Quote:
Originally Posted by N0B0DY  “These disturbed areas which are discovered to demand 3-Dimensions of Space indicate the position of the electron; yet we cannot state that the disturbed area is the electron. Because any such locality has a tendency to spread, and if the matter of the universe were a number of disturbed areas, by now it would have spread indefinitely."
From what I can gather, putting the above quote with the quote below implies the interactions of the point masses are the result of the interference of all the spreading. I'm not so much rejecting the expansion, but recognize it as an illusory sense of all the wave functions with their collapse being equally illusory.
If within every dimensional framework there is both expansion and (contraction due to expansion), is there not a static state at each dimensionless point within the above frameworks that justify my inference that all frames and relative reference points are in "reality" a single point of absolute spacetime?
Putting all the F = ma, P = Fd/t, E = mv^2, etc. together, is G = mc^2 not equally as valid with respect to Newton as E = mc^2 is with respect to Einstein?
"Electromagnetic gravity is relatively stronger - constituting (strong & weak) 'nuclear forces' - in the comparative earlier moments and relatively weaker in the comparative later moments of the continuous universal expansion. The value of time also changes, corresponding with the value of space it occurs in (re: 'time dilation')." |
Dear Nobody:
Thank you for your response.
With regard to mathematics, I do very little beyond the most elementary algebra.
What I anthologically collect and deal with is an extended list of known but unrecognized reasons to acknowledge that there are 'standing fields', and, 'expanding fields', and that there are strong indications that matter - perceived as a 'standing field' - is actually an unrecognized expanding field.
From what I have gathered of some of your previous posts, you seem to be familiar with my work. I leave the mathematical conclusions to be drawn by people such as yourself, who are familiar with the non-mathematical contentions, and, who know how to use and apply mathematics.
Reasons for concluding that matter is an expanding field of energy constitute the motive and content of my work. Further considerations are left to the expertise of people such as yourself. The objective of posting my work is to see it disqualified or acknowledged. I request counsel in this unresolved subjection.
Please consider also, the directly related thread entitled
"Are Lorentz Transformations exclusive to microcosmic phenomena?", that I have addressed to Neutralino.
Best regards,
- RP