Re: Query about Range of validity of field equations in Quantum Field Theory
- From: xxein <xxein1@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Sun, 23 Nov 2008 16:24:39 -0800 (PST)
On Nov 21, 10:07 pm, glird <gl...@xxxxxxx> wrote:
On Nov 21, 8:31 pm,xxein<xxe...@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:> On Nov 21, 3:47 pm, glird <gl...@xxxxxxx> wrote:
On Nov 20, 8:52 pm,xxein<xxe...@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
<< You are SO right! !!<We need the thread that ties. It will provide the understanding of the structure of our universe and beyond. >
Here it is: "LET MATTER BE COMPRESSIBLE!"
Think about it; and follow the ramifications. If and when you do,
you will understand everything in the universe, including what it's
made of and how it works. > >
xxein: No reason to get that drastic. But they do >compress (energy to matter).
No they don't!! (Define "energy" and think about it and you'll soon
see why I said that.)
< They also reach a compression point for which it becomes
unstable due to a gravity.>
Gravity is a word denoting several different things.
One is the entire process via which things 'fall down".
Another is the force that causes that to happen. Another is the
structure of the zone in which it happens.
< We have to find out why energy gets entangled and regions of it can
get reduced in the overall energy equilibrium (usually expanding)
therefor causing a gravity toward that point (centric).>
"Energy" is the ability to do work; and "work" is defined as mass
times the distance it is moved; and "mass" is a quantity of matter.
The only thing that can change the state of motion of a mass is a net
pressure. The only thing that can exert a net pressure is matter; and
the only thing that can possess the ability to do work (by exerting a
net pressure on a material object) is matter itself.
We have quantumly invented all kinds of things. Most of which we can measure. The graviton is not going to be one of them. Gravity has a different character. It is the ability of the rest of the quantum particles to self-simulate into a form; and through adiabatics to define them.>
A gravitational FIELD is a density gradient of the compressible
matter that is everywhere. A gravitational FORCE is the quantity of
net pressure that arises INSIDE of embedded particles. A "particle" is
a bit of matter that is structured into a self-perpetuating
configuration. Part of that configuration consists of density
gradients centered inside such a particle.
When a particle is embedded in a g-field it becomes part of that
field. The density gradient centered on a larger matter-unit sums
with that comprising the embedded one,
Since the resistance to the flow of its own material increases as
the density does, and since the grad d is steeper on the side where
the parent unit is centered, a net force arises in the direction of
the steeper side, which is toward the center of the overriding g-
field.
< But the process continues as they lock themselves out of
an ambient energy (the more basic energy equilibrium).
What this says, in effect, is that all pure energy might not have
been released equally into an expansion. Do an analysis of how a
modicum of gas releases and you will see different pressures all over
the place (both concentric (r) and along any circumference). >
Energy, whether "pure" or dark or white, is the ability of matter to
do work by exerting pressure on particles made of the very same easily-
movable space-filling compressible matter. Since the first law of
physics says that matter and energy can be neither created or
destroyed, the "expansion" due to the Big Bungle is a delusion. since
the Compton Effect experimentally proves that SOME of the energy of a
photon IS absorbed by atoms along the path, and the remaining quantum
of energy continues on with a bit less energy in it - thus a red shift
in its wavelength; the "expansion" due to the non-existing "all or
none" nonsense of present physics is another delusion.
< Nothing is perfect. That is why we have the diversity we do. >
Part of the reason for the vast diversity is that people ignore
experimental results in order to hold on to a theory that is obviously
false.
< We don't even know if our universe is not one born out of a BH that
may exist in a super-universe comprised of trillions of BH's. The
speed of light will not allow us to see that.>
A black hole is a very dense zone in the universal matter. There are
many of them, scattered about in the depths of space. The universe
contains them, but isn't "made of" them, and neither is a "super-
universe", i.e. a larger zone than the prior one under
consideration. :-}
< And that brings up another interesting point (oh, so many). Light
is affected by gravity. Is it affected by the universal expansion? >
Light is a wave system propagated by compressible matter as a set of
density-pressure gradients. The speed of light is a function of the
density of the local material enacting and transmitting those waves.
If the grad d of the field is steep, the path of transient waves will
bend toward the steeper side. If the grad d is steep enough, as it is
in black holes, the light path will be curved enough to trap it, which
is WHY the zone is black.
< There is a lot of science here that is lost to theories that are so
subjective to what we think we measure in an objective universe. >
Lack of semantic precision ruined theoretical physics far more than
its many defective equations.
< There is much more to be learned if we get our heads out of the same
traditional structural thoughts.>
RIGHT!! The oldest such traditional thought is the secret answer
"No" to the unasked question:
"Is Matter Compressible?"
The entire kinetic atomic theory (that all matter is made of ultimate
particles - points, of zero size = embedded and moving about in an
otherwise empty space) came from that premise. The result to date is
that "we stand on the shores of a vast ocean of ignorance".
< OK. We tried that forever with variable failure. Where is the
future? Surely, we will not get a TOE. Can we get closer? Yes. It
may take a lucky guess (actually, it does). But does that guess
really lead us closer, or does it take us down another wrong path?
Who is smart enough to decide that? >
It is time for a change. Try the answer "Yes" and the ignorance-
eliminating premise:
LET MATTER BE COMPRESSIBLE.
I haven't exactly just been sitting on my ass since 1985. My method of exploration seems to be eliminating the illogical theories and examining them to find out where they became illogical. They all become illogical through subjective measurement even when they attempt to describe it.
They had no correct notion of an objective behavior derived from a
subjective sense of measurement even though they have a spectrum of
data from Q to U. >
If their basic premise is false, the data will be misunderstood
regardless of how accurate it may be.
I think I fare better if only by degree.
Good for you! Try the new premise and you will understand
everything far more easily than you now think is possible.
glird
xxein: That is like asking a 12 yr-old to continue his/her thoughts
into sexualism.
.
- References:
- Query about Range of validity of field equations in Quantum Field Theory
- From: Jay R. Yablon
- Re: Query about Range of validity of field equations in Quantum Field Theory
- From: xxein
- Re: Query about Range of validity of field equations in Quantum Field Theory
- From: Jay R. Yablon
- Re: Query about Range of validity of field equations in Quantum Field Theory
- From: xxein
- Re: Query about Range of validity of field equations in Quantum Field Theory
- From: glird
- Re: Query about Range of validity of field equations in Quantum Field Theory
- From: xxein
- Re: Query about Range of validity of field equations in Quantum Field Theory
- From: glird
- Query about Range of validity of field equations in Quantum Field Theory
- Prev by Date: Re: New knock to geometrical view of gravity
- Next by Date: Re: transforming coordinates
- Previous by thread: Re: Query about Range of validity of field equations in Quantum Field Theory
- Next by thread: Re: Query about Range of validity of field equations in Quantum Field Theory
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|