| Re: Omnidirectionally Expanding Matter Causes QM and the Spatially Expanding Universe
RP,
I think you pretty much grasped the gist of my remarks judging by your response, and the reason I make any remarks at all is based on the hair-fine-line difference between your steady-state theory and what I propose as a static-state theory - eventhough a square mile will grow 32' every second implying a steady state of motion, the measurement of the mile taken each second remains constant implying a static state of motionlessness. Needless to say again, your theory is the closest to perfection I've come across imo, but when I get a brain itch about a few of the pieces of the infinite puzzle I have to start scratching. I have no intention of writing a book btw. I think yours will suffice.
I love the spiral you referred us to. As I said to neutralino, it is close enough to electron orbits for me. If you have some material though, I may have overlooked, about how the spectral lines fit into the picture it would be helpful. I know changing the atomic models might not be exactly what you have in mind, but I'm thinking that an annihilation process of electrons and positrons throughout the spiral you depicted could explain an infinitesimal mechanism for creating all masses - based on the SLAC (Stanford Linear Accelerator Center) experiments and their hypothesis that all mass is kinetic energy, in the above case the energy from the gamma rays. Like the spectrum, which can essentially be infinite, of which only a small portion is detectable, the empirical views of science would indicate of type of interference in the form of redshifted light due only to the instruments used, where in reality, if we were to exist at that small scale (which would be according to your theory, a time in the past) there would obviously be no interference at all. This to say that Haselhurst's standing waves might be a type of optical illusion created by instrumentation, because the waves never really collide, but condense infinitely.
Not sure if that was clear enough. If it is, maybe you can let me know if we're on the same track or not.  |