[RascalPuff]

An Expansive Mass-Field Thought Problem With a Dilatory Solution:

The realm of the very small - microcosms - is said to host strong forces acting at very short distances; that are not considered to be related to large, 'weak forces of gravity', said to exist only in very large spaces and act at large distances in the very large - macrocosmic - spaces and times. So it is presently and dominantly considered, in the macrocosmic realm of the very large, exemplary, planetary-generated forces.
Gravity is thought not to occur - significantly - in the microcosmic realm of the very small. Whereas, gravity, like Gold, is actually where you find it, and how much of it you find; in large and *small, tenuous and *compact electromagnetic densities (*refer, nuclear binding forces). Moving in one of two possible - direction(s). Toward and/or away (impelling or repelling) from its material (4-D particle/charge) source.

Question: ‘Is matter expanding at the same rate of acceleration as light?’
Answer: ‘Yes, but, in a value of square (2). Consequently, the rate of acceleration is the same, but the expansion speeds vary with microcosmic (very small) and macrocosmic (very large) space-time, in a value of square.
Consider the (incorrect) distinction between electromagnetism & gravity as the status quo, i.e., the prevailing idea that microcosmic ‘nuclear binding forces’, ‘are not, and cannot be’ related to gravitational forces. This ‘disqualification’ of any unification of microcosmic electromagnetism with gravity is based on the false, prevailing and uncontested premise alleged in the ‘difference’ between large gravitational forces which cause planets to orbit, and the smaller forces which bind ‘particles’ together within the atomic nucleus - sometimes called ‘nuclear resinal forces’.

In this sense, contemporary physical science still dwells in the archaic conceptual world of *Ptolemic-*Aristotelean dualization of ‘earthly & heavenly motions’ - *when it was thought that the unidentified forces of the far flung universe and heavens were apart from - unrelated to - the unidentified forces acting on earth; until the time of Newton, who proved that large forces in the universe were the same forces acting on and near earth. That the fall of an apple was governed by the same forces that caused the moon to orbit the earth, and the earth’s orbit around the sun...
It is said that the electromagnetic force reciprocating between an electron and a proton is 1039 times the gravitational force; the gravitational force between these two ‘particles’ alleged to be ‘too weak’ to be measured’ at this microcosmic level.
The nuclear force which is distinquished from gravity ‘because’ it is 1039 times stronger, is (microcosmic - 'earlier Moment A') gravity (unrecognized and unacknowledged by physicists): this is due to the (4-D continuum) fact that the value(s) of time is covariant with the moment(s) of space it (time/motion) occurs in...
Allow this pie plate chart design diagram < to represent the Moments A, B, and C, 4-D expansion of any given physical or spatial system, where the left-most intersection of the two lines represents earlier Moment A (the convergence of the 4-D space-time continuum emerging from out of the infinite microcosms) the right-most opening representing later Moment C, advancing into the infinite macrocosms, with the middle of this pie plate chart representing Moment B - the 'eternal now' - of the considered 4-D continuum. (The actual shape of which would account for acceleration, in a profile structure such as Riemannian geometry's representation of a 'gravity sink' <Refer 'rubber sheet analogy'; featuring Riemannian geometric shapes>).
The value of a linear, square or cubic mile of space on (earlier) Moment A earth, is not the same value as that same mile measured on (later) Moment B earth, or on (latest) Moment C earth.
When a motorist on Moment A earth drives his automobile at the speed he measures as 60 miles per hour, he is not traveling 60 of Moment B miles per Moment B hour...
Moreover, the velocity of 18 & 1/2 Moment A miles per second, traveled by Moment A earth around Moment A sun, is not the same velocity as compared with the 18 1/2 miles per second traveled by Moment B earth around Moment B sun...
Neither is the 365 1/4 days of Moment A year the same interval in time - in this case determined by the completion of an orbit around the sun - as the 365 1/4 days of Moment B or Moment C (providing that these moments could be and were compared with each other).
The velocity of light - C - in this continuum, correspondingly varies from one moment to the next, while remaining constant, relative to the space-time moment from which it originates and with which it is associated. This principle of relative velocity is what allows for an 'optical', or 'event horizon', for example.
When the ‘mini person’ inhabitant of Moment A earth may look ‘up’ along the positive (future) side of the 4th dimension of time, and see themselves at (later) Moment(s) B or C, they would see their own image as an incredibly huge, slow moving giant; if this slow moving giant of Moment A mini-person’s future could look ‘down’ along the past side of their continuously accelerating 4-D projection, they would then observe themselves as a tiny, very fast moving ‘mini-person’.
There is no way for Moment A mini-person (thinking in 3-D conceptual physics) to know that their 3 dimensions of space, and consequently their time will be relatively larger (spatially) and slower (chronologically) at (future) Moments B and C.
Conversely, there is no way for that same giant, slow moving person in (later) Moments B and C to know that the spatial dimensions and time of their entire (Moment A) universe was correspondingly more contracted in space, having proportionately smaller durations of time, at Moment A.
The false assumption is that the value of space is the same with the passage of time; that, if Moment A earth was compared to Moment B and C earth, it (the earth) would have the same uniform size and density in space, when compared with itself at different moments in time.
Newton contemplated a 4-D continuum but did not anticipate that the values of space and time would vary with different spaces and times of that continuum.
The ‘here and now’ dimensions of ‘space and time’ appear - and are 3-dimensionally conceptualized - to be uniform and unchanging. The law of conservation of mass-energy is not infringed upon, since this expanding continuum is always the same amount of energy distributed over an ever increasing space; maintaining uniform relative density.

The acceleration of the apparently static (‘non-expanding’) 3 dimensions of space along the 4th dimension of time (the 4-D space-time continuum) reveals a contracted micro-space accompanied by a correspondingly and inevitably contracted micro-time. and a dilated macrospace accompanied by an equally and correspondingly dilated (‘slowed down’) macro-time.
This is the reason that Einstein called ‘Space and Time’ :
Space-Time.
This is the cause of what Einstein calls ‘Non-absolute time’, and 'non-absolute space'.
It is also the cause of what Einstein calls ‘time dilation’. The value of time is determined by the value of space it occurs in. Larger moments of 4-D space result in relatively slower time, when compared with the value of time in smaller moments of 4-D space.
The Twin Paradox Re-visited:
A popular example of relativistic non-absolute time (time dilation phenomenon) is known as the 'twin paradox'. One of two twin brothers remains on coordinate system earth, while the other twin departs the earth in a spacecraft vehicle, approaches the velocity of light; remains in deep space sustaining high velocity for what his senses and instruments measure as 30 days; then returns to earth to learn that his earthbound twin brother and everyone else on earth (who was his age upon his departure) is considerably more aged than himself.
There is no conceptual explanation for this, however, the mathematics of relativity indicate that time dilation is a true effect of greatly increased velocities. The twin paradox becomes conceptually comprehensible with the application of the issued , expanding mass-field concept:
When an object - a space-craft and its contents accelerates faster than the coordinate system from which it originates and with which it is normally associated (a system of relatively uniform space and time; in this case, the earth, the mass-field constructed spacecraft and its contents are distributed over a greater area, as its mass value increases with its velocity). Consequently it becomes an independent coordinate system, having relatively larger values of space and proportionately slower experiences of time than its original coordinate system, earth.
In a spacecraft nearing the velocity of light the individual hairs on the heads of it's astronauts may (for example) be dilated (enlarged) to the diameter of a large radio telescope dish (relative to the dimensions of space recognized on coordinate system earth). Yet, the astronauts detect no change of spatial values relative to themselves or their ship and its contents, including all of its time measuring instruments, because everything on board is proportionately dilated in 4-D space-time. For example: It takes these mass field dilated astronauts several of earth's relatively micro-spatial hours - and one of their relatively macro-spatial seconds - to sneeze. Upon returning to coordinate system earth, they must slow their speed, and in so doing they proportionately decrease their formerly dilated size and mass values.
Upon disembarking the now 'normal sized' spacecraft, they learn that many years have passed on earth, while they and their instruments have experienced, recorded, and can account for only a month of time in space.
Up to the time of this writing, there are not even any failed efforts to conceptually account for 'time dilation' and the 'twin paradox' that popularly accompanies it.
The (resiliently unrecognized and denied) ever enlarging value of physical-material space is a ‘non absolute space’, which causes ‘non-absolute time’. The fundamental import of this discussion is that the value of given units of time (seconds, hours, days, weeks, months, years) is entirely determined by the 3-D value (size) of the spatial moment it (time/motion) occurs in.
Re: http://forums.delphiforums.com/EinsteinGroupie (The Reinstatement of Einstein's Presently Abandoned <Steady State> Cosmological Constant.)

Enter in google: 'Einstein was right after all - maybe' . Collectively enter in google: Cosmological Constant Lambda Expanding Universe big bang acceleration red shift dark energy Friedmann Lemaitre Robertson Walker

[Lloyd Gillespie]

In a spacecraft nearing the velocity of light the individual hairs on the heads of it's astronauts may (for example) be dilated (enlarged) to the diameter of a large radio telescope dish (relative to the dimensions of space recognized on coordinate system earth).

RP, not only have you missed the entire reality of time being no more than "Fundamental Matter In Motion", your basic physics is backwards, i.e., increased velocity increases mass, not the size of hairs, or any other objects. As any mass approaches c, it's size shrinks to zero mass, through mass entropy dissipation___Lorentz/Einstein. One must remember, Einstein asked the question, "If I looked in a mirror, at the speed of light, would I see my image?" He answered, "No." The time dilations are others' foolish mis-interpretations of Einstein's original work, other than when he was theorizing abstractly. He never physically advocated any real time/matter/motion dilations. The quote in my signature is Einstein's own words.

Lloyd

[RascalPuff]

Dear Lloyd Gillespie:
Please say what you think of this:
2.1 PART I
Scenario: Miniature & Parallel Universe
(Copyright 2007 by K. B. Robertson, all rights reserved)
The following question originated at a dinner party among friends. There was an interesting and educational variety of answers.

Question:
In a universe parallel to ours, exactly the same in every way; with all of the galaxies - including the Milky Way, and our solar system with all our planets as they are, including earth and everything on and within it and including its inhabitants and the molecules, atoms, electrons, photons, black body radiation - except... :

that this ‘twin universe’ and all of its contents was one thousand times smaller than the universe we in the here and now occupy - instead of the there & then occupation of the miniaturized universe (including all of our miniaturized selves):

would this miniaturized universal space and all of its miniaturized contents undergo and experience the same time standards as the ‘regular sized’ universe we are part of?
Yes or no.

Addendum options
Time would be the same in the two compared universes.
Time would be different in the two compared universes.
If yes, please explain.
If no, please explain.

[Lloyd Gillespie]

Just goes to show ya RP, time is irrelavent... You start concentrating on real fundamental matter motions, you may start to do real physics___not until...

You still miss the whole point of physical facts___light must slow, for matter to expand... Like I said, get your physics fundamentals straight___First... As light accelerates, matter shrinks___Fundamentals first...

"Question: ‘Is matter expanding at the same rate of acceleration as light?’" RP, your question is Zeno bogus___You may trick many others with such false questions, but most sensible physicists and scientists, spot such tricks, immediately... True science has known light is universally slowing, for years___Aether matter density increase requires it___The radiation density has been increasing for 13.7 billion years___Go figure...

You have your physical fundamentals backwards...

Lloyd

[RascalPuff]

Dear L.G.:
The two coordinate systems (Smaller Universe A and larger universe B) have different time standards accompanying their larger and smaller space standards. The thesis 'Twin Paradox & Time Dilation' resolved, w'out mathematics is actually a reference to the information at http://forums.delphiforums.com/EinsteinGroupie , which finds the physical as well as spatial universe in a constant state of accelerating expansion. The presentation you just read and are responding to is an abbreviated presentation of our universe at an earlier, smaller moment of time (Moment A universe, say, yesterday), and that same ('our') universe, at a later, larger moment (B - the 'eternal now'); hence there is a specific exemplary objective in the apparently 'surreal' setting.

That is to say, we are not actually talking about two different universes (A and B) here, but rather, the same universe at an earlier and a later moment, and the differences in the values of time that accompany the ever enlarging values of space. This is what is called a 'thought problem', since today's (larger) universe cannot be compared with its (smaller, relatively more dense) self, as it was yesterday.

'Trick'? Lloyd. I don't do 'tricks'. We apparently don't understand one another on this issue. Yesterdays universe was relatively smaller and faster than - when compared to - today's, in a spatially and physically expanding (accelerating) universe. No. The expanding universe is not slowing down. On the contrary. It's speeding up. The expanding universe has been recently and repeatedly measured to be accelerating. There's a tremendous controversy around this new information since '98 to 2000 and ever since.

[Lloyd Gillespie]

RP, I have read all your posts, and the entire many posts on the cosmological constant. I agree, much of what you have written, is as how I also see one interpretation of Einstein's thinking. You have probably described most of it better than anyone before you, including Einstein himself, yet you have offered little new, to someone like myself, who long ago figured out Einstein's thinking, most the same as you. However, there are two or more ways to interpret the cc{cosmological constant}. One is as you have done, I think, as you offer a rather confused substantive position of the velocity of light, staying constant, and not in other areas. I'll take it your model means constant light velocity, as cc. Now, the other way to explain an expanding universe is with a changing light speed, from past to today, which also allows for gravity, and all the other universal anomallies, known to exist. By having light moving faster 13.7 years ago, at the time of the real big bang, (as opposed to your model's today and yesterday, but I see nowhere else in your model, for real matter to come into the picture, except through big-bangs, small-bangs, stars, singularities, black-holes, etc.,) the universe could have also pushed the space and matter apart at many times faster rates, that we still happen to witness at great distances, then slowed to today's speeds, not speed, but speeds. There is no solid cosmological ground, for you to stand on, and say the cc is the correct model, as everyone knows there is no such measurable solid cosmological ground. Therefore, your model, as presented, though quite thoroughly, and with few mistakes, and excellent extensions, as to quantum field mechanics, is still only one model, among others, that are all viable. I think only figuring out the fundamental substance, and true mass values, will resolve the differences between the many possible, and the real actual model.

BTW, stating gravity is the 4th dimension, is a rather moot point, since this has been the case since 1905, and close to the case since Newton. Now, on the other hand, if you explain how the zero-mass/mass of fundamental substance, becomes gravity, totally mechanically, and technically mathematically accurately, accounting for transitions from quantum mechanics' false zero mass, to Einstein/Newtons real solid mass, of FS{fundamental substance}, then maybe we will have a new addition to all the existing models. The FS mass-gap must be solved___First!!!

No. The expanding universe is not slowing down. On the contrary. It's speeding up.

RP, I tell you honestly, there is no way to prove this, yet... Science has found no cc ground, to measure from, yet... It's all change, untill we know the FS mechanics of absolute mass... And BTW, I am talking about the same exact model you are, just with the subtle difference of the cc not being groundedly true, yet... In either your model or mine, yesterday's universe is smaller and faster___Today's universe is larger and slower... The tremendous controversy you speak of since `98, is the very fact of no cc ground to measure from, yet... This has been the problem in physics and cosmology, for hundreds of years. If you take Einstein's total ideas, they are truly no more than Ouspenski, years ago, stated them; "Relativity is intellect, inside intellect, looking at itself." This about sums it up, until we solve the mass-gap problems, between Newton/Einstein and quantum mechanics/uncertainty principle... This is the same E=MC^2 equivalence principle of years ago___still unsolved... E=MC^2 predicts positive mass, and QM predicts zero mass, for the fundamental substance___The true mass-gap...

Lloyd

[RascalPuff]

Lloyd Gillespie wrote: BTW, stating gravity is the 4th dimension, is a rather moot point, since this has been the case since 1905, and close to the case since Newton. Now, on the other hand, if you explain how the zero-mass/mass of fundamental substance, becomes gravity, totally mechanically, and technically mathematically accurately, accounting for transitions from quantum mechanics' false zero mass, to Einstein/Newtons real solid mass, of FS{fundamental substance}, then maybe we will have a new addition to all the existing models. The FS mass-gap must be solved___First!!!

Dear Lloyd:
The statement 'Gravity is the 4th dimension' is unprecedented in the history of physical science, until I realized, wrote and authenticated it over forty years ago. In calling it a 'moot point - since this has been the case since 1905, and close to the case since Newton'...

As far as that goes, sir, this - Gravity is the 4th dimension - has always been the case; on the other hand it has not ever been previously expressed as such until I recognized that case and vocabularized it.


Incidentally, the statement 'Gravity is the 4th dimension' was not derived from the Special Theory of 1905, but instead, from the General Theory of 1916 - reviewing the fact that the Special Theory deals with light and uniform velocity (C), and the General Theory deals with gravity and non-uniform velocity - acceleration (sound familiar? <acceleration - the status quo of General Relativity and quite apparently the universe at large>)...

Regarding your reference to...
"accounting for transitions from quantum mechanic's false zero mass, to Einsteins's/Newton's real solid mass of fundamental substance (fs), then maybe we will have a new addition to all the existing models. The fundamental substance mass-gap must be solved____First!"


I have submitted a conversely related, potential resolution in Total Field Theory:
(**illustrated below in the logarithmically accelerating expression of 1,2,3,4, 5, 6,7, 8, 9 and 10, 90o segments - additional 'quantum leaps' , alternately parallel to and at right angles from the first four 90o quadrants of the 360o whole (solid matter), and the extensional, alternating commencements at right angles and parallel to the 5th 90o segment. Alternative perspectives and definitions for dimensions <esp. 5 thru 8>, as well as the possibility of an acceleratng heirarchy of 'quantum leaps' are directly implied here. <Any suggestions?> - KBR)

(2)

Successive points dividing a golden rectangle into squares lie on a logarithmic spiral (Wells 1986, p. 39; Livio 2002, p. 119).
*************
There is no precedent for this offered dimensional interpretation of 'quantum mechanical photon effect' - what this author calls 'the translatory - exponentially accelerated - moment'. There seem to be many other important questions and answers in view of these expressions. Truly Yours welcomes the casting of more light on this - especially geometric - 'translatory moment' described, illustrated subjection. This explication of the (logarithmic-geometric) cause of the 'quantum leap' (without the accompanying equations) is illustrated and described on page 463, in the 1979 published, 627 page (sold out) edition of Gravity Is The 4th Dimension (Extraterrestrial Physics 101, the contents of which continue as a work in progress).


Moreover, the 'quantum leap' is a sobriquet from the popular consideration that a given unit of microcosmic energy moves from one (Niels Bohr) 'orbit' (or, alternative 'shell' theorized station) to another, without ever occupying the space - interval - between the transposed orbit. There is no explanation for this perplexing enigma-apparent ('the quantum leap').

This record submits that the transposition of a given orbit, as it is perceived in 4 dimensions instead of three, offers the alternative interpretation of the so called 'leap', as occurring in a spiral shaped path - unanticipated; uncompensated-for, in the status quo 3-dimensional failures to comprehensively accomodate 'quantum leap', as comprehensively expressed in the above two illustrations of 4, 5 & 6 dimensionally equivalent geometric structures.
That is, the 4-dimensionally interpreted 'leap' is not per se, any kind of 3-D perceived vertical straight line ( ----> ) - up or down, to and from orbit A to orbit B, constituting the (short cut perceived) 'leap' (from one orbit or shell to another) - at all, but, rather, is a (lateral, long way around) coil shaped ( @ ) - *spiral-spin-up (360o) transiency (which may be alternately and approximately perceived within the structure of the 'YinYang' or 'Tao' symbol, from center to outside parameters) from a lower orbit to a higher one, and conversely (*spiral spin-down, this perspective also includes the ambivalent dynamics of 'chemical valence').
Yin Yang ('Tao')


The symbol of apparent opposites with its connotations of antipodal contention is actually an icon of mutually supportive , complementary reciprocity, since about the 3rd century BC; accompanied by a philosophy proffering that its complete gestalt is beyond human comprehension (which it may well be, for all of its elegant - prescient implying - simplicity.)
(Refer Fritjov Capra's TAO OF PHYSICS, which allows for *the illusion of apparent contradiction: actually mutually supportive; that being the central meaning of * 'Tao'. In this case, vis a vis, the 'inexplicable enigma' of quantum mechanics and its perceived 'contradiction' of continuous field theory.)

In the Bohr modeled atom of planet-like, nucleus-sun orbiting electrons, the orbits are not circular or elliptical, but rather - as with any other orbiting entity's 4-D path : spiral shaped.

The 4-D space-time continuum is presently said to be 'acknowledged' in academic and experimental physics; yet, the effects of that continuum, continue to go unrecognized, denied, discarded and unaccounted for. The round - O and elliptical - 0 - 3-D structure - wherever it orbitally occurs - is not anticipated or perceived as spiral shaped - @ , as it is in fact, in the prevailing, four dimensional setting.
There is no precedent for this offered (4-D spiral 'translatory moment') explanation, regarding the cited 'incomprehensibility' of Quantum Mechanical Dynamics; including a solution applicable to the 'quantum leap' - in this case, the transition ('translatory moment') from ominidirectionally accelerating (4-D) solid matter to further - omnidirectionally - accelerated (5-D) light energy.

- RascalPuff

[Lloyd Gillespie]

The 4-D space-time continuum is presently said to be 'acknowledged' in academic and experimental physics; yet, the effects of that continuum, continue to go unrecognized, denied, discarded and unaccounted for. The round - O and elliptical - 0 - 3-D structure - wherever it orbitally occurs - is not anticipated or perceived as spiral shaped - @ , as it is in fact, in the prevailing, four dimensional setting. There is no precedent for this offered (4-D spiral 'translatory moment') explanation, regarding the cited 'incomprehensibility' of Quantum Mechanical Dynamics; including a solution applicable to the 'quantum leap' - in this case, the transition ('translatory moment') from ominidirectionally accelerating (4-D) solid matter to further - omnidirectionally - accelerated (5-D) light energy.

This is what I wrote about the same idea, but there's no four body math to prove either of our models; "This is the point where I see almost all quantumists' and relativists' ideas break down. What I mean is, trying to use quantum/relative logic to understand sub-quantum actions___I say it can't be done. The sub-quantum, or more appropriately, pre-quantum universe, requires its own special language of description. As an example, you talk of sub-quantum photons, or entities that make up photons and actions; Dave talks about sub-quantum substance of space and motion; and I often talk of sub-quantum hydrodynamic motion and substance. The way I see it, all these subjects require an entirely new sub-quantum linguistics and maths to accurately describe any of these events. Yes, it is true we can apply many of the quantum and relative world's maths and actions, to this sub-quantum universe, we can not, at the same time, assume its total correspondences, i.e., such as that of the velocity of light, or the true values of mass. We only can know such velocity of light as being of the quantum/relative universe, since the big-bang, inflation, first star, or however you want it. We can not know the speed of light to be an eternal wave motion, and herein lies the problem of trying to associate quantum ideas with sub-quantum ideas. We must first take a closer look at a possible pre-quantum, sub-quantum reality of slower, much slower motions___first and foremost. There is no law in the universe, that says light had to travel C or faster, for eternity. As a matter of fact, it most likely travels slower, and faster, in many areas of the universe, than in our local area of the aether. This would explain much of quantum/relative cosmology's problems of observations and facts, since such facts would make it truly impossible for observers to tell whether the universe is expanding or contracting, or whether certain parts are doing both___conspansion is a very real possibility, without us ever knowing the difference, since we are local area light locked in our real vision...

So, since light may be traveling at different velocities, in our observable universe, what's to prove it wasn't traveling at very different velocities, in the pre-quantum, sub-quantum universe? I happen to think it was traveling much slower than present C, in the sub-quantum universe. This would change the entire dynamics of everything we are looking at. It would allow a simple sub-quantum, pre-quantum formation of absolute fundamental space substance, to collect into a first star, by simple hydrodynamics, thus and then producting the real quantum world of electrodynamics, and chromodynamics, if one wishes. You must have the primary wave first, and I say it's a thermo-hydrodynamic wave, or an unlimited many, as the case would be, of fundamental space/matter substance motions..."

And this is the model; "The trouble I see with all classicists, physicists, cosmologists, hydrodynamicists, quantumists, and relativists is trying to see a dynamic universal process with a one dimensional view of wave mechanics, and by one dimensional, I simply mean as a single model view of wave mechanics. To me, the universe is a 3 stage process of wave mechanics; 1.Pre 1st star; 2.Within 1st star; and 3.Post 1st star. I don't believe one single model view of wave mechanics is capable of capturing this dynamic process. Most all of the last hundred years of physics deals only with stages 2. and 3. They all ignore stage 1., and IMO, to their peril, but like I said, let me bring it down to the simple electron model, I see.

Since we both agree it's a FS photonic universe, let the basic aether field be filled with stationary photons___size doesn't matter for this simple model. Now strip your mind of other wave interactions for simplicity's sake. Picture an electron traveling straight through the FS photon sea___any wave/particle traveling through such a sea must increase in mass as it approaches true c. Where does the mass increase come from? The electron must gain photons as mass increase___there's no other source. Velocity and density of the FS photon field require this. Velocity also creates heat. What is being heated, since the electron is also made of photons? The only possible answer is photons___simple logic. Now, what is truly happening inside the electron as it increases photon mass and heat? The electron is acting first as a condensor storage magnetic moment capacitor, then as a radiating generator of electricity moments. What is making up this process? Photons___plain and simple. This all is happening at the speed of light___mass is increasing creating the magnetic moment of the em wave, and then critical mass entropy is reached and the electron radiates/generates its electric moment. This is all photon on photon action, and is the same for all frequencies of light and waves. It's just faster for faster waves, such as gamma rays, and slower for micro-waves. They all must increase in mass proportional to true velocity. We just have trouble distinguishing between true c and sub-c velocities. Nature does it quite easily___just imagine how many entropy cycles in a gamma ray traveling only a short distance. The electron, we seem to know more about, thanks to Maxwell and others, is still frequencies of mass entropy cycles, and the attendent velocities, that create the varrying heats of photons contained and radiated as the heat of mass velocities. I can't imagine why you still think photons don't change temperature, when all is of photons...?"

The above was written long before I ever saw any of your material, I think the comparison is obvious, and I do agree with your model, at this same level. It's just I state it is absolutely real solid FS matter, whether considered by others as energy, waves or what-not, it's FS matter. Now, if you'd like to discuss the four dimensionality of it, that's up to you, but there is no math possible to describe my model or yours___It's the 4-body problem... Maybe this is why physics just gives up, and stays within the safety zone of its 3-D world...

Lloyd

p.s.
Now, do you see why "gravity is the 4th dimension", is a moot point? It can't be mathematically modeled, due to the 4-body problem. At the time of inception, Poincare' couldn't even solve the 3-body problem, and to this day, it may not be solved___one solution is being tested.

And BTW, Einstein's 1905 srt work was what I meant to refer to in my last post... It first showed gravity as the 4th dimension, and the later grt more directly confirmed it. And btw, what's so special about saying gravity is the 4th dimension? That's just plain obvious. So, what causes 4th dimension ground state motion, to begin with?___What's the prime mover? Now, there's a question? And don't say the standard answer, "It's always been." What is the scientific prime mover? There is only one...