MJ kihara

What are the least possible requirements of such conditions?

Comparing speed with time directly and linking that to gravity can lead to misconceptions about gravity...speed should be viewed as a ratio of length and time....then look at how gravity affects length..and..then look at how gravity affects time( in this case 'and' is very important.) After that use the ratio to conclude about speed or if you like velocity. though I also think there should be much more fundamental explanations about time..to make it's arguments on issues like time dilation more logical.

Sand flow quickly because near source of gravity length is dilated..if the sand is free falling towards gravity at a constant time...what you will be perceiving is increase of speed. Remember definition of speed=distance (length)÷time...increase distance while keeping time constant speed increases In this case gravity is affecting length (distance).

When having one fundamental field that undergoes changes and deformations at close range to exhibit properties of other fields...the divergences diminishes once those changes and deformations that leads to other fields infinitely reduces at a distance.

Diagram seem more logical to me...given my math background,of which I expect with more training on math both will become logical... anyway...am still not getting how.. Assuming...gravity renormalise through formation of graviton,at the event horizon and at the edges of the universe....those are my assumptions.. I still don't get how adding other particles fields to gravitation fields causes divergence? Are they not suppose to couple?

A diagram illustrating divergence-vector field or a curl and mathematical equations explanation for divergence and curls which one is one is more logical?

Some clarification on this pliz...what's the issue with adding other particles fields?

We can't brush off gravitational renormalization especially the fact that BH are real objects not just hypothetical...it's critical to address it,if not,have reasons to state otherwise.

Silly... really is that the best u get out of that diagram...I think you are anti science...you fear exploration. Those are your words and conclusions... NOT MINE...am still around in the forum if not banned...you will get to know why am saying they are ultralight....and PLIZ DON'T JUMP INTO CONCLUSIONS...I know lorentz factor...square of a negative has to be taken into consideration. Learn to listen to other people's ideas and opinion....where your not getting you ask for clarification so that you can conclude...it's time you accept and appreciate there are great ideas going around in this forum...it's not just a mere forum.

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2023/06/230614220651.htm University of Toronto. "Astronomers discover new link between dark matter and clumpiness of the universe." ScienceDaily. ScienceDaily, 14 June 2023. <www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2023/06/230614220651.htm>. Can someone over there inform those great researcher that their theoretical breakthrough has been under the discussion in this forum under my posts for quiet sometime though as part of a basic theory of the universe. The axions here am referring them to dark photons...which is well illustrated in one of the diagram....zoom to be clear to see the photon zoo after dark matter... Wonderful current most updated research on cosmology...just published on cosmological journal the other day.... Dark photons being part of photon zoo they are ultralight....which can go FTL....I don't want to duel on that here to dilute this thread.

We need deeper explanations concerning constancy of c,so that transition from Galilean relativity to SR becomes more appealing to the commonsense....otherwise,to the majority... without physics degrees, it will ever appear to be a conspiracy...I tend to think nature had enough reason to make common sense to be Galilean as our first step of developing intiution.

Not just straight forward definition...and more than the issue of shut up and just do the calculation....the issue here is about why and where from. Am not against mainstream physics...I use it to guide my reasoning...it's my guard rail. I believe we must have unbiased fundamental understanding of the universe, to be able to simulate it to the highest precision so as to unleash the next phase of exploration.

To have a deeper understanding of nature....i.e what is the real nature of energy and it's actual relationship with matter....why couldn't zero point energy which is massive just turn into matter...such like issues and of course why are we(human)conscious and intelligent.

I was responding to that...from the 'other concept' I don't intend to replace mainstream physics..my hope is using it's tools to be able to give alternative ways of understanding such issues.

Probability distribution maps virtual tube that contains quantum particles... information gained restrict the position/momentum of the qauntum particle within this virtual tube... shrinking of the virtual tube to approximately where the quantum particle is, is interpreted as collapse...in this regard quantum particle can be thought as being distributed within it's virtual tube...the periphery of this tube is highly flexible, therefore,it respond to any kind of interaction it encounters...also since it's below quantum formation threshold it's highly fragile,meaning it can disintegrate into virtual particles a.k.a spacetime particles(just like a bubble pop when pinched) when it encounters interaction above it's fragility...therefore probability distribution is real and wave function collapse is a real phenomenon.

All this; collapse, distribution-happens when you try to ring fence wave-particle duality...when you try to interpret wave-particle duality you end up getting wave function. The reason mostly from my perspective explain why on my 'other discussions' I never accepted to drop the terminology 'virtual particles'....since to understand the reality of the issue under the discussion there are other exotic terms like virtual tubes and mirrorness has to be taken into consideration. Cumulatively 'virtual particles' entangle to form basic structures...e.g virtual tubes....to conventional virtual particles(equilibrium point between primodial quantum to quantum as a unit) ....to actual particles we know of. When 'virtual particles' are emitted by particles they are highly entangled to it(contain more information about it) as the concentration of this particles(virtual particles) increase and depending on level of their stability they collapse on to themselves increasingly becoming mirror of their actual particle which is emitting them, therefore, forming virtual tubes to conventional virtual particles-As you are understanding this explanation, you are ring fencing to the actual particle,your distribution is narrowing to the peek.. that's amplitude of probability function. Let us digest that because it's the most critical part of wave function collapse mechanism....ring fencing wave-particle duality...does it sound outrageous? .......point of concern-It will be appropriate you let me here and in my other subsequent discussions use virtual particles to refer to spacetime particles and the other usual one i will be referring to it as conventional virtual particles...to me and my ideas the more fundamental 'virtual particles' accumulate while entangling to become conventional virtual paricle while conventional virtual particle having failed to reach quantum threshold disintegrate to fundamental 'virtual particles'...... Spelling...'paricle' it's particle.

According to my thinking...wave function collapse is real.... probability distribution is real..it is a real phenomenon describing real things....the issue of being real phenomenon and not real...it's not real to the majority cause the conventional concepts don't account for it...it's the case of, as from stringJunky post..'shut up and do the calculations'.

Transfer through which way? ....can gaining of knowledge regarded as transfer of information.

Is it away of spreading our real ignorance about the real situation of an aspect until we get the real answer through observation?

What caused Einstein to use 'spooky action at a distance' phrase?

Is wave function collapse real?

Is wave function collapse a real phenomenon?

Perhaps entanglement happens prior to the 'destruction' of the photon and prior to emission of the photon when the atom undergoes relaxation.......''anyway from my thinking,'the other concept' a photon causing excitation is not destroyed,and it still exists in photon zone within the electron,whereby it's then emitted when the election is deexicited.... sorry for being off conventional"

On the issue of knowing and issue of interaction on close proximity....to know you have to make measurements.... making measurements means coming into closer proximity to the quantum particle being measured for accuracy of your measurements to improve,closer to the extent uncertainties takes over...when the signal from test particle come back to you so that you know,entanglement is destroyed..if the signal you used for measurements doesn't come back and stick to the quantum particle being measured then entanglement is not destroyed. I think for quantum particle or quantum particles,any kind of interaction at closing proximity,it involves entanglement.....by knowing the state of entanglement you are destroying the existing interaction of the system and the system is no longer in the entangled form that you knew...iow i think AT CLOSE PROXIMITY for quantum particle/s you can't separate interaction and entanglement (interaction without entanglement is impossible).....detection/knowing, you are destroying the interaction since you have to get something out of the interaction to be the signal your getting to make you know.