Quantum Wave Cosmology updates 2009

[quantum_wave]

 

[quantum_wave]

 

[AlphaNumeric]

Ask a question if you want.

Give one phenomenon you can model to within 10% of measured experimental results and demonstrate how you derive such dynamics from the base postulates of QWC. Infact, what are the base postulates of QWC?

You keep mentioning waves, density, things spreading out and you've provided diagrams. Give some justification for them, what quantitative stuff do you have backing that up? If you don't have anything quantitative explain why anything you say in terms of derived results can be trusted, given qualitative wordy logic is by its very nature imprecise and known to be flawed. For example, qualitatively Newton's gravity explains the motion of Mercury. Quantitatively it's out by a factor of 2 in terms of the precession of the planet. Details are essential.

 

[quantum_wave]

Give one phenomenon you can model to within 10% of measured experimental results ...

The scientific community hasn't been able to quantify anything in QWC yet. We don't have the tools yet to look at things at the level where I suggest quantum action occurs and so they are ideas that we don't know how to falsify yet.

... and demonstrate how you derive such dynamics from the base postulates of QWC.

I think this is answered by the fact that we can't make observations at the level where quantum action would have to be taking place in order to confirm or falsify that quantum action exists.

Infact, what are the base postulates of QWC?

Here are some of the basic ideas of Quantum Wave Cosmology. Tell me if any of them could be considered postulates IYHO.

The presence of mass is established and maintained by quantum action within the mass.

Mass is established and maintained by the high density spot phase of quantum action.

Gravity is caused by the process of quantum action and emanates from mass as negative energy density.

Gravity is caused by the precipitous reduction of space occupied by a quantum of energy that accumulates in the overlap of spherically expanding quantum waves. Those quantum waves emanate from the high density spots that establish the presence of mass.

Positive energy density and negative energy density are relative terms that represent deviations from the average energy density of space. The total energy in any space is always positive.

The presence of mass is positive energy density represented by high density spots that form during the process of quantum action.

Gravity is caused by negative energy density that emanates from mass and expands spherically away from mass (presumably at the speed of light).

The negative energy density emanating from mass leaves an expanding low energy density corridor in space as the mass moves through space. The corridors represent the history of the movement of mass through space. The corridors of different objects passing through space overlap and the overlaps combine the negative energy densities creating a lower energy density in the space where they overlap.

As mass moves through space and encounters these combined low energy density corridors, the movement of that mass is affected because mass moves toward the path of lowest energy density in space.

You keep mentioning waves, density, things spreading out and you've provided diagrams. Give some justification for them, what quantitative stuff do you have backing that up? If you don't have anything quantitative explain why anything you say in terms of derived results can be trusted, given qualitative wordy logic is by its very nature imprecise and known to be flawed. For example, qualitatively Newton's gravity explains the motion of Mercury. Quantitatively it's out by a factor of 2 in terms of the precession of the planet. Details are essential.

Justification? Because of the clear relationship between mass and gravity I think there is a common explanation for the cause of mass and the cause of gravity. Logically, quantum action provides a possible common cause for both phenomena.

You want "quantitative stuff" as you say? I am presenting these ideas to the community in hopes that some brainstorming with smart people will lead to some ways to quantify or falsify QWC.

"Explain why anything I say in terms of derived results can be trusted ..."? My interest here is to present some ideas for discussion, and make a word salad case for them that interests members of the community enough to stimulate discussion of the ideas.

 

[quantum_wave]

How is the connection between aether, mass and gravity explained?

The aether is energy. It is not quantized energy, but instead it is the product of energy quantization. Energy quantization takes place within mass.

The presence of mass is established and maintained by the high density spots that are produced during the process of quantum action. The energy that makes up the aether is made up of quantum waves with negative energy density that corresponds with the positive energy of mass. That negative energy has emanated from mass at the speed of light in all directions in the form of spherically expanding quantum waves.

Quantization within mass has a push and a pull phase. The wave form has a trough of negative energy from the pull phase and a peak of positive energy from the push phase.

This “pull and push” is a spherical wave form emanated during one complete quantum action. The pull trough precedes the push crest, and when the wave from emanates from mass it is quickly netted into the energy density of the aether surrounding the mass. The aether surrounding the mass is the emanating negative energy from the mass as well as the negative energy density finally arriving at the mass from distant masses. It is all netted out right there in the space surrounding the mass. The path of lowest energy density surrounding the mass is the path that mass takes through space.

The net is always negative energy because during each quantum period of action within the mass enough energy to maintain the mass is extracted from the push energy and the aether. The quantum period of the mass is the length of time it takes for the entire mass to be refreshed as a new set of high density spots forms; one quantum period. But since some energy is emanated during that quantum period from absorbed aether in a previous quantum period, the amount of energy need to refresh all of the high density spots must supplemented by pulling in aether to replace the emanation. The mass always owes a debt of energy to the aether to repay it for the energy it needs to maintain itself.

As said, the aether contribution to the refreshing of these high density spots during a single quantum period equals the negative energy emanation. Though the net energy of a single quantum action is zero (+e represents one quantum in the high density spot which comes from –e which means one quantum of energy was contained in the collapse that creates the high density spot) the net energy of the emanation during a single quantum period is negative because of subsequent containment of the quantum waves as they pass through the mass. See the recap of “quantum action” (below) that mentions the time delay associated with containment.


Recap/update of Quantum Action

The presence of mass is established and maintained by a force called quantum action. Quantum action is a process in nature going on in the infinitesimal realm where we can’t see it. Quantum action has six distinct phases that utilize energy, space and time to cause mass and gravity.

Phase one is formation. Within mass, a quantum of energy forms from the overlap of preceding quantum waves. That quantum of energy occupies an initial volume of space defined by the overlap.

The second phase is quantum collapse. This is attributed to natural causes operating at the quantum level of order that are undetectable. The collapse is characterized by a precipitous decline in the volume of space occupied by the quantum of energy. This is the pull phase. The energy in the initial space collapses into a high density spot that occupies an infinitesimal space. The effect of the collapse is to pull the energy from the surrounding space into the potential void left by the collapse. When I think of this I visualize the pull to have an infinite reach as if a tiny sink hole has formed in the universe and the universe starts to fall into it until the high density spot forms. The collapse forms the trough of the quantum wave form, referred to as negative energy in QWC.

The third phase is marked by a point in time when the collapse ends and the expansion begins. This point in time occurs when the energy participating in the collapse reaches a limit of energy density. As the effective radius of the collapsing quantum declines, the energy density in the collapsing quantum space increases precipitously as it approaches the maximum possible energy density. The phase three point in time occurs simultaneously with the attainment of maximum energy density. At this phase three point in time the collapse bounces into expansion. It is said to bounce off of the limit of maximum energy density in nature because infinite energy density is the other alternative and infinite energy density is impossible in QWC.

The fourth phase of quantum action is spherical expansion. When the bounce occurs, the dense state energy of the high density spot utilizes its potential expansion energy that was built up during the collapse to send the quantum of energy into spherical expansion at the speed of light. This phase four spherical expansion leads to the fifth phase of quantum action.

The fifth phase is containment. Containment is a subsequent event that affects the energy content of the expanding spherical wave. As the wave traverses the distance through the mass toward the aether surrounding the mass it encounters subsequent quantum actions that are occurring in its path. Some of the energy of the expanding quantum wave is caught up in the quantum collapses that are occurring as the wave passes and so some of our original quantum of energy is delayed, i.e. contained in subsequent quantum action.

The sixth phase of quantum action occurs as the remnant of the energy in our quantum wave emanates from mass and is merged with the net energy emanation from the mass into the aether in all directions.

1, 2, and 3 represent energy quanta within a tiny mass. #3 is the freshest quantum and is expanding and overlapping with 1 & 2 which are quantum wave remnants from which #3 it formed. The aether plays a role in supplying the energy to the new high density spots that form. The aether overlaps with expanding waves from the mass, and aether intrusion occurs where aether is pulled into high density spots during the collapse phase of quantum action.
- - - - -

The Earth does not just move through the aether, it moves in the path of the lowest energy density surrounding the mass. Most of the low energy density is emanating from the mass itself in real time, but the contribution to the surrounding aether that is arriving in the corridors of negative energy density reaching the mass from distant masses determines the low energy density path.

I helps to explain that in QWC, energy has always existed but no mass has always existed. The energy that establishes the presence of mass came from the aether during a period of matter formation that takes place in every expanding arena. Ultimately, all mass is finally negated back into energy and when that occurs, the exact amount of energy that existed to maintain the presence of the mass is returned to the aether as dense state energy. All of the energy in the form of mass that enters into the composition of a big crunch is negated meaning it is converted back to dense state energy in a big crunch.

While the mass exists, the net emanation is negative because of the time delay while quantum action takes place. Energy enters the mass from the aether to feed the high density spots that form within mass due to quantum action and then that energy experiences a delay before it is emanated back to the aether. The length of the net time delay within mass is equal to the energy in the mass and equal to the total energy extracted from the aether which accumulated as the mass formed. Larger mass has a longer delay and a larger negative energy emanation into the aether.

 

[AlphaNumeric]

The scientific community hasn't been able to quantify anything in QWC yet. We don't have the tools yet to look at things at the level where I suggest quantum action occurs and so they are ideas that we don't know how to falsify yet.

Firstly, the scientific community is unaware of QWC and even if it were it'd be completely uninterested in it. Secondly, quantum mechanical (ie non-classical) phenomena occur on scales currently measurable. Thirdly, simply having a non-falsifiable concept doesn't mean it's right or worth pursuing. Religion springs to mind as an obvious example.

Other than the fact you prefer it as a conceptual view of Nature, there's absolutely zero reason to pursue it.

I think this is answered by the fact that we can't make observations at the level where quantum action would have to be taking place in order to confirm or falsify that quantum action exists.

How does the fact we supposedly can't view these processes mean you don't have to justify your explaination of those processes or your predictions of those processes?

You're basically saying you don't have to give any reason or development or framework to your claims until we can observe them. Stellar logic.

Tell me if any of them could be considered postulates IYHO.

No, they are claims, not postulates. They are predictions, results of more fundamental things.

Take special relativity as an example. If any inertial observer sees the speed of light as being the same velocity and everyone agrees on the outcome of experiments then you get such things as time and length dilation. They are the predictions of the two postulates. Further more, they can be rigorously derived in a concrete way which allows them to be tested. You provide no logical framework at all.

Justification? Because of the clear relationship between mass and gravity I think there is a common explanation for the cause of mass and the cause of gravity.

Why should the explaination be common? Why should everything in the universe be instantly understandable to someone who spends absolutely zero time examining the universe beyond the end of their nose? You're saying it's logical to expect the universe, from the smallest length in a nucleus to the superclusters which span the billions of light years of the cosmos all behave like phenomena experienced in the every day life of a person living in a 1st world country in some tiny tiny tiny tiny speck in said cosmo.

Yeah, that's bloody logical.

Logically, quantum action provides a possible common cause for both phenomena.

Firstly, quantum mechanics is not a straight forward or simple thing. Secondly, given nothing you've ever posted shows you can do any quantum mechanics, mainstream or otherwise, you are simply doing the crackpot version of "Let's call that explaination 'God'" that religious people do when faced with a question they can't answer. And thirdly, you have yet to demonstrate anything resembling a single coherent model, actual quantum mechanics or otherwise, can explain both phenomena. You can't provide me with a single phenomenon you can actually describe.

You want "quantitative stuff" as you say? I am presenting these ideas to the community in hopes that some brainstorming with smart people will lead to some ways to quantify or falsify QWC.

And what if said smart people tell you you've got absolutely nothing to develop, nothing coherent and even if said smart people wanted to do QWC there's nothing for them to actually get involved with? I asked you for your postulates, you couldn't provide sound ones. You can't provide me with anything rigorous or precise so anything I might develop might not be inline with what you'd consider QWC, so how can anything be developed if there's no way of checking consistency or rules/postulates to follow?

Consider string theory. It's basic premise is "A quantum field theory of one dimensional objects whose oscillation modes are quantised and can be both fermionic and bosonic". From this you can derive predictions about the structure of space-time, derive general relativity, get a UV complete theory of quantum gravity, model QCD-like systems. Tons and tons of stuff. Because its premise is clearly and simply stateable in terms of precisely defined concepts. If someone asks me to give the dynamics of the strings I just provide them with the Nambu-Goto action, from which basically all string theory has followed (though it's taken 30 years). You have nothing like that. It's impossible to develop your work because I could pull a result out of my arse and the only way to see if its QWC or not is to ask you because you cannot provide me with a you-independent definition of your 'work'.

Prom and I are about as close to the said smart people you want on these forums. Two theoretical physics postgrads with published work. Neither of us think you're going anywhere or have anything. Now given you didn't want to hear that you'll ignore us till you find someone who tells you what you want to hear. And there in lies the proof you're a crank with nothing to say.

 

[quantum_wave]

Actually I don't see any reason to trust your judgment. You rejected QWC and called me an idiot a year ago and here you are hanging around to talk about it. BTW, you are the one that just got 20 crackpot points for telling us you went to school.

Now that you have said your piece, perhaps you have better things to do, like devote your life to string theory. Go there, do that, and forget QWC. There is nothing here.

And yes, I will keep talking about it in hopes some smart people in the community will find some interest that stimulates them to discuss the ideas and not just address me or my qualities of intelligence or lack of credentials.

 

[AlphaNumeric]

Actually I don't see any reason to trust your judgment.

Because I don't agree with you, as I predicted.

You rejected QWC and called me an idiot a year ago and here you are hanging around to talk about it.

I'm hardly hanging around to specifically talk about it, am I? Since you and I last crossed paths many months ago I've told a lot of other cranks they are cranks, I've asked a lot of questions to particular people and I've helped plenty of people. The fact I've not replied to you in months, despite your frequent posting on QWC shows that I don't give a hoot about it. Instead I've decided to mildly amuse myself with you once again on pretty much a whim. I happened to see Prom had replied and I thought I'd take a look. And low and behold, he has said much the same as I did, independently. It's almost as if people who know physics reach the same conclusions, that you don't know physics.

BTW, you are the one that just got 20 crackpot points for telling us you went to school.

Firstly, you mentioned 'smart people', I replied to a specific bit of your post. You said you want to promote discussion on QWC till some smart people can turn it into something more viable. Would you care to define what you mean by smart people? I don't think it's much of a stretch to assume you mean people who are educated in physics, mathematical competent and know how to do research. Or am I way off the mark there? Well it's relevant that both Prom and I fit those requirements. As do people like Ben. Funny how none of us think there's anything to your work.

So tell me, if we're not fitting the bill for 'smart people', what precisely do you define as a 'smart person' in relation to developing QWC? Also, define what precisely it would take for you to say "Well, I see what you mean. Maybe QWC isn't worth pursuing". If you don't have such criteria you aren't interested in science, you're interested in dupping people into complimenting you.

Now that you have said your piece, perhaps you have better things to do, like devote your life to string theory. Go there, do that, and forget QWC.

No, it's okay. The 20 minutes I've spent today replying to this thread is less time than I spend in the toilet. It's not impacting my work to tell you your work sucks.

There is nothing here.

I know. The problem is I don't think you do.

And yes, I will keep talking about it in hopes some smart people in the community will find some interest that stimulates them to discuss the ideas and not just address me or my qualities of intelligence or lack of credentials.

If you go back and read my posts you'll find I've asked you about QWC. About its formalism, its development, its results, its methods, its justification. I never once said "You're wrong because you dont' have a degree", I said you're wrong because there's nothing to your work. For instance, you've been unable to provide me with a way to check if a result is or isn't in QWC. For instance, suppose I said that I'd spent an hour doing some equations on QWC and that the equation of wave dispersion in your aether is $$\nabla^{2}\psi + \frac{k^{2}}{r}\psi + l(l-2)\psi = 0$$ where k is wave number and l is torsion? How would you go about checking this is valid? How would I even have a chance of developing this in the first place, as it requires something quantitative to beging with.

You have been completely unable to defend your work from even simple questioning and now you're trying to avoid accepting that by lying about what I've been saying. Your work isn't worthless because you're uneducated and delusional, it's worthless because it's complete made up, baseless, vacuous nonsense. The fact you're uneducated means you dont' realise just how worthless and vacuous it is. The fact you're unable to accept your lack of information about physics makes your claims about 'quantum action' and things like it worthless points to delusional. And further stupidity. They are implied by your works worthlessness, not the other way around.

 

[quantum_wave]

Well then thank you for trying to help, if that is what you are doing.

Explain to me why you take exception to my logic that mass and gravity are related, that they might have a common cause?

Explain to me how you can say that we can see there is no quantum action at the quantum level. I was thinking of the quantum level as a level of the physical universe where the mass of the "fundamental particles" of the standard particle model is caused and established. We can't detect physical mechanisms at that level yet. And I have explained the distinction between QWC and QM but you may not acknowledge that.

Address my ideas and tell me what it is about the ideas of energy density that won't work if there is a quantum realm?

I will go back through your post and see if there is anything that really is responsive to the threads stated intention; that being to discuss the ideas knowing that we are not able to physically investigate them.

 

[quantum_wave]

...The fact you're unable to accept your lack of information about physics makes your claims about 'quantum action' and things like it worthless points to delusional. And further stupidity. They are implied by your works worthlessness, not the other way around.

Nowhere among your attempts to establish yourself as an authority on all things that we do not yet know about science, or your attempt to justify dedicating your career to string theory where you seem to be satisfied with the results, or in the demonstrations of your character traits in regards to how far off topic you are willing to go to build straw men that you can use to attack anything but the ideas, or your insistence that my thread be what you want and not what it is intended to be, is there even one instance of addressing the ideas presented from the perspective that we cannot quantify them because we don’t yet have the ability to observe the physics taking place there.

Your general response can be summarized as saying that my ideas are worthless because we can’t quantify them.

Whereas my general intention is to state my ideas in depth, and hope that some in the community will see something in my presentation that they find interesting and that will spark a conversation. Such a conversation would hopefully lead to improved ideas or to how they could be quantified or falsified and not your type of response that says in am an idiot for stating them and seeking to discuss them after someone of you stature had presented an onslaught based on your own agenda as clearly described in the first paragraph.

 

[AlphaNumeric]

Explain to me why you take exception to my logic that mass and gravity are related, that they might have a common cause?

I didn't say they weren't related. I said I think it's silly to assume their cause is simple to understand. Also I said that your statement it's logical for the cause to be 'quantum action' is silly. Firstly, you provide no reason why it should be quantum mechanical, secondly you don't provide any decent definition of what 'quantum action' is and thirdly, given you don't know any quantum mechanics its not a stretch to conclude you're simply giving things buzzword names. Like my example said, saying "Quantum action did it" is as vacuous as saying "God did it" if you can't elaborate on the details.

Explain to me how you can say that we can see there is no quantum action at the quantum level.

Define what 'quantum action' is.

I was thinking of the quantum level as a level of the physical universe where the mass of the "fundamental particles" of the standard particle model is caused and established. We can't detect physical mechanisms at that level yet. And I have explained the distinction between QWC and QM but you may not acknowledge that.

This is vague. 'Caused and established'. Explain, in detail, what this actually means. The Standard Model has its masses induced by the Higgs mechanism at about 150GeV. The process of spontaneous symmetry breaking is detailed and thoroughly explained in a great many books or websites. Where's QWC's version of that?

As for the distinction between QWC and QM, QM is a very developed, precise, predictive description of nature derived from postulates. QWC is stuff you make up on the fly.

Address my ideas and tell me what it is about the ideas of energy density that won't work if there is a quantum realm?

Still don't get it do you? Physics isn't "I'll guess something randomly and then keep elaborating it forever, without rhyme or reason or logic", you need to pin down your postulates.

Tell me, what method are you using to develop QWC? If you have two different mechanisms for the same process, how do you know which is actually QWC and which isn't? If you can't articulate that then it is IMPOSSIBLE to develop QWC scientifically because there's no way to check developments. Anyone else working on it has to ask you "Is this QWC or not?" and you're the decider. It's like a religion where the members have to ask the head guy "Is this God's will or not?" because they don't have a holy book. Rather than allowing independent investigation of 'Gods word' everyone must listen to the cult leader since he's the only one with the information and he ain't sharing. It's a cult of personality. You (and many other cranks) are the same. You can't write down something for other people to develop independently, you are the one and only one who can say "Yes that's right" or "No, that's not in my theory". I don't need to email Witten, Green or Schwarz to ask "Is this in string theory?" because the formalism of the theory, which they and others wrote down in books and papers, allows me to check. Crank theories are the science version of religious cults and you're trying to get people to drink the coolaid.

It shouldn't be you saying "So tell me what's wrong with the idea of energy density?!", it should be me saying "So tell me your description of energy density". You provide zero reason to think your claims are anything other than random guesses put together. Can you show they aren't?

Your general response can be summarized as saying that my ideas are worthless because we can’t quantify them.

You can't provide me with any reason to think they are not just random guesses. You can't provide me with any reason to think QWC is better than any other crank aether theory. You can't provide me with any way to allow me to develop QWC without you, if I wanted to.

If you died tomorrow how would anyone develop QWC? Without you saying "That is QWC, but that isn't" how could anyone know? They couldn't, because you have no sound basis for your claims. And you seem incapable of grasping this.

Whereas my general intention is to state my ideas in depth, and hope that some in the community will see something in my presentation that they find interesting and that will spark a conversation. Such a conversation would hopefully lead to improved ideas or to how they could be quantified or falsified

If you could answer my questions you'd have succeeded in explaining your work in depth and provided a way for people to develop it. But you haven't. Instead you whine I'm insulting you with statements I didn't make.

Cranks always complain I'm being nasty and should go away. You want to know how to do that? Put me in my place by answering my questions clearly, directly and properly. I have never had a crank manage that. They'll proclaim they have the answers then spend more time whining why they won't tell me than they would have spent typing up the actual answers!

not your type of response that says in am an idiot for stating them and seeking to discuss them after someone of you stature had presented an onslaught based on your own agenda as clearly described in the first paragraph.

Yes, my 'agenda' is to point out when someone is not going science and is simply trying to dupe people into believing stuff they have made up without basis or method. I don't say 'you're wrong' because I worry string theory is under attack, I say "You're wrong" or "You've not provided anything remotely worth looking at" because it's the truth.

Prove I'm wrong, that my agenda is blinding me. Answer my questions.

 

[quantum_wave]

http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=2247566&postcount=30

Nowhere among your attempts to 1) establish yourself as an authority on all things that we [know or]do not yet know about science, or 2) your attempt to justify dedicating your career to string theory where you seem to be satisfied with the results, or 3) in the demonstrations of your character traits in regards to how far off topic you are willing to go to build straw men that you can use to attack anything but the ideas, or 4) your insistence that my thread be what you want [it to be or say it is] and not what it is intended to be, is there even one instance of addressing the ideas presented from the perspective that we cannot quantify them because we don’t yet have the ability to observe the physics taking place there.

Your general response can be summarized as saying that my ideas are worthless because we can’t quantify them. Whereas my general intention is to state my ideas in depth, and hope that some in the community will see something in my presentation that they find interesting.

For example the idea of quantum action described above which includes the idea that it establishes the presence of mass in phase 2, the high density spot phase, and it initiates the negative energy density that plays the determining role in the cause of gravity by creating a potential void in space as phase 2 occurs.

Your response is a call for quantification or for a framework or just simply a chance for you to refer to you credentials from which you know there is no merit to the ideas. This is the application of fallacious response number 1 and 4 as described above.

Another idea that could be of interest is the idea that as phase 4 occurs there is a quantum wave generated out of the energy that just prior to that had established the presence of mass. Mass was established by the high density spot, quantum action proceeded to cause the expanding spherical wave out of the collapsed quantum, and the wave expands spherically with an infinite reach in space as a wave crest following closely behind the wave trough generated by the void in space.

In my simple graphic of the wave form I tried to show the effect of the collapse of the space occupied by the quantum of energy as a trough in a spherical wave.

It is hard to show that graphically but the spherically collapse of the space occupied by the quantum of energy is the red portion of the spherical wave and the trough of the wave form. This is the “pull” that I refer to in the process of quantum action. The expansion phase is the green portion of the spherical wave which I show inside the red sphere to establish the order in which the spherical actions occur. The red sphere actually collapses to an incredibly small high density spot that has extreme energy density. This occurs in an instant, perhaps the shortest meaningful time in QWC. The collapse precedes the “bounce” that initiates expansion. The green sphere potentially expands out into the aether with an infinite reach. You can see that the graphic leave a lot to be said about the wave form but I present it for discussion. Questions could be asked about it and that would be on topic because such a question would lead to a discussion of the ideas and an exchange of ideas perhaps.

As the wave passes through the mass and before it reaches the aether that surrounds mass, that quantum of energy in the wave intersects and overlaps with adjacent quantum actions that capture some of its energy and delay it in its journey to the aether. That is called containment as I explained earlier in the thread. It is consistent with the time delay that is characteristic of the net negative energy emanation of the mass. Containment and the time delay are simple concepts that play a role in the cause of gravity, and they are directly connected to quantum action that also establishes the presence of mass.

These are ideas that I offer for discussion. It would be appropriate to discuss them from the standpoint that there is no evidence or quantification if it weren’t for the fact that I refer to that in the OP where I address the intention of presenting the ideas. So it is not only redundant to request quantification of quantum action, but I have addressed the lack of quantification in response to your repeated requests for it. Those requests fall into category 4 of the fallacious response methods identified above.

A more appropriate and on topic response might be to ask what the time delay and containment are or how they are important to mass or gravity. Or a person might ask how negative energy could even exist, or how a wave can be created by a collapsing sphere of energy followed by an expanding wave of energy, or any number of question that address the ideas.

Earlier I said:

Explain to me why you take exception to my logic that mass and gravity are related, that they might have a common cause?

You replied:

I didn't say they weren't related. I said I think it's silly to assume their cause is simple to understand. Also I said that your statement it's logical for the cause to be 'quantum action' is silly.

I said:

“ Originally Posted by quantum_wave
Justification? Because of the clear relationship between mass and gravity I think there is a common explanation for the cause of mass and the cause of gravity. ”

“ Originally Posted by quantum_wave
Logically, quantum action provides a possible common cause for both phenomena."

You said:

Why should the explaination be common? Why should everything in the universe be instantly understandable to someone who spends absolutely zero time examining the universe beyond the end of their nose?

This is an example of a combination of several of the fallacious response types identified above. You went on:

You're saying it's logical to expect the universe, from the smallest length in a nucleus to the superclusters which span the billions of light years of the cosmos all behave like phenomena experienced in the every day life of a person living in a 1st world country in some tiny tiny tiny tiny speck in said cosmo.

Yikes, I said THAT? No I didn’t. That is an example of fallacious response type 3.

You went on:

Yeah, that's bloody logical.

Here is an example of fallacious response type 1 where you set yourself up as the authority on all science not yet discovered. Also it comes across as if your are saying that because you have a degree and are working on a PhD, that what you say about logic carries more weight than someone else’s logic. Maybe I should make that fallacious response type 5. It also has a ring to it that you are the final arbiter of what sound logic is and what faulty logic is. By your highness stating that I am not logical, that makes it so on the weight of your credentials. Chalk up another 20 crackpot points for yourself every time you use that fallacious response.

Firstly, quantum mechanics is not a straight forward or simple thing. Secondly, given nothing you've ever posted shows you can do any quantum mechanics, mainstream or otherwise, you are simply doing the crackpot version of "Let's call that explaination 'God'" that religious people do when faced with a question they can't answer. And thirdly, you have yet to demonstrate anything resembling a single coherent model, actual quantum mechanics or otherwise, can explain both phenomena. You can't provide me with a single phenomenon you can actually describe.

I’m trying to find in there where you address a particular idea and actually discuss it from the perspective that I offer the ideas as outlined in the OP. I can’t find anything on topic, just an accumulation of fallacious response types as identified above. Can you identify the fallacy types yourself or do you want me to do it for you?

You're saying it's logical to expect the universe, from the smallest length in a nucleus to the superclusters which span the billions of light years of the cosmos all behave like phenomena experienced in the every day life of a person living in a 1st world country in some tiny tiny tiny tiny speck in said cosmo.

But I didn’t actually say that, I said:

Justification? Because of the clear relationship between mass and gravity I think there is a common explanation for the cause of mass and the cause of gravity. ”

“ Originally Posted by quantum_wave
Logically, quantum action provides a possible common cause for both phenomena. ”

Do you see the difference?

You went on to say,

Firstly, you provide no reason why it should be quantum mechanical, secondly you don't provide any decent definition of what 'quantum action' is and thirdly, given you don't know any quantum mechanics its not a stretch to conclude you're simply giving things buzzword names. Like my example said, saying "Quantum action did it" is as vacuous as saying "God did it" if you can't elaborate on the details.

To clarify the difference between what I said, and what you say I said is a full time career.

However it is not difficult to see the fallacious response techniques you use. Can I infer that you are implying that I am equating QWC with QM? If so that is fallacy response type 3. Of course type 1 and type 4 come into play when you pass judgment that QWC is like invoking “God did it”. Why not show a particular idea and explain what it requires intervention from on high?

Let the future readers if there are any decide who has the high ground here. QWC and its predecessor, the ISU have been around for awhile and will out last you if history can be relied on.

In the earlier post I said and you quote me:

Explain to me how you can say that we can see there is no quantum action at the quantum level.

And you respond:

Define what 'quantum action' is.

Read post #25 again and instead of ignoring it and then waving it off as not an acceptable “definition of quantum action” try to view it from the perspective that it is offered. That requires several steps. Read it, think about it, respond to it by linking to my exact words, and then say anything you want. I can defend what I have said and if I can’t I will admit it, and revise QWC correspondingly.

The perspective is that we don’t know what causes mass and gravity. I think there is a clear relationship between them. I suggest the ideas of QWC include a possible connection between the two and that connection is quantum action. I then explain what I mean by quantum action. I didn’t actually pull it out of my ass as you think, it was developed over time with input from others.

And then you say:

Define what 'quantum action' is.

For God’s sake man, at least read this stuff before you wave it off. Fallacious response method 1 is expanded to include that you don’t even have to set eyes on my posts to use method 1 or 5. Who is invoking God here, me or you? I say it has to be you if you know what is written without reading.

In addition, I don’t know how to interpret your stance. It brings to mind the thought that you did not read it of course, or did you somehow pass over it without noticing it, or are you being uncharacteristically subtle to imply the even though I went into some detail on what I am talking about in the idea of quantum action, you wave if off as not being an acceptable description?

I was thinking of the quantum level as a level of the physical universe where the mass of the "fundamental particles" of the standard particle model is caused and established. We can't detect physical mechanisms at that level yet. And I have explained the distinction between QWC and QM but you may not acknowledge that.

To which you say:

This is vague. 'Caused and established'. Explain, in detail, what this actually means.

We’ve been through the lexicon thing. Those words are in the QWC lexicon and are therefore impossible for someone with so little knowledge of QWC to even fathom. Sorry, but maybe if you actually read some QWC you would have a better idea what the words mean.

The Standard Model has its masses induced by the Higgs mechanism at about 150GeV. The process of spontaneous symmetry breaking is detailed and thoroughly explained in a great many books or websites. Where's QWC's version of that?

I know about the theory. Mass is caused by extreme energy density at the earliest stages of expansion, and if you had read QWC you could see it is consistent. Only in QWC the cause of the extreme energy density is a big crunch. What is the cause of the extreme energy density in the Higgs theory? Please don’t wave this off since it is a serious question even though it is buried in the response to your off topic responses to my responses to your responses.

As for the distinction between QWC and QM, QM is a very developed, precise, predictive description of nature derived from postulates. QWC is stuff you make up on the fly.

Fallacious responses 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5. Bingo. I knew you could do it.

I said and you quoted:

Address my ideas and tell me what it is about the ideas of energy density that won't work if there is a quantum realm?

To which your replied:

Still don't get it do you? Physics isn't "I'll guess something randomly and then keep elaborating it forever, without rhyme or reason or logic", you need to pin down your postulates.

At least response type 4. Do you see it? Make the thread into what you want it to be and if it doesn’t meet your expectations you insist I make it meet them? Read the OP.

You have no clue what energy density is because you think there is no aether. You think spacetime is curved and mass falls into gravity wells. You think that only God knows what caused the initial expansion of the universe and you probably don’t believe in God, though you seem to act like you are commissioned by God.

Tell me, what method are you using to develop QWC? If you have two different mechanisms for the same process, how do you know which is actually QWC and which isn't? If you can't articulate that then it is *IMPOSSIBLE* to develop QWC scientifically because there's no way to check developments. Anyone else working on it has to ask you "Is this QWC or not?" and you're the decider. It's like a religion where the members have to ask the head guy "Is this God's will or not?" because they don't have a holy book. Rather than allowing independent investigation of 'Gods word' everyone must listen to the cult leader since he's the only one with the information and he ain't sharing. It's a cult of personality. You (and many other cranks) are the same. You can't write down something for other people to develop independently, you are the one and only one who can say "Yes that's right" or "No, that's not in my theory". I don't need to email Witten, Green or Schwarz to ask "Is this in string
theory?" because the formalism of the theory, which they and others wrote down in books and papers, allows me to check. Crank theories are the science version of religious cults and you're trying to get people to drink the coolaid.

It shouldn't be you saying "So tell me what's wrong with the idea of energy density?!", it should be me saying "So tell me your description of energy density". You provide zero reason to think your claims are anything other than random guesses put together. Can you show they aren't?

Yikes again. Make this thread into the preamble to the constitution or the constitution will never get written. You are using many fallacies here. I refer you again to the OP. What I am doing and why I am doing it is there. Your fantasy of what you want me to be doing and saying is off topic. I wonder if I can find anything on topic in your posts. If not, maybe there is a way that we can split them off into a new thread that belongs to you so you can characterize my ideas to fit your desires and still be on topic.

Your general response can be summarized as saying that my ideas are worthless because we can’t quantify them.

To which you said:

You can't provide me with any reason to think they are not just random guesses. You can't provide me with any reason to think QWC is better than any other crank aether theory. You can't provide me with any way to allow me to develop QWC without you, if I wanted to.

If you died tomorrow how would anyone develop QWC? Without you saying "That is QWC, but that isn't" how could anyone know? They couldn't, because you have no sound basis for your claims. And you seem incapable of grasping this.

I grasp it. But you are using #4 again. This thread is about what I say it is in the OP. To make it into some road map for the future of science is you again applying your fallacious response techniques. My response is that I am not trying to guide or influence the course of science; I am offering ideas to the community here at SciForums that I want to discuss. If I can make them sound a little interesting and therefore get some discussion I am happy. Do I think the ideas are things that no one has ever thought of before? Not at all. I draw on ideas of others, I come up with ideas on my own that are similar, and some that are probably new, but I don’t know if they are or not for sure. Maybe in your role of knowing all science and science not yet discovered you have the inside track.

I said and you quote:

Whereas my general intention is to state my ideas in depth, and hope that some in the community will see something in my presentation that they find interesting and that will spark a conversation. Such a conversation would hopefully lead to improved ideas or to how they could be quantified or falsified.

To which you reply:

If you could answer my questions you'd have succeeded in explaining your work in depth and provided a way for people to develop it. But you haven't. Instead you whine I'm insulting you with statements I didn't make.

Cranks always complain I'm being nasty and should go away. You want to know how to do that? Put me in my place by answering my questions clearly, directly and properly. I have never had a crank manage that. They'll proclaim they have the answers then spend more time whining why they won't tell me than they would have spent typing up the actual answers!

I have been explaining that your questions are not related to the thread but are fallacious responses 1,2,3,4, and 5 as explained above. I have given some examples of your questions and responses and have contrasted them with the OP and what would be on topic and off topic. I have responded where the question was not based on a fallacious response type as I have identified above.

I said and you quote:

not your type of response that says in am an idiot for stating them and seeking to discuss them after someone of you stature had presented an onslaught based on your own agenda as clearly described in the first paragraph.

To which you responded:

Yes, my 'agenda' is to point out when someone is not going science and is simply trying to dupe people into believing stuff they have made up without basis or method. I don't say 'you're wrong' because I worry string theory is under attack, I say "You're wrong" or "You've not provided anything remotely worth looking at" because *it's the truth*.

At least you are consistent. I am only doing science to the extent that ideas play a role in science. I am not trying to dupe people into accepting something that I present as science fact and for you to imply that is among the fallacies I point out above. The ideas come from the sources I mentioned in this thread in response to your earlier statements.

I draw on ideas of others, I come up with ideas on my own that are similar, and some that are probably new, but I don’t know if they are or not for sure.

To expand on that statement, probably five years ago I started a thread on something like, “what if we started trying to explain the things we observe from the bottom up? There is a complete history of the development of QWC ideas on the internet and if anyone for some unknown reason wanted to go back to the beginning they would see how it was developed in a step by step fashion from a very basic starting point. That is five years of threads where I claim to have applied reasonable and responsible step by step speculation, where I offered the speculation to the communities and received feedback, and modified the ideas as I went.

I used to call what is now the process of quantum action just the result of a single pulsing elementary energy particle. It didn’t form in the overlap of intersecting quantum waves, it was just a pulsing energy particle called the EEP that had always existed. The EEP evolved into quantum action base on many discussions of science topics from many different presumably responsible science forum members. Of course there has always been the AlphaNumerics out there so though you think your fallacious response techniques are effective at driving off people who do what you say I am doing, pulling stupid ideas out of my ass, you missed the history of how QWC was developed, and you over estimated yourself in the process.

I used to call the universe, “The Infinite Spongy Universe”. It is very descriptive but in discussing arenas and arena action, concepts that were built from various discussions and brainstorming about a way that might explain how entropy is defeated, it turned out that if “arena action” was very similar to “quantum action”, and if the landscape of the greater universe was composed of arenas in various stages of “arena action”, then entropy could be defeated. The idea stuck and leads to many more ideas where details of quantum action were sparked by ideas about arena action, and ideas about arena action were sparked by quantum action. You probably missed where I have discussed the similarities, or blew them off. The name Quantum Wave Cosmology followed when the ISU seemed to be the old ideas. The update process is like the quality process, continual improvement is the goal. I know you have some witty remarks for every statement that I make that could be considered person to person. I am OK with my ways of presenting and saying what I think.

Defeating entropy is an important part of QWC. Do you understand why? No, because you never asked (and as you said, you don't care).

Most people understand the idea of a big crunch so that helps people understand quantum action. Some people who read and think about quantum action can better understand arena action.

You also have no conception of QWC even though you have read some of the words. You haven’t thought about them and that sets you apart from those who have intentionally contributed, but that groups you with those called by higher authority to weed out cranks and crackpots by waving your arms. Actually I know that technique works and I have been tempted to use it myself, but I was concerned that if I went in to a forum and played God Almighty, it might just piss people off and they aren’t inclined to discuss QWC even if there was something interesting about it if I did that. With you, I hope you get pissed off because you are taking the low road in dealing with me and all the others you claim to be attacking. You are unfortunately chasing away some fine young people who are just developing their own ideas. Mum and Dad would be so proud as Prom says.

I am working on Quantum Wave Cosmology, it is a set of evolving ideas that I freely share for discussion, and that I am continually improving on from outside input, like from you. You don’t’ really intend to help in the evolution but you are. And so did Prometheus, and so did every other “AlphaNumeric” out there that has confronted me with the typical put downs and clichés.

Not that how I developed QWC makes it anything more than my personal cosmology, but there have been hundreds of people who contributed in one way or another over the years, some like you and some actually who took some interest in what I was doing.

I guess you aren’t sufficiently amused yet. I assure you that you are only one of a number of people on the net that seem to think they are called by some higher authority to pass judgment on cranks and crackpots.

Prove I'm wrong, that my agenda is blinding me. Answer my questions.

I assume that you are not done with me and will have some witty clichés and boring put downs to accompany your next response. Try to include some little helpful tidbits that actually are on topic and that apply to the ideas that are presented as QWC.

Let me quote from post #28

I'm hardly hanging around to specifically talk about it, am I? Since you and I last crossed paths many months ago I've told a lot of other cranks they are cranks, I've asked a lot of questions to particular people and I've helped plenty of people. The fact I've not replied to you in months, despite your frequent posting on QWC shows that I don't give a hoot about it. Instead I've decided to mildly amuse myself with you once again on pretty much a whim. I happened to see Prom had replied and I thought I'd take a look. And low and behold, he has said much the same as I did, independently. It's almost as if people who know physics reach the same conclusions, that you don't know physics.

You flatterer you.

 

[quantum_wave]

I’m sorry for the double posting but it belongs on this thread:

Quantum Wave Cosmology and Gravity Aether

I know some of the clichés about who cares and who doesn’t care what I think, and I acknowledge the position that Prometheus and AlphaNumeric are taking. It can simply be summarized by saying that under current theory there is no need for aether and the fact that is has not been detected after carefully designed experiments means that there is no detectable aether using the current tools we have to look for it.

I acknowledge that. The part that there is no need for gravity aether is true if mass curves space time. If mass does not curve spacetime it is not true.

My threads approach the issue of aether from the fall back position that mass does not curve spacetime and therefore the need for gravity aether is renewed.

No one else describes gravity aether like I do as far as I know. That alone is maybe cause for disbelief. But gravity aether (and the central characteristic of the process of quantum action that creates the gravity aether) is logical, it makes connections between mass and gravity that no one else is making, it describes a mechanism that could guide mass through space in the same way that curved spacetime does, and it does much more.

On the surface then QWC is based on a force involving energy quantization that establishes and continually refreshes the presence of mass. That idea when explored with thought explains the movement of mass as simply the relocation of the high density spot of every energy quanta in the mass (quantum action at work) as the presence of mass is re-established every quantum period (every instant) in a slightly different place. The change in the focal point of the quanta, i.e. the change in the location of the mass is determined by the energy density of the aether surrounding the mass. During each quantum period (the length of time it takes for all quanta within mass to be refreshed once) the momentum of the mass has caused movement. That movement is determined by the momentum and the energy density surrounding the mass. Momentum carries mass through space in the path of lowest energy density. The net of the low energy density emanating from every mass in the universe exists at all points in aether that occupies space and reaches every other mass. As our mass moves based on its momentum, the place that it move to next is the path of lowest energy density in the aether surrounding the mass.

I am smart enough to know that is not a dumb idea. You can’t understand the detail from such a brief overview, but if you were to talk with me about it and ask questions pertinent to it, maybe it would seem less than dumb to you too. Or maybe by using valid arguments about why it can’t work or why it can’t even stand on its own merits you would actually be setting me free.

It isn’t hard to understand why aether theories got moved to the back seat of the buss. After Einstein came up with the field equations that are still the best we can do at predicting gravitational effects, the physical need for aether was removed. It didn’t matter if there was aether because we can predict gravity from the GR perspective with curved spacetime.

And I can accept curved spacetime if I know what causes it to curve. I know; mass and energy cause spacetime to curve. But how? What is it that transmits the presence of mass to other mass across space, or what is it about the energy that lets it reach out to occupy space around mass. What is the nature of that energy? QWC deals with gravity as if there was aether composed of energy density and the energy density is emanated from the mass and has an infinite reach as the quantum waves that carry the energy expand spherically across space. (I hate to make analogies because they never stand up, but an analogy is that mass sucks in aether as part of the process of quantum action, consumes part of it to re-establish all of the high density spots caused by quantum action, thus moving and maintaining the presence of mass, and emits the unused, i.e. lower energy density aether back into space with a time delay that occurs while the aether is being distributed throughout the mass).

I don’t claim to understand spacetime math but there is really some pretty sophisticated math involved that takes the events that occur as time passes (i.e. motion) and ties them to the space that is occupied by mass. It is an ingenious way to put the physical universe into a 4-D geometrical coordinate system where math can be used to tie the history of motion to the time frame of the motion. Do that for multiple objects and you can relate the combined motion to the effect it has on individual objects in the coordinate system. It is quite beautiful and I certainly understand how mathematicians can make a career out of it and how theorist can do whatever they want with it to test theories and the like. None of that is going away even if there is gravity aether.

My point about the mainstream theory of gravity is that it says what gravity does, but not how it does it. QWC says how it does it and accepts the EFEs as the best we can do to say what it does.

 

[quantum_wave]

...My point about the mainstream theory of gravity is that it says what gravity does, but not how it does it. QWC says how it does it and accepts the EFEs as the best we can do to say what it does.

I got a good response to a similar post on Science Forums, the Original where I am brain-in-a-vat; the thread is "A Casual Question". My thread there is in the Speculation and Pseudoscience forum. Here is the gist of it and my response which is appropriate to the updates topic of this thread:

Is the fallback position valid? What you have supposedly done is eliminate all possible experimental data for "mass curves spacetime" when you say " it describes a mechanism that could guide mass through space in the same way that curved spacetime does"

We need to see those equations or whatever, because, as you should know, one of the very strong supporting pieces of data for Relativity and bending of spacetime is the displacement of the apparent positions of stars during the 1919 eclipse. The positions were displaced because the path of the light was bent in the spacetime around the sun. So, it would help your case if you could show the calculations from your theory that gives the same apparent displacement of those stars as was observed then.

Or, for other examples, see this site: http://undsci.berkeley.edu/article/natural_experiments

Are we just talking now or are you expecting equations and quantification? You are right, I do know about the predictions of the deflection of light around the sun from distant stars, and about the detection of deflection during the total eclipse. If I think my ideas might provide an alternative to curved spacetime I would have to already have addressed this subject since I have been building my ideas over several years on various forums. I used to call it the Infinite Spongy Universe, and the operative particle was a pulsing elemental energy particle (EEP). That endeavor developed into Quantum Wave Cosmology with its quantum action in place of the EEP.

To answer your question about how I account for the deflection in my ideas if I don’t attribute it to curved spacetime, my idea is that photons have a tiny amount of mass. That would mean in QWC that they feel gravity. But since they travel at the speed of light, and I suppose that quantum waves from mass expand spherically at the speed of light, the gravitational effect of light passing the sun differs from the movement of non-relativistic particles and objects. I don’t have equations for this but I believe that the idea could be put into mathematical terms but not by me. I even asked for help doing that on one thread in another forum but no luck.

What more? Please be specific. It would help if you could give quantitative predictions of data we should find if your theory is correct. Data that would be different than we would find with General Relativity.

You have referred to my posts as theory and as you may note I have never called it theory, only ideas, and I tell each person who reads it as theory that it is not. It is ideas for discussion and that is exactly how I view your response. I feel like we are discussing ideas that go against the mainstream. I am a lone individual with no credentials, no formal higher math training, and nothing other than five or six years of searching popular web sites, media science, etc., a Wikipedia type of understanding that would make it nonsense if I thought I could do theory.

My way of learning is to test my ideas in the cauldron of the forums, learn and revise, and keep an updated version of my personal cosmology; a laughable cosmology to anyone else but I was an accountant and my way of growing my understanding is to document it and update it as it changes from input over the forums.

Your idea needs to have equations that are better at predicting gravitational effects. So what are those equations from your theory?

If I had it crafted into a theory I would have to either do a better job of predicting gravitational effects, or it would have to better explain the connection between gravity and mass.

If I am not mistaken, GR and the EFEs translated mass into a 4-D coordinate system where time is considered a series of events attributed to the movement of mass. Spacetime involves the correspondence between the physical mass, physical space and the passing of time, and mathematical construct of the 4-D coordinate system. Amateurish explanation for sure, but it makes spacetime a mathematical construct that is supposed to be able to stand in for the physical universe in the EFEs.

I don't portray these ideas as theory, but to my understanding, it there was some theory that exactly duplicated the predictions of GR, and also made better connections between gravity and mass by explaining the cause of mass, then that theory would be better.

Gravity so far has resisted every attempt to quantize it. What is the quantization of the mass?

The idea I am using is that mass is composed of energy in quantum increments. Those quantum increments are all equal in the amount of energy they contain, i.e. they are quantum, but the quantity of energy in a quantum cannot be determined with our current technology. Only wild ass guesses are available and no one will claim they are very close (say a half a billion quanta in an electron). Quantization of energy in these unknown increments is part of the ideas because it allows mass and energy to be equivalent, it allows for a gatekeeper process for energy that goes into and out of mass, i.e. all changes to mass occur in quantum increments that are almost unimaginable tiny and cannot be observed with our current tools.

The process of quantization is described as a natural process that involves various phases. The phase that causes the presence of mass to be maintained is the high density spot phase. The spot is the result of the precipitous collapse of space occupied by a quantum of energy that accumulates in the overlap of intersecting quantum waves. The quantum waves are also a product of quantum action because the compressed high density spot that forms from the collapse cannot be sustained by the surrounding energy density and the collapse turns into a bounce off of the maximum possible level of energy density that nature allows. The bounce sends the quantum of energy into spherical expansion as a quantum wave.

This process is ongoing within mass and every time the quanta in the entire mass have been refreshed by the formation of a new set of high density spots, the mass has moved slightly. The movement of the mass is a combination of the momentum of the mass, and the lowest energy density path through the aether.

How does the mass of the aether change?

Aether does not have mass but is composed of quantum waves emanating from mass. The aether is made up from the quantum waves that are generated by quantum action within mass. The waves that emerge from the bounce of the high density spots and bounce into spherical expansion, pass through the mass and out into the aether. As they pass through mass they encounter other quantum actions in their path and so some the the quantum of energy in the wave is delayed and gets contained in other high density spots. Of course those spots burst into expansion so ultimately all of the energy that it takes to form one complete set of high density spots eventually (there is a slight time delay) makes its way into the aether.

By the time that all of the energy in one set of spots is finally emanated, energy has been pulled into the mass as a result of the pull of the void of space created during the collapse of each energy quantum. during quantum action. So during one complete quantum period, the exact amount of energy that has been emanated into the aether equals the amount of energy that has been pulled into the mass from the aether. The time delay is directly related to the mass of the object. It is a pumping action where the energy of the mass is continually refreshed, and as it is refreshed, the new location of each of the high density spots equates to motion of the mass.

From the perspective of the aether, the mass is emanating “negative” energy density in exact proportion to the positive energy required to maintain the mass via the high density spots, one for each quantum of energy in the mass. Negative and positive energy are relative terms and relate to a deviation from the average energy density of space counting both the aether and the mass.

The emanation from mass into the aether is a continual emanation for every quantum period (every instant) and the same amount of energy is pulled into the mass from the aether as is emanated. The energy pulled in comes from distant mass and arrives in the form of expanding quantum waves that were emanated from mass throughout the entire universe for the entire past history of mass. As the emanation of a particular mass enters the aether, it is an expanding corridor of negative energy density expanding at supposedly the speed of light so the emanation leaves a history of the movement and mass of the object.

Every point in space includes the expanded corridor of every mass whose corridor has expanded to that point in space. So you can see that the energy density arriving at and thus surrounding a given mass has different energy density at all points around the mass. The ideas is that the surrounding energy density has a low energy density point and the movement of the mass is influenced toward that point.

That is a brief description of the aether in QWC.

What happened to friction in an atmosphere?

It might not sound responsive to you but the idea is that there is no friction between anything with mass and the aether. The mass does not move through the aether. The aether determines the path that mass moves by exposing the mass to a varying energy density in all directions and the mass tends toward the low energy density path by pulling in aether. The idea as to the mechanics is that the aether is lower density in one path and so the mass moves that way to satisfy its attempt to an pull equal amounts of aether from every direction.

Also, let's take a rocket in vacuum. The rocket is emitting reaction mass and the velocity or the change in location in the mass seems to be determined by the amount and velocity of the emitted reaction mass. After all, in the same general location in the universe, the energy density of the aether would be the same, but the change in location of the mass can be changed by increasing the velocity of the emitted reaction mass. That seems to falsify your theory.

If the rocket has mass, it is pulling in aether and emanating aether as it moves. There is no vacuum if you mean the absence of aether. The movement of a rocket is influenced by the motion of the rocket, the path of lowest energy density, and by the propulsion added. The low energy density path is so insignificant in the face of any other force, that it can be dropped for all intents and purposes.

And the energy density would not be the same throughout a general area though that would have very little impact on your example. The energy density is different at every point in space because the history of the movement of all mass gives each point its own individual energy density and the energy density is constantly fluctuating as the quantum waves from all mass course through it.

 

[quantum_wave]

Just a few amendments to that last post:

Though the EFEs are the best mankind can do to predict the motion of objects in space, the reason they do what they do according to General Relativity is that mass curves spacetime. But GR is a mathematical representation of geometry of space and time, and corresponds to the physical space and time. There is nothing in spacetime that says how the physical mass, energy, space and time are physically connected into curved spacetime. GR is a wonderful mathematical construct of a 4-D coordinate system but it is incomplete in telling us how mass and energy curve spacetime.

QWC is ideas about the physical cause of gravity. It concludes that objects under the influence of gravity always move in curve paths because of the gravitational time delay. The path that objects follow through space is always affected by all other bodies in space, but by the time the information about the mass, location and momentum of the distant objects travels at the speed of light to the other objects, all of the objects have moved. The result is that the gravitational effect is always pointing behind the objects that are causing the effect. Since all objects are moving, the path of all objects is always curved.

Another note is that in QWC, mass has gravity, but aether takes the form of energy in space and has no mass. This is different than in GR where both mass and energy have gravity. But in GR there is no aether so the difference is not easy to quantify.

The presence of mass requires quantum action to be taking in place to quantize the energy. The process of quantization is called “quantum action” and is a six phase process that includes a phase where a quantum of energy collapses into a high density spot in space. Mass is caused by those high density spots, and the spots very rarely form in aether space, only within mass (an exception is that dark matter has enough energy density to maintain ongoing quantum action). Formation of the high density spot requires the high energy density of mass in order to form and for the process of quantum action to maintain their repetition. Each repetition of quantum action generates new high density spots that again represent the presence of mass.

In QWC, dark matter is quantized mass that has not been incorporated into the known and detectable fundamental particles.

 

[quantum_wave]

QWC ideas vs. theory

Two members have recently approached their discussion of my ideas from the perspective that I have a theory here, and then they request the predictions, means of testing and/or quantification, and suggest that QWC is a good example of pseudoscience.

Maybe QWC could be put in terms of theory and falsified, thus resolving the issue. There are a couple of predictions that might be tested by the LHC. I’m not really ready to claim any theory here but I am interested in moving forward in two areas.

First, the math of QWC will be alien to the math of mainstream theories in the respect that the energy of particles with mass is composed of quantum energy increments, the force of quantum action is necessary to maintain the presence of mass, and the extreme energy density of a big crunch negates mass into dense state energy that has no mass and does not emanate nor does it feel gravity. If the physical description of QWC is falsified by inconsistent physical phenomena that it describes, that would end it.

I don’t know how the EFEs work but I plan to find someone who does and who will talk freely with me about the differences between the EFEs and the math that would accrue from the physical picture that I describe of the motion of objects in the gravity aether of QWC.

Second, it seems to me that the LHC at CERN will be conducting experiments that could falsify QWC. For example, if the Higgs particle itself is found and shows that the LHC can produce the extreme energy density of the earliest moments of expansion where the Higgs particle itself appears before it decays, then QWC is falsified. QWC contends that energy at the maximum possible energy density has no mass, so the existence of a massive particle like the Higgs would show that QWC is fatally flawed.

If only the Higgs mechanism is found in the remnants of a pattern associated with the decay of the Higgs particle, then I will not yet know if the resulting array of particles is decay of the Higgs particle or the formation of particles from the extreme energy density. QWC contends that after the burst of a big crunch, sufficient expansion must take place in order for matter to form from the dense dark energy. I am not familiar enough with the experiments and have not quantified matter formation within QWC, so I can’t claim any theory about the meaning of the discovery of a pattern of particles without the discovery of Higgs particle itself. I don’t know anyone who is familiar enough with the LHC experiments and who would be willing to talk about the poorly presented ideas of QWC in relation to the meanings of the data that the LHC will produce.

Almost certainly the individuals I am referring to do not exist and so short of me getting off of “stupid” somehow, no theory of QWC will emerge. As it stands there is that one possibility that I would think falsifies QWC; that being the discovery of the Higgs particle itself. On the other hand, if no Higgs mechanism is detected and if the energy density achieved by the LHC can be considered energetic enough to falsify Higgs Theory, then that would leave open the possibilities conveyed in the ideas of QWC.

 

[quantum_wave]

Earlier in the presentation of the ideas of QWC there was a discussion where I said that if spacetime did not curve in the presence of mass, then the photon would have to have mass. I didn't know how to calculate the mass of a photon that would account for the deflection measured in observations made of light from distant stars during the eclipse. Someone in the community pointed out that the limit of the mass of a photon was so small that it could effectively be considered zero.

Take a look at this link. http://backreaction.blogspot.com/2008/01/light-deflection-at-sun.html

 

[prometheus]

FYI: blogs don't count as proper references since they are not peer reviewed, and the blog you link to does not back up your claims one jot.

The scientific position on the photon mass is that it is strictly zero from theoretical arguments (gauge invariance) but one can never measure it to be exactly zero in an expt. We can put a very low upper bound on it though, and the upper bound is getting smaller all the time.

 

[quantum_wave]

FYI: blogs don't count as proper references since they are not peer reviewed, and the blog you link to does not back up your claims one jot.

The scientific position on the photon mass is that it is strictly zero from theoretical arguments (gauge invariance) but one can never measure it to be exactly zero in an expt. We can put a very low upper bound on it though, and the upper bound is getting smaller all the time.

I gave you that link and asked you to look at it because I wanted to leave the door open for you to talk with me about it. Here is what I found notable that pertained to our brief discussion about photon mass: The article spoke of “Y” value. “Y” value is the difference between Newtonian gravity and Spacetime in regard to the predicted and observed deflection of photons as they pass the sun from distant stars. Spacetime has a "Y" value of 1 and Newtonian has a "Y" value of 0.

We, or at least I had mentioned that in QWC (my ideas about cosmology) the photon has a tiny mass, accounting for how it would be deflected by the sun if spacetime wasn’t doing it. I mentioned that I was interested in knowing what mass the photon would have to have to match the deflection observed during the eclipse, and that I had asked for help in calculating that tiny mass without any success. One interesting point about the link I gave you is that they refer to calculations of that Newtonian mass in order to establish the “Y” scales since the “Y” value is determined by the difference between Newtonian and Spacetime predictions. All that I would have to do is calculate the mass using QWC gravity.

Someone mentioned that if mass and gravity were caused by the ideas of QWC, then calculated deflection due to QWC gravity would have to match the predicted and observed deflection due to spacetime since spacetime and the real measurements were the same.

Just to mention how QWC gravity differs from Spacetime and Newtonian, QWC gravity is imprinted in the aether by constantly repeating quantum waves that are emanated by mass. The waves have a net negative energy relative to the average energy density of the universe while mass always has a net positive energy density relative to the average energy density of the universe. The average energy density of the universe is a huge positive figure meaning that the universe is composed of energy. Since energy cannot be created or destroyed in QWC (and mainstreams science), all of the energy has always existed, i.e. there was no “beginning” of energy, only beginnings of arenas where the perfect symmetry between negative and positive energy has a common history originating from a big bang type of event.

That simply means that the positive energy of a single big crunch and the negative energy of the aether surrounding that big crunch before the burst of a crunch into expansion have a net zero deviation from the average energy density of the universe. The mass of a crunch has positive energy and the negative energy of the aether surrounding the crunch exactly off sets the positive energy of the crunch.

The imprinted history that mass leaves in the aether is caused by the constant emanations of negative energy from the mass into the aether. Each quantum wave and the net of all of the single tiny quantum waves from within mass expand infinitely as they travel spherically away from their mass. Any point in space has energy density determined by the emanations of mass from across the universe if their emanations have expanded sufficiently to reach that point.

Disregarding for a moment the expansion momentum of mass imparted to it as mass formed within an arena wave, mass moves through the aether in the path of lowest energy density (if you look at it from the perspective that mass is high energy density and the emanations from mass are low energy density). The larger mass causes a lower energy density emanation and a lower density imprint on the aether.

Applying QWC gravity to the photon, we agree, would have to match spacetime gravity instead of Newtonian gravity. Here are some considerations: The QWC gravity emanations from mass supposedly travel away from mass at the speed of light relative to the reference frame of the mass. It gets complicated for me because photons are travelling at the speed of light relative to the observer in any reference frame (special relativity). Gravity emanating at the speed of light from a photon travelling at the speed of light means that the gravity from the photon is cancelled in the direction that the photon is travelling, leaving the effect of the suns gravity on the photon to be felt by the photon, but the effect of the photon's gravity would not be felt by the sun until the photon reached and passed the sun.

I have to figure out how to express that mathematically in order to make a prediction of what the deflection would be of a photon passing the sun from a distant star in terms of QWC gravity. I haven’t been able to figure it out mathematically yet.

One more point about the photon’s mass in QWC. The photon emitted from an electron would be different from the quantum waves emitted from mass. We are not talking about photons being the same as quantum waves or being emitted in the same way that quantum waves are emanated from mass. The quantum waves have no QWC mass, only a quantum or less of energy expanding spherically from mass to create the aether.

But on the other hand, when a photon is emitted, there is a discrete amount of energy contained in the photon and that energy is equivalent to the energy lost by the electron as the electron changes position in the orbital.

So we have a photon emitted from an electron at the speed of light. In QWC, the energy of that photon consists of energy in quantum increments and the number of quantum increments corresponds with the photon’s energy, i.e. the photon is an organized particle of mass within which quantum action is taking place constantly every quantum period (every instant) as the photon travels at the speed of light relative to any observer in any frame.

How do I calculate the mass of that photon under those conditions? Knowing the mass of photons of differing energies would certainly help with the task of quantifying the amount of energy in a QWC energy quantum. Hence, back to the drawing board.

 

[Xylene]

I understand they're trying to find evidence of the Higgs Field at the new accelorator--what progress have they made on that matter?

It would be interesting to see whether the Higgs Field (if it can be proven to exist) may interact with matter in order to give it mass.