespective of whether a star, a planet, a moon or an electron is the subject of investigation, macro or micro, all are subjected to particle force. In that regard, the Michael-Morley experiment had no hope of registering a positive result beside the presently accepted reason provided by the shortening of matter required by the Lorentz equation. A reason why matter undergoes a distortion in lateral and longitudinal dimensions in proportion to the magnitude of its velocity, is provided by ?. The above do not conform to the requirements or can be explained by applying concepts derived from GR. Presently, most information pertaining to ? have been provided in defence of ?, and to answer questions. With regards to an overall understanding of ?, I would refer all interested persons to my intention as outlined in the first paragraph of post number 29.

Hoola regarding your post 27. Your use of the word illusionary to describe the idea of the gravitational effect imagined to be acting faster than the speed of light is correct according to ?. The faster than light illusion results because the gravitation effect acting on the mass of a body such as the Earth, is dictated by the magnitude of parameters that are always instantly extant in the Earth’s immediate location. To further explain relative to ?, the complications involved with gravity and the gravitational effect, will require posting of the fundamental dynamic nature of that which I believe constitutes a logical foundation for physics at our level of reality. In that regard, postings to the thread The way I-try views energy, will be more relevant on that thread, and continued later on this thread. With regards to gravitational squeezing of the comet orbited by the spacecraft Rosetta, and as was also invoked to explain the volcanic activity on Jupiter’s moon Io, the relative close proximity of the mass of the referred to rotating comet to the center of its gravity and changing proximity to the Sun, would render a gravitational squeezing effect practically non-existent. Presently, the comet is being compelled to constantly accelerate because the gravitation effect of the Sun's gravity field increases in strength proportional to the inverse of the square of the comet's rapidly decreasing distance from the sun. The rapid change in parameters acting on the comet strictly conform to the conservation of energy and momentum laws, and consequently because of its increasing velocity, there is a need for a precursor to ensure a conservation of momentum. According to ?, that precursor compels a constant proportional reduction of the comet's mass that undergoes a phase transition to heat energy, in conformity to the inverse of the square of the distance law. ? refers to that precursor as a Gravitational Thermodynamic Effect that is responsible for physical phenomena that are presently referred to as anomalies. Thanks for your intention to reread my work and indicating that you may provide criticism.

Hoola. Thanks for providing your idea of what you speculate to be a possible gravity mechanism. The fact that you are prepared to attempt to imagine fundamental reasons for the physical realities of gravity or gravitation is indicative of an inquiring mind. I have carefully read your information provide by post number 24, and will make the following physic based comments that I hope in future will be provided regarding my work referred to by the use of ?. To avoid attempting to explain a mysterious subject by invoking other mysteries, you should provide a physical definition of what you mean by entanglement. Entanglement appears to imply that there is a close and similar association between matter particles separated by distance, but does not supply the physics pertaining to that close association supposedly extant despite the distance of separation. The definition of the word Spin requires explaining: do you refer to angular momentum about a central point of an entity, or does your use of the word Spin resemble the lack of definition resorted to by mainstream science when unable to explain a phenomenon. So like ? must eventually attempt to provide basic definitions meant by the interaction between the idea of potential intrinsic energy resulting from the speed of light motion of primeval energy; also with regards to explanations of virtual matter, gravity and gravitation etceteras when referring to their essential physical connection that provides reality to matter, any attempt to provide an understanding of the mechanics of gravity must be logically comprehensive with all other associated physical phenomena pertaining to matter.

Hoola. It would appear that you and I are the only persons continuing to post to this thread. In that regard, your most welcome questions provide little indication of how you regard the validity of ?. Consequently, I would appreciate any critical comment regarding your assessment of the statements that I have to date posted that do not conform to that of mainstream concepts. I sincerely hope that my efforts on this Forum are not doomed to the silence experienced during my 40 year effort to have my work officially or otherwise evaluated. It is my hope that after the posting of sufficient physical information regarding ?, evaluating comment will be provided by the members of this forum who are qualified to comment. . My answer to your questions of post 23, (I-try... in the most fundamental basis of reality, do you agree with john wheeler's idea that at the bottom of everything is mathematics?) is as follows. In the fundamental domain of that which ? refers to as basic physical reality, there are no observers with measuring sticks or stop watches supplying input to calculators, therefore so like all our other inventions, both the highly developed concepts of time and mathematics are a human invention and belong at our level of physical reality. I am aware that both concepts have been endlessly debated, therefore the only comment I will provide on this thread is to state that at the fundamental dynamic level of reality, constantly reoccurring rate of oscillating motion provides us with a measurement tool regarding time. Mathematics is essential to make sense of and compare the various reoccurring methods of measuring our concept time, or our many other thoughts regarding the machinations of that we refer to as nature or physics. . ? postulates that units of primeval ability of movement under pressure resulting from their speed C and short wavelength, are propagating from all directions throughout the entire universe, thereby providing a logical base underlying all of physics, that is enabled by an ability at a higher level of reality to create parameters and precursors. The mathematics of Special Relativity are provided to enable us to gain an idea of dynamic conditions pertaining to uniform motion relative to all frames of reference. Answer to question: Does your model have anything to infer on what led up to the BB?). As stated on the second last line of post 19, I leave speculation on the original creation of the physical universe to others. ? does not speculate on the original creation of primeval potential energy that is essentially intrinsic with an ability to move. ? provides information that suggests that the gravity of the many thousands of galaxies existing between Earth and the apparent distances indicated by the resolving power of our telescopes, would cause a stretching of that (fabric of space-time, gravitons or gluons, or primeval energy) which provides the realities of space similar to that of the expansion required by the postulated BB. Even so, there is a similarity between ? and BB because both require the existence of a high pressure of energy.

hoola. Further to my two posts above in reply to your questions, I would add the following statements: Similar to a chargeable battery that undergoes a cycle of charge followed by a work doing discharge then recharge, an electron can be looked upon as a microscopic rechargeable battery capable of performing work due to the manner of its creation and subsequent attributes. Also, if you critically examine the description provided regarding an electron’s cycle, you should find answers to quandaries such as the reason why an electron can describe an orbit around a nucleus and not be required or compelled to radiate in excess of its electric discharge.

Hello again hoola, and now that I can afford more time, I have reread your questions and find that some were not answered. With regards to gravity ignoring individual particles below a certain rest mass, the short answer is all particles possessing what we call rest mass are not ignored because gravity is instant by instant responsible for their continued rest mass. If you were referring to virtual particles, ? requires that a virtual particle has a short lifetime, and exists in the form of a wave phenomenon for most of that time. Their alternating particle nature only exists for a small fraction of their lifetime. Their wave nature is an almost infinitesimal version of gravity that fleetingly provides their particle like nature whilst they travel at the speed of light through that which provides the reality of space. If electrons are created indirectly from primeval energy, and electrons have an ability to generate an electric field, than primeval energy is fundamentally electric in nature, thereby providing physical reality to what Einstein referred to as the fabric of space-time. Virtual particles can appear at rest similar to that referred to as quantum foam by quantum theory, or can result from photon like bursts of energy directed in any individual direction. Regarding your question; If the warpage of space results in gravitation , why does matter warp space? And if matter does warp space, is this warpage a cause of gravitation or a symptom/component of some underlying mechanism? That which Einstein referred to as the warping of space results from gravities intermittent instant by instant spherical centripetal ingress of what ? refers to as primary energy towards the centre point of electrons. The referred to centripetal motion is balanced by the almost immediate expulsion of that maximum amassed energy from the electron in the form of its electric field. ? finds that there are two parts to an electron’s cycle, the first half of an electron’s cycle furnishes its electric charge and mass via the spherical ingress of half primary energy due to gravity, and the rebound of the imploding energy results in the electron’s outgoing electric field during the second part of an electron’s cycle. In that regard, ? finds that the scientists of the 19th century were correct regarding the nature of gravity, and the relegating of the idea of aether to the dustbin of history was a mistake, because although the spherical ingress of energy towards the central point of an electron is the maximum possible derivable via the parameters acting in an electron’s locality, the time taken per cycle approaches the maximum rate of oscillation of an electron, which is approximately 5.319 x 1022 cycles per second. The statement by the opposing scientists that the Earth would fry in a second was a valid argument because those supporting the idea of aether failed to realise or emphasise the connection between gravity and an electron’s electric field; the short period of time involved would have helped them to defend their aether concept of gravity.

physica. Thanks for the criticism and advice regarding my lack of mathematical ability. However it is a little late to be of advantage to me considering I am 92 years of age. The 40 years referred to were spent attempting to get an evaluation of my work and failed to gain even adverse criticism. You may be underestimating my knowledge regarding the basic nature of mathematics. As far as I can ascertain, my post stating that the energy pertaining to a unit of mass is equal to C2, and that statement was not contested. Also, if you care to go to the other thread Gravity by I-try, you will find a mathematical statement regarding the maximum rate at which an electron could oscillate. Also, there were no comments when I stated that the concept of relativistic mass resulted from a miss-reading of mathematics and is a physical mistake. In future, the statement should refer to relativistic momentum, and physical reasons were supplied to back that belief. Do you agree or not with those statements. I have made statements on this thread and others that don’t conform to mainstream physics; would you care to provide comments and criticism of those statements.

Hello Hoola, and before I can attempt to answer your questions of post 18 above, we would need to be communicating on the same wavelength. Mainstream science refers to gravity and gravitation as different versions of one and the same concept; matter generates a gravitational field which has an ability to exert a pull or an attraction on other matter. On other occasions, reference is made to the effects of gravity. By his statements regarding his General Theory of Relativity, Einstein indicated correctly that gravitation was not a force. However, any belief that gravitation is an illusion is false according to ?. Also, by implying that the gravity concept only results because matter is compelled to follow geodetic pathways in space, Einstein appears to have attempted to make the concepts of gravity and gravitation redundant, although later in life, he stated that was not his intention. In that regard, the ability of his geometrical based mathematics enabled him to correctly forecast that due to warping of space, light photons would be displaced from their straight line trajectory when bypassing the Sun. With regards to the above; what is your idea of virtual particles and gravitation? According to my work, gravity is a continual creative phenomenon, and electrons, (I would call them negatron) positrons and their various attributes are essentially dependent on the continual instant by instant interaction between the + and _ electron and that responsible for their original creation. With regards to that from which electrons are created, ? requires that units of primeval energy involving speed of light motion under immense pressure, are travelling from all direction throughout the entire universe. Primeval energy represents the basic reality. Virtual particles exist as an intermediate level of reality, prior to the creation of matter via the gravity process. Virtual particles exist for the shortest period of that we call time. I leave attempts to imagine the original creation such as is attempted to be provided by the BB to others to speculate on. Hoola, I hope the above provides sufficient answer to your questions.

Presented below is an abbreviated description of phenomena attempted to be explained by my work regarding the fundamental dynamic nature of matter Mainstream science refers to the gravitational mass, inertial mass, relativistic mass and invariant mass to describe various phenomena. According to ? (? Substituted to represent my work) regarding gravity and gravitation, there is only one mass and that is the mass that results from the continual interaction between matter and that responsible for its original creation. Mainstream science is quite prepared to believe in an original creation of matter with a vague reference with regards to the creation resulting soon after the Big Bang. The difference between the two concepts is with regards the following: The mainstream concept has matter created complete and self sufficient with an ability to generate and exchange electromagnetic photons, thereby influencing other distant matter. Whereas, ? requires that matter in the form of electron and positron was not created self sufficient and final, but undergoes continual instant by instant interaction with that from which it was originally created, thereby providing a time relative to an electron. In that regard, matters gravity field, gravitation effect, electric and magnetic fields and all other attributes are a result of the referred to continual interaction. I find by utilising the nominal electron radius provided by the Feynman lectures on Physics, that the maximum possible rate at which an electron could oscillate would be 5.319 x 1022 (53,191,489,361,702,127,659,374) cycles per second. The speed of light divided by the nominal electron radius, and further divided by two because there are two “time” related parts to the electron’s cycle. A reason as to why the actual frequency would be below the stated maximum is provided by the referred to work. Mainstream science also indicates the possibility of the oscillation of an electron by referring to a reoccurring short wave train, and Feynman stated that perhaps the reason oscillations of the electron have not been detected is because the rate of oscillations is more than 1012. The concept of gravity and gravitation supplied by ? forbids the existence of constantly reoccurring gravitational induced waves, and requires that Professor Cavendish measured the gravitational effect, and not gravity as has often been stated. According to ?, gravity is the link between the fundamental dynamic level of reality and the reality of physics as presently known. In post 16 of this thread, the change in mass resulting from the action of the GTE referred to that which is now called the invariant mass. The change to mass is required because matter undergoing a relative rapidly approach to and from the Sun, the parameters responsible for the replenishment of mass undergo instant by instant relative large changing that, unlike our inability to measure slow and slight approaches, become more pronounces and measurable. Any physical reason provided to explain those changes such as increasing or decreasing velocity and momentum induced by the gravitational effect, must have a logical conformity with all other explanations of phenomena pertaining to the fundamental dynamic nature of that we refer to as the mass of matter. On other posts, the reason why the Pioneer spacecraft received acceleration in excess of that expected from the Newtonian version of gravitation resulted because the gravity field of Jupiter is varied in proportion to its orbital velocity. The gravitational effect adjusts accordingly. I propose in ? that there is an unrecognised force referred to as Particle Force, requiring that irrespective of whether a star, a planet, a moon or an electron is the subject of investigation, macro or micro, all are subjected to particle force. In that regard, the Michael-Morley experiment had no hope of registering a positive result beside the presently accepted reason provided by the shortening of matter required by the Lorentz equation. A reason why matter undergoes a distortion in lateral and longitudinal dimensions in proportion to the magnitude of its velocity, is provided by ?. Although I was not aware at the time of launch of Pioneer that ? predicted the excess acceleration of Pioneer and the unexpected slowing of Pioneer with increasing distance, my prediction of phenomena to be expected to result from the spacecraft Rosetta investigation of comet 67P/C-G is also required by ?, and is confidently expected to be correct. Is that statement an indication of arrogance or simply a statement derived from the totality of the physics provided in ?. The simple fact is that my 70 years of work regarding the fundamental dynamic nature of phenomena supporting our concept of physics stands or falls depending on Rosetta’s information gleaned from its encounter with the comet it now orbits.

During my 40 year attempt to have my work evaluated, words ranging from stupid to arrogant have been relatively recently used on other forums to describe my continued belief in the value of the information it provides. Replies to my posts on this forum have been mild in comparison. I continue to attempt to contact those with an interest in subjects such as a fundamental dynamic base for physics, because my work which I will refer to in future by the use of ?, appears to provide a logical base for physics, and explanation for anomalies. Information pertaining to motion, to an ability to move and the potential intrinsic energy that accompanies and provides reality to all physical phenomena is attempted to be explained by ?. In that regard I will challenge all interested persons to provide an alternative to motion and the potential intrinsic energy resulting from the magnitude of motion with regards to the basic realities supporting our ideas of the creation of matter. According to ?, all force that we are aware of, originates from what in ?, is referred to as primeval energy, results from a universe wide ability of microscopic waves to travel at speed C. I find that as science has progressed over the years by experiment and measurement, the results regarding the production of heat energy all point in a similar direction to that of The Gravitational Thermodynamic Effect required by ?. The return of heat energy to an external recipient in a change of state from steam to water without a change of temperature, or heat energy generated by the combining of atoms to form more complex molecules, the most violent being the combining of hydrogen isotopes to form helium, all have a common cause in the form of a limit to which particles are allowed to approach each-other. In that regard, we are all familiar with the heat energy generated when hydrogen combines with oxygen to form water, or carbon combining with oxygen to form carbon monoxide or carbon dioxide. ? explains and requires that within strict limits, the changing of proximity particle to particle or star to star all demand an accounting for such changes. The almost instantaneous destruction of the British battle ship Hood during the Second World War was a dramatic example of the energy locked up in matter. Although that ship was heavily armoured with steel, it was torn to pieces while attempting to confine the rapid expansion and heat generated by the exploding unstable material confined within its hull. The rapidly expanding gasses were being successively and instantaneously brought to a stationary state resulting in a conversion of some mass to a heat energy state. Due to the large amount of expanding gas being amassed to a density that resulted in intense heat and pressure; thereby the heat weakened steel gave way in such a dramatic display of the latent energy locked in matter. Particle to particle or molecule to molecule physical contact is not allowed in nature without the explosive generation of heat energy. A gas confined within a cylinder and the pressure increasing, only the coulomb force of the electrons interact and produce some heat energy; there is no further physical contact.

Thanks Strange for your correction regarding Einstein not actually making the statement that gravitation is an illusion. I should have stated as I have on other posts that he was correct in his belief that gravitation as a Force is an illusion, and he provided the compulsion to matter to follow geodetic pathways as a dynamic physical reason for his belief. Even so, the sum total of his use of geometric mathematics relegated both gravity and gravitation to only resulting because matter is compelled to follow geodetic pathway. Geodetic pathways that result from matter’s ability to self generate that referred to curvature of space-time. As stated on other posts, my work on the subject agrees that matter can be crudely referred to as curving space-time, and explains how the curvature occurs. . I too have access to the WWW, and am aware of the many arguments and counter arguments concerning whether Einstein’s work regarding gravity amounted to a geometric description of that phenomena. Regarding your other comments; is there any physical significance backing ER,no that you can supply. Also, can you provide more details regarding your statement: It is the way we perceive the curvature of space-time. How do you perceive that which provides reality to space other than distance between entities, and do you have a definition of the fundamental nature of Time? If you do; how does it provide evidence of the physical realities inherent with the concept of a Pulling Force?