An additional reflection:

Moreover, if there are other (may be infinite number of) worlds of different content, density, etc., the velocity of what may be termed gravitation proper in each of them might also be different.

This may be the case also for non-gravitational propagations in each such world.

Searching for a reason it would matter which is more important- this would be for order of presentation or order in an evolution model or hierarchical list of possible universes?

I did not mean a hierarchical list of possible worlds. I mentioned it thinking of the case of the possibility of there being an infinite number of finite-content universes.

Raphael Neelamkavil

Dear Raphael,

Different kinds of interactions are only in our heads. Nature is not wasteful. She is very economical. All interactions have a single mechanism of action - gravitational. Gravity is the force created by the pressure gradient of the medium of the electromagnetic field. Near massive bodies, the gradient is created due to the vortex flows flowing around each body. The "Dark Matter" effect is a force due to pressure gradients in galactic vortices.

The Earth does not pull on the Moon. The pressure of the interplanetary medium pushes the Moon towards the Earth.

In the "strong" and "electromagnetic" interaction, the pressure of the external environment provides attraction.

Details in "What is Gravity" in my profile.

Yours

Valeriy Pakulin

Valeriy Pakulin, thanks. I am happy to acknowledge the value of the arguments you have presented. But the last part beginning from "The Earth does not pull on the Moon. The pressure of the interplanetary medium pushes the Moon towards the Earth" seems to need more clarification. The problem is this: If there is push by the interplanetary medium on the moon towards the earth, then why not that the atmosphere, crust, and other inner parts of the earth are being pressed by the same interplanetary medium to exist close to the centre of the earth? This seems very difficult to accept. May be because of my traditional mindset. But I feel less convinced of this part of your argument.

They both behave close to an inverse square law here on Earth. However relativistic velocities change even constants. The quantum aspects of gravity are hidden by two things the energy in field of one unit mass is much less than energy of one unit of electric charge, hence if it exists a quantum of gravity has been measured. (Corrected today 4/17/2023)

Some holes the equations of both at relativistic velocities:

The proofs that 4 constants are changed by relativistic velocities as a PDF file will pop up when the following link is Left clicked:

--------------------------------------------------------------------

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1e1ExWG-VyTR8PAPxU5OnfSzd86uj59nh/view?usp=share_link

---------------------------------------------------------------------

A link to prerequisite proofs that all Doppler shifts change time and distance (axial, gravitational and transverse not just the transverse). The corrected link:--------------------------------------------------------------------

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1agua51JKM3nE7L17tmaWuluPiqQ4Ag55/view?usp=share_link

--------------------------------------------------------------------

A link to: Proof of a version of the Schrodinger equation for relativistic velocities (in the observer's reference frame that equation does not work for particles moving at relativistic velocities. Changing everything (including constants) in that equation to the moving reference frame should give a working equation for that reference frame since the Schrodinger equation works for low or no velocity. But maybe just using the value of Planck's constant for closing velocity may give an equation that works in the observer's frame:

------------------------------------------------------------------

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1Uh29Pdva6bfJHwVibDgEK_kMhoZ211uL/view?usp=share_link---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Note: for light the the Doppler frequency ratio=f'/f=the energy ratio=E'/E and the mas ratio m'/m=Ka Kt= axil shift x transverse shift ratio. BUT FOR A THING WITH A REST MASS =m'/m=E'/D=1/Kt. Which was the reason h was not a constant at relativistic velocities for things with a rest mass.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I hope you can make use of the above.

Samuel Lewis Reich ([email protected])

If, on the large-scale evolution of the universe (and, if other universes exist, in the co-evolution of the universes), GRAVITATION IS MORE CONTRIBUTIVE, the history of the universe must be written in terms of gravitation.

There are very few who say that gravitation is a repulsive force. I believe it is an attractive force. If this is true, then GRAVITATIONAL COALESCENCE FORMATION OF UNIVERSES (and naturally of galaxies, their clusters, etc.) IS THE MOST IMPORTANT LARGE-SCALE PROCESS IN THE COSMOS.

In terms of this process, what shall be the history of the cosmos?

There is only 1 force, gravity is the long range effect and magnetic is the short range effect.

John Hodge, your replies, always short, but are very much to the point. Thanks.

Suppose we have only one finite-content universe and other (infinite number of) universes do not exist, the only three choices of the overall distribution of matter-energy are: (1) either the universe will go on expanding and end being dissipated, (2) or it will oscillate between expansion and contraction, (3) or else the universe should continue to be a static, unchanging stuff.

The third cannot be the case. Some or other movement must be available, which naturally should snowball into some general gravitational coalescing (contraction) and loosening of gravitational control (expansion), and hence, the first and second cases alone remain.

What then could be the general scenario to choose?

In atomic units, from SRT it follows that the speed is expressed by the formula v^2=p^2/(p^2+m^2) , so that any massless particle,including gravitons, propagates at the speed of light. As for the role of gravity in nuclear, atomic, molecular and intermolecular processes, it does not exist at all. Due to the weakness of the gravitational interaction, the Planck mass, with which the interaction of two particles begins, significantly exceeds the mass of intermolecular formations. As for the reason for the condensation of the primary electrically neutral cosmic gas, it consists in fluctuations in the anisotropy of the density distribution of this gas, when individual molecules rush in the direction of a higher gas density. Then there is an avalanche-like accumulation of molecules and the formation of stars.

For the same reason, galaxies evolve into more symmetrical forms.

HERE I WOULD DEAL WITH A QUESTION MANY DO NOT ASK:

If the universe is of infinite content, naturally it will contain an infinite number of finite-content universes. What would then be the scenario concerning the origin and evolution of the universe?

Now, let our readers not start ranting that I am cooking up some possibilities and dodging real questions in quantum cosmology like “vacuum energy creating an infinite number of universes from nowhere”, “vacuum energy being of 0 value and then adding up to an infinite number of universes”, “Everitt’s quantum universes”, etc. I would be happy if you have suggestions in this regard, as to how to really connect an infinite number of existent universes with all these vacuum energy universes and quantum universes.

If the universe is of infinite content with an infinite number of finite-content universes, we need to accept that there will be the inevitable gravitational coalescence formation tendency between these universes, between their groups, etc. Such formations need only a finite amount of time, however long, with respect to the local common time as seen from within each specific conglomeration. We cannot escape the possibility of the measuremental aspect of the changes that take place in these conglomerations, whichever level be considered at a given relative time.

Would there be an infinite number of universes in any one of these conglomerations? Naturally, no. But can we limit their finitude of content to any one amount that we determine? We can limit it as a specific amount of content – but only and merely with respect to any specific framework of time with respect to any one set of universes, universe of universes, etc.

I would be happy to get your feedback on this possibility. And then I have some seemingly insoluble cosmological scenario to suggest as a consequence of this. Before this, I want to know whether anyone of you would suggest an alternative to the gravitational coalescence formation tendency that I spoke of.

The constancy of the speed of light, or for that matter the attainment of a maximum possible velocity (a criterial velocity) must be the case only if we have a finite-content universe.

But it need not be taken as constant throughout the cosmos especially in the case where an infinite number of finite-content universes exist within the cosmos.

I claim the latter to be true because each such universe will have a different amount of matter-energy content, and hence a different total density, pressure, etc. These must be the causes of existence of a maximum velocity in each specific universe.

Now, EVEN IF THERE ARE DIFFERENT HIGHEST POSSIBLE VELOCITIES IN THE VARIOUS (INFINITE NUMBER OF) UNIVERSES IN THE COSMOS, WE HAVE ALL THE RIGHTS TO CONCLUDE THAT EACH GRAVITATIONAL COALESCENCE OF UNIVERSES, UNIVERSE OF UNIVERSES, etc. WILL HAVE A HIGHEST POSSIBLE ENERGY PROPAGATION VELOCITY TOO.

But this velocity will never be infinite in any one member universe. This suffices, again, to ask: WHAT WILL BE THE GENERAL SCENARIO IN THE COSMOS IF THERE IS THE GRAVITATIONAL COALESCENCE FORMATION TENDENCY THROUGHOUT THE INFINITE (this was the presupposition -- the other case is dealt with above, in another intervention) COSMOS.

https://www.researchgate.net/post/Can_any_experimental_or_theoretical_proof_be_cited_for_the_existence_of_ether

Dear Raphael Neelamkavil ,

My response to your question: is electro-magnetism perhaps is influnces puternic by my co-author Robert Therriault his opinion is well explained in our article:

Article Gravity a paradym shift in reasoning

He wrote the next the gravity: '2nd order nonlinear effects' It is worth reading the first half of the article...The theoretical part of the first part is more his merit... the second part is mine... My concept 'was' somewhat close to concept of of Valeriy Pakulin :

Article Tényekkel igazolható a gravitáció valós oka

But the idea of graviton gives opportunity to understand better my co-athor concept. With a metaphysical concept the cause of the phenomenon of gravity is solved, and at the same time the phenomenon of gravity is successfully explained and the graviton problem is resolved...

Valeriy Pakulin has right: 'The Earth does not pull on the Moon. The pressure of the interplanetary medium pushes the Moon towards the Earth.'- At me the seccond sentence better explained... in the next Though:

The Moon is outside of Earth's entity direct body, but the Earth entity creates a lack of Sun's space apriori space entity between bow shock of Earth and Moon that is why Moon rotating with free fall around the Earth... and stap by step increasing the distance between Earth and Moon (is based on the concept: The Moon is originated from Earth). This explanation was gotten from using a very simple metaphysical concept for graviton.

Regards,

Laszlo

The recent (1) “observation” by LIGO of neutron star merger and (2) what is considered as different from it, namely, the arrival of the visible light from the merger at our location, used to be perceived to be is an indication that gravitational waves may have the same velocity as electromagnetic waves.

But it need not exactly be so, because even in this case we speak of our observation of the neutron star merger using the luminal velocity and then make independent conclusions on gravitational waves. This is not grantable. In fact, the gravitational waves are themselves not being observed here directly in terms of gravitational waves or anything known previously to be of that kind in velocity. Instead, we are using the light and other electromagnetic radiation from those astronomical objects and saying that they present us the real information about the gravitational waves.

That is, even today, experimentally we are not sure of the velocity of gravitational propagation. We assume it to be c because of our observation of electromagnetic propagations that carry us news of gravitational propagation from the said objects. Hence, it need not show their velocity to be equal.

Here arises the question: At the level of the large-scale processes of the cosmos, is gravitation or electromagnetism (or any other non-gravitational or contrary-to-gravitation propagation) more influential in determining the general evolution of the structure of the cosmos?

I hold it has to be gravitation that has the final say. My arguments are indirect. I shall put them forth in the course of development of arguments in the discussion.

What I want to accentuate is this: If there are other (may be infinite number of) worlds of different content, density, etc., the velocity of what may be termed gravitation proper in each of them might also be different.

This may be the case also for non-gravitational propagations in each such worlds.

Dear Raphael Neelamkavil ,

I don't believe in LIGO's (mainstream science's) communications! Theoretical physics is at a very backward stage... Has a lot of fictitious postulates.

For example, the next conclusion is unacceptable:

That the gravity waves of neutron star merger produce measurable gravity waves by LIGO instrumentations! A short article could be written about this, why. But there is not acceptable background information available!

Because gravity is inseparable from the physical space in which it is present and this space has the same electromagnetic nature, it can be concluded that any variation in this pace results in changes of gravity field and of course electromagnetic field.

That is why the speed of variation of the gravity field (gravity waves) has to be similar with the speed of variation of the electromagnetic field.

In reality, these two fields should not be separated because they represent different states of the same physical medium. If it would be possible to verify the claims here in reality, we would probably get very good results in many cases.

You asked this very interesting question:

'Here arises the question: At the level of the large-scale processes of the cosmos, is gravitation or electromagnetism (or any other non-gravitational or contrary-to-gravitation propagation) more influential in determining the general evolution of the structure of the cosmos'

For a good answer to your question first we have to answer the next questions: From what is made cosmos on the large scale? Do there exist analogies in all scales? and How can it be connected to the physical phenomenon (example gravitation-electromagnetic... behavior to this nature of cosmos?

With a simple metaphysical construction, such a system can be created with which logically good answers can be found to the questions formulated here. And so your question can be answered...

Regards,

Laszlo

László Attila Horváth, thanks.

I feel that our part of the cosmos, which part may be called a local universe, has had a local density in its compressed state, and hence has produced the highest-velocity propagations possible within this universe. An adjacent universe, which surely has connections with ours too, will have had its own density proper and hence has produced its own highest velocity propagations.

Hence, the EM and G (not the constant, but gravitation) propagations of each universe could be different.

If not, it could also be that G is constant everywhere and only EM changes, or both G and EM are constant in every local universe.

My attempt is not to decide on any one of these, for it is impossible. I try to reason about the possible general cases of gravitational coalescences (which each of our universes and their parts are) in each such sub-case of velocity of EM and G.

If you find time, take a look at the interesting discussion here:

https://www.researchgate.net/post/I_suspect_Cosmic_vacuum_energy_arguments_are_in_effect_an_eyewash_to_keep_cosmological_questions_under_the_desk/3

Dear Raphael Neelamkavil ,

Your aproach to the present discussion topic is interesting...

If we take a piece of granite is also part of the universe. The elementary parts (different chemical) that make up this granite in semingly well observable structure (somewhat arranged mineralogical systems) lead us to imagine the Universe looks somewhat like this rock structure in microscale... The rule are the same all dimension... It is just that the macro and micro dimensions are so different in their spatial extension that many people find it impossible to see this regularity... The universe doesn't matter how it looks, from where we try to look at it. Is based on one and the same principle even if in its infinite localizations, it does not appear so.

The small is always a part of something bigger... As we get closer to the bigger, the time for change seems to be running out. the same can be said for connectivity. Because of this, we can never prove who is right: me or you.

So I suggest you look for the answer to your question in our dimension... Take water as an example. I think his behaviour will bring you closer to solving your problem, but don't generalise the result, because exits other examples (example: SiO2 colloids, artificial coloids, etc).

Why search for a fixed answer to a problem whose result you cannot check.

--

The link is interesting:

https://www.researchgate.net/post/I_suspect_Cosmic_vacuum_energy_arguments_are_in_effect_an_eyewash_to_keep_cosmological_questions_under_the_desk/3

The comments are very good

Regards,

Laszlo

László Attila Horváth, thanks for the good reply. I say this not because it favours some of my reasonings. I find in you the openness not to reason merely paradoxically. Nowadays we see many physicists saying that if the mathematics being used allows some paradoxical conclusions, we do not have to question the math or the extent of applicability of that particular math in the question being discussed, and we need to take the conclusions as absolutely true. Everitt's quantum cosmological worlds notion is very familiar to us all.

Thanks If I could have recommended your reply many times, I would have done it...!

Raphael Neelamakvil

Mathematically, space is the "thing" that can curve. Hence, Einstein and all others might have called it as the thing that in fact is curving in physical processes, including gravitational. But is this not a mathematical heresy in physics?

Mathematics is not physics. It can only help physics. Why can and why should math try to be physics and call "space" as a thing? Now, if space is renamed into a medium, will it become ether?

Should space or space-time curve in gravitational processes, or should existent matter-energy fields curve?

You may like the new discussion session: GRAVITATIONAL COALESCENCE PARADOX. It is the kernel of an idea on which I have reflected more than 35 years by now, have presented arguments to some cosmologists, and have got support.

https://www.researchgate.net/post/Gravitational_Coalescence_Paradox_GCP

SEE A DISCUSSION IN COSMOLOGY:

Willy Verhiest added a reply

Raphael Neelamkavil

If you accept that c is infinite at G=0 there are no outskirts at the universe. At an infinite c all residual electromagnetic energy is found in the CMB radiation which is omnipresent and omnidirectional, so having infinite time and space.

📷

Raphael Neelamkavil added a reply

And if G never gets equal to 0....? Mathematically this is an end-effect of a phase. But then at that mathematically artificial moment all matter-energy will go into nothing without any gravitational effect at all.......! That is, this sort of math games show only that MATH SHOULD HAVE LIMITS OF APPLICATIONS TO PHYSICS, ESPECIALLY AT MATHEMATICAL JUNCTIONS OF ASYMPTOTIC APPROACH. Another example for such asymptotic approach is the central singularity of our finite-content universe. It never gets realized. Read recent works (even interviews) with Penrose, Hawking, etc.

And now I hope we need not speak of what you termed "omnipresent and omnidirectional" CMB....

FURTHER RESPONSES ARE IN:

https://www.researchgate.net/post/Gravitational_Coalescence_Paradox_GCP_Its_Consequences

I HAVE REVISED THE BASIC TEXT OF THIS DISCUSSION AND GIVEN FURTHER SUGGESTIONS.

Read a conversation between Willy Verhiest and me, in:

https://www.researchgate.net/post/Gravitational_Coalescence_Paradox_GCP_Introduction_to_Gravitational_Coalescence_Cosmology/3

Willy Verhiest added a reply

Raphael Neelamkavil,

I don't claim anything but observe.

For an observer on earth with gravity G c is always constant in vacuo but c is infinite at zero G at very long distances from the observer. You can call that the limit of the universe as observable from the earth which is not equal to the total universe. If the earth had double mass with a double G the observable universe would be double.

Time does not have a meaning for a photon as it travels at c. For a photon the observer is nearing it at -c so total time is zero = meaningless. It is impossible from the local observation of photons or other EM waves to determine a beginning or an extension or limit of the total universe. Stop searching celestial mirrors. There is only local time and space, only valid in our local point of observation, the earth.

Raphael Neelamkavil added a reply

1 minute ago

Willy Verhiest,

In the observations you have made above, notice how overstretching the relativistic paradigm confounds the observer and theoretician. If the gravity of the earth is G, then c is constant in vacuo. But c increases relativistically to infinity at 0 G at very long distances from the observer. (Or, at the centre of the earth?) Now, you say, if the earth had double the mass, it has 2G. The the observable universe will be at double the distance in almost a spherical manner everywhere.

Should we then say that our observationally relativistic measurements must be the same as what an earth at one spot at the periphery of the universe (not merely of the observable limits of the universe) would notice?

If observationally the reach of observation from an earth of G is a certain A, then should c be zero at the observational limits you spoke of, or at some other? How do you insist that G will be zero there? Observationally from the Relativity standpoint of observation from the earth, or from yet another specific Relativity standpoint of observation?

Will the same c be observable or experienceable for an earth at the peripheries of a finite-content universe? Or, will it be something different? Of course, relativistically it should differ widely for the stipulated earth (observational starting point). But is it merely because I observe / calculate from my earth (of G) some special value for c at that point where the earth at the periphery is situated? Perhaps it will be a certain value close to infinity or really infinity?

But asymptotic approach math does not permit that! No zero or infinity is ever reached!

Hence, the c will be near infinity! Will this be real? Relativistically from our earth, of course real. But real also for an earth there, where the value is supposed to be a certain near-infinie value for our earth?

Now you may again use relativity theory and assert it to be so. Bu the earth at the periphery will not observe it so!

Now you may say that we have a universe with an infinite-periphery (strictly, non-finite or potentially infinite periphery) universe with a finite volume and content! Of course, you can choose such a math, just as Einstein chose the Riemannian geometry for the finite-content universe, without mentioning the possibility of a different Generalized General Theory of Relativity (GGTR) for an infinite-content cosmos!

Now you see how misleading it will be, if you assume for a spot at the periphery of the universe the same relativistic spatial and temporal measurements, the same measuremental differentiation at velocity (also density, mass, etc.) as measured from the earth?

In short, to deal with the whole of the cosmos -- if it is of infinite content -- we need a highly generalized GTR. Now, if you ask me what that GGTR is, I cannot give it to you, because I have not formulated it. (I am sure that you will not ask me to shut up in that case, because we both are finite-brained creatures!)

And if we have only a finite-content universe, the relativistic measuremental variation from one region to the other with respect to our earth should also mislead the earth at the periphery of such a universe. THIS IS THE CASE I HAVE BEEN SPEAKING OF.

And so on....

In the cases where the values are infinity, zero, etc. that I mentioned above, there may be further confusions. What I mean is: Please accept that there will be confusions in what I mentioned above, in all the specific values that I mentioned above. These are due to human errors. I am happy to accept corrections and suggestions.

Let me make a general suggestion: GTR is to be taken as already very erroneous if we tend to consider other universes as existent and apply the same measuremental criteria from any two universes relatively simultaneously. Of course, the meaning of time will be different for both the universes. Not of time, but of the measurements of time, because the reference frames will differ. Moreover, there is no simultaneity of any absolute kind in the universe between any two different points of spacetime.

Please note also that this statement above already presupposes a standpoint of view or measurement that considers the relativistic measurements from one spot in the universe as non-absolute from another spot.

Now you see how well one can make erroneous statements by assuming universality to Relativity: You said, "Time does not have a meaning for a photon as it travels at c." And you said: "There is only local time and space, only valid in our local point of observation, the earth." Both these are very bad statements in my opinion. Why? Not that time will have no meaning, but specific temporal measurements will differ for a photon if measured from various frameworks. Similarly, not that there are only local time and local space, but there are only local temporal and spatial measurements with respect to respective frameworks. Naturally!

And the final advise is difficult to grasp: "Stop searching (for) celestial mirrors." I did not search for celestial mirrors. I asked whether a celestial body at the periphery of an individual universe will have gravitational effect to all its sides, or only to the sides other than the direction to the outer periphery of that one universe. And I suggested that if that celestial body is not able to exercise gravitation to the outer aspect of the universe, then there must be a mirror or mirrors there to reflect all the gravitation and EM being propagated off. That was not meant to assert that there are mirrors there, you know!

Now, insisting that all that happens everywhere in our local universe or in a neighbouring universe should be according to the measuremental values assigned to space, time, c, G, etc. from the criterial viewpoint of observation from the earth or from the centre of the universe, or any other point.... This is a nonsense in my opinion. This is a very misleading system of physical criteria wrought in by misinterpretations and stretching of the Relativistic viewpoint.

Another observation: Absolutizing the Relativitiy Theory for all observational points of "space" is in my opinion physically fallacious.

A suggestion to ponder: Have you noticed how, in the Lorentz factor in STR, the velocity of an object is compared with the velocity c? This means that we stipulate c to be the criterial velocity in our case, because we observe anything at luminal velocity. But then, if v is increased to approach c, then we get paradoxes in any equation. Does this mean that experimentally fixed velocity of light should be absolute? Or, does it mean that the paradoxes result because we have compared (in the Lorentz factor) v with c? And should we at all pronounce that c is the only criterial velocity in the universe?

If an electron A at a specific spacetime loses a certain number of quanta of energy (say, 100 quanta), naturally its total energy has come down. Or, will anyone claim that it has thus increased or that it is in a constant state? Now imagine that it is accelerated later by other forces.

Consider another electron B at another spacetime. It has not lost so many quanta of energy (say, only 50 quanta). Like A, now B is also being accelerated with the same amount of energy.

Of course, whether our measurement of the acceleration energy in the two cases is absolutely exact is yet another ambiguous matter, but we suppose that they are equal.

Will the latter be at a better position in the total energy content than the former? Or, will it be claimed that their energy, mass, etc. After receiving equal acceleration from outside, are equal, merely because they are both electrons already taken to possess a certain mass?

Moreover, we know that in the path that both the electrons take there will be other physical influences which we do not determine and cannot. These influences must be at least slightly different from each other.

In short, the mass, energy, etc. of the two electrons will never be equal at any physical state, not have they been absolutely equal at any time. And we know that nothing in the world is in a static state. So, there is no reason to suppose that electrons will have a static mass, energy, etc.

Of course, we can calculate and fix them as supposedly static mass, energy, etc. These will be useful for practical purposes, but not as absolutes.

That is, our generalized determination of an exact mass for an electron need not be the exact energy, mass, etc. of an electron in various physically processual circumstances. At normal circumstances within a specific chemical element, and when freed from it, the electron will have different values.

This shows that no electron (in itself) will be identical in all its properties with any other. Our description of these properties may be considered as identical. But this description in physics is meant merely for pragmatic purposes! One cannot now universalize it and say that the mass, energy, etc. of electrons are the same everywhere.

What about the said values (mass, energy, etc.) of other particles like photon, neutrino, etc.? I believe none can prove their case to be otherwise in the case of these particles / wavicles too.

That is, there is nothing in the world, including electrons, quarks, photons, neutrinos, etc., with an exact duplicate anywhere else. This is the foundation for the principle of physical identity.

In response to your question: "At the level of the large-scale processes of the cosmos, is gravitation or electromagnetism (or any other non-gravitational or contrary-to-gravitation propagation) more influential in determining the general evolution of the structure of the cosmos?"

Gravity is certainly the force we know the best in how it affects the evolution of the cosmos. However, dark energy also has a huge effect, if all of the measurements are correct, but we know much less about this. And dark matter has had a significant impact on how quickly stars and galaxies formed, but we also know little about what the dark matter force actually is.

We also know electromagnetism well, but there are theories that say EM may have more effect on the creation of strings of stars the connect galaxies together in a web-like way, and the role of EM in the forces that drive stars is still revealing new lessons.

As a result, I would say that our understanding of the forces driving the cosmos are still too new for us to answer your question with confidence. We can answer from what we know today, but there seems to be much that we still do not know. You ask a good question.

In response to your last comment above: "there is nothing in the world, including electrons, quarks, photons, neutrinos, etc., with an exact duplicate anywhere else. This is the foundation for the principle of physical identity." The principle of physical identity is a philosophical principle that is often applied to quantum mechanics in ways that are not fully correct because this principle originates from classical physics where we can know the many states of things, such as location, momentum, energy, etc., all at the same time. At the quantum level, this is not possible. Here is a recent article that relates to this subject that you might find of interest: https://arxiv.org/pdf/2301.00502.pdf

Both gravity and electromagnetism are manifestations of the same force.

Doug Marman,

Thanks for the fine reply and the article. I have downloaded it. Hope to find time to read it.

I have been swinging between gravity and EM as the decisive force. But by now I favour a form of thought in which I classify gravitation and non-gravitational propagations as equally important. But as to the theoretical edge that we may win in formulating a cosmological theory, it would be, in my opinion, based on gravitation, because it is the only known force that can bind the parts of the cosmos together on the large scale -- be they parts of one finite-content universe or parts of an infinite-content cosmos of universes.

Reification of Concepts in Quantum Physics?

https://www.researchgate.net/post/Reification_of_Concepts_in_Quantum_Physics

A conversation between Paul Healey and me in Academia.edu (today):

paul healey6 hrs ago

Raphael and or Peter, do either of you think a causal explanation of gravity, not for Newtonian mass is possible? Recently I have read some criticisms of Newton’s general inverse square law for it, so wondering if any other explanations have been proposed. Here’s a link that looks relevant: https://arxiv.org/pdf/1604.03441.pdf

Thanks for any feedback in advance.

📷Like

📷

Raphael Neelamkavil Ph.D.,Dr.phil., Cosmology + Math'l Physics; Phil. of Science + Scientific, Analytic, Process, Digital, ... Systemic Metaphysics & Epistemology< 1 min ago

I have not worked on it directly in the form of a theory. But I would suggest that anything must be causal and hence also gravitons. I said 'gravitons', not merely gravitation as a mathematically treated gross phenomenon! Why should everything be causal? I shall try to explain, very simply.

As you know, any mathematical proof for causation is not a proof at all, since math cannot touch it. Math can only see or show some of the ways in which causation works.

Let me first explain causality in a new manner; and then return to gravitation.

You do believe that whatever exists, exists. Now apply the law of contradiction. Whatever does not exist, does not. Let us name the latter as pure vacuum, non-entity, etc. If anything is not vacuous, it should have some extension, i.e., should have parts.

This is, therefore, a self-evident implication of the notion of To Be. I call it the metaphysical / physical-ontological Category of Extension, because it is one of the basic natures of all existents. Now, anything in Extension is not infinitely intense, i.e., there are not all the same extended stuff.

The additional information needed here is empirical: that there are movements in such extended stuff. If so, then it means that everything extended has some movement, which automatically should affect something else -- but not affect all else. This is impact generation. I call it the metaphysical / physical-ontological Category of Change.

If something in Extension has Change, such an existence is "already impact generation (Change) by parts (Extension)". This is what we used to call Causality. That is, the very two implications of To Be, when taken together, is nothing but THE UNIVERSAL LAW OF CAUSALITY. Everything existent must be causal.

Now, back to gravitons. If they are just a non-existent but mathematical construct, we do not have to bother about them. But if they are existent (which is the only other possibility), then they too must be causal.....!

Source of Major Flaws in Cosmological Theories: Mathematics-to-Physics Application Discrepency

https://www.researchgate.net/post/Source_of_Major_Flaws_in_Cosmological_Theories_Mathematics-to-Physics_Application_Discrepency

Please remember this:

The big bang theory has many limitations. These are,

(1) the uncertainty regarding the causes / triggers of the big bang,

(2) the need to trace the determination of certain physical constants to the big bang moments and not further backwards,

(3) the necessity to explain the notion of what scientists and philosophers call “time” in terms of the original bang of the universe,

(4) the compulsion to define the notion of “space” with respect to the inner and outer regions of the big bang universe,

(5) the possibility of and the uncertainty about there being other finite or infinite number of universes,

(6) the choice between an infinite number of oscillations between big bangs and big crunches in the big bang universe (in case of there being only our finite-content universe in existence), in every big hang universe (if there are an infinite number of universes),

(7) the question whether energy will be lost from the universe during each phase of the oscillation, and in that case how an infinite number of oscillations can be the whole process of the finite-content universe,

(8) the difficulty involved in mathematizing these cases, etc.

What about this conversation?

Wolfgang Konle added a reply

22 minutes ago

Raphael Neelamkavil "Gravitational waves are..."

Gravitational waves are oscillations of a cosmic medium of gravitational nature. This medium overcompensates the negative energy density E of gravitiational fields. (E= -g²/(8πG)). It is omnipresent with a pressure, which equals E and a mass density which equals E/c². According to wave theory this medium supports compressional waves with a propagation velocity c.

Recommend

Share

📷

Raphael Neelamkavil added a reply

4 minutes ago

The negative energy you speak of in theory is not an energy that has a negative effect on matter-energy. It is negative due to the math involved. The notion of omnipresence should now be clarified and the reason for gravitation being an omnipresent God should be given. If not so omnipresent, but here less and there more, then the reason should not be just a theoretical need, but instead, a real existence of gravitation (as gravitons) here less and there more!

I feel that you are trying to cover up the non-commitment to gravitation's extra-theoretical and existence. Covering it up perhaps in the theoretical necessities in the form of a negative substitute for some missing form of energy?

Do Electromagnetic and Gravitational Quanta (EM Quanta and Gravitons) Gravitate from Within?

https://www.researchgate.net/post/Do_Electromagnetic_and_Gravitational_Quanta_EM_Quanta_and_Gravitons_Gravitate_from_Within

Do electromagnetic and gravitational wavicles exist? Before using them in physics, it must be determined whether they exist, for them to exert causally real physical effects. Existents cannot be vacua, and hence, they must exist, and hence they are

(1) in Extension (each having a finite number of finite-content parts), because if not extended, EM quanta would be non-existent, and

(2) in Change (existents, which are always with parts, possessing parts which always exert finite impacts on a finite number of others, inclusive of exertion of finite impacts on some parts within), because anything that has no change is not in existence.

An existent without own parts and own exertion of impacts will be imaginable as existent. Anything that is not in Extension-Change is non-existent – a physical-ontological fact at the foundations of physics, which most physicists (and other scientists) forget while performing their statistical and other related miracles!

This much for an introduction. Now, what are the implications of such existence in the case of EM wavicles and gravitons?

ELECTROMAGNETIC AND GRAVITATIONAL QUANTA

If electromagnetic and gravitational wavicles are EXISTENT, then they possess also EXTENSION and CHANGE. They are not absolutely geometric particles, instead, they are elongated at various dimensions.

Let us assume the following as a general principle in physics: Anything physical issues gravitons, which are the basic attractive forces within physical existents.

If an existent energy wavicle is thus a matter wavicle with extension, it must also issue gravitons! In that case, the only stuff in the cosmos that cannot themselves issue further gravitons from within are gravitons themselves. What can this work to in physics and cosmology? I believe that we need a revolution from this viewpoint. This is a proposal that waits being tested by future physics and astrophysics.

Gravitons too are extended and changing wavicles. But they are themselves the wavicles possessing also their parts that attract each other, and are long-range in nature. If they issue sub-gravitons, they will naturally be kept attracted within the issuing sources, because the parts from which they are supposed to be issued are themselves attractive by nature and other matter and energy particles attract each other basically by means of issuing gravitons.

But naturally, gravitons too must be existent, and hence possess parts. What would be the sort of parts that gravitons can possess? Repulsons or Gravitons? Sub-repulsons or sub-gravitons? I think that they cannot themselves be repulsons and sub-repulsons, because repulsons and sub-repulsons without coherence will not stick together as parts of gravitons. Gravitons cannot issue gravitons themselves, since this is self-creation. But they can possess sub-gravitons as parts, but these need not be of the same power as their totality that each graviton is.

In any case, one thing should be accepted: BOTH ELECTROMAGNETIC AND GRAVITATIONAL QUANTA MUST ISSUE THEIR OWN WAVICLES OF ATTRACTION. IN THE CASE OF ELECTROMAGNETIC QUANTA, THE ISSE IS THAT OF GRAVITONS (and whatever other sub-wavicles that might be there for them to give rise to). IN THE CASE OF GRAVITONS, THE PARTS WILL HAVE TO BE SUB-GRAVITONS (plus whatever other sub-wavicles that might be there for them to give rise to).

Let me show another aspect. In any given world or part of the world there must be a highest velocity. I think this will be determined by the matter-energy density achieved at the broadest (all-inclusive) condensation phase available in that part of the cosmos. Let's call it a world. In this world, it is possible to measure all motion in terms of the highest c of that world. In a broader world that includes this world, or in another world, we should a c-2, elsewere c-3, etc. Thus we have a spectrum of STRs and GTRs. Then the problem of measurement will be more complex.

Infinite-Eternal Multiverse?

https://www.researchgate.net/post/Infinite-Eternal_Multiverse

Challenging the Universality of the Speed of Light as a Constant

https://www.researchgate.net/post/Challenging_the_Universality_of_the_Speed_of_Light_as_a_Constant

I have been revising this short discussion paper of mine in RG. It is an attempt to correct some basic attitudes in physics. Just now I have written an introduction to it. Please read it here. In a few days I shall upload the whole lead-text of this discussion for your reading and comments. Here please find only the introduction:

FOUNDATIONS OF AXIOMATIC PHILOSOPHY AND SCIENCE

1. INTRODUCTION

I get surprised each time when some physicists tell me that either the electromagnetic (EM) or the gravitational (G) or both the forms of energy do not exist, but are to be treated or expressed as waves or particles propagated from material objects that of course exist. Some of them put in all their energies to show that both EM and G are mere mathematical fields, and not physically existent fields of energy propagations from bodies.

This is similar in effect to Newton and his followers thinking honestly and religiously that gravitation and other energies are just miraculously non-bodily actions at a distance without any propagation particles / wavicles.

Even in the 21stcentury, we must be sharply aware that from the past more than 120 years the General Theory of Relativity and its various versions have succeeded in casting and maintaining the power of a terrifying veil of mathematical miracles on the minds of many scientists – miracles such as the mere spacetime curvature being the meaning of gravitation and all other sorts of fields.

A similar veil has been installed on the minds of many physicists by quantum physics too. We do not discuss it here. Hence, I have constructed in four published books a systemic manner of understanding these problems. I do not claim perfection in any of my attempts. Hence, I keep perfecting my efforts in the course of years. The following is a very short attempt to summarize in this effort one important point in physics and in the philosophy of physics.

Dear Raphael Neelamkavil ,

This is a very good introduction. Since the answer to your question is quite difficult due to the current bad attitude, and in some respects we have different opinions - regardless of who sees things better - I would only phrase the first sentence differently. But it may also be that, in light of what you want to say, it is worth leaving it as it is, and perhaps draw attention to why you worded it this way with a footnote:

My opinion to your introduction:

' I am surprised when some physicists tell me that either the electromagnetic (EM) or the gravitational (G) or both the forms of' manifestation of nature 'do not exist' and they they will be able to express themselves 'as waves or particles propagated from the' basic essence of matter.'

(I did not make a Hungarian version of the quote, I immediately tried to rewrite it in the given form. My wording, not the most perfect, but linguistically corrected, in case it helps you.)

Ez egy nagyon jó bevezetés. Mivel a kérdésedre adott válasz a jelenlegi rossz beidegződés miatt eléggé nehéz, bizonyos tekintetben más a véleményünk - attól függetlenül, hogy ki látja jobban a dolgokat - egyedül az első mondatot fogalmaznám meg másképp... De az is lehet, hogy annak tükrében, mit akarsz mondani, érdemes így hagyni, és esetleg egy lábjegyzettel felhívni a figyelmet, arra miért fogalmaztad meg így:

I wish you good luck: succeed in realizing what you want in the best possible form!

Regards,

Laszlo

László Attila Horváth, thanks. I had already re-worked that introduction, and now I have accepted some elements from your formulation. Am replacing the old version above with the new version.

Thanks a lot. And I continue to formulate the text that follows this introduction. Hope to finish it in a few days. Then I will keep it, re-look, make the necessary alterations, and then upload.

Even in the 21st century, we must be sharply aware that from the past more than 120 years the General Theory of Relativity with its various versions and especially its merely mathematical interpretations have succeeded in casting and maintaining the power of a terrifying veil of mathematical miracles on the minds of many scientists – miracles such as the mere spacetime curvature being the meaning of gravitation and all other sorts of fields. The mathematics did not need existence, and hence gravitation did not exist! But the same persons did not create a theory whereby the mathematics does not need the existence of the material world and hence the material world does not exist!!

Questioning the Foundations of Physical Constants, Properties, and Qualities

https://www.researchgate.net/post/Questioning_the_Foundations_of_Physical_Constants_Properties_and_Qualities

How to Ground Science and Philosophy Together Axiomatically?

https://www.researchgate.net/post/How_to_Ground_Science_and_Philosophy_Together_Axiomatically

Symmetry: A Subset of Universal Causality. The Difference between Cause and Reason

https://www.researchgate.net/post/Symmetry_A_Subset_of_Universal_Causality_The_Difference_between_Cause_and_Reason

This discussion-text is just 2.5 pages, but intense. Meant for those who are interested in a clear presentation of what symmetry and symmetry breaking are, and of how physicists and mathematicians tend to misunderstand and/or misuse these concepts.

The Universally Causal context of the concept of symmetry is explained in terms of a solidly founded system of differentiation between cause and reason.

The Fallacies of Space, Time, and Spacetime in Physics

https://www.researchgate.net/post/The_Fallacies_of_Space_Time_and_Spacetime_in_Physics

Physical and Exact Sciences and Axiomatic Philosophy: Introducing Grounding (long text)

https://www.researchgate.net/post/Physical_and_Exact_Sciences_and_Axiomatic_Philosophy_Introducing_Grounding_long_text

Causality and Statistics: Their Levels of Effect and of Explanation

https://www.researchgate.net/post/Causality_and_Statistics_Their_Levels_of_Effect_and_of_Explanation

Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen Paradox and Non-Locality: Is Einstein a Monist?

https://www.researchgate.net/post/Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen_Paradox_and_Non-Locality_Is_Einstein_a_Monist

Spacetime Curvatures, Gravitational Waves, Gravitons, and Anti-Gravitons: Do They All Exist?

https://www.researchgate.net/post/Spacetime_Curvatures_Gravitational_Waves_Gravitons_and_Anti-Gravitons_Do_They_All_Exist

The Fate of “Source-Independence” in Electromagnetism, Gravitation, and Monopoles

https://www.researchgate.net/post/The_Fate_of_Source-Independence_in_Electromagnetism_Gravitation_and_Monopoles

Watch this video (streamed today, 23 July 2023) from after the 9th minute: A suggestion that the constant velocity of light, Planck’s constant, and Gravitational constant may be found to have covariance when the whole cosmos is considered.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NPCoqJqSbGY

Essential Reason in Physicists’ Use of Logic: And in Other Sciences Too!

https://www.researchgate.net/post/Essential_Reason_in_Physicists_Use_of_Logic_And_in_Other_Sciences_Too

Preprint ESSENTIAL REASON IN PHYSICISTS' USE OF LOGIC: IN OTHER SCIENCES TOO

How Does Physics Know? The Epistemology Presupposed by Physics and Other Sciences

https://www.researchgate.net/post/How_Does_Physics_Know_The_Epistemology_Presupposed_by_Physics_and_Other_Sciences

Preprint MATHEMATICAL SOURCE OF FLAWS IN COSMOLOGICAL THEORIES: MATHE...

Preprint THE EPISTEMOLOGY PRESUPPOSED BY PHYSICS AND OTHER SCIENCES R...

PHYSICAL-PROCESSUAL REPRESENTATION OF IRRATIONAL NUMBERS

https://www.researchgate.net/post/Physical-Processual_Representation_of_Irrational_Numbers

THE ONTOLOGY BEHIND PHYSICS

3.1. Traditional Physical Categories

https://www.researchgate.net/post/The_Ontology_behind_Physics

"Evidence" for another universe! But some may continue to hold that beyond these other universes no other universe exists! Should we be so conservative as to deny an infinite-content multiverse / cosmos?

Watch the video:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GcrHdOwPTi0

https://www.researchgate.net/post/Grounded_Physical-Ontological_Categories_behind_Physics

Grounded (New) Physical-Ontological Categories behind Physics

Preprint THE ONTOLOGY BEHIND PHYSICS: CRITIQUE OF TRADITIONAL PHYSICA...

A SIMPLE GAME-CHANGER CAUSALITY FOR PHYSICS: Beyond the Two Millennia

https://www.researchgate.net/post/A_SIMPLE_GAME-CHANGER_CAUSALITY_FOR_PHYSICS_Beyond_the_Two_Millennia

https://www.researchgate.net/post/DEFINITION_OF_THE_ONTOLOGY_BEHIND_PHYSICS_5_Paragraphs

DEFINITION OF THE ONTOLOGY BEHIND PHYSICS (5 Paragraphs)

THE ANOMALY IN MATHEMATICAL / THEORETICAL PHYSICS (Short Text)

https://www.researchgate.net/post/THE_ANOMALY_IN_MATHEMATICAL_THEORETICAL_PHYSICS_Short_Text

Here a serious and somewhat complex matter to discuss:

NON-FOUNDATIONS OF ‘WAVICLES’ IN EINSTEIN-PODOLSKY-ROSEN PARADOX: Bases for Quantum Physics to Evolve (Maybe a physical-ontological Breakthrough)

https://www.researchgate.net/post/NON-FOUNDATIONS_OF_WAVICLES_IN_EINSTEIN-PODOLSKY-ROSEN_PARADOX_Bases_for_Quantum_Physics_to_Evolve_Maybe_a_physical-ontological_Breakthrough

Preprint A SIMPLE GAME-CHANGER CAUSALITY FOR PHYSICS Beyond the Two Millennia

AGAINST COSMIC ISOTROPY, CONFORMAL CYCLIC COSMOS, ETERNAL INFLATION, etc.: A Critique of Identity, Simultaneity, Cosmic Repetition / Recycling, etc.

https://www.researchgate.net/post/AGAINST_COSMIC_ISOTROPY_CONFORMAL_CYCLIC_COSMOS_ETERNAL_INFLATION_etc_A_Critique_of_Identity_Simultaneity_Cosmic_Repetition_Recycling_etc

Preprint ESSENTIAL LOGIC, EPISTEMOLOGY, AND ONTOLOGY BEHIND PHYSICS, ...

WHAT IS THE MYSTERIOUS STUFF OF INFORMATION? A Short but Clear Definition

https://www.researchgate.net/post/WHAT_IS_THE_MYSTERIOUS_STUFF_OF_INFORMATION_A_Short_but_Clear_Definition

Preprint COSMIC ISOTROPY, CONFORMAL CYCLIC COSMOS, ETERNAL INFLATION:...

THE PLANCK ERA / QUANTUM ERA and “DISAPPEARANCE” OF PHYSICAL CAUSALITY: “OMNIPOTENCE” OF MATHEMATICS

https://www.researchgate.net/post/THE_PLANCK_ERA_QUANTUM_ERA_and_DISAPPEARANCE_OF_PHYSICAL_CAUSALITY_OMNIPOTENCE_OF_MATHEMATICS

Can electromagnetic and gravitational "quanta" form an ether-like background for the material part of the cosmos? Can there be interaction between the ether and the cosmos? If there is interaction between them, then every parts of them should interact, since the material part of the cosmos is within the so-called ether part. Then:

Are there consistent physical theories which exclude causality completely from the cosmos? Or, do they exclude causality from some portions of the cosmos and permit it in some other portions of it? In that case, how do they permit any realistic physical connection between the causal portions and non-causal portions of the cosmos?

Now, can the electromagnetic and gravitational "ether" be considered as a mere information, virtual information, etc.? Or, are these really existent energy which, of course, carry information for and from the causal formation of all that they causally affect?

Preprint PLANCK ERA or QUANTUM ERA,and ”DISAPPEARANCE” OF CAUSALITY. ...

Since large bodies thend to be electricaly neutral but have a gravitational force it what goes on between large bodies is to a large extent affected by gravity. But what goes on inside stares (like neuclear fussion) is determined mainlybe non-gravitational forces.

True. Thanks.

Preprint IS THE VELOCITY OF LIGHT SACROSANCT?

Preprint IS THE VELOCITY OF LIGHT SACROSANCT?

Preprint CAUSAL HORIZONAL RESEARCH: A METHODOLOGY IN PHYSICS Raphael ...

https://www.researchgate.net/post/WHAT_IS_INFORMATION_WHAT_IS_ITS_CAUSAL_OR_NON-CAUSAL_CORE_A_Discussion

Deleted research item The research item mentioned here has been deleted

Preprint LINGUISTIC HERESY OF DENOTATIVE ABSOLUTISM: PHYSICAL-BIOLOGI...

https://www.researchgate.net/post/ONTOLOGICAL_DIFFERENCES_OF_CHARACTERISTICS_OF_ARTIFICIAL_AND_BIOLOGICAL_INTELLIGENCE_ALGORITHMS_AND_PROCEDURES_Against_Exaggerations

https://www.researchgate.net/post/WHY_EXACTLY_THE_WAVE-PARTICLE_DUALITY_Phenomenal_Ontological_Commitment_POC_as_the_Solution

https://www.researchgate.net/post/UNTENABLE_REIFICATION_OF_CONCEPTS_IN_PHYSICS_With_Examples

Preprint WHY EXACTLY WAVE-PARTICLE DUALITY? Phenomenal Ontological Co...

https://www.researchgate.net/post/DO_PHYSICAL_QUANTA_EXIST_Why_Should_CONSCIOUSNESS_Be_Treated_Quantum-Biologically

https://www.researchgate.net/post/HEIDEGGER_How_a_Philosopher_Destroys_His_Own_Thoughts_Coherence_and_Adequacy

Preprint FROM PHYSICAL ONTOLOGY TO LINGUISTICS AND INFORMATION

Preprint UNIVERSAL CAUSALITY AND THE PHYSICAL-ONTOLOGICAL DEFECT OF N...

Preprint DIFFERENCES IN THE CONCEPTS OF CAUSALITY IN METAPHYSICS AND ...

Preprint BEYOND CAUSAL ITERATION QUANTIFIABILITY IN LINGUISTIC SPACE-TIME

Preprint BEYOND THE CAUSAL ITERATION METHOD. Short Text (Beyond Judea Pearl)

Preprint BEYOND THE CAUSAL ITERATION METHOD. Short Text (Beyond Judea Pearl)

Preprint REFERENCE, APPLICABILITY, AND ADEQUACY OF UNIVERSALS, INFORM...

Preprint DENOTATIVE ABSOLUTISM. A 20TH CENTURY LOGICAL AND LINGUISTIC HERESY

Preprint INEVITABILITY OF COSMOLOGICAL, ONTOLOGICAL, AND EPISTEMOLOGI...

Preprint Introducing GRAVITATIONAL COALESCENCE PARADOX: COSMOGENETIC CAUSALITY

Preprint Chapter 6. COSMOGENESIS IN QUANTUM COSMOLOGY