A logical approach to gravity at the quantum level

[Lord Antares]

OK, so density would also have to be a variable in the equation. If we could find the "imaginary" point at the center of the mass of the planet, and compare that to the distances where we took the measurements of our, proton area, and farthest possible electron orbit, at both surface and vacuum point. would that not somehow include the density factor? So, all the information that would have to be included in the equation would be as follows. The "weight of the planet", the "area of the planet" the "middle planetary area point distance to the surface location point" at which we calculate the "area of the proton", and the "farthest possible orbit area of said proton". Then "middle planetary area point distance to the vacuum point" at which we calculate the "proton area", and the "farthest possible orbit area of said proton", and also, the "distance between the surface point and the vacuum point" If we used all of these pieces of information in our formula, what order would the calculations have to be made?, and, wouldn't that give us a number value of gravity for said planet? Or would this be futile because gravity changes with mass. As soon as a meteor comes down you would have to recalculate the whole thing. What good would knowing a number value for gravity do anyway, it does not change the world we live in.

 

I cannot make sense of this. What would measuring the furthest possible electron orbit and proton accomplish? How would it give the weight of planet? It most certainly wouldn't give give the area of the planet.

 

Even theoretically, if it gave you the amount of space displaced somehow, what would you do with this equation?

[mantraphilter]

 

 

The sun is really, really big, as compared to the wavelength of visible light. As is the path of travel as the light passes by the sun.

 

Why does the light bend toward the sun, after it has bent away from the sun?

 

The starlight wave as it enters the "photographic negative effect" of the suns "displaced stacked space" would decompress relative to the space it is traveling through, then as the wave collapses around the sun, (like the ocean wave around the buoy) and moves away from the sun, it would then compress again due to the "photographic negative effect" that the suns "displaced stacked space" is creating.(it is entering less space).

[swansont]

 

The starlight wave as it enters the "photographic negative effect" of the suns "displaced stacked space" would decompress relative to the space it is traveling through, then as the wave collapses around the sun, (like the ocean wave around the buoy) and moves away from the sun, it would then compress again due to the "photographic negative effect" that the suns "displaced stacked space" is creating.(it is entering less space).

 

Why does the light bend toward the sun, after it has bent away from the sun?

 

I am going to keep asking this until you specifically address it, i.e. not just regurgitate your previous hand-wavy explanations. The wave we're talking about has a wavelength of around a micron, so it's nothing like an ocean wave going around a buoy.

 

You say it will "decompress" and the "compress" — what does that mean in terms of a wave? And it does both things from the same cause — entering "displaced stacked space", so how can one predict what will happen, if entering "displaced stacked space" can cause either effect?

[mantraphilter]

 

Why does the light bend toward the sun, after it has bent away from the sun?

 

I am going to keep asking this until you specifically address it, i.e. not just regurgitate your previous hand-wavy explanations. The wave we're talking about has a wavelength of around a micron, so it's nothing like an ocean wave going around a buoy.

 

You say it will "decompress" and the "compress" — what does that mean in terms of a wave? And it does both things from the same cause — entering "displaced stacked space", so how can one predict what will happen, if entering "displaced stacked space" can cause either effect?

 

 

All Four Forces of Physics United

The effects of gravity are not well understood at the large scale.

Mass distorts the space around itself.

Distorted space causes other mass to move into this distorted space, but why?

I believe that the effect of matter in space is of displacement. That is, that there is space through- out the area that the matter is occupying but, because the matter occupies this space, space in effect, gets stacked up around the matter. The closer to a mass that other masses become, the more they attract each other due to the space that is displaced and stacked around each body of matter. Therefore, more space is found around the surface of a planet than at a farther distance away from it.

I believe that light is effected as it travels past a large mass. I suggest that this is the reason.

When a mass becomes locked in orbit around another mass why are they not falling into each other?

Because, each mass has its own space stacked around it, having more space stacked closer to its mass, it doesn’t move into less space, but is still effected by the distortion created by the other mass that it orbits. I believe further, that the “displaced space” around a mass is not necessarily symmetrical, although it can be.

At the quantum level, a particle also has its own very tiny mass. But, the effect is still the same. The very tiny bit of space that a particle displaces, gets stacked around itself. A particles density does not vary throughout its mass. The space being displaced by a particle begins abruptly at the particles surface and ends abruptly at a distance from its surface, creating a wall of space differential.

 

When two particles are near each other, they do not attract each other. Each particle is not going to move into the regular space that is between them and their own “displaced space”, The displaced space is like a photographic negative image of the shape of the particle displacing it.

As two particles are forced together, the “displaced space” around them begins to overlap. Once the overlapped space becomes greater than the original displaced space, the particles move into the now greater overlapped space. This now combines the two particles into one nucleus, and the displaced space around the two particles into one “displaced space” around a “two particle nucleus”. Again, the “displaced space” around these two particles is like a photographic negative image of the shape of the two particles side by side in the center. I believe this is describing the strong nuclear force.

 

As another particle is added into the “displaced space” there now exists a three-particle nucleus, but the wall of space differential does not end as abruptly due to the density of the particles in the nucleus, and any space that is between the particles. The particles are not yet charged and would be defined as neutrons.

So how does the uncharged neutron get charged.

Photons of light traveling through space as a wave, enter the “displaced space” of a particle. The photon wave decompresses relative to the displaced space. The wave cannot compress fast enough to exit into the regular space. The uncharged particle now becomes charged, creating a proton. Once all of the particles are charged in the nucleus, any further photon light waves that pass through the “displaced space” decompress and do not enter the normal space outside of the “displaced space” and instead, stack up against the wall of space differential creating an electron. For each particle added to a nucleus, the “displaced space” has to distort and overlap to represent the shape of the nucleus and the wall of space differential becomes weaker due to the density of the nucleus and any space that is not used up by the stacking of spheres. As the nucleus gets larger and a proton gets buried in between other protons, this is what creates the shelves of electron orbits around the nucleus, and is why we see different orbital shapes around the nucleus. As for the neutron being necessary as a buffer between positively charged particles (in order to hold them together), we don’t need this anymore, or any other glue, (gluons, up quarks, down quarks) to hold the nucleus together.

I believe the language of physics is wrong when it describes the electron as a negatively charged particle. All particles are either charged, or not charged, and an electron is a charge free of any particle. If any particle deserves the negative designation. It should be the neutron, as it can accept a charge.

As you add particles to the nucleus, the overlapped space grows, the particles get charged and the displaced space becomes full of electrons but, the wall of space differential becomes a more gradual transition which allows electrons to escape the displaced space. I think this might be describing the weak nuclear force. Unless the atom is buried in a mass that adds pressure, the atom can no longer hold itself together. Once an electron leaves the “displaced space”, the wall of space differential adjusts to the loss, and the remaining electrons are again held by the wall of space differential.

So, how do covalent bonds hold atoms together?

As an electron is shared by the two atoms it bonds the atoms together.

I do not define the electron as a negatively charged particle. This is misleading, and leads to the belief that there are two different types of charges, and there are not. Only charged particles (protons and electrons) and not charged particles which will accept a charge, (neutrons). The belief that there is an opposite negative charge that a particle could be, is a misconception, and is likely what has led to all the theories about anti matter and dark energy.

As atoms become larger and collapse, they give their particles to other atoms and or develop covalent bonds until it grows into a larger mass. As more matter collects, different densities are created and pressure from outside forces effect it until a mass is created with a large enough “displaced space” That the pressure from the regular space farther out, compresses the mass into a sphere, a planet.

So why is gravity so much weaker than the strong nuclear force.

A planet has more density as you come closer to its core. As matter accumulates, the “displaced stacked space” along with the atoms are being put under pressure by its mass. Different elements are created depending on the amount of pressure and density. As density increases, more space is being displaced around the total mass. At the surface of our planet, it appears weaker because, the “displaced stacked space” is being occupied by less concentrated matter at its surface. Again, the “displaced stacked space” existing around the planet is like a photographic negative of itself. The closer you are to the center of the planet, the denser the matter becomes and so more of the displaced space is filled. Likewise, the closer to the surface (but within the matter) the less dense the matter becomes, and so less of the displaced space is being filled. As you travel way from the surface of the planet (through the photographic negative effect) of the displaced space, the space gradually decreases until you hit the wall of space differential and enter the vacuum of space. All of the planets have their own displaced space around them, only it is being filled by the density of the various atmospheres of the planets. This is what creates gravity. As newton dropped his apple, it fell down towards the surface, and into the more space created by the photographic negative effect of the “displaced space”.

In the case of our sun, the matter is so densely packed that any electrons close to the core are being smashed. As the “displace stacked space” collapses and energy radiates out as a wave of photons into the displaced space around the sun. The wave moves away from our sun and gets compressed as it moves into the less space farther from the displaced space of the sun, (Remember the displaced stacked space is like a photographic negative of its mass). The wave then renters the “displaced stacked space of a planet and is reamplified as it moves through the “photographic negative effect” of the “displaced space” until the wave collides around the mass, (like ocean waves around a buoy), Some of the wave now stacks up against the mass and creates electrons which are then absorbed by the mass and its atoms. The surface of the mass then becomes charged with electrons, while the opposite side of the mass is not charged, and so the mass rotates as the +charged side moves away from the +charge of the sun, and the uncharged side of the mass is attracted by the +charge of the sun. The planet is now caught in the “photographic negative effect “of the “displaced stacked space” of the sun. The planet does not move away into the less space that is farther from the sun and behind the planet, and the +charged surface of the planet is pushing against the +charge of the sun, like a giant solar sail.

Now, Imagine a black hole. The “displaced space” around it must be great. The common belief is that light cannot escape a black hole. The mass of a black hole does confine its atoms into a smaller and smaller space but, the dense matter is not what attracts more mass. In the case of the black hole the matter has become so dense, the atoms do not have any room to move. In a sense, they are fused together. All of the “displaced space” has been smashed out of its atoms, and the nuclear reaction has stopped. No photons can penetrate the atoms, and the black hole is like one giant particle, that light cannot penetrate. The displaced space would have an abrupt beginning right at the surface of the black hole’s matter, and an abrupt ending farther away, like a particle. This abrupt ending is popularly known as the “Event horizon”. The spiral arms you see extending away from the black hole are not being spun out. The space that is being displaced by the black holes’ mass is where the spiral arms are moving into. Again, the “displaced space” is the photographic negative of the mass inside the black hole, (whatever shape the black hole is). I believe this is why the star fields appear to get wider as they get closer to the black hole. If this definition is right, a black hole is not really a hole at all, it’s more of a giant particle.

[Phi for All]

!

Moderator Note

mantraphilter, you've had four pages to respond to questions in a way that explains your "logical" approach, and have obviously failed to satisfy any of the other members in that regard. Instead, you keep repeating yourself, which is soapboxing and against our rules. If you're interested in learning, you need to answer questions about your idea. To do science, you need to explain your idea to others so they can test it and see if it has predictive powers similar or greater to mainstream theories. If you can't do that, you're just waving your hands against mountains of evidence.

 

I'm closing the thread. It's too frustrating to discuss an idea when you won't answer questions that might lead to insights you don't favor. It's also against the rules. Please don't bring this topic up again.