Particle & Field, MIcro & Macro Mix
Auxiliary to 'gravity is caused by space expansion energy'.
Micro & Macro Mix
----------------------------------------------------------------
A positive charge omnidirectionally emits an outgoing electric force, and, a negative charge omnidirectionally absorbs an incoming electric force (paraphrased).
Indeed. Moreover. Sometimes opposites do attract, and sometimes they repel. Newton says gravity may be an impelling - or a repelling - force (What this record calls, 'The gravitational alternative'). Einstein says gravity (the cosmological constant) is - at least sometimes - a repelling force; adding furthermore that gravity may be both a repelling and an impelling force.
Truly Yours tends to observe that gravity is usually a repelling force, on or near major gravitational masses, and an impelling (aquatic, terrestrial and atomospheric) tidal force (for example) at greater distances (And with 'microcosmic tides' interacting between subatomic 'particles'). Summarizing that, since Newton introduced what he fully acknowledged as a mysterious, occult force of gravitation, usually - but not militantly - to be thought of as an impelling force, this record sees no reason why Einstein is disallowed from introducing a repelling force acting parallel to Newton's impelling force ('For every action, there is a reaction, equal & opposite')... Summing up a tandem (Newton-Einstein) repelling and impelling force, with each man offering major contributions to understanding the universe; neither of which men - or forces - are mutually exclusive.
The dilemma of macro gravity in alternating contention and agreement with micro phenomena -presents a qualified history...
(Circa 1900 thru 1930 and ever since).. on Max Planck's - Helmholtz inspired, Rubens confirmed - 'Quantum Mechanics'.
The 1897 dated observation of black body radiation led Planck to attempt to observe an invariable increase in entropy, which resulted in null thought and laboratory experiments; leading to Planck's 1900 revision of Boltzmann's alternately continuous and discontinuous statistical interpretaton of the 2nd law of thermodynamics (later paralleled by Heisenberg's Principle of Indeterminacy).
It is only obscurely known or recognized that, although there are indeed opposing - J.J. Thompson-electron-launched - arguments on this subject, Einstein and Planck were in the same camp, along with Schrodinger, regarding the much controvesied if not misunderstood 'problem' of microcosmic 'continuity' of wave ('mechanics')-field theory, and 'discontinuity' of so called 'particles'.
Leading to an undrained, ever rising swamp of determinacy and indeterminacy, dog-paddling entanglement, water ripple & (Copenhagen Christened) shotgun pellets rolling sideways and speeding linearly through vertical and horizontal slits, in the ever imposing shadow of assumptive continuous wave eclipsed by the non-prevailing 'ultraviolet catastrophe' and the newly incumbent black body radiation - vocabularized in electrical theory and thermodynamics: introducing the circle of broken lines forming a sought-after curve but still leading to an apparently non discardable discontinuous 'quantum leap', because energy in discontinuous portions cannot be infinitely divided; establishing that radiant energy is not quantitatively infinite - in unequal units, Planck resolved that the frequency of the considered discontinuous wave is directly related to its duration, or more specifically, its length.
This was unexpected because it defined a seemingly antithetical, self contradicting equality in discontinuous and continuous energy packets - 'quantum', which, literally translated from Latin equals 'what quantity'. It came to pass that, depending on how these units are measured and otherwise evaluated, they alternately manifest as 'waves', and, as 'particles' - continuity, and discontinuity.
By and by from this, arose a further quandary of defining the dynamics of what was projected, compared to the method or conditions of projection; such methods and conditions are still developing and the subject of much heated and cooled contention and agreement.
Quantum Mechanics (perhaps better understood as 'quantum dynamics') was not altogether contradictory to the at that time, much established continuous wave theory - often confirmed in delicate laboratory observations as well as more pedestrian observations such as the often exemplified fact that a swinging pendulum loses its momentum in a continuous declination of kinetic energy...
Quantum Mechanics contests
(if not gainsays) this.
Contingent black body radiation occurs in discontinuous packages of microcosmically indivisible energy units of erg seconds, where the individual, indivisible unit is designated as 'h', for the numerically expressed value of:
.0000000000000000000000000066, or, 6,6 x 1027
Establishing that ordinary sizes as perceived by human observers were not the end measure of what was occuring in the much smaller realms of physicality and dynamics.
Max Planck had not excluded the previous standards of observation and measurement, whereas, he certainly had established that the characteristics of the larger physical world were not aligned with those of the smaller physical world, and that the Latin statement, ut infra, ut supra and conversely ('as above, so below'), was a generalisation, but not a law.
Atomic (microcosmic) physics was understood to be in its early stages and the Planck dynamics were a portention that many other unexpected discoveries were due, as the science of observing and measuring microcosmic reality progressed. The evolutions of which were alternately championed and challenged, by Planck, Rutherford, Einstein, Bohr, Shroedinger and a retinue of others...
(It may be correctly observed and stated that: 'Long posts' are generally discouraged in most every communications exchange on the net? In any event, this location is subjecting the large and small, pro and con considerations for a TOTAL FIELD THEORY)
There is a trend of asking big questions, parallel to short attention spans reserved for and impatiently projected upon whatever - however abbreviated - extended response
(Hence, the relative abbreviation of this dissertation?).
Moving right along while shifting gears:
It's been said by this record before and may be called upon to be repeated any number of times:
There are two kinds of math. Metric, and, non-metric. The first is obliged to be responsive to and directly determined by measurably real conditions; with or without mathematical descriptions of them. On the other hand...
Non-metric math is, for example, not obliged to conform to any existentially (conditionally, physically, spatially, dynamically, phenomenologically) manifest state or process of observed, measurable reality. Been said before: an exemplary pair of non-metric mathematical formulas can be equally correct, while reciprocally and mutually disproving each other. Numbers only. Who needs reality to do non-metric mathematics? Has little or nothing to do with 'science'.
('If you can't explain it to your grandmother, you don't understand it.' - Einstein)
http://forums.delphiforums.com/EinsteinGroupie
To be continued.
