A Complete Solution to All There is

AlphaNumeric said:
There's nothing wrong with 'exercising ones mind', more people do more of it, but there's a difference between rational evaluation and logical reasoning and just making up random stuff on subjects you know nothing about. As already commented SciWriter is an ironic name because he obviously doesn't know what the scientific method is. To call that link he posted 'a science thread' is like calling vomit a delicious meal. Sure, it has little pieces in it which can be found in a good meal but that doesn't mean you'd want to eat it.

And your comments make it seem like you think you've got some insight into how to do science well and that it's some insight few other people have, but which you also see in ScWriter. Can I therefore conclude you've had great success in doing science yourself and you've contributed to the sphere of scientific research? Or are you just an 'arm chair scientist' who never did it very well in school and don't actually do science day to day and in fact couldn't pass a simple undergrad exam on anything pertaining to it? It's easy to say "Well I'd be amazing at that..... if I tried". How many people say things like "I used to be pretty good at football/baseball/athletics when I was younger. Could have gone national but I wasn't bothered...." when in fact they were never very good but they have an inflated view of their sporting capabilities?

A hack can make comments like "That's the best way to do science!" without looking liking ridiculous when they actually show they can do science. Neither you nor SciWriter have demonstrated that.

Prove it. Here's your chance to show that 'real way to educate yourself' you mentioned paid off. Let's see more than arm waving from either of you.
Click to expand...

I forgot to mention to Sciwriter that those mind exercises are best done in your own space and not on the forum, unless they can be very concise and short statements. I don't think that mind exercises work too well if there are no anchoring principles to act like a steering wheel.

I have learned lately that modern science is a lot different than the old natural philosophy, and I think I understand why it has to work that way, so I will try and substantiate any further contribution.

Introducing the maths into this thread is too early, and best not done by me, especially since I am only echoing my peers view. But I will browse the maths section and see if anything close has already been said. The statement that maths cannot describe a particular theory is false, "maths can describe a lie," that statement is a fundamental truth. This does not mean maths is wrong, it is just a hard copy.

As far as a science life is concerned, no I am not a scientist, never have been. But you already know that science includes everything, including how to make a good breakfast.
 
Gerhard Kemmerer said:
BB from nothing?
Click to expand...

Or of a change in Something Forever. We have narrowed the choices to two, or rather, logic forced it. Since one must be true, we give much more than a cursory glance to the only two options, each of which appears to be paradoxical; yet, there can be no paradoxes, for there is a reason for the universe. The 'meat' is about to arrive.

The ‘one’ (total solidity) cannot be, nor can ‘zero’ (complete vacuity); thus, the in-between sum-thing state of positive and negative has to be…
 
A Continuous Function

The constituent(s) of Something Forever (if it is) must be unitary, that of a continuous unity, with no breaks or lessor parts, such as like that of a line or a wave (a wavy line), for not anything can precede the basis, as it is/was always there, just as it is, in its essence, which ever remains, even if changing its form, as even then it is still there as what it changed into, which could be a very rapid change, as in becoming the universe, or at least the culminating part was.

For now we will wonder about how and why it had to change form, which was really of the unstructured form of the unformed changing into the more and more formed and structured, as some of that process will tell of its ultimate nature. The conservation laws must be heeded, as well as our paying attention to the symmetry that is already indicated. I will get back to this, after some other things, though here is a glimpse into the mechanics…

Fields/Energies are the most elementary somethings that we know of, so we will ever start with a wave, as that also meets the unitary and continuous requirement of the basic something, plus all the particles of the universe have some wave behavior. The basis is like a something and an anti-something, both being somethings, but opposite, such as negative and positive waves—sum-things.

We will need trigonometry. Essentially, the waves build, but meet a proven problem with bandwidth limitations, and then a universe emerges from the terrifical overload, which also explains the exact amount of matter that the universe has, which, again, as ever for everything, can only be what it is, there being no outside directives to the basis. The ‘Big Bang’ could have been everywhere that the size of the primal wave was.

We’ll have to see what interrupted Something Forever, which could only be itself, but which still allows the forever aspect, such as before (using time) or the ‘as is’ aspect (with no time). It does seem that the interruption must occur in some kind of time, unless time was created by it, yet there would still seem to be a ‘before’ and ‘after’ the change, even if all was ‘sameness’ before, as in no cause, or ‘eternal’. Hint: the impossibility of infinity is the cause, and the barest minimum of something happening would be sufficient to interrupt, to be a change, in the ‘perfect’ symmetry. In reality, everything leaks, although perhaps not in Plato’s ideal realm.
 
Gerhard Kemmerer said:
True that does leave us with two options, what do you think about multi universes, did they all start at the same time?
Click to expand...

I would say that if there is one universe then there could be others. If of different sources the universes could start at any old time. A kind of multiverse could also exist within our own universe, as separated bubbles gone off from each other. But all I have to work with here is one universe.
 
Space and Time

‘Space’ is the potentiality for anything that by its nature can exhibit or experience the characteristic ‘volume’ to so exhibit or experience it, as well as a change in its volume or location, which is displacement. How matter/energy behaves in space is its own business, we taking them to be separate from space, although occupying it. The ‘infinite potential’ of space to be anywhere and everywhere as this or that volume has itself no existence, since it is a concept, so it doesn’t conflict with the impossibility of an actual infinity, but an actual infinite volume or displacement of space would be a conflict, and is impossible. No worries, though, for the Something of Something Forever is not infinite in extent; however, it seems to have to be of eternal duration, so that will have to be accounted for somehow.

‘Time’ is the potentiality for anything that can exhibit or experience the characteristic ‘duration’ to so exhibit or experience it. However, unlike the case with space, anything and everything can exhibit or experience duration—even an idea in one’s head.

While infinite extent is only of one direction—as to the largest, the potentiality for eternal duration extends eternally into both the past and the future, so it has two directions, somewhat like that the potentiality for volume extends infinitely in all directions. But, just as with space, time is only a concept and involves no conflict with the impossibility of infinity (taken as eternity), but infinite (eternal) duration would involve a conflict, an absurdity, but not the mere potentiality of it, such as to be of this duration or that, then or now, or whatever. This is of some concern to the Something Forever idea, so we must explain it somehow, perhaps through symmetry being a necessity, and so we might combine this with the how and the why the interruption occurred that changed form into a universe, since, in any case, a ‘forever’ duration of Something without a change of the unexercised potentiality of space—a Something that has to be simple, whole, unitary, continuous, and of no volume did, in fact, change—its form changing to real-ize spacetime into existence.

The ‘eternal’ duration of the absolute primal something would have ‘completed’ if our universe had not originated, but the change necessitated and made inevitable that very origin.
 
Based on how nature operates, all things in the universe are capable of numerous options in behaviour, but will seek the place of least resistance and operate therein.

I believe the universe is also a consequence of the easiest place to exist and therefor it is the only universe, and that the unused options belong to the one event. So there are no parallel universes etc.
 
The What…

But, then, how is the original ‘something’ to be explained? And just what was it? It was, first of all, the non-condition of anything and everything to be found in the universe that followed it: matter, energy and all of the forms and ramifications. Secondly it was simple, whole, unitary, continuous, and of no volume. Its former existence consisted of the duration without change of the unexercised potentiality of space.

How does something simple yet representing everything in the universe change for into the expression of the universe? First is the problem of change from ‘little’ or ‘nothing’ to something large without, at least initially, as an infinite rate of change, which is impossible. Second is the problem of change without violating conservation.

Note: Since Emmy Noether used time symmetry to note the conservation of energy, is there no longer a law of conservation of energy if space is expanding?

We will try to see why symmetry and conservation must be so, and that the universe itself is the source of all data and knowledge as the direct reflections of reality’s underlying structure, and not data and knowledge of human creations.

The Rate of Change

To avoid a material infinity the rate of change at the moment of the change must have been finite. Rather than an instantaneous jump from a little to a lot of something, no matter how small or ‘negligible’ that something might have been, there had to be a gradual transition at a finite rate of change. Further, the rate of change of that rate of change, the change’s second derivative, at that moment had to have been finite, and so on ad infinitum for all of the further derivatives.
 
Your Complete Solution will, by definition, include the solution to the question: "What part of All There Is is its Complete Solution?"

Otherwise it won't be complete, a contradiction.
 
Of course, and it's a good time for a summary, before the finishing details…

‘Cliff Notes’:

From science, I noted that what everything in the universe has in common is waves, which is a kind of a 2D term, but in 3D they can be as vortexes, which are again, ever present, but real thrust is that they are oscillations. Since, by logic, the essence of All as one big and continuous event must carry on into the universe (only a change in form), the fact of waves/oscillations/vortexes everywhere informing us of the nature of the essence, for nothing else can come into play.

I have the primal wave to be involved with apparent nothingness (no other source), but as produced from apparent nothingness, thus making the wave to be a something, not as e/m waves being apparent nothingness itself—the default situation. It is a default ‘capability’ that forces an potentially eternal state to have a probability of changing form (into the universe), although not in a way that violates energy conservation, nor gets something from nothing, nor has an unacceptable infinite rate of change. There are plenty of examples of oscillations in higher nature, so we need not go into those, plus the goal is to add more at the low end.

The so-called ‘bang’ is one that happened ‘everywhere’, although size can lose its meaning when there is no scale, for the primal wave is as large as the universe. There must be an opposite, negative, primal wave, too, to preserve nothingness and conservation, which are really saying the same thing, and the two primal waves envelop about 10^85 similar wave patterns until meeting a bandwidth limitation (an actual infinity cannot be), at which point the universe becomes in the form that we know it. 10^85 is also the number of ‘particles’ in the universe. The primal wave and its opposite are both existent, although we might call them a ‘something’ and an ‘anti-something’.

The primals are much like a giant neutron, and this gives rise to two and only two stable matter particles in free space, the electron(-) and the proton(+), because there are only two ways to make them, as one is of the wave envelope’s oscillation and one is of the wave’s oscillation, both being of a cosine form, as those derivatives and their derivatives do not have an infinite rate of change. Other trig functions were ruled out. Only cosine was left (forced). Forced default conditions ever wave us on.

Everything has a wave/vortex nature, even humans. we, as whirlpools, taking things in (and out) being just longer lasting than a little whirlpool in a stream. All that happens in the universe is the unfolding of one large event rather than local causes and effects that we only can claim as such (wrongly) because we make boundary points upon what is continuous.

Note that the basis of All has to be a simple, continuous function, and a wave is the only such. We can’t have a basis with parts making it up, for then it wouldn't be the basis, the parts having come before.

Another, forced, key is that infinity can only be potential, not actual, and that supposed ‘eternal’ situations have to change, or not anything would have happened. And of course that there is literally nothing to make anything of

All I needed was the math part for all this, and I found it from Roger Ellman.

The ‘needle’ that we were forced to find in the haystack is what knits the fabric of the universe with the thread of the wave. Science (the good part) informs us, logic guides us, math provides, and the necessitated ‘default condition’ ever waves us on.

The aim is toward the base existent, but further on up there are new spins (vortexes) arriving, too, such as, say, a particle sends an influence to a second particle, which then has a response towards where the first particles was (but it has moved on a bit), and so this induces a whirl effect, as the first particle also may respond to where the second particle just was (but has moved in the meanwhile).
 
The Equation (Ellman’s)

That requirement means that the form of the change had to have been either a natural exponential or some form of sinusoid. We seek the form of the change as a function U(t) , the ‘U’ being for universe.

The only possible form for the manner in which our universe began is a sinusoidal oscillatory form. Oscillations, waves, are ubiquitous in our universe because the universe began from an initial such oscillatory form. There simultaneously had to have arisen an identical-in-form but opposite-in-amplitude oscillation so that the pair balanced out.
The function must not be open-ended, that is it cannot ever have an infinite amplitude, and the function must smoothly match the U(t)=0 ‘change’ condition at t=0, as 13.57 billion years ago.

What about:

U(t)=0, for t<0 and U(t)=t^2, for t=0 and t>0, where ‘t’ is time.

Well, the first derivatives, for before and after ‘t’ are 0 (unstated) and 2t; the second derivatives are 0 and 2 (discontinuous); and the third derivative, which is the rate of change of the second derivative must be infinite at t=0 to produce the instantaneous jump from 0 to 2. That cannot have happened in the real universe, so the function fails.

One can conceive of the idea of a function for which all derivatives are non-zero and no two are alike (in a general sense analogous to the pattern of digits in an irrational number), but it is not likely that such a function can exist. In any case the more certain and more simple way to achieve all non-zero derivatives is a repeating derivative function, such as:

dU(t)/ dt = ± U(t) [First derivative = the original function] or
d^2 U(t) / dt^2 ± U(t) [Second derivative = the original function]

It is a function that might seem usable, meeting the repeating derivative function is of the natural exponent, ε, is:

U(t)=0, for t<0 and t=0
U(t)= εt–1, for t>0 = t + t^2 / 2! + t^3 / 3! + …

which does have zero value at t=0 and otherwise meets the derivatives requirement.

Of the functions that meet the requirement that the second derivative equal the original function per equation there are just a few, only one of which, as Cos(t) - 1, remains, as the others are open-ended (going to infinite value) or the tangent to U(t) at t=0 is not identical to the tangent to the function for t < 0, which is the horizontal t-axis, meaning not zero at t-0.

Well, we already knew that the conditions had to be a forced default. The other candidates were

εt - 1, Cosh(t) - 1, Sinh(t), and Sin(t).

So, combining the times and adding in a frequency parameter, ‘f’, we have

U(t) = U0·[1 - Cos(2π·f·t)],
with U0 being an amplitude parameter.

Again to maintain conservation and to avoid getting something from nothing, there is an identical-in-form but opposite-in-amplitude oscillation so that the pair balances out, so, then:

U(t) = ± U0·[1 - Cos(2π·f·t)]

The universe coming into being had to avoid an infinity of amplitude, an infinite of rate of change, and had to maintain conservation.
 
Why Did it Happen?

A duration is the period of time that a particular state or set of conditions persists. The duration is terminated by a change, which change also initiates a new duration. In the universe change is ubiquitous. It is the constant and continuous stream of change that makes durations able to be measurable. Before the beginning of the universe a duration was in process even though it was not able to be measurable. The beginning of the universe was the first change and it terminated the original primal duration.

The probability of the happening of such an event as the universe beginning in the manner described above was/is extremely small. But the event was/is not impossible, since it happened. Furthermore, in the absence of that event occurring there was an extremely large duration of opportunity in which that extremely small probability could operate. In the absence of the beginning the original duration would have been infinite and that infinite opportunity operated on by minute, but non-zero, probability results in absolute certainty. The beginning of the universe could not avoid happening eventually.

Size or amount of time are of no meaning here because there is nothing to which they can be compared or by which they can be measured. Whatever amount of change occurred is what occurred. Whatever time it took, or went on for, whatever its oscillatory frequency was, is what happened. Twice as much or half as much have no meaning.
 
Deductions

There are now three conclusions about the initial oscillatory U0·[1 - Cos(2π·f·t)] form can now be had:

The universe of today must be an on-going evolved consequence of its beginning, of the initial oscillatory form;

The frequency, f, of the sinusoidal oscillation was, and is, very large; and

The nature of the change is one of concentration or density of the something that is oscillating.

The frequency would have to be either very large or very small, high enough so that it is not detected or noticed by us in every day life or so low that it appears to us as no change at all in our experience.

It has already that the only possible form for the manner in which the universe began is a sinusoidal oscillatory form because oscillations, waves, are ubiquitous in our universe.

If the frequency of the initial oscillation were so small that it appears to us as no change at all then it would completely eliminate oscillations playing any significant part in the behavior of the universe as we know it. Therefore, the frequency must have been very large, so rapid compared to our perception that we do not notice the oscillation at all.

The change can hardly be one of gross size if it is going on right now at high frequency as has just been concluded. One can conceive of the fundamental ‘substance’, the ‘something’ of the universe flashing into and out of existence from a zero to a maximum density or concentration in an oscillatory fashion at a rate so high that we neither detect nor notice it at all; but, it is not possible to entertain a concept of reality flashing from zero to full size, a size that includes ourselves and our environment, in such a fashion.

Besides, the reality that we know is not “flashing into and out of existence ....” Our reality is more the oscillation itself than what is oscillating and the continuing oscillation is our steady, constant reality.

Thus the interruption that gave us our universe was the starting of an oscillation, present to us at a very high frequency, and of U0·[1 - Cos(2π·f·t)] form, of the density, as the variation will be hereafter referred to, of the medium.
 
So then…

What about the identical-in-form but opposite-in-amplitude oscillation that maintains conservation and what is the medium, what is that which is oscillating?

All so far has applied both to the ‘negative’ oscillation, -U(t), and the ‘positive’ oscillation, +U(t), because the exact same reasoning as for +U(t) applies to -U(t) and, after all, they are not distinguishable in the discussion. The terms ‘+’ and ‘-’ are merely terms of convenience for two equal form opposite magnitude unknown things. We probably tend to think of our universe as the ‘+’, but that is meaningless and irrelevant. There can be no objective designation of +U(t) and -U(t), no way to identify one versus the other. Both had to appear and our universe cannot avoid being the evolved result of both.

The question could arise as to whether +U(t) and –U(t) are co-located or separate. The answer is that they must be co-located. Their function relative to each other is to maintain overall conservation from the beginning. That conservation must be maintained locally and generally, which requires that they occupy the same space. They initially are identical except for their +/- oppositeness and therefore each must obey the same laws thereafter. Those laws practice conservation, and consequently conservation will be maintained if the beginning conserved it, which it did.

Since +U(t) and -U(t) are co-located, the universe that we know and exist in is the combined integrated result of both +U(t) and -U(t). The ‘+’ and ‘-’ electric charges of our universe, in both matter in protons and electrons and in anti-matter as anti-protons and positrons, must derive from that aspect of the beginning. This is rather akin to the yin and yang of the tao in oriental philosophy.

The question of what the medium is can only be answered in terms of its characteristics, what it does and how. It is useless to attempt to use human terms (gas, jelly, field, aether, or whatever) to describe that which so far underlies the things our vocabulary was developed to describe. The characteristics of the medium are its definition. The medium is:

A continuous entity, not a mass of ‘particles’ nor anything having parts;

Simple and uniform throughout, except, of course, for the density variations, the oscillation; and

Of minimum ‘tangibility’ or ‘substantiality’.

The problems remaining to be resolved are:

Why did the effects of the equation not cancel? and

How did the beginning produce the Big Bang and evolve into our universe of today?
 
First, to Help Resolve—

The Development of the Unified Field Concepts
(from Roger Ellman)

Electric Field

Nothing can travel faster than the speed of light, c. Given two static electric charges separated and with the usual Coulomb force between them, if one of the charges is moved the change can produce no effect on the other charge until a time equal to the distance between them divided by c has elapsed.

For that time delay to happen there must be something flowing from the one charge to the other at speed c and the charge must be the source of that flow.

The Coulomb effect is radially outward from the charge, therefore every charge must be propagating such a flow radially outward in all directions from itself, which flow must be the ‘electric field’.

Motion of Charge and ‘At Rest’

Comparing two such charges, one moving at constant velocity relative to the other, at least one of the charges is moving with some velocity, v.
The flow (of ‘field’) outward from that charge must always travel at c. Forward it would go at [c + v] if propagated at c from the source charge already moving that way at v. Therefore, it must be sent forward from the charge at [c - v] so that it will travel at c when the v of its source charge is added. Flowfwd=[c–v]

Analogously, rearward it would go at speed [c - v] if propagated at c from the source charge already moving the opposite way at v. Therefore, it must be emitted rearward from the charge at [c + v] so that it will travel at speed c when the v of the source charge in the opposite direction is subtracted. Flowrwd=[c+v]

But, that rearward – forward differential means that the direction and speed of motion can be determined by looking at the propagation pattern of the flow as propagated by the charge.

And, if the pattern were the same in all directions then the charge would be truly ‘at rest’, which means that there is an absolute ‘at rest’ frame of reference.

Unification of Fields

Except for the kind of field, all of the preceding applies in the same way and with the same conclusions for magnetic field and gravitational field as for electric field.

Therefore, either a particle that exhibits all three such fields, as for example a proton or an electron, is a source of three separate and distinct such flows, one for each field, or there is only a single such flow which produces all three effects: electric, magnetic, and gravitational.

The only reasonable conclusion is that electric, magnetic, and gravitational field are different effects of the same sole flow from the source particles.

Sources and Their Decay

The flow is not inconsequential. Rather, it accounts for the forces, actions and energies of our universe. For a particle to emit such a flow the particle must be a source of whatever it is that is emitted outward. The particle must have a supply of it.

The process of emitting the flow from a particle must deplete the supply resource for the particle’s emitting further flow, must use up part of its supply, else we would have something-from-nothing and a violation of conservation.

It must be concluded that an original supply of that which is flowing came into existence at the beginning of the universe and has since been gradually being depleted at each particle by its on-going outward flow.

That Which is Flowing

The flow is a property of contemporary particles. Those particles are evolved successors to the original oscillations with which the universe began. Then, that which is flowing is the same original primal ‘medium’, the substance of the original oscillations at the beginning of the universe.

Since it is flowing outward from the myriad particles of the universe simultaneously and that flow is interacting with myriad others of those particles without untoward interference, the ‘medium’ must be extremely intangible for all of that to take place, any one particle’s flow flowing largely freely through that of other particles, as intangible as, well, ‘field’.
 
More on Field, but Ever Onto the Answer to the Beginning

Before the universe began there was no universe as now. Immediately afterward there was the initial supply of medium to be propagated by particles. How can one get from the former to the latter while: (1) not involving an infinite rate of change, and (2) maintaining conservation?

The only form that can accommodate the change from more-or-less nothing to something much in a smooth transition without an infinite rate of change is the oscillatory form of equation, below.

U0·[1 - Cos(2π·f·t)]

The only way that such an oscillation can be in existence without violating conservation is for there simultaneously to be into existence a second oscillation, the negative of first equation, as follows.

-U0·[1-Cos(2π·f·t)]


That is, the two simultaneous oscillations must have been such as to yield a net of not anything, the prior starting point, when taken together.

The Oscillatory Medium Flow ≡ Electric charge and field

The initial medium supply of each particle, each being a direct ‘descendant’ of the original oscillation at the universe’s beginning, must be oscillatory in form per the two equations. Therefore the radially outward flow from each particle is likewise an oscillatory medium flow of the form of equations.

The flow is radially outward from the particle, therefore, the oscillation of the medium supply of each particle is a spherical oscillation. The particle can also be termed a center-of-oscillation, which term will also be used here.

The amplitude, U0, of the [1-Cosine] form oscillation is the amplitude of the flow emitted from the source particle, which flow corresponds to the electric field. Thus the oscillation amplitude must be the charge magnitude of the source particle—the fundamental electric charge, q, in the case of the fundamental particles, the electron and the proton. Then, the conservation-maintaining distinction of amplitude +U0 versus amplitude -U0 must be the positive / negative charge distinction.

The frequency, f, of the [1-Cosine] form oscillation must then correspond to the energy and mass of the source particle, that is the energy of the oscillation is E = h·f and the mass is m = E/c^2 = h·f / c^2.

While it does not pertain to the universe's beginning, because the outward medium flow from each particle must deplete the source particle’s remaining supply of medium for further propagation, the amplitude magnitude, U0, must exponentially decay. That is, it must be of the form of the equation: ⎢U(t)⎢ = U0 · ε^-t/τ

Medium Emission and Medium Flow

When a charge is at rest, medium is emitted by it and flows outward in the same manner in all directions, but, when the charge is in motion at constant velocity, v, the flow forward is emitted at speed [c-v] and rearward at [c+v] per above. There can be only one frequency, f, in the [1-Cosine(2π·f·t)] form oscillation of the emitted flow regardless of whether it is directed forward, rearward or sideward. Therefore, to obtain the slower speed, [c - v], emitted forward the wavelength forward, λfwd, must be shorter so that the speed at which the flow is emitted, = f·λfwd , will be slower. The case is analogous rearward where λrwd is longer in order for the speed, [c+v], to be greater.

In all directions from the moving charge, including any that are partially sideward plus partially forward or rearward, the speed of emission and the wavelength emitted will be the resultant of the sideward plus forward or rearward components of a ray in that direction.

The absolute rate of flow outward of the emitted medium must be at speed c. Forward that comes about because the forward speed of the charge, v, adds to the forward speed at which the medium is emitted, [c-v], resulting in the medium flowing at the speed of the sum, speed = v+[c-v] = c.

That speed increase raises the [1 - Cosine(2π·f·t)] form oscillation frequency (per the Doppler Effect). Thus forward medium flow speed is c = ffwd·λfwd . Analogously rearward the speed of medium flow is at c = frwd·λrwd.

In all directions from the moving charge, including any that are partially sideward plus partially forward or rearward, the speed of flow will be c and the frequency and wavelength of the flow will be the resultant of the sideward plus forward or rearward components of a ray in that direction.

Magnetic Field

A charge at rest exhibits the electrostatic effect but not the magnetic effect. That charge has a spherically uniform pattern of [1 - Cosine(2π·f·t)] form oscillatory medium emission and flow outward.

A charge in motion exhibits the magnetic effect in addition to the electrostatic effect. That charge has a pattern of emission and outward flow of medium that is cylindrically symmetrical about the direction of motion but that varies in wavelength and frequency from ffwd·λfwd forward to frwd·λrwd rearward.

The electrostatic [Coulomb’s Law] effect is due to charge location. The magnetic [Ampere’s Law] effect is due to charge motion. Clearly, then, the electrostatic effect is due to the spherically uniform medium flow from the charge and the magnetic effect is due to the change in shape of that medium flow pattern caused by the charge's motion.

Electro-Magnetic Field

There is a continuous emission of medium in [1-Cosine(2π·f·t)] oscillatory form from each charge, which medium flows outward, away, forever. Constant velocity motion of a charge produces a change in the frequency and wavelength of that medium flow.

Changes in the velocity of the charge cause corresponding further changes in the medium's oscillatory form as successive increments of medium are emitted and flow outward from the charge. Earlier increments so changed propagate on outward away from the charge, forever, at c. The stream of outward flowing medium carries a history of the motions of the source charge.

Propagating electromagnetic field is the carrying of both of those field aspects as an imprint on the otherwise uniform medium flow from the charged particle, an imprint analogous to the modulation of a carrier wave in radio communications.
Electro-magnetic field is caused by acceleration / deceleration of charge, that is by changes in the charge velocity.

Therefore:
The changing electric and magnetic fields of electro-magnetic field actually are form changes imprinted onto the outgoing medium flow and carried passively with it [analogous to modulation of a carrier wave in radio communications].
Because all medium flow is spherically outward in all directions from its source charge, changes in it, caused by changes in the source velocity, propagate outward in all directions. Those medium flow changes are the changing electric and changing magnetic fields of electro-magnetic field.

It is not the speed of light which is the fundamental constant, c, light being a mere modulatory imprint on medium flow. It is the speed of medium flow which is the fundamental constant, c.

Gravitational Field

As pointed out earlier above, the frequency, f, of the [1 - Cosine] form oscillation corresponds to the mass of the source particle. Therefore the frequency aspect of the radially outward medium flow is the ‘gravitational field.’
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top