You state electrons would decay out of existance. Let me give you a simular example so you see what it sounds like to me. Apples are purple, since I see no purple apples, apples do not exist. You have places your own limits on your understanding and then discarded the notion based on your false limits.
Answer me this- what is the exact mechanism that forms an electron?
Imagine a stream of water in the mountains and the stream opens to a shallow pool and then continues. The parameters of the pool. evaporation, water rushing in, water rushing out, splashing, and yet the pool remains level.
All matter condenses is an example of water rushing in, your electron can be an example of the pool, and the gravitational wave can be an example of the water rushing out.
Also imagine that your understanding of small of energy transfer is almost infinately larger than it truely is. Imagine all the sand on the beaches of the world and I remove one grain, how do you notice?
Quick answers to the rest.-
Matter decaying
is space. Gravitational effects in the sub-sub atomic world- throw a rock straight down into a body of water, where is the deepest well created by the ripple? What effect does the amplitude of that well, next to the rock, have on the surrounding matter vs. the wells futher out. Is there a closeness to some of the interacting molecules at the surface of the interaction that feel no effect?
You have to understand the box before you can see outside it.
What effect would we see if what I postulate is true and things are smaller than we ever thought. Well maybe we could detect a discrepency in binary Nuetron star spin mass, actual vs. calculated and if we could show the discrepency is solved if we take into account the energy loss into the gravitational wave that would maybe be indirect evidence.
How about this- My theory says two extremes
1).if I throw a tennis ball up in the air and
force = Mass times acceleration
since the force stops the gravitational wave synchronization of the respected masses align to decreass the acceleration with no net change in mass. I agree with the observation 100 percent.
2). Let's take the Universe as a whole. If since the end of the transitional inflational period or the big bang mass has been decaying into the gravitational wave and producing space as the mass decreases then if we assume
force = Mass times acceleration and the force is continuously constant since my concept does not change the force in the same way as the old concept, the force wouldn't slow down mass it would synchronize the waves, space would be getting flatter as mass gets smaller. The remaining mass should be accelerating as space is flattening so constant force= decreasing mass times increasing acceleration. look up these concepts of
binary neutron stars and gravitational wave energy loss on google and
The hubble telescope and the accelerating universe, and get back to me.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Epslion If I got your theory correct, it involves matter decaying into Space (which in your theory is a gravitational wave). This would have to apply to all matter with mass; and I am not sure about the rate you said these particles decay at, but it seems to me if this was the case we would have noticed it by now. If all matter were decaying then the matter with the smallest of mass like electrons and quarks would just evaporate out of existence, and since I am still here with all my electrons and quarks (for the most part at least) I cannot see how this would work. Another problem I see is how would this account for gravities weak (near non-existent) force at the sub-atomic level? |
Linear Mode
