• [deleted]

  • Post #137

Dear Sir,

We cannot understand why scientists have to resort to weirdness to explain physical phenomena. Confinement and Entanglement are not quantum phenomena alone, but they have macro examples also. Superposition of states arises out of the mechanism of measurement, which has been sensationalized by imputing imaginary characteristics to it.

As we have explained in our essay, every particle in the Universe is ever moving with respect to something or the other. Measurement is conducted at a designated instant called "here-now" and the result of that measurement is used at subsequent times, when the particle no longer retains those characteristics, but has temporally evolved. Thus, only its state at the said instant can be known with certainty. It's true state before and after measurement, which is not a single state, but an ever changing state, cannot be known. This unknown state, which is a composite of all possible states, is known as the superposition of states.

When two objects retain their original relationship after being physically separated, such relationship is called entanglement. Suppose someone while traveling forgot to take one of the pair of socks. The individual sock of the pair is complementary to the other. They cannot be used in isolation. If someone asks, 'which of the pairs has gone with the traveler', the answer will be unknown till someone at either end finds out by physical verification. This is a macro example of entanglement. Before the verification (measurement) was done; which one went out was not known. It could have been either one (superposition of all states). After measurement the answer is conclusively known (wave function collapses). There is no need to unnecessarily sensationalize it. The quantum entanglement can be easily explained if we examine the nature of confinement and the measure the distance up to which entanglement shows up (generally, it is not infinite, but lasts up to a maximum of a few kilo meters only).

Not only quarks, but also all particles are confined. LHC has surprised physicists / cosmologists that the early universe was a 'perfect fluid' and not an 'explosion of gases' that is the basis of all current theories. Particles are nothing but confined fluids; that is described as the primordial field. The mechanism by which this fluid is confined will be discussed separately (using simple verifiable models and without Higg's mechanism). Just like only the atoms (molecules) and their combinations exhibit definite chemical properties, only quarks are the first particles to exhibit this property of confinement. Hence if we try to break their confinement, the applied energy leads to formation of other quarks not due to uncertainty principle, but due to simple mechanism of inertia of motion and inertia of restoration (elasticity). Even within the confinement, the up quarks change to down quarks and vice versa. This property is exhibited by all particles. For every micro particle there are macro equivalents. For example, Jupiter is the macro equivalent of proton.

Confinement requires a central stable point around which the mass (confined field) accumulates and the external limit of the confinement which gives rise to the stabilized orbits. There is space between these two positions. This gives a three fold structure. Since inside the particle, it is all fluid or locally confined fluid (sub-systems), it is unstable. If some force is applied to move a smaller portion of the fluid, it generates an equal force in the opposite direction. This is exhibited as the charge of the particle. Where this force interacts with other forces, it may become non-linear. Otherwise, it behaves linearly. The linear behavior is known as quantum entanglement. Electrons and photons are special cases of this confined fluid.

Regarding Relativity, we have proved in other posts that it is a wrong description of facts and that Einstein's mathematics is wrong. Since it is very lengthy, we are not reproducing it here. Those interested may read our post below the essay of Mr. Castel and Mr. Granet.

Regards,

basudeba

Dear basudeba,

We are in essential agreement on a number of things, although we differ in the details.

As you are by now aware, Bell's inequality is facing a challenge and I believe that it will fail the test. I say this partly because I agree with Christian's approach to the problem, and partly because I reject the absurdity of the non-locality and non-reality implied by the so-called 'violations' of Bell's incorrectly calculated inequality. I view entanglement as local in origin and sustained by conservation, as one would expect from local realism.

There are those who believe that a simple calculation is enough to forsake rationality, realism, and locality. I simply reject this. I have attempted to pursue a 'holistic' theory in which the evolution of known reality follows from simplest principles consistent with experiment. I reject the extra dimensions, extra universes, one-dimensional strings, branes, and so forth.

I do agree that particles are essentially self-confined fluids condensed from the primordial field, and that this is what is seen in the 'perfect fluid' at the LHC. From the perspective of a vortex there are just a few ways in which particles can 'condense' and whenever sufficient energy from collisions is input to 'dissolve' the local particle back into the 'fluid' state, then the same basic particles will reappear, and their resonant combinations, in jets.

As for confinement, the quarks are confined to a self-sustained (C-field) solenoidal 'flux tube' whose energy exceeds the particle production energy, hence any attempt to 'knock one loose' will fail, as a new particle pair will be generated, half of which preserves the nucleon, and the other half of which combines as a hadron to pair with the 'departing' particle.

The key to understanding this is to see the system as a Yang-Mills fluid that is locally real and physical. To impart mystical properties based on essentially mystical 'wave functions' leads to probabilistic results that are utilitarian, but are misleading when taken as the complete description of reality.

So we agree on much. And I have read your long comments on Mr. Castel and Mr. Granet threads, and thank you for keeping my thread 'clean'.

Good luck in your researches.

Edwin Eugene Klingman

Tom,

I appreciate your above comment. I do not view you as an adversary. I view you as one who has worked so hard to understand physics that he has a rather complete view of reality in terms of preferred structures in his mind that encompass most of what he knows in these structures. I view Lawrence the same way. I simply think that your perspective and mine are essentially orthogonal in so many respects that we do not project the others understanding into our own understanding. Neither of us have the whole truth, but we don't even speak the same language to a large extent.

Once I understood Fourier series, all other decompositions seemed to me to be simply a way to simplify things. I attach no physical significance or importance to Hilbert space. Ray has said that you and I are about the same age, so the fact that I was raised at the tail end of the Bourbaki school may also have afflicted you. I fought hard to overcome this mathematical bias and be a physicist, despite the implied inferiority of that position.

I see it as a preference for physicality and intuition on my part with mathematics viewed as utilitarian, while it seems to me that you and Lawrence see mathematics as the most relevant 'reality' with physics viewed as a check on mathematics. There is no value judgment here, just an attempt to understand why we seem to be unable to connect or reconcile our ideas.

My original hope was that you would be of some help to me in the sense of smoothing any rough edges that you found too abrasive. But that would require you to adopt my view, and that seems to be too much work. I understand this. I certainly cannot adopt Lawrence's view. I don't have the facility with all of the symmetry groups and other creatures that inhabit his jungle.

There is no need that we all agree. For example, I don't believe that reality is only information, and have scattered a number of comments around this contest contesting the physical reality of information.

Finally, you may recall that I insist that my physics also address consciousness as I have experienced it over many decades, whereas others have expressed that consciousness is important, but must be put aside for now in favor of more immediate physics (and then proceed to extra dimensions and multi-verses, but that's another story.)

Anyway Tom, I thank you for playing the game, and consider you a friend, not an adversary.

Edwin Eugene Klingman

  • [deleted]

  • Post #140

Respected Sir,

The last line of your post (keeping your thread clean) is interesting. We are only questioning from a logical perspective the very questions that should be asked for finding out the truth and not for proving a point or for bravado or just for fun. If that scares some people, we can't help. Since we agree with you on most issues in principle, there is no reason for us to "dirty" your thread.

Yet, without using "self-sustained (C-field) solenoidal 'flux tube' " or "Yang-Mills fluid", we have derived the forces and particles from the primordial field and succeeded in uniting them. Soon we will come out with the full theory.

Regards,

basudeba.

    Hi Edwin, I liked the style of your thinking very much. It's nice to see someone else with the idea of an analog-in, digital-out universe. I also think I've found the sticking point in history which is why we are having this competition in the first place. I replied to another essay, by Jarmo, which sums it up rather well I believe. He imagines asking Newton himself what he thinks of modern advances in physics:

    An excellent and entertaining entrance to your essay Jarmo, congratulations on your imagination and ingeniuty. I have a burning question which I've always wanted to ask Newton though, which is this:

    Q: Since he equated the ancient greek philosophy of the smallest irreducible particle, called an atom, with the motions of the planets as observed by Galileo Galilei, does he want to know what his very large unspoken logical assumption was, which has now meant that humanity has been led down the wrong scientific path?

    Ans: He assumed that the cores of the planets and sun are composed of the same everyday matter which is found on the external crust. (It's not necessarily the case and so invalidates the whole of Einstein's space-time concept imo and also invalidates the results of the Cavendish experiment to 'weigh' the Earth).

      Alan,

      Thanks for the compliment. I noted that you remarked on several threads about considering "the Archimedes screw as an analogy for something with both particle and wave properties?" If you look at the static pictures at the top of page 6, and imagine them as dynamic, that is approximately what you would see.

      Your idea of gravity as the Archimedes screw is novel. As you probably know, Maxwell modeled electro-dynamics mechanically, even after he had the field equations. It was an easier sell. (I'm not buying your model, just admiring the novelty of it.)

      Edwin Eugene Klingman

      • [deleted]

      • Post #143

      Hi Edwin,

      I have an idea that's probably a brain buster even for a NASA physicist. Here goes. I'm want to come up with an idea for a hyper-space that won't create any physics violations. One possible violation would be that a hyper-drive would permit someone to enter a black hole and, in effect, violate thermodynamics. The other problem is I have is that I want spaceships that can hover like they do in the movies. So here is the idea.

      Remember we agreed that if gravity is the negative energy that balances the energy of the Big Bang, then conservation of energy is protected because the net energy is zero? Well what if we try a variation of that. We have,

      [math]-E_{BB}+E_{BB}=0[/math]

      But now, we make the positive E_BB the gravity (space-time term), and the energy is negative. What happens?

      I believe that in this particular universe, accumulations of energy are gravitationally repulsive. So there are not likely to be any accumulations of mass-energy.

      But what about a gravitationally signficicant object (planet, star, blackhole), in our universe? Could we get a (negative mass-energy) in hyper-space to attract itself to a massive planet/star/black hole in our universe?

      The result would be that the hyperspace around the earth, stars, blackholes, would be gravitatationally repulsive to the (negative energy) of that universe.

      I'm not sure how you feel about manipulating space. But if we build a spaceship that can surround itself in hyperspace ...

      OK, it's getting a bit weird even for me. The idea sounded good when I thought of it, but now ...

        Yes, I see what you mean about the figures at top of page 6. Yet it's the simplicity of the mechanical screw idea which has yet to sink in to the mathematically minded I think. I have studied simulation modelling at masters degree level at Brunel University an have been addicted to solving the big mystery of everything since my older brother studied astrophysics at Leeds. I left my scientifc career so that I wouldn't be influenced by the mainstream line of thinking. I was sure that an elementary mistake had been made in the course of history. Now that I've found it, all the problems of science have revealed themselves and slowly unfolded into an image which is easily comprehendable. All without the use of mathematics. If you imagine the Archimedes screw turning, then the helical action can act as force of attraction when interacting with another particle. If this screw travelled around a wraparound universe, then it would emege on the other side as a force of repulsion i.e. dark energy. How can this simple model be so easily ignored by the science community I ask you?

        Yes, I have been posting this message on a select number of essays because I want to spark the imagination of a special someone able to take the idea forward. Thank you for the appreciation of it's novelty. You're the first!

        Jason,

        We'd all like to have a spaceship that hovers.

        In my understanding of your equation above, the -E_bb is the potential energy of the gravity field and the +E_bb is the equivalent mass of this energy 'exploding' outward with kinetic energy that balances the potential energy.

        While I've read as much sci-fi as the next guy, maybe more, I am not much of a believer in hyperspace, so I'm not much help there.

        But as I've said before, keep those new ideas flowing.

        Edwin Eugene Klingman

        • [deleted]

        • Post #146

        Hi Edwin,

        I'm not sure if a hyper-space exists either. However, I think there is merit in giving it a try. In my essay, I said that everything in physics can be described by photons and wave-functions. So I'm using that as a strategy. Objects like particles, waves and space-ships can be described as a wave-function,

        [math]\Psi[/math] which exists within our space-time called,

        [math]S_0[/math]

        The idea I have is to posit a surface (closed surface) that functions as an interface that surrounds object (wave-function),

        [math]\Psi[/math]

        This interface will cause cause the object to behave like an object in hyper-space (space-time S_i),

        [math]\Psi_i = T_{0i}[\Psi][/math]

        Using this setup, I want to try some round trip journeys for photons and particles that travel, first by hyper-space and return via space-time. I want to figure out what kinds of relationships exist between h and h' (Planck constant), G and G'(Gravity constant), and c' >> c. I want to require:

        1. causality, and

        2. conservation of energy (initially).

        I want to try dropping the object through hyper-space and compare it with a drop through standard space-time.

        I'm not sure if I should call the interface a wave-function or an operator. But it should permit the object obey conservation of momentum, in hyper-space, with a mass content of,

        [math]m_i = m \frac{c^2}{c_i^2}[/math]

        If the speed of light c_i is large enough, we could build a star-ship that weighs as much as a battleship in space-time, but weights only a few kilograms in hyper-space.

        I want to use the shift-photon idea to create hyper-space gravity waves.

        At the very least, I might discover a hidden relationship between c, h and G, something that fixes their values. I think this effort is worth it. Falsifiability would come from building a shift photon generator and running it at a very high repetition rate.

        Dear basudeba,

        I did not mean to offend you by my last sentence. As I had noticed that you had posted some very long comments on others threads, I simply meant to thank you for keeping your comments 'brief', there was no implication of 'dirty'. It was a poor choice of words on my behalf.

        Edwin Eugene Klingman

        Jason,

        I've seen your comments on hyper-space before, but I've never quite figured out what it is you're talking about. I'm missing something critical.

        On another topic, I just posted to Peter the following:

        I have been looking at 'ring laser gyroscopes' and thinking that you might also be interested in these devices. They produce two counter-rotating laser beams around a closed circuit. When the circuit physically rotates, one path is effectively lengthened and the opposite shortened, with consequent interference fringes that can produce 'beats' on a photo-detector proportional to the angular rotation speed. This allows the device to function as a gyroscope for navigational purposes (used on Airbus A320 and many others). Just google "ring laser gyro".

        Also interesting is that Martin Tajmar used such a device to measure the C-field. By placing the 'ring' around a C-field dipole, one laser beam is flowing 'with' the C-field, and the other is flowing 'against' the C-field and of course the interference allows highly accurate measurement of the circulation of the field.

        Among other questions is what happens when the beams are in vacuum and one beam is effectively 'speeded up'.

        Edwin Eugene Klingman

        Jason,

        I watched a you-tube of Tajmar explaining his experimental results to an audience. After discussing the ring laser gyro measurement of the C-field he asked:

        "What can cause a frequency shift of photons."

        Right down your alley.

        Edwin Eugene Klingman

        • [deleted]

        • Post #150

        Hi Edwin,

        I guess a ring laser gyroscope "would" be able to detect rotation of the ring. I think that fiber optics are effectively mirrors on the inside (along the bore of the fiber optic cable; in addition, there is glass or some kind of material with index of refraction n>1. I think it's cool that the rotating ring would almost act like mirrors that are moving towards/away from photons that bounce of the walls of the fiber optic cable. The fact that the "moving mirror effect" doesn't produce redshift or blue-shift is amazing AND something I'll need to think about.

        I've got a question for you. At the momentum of the Big Bang, why didn't the gravity associated with all that energy cause the Big Bang to become a gigantic black hole? Unless you have a better answer, consider this answer. Gravitational potential has a slow reaction time. Space-time needs time to curve space-time in response to an excitation. In other words, at the moment of the Big Bang, gravity (space-time curvature) had not yet reached the equilibrium. Gravitational potential has a 1/r dependence. But how can a curvature travel all the way out to an infinite distance r inside of a nanosecond? It can't. In effect, gravity was still putting on its boot when the Big Bang explosion was riding off at light speed.

        Remember that gravitational potential can only propagate at the speed of light. Photons move at the speed of light, and were laughing at gravity which couldn't get its act together quickly enough to produce a black hole. Gravitational potential is NOT instantaneous. However, it's expected to induce a proper gravity field instantaneously. Poor gravity; expectations exceed capability.

        Why do I belabor this point? Because it means that the Einstein equations can't keep up with a rapid enough change in energy. If true, then the Einstein equations are no longer carved in stone. The Einstein equations are mortal and they can be defeated. Space-time will try to conserve energy. But if it's response time is too slow, then energy conservation can be violated. Eventually, gravity will catch up and plug up the leakage of energy; in doing so, space-time will curve to compensate for the additional energy (after it's gotten its boots on). Space-time curvature has to clean up the mess by achieving the proper gravity. Gravity complains and mutters with irritation that it has to go out to r = infinity to achieve a balance between energy and gravity. Gravity calls energy (photons) irresponsible and inconsiderate of consequences.

        What's my point? Gravity is obligated to uphold the Einstein equations. I'm tempted to call it a mandate of God, but that would be a distraction. Control systems describe how a system will try to dampen out an excitation. What is gravity's control system in order to re-achieve the Einstein Equations? I don't know either, but I think we should look for poles and zeroes of gravitational space-time. In electronics (and control systems), the system has a transfer function of the form,

        [math]H(s) = \frac{K(s-z_1)}{(s-p_1)}[/math]

        H(s) = \frac{K(s-z_1)}{(s-p_1)}

        I'm willing to bet that the shift photon is such a pole. I think its frequency will be the repetition rate of the shift photon.

        If I'm right, then we just jumped ahead 500 years technologically.

        Jason,

        Yes, and the most interesting thing to me is that a static ring laser gyro detects the circulating C-field (the rotational aspect of gravity.)

        Your next question is tricky. If we agree on a Free Lunch Universe, then the outward kinetic energy of motion must equal the inward potential energy of gravitational attraction. I never understood how the universe was supposed to inflate much faster than the speed of light, but I think that falls within the 'scale invariance' discussed in my essay. As Ray Munroe made me aware, Nottale shows that 'scale invariance' is the same as 'motion invariance'. As I conceive of this the 'shape' of the potential is preserved whatever the scale, so that a rapidly expanding universe that is independent of scale is also independent of motion and hence the speed of light. This seems to be what you are talking about: "gravity was still putting on its boot when the Big Bang explosion was riding off at light speed."

        It's difficult to grasp these special conditions intuitively, but they seem to be implied by the Free Lunch assumption, and my Master equation is definitely scale invariant.

        I understand control theory and transfer functions, but not all systems try to damp out excitations. I don't quite see how the shift photon does this.

        Edwin Eugene Klingman

        • [deleted]

        • Post #152

        Hi Edwin,

        I'm just not getting the scale invariance idea.

        This is a little frustrating for me, but I figured out the Big Bang/gravity potential thing. In the first few minutes of the Big Bang, the energy density is homogeneous, therefore, the negative gravitational potential is negative and and flat (no gravity fields yet). The effects of gravity are irrelevant because there is no slope. However, the poor SOB on the outside of the Big Bang who didn't see it coming, he suddenly gets (1) severely irradiated with energy and (2) falls into a precipitously steep gravitational slope at the outer edge of the Big bang; suddenly that poor SOB is part of universe universe now. As the universe expands, the energy density gets less and less. The gravitational potential also gets less and less. The gravitational potential remains flat until matter forms and starts to clump. Eventually, the negative flat gravitational potential energy inside of the universe gets less and less negative until it equalizes with the space-time that was already here. So, in a way, the Big Bang created a whole new universe, but it quickly became part of the old universe that was already here. The Big Bang didn't become a black hole because the gravity well was flat, not sloping inwards; well, the slope was vertical with the old universe; equilibrium had not been reached. At one point, maybe in the first pico-second, the energy density was high enough to be a black hole. FTL phenomena is permitted inside of black holes.

        This is really frustrating for me because I want to explain how the Einstein equations can only respond at the speed of light. Unfortunately, the Big Bang has to hide this fact by maintaining constant density.

        So just imagine that a giant neutron star just pops up from out of nowhere. It doesn't explode at the speed of light because it has a constant diameter. However, its gravity field expands outward at the speed of light. As the gravity field expands outward, there will be longitudinal gravitational ripples in space-time. These ripples get damped out very quickly.

        Yes, I know this has never happened before. It's a thought experiment. Yes, I understand that the neutron star would probably explode anyway because of the gravity waves. How about a gigantic ball of Pb (lead)? Along the radii of the giant sphere made out of lead (Pb), the gravity waves would radiate outwards as attraction and repulsion. Time would slow down and than speed up again. There would be spherical wave-fronts of attraction and then repulsion. You could model these gravity waves with a sinusoid...

        [math]g(t) = g_0 cos (\omega t)[/math]

        g(t) = g_0 cos (\omega t)

        Shift photons have a constant potential energy slope; yes, it's repeating, but at a high repetition rate, it looks like a constant gravity field in one direction.

        Work with me...

        • [deleted]

        • Post #153

        Dear Sir,

        your essay was very interseting to read! Congratulations!

        As I am not an expert in these theories I have a (possibly trivial) question.

        You mentioned at pg.5 a final assumption for deriving real particles, distinguishable from real fields: That the curvature of space is limited. And as consequences of this, that electrons and quarks and also black holes appear as limits.

        My question is: If you have a limit for the curvature: is this a natural constant or could you also chose a half or a quarter of this number and guarantees also a limited curvature?

        Best regards

        Niklaus Buehlmann

          Niklaus,

          Thank you for your comment and for an interesting question.

          While the process effectively provides a 'limit to curvature' the term itself may be more metaphorical than accurate. What happens is this:

          The equivalent mass of the vortex wall, interacting with itself, produces a solenoidal C-field, just as an electric charge current produces a solenoidal magnetic field. But the increased C-field has the effect of forcing the vortex wall toward the central axis, while conservation of angular momentum increases the speed of the vortex wall. Where does this end? If an ice skater could pull her arms in all the way to a zero radius, how fast would she spin?

          This is not a 'boost' situation, such as occurs in relativistic linear acceleration, so there is no natural limit, and no reason to assume that the vortex wall velocity will not reach the speed of light. If it does, what happens? I conjecture that electric charge is created at the v=c point in the process. As it turns out, the equations show that the point where this occurs is the Compton radius of the electron, that is, the 'size' of the electron as observed by electromagnetic radiation. This does not stop the vortex wall from shrinking to a point, but now there is a 'braking force' at play, since the self-repulsion of the charge increasingly resists the shrinking.

          You ask about a 'natural constant' associated with this process. If one sets the C-field inward force equal to the charge self-repulsion outward force, then the point at which they are equal (and presumed stable) yields the fine structure constant, which is currently derived in no other theory.

          And this 'stable' size is of the order of 10^-18 meters, a thousand time less than Compton wavelength. So the electro-magnetic field sees one size, that is associated with the v=c wall velocity, while particle collisions see a much smaller size that is associated with the final stable radius of the particle. Note that all electrons are 'identical' since one cannot even in theory observe a 'mark' on one, as the mark would move away faster than c.

          This conjecture as to how charge comes into the picture is the weakest point of my theory, but compare it to string theory in which each 'winding' of the string through a 'hole' in an 11-dimensional Calabi-Yau manifold produces one unit of charge, and it doesn't appear so unreasonable. And QED simply conjectures that quantum fields, operating at a point, produce charge, but without mass, which requires a Higgs field.

          I hope that explanation gives you a better picture of the process that I metaphorically described as 'limit of curvature'. It actually does limit the curvature of the C-field vortex wall, but it is due to the self-repulsion of the charge equaling the inward force of the C-field on the vortex wall.

          Edwin Eugene Klingman

          Jason,

          Look at the first figure on page two and again at the figure on page 7. The red curve is the (2D graph of) the G-field potential. Note that it has a 1/r distribution. What this means is that the energy density is NOT homogeneous, but peaks at the r=0 (singularity?) and decreases as one moves away from this.

          Since you state that "In the first few minutes of the Big Bang, the energy density is homogeneous," then any conclusions that you draw from this will not apply to my theory, but, as seen on page 7, will apply to the FLRW solutions to Einstein's General Relativity 'dust' equations that do assume homogeneity.

          I don't know how to explain 'scale invariance' other than that if one multiplies the solution by a scale factor, it is still a solution of the same field equation. This is worked out in my appendix C. The Nottale references (thank you Ray) are in my list of references.

          You also say: "This is really frustrating for me because I want to explain how the Einstein equations can only respond at the speed of light. Unfortunately, the Big Bang has to hide this fact by maintaining constant density. "

          Again, there is no 'constant density' in my model.

          Edwin Eugene Klingman

          • [deleted]

          • Post #156

          Hi Edwin,

          After the inflationary epoch, quarks and gluons start to form; that throws a monkey wrench into the model. Quarks and gluons make up protons and neutrons (which are matter), which can't keep up with light. So gravity is an issue now.

          I'm trying to understand what you mean by low entropy. Since it might be the case that hadrons can't keep up with photons, then hadrons fall behind. If the explosion is outwards (like a grenade), then the gravity and light lead ahead of the particles (outwards), and a gravity field can develop.

          However, if there is no center because the Big Bang is a 4D space-time hypersphere (subtle sarcastic use of the word hypersphere), then the gravity field and photons are moving faster, but are not leaving particles behind. It's like bringing 50 obnoxious ADHD kids to a nursing home and locking the doors. The kids move really fast, the old people move really slow, but the kids never move away from the old people because the doors are locked. If the Big Bang is such a 4D hypersphere, then the energy density IS the same everywhere in space.

          Your figure on page 2 suggests geodesics that I can't even imagine. Yet I think you are suggesting that there is no geodesic caused by the expansion of space-time. In your paper, you said, "Yet most field-energy-mass of our G field is near the singularity, thereby achieving the required minimal entropy:"

          It sounds like we both prefer the grenade effect where the center (r=0), is somewhere rather than everywhere (for those who like hyper-spheres).

          There are quite a few points of discussion. I don't know if there was a pre-existing universe or a gravity discontinuity moving out at the speed of light from the Big Bang center. It's a thought experiment worth considering. What I'm after is whether or not gravity/space-time has a resonant frequency and a transfer function that I can use to overcome gravity. Call me crazy, but I'm looking for an H(s) that is the quotient of the output divided by the input. The input is a sinusoidally changing frequency (like FM radio with a sinusoid input). The output is a gravitational disturbance. Obviously, this resonant frequency is not 88 to 108 MHz or we would have noticed. Tunable lasers look more hopeful, but 5000 repetitions per second is apparently not fast enough.

          By the way, the frequency is

          [math]f= \frac{d \theta}{dt}[/math] f= \frac{d \theta}{dt}

          So what should I call df/dt? Chi?

          [math]\chi = \frac{df}{dt}[/math] \chi = \frac{df}{dt}