ONE！

Gravity is a force, the variation of spacetime geometry is described by the exchange of massless particles of spin 2, the gravitons, whose collective effects, gravitational waves, have been observed.

In fact, regarding the weak force, there's the force mediated by the W and Z bosons, but there's, also, the force mediated by the Higgs.

So there's a force mediated by the exchange of spin 2 particles: Gravity.

There's a force mediated by spin 1 gluons: The strong force.

There's a force mediated by spin 1 W, Z and A bosons: part of the weak and electromagnetic forces.

There's a force mediated by the spin 0 Higgs boson: part of the weak force.

There's no problem in accepting any number of forces. Another way of counting is by the independent coupling constants:

1 coupling constant for gravity (Newton's constant)

1 coupling constant for the strong force

2 coupling constants for the electroweak force (1 for the SU(2) group 1 for the weak hypercharge U(1) group)

As many coupling constants as there are particles, that interact with the Higgs (apart the gauge bosons) since there's an independent coupling for each. For the moment it' s not known if the neutrinos interact with the Higgs or not.

Ziaedin Shafiei Ziaedin, I believe your question has been formed misleading (if not outright wrong) as any force is surprisingly not what is found to be part of the fundamental base of nature. When using iSpace theory, it can easily be shown only electromagnetic based entities and geometry form their basis based on V (Volt), A (Ampere), s (second) and m (Meter) units.

So "force" is just V*A*s/m or Newton in iSpace-Si units, able to derive most but all constants of nature from simple integer geometric *natural valued* (non human artefact based (!)) base entities, like GoldenRatio Ampere - the Quantum of iSpaceAmpere, 1/6961 iSpaceSecond - the Quantum of time (!!) and so on.

Have a look for yourself why basing on forces - in turn actually created by physically and mathematically alike deeper rooted geometric concepts from repulsion of electric charge and most important - including gravitation (!!!) as the derivation of Quantum of Gravitational force iFg in iSpace theory clearly shows:

iFg = (alphaG)^2 times PlanckForce

with alphaG being just electronMass^2 over PlanckMass^2 (but there are multiple other valid force relations to calculate alphaG as well), but in iSpace its shown iFg is fully discrete quantized non-geometric entity as well (prooving all above claims - and easily so with bravour):

iFg = 3/((299792458*(10)^3))^4 [Volt Ampere Second / Meter]

IFgN = 3.7139704417083607173754252156294805...*10^-46 [Newton]

Should the (10)^3 factor look somewhat unphysical to you, please just replace it with its iSpace derived alternative actual physical 6D (!!!!) base of just ten, as (10) is nothing else than ((2 * GoldenRatio * Root(2) - Root(2))^2) so:

(10)^3 = (2 * GoldenRatio * Root(2) - Root(2))^6

Check it out with (best) Mathematica or your favourite pocket calculator. The given relations are not at all approximations, these are exact to any number of digits desired to calculate the resulting quantized gravitational base force (only exact multiples of which physically exist).

Method iSpace - Quick check of α and Φ0 from Markoulakis & Antonidakis

Article New novel physical constants metric and fine structure const...

Conference Paper iSpace - Deriving G from α, e, R∞, μ0 and Quantum of Gravita...

Conference Paper iSpace - Exact Symbolic Equations for Important Physical Con...

Preprint Hubble constant H0 is derived from Newtonian gravitational c...

Preprint iSpace - Quantization of Time in iSpace-IQ Unit-System by 1/...

Chian Fan is right, there is only one fundamental force. This force F is defined by F=dE/ds. It does not matter, what kind of energy E depends on the displacement s. Only the amount of energy dE matters, which depends on an infinitesimal displacement ds. The time dependency of momentum also leads to a force F=dP/dt. But this is nothing else as a direct consequence of F=dE/ds.

One - it's magnetic.

John Hodge "One - it's magnetic."

The force F on an object, which contributes to a force field is given by the derivative of the energy E contained in the field overlay of the contribution, in respect to the distance s of the object from the field source. F=dE/ds.

ds=(∂/∂sx,∂/∂sy,∂/∂sz).

The force field can be one of the types (electrostatic, magnetic, gravitational, Van der Waals field, quantum mechanical field, weak or strong interaction in atomic kernels, pressure ,... all further kinds of fields with an energy density )

Dear all

As you're aware, many academic issues defy simple categorization. For example, we delve into discussions about free will in one department of universities while simultaneously exploring determinism in another.

My query concerns a comparable dilemma within physics. Despite promoting relativity for about 110 years, which questions the traditional view of gravity as a force, the concept of the theoretical graviton persists. This prompts one to question whether scientists ought to approach their work with greater gravity, so to speak.

Dear Stam Nicolis Wolfgang Konle

Stam Nicolis gives the most specialized QFT concept of "force", where various forces are exchanged for different virtual particles. Wolfgang Konle 's definition is a straightforward and unified definition of force in terms of energy and momentum from the classical concepts of mechanics.

I think the two answers are essentially the same, exchanging virtual particles is exchanging momentum. However, the final answer to unified force is only possible by combining the two. Because, we also have to ask: Why is it that the exchange of momentum creates a "force"? It creates movement in space? Then it is necessary to answer the question, what is momentum on a microscopic level.

Best Regards, Chian Fan

Chian Fan "Why is it that the exchange of momentum creates a "force"?"

We also can ask this question in another way:

Why is the time derivative of momentum the same as the position derivative of an energy? Why is dP/dt the same as dE/ds? The answer is because velocity, which defines kinetic energy, is the position derivative in respect to time. We do not see that easily. But we easily can understand the answer by proving the mathematical identity:

Proof of F=d/ds(mc²)=d/dt(mv) with m= γm0, and γ=1/√(1-v²/c²).

d/ds(mc²)=d/dt(mv) |m= γm0

d/ds(γm0c²)=d/dt(γm0v) |dγ/ds= dγ/dv*dv/ds, d/dt(γv)=dγ/dtv+γdv/dt

dγ/dv*dv/ds*m0c²=m0(dγ/dtv+γdv/dt) | dv/ds=dv/dt/v |dγ/dt= dγ/dv*dv/dt |

dγ/dv* dv/dt/v *m0c²=m0(dγ/dv*dv/dt +γdv/dt) | :(m0*dv/dt)

c²/v* dγ/dv= dγ/dv+γ | γ=1/√(1-v²/c²)

dγ/dv= γ/(c²/v-1)= γv/c²/(1-v²/c²) verified by differentiation.

(γ’=-2v/c²*(-1/2)/√(1-v²/c²)³)

what has to be proven.

Dear Ziaedin Shafiei ,

I agree with what you wrote:

You cannot detect any force on the surface of a free-falling object...

My little girl, when she was two years old, gave a better answer to gravity than any official authority on the subject.

There is no force: the nature of the objects, the nature of their space, determines the phenomenon what we have called force.

This will be soon enounced on my You Tube cannel:

https://www.youtube.com/@Geo-Intuition

Regards,

Laszlo

Ziaedin Shafiei "Despite promoting relativity for about 110 years, which questions the traditional view of gravity as a force, the concept of the theoretical graviton persists."

Yes, the traditional view on gravity is still unclear.

But looking at the gravitational force in the same way as looking at any force with the classical concepts of mechanics, is an obvious possibility to basically clarify the view.

Dear Wolfgang Konle

Momentum and energy are inseparable. I agree with you . The dP/dt and dE/ds symmetry is very good!

Bets Regards, Chian Fan

Momentum is “just“ Energy in Motion. Energy is V*A*s (for sure!) and hence Action has (iSpace-SI or MKS/A-SI) unit V*A*s*s or J*s with s^2 unit being based on iSpace derived Quantum of time so 1/6961 iSpaceSecond squared. But so they are physically well separable and so Chian Fan (and others) above are completely wrong with that (and their only averaging (!) field model arguments.

There is no primary physical field (of anything) there are just the original Max Planck hexagonal (iSpace-6D) charge transport physical superfluid vortex cells which a purely mathematical field model is able to pseudo-continuum wise properly calculate the induced force V*A*s/m based strength of (by any human artefact SI unit system based physically fictive length of Meter m only).

Christian G. Wolf "Momentum is “just“ Energy in Motion."

Primarily it is just mass in motion. It reflects the property of inertia. This property is the capability of mass to store kinetic energy.

"There is no primary physical field (of anything) there are just the original Max Planck hexagonal (iSpace-6D) charge transport physical superfluid vortex cells"

Physical fields generally describe properties, which depend on the position. This description is comprehensible and concrete. But "superfluid vortex cells" + "hexagonal (iSpace-6D) charge transport physical " are undefined phantasms only.

“…Stam Nicolis gives the most specialized QFT concept of "force", where various forces are exchanged for different virtual particles. Wolfgang Konle 's definition is a straightforward and unified definition of force in terms of energy and momentum from the classical concepts of mechanics….”

- yeah, this is really the case. However that

“…..I think the two answers are essentially the same, exchanging virtual particles is exchanging momentum. However, the final answer to unified force is only possible by combining the two...”

- is rather, if too, strange claim. The thread question “How many fundamental forces exist? 5, 4 or 3?” is about fundamental Gravity, Weak, Electric, Nuclear/Strong, and possible others, Nature forces, what has no any relation to

“….there is only one fundamental force. This force F is defined by F=dE/ds…[dP/dt]….”

The fundamental Forces make Matter as it is, i.e. make particles, atoms, bodies, stars, galaxies, etc.,

- while F=dE/ds is a parameter that characterizes some interactions between particles, atoms, bodies, stars, galaxies, etc., which happen at actions of the Forces above, which this parameter is, of course, “fundamental” – as all other fumed mental parameters, including, say, the fundamental parameters “energy” “E” and space interval “s”, “momentum”, P, “angular momentum”, time interval, t, are,

- but all that has no relation to what are the Forces.

All that is quite clear to seems a late years schoolchildren; first year students know also that F=dP/dt .

Really the thread question is simultaneously rather clear, if we say about the Forces above, and answer in this case is as: now really are known 4 Forces – Gravity, Weak, Electric and Nuclear/Strong,

- however in mainstream physics there exist 3 Forces, while Gravity is a Force only as a jargon – in the mainstream Gravity fundamentally differs from other Forces in that standard mainstream theory of Gravity is the GR, where it is postulated that interactions in gravitationally coupled bodies systems are interactions in systems “mass-spacetime-mass”, where the “curved spacetime” really impact on bodies, forcing, say, Earth to rotate around Sun;

- while other 3 Forces interactions happen as exchange by the Forces’ mediators, flows of which compose the Forces’ “fields”; and all that happens fundamentally without any interactions of material objects with spacetime.

However, as that rigorously shown in the Shevchenko-Tokarevsky’s Planck scale informational physical model, 3 main papers are

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/354418793_The_Informational_Conception_and_the_Base_of_Physics

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/367397025_The_Informational_Physical_Model_and_Fundamental_Problems_in_Physics

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/369357747_The_informational_model_-Nuclear_Force

- the GR postulate above is fundamentally wrong. Matter’s spacetime fundamentally is fundamentally absolute, fundamentally flat, fundamentally continuous, and fundamentally “Cartesian”, (at least) [4+4+1]4D spacetime with metrics (at least) (cτ,X,Y,Z, g,w,e,s,ct), which fundamentally cannot be impacted – “contracted”, “dilated”, “curved”, etc., by anything in Matter, and fundamentally cannot impact on anything in Matter.

So Gravity is fundamentally nothing else than “fourth” “ordinary” fundamental Nature force, more about what are Gravity and Electric Forces see SS&VT initial Planck scale models of these Forces in section 6. “Mediation of the fundamental forces in complex systems” in 2-nd link; what is Nuclear Force see the model in the last link.

The post is rater long already, so now

Cheers

I would like to emphasize that gravity, as a force, has often been considered independently of relativity, as if the principles of relativity have not been existed or recognized. This underscores the perceived insignificance of relativity within the scientific community. For instance, Lisa Randall proposed the idea that gravity is a weak force, in comparison to other three fundamental forces, because its source lies in a separate universe.

Ziaedin Shafiei What a desperate nonsense of Lisa Randall (your comment is good and welcome!) showing us how dysfunctional all of current cosmological models have come by now - right down to redicoulus.

What is not so but very real (anyone can easily verify with a table of CODATA constants of nature and a pocket calculator or best looking directly into the derivation and proof of iSpace theory based Mathematica derived papers on my RG home of phydicslly very real Quantum of gravitation iFg:

iFg = (alphaG)^2 * PlanckForce

with alphaG being just the well known accepted unitless finestructure constant of gravitation from electron mass squared over Planck mass squared.

The actual proof of such is indeed the proper (and only possible) geonetry free integer based quantum of gravitation, once one realizes the exact same numeric value (with infinite, arbitrary correct zero error bar precision by design of exact iSpace geometric model) can be calculated by the following simple first order multiplicative equation (Einstein would likely be proud of due to the primary dependence of the mantissa value of 299792458^4 (!) term only:

iFg = 3/((299792458*10^3)^4 [Newton]

or the actual physical iSpace base unit being [Volt * Ampere * Second / Meter)] with 4 units 1:1 associated with the power of 4 of the base term seen above.

However it’s not the speed of light value you see here with 299792458 but it’s based of the value of the Planck resistence - so Planck Volt over Planck Ampere which in both SI snd iSpace-SI units is nothing less than 299792458 Volt over 10^7 Ampere (exactly (!!!)).

@ Christian G. Wolf "What a desperate nonsense of Lisa Randall (the origin of the gravitational force is in another universe)"

This is a statement from you, I can admit to.

But your references to a Planck force concerning gravity are not better.

Like all forces, the gravitational force F on an object is caused by the dependency of an energy content E on a displacement s of the object. F=dE/ds.

The energy content is the energy in the overlay of the gravitational field of the object and a background field. If the object is moving by ds in respect to the background field source, the energy content of the field overlay is modified by dE.

F=dE/ds applies to all forces in our world.

So let continue [see yesterday SS post on page 2]

…. So now in physics there exist 4 [in mainstream physics -3] fundamental Nature forces that make matter as it is. 3 ones are observed on macro scale – Gravity, Electric, and practically Nuclear/Strong Forces,

- though besides the above in the mainstream Standard particle Model a number of other Forces – and of corresponding Forces fields – exist, first of all that are Weak and Higgs Forces; in cosmology that that are rather numerous scalar, vector, etc., fields, say “inflaton”, etc.

On macro scale in the mainstream the Forces are mediated by “fields”, in QFTs mediators are “virtual mediators” – Electric – in the mainstream “EM” Force is mediated by “virtual photons”, Weak Force by “virtual Z and W bosons”, Strong Force by “virtual gluons”, Higgs Force by “virtual Higgs boson”.

Interactions of particles on QM/and so high energy scale, as that in the QFTs, quite adequately to the reality is postulated, happen as exchange by momentums/energies, and by no means at that the “only one fundamental force. This force F is defined by F=dE/ds” is mentioned.

However introducing of virtual mediators is some rather evident for any normal human mysticism – for any normal human it is evident, that real – and really observed – interactions must be as exchange by real mediators,

- and moreover, in SM just real – i.e. really observed even on macro scale photons, at high energy experiments the W,Z H bosons, are postulated as “real mediators”, what looks as quite strange; say, nobody observed till now in system of two charges at statics some real photons, but the charges quite really interact.

Correspondingly in QFTs [and in whole SM] really mystic mathematical tricks are introduced, in the theories really energy and momentum conservation law are violated, etc.

Now there exist only one really scientific model of Gravity, Electric [including it is shown that magnetic interactions really are only Electric Force interactions], and Nuclear Forces, where the mediators are completely real, and at the Forces interactions all conservation laws completely act, again etc., more see the linked in the yesterday SS post papers.

Cheers

@ Wolfgang Konle "But your references to a Planck force concerning gravity are not better" want to be kidding me (us)?

Have you actually used a simple pocket calculator to verify iSpace derived Quantum of gravitational force iFg ?!?? As alphaG is for sure accepted physics, so of course is for sure Planck force and you know it (better - let alone in simple well understood MKS/A-SI units).

Your personality is however to prefer to critizise what you don't know nor understand, not because you can't, but because you simple choose not to give in to anything "not invented here" - in other words - by yourself.

Just unscientific words, a real shame! Get a pocket calculator and check it!

Please see the video in which I first heard about Randal's claim. It is less than 4 minutes thus please see it especially the end.

Gravity: the weakest natural force on Earth? - Parallel Universe - BBC Science (youtube.com)

She has also simplified her idea in the following presentation. The source of the slide is given on its bottom.

Ziaedin Shafiei While iSpace theory (sort of) also proclaims a 10D based spacetime (overall, or otherwise explainations for the geometric validity of derived constants of nature would be cumbersome, to put it this way) like String theory ("inventing" 10D conceptually from mathematic symmetries) these kind of "funny spacetime ideas" should imho not be taken seriously. ST assumes 10^500 (!) geometric variants, not knowing which is a, let alone the, correct one. iSpace only claims 1 (one) and exactly one - which "just works" (to be able to compute most but all (50+) constants of nature from simple, integer geometric first order multiplicative first principles).

Dear Christian G. Wolf

I fully agree with you. You call them "funny spacetime ideas" but I think we should consider them as gods-of-the-gaps (gotg). In fact I do not think that only primitive societies created gotg, we are busy making them too. Those gods were not and are not created by lay people rather by powerful and influential individuals and organisations. Please see my full argument in:

Preprint SCIENCE IN THE SHADOW OF METAPHYSICS Part 1 -Gods of Science!?

The objective of my argument is to identify these contemporary gods and stop making them.

Ziaedin Shafiei well, ok - but your reply in turn sound to me a little bit more like a crusade instead of the attempt to persue to start a surely required scientifically sound debate on that matter to trigger a wider audience to join in and agree on (its not persons, it’s ideas in funding of science and pseudo reputation derived and gathered from such). But fame and science always worked hand in hand in the last 2000+ years (or didn’t they)?

@ Christian G. Wolf "Have you actually used a simple pocket calculator to verify iSpace derived Quantum of gravitational force iFg ?!?? As alphaG is for sure accepted physics, so of course is for sure Planck force and you know it (better - let alone in simple well understood MKS/A-SI units)."

The question is not if your number games with related constants are numerically correct or not. The point is the missing proof that your iSpace numbers are actually related to physical constants.

You are relating your iSpace numbers to exact integer relations. All natural constants are measurement based. But measurements have a limited accuracy by principle. Your iSpace transition from genuine natural constants with an accuracy limited by principle, to artificial constants with unlimited accuracy cannot be verified by whatever means.

This obviously is the deeper reason why we cannot find a readable justification of the iSpace theory. It is a pure assumption that the artificial iSpace constants, with their numerical values quite similar to the measured numerical values of genuine natural constants, are more precise than the natural constants.

After all, the claim about an unlimited accuracy of natural constants, as a consequence of iSpace theory, only is unjustified wishful thinking, which is impossible by principle. We actually know mathematical or geometric constants with an unlimited accuracy like e or π. But the transfer of the unlimited accuracy to physical constants like the fine structure constant α or the action quant h is impossible in priciple. The claim that considerations of higher dimensionality or of geometric relations would allow such an accuracy transfer, simply is wrong. Those considerations are based on arbitrary assumptions only, without any proven background.

Consequently iSpace theory also is based on arbitrary assumptions without any proven background.

Dear Christian G. Wolf

Many thanks for your advice. I try to stay within scientific borders that is why I ask these types of questions to find out what is the real science. For example, please see my question/analysis regarding inflation cosmology.

If scientists are allowed to say "god of rain" is in fact a god-of-the-gaps imagined by our influential ancestors then we should be permitted to identify some new ones too. It is imperative that we refrain from accepting ideas without repeatable evidence, as failing to do so allows for the proliferation of numerous unfounded notions by individuals who are content to generate baseless claims.

„The question is not if your number games with related constants are numerically correct or not“ I just re-remembered why I have chosen to further ignore any more of your unscientific baseless replies just forgotten for a second (like iSpace theory would be a number game - such was asked 16+ years ago and properly defended in front of audience with a Nobel class constants of nature and unit system expert present talking to). Please leave me alone (and learn or don’t learn iSpace on your own).

@ Christian G. Wolf "Have you actually used a simple pocket calculator to verify iSpace derived Quantum of gravitational force iFg ?!??"

As you obviously try to prove your theory with a pocket calculator, I may deliberately ask if you are serious with such number games.

According to your report ("Conference Paper iSpace - Deriving G from α, e, R∞, μ0 and Quantum of Gravita..." in equation (3) ) you are assuming that the speed of light is given as an exact value. This is a blatant error and in fact disqualifies your whole theory as a number game.

„you are assuming that the speed of light is given as an exact value. This is a blatant error …“ OUTCH … but should really hurt on your side not on mine - you are *so much wrong with near everything you write* - and in near every RG forum you participate that I wish RG “Block“ function had some regular expression based filter schema I could configure myself to end the pain having to read on my side … you are seemingly some frustrated wannabe theoretical physicist, by nonsense you emit.

@ Christian G. Wolf "you are *so much wrong with near everything you write*"

Of course you assume being right and others are wrong. But how do you justify your assumption that c expressed in m/s can be interpreted as an exact number?

Books. Hundreds of very good books. Tens of thousands of peer-reviewed or accepted conference papers. Wolfram Research Mathematica 3.0-14.0 as omnipresent tool for all calculations (not Excel or pocket calculators, which also works if one knows all limitations). Not least first hand personal contact to multiple Nobel level physicists including acutal Nobels, working in high end day jobs at principal level, scientific leads at CERN and president positions giving me extremely valuable advice (and a beer on their terraces). Lucky me.

An IQ of 160+ is also very helpful, but not at all a prerequisite to understand why c is both constant and exact (and in any unit system, for that matter).

@ Christian G. Wolf

With my question about a logical justification of the assumption that the speed of light, given as: 299,792,458 metres per second, is an exact value, I do not want to offend you.

But this assumption is unprovable by principle. You could say, I simply define that this is an exact value. I simply select the definition of meter and second accordingly. But this definition establishes an unphysical arbitrary relation between the accuracies of length and time units.

One second is defined as the exact count of 9129263770 oscillations of a specific caesium frequency. But nobody knows the exact duration of one oscillation of this caesium frequency. Therefor it is only an eyewash to assume a second as exactly defined.

If the speed of light is defined as an exact value, and the second is also defined as an exact value, we could assume that a meter also is an exactly defined length measure. But this also only is an eyewash without any useful meaning.

Within our measurement based physics world, no logical way exists, which in principle allows to derive exact values for natural constants.

We can assume whatever definition for our SI units, we cannot get rid of basic inaccuracies.

It does not matter from what alleged exact definition we are starting to declare a long chain of related constants as being exact. It is always the starting point, which is the root cause for the problem that our measurement based system cannot be exact.

The assumption that exact values exist, leads to a severe problem. The appropriate method is to assume an accuracy for every value and a Gaussian profile. This allows to calculate probabilities for theories about relations between natural constants.

Based on allegedly exact values we cannot calculate such probabilities. The tiniest numerical mismatch would at once disprove any theory. Therefor I do not see any advantage in the assumption of exact values in our world of physics.

@ Wolfgang Konle: 299792458 Meter / 1 Second is the speed of light in vaccuum as defined exactly in SI unit system (by CODATA committee), but what you (maybe all) overlook is - such definition has been done on the price to both relate and release the definition of the Second to an extremely precise value of a "simple" lab measurable exactly defined integer relatable frequency. Both can only be fixed when reveiling universe's clock - so i did.

"The tiniest numerical mismatch would at once disprove any theory" Now you finally got it! Thats why continuum based theories are wrong! And - iSpace theory is the first ever resulting in zero unit pressure results! Now you (all) just need to understand what that scientifically means ...

The answer is all of the above.

3 Forces: weak-nuclear, strong-nuclear, and electromagnetic forces.

4 Forces: weak-nuclear, strong-nuclear, electric, and magnetic forces (or electromagnetic and gravitational force instead).

5 Forces: weak-nuclear, strong-nuclear, electric, and magnetic forces, plus the generic gravitational force.

5 Forces are possible only when declaring that the gravitational force should get counted in separately, even though it is the synergistic outcome of the other forces.

Quick analogy:

* fathers, mothers, children (sons, daughters), families

Indeed three, or four (or five) outcomes that can be applied to individuals.

Obviously, a family is never a single person, but if desired one can declare families a distinct force, synergistic in outcome.

Synergy: A distinct outcome, truly different from the parts, yet established without any additional part, only applicable at the overall (generic) level.

Gravity is a generic force. So, we have the option to say 3 forces, 4 forces, or 5 forces.

@ Christian G. Wolf "Now you finally got it! Thats why continuum based theories are wrong!"

You seem to misunderstand physics in general. All claims, laws, theories, assumptions, and conjectures are only valid with a certain probability. Nothing is exact in physics. Only mathematic is exact. Of course in most apects the probability to be correct is quite high. But nevertheless an absolute certainty does not exist, for nothing.

Therefor your iSpace theory may be compatible to math, but in no way it is compatible to physics.

@ Wolfgang Konle Without any attempt to personally or otherwise insult you, I do really feel sorry for you (and your assumed life-time scientific achievements so far). This is, as once one takes the scientifically wrong exit from the highway to progress - in other words the future - one accepts all sorts of misconceptions and problems just to avoid to confess being wrong. Everything is *exact*.

@ Christian G. Wolf "Everything is exact"

This claim is an excellent example for a diametrically opposed opinion in science. My claim is that only mathematics is exact, and everything else cannot be exact by principle. My justification is as follows:

In natural sciences nothing is exact because the internal structure of every material is a composite of extremely small individual particles. The behaviour of those particles cannot be determined exactly. Fortunately those internal degrees of freedom do not really matter within most macroscopic aspects. But they do not allow any exact specification. Minor uncertainties are unavoidable.

But let me say a word to the style of our discussion. I think this issue is relevant and interesting. We should be able to discuss it without getting personal and with mutual respect.

Christian G. Wolf Wolfgang Konle

That is a proper position, Wolfgang. However, a tiny minor aspect spoils the plot.

The basics of mathematics is not always the decimal system, but in general that is the system we use.

If so desired, we could use the binary system and do the same that the decimal system can also do, mathematically.

But both mathematical systems are not identical. We have a split reality, right inside the larger mathematical realm.

Obviously, the issue is clearest with numbers 0 and 1.

In the decimal system, number 1 can be translated with the words 'unit' or 'unity', for instance, whereas number 1 in the binary system would not be translated this way. Rather, it would be more appropriate to use 'on' (versus 'off' for zero).

Allow me an example with the word Unity. As proposed, we can use number 1 of the decimal system and apply it to an overall outcome in which all is the same or all is organized as one. The word Unity is then assumed; the number 1 is then a shortcut to that word. Humor me, while I am trying to get to the point.

The word Unity in the binary system is not readily available; not at all. It needs to be produced first.

For example, we can agree that 11100100 represents the word Unity, and as long as we agree on it, we captured it.

--

The trick is that the binary system is the real system in which we can establish meanings (shortcuts), but that in the decimal system we already agreed on the shortcuts beforehand, no questions asked.

That means that mathematics itself is also what Gödel called out as an Incompleteness. In other words, we cannot declare an overall truth using the mathematical systems, even though we can declare specific truths real easily.

The minute we use a shortcut, that is exactly when we cannot get to an overall truth.

--

I used the word truth, so I will have to share how a truth is established as well. I'll do so using few words.

A contents cannot be known what it is unless the context is also presented.

For example, blue in the paint store is something quite different from blue when laying on the couch with the shrink. We can understand both versions of blue immediately if indeed we are presented with the context as well. It is the context in which the contents finds its accurate meaning.

--

Sorry about the long reply to your concise response, but I had to cover various grounds to provide enough perspectives on the reality of mathematics.

I agree with your position, except for the largest of levels.

Fred-Rick Schermer "The basics of mathematics is not always the decimal system, but in general that is the system we use."

The issue of the discussion with Christian is, if physics can be exact or not. What has binary or decimal system use in mathematics to do with that issue?

Fred-Rick Schermer , all: While Wolfgang this time is both topic and results wise right (in typical form of a mathematical proof and or logical chain of simple unambiguous steps leading to such, like say a certain checkmate advance to be seen by someone like me in 42 moves) indeed 0 (zero) or 1 (one) - so a binary state - has indeed nothing to do with our “exchange“ or iSpace theory (for that matter). You overlook multiple things here and reach - by far - not far enough:

1) iSpace theory (or model at the time) abolished the 0 (zero) in the first place, as coming from IT we needed (or wanted) to abolish once and for all the (bad) developer pain of (certain, also designed bad) software to never again throw exceptions. So whilr you can do thousands of things to prevent or catch division by zero (exception) only one is actually technically required:

2) you simply abolish the zero and get rid of the cause itself!

3) But after doing so, one recognize to have the need to construct an entire new positive integer containing only math (technically constructed on the basis well known but rarely ever used principles of so called „changed distance definition“ (still being in the domain of IT). After trashing all your old code, all which used Real numbers, Complex numbers, negative numbers, zero width and length entities (stupid ones, leading to consequential human mathematical artefact errors of infinity and worse …) you suddenly realize if you define things wisely you still are fully able to achieve everything what looked completely impossible before inside a computer IT based logical 0/1 system without missing anything (there is a mathematical proof a turing machine of discrete 0 and 1 only and s long enough finite tape can compute everything - or in others words - it’s universal).

4) after doing do and 1-2 good beer you realize that what you just did and managed to solve (claimed absolutely impossible by all of informatical theoretic „science“.). Bit of course the claim already was wrong, in not knowing enough (on IT in general and low level computer binary logic all we use today without much thought are build of - bit so still do know what a soldering iron is good for, and still can use it to build actual logic and with this computer devices - from scratch.

5) now when one does that, it can be made sure no floating point hardware or other nonsense of that sort is built in, ever. The rest is logic, and good low level programming.

6) now you sort out the last hurdle, in form of an additional bit per bit (or bit per arbitrary sized integer value) to catch the last logical blocking error - a bit telling you tristate if you know the state of any bit it value with certainty of 1 (one or 100%), and that’s it. After all such bits are correctly initialized with (typically) don’t-know state, you can start to run the simulation software and finally compute anything - and that’s what I did when mapping such sixt exsct schema 1:1 from exact by design IT logic to all (important) core physical phenomena like structure, geometry, size and mass of objects etc., when it became clear that such discretized circles with inherent Pi3=3 by LEGO style geometry are exactly whats going on in both quantum world and cosmology, so the both must be necessarily connected by something.!

7) That something turned out to be soon nothing else than constants of nature and fully discrete (likewise like IT parts before) iSpace theory was born and developed over a course of about 25+ years (and boy was that a trip and worse - I had to do everything completely alone as literally everybody told me I would have never any chance to succeed with such attempt, ever!). Problem is just - for all of those telling me so like a religious mantra - I did succeed!

8) So lessons learned: it’s completely irrelevant what anyone tells you (Wolfgang Konle being the prime example!) would not be possible a million times, it’s only relevant what you are able to proof backward once!

9) And so and such I did with what is iSpace theory as of today 2024 as presented on my RG home in its rich fully developed (yet unpolished presentation wise) exact arbitrary precise integer geometric model and software library in Mathematica (aka Wolfram Language) and my related papers derived from those - like undeniable proof of unavoidable physical existence of the Quantum of time (1/6961 iSpaceSecond in iSpace-IQ unit system).

10) That leaves me to tell you - checkmate in 10 moves (only) - and I didn’t even need to do the 42+ steps as in the actual proof in my paper of fully self-contained (no prerequisite knowledge of iSpace theory or anything else needed) on the derivation of the Quantum of time as available freely on my RG home, together with most but the rest of stunning iSpace theoretical results:

Preprint iSpace - Quantization of Time in iSpace-IQ Unit-System by 1/...

Gravity is one of the fundamental forces, although many physicists may not agree. Without reassessing General Relativity in the appropriate manner, we cannot conclusively unify the four forces. General Relativity remains distant from being integrated with Quantum Mechanics. It is time to commence this endeavor.

Dear Ittipat Roopkom

I had a quick look at your paper. Unfortunately, we do not agree on several issues. The most important one is relying on thought experiment instead of real experiment to validate a scientific theory. Please see my questions and articles in RG if you are interested.

For example, please see Presentation God: Valid Scientific Conclusion

Thank you for your comment on my article. I will make sure to incorporate real experiments and evidence into the measurement in the next article.

Christian G. Wolf

Thank you, Christian, for the extensive reply. I appreciate it.

Sorry to have barged into your conversation.

Let me try capture what I wanted to state, doing so in a few sentences:

It appears that the conversation between the two of you moved into a virtual reality and as such it is then not on topic, as per the question.

In a virtual reality, we are no longer in the actual reality, and the point is that the handles are distinct among both realms. They may appear identical, but they are not. We must refrain from making both one and the same at all levels.

That said, apologies once more. I should have stayed out of the conversation.

Ittipat Roopkom

Agreed.

Einstein did not incorporate the most important motion among all matter, and therefore Spacetime is a tool that misses out on one important aspect.

Interestingly, the scientific data is not what is in question. It is the scientific understanding of the overall structure. Matter is not involved in three motions, but in four motions. And the fourth motion is not based on gravity, so recalculating gravity is not required.

Here is my article on presenting that idea.

Article On a Fully Mechanical Explanation of All Behaviors of Matter...

I stand in the position that unification is a religious and not a scientific position. I bring Gödel with me to argue the point. The completed reality is always an Incompleteness because we must stand in specific positions. But one look at the material reality and one can already see that separation is a fundamental aspect, galaxies the largest settings for collective material behaviors, not connected to other galaxies in their behavior (happenstance notwithstanding).

The universe we live in could not have captured a material aspect unless the prior state undermined itself; i.e. unification is not possible in a result with distinct outcomes that did not exist prior.

I'd appreciate your feedback on my article.

Fred-Rick Schermer Fred, thanks for your feedback (constructive feedback, even when opposing which you had not even doing is always welcome - or should be).

You also did not barge in, as I (tried) long ago to stop any direct comms to Wolfgang being a) factually wrong and b) unproductive in the sense of not willing to learn (ever) but looking like wanting to be on the correct „cause I say so“ fraction. Science is all about facts, not believe and once your personally beloved model has been prooven falsified, it needs to be game over and move on.

Everything else is unscientific typically ego driven, and hence completely unproductive time wasting (time stealing), not allowed in any company, so while RG allows to freely state your ideas and opinions, those who want - and can - actually progress science as is mainstream today (and more wrong than right in many fields) are bound by the sheer endless repeating wrong replies of what would seemingly not work instead of telling or helping to find constructive to what works, otherwise one cannot learn anything new (even after weeks or month of intense discussion on otherwise interesting RG discussion threads.

Required are scientists who are creative, able to stand RGs tough discussions, not be negative triggered when loosing an argument and most important - row back with one’s own nonsense once falsified in front of RG descussion threads virtual „camera“.

Much appreciate the further explanation of what you two were involved in, Christian.

As you know, I accept GR only as a framework and consider it incomplete because Einstein did not incorporate the most important motion seen among matter.

Yet it poses a problem as well, since the GR framework can remain intact. So, I am trying to both undermine GR while stating there is nothing wrong with GR itself.

It's a bit like Rubin's Vase in that the view of the Vase means we have a unified outcome. Yet with the view of the Two Faces we have a non-unified outcome, though each face is unified by itself.

The problem is then that this difference cannot be expressed in scientific details or through mathematics, but that the distinction must be understood by the person him- or herself. All data is the same either way, but reality will only be based on one of the two (and I claim that is the Two Faces).

Thanks again for your reply. I appreciate it.

Fred-Rick Schermer Fred, GR is nothing less than the biggest paradox in history of science: All of GR theory calculated (hence predicted) values (up to 10^-13m, where things get iSpace quantum) are correct, while near all of its geometric base SRT and predictions thereof (most leading to severe paradoxes discussed to death in the last century) are completely wrong - at the same time!

iSpace theory in both quantum area and cosmology (Hubble H0, Quantum of gravitation iFg, ….) and a striking proof (smoking gun) in a paper of Lev Verkhovski from around 2000 in russian language, republished 2022 as english preprint on RG changes everything, showing relativity lacks a complete geometric term already found and described by Lorentz representing the Doppler effect, set to 1 by the 3 fathers of relativity as they collectively and fully wrong misinterpret the term as irrelevant (hence set to 1), seeding the root cause to all isses with relativity as we know of today.

One might be inclined to say, otherwise relativity is „correct“ but iSpace theory shows everything is discrete hence no continnum hence no base for theory of relativity at all.

Proof done - and wasn’t even that hard.

So. you‘re right with relativity but no more need for a logical crusade, keep Gödel and all others torturing us with zero size particles and infinite mathematical structures and leave them where they scientifically belong - in the grave.

Okay, Christian G. Wolf , but how do you incorporate the notion that matter is involved in four motions, whereas GR just points to three?

With GR, there is gravity missing to explain the behavior of outer regions of galaxies hanging tight with the galaxy.

With the motion included (called First Motion), we do not have any gravity missing because it is already explained why the outer regions of galaxies are hanging tight.

There is gravity involved, but it is not the entire story.

Twenty ice skaters can be seen as a group, yet there is no group power doing the skating. Each skater skates under his or her own power. As such, the group is not just held together by group realities (all family members, all team members), but also by the power of each skater.

Same for the outer regions of galaxies; they are already moving in the same direction like all masses in a galaxy in the same direction -- at their fastest speed. This is based on the initial motion established during the Big Bang and has not changed since.

This is then a mechanical explanation, while it can also be used to explain the precession anomaly of Mercury.

Curious how you will reply to this, Christian.

P.S. I am not using Gödel for infinity (only space is infinite, matter is not) nor am I using Gödel for zero particles. All I am using Gödel for is at the largest of all levels (i.e. the universe) and making sure that everyone understands that the universe is not a unit, cannot be a unit. There is no factual Spacetime, except for the mathematical framework that shows the mechanisms of gravity for masses minus the First Motion.

I appreciate your perspectives.

Do we really need to use the theory of relativity or refer to the big bang to explain gravity? We can think much better of the simplest principles of Newtonian mechanics.

In order to understand forces in principle, the concept of work or energy helps us. We know that work E is force F times way s. We understand this spatially a little more precisely as the force along a traveled path. Mathematically, this is expressed by E=F*s. "*" stands as a scalar product of the vectors force and displacement. For variable forces and paths, we can also express this relationship by F=dE/ds. This means that a force F on an object is caused by the fact that some energy content E changes by dE as a result of the change in position ds of the object. The infinitesimal energy change is a consequence of the infinitesimal path change and is expressed by F=dE/ds.

Now, of course, we suspect that this law of force is so general that it also applies to the gravitational force. To back this up, however, we need to find the energy content that depends on the change in position.

This is where the idea that force fields in nature contain an energy density comes to our aid. For electric fields, we know from the observation of a plate capacitor that the energy density W of the electric field E in vacuum is given by W= ε0E²/2. We also know that the electric fields of different charges add up vectorially.

Now, if we change the distance between two charges, we change their field superposition. In this way, we automatically change the energy content in the field superposition. Thus, we now have found the energy that changes when we change the distance of two charges.

Why shouldn't this apply to gravity as well? The gravitational fields emanating from two masses also overlap vectorially and linearly. Using the Poisson equation, for which there is an electrostatic and a gravitational character, we can prove that the energy density W of the gravitational field is given by W=-g²/(8πG). g is the gravitational acceleration, or the field strength of gravity. G is the gravitational constant.

Thus, the gravitational force on an object is also F=dE/ds. In the case of gravity, E is the energy contained in the superimposed gravitational field of the object with the gravitational field of the Earth. ds is to be understood as an infinitesimal difference in altitude.

With this approach to the action of force, which comes from the most elementary basis of mechanics, we can thus unambiguously explain the gravitational force analogous to all forces in nature, without referring to any mystical or complex relationships.

Wolfgang Konle

The point of understanding what force is, Wolfgang, is not based on it being everything there is. Absolutely not.

So, we can collect and discuss all different kinds of forces, and yet we will fall short then of telling the entire story.

--

First off, forces are not self-based realities. They are vital aspects of matter, and if so desired we can equate matter with energy, or with a special form of energy.

That should make clear that the universal framework we have to look for is not based on forces alone. The forces are guiding us like street signs to downtown. Yet once in downtown, then where are the street signs to downtown, because there are none in downtown. I hope you see how forces guide us, but they do not bring us home.

Forces are not the essential reality alone, even though they are essential.

So, yes, the Big Bang must be mentioned (whichever version you adhere to) because there is no matter at a standstill in our universe. Matter is always on the move because of that 'sent-off' motion.

That means there is already a 'force' at play, even before we take a look at the actual forces we associate with matter.

--

Allow me to make this a long reply, because there are four motions to matter that need to be understood as distinct.

First Motion is the sent-off to matter that the Big Bang provided. That fastest speed matter is involved in did not get undermined (except via happenstance) and it is therefore on-going for all (most) matter.

Second Motion is the circular motion we see with galaxies.

Third Motion is where the fun stuff is happening, because we see a circular motion as well with the Solar System. Yet the Sun itself is not swirling in that circular motion. The Sun is involved in First Motion and Second Motion, not the others. The 11-year cycle is a cycle, not a motion. I'm fine if you want to see a correlation.

The planets are involved in that Third Motion; they are revolving our star.

Fourth Motion involves planets spinning, moon(s) in tow.

The Third Motion is the special one to pay attention to, because the planets are revolving around the star, and yet they are far more involved with their own actions than mimicking what the star is doing. There is a clear distinction in behavior.

--

Let's not deny that gravity plays its important role, yet we can inverse the importance of gravity for Mercury because it is awfully close to the non-Third Motion mentioned for the center of the Solar System. That means we can point to a non-gravitational aspect that influences Mercury in this model. There is a mechanical reality at play.

The center of the Solar System is not involved in the Third Motion, other than representing a net-zero location in that Third Motion.

Okay, let me finish this up quickly, so I don't bore you to death.

The Solar System swirl is like a maelstrom, and in the center we got this enormous light-weighted ball, stuck in the center of the maelstrom.

Because it is light-weighted (but enormous nevertheless), the maelstrom cannot pull it under (push it out of its way). So, the maelstrom forces that light-weighted ball in place. We have two realities, of maelstrom and light-weighted ball. No other option than it being stuck in place.

Everything else is swirling further out around that maelstrom, minding their own business, just doing what things in the outer areas of maelstroms are doing. Yet Mercury is closer to the maelstrom than any of the other planets.

So, where all other planets are basically floating at sea level, Mercury is floating just a tad lower below that sea level because it finds itself in the area where the maelstrom already lowered the water table.

Right where the Sun is located, the water table is super low. That Sun is stuck for certain with the whirlpool definitely pointing down (i.e. really, really stuck in that net-zero spot of the Third Motion).

Conclusion: We are not in this to explain just the forces. We have to come up with an overall storyline in which the forces play their accurate roles.

--

Thank you for letting me say this. I know the model is not mainstream, and it declares the Big Bang sent-off as the most important behavior for matter in the universe.

You don't need to agree. But I hope you see the model. Once you do, you cannot unsee it. I promise : - )

Wolfgang Konle Good simple explanation. PS Suggest changing the Earth near surface perspective of "altitude" to a more general description. e.g. "change in their separation distance".

Wolfgang Konle Christian G. Wolf

Yes, we can reverse the PS, keeping it intact. Instead of gravity doing the pulling, the larger reality of Earth spinning establishes a (Fourth Motion) net-zero location for Earth in the center, and for anything to get out of that net-zero location (in the Fourth Motion), it will actually have to muster a maximum strength to do so.

It is then similar to the Eye of the Storm in which the Eye itself is without any wind force expression.

So, immediately next to the absolute minimum in the center (a major depression for which there is no opposite in existence), we find the absolute maximum with the Wall of the Eye.

Not until further away, from both minimum and maximum aspects of the center, then we do see a normal petering out toward zero again, the final edges of the Storm, far out. Between minimum of Center and maximum of Wall, we have zero space. We go from zero to max immediately.

--

That means anything found in this specific pathway will be affected, depending on where it is located.

If with the Eye, standstill, no motion.

If with the Wall of the Eye, maximum push, wherever.

If beyond the Wall of the Eye, depending on how close to that Wall of the Eye, a petering out.

Not gravity is then the guiding sign, but the location where we find ourselves.

--

Downtown signs are not found in downtown. Downtown signs are always found outside of downtown; they only bring us to the edge of downtown.

Fred-Rick Schermer "We are not in this to explain just the forces. We have to come up with an overall storyline in which the forces play their accurate roles."

Sorry, but coming up with a complex overall storyline, which finally explains nothing, nowadays is a well spread problem. My intention is just the opposite.

In order to explain basic physics, I want to come up with simple comprehensible and justifyable facts.

In respect to gravity, F=dE/ds is one of these facts, which in standard physics has been ignored, or even actively swept under the carpet, during a too long time.

This does not mean that I consider your way to look at nature as being questionable in principle. The only point is that it is difficult to comprehend your storyline and to imagine consequences.

David L. Hagen "Suggest changing the Earth near surface perspective of "altitude" to a more general description. e.g. "change in their separation distance"."

This suggestion is correct.

If a force is any cause of variation in the momentum of a body over time, not a consequence of the choice of a non-inertial reference frame, then gravitational force is a force. And if it is not explainable in terms of the other three, then it is fundamental. At least temporarily.

The general theory of relativity does not demonstrate that gravitational one is not a force, according to the definition of force. It simply provides a theoretical scheme that explains its origin as a geometry induced on space-time by the energy-momentum tensor. We cannot exclude that in the future theories that model the origin of other interactions will also be developed. But if this happens, they will not go beyond the definition of force as a cause of change in the momentum of the body on which they act.

Giacomo De Toma "But if this happens, they will not go beyond the definition of force as a cause of change in the momentum of the body on which they act."

With the relativistic mass, we can prove that force as a change in momentum F=dP/dt is a direct consequence of F=dE/ds. (d/ds(γm0c²)=d/dt(γm0v)) with γ=1/√(1-v²/c²) and v=ds/dt.

This proves that F=dE/ds is the root cause of forces or at least equivalent to F=dP/dt.

The last posts that scientifically answer the thread question are SS posts on pages 2 and 3. After these posts rather strange, but vivid posting appeared, as, say, [what at least looks as something that relates to physics, comparing with other posts]

“…With the relativistic mass, we can prove that force as a change in momentum F=dP/dt is a direct consequence of F=dE/ds. (d/ds(γm0c²)=d/dt(γm0v)) with γ=1/√(1-v²/c²) and v=ds/dt.

This proves that F=dE/ds is the root cause of forces or at least equivalent to F=dP/dt.…..”

- that isn’t, of course always so. If an apple is on the table, two forces act on it – Newton attraction to Earth, which is “dP/dt”, and the table reaction, which is also “dP/dt” [though with “-”], but there is no dE/ds; if a satellite moves around Earth on perfect circular orbit, on it again the Newton force F= dP/dt acts, but at that F=dE/dsis zero, energy of satellite is constant,

- etc.

All that above yet last years schoolchildren know, however, regrettably, last time the threads on RG are flooded by rather, if too, strange posts of some too vivid posters, who have some strange “knowledge” of physics – in this case other posts in the thread after the SS posts pointed above are outside physics at all.

More see the SS posts on pages 2,3, first of all in that why and how Gravity – and besides Gravity – as that is just the thread question, a few other fundamental Nature forces act, etc.

SS posts in

https://www.researchgate.net/post/The_ultimate_reason_for_the_gravitational_force/20are relevant to thread question in relations to what is Gravity Force, which fundamentally hasn’t some completely mystic

“origin as a geometry induced on space-time by the energy-momentum tensor.”

Cheers

Sergey Shevchenko "If an apple is on the table, two forces act on it – Newton attraction to Earth, which is “dP/dt”, and the table reaction, which is also “dP/dt” [though with “-”], but there is no dE/ds"

Two forces act on the apple. The gravitational force, caused by F1=dE1/ds which slightly presses the apple into the surface of the table. The apple had moved towards the table until the movement has been far enough to allow the table to build up the elastic response force, which is given by F2=dE2/ds.

E1 is the energy in the overlay of the gravitational field of the apple and of earth. E2 is the elastic energy contained in the deformation of the table. We exactly have F1=-F2.

But there is absolutely no force dP/dt because the momentum of the apple remains zero and does not depend on time. However the forces F1 and F2 are permanently present. The elastic stress of the table due to the presence of the apple persists.

Wolfgang Konle

Good response, Wolfgang.

I am with you, and you are entitled to a good explanation, which should be understandable after reading it just once.

Gravity is the subject matter of this thread, and equally important is the question of what is not-gravity.

The point I am trying to make is that we can declare gravity a force, yet gravity exists in a larger setting and we need to investigate that setting.

I do use analogies to make it easier to see where the essence lies. But remember that analogies are only as good as delivering a specific message; they are never the entire message.

* weak-nuclear force

* strong-nuclear force

* electromagnetic force

* gravitational force

The question is how the gravitational force relates to the other forces, and I want to show you a structure of common human realities. Again, an analogy is only as good as pointing out one specific aspect; they are not meant to be identical in essence.

* fathers

* mothers

* children

* families

The point of this analogy is to show that 'families' is a generic reality that is specific nevertheless.

Plus, the 'families' group existed already the moment the other three groups were pronounced. It is therefore a synergistic outcome, which means it is totally distinct from the other groups and yet nothing extra was added. We do have four groups from three groups.

The same can be said of gravity. We have a very distinct outcome, and yet there is no additional aspect required (such as gravitons) because all three forces that make the fourth force are already present.

The analogy can be followed in one more specific aspect. 'Families' made singular (i.e. 'Family') is still a plural outcome itself. No single person can be a family. Compare this with 'Fathers' made singular (i.e. 'Father') and one can see the difference between both singulars, one being truly singular, the other not.

Same for gravity. It is about matter, and yet it is not matter specific.

The weak- and strong-nuclear force are very matter specific, and so is the electromagnetic force though we may want to replace matter for energy in this respect.

Not so for gravity. It is a force in its own category. It is based on matter, and yet it is not matter specific. It is generic compared to the other forces. I hope that this is understood by you.

--

Apologies for writing long replies and making use of analogies. I always feel I have to overcome something, and yet I may make it more complex than need be.

The behavior of matter is vitally important because it shows that the forces are not the entire picture. Spacetime is not the entire picture.

When there are twenty ice skaters (representing twenty masses moving through space), they can be seen as a group (matter moving collectively in the same direction).

In this group, we can see group behaviors (forces at work, their circling in a galaxy, for instance). However, to declare this group as involved in group behavior only, that would be incorrect. We are not witnessing just the forces because one extra setting is occurring.

If a skater were to stop, then the remainder of the group would move on, showing that the skater powered him- or herself and was not powered by the group.

This is where the analogy breaks because masses in a galaxy cannot stop by themselves. Once put in motion, something else needs to happen otherwise the motion that the mass is involved in will be ongoing.

Each mass in the Milky Way is moving on its own force, which is the sent-off force established during the materialization process, on-going. Plus, these masses are involved in their collective behaviors, commonly described with gravity.

Now, if we want to use just the forces, then we are basically closing an eye on the overall setup for matter. That would not be good science, focusing just on what we measured but not looking at what all matter is doing.

We make use of tools, but the brain is a tool as well that must be applied. Gravity is a special force, distinct from the others. Meanwhile, masses in a galaxy are not just held together by forces; they are already involved in a collective behavior that is not based on gravity but on the prime mover of the Big Bang.

Wolfgang,

If this did not help, then don't worry. Continue the good conversations you have with others.

Sergey Shevchenko

I appreciate the shown scientific perspective you present, Sergey. Yet your words desire us to focus strictly on the scientific details, and in effect desires us to move away from the larger scientific perspectives, other than the ones perceived as correct by most.

--

For instance, when someone is using the word Physics, then there is already the question what is meant with the word Space. This is no small potatoes.

Can Space be considered a physical entity, as many do indeed view it today. Or does one make Space a phenomenon, meaning it is real but does not have specific attributes itself?

Einstein's GR points out how space is a physical aspect in relationship to the behavior of matter. Yet, note carefully, how it does not answer the question if space itself is a physical attribute.

By now 4, for me two, the quantum vacuum and the strong force. You'll like.

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/371896737_Superconducting_Field_Theory_the_Unification_Theory

Dear Fred-Rick Schermer

FRS "The answer is all of the above."

I have specified my reason for the question in my initial comment. I wanted to know why scientists still consider gravity as a fundamental force while strongly defend relativity.

There are a few more issues related to relativity which I have tried to highlight in other RG questions such as

https://www.researchgate.net/post/Is_There_a_Nobel_Prize_for_Metaphysics?

I hope the issue is clear now.

Dear Sergio Perez Felipe

Thank you for sharing your paper. I had a quick look and hope to be able to read it fully in near future.

• As I understand it you try to unify "the strong nuclear force with the gravitational force". In that case you consider gravity as a force.
• I have a few issues with the quantum vacuum which is explained in the following RG question and document. I will appreciate it if you could comment on those issues.

https://www.researchgate.net/post/Where_are_all_the_virtual_particles?

Preprint SCIENCE IN THE SHADOW OF METAPHYSICS Part 2 -The Issue of Existence

Ziaedin Shafiei

Yes, thank you, the issue was clear already.

I am not one of the proponents of Einstein's Spacetime in any absolute manner, but I recognize the framework as showing very important accuracies we should not ignore. That said, in GR, Spacetime explains the observed gravitational outcomes.

* There are multiple choices, and each model will declare what the outcome will be. That's why 'all of the above' is a good answer (but not the final answer).

--

My claim is that Einstein failed to incorporate all four motions of matter. By investigating just three motions of matter, Einstein was able to provide us that correct framework, but could not explain it. The prime mover among these motions was not incorporated by him, and interestingly also not based on gravity (nor spacetime, nor aether). That's the reason why Spacetime is a good framework.

Einstein did not know about the Big Bang at the time he published his relativity theories. And once he knew about it, Einstein did not investigate how that would influence the behavior of matter. He did not see the non-gravitational pathway that matter is also involved in.

--

Last point: The Forces are not the essence in our universe; they are fundamental byproducts of matter.

Matter does not exist all by itself. Matter exists in a spatial setting. All matter is on the move; no matter is found at a standstill.

So, we know that matter is a result and we know that this energy received an initial push during the materialization process.

--

Thank you for reaching out, Ziaedin. I appreciate it. I do not care about Nobel Prizes. The truth is more interesting than a prize. Let's figure it out, right?

Fred-Rick Schermer "Einstein did not know about the Big Bang at the time he published his relativity theories."

Yes, furtunately not. With the belief in the big bang in his mind, he would not have been able to develop his great theory.

The inflation phase, a fixed part of the big bang theory, is in eclatant contradiction to Einstein's relativity theory.

Dear Wolfgang Konle

As a relativistic physicist do you mind answering the issue raised in

https://www.researchgate.net/post/Is_There_a_Nobel_Prize_for_Metaphysics?

Dear Fred-Rick Schermer

Thank you for your response. I directed my question to the physics committee, fully aware that they do not respond, but I held hope for insights from RG members.

I anticipate being able to read your article within the next month.

Ziaedin Shafiei

My feeling is that your example with a charge moving parallel to a current in a wire is equivalent to the case of two parallel curents.

These attract each other. The attractive force is caused by the effect, that moving the currents closer together reduces the energy content of the magnetic field around both currents.

The attractive force on the moving charge is equivalent to a force caused by an opposite charge at rest in the wire.

But where is the contradiction to Einstein's principle?

Dear Wolfgang Konle

This is not my example. It is what Einstein has predicted in his 1905 paper. I actually took it from Feynman lecture, where he attempted to validate Einstein's prediction by calculating electromagnetic forces in two proposed inertial reference frames and demonstrating their equality. However, Feynman encountered difficulty in proving the forces equal and conceded that they were only equal at low speeds. Upon further investigation, I found that other sources (referenced in the presentation file) simply replicated Feynman's calculations.

In my presentation, I merely reproduced Feynman’s calculations. I assume he went ahead with his calculations to find the most conforming result. Additionally, I identified his error and demonstrated that my calculations did not support Einstein's theory either.

Wolfgang Konle

And how horrible the idea that one can even think of cosmic inflation, Wolfgang. Some people really believe Cyclopes are real.

The Big Bang theory comes in a variety of models, and the Lambda-CDM model is most supported. But it is not supported by me in its pre-CMBR scenario because it may not be based on good scientific data. Plus... the mechanical storyline is horribly incomplete. It declares not why we ended up with matter. It does not say why.

The Big Bang theory I support is called the Big Whisper model, and it is mechanically complete.

--

First the distinction, because the Lambda-CDM model keeps as one of its potential options that time, space, matter, and energy came into being some 13.8 billion years ago all at once.

Those that adhere to this Lambda-CDM version (note that not everyone does) can be called out as priests because the scientific data truly is that matter first appeared some 13.8 billion years ago, and nothing else.

So, we have some folks melding everything (time, space, matter, energy) into one origination event, even though there is no scientific data about the beginning of time, space, or energy at all. Scientists should not tell a creation story. We must tell a transformation story, and this is truly a major distinction.

Other physicists may not worry about this unifying aspect and still support the Lambda-CDM model as best model, focusing just on the materialization aspect.

Mechanically, however, that model does not deliver.

Instead of explaining why matter came into being, these physicists walk back all the known data they could get their hands on (LHC data included), and created a Frankenstein storyline in which we have an outcome that is not natural. All data is verified as best as possible, but each part being acknowledged does not make for an entire correct composition.

--

The Big Whisper model is just a transformation model, how original (immaterial) energy ended up becoming matter. It may not be worked out to each and every scientific detail, but at least the storyline is natural.

* There is no cosmic inflation in this model.

* There is no super-hot starting point in this model (but, yes, heat did get created, just not super-hot).

First some structural thinking exercises:

* If we fold space, and fold space again and again, then we can indeed end up at a zero position.

* If we fold up energy, and fold energy again and again, then we cannot end up at a zero position.

So, it does not matter what the source was for matter, but for certain it was not space. Therefore, we do not have a zero position to work with.

Whatever the source was for matter, it was real, simply because the result is real, even while the result is definitively not how that original source existed before.

--

What the Lambda-CDM model fails to do is establish the extra required scientific step. I have just the example to show this:

Making the Lambda-CDM Cake in three steps:

1. Get cake particles

2. Put in oven

3. Done

Compare this to making the Big Whisper Cake in four steps:

1. Get cake ingredients

2. Mix ingredients into batter

3. Put batter in oven

4. Done

So, instead of the Lambda-CDM model, the Big Whisper model contains an extra scientific step, a natural aspect common among mechanical processes.

The required step: The model is not just outbound; it is inbound first.

--

This inbound motion, collective in essence, establishes three temporary areas, explaining why there is no cosmic inflation required nor demanding that the starting point was super-hot.

Extreme pressure is part and parcel indeed of both models (Lambda-CDM and Big Whisper), and why the inbound motion started is not explained in either model. Yet it is required to end up with that extreme pressure. The three temporary zones are:

A: Zone 1 in the center, immaterial energy fully stuck in place to the max, due to all surrounding inward pressures.

- Note therefore that this is occurring in scientific unknown territories except for the fact that there was something real prior that did indeed establish the resulting outcomes.

- The rule followed then is that 'same compacts same' when collective pressures are applied. And 'same' is otherwise not declared other than immaterial energy.

B: Zone 2 next to the enormous Zone 1, where pressure is still enormous, friction among that pressure was possible. This temporary zone ended up churning, and this is where the origin of matter got established. The churning caused original energy to become damaged energy, a quark soup established under extreme pressure.

C: Zone 3 is by far the largest area from which the inbound motion originated. Though most of the inbound pressure originated in Zone 3, Zone 3 itself is not under enormous pressures until closer to Zone 2. With Zone 1 stuck in place, there is a disconnect established among the three zones, which ended up with Zone 3 continuing its inbound pressure, in essence not stopping the inbound pressure.

The damage in Zone 2 is the mechanical aspect. Where at first there was original (immaterial) energy, there is now an outcome that is less so. It has become churned into matter (quark soup under extreme pressure).

--

That setup is enough to declare the following:

The reason there is no cosmic inflation required in this Big Bang model is that Zone 1 ended up providing the catapulting action, but it was Zone 2 from which matter derived.

See?

No cosmic inflation required at all because matter is not from the center. It did not come from the location that the Lambda-CDM model points out as the origination location.

Yes, Zone 1 is not empty. It contains immaterial energy, it even provides the catapulting push for all energy, yet it does not become matter.

--

Same for the lack of needing a super-hot starting point because the adiabatic cooling process did not take place across a distance of 380,000 years, but across a far, far shorter distance. This churning could have taken place relatively close to the CMBR. Hence, not as hot compared to the spot it started out.

--

I'll leave it at this, Wolfgang.

I know that some people rather believe that Cyclopes are real than accepting that we should not be looking for a creation story. They want to compete with priests who are indeed capable of declaring all one. Yet they do not need to stick to the facts; they can float that balloon very high without any lines attached to the ground.

Not me. I want a real scientific storyline, connected to the known facts and not the assumed facts. It does not matter if that version is filled with accurate scientific data because in combination it contains a deeply flawed fallacy nevertheless. I want the real knowledge, not the fantasy combination story.

I'll find out if you can follow me out the rabbit hole that many excellent physicists find themselves trapped in. As always, I appreciate your communications, and I do not mind if you disagree.

Dear Fred-Rick Schermer "I want the real knowledge, not the fantasy combination story. I'll find out if you can follow me out the rabbit hole that many excellent physicists find themselves trapped in. As always, I appreciate your communications, and I do not mind if you disagree."

Yes, indeed I disagree, but I also appreciate the open and honest style of your communication.

My conviction about an alternative to the big bang is founded on the negative energy density contained in gravitational fields. The gravitational fields around neutron stars are so strong that their compensation, which must then be omnipresent, comprises such a high energy density that the mass equivalent of that energy density is much higher than the total of all mass existing in the universe. The negative gravitational field energy must be compensated beause the existence of a negatively definite energy density is not possible.

We know this omnipresent energy density as dark energy. But up to now standard physics does not accept that this dark energy compensates for the negative energy density of gravitational fields.

With strange assumptions the fact of the negative gravitational field energy has been, and still is, swept under the carpet.

But we know that gravitational fields get stronger, if they provide energy. Therefor it is obvious that the energy content of gravitational fields must be negative. Otherwise the mutual action of masses on masses could not be attractive.

Therefor a cosmology must take into account the omnipresence of dark energy in such a high amount that the presence of matter only is a minor disturbance.

Einsteins field equations even express the possible existence of an omnipresent energy density with the cosmological constant. A positive value of that constant expresses the existence of a positive energy density. It also expresses that this existence leads to a positive scalar space curvature of 1/R². This in turn leads to a finite space volume of 2π²R³.

We can further discuss the various capabilities of this omnipresent dark energy, after its existence has been accepted in our current discussion. Without this acceptance a further discussion of course does not make much sense.

Ziaedin Shafiei "Additionally, I identified his error and demonstrated that my calculations did not support Einstein's theory either."

Do you come to another conclusion in your calculation as: "Parallel currents attract each other" and to "the attractive force of parallel currents corresponds to the static presence of an opposite charge density at the current location"?

Dear Wolfgang Konle

To the best of my recollection, Feynman and Purcell extensively examined all conceivable forces. However, please note that the issue is not about my own analysis which may be totally wrong. It revolves around the principles of relativity, focusing on what Einstein predicted in his 1905 paper and the subsequent failure of physics professors to validate it.

Wolfgang Konle

In the Big Whisper model, a lot of original energy is still present in original format, Wolfgang. As such, it is fine to work with a specific field that is immaterial, one that will have its effects on the material outcomes.

I am fine to leave the discussion as it stands right now, Wolfgang.

But... let me undermine words I see you pronounce. I am not certain if this is semantics or structural in essence, so I am investigating a little here. I am just nit-picking words, and if you don't like that, then don't worry too much about it.

"The gravitational fields around neutron stars are so strong that their compensation, which must then be omnipresent, comprises such a high energy density that the mass equivalent of that energy density is much higher than the total of all mass existing in the universe."

This appears an impossibility. Unless you make the immaterial reality of the universe the same as an actual physical entity that is greater than the total of all mass existing in the universe.

My response:

If we accept as fact that gravitational fields around neutron stars are indeed so strong, then we need to find an ordinary reason why that is so.

First of all, when we have celestial outcomes, then it behooves us to use two models, not just one. Naturally, just one will be correct, yet the other must be explored, too, to subtract the highest level of information out of this subject matter.

There are two forms for energy to exist:

1: with matter. This is the common approach in which we associate matter with their forces and output.

2: with the collective of matter.

It is with the collective of matter that something special can occur. An internalization of the forces becomes possible, and we can then end up with a reality that, if it were taken all by itself to be identical to just a single mass, then we could not believe it to be possible.

I have just the example to share.

In the school yard, during the break, ten children including myself are lined up holding hands. I am 'it'. I am on one of the two outsides of the line. Then we all start running as fast as we can, collectively.

The person on the other side of the line stops, and with that stopping motion, the next child is forced to stop as well. Obviously, the first three kids will not be able to make this a full stop, yet by the time the fourth and fifth kid are stopped, we do have a full stop (among them).

The remaining kids still running receive a pulling force that definitively ends up going side-ways.

I am the last one to receive that pulling action, and the kid next to me is not into stopping, but rather into holding on for dear life to hold on to the other kid on the other side. The force is enormous.

I get catapulted away with such a speed I could not have achieved myself. The only thing I can think of is that I have to keep my legs running underneath me, hitting the ground in such a way I don't fall. I definitively would not want to fall and go home fully covered in blood oozing from every body part. It is near impossible to pull my legs forward to absorb the speed and impact, including the super fast motion for each leg while being on the ground.

In about four, five seconds, my speed has slowed enough that I am back at my normal running speed, which allows me to take control over the situation again and then move toward stopping.

Long story short: The collective of these ten kids made me run at least 25% faster, perhaps 50% faster than I could have ever achieved by myself.

So, had my speed been recorded and the individual in this image not been clear, then the only conclusion one could have made was that Usain Bolt had temporarily taken over the body of a ten-year old. An impossibility of course.

Had it not been for the others, I would have never broken the world record running, but I did anyways at the age of ten years old : - )

I hope you will consider other options for the strong gravitational fields around neutron stars.

--

Thank you for the good conversation, Wolfgang. I appreciate your words and ideas. I hope you can arrange them toward the realistic realm, and I do not mean to say that in a disrespectful manner. You are definitively in a stronger position than I am where scientific knowledge is concerned. I hope you recognize that I have an eye for reviewing models.

Fred-Rick Schermer "I hope you will consider other options for the strong gravitational fields around neutron stars."

What is your problem? g=GM/r² allows to calculate the gravitational field strength around neutron stars with their giant mass and their small size.

With the negative gravitational field energy density equal to -g²/(8πG) we get the positive cosmic energy density needed to compensate for it.

Because a negatively definite energy density cannot exist, the existence of that compensation is mandatory.

Wolfgang Konle

I understand your position, Wolfgang, but I do not see (as of yet) how we end up with a materialization process.

Can you declare the storyline?

How do we move from a dark energy reality into an outcome that also contains (some) sustained outcome that includes matter?

All, if this is this not an existential question asking us how well we can understand the question first, then in getting to it, is it not true to say that to know exactly in our waking sentient existence experience of reality as we communicate and discuss how to understand and if not communicate with this great endo and exo skeleton we live in called reality, chaos has so many forces depending on where you are and when, yet with science the game is finding patterns and reducing issues to their more if not most reducible elements, elements that can be understood as a measure beyond not knowing, if not beyond not accepting the idea of chaos itself.

Am I right there so far?

If so, why therefore do we undertone physical reality with physics theories that make our understanding of the stars more complicated with things like dark energy and dark matter? Should we not focus on what works here locally in our environment first before taking any next steps? Sure, we need ball-park lengths and mass objects to understand light and mass, yet are making larger than life stretches with dark energy and dark matter in the spirit of physics, and there the question is asked what theory is responsible for that, what blunt sword?

If we see the stars sharper with technology, technology that doesn't rely exclusively on the science that wants to see the stars a certain way (as mentioned above, namely sharper), and we debate what we see through those tech lenses (lenses we can't dispute, because we built them, hello), are we sure as scientists we are monitoring how we allow ourselves to be lead in in such a way.

Stephen Jarvis "...how well we can understand the question first, then in getting to it..."

Yes there are many ways to cope with complex things. But it seems that your intentions are more to increase complexity.

An obvious approach is that with F=dE/ds we have a common cause for all forces in our world. A discussion of that approach is a possibility to reduce complexity and to avoid divagation.

Wolfgang Konle , have you ever tried to do a jigsaw puzzle without knowing the grander picture design?

One has to respect the pieces of the puzzle, of course, yes? Yet, when everything is put together the whole thing betrays the point/pieces, or does it?

What you are fishing here seems to be a picture formed from of all the pieces put together, and a picture you have fashioned it seems as field forces, and not nature itself else providing you with this information with the greatest proof of all, otherwise you would have presented how such is so.

Is this so? Or, am I incorrect in suggesting this?

The jigsaw of nature, of course you need to put yourself first. This is the lottery, is it not?

Last scientific comments to the thread question are in SS posts on pages 2,3,7

Cheers

Before any of us get too excited, this is great right?

Recent SS posts in https://www.researchgate.net/post/No28The_Relation_Between_Mathematics_and_Physics_4-Could_All_Physical_Constants_be_Unified_to_a_set_of_Fundamental_Constants_of_Nature/6

, pages 5,6,

- are relevant to this thread question.

Cheers

It is obviously ridiculous how standard physics tries to explain forces including the gravitational force. Every force F on an object in our world is caused by an energy content E, which depends on a displacement s s of the object. The law of force is F=dE/ds. F is a vector and ds=(∂/∂sx, ∂/∂sy, ∂/∂sz). To find out the cause of a force on a particular object, we need to identify the energy content, which depends on the position of the object. For example, an expanded steel spring exerts a force on an object hanging from the end of the spring. The energy content E, which depends on the expansion s of the spring, is given by E=Ds²/2, with the spring constant D. We have F=dE/ds=Ds, the force law of the spring.

The force F on a piston in an internal combustion engine depends on the energy P*V caused by the fuel burned in the cylinder. P is the pressure and V is the volume of combustion. The volume, and therefore the energy content in the volume, depends on the positions s of the piston.

For every force F on an object in our world, we can determine the energy content E, which depends on the position of the object.

This also applies to the gravitational force. We know that force fields contain an energy density. This energy density is proportional to the field strength squared.

When we move an object vertically, we change the field strength in the superposition of the object's gravitational field and the Earth's field. The gravitational force F is then given by deriving the energy content E of the field superposition with respect to the vertical position sz of the object. Again, we have F=dE/ds as the only logical way to explain the force.

We cannot understand how absolutely unreasonable alternative attempts to explain forces, such as through particle exchange, can remain so stubbornly in official statements of standard physics. We need to seriously ask ourselves whether physicists are still in their right mind who advocate these complex alternative attempts to explain forces, rather than simply accepting F=dE/ds.

Dear Wolfgang Konle

By writing ds=(∂/∂sx, ∂/∂sy, ∂/∂sz), do you mean time is not a dimension as it is assumed in relativity physics?

Ziaedin Shafiei "By writing ds=(∂/∂sx, ∂/∂sy, ∂/∂sz), do you mean time is not a dimension as it is assumed in relativity physics?"

No, ds=(∂/∂sx, ∂/∂sy, ∂/∂sz) simply does not consider time. It is restricted to our three dimensional space.

But time is assumed to be the same as other dimensions; that's why Einstein introduced the concept of spacetime. What's the reason to exclude time while including dimensions such as x, y, or z? Doesn't this distinction prove my point that relativistic physicists merely pay lip service to relativity without fully embracing it?

Ziaedin Shafiei "What's the reason to exclude time while including dimensions such as x, y, or z?"

The reason is very simple. In order to move an object against the influence of a force, some work must be done. But the necessary amount of work does not depend on time. We need the same amount of work to lift a kg by one meter, regardless if we do that quickly or slowly.

The force law F=dE/ds does not depend on time.

Stephen Jarvis "What you are fishing here seems to be a picture formed from of all the pieces put together, and a picture you have fashioned it seems as field forces, and not nature itself else providing you with this information with the greatest proof of all, otherwise you would have presented how such is so."

Did you understand what energy density contained in force fields means?

You modify this energy density if you modify the relative position of the field sources. This proves that the force F on objects, which contribute to force fields, depends on the energy content E in the field overlay. E depends on the relative position s between the objects. F=dE/ds expresses that.

Do you need some more information how such is so?

Last scientific comments to the thread question are in SS posts on pages 2,3,7,

- and besides the link in SS post on page 9 see also recent SS post in https://www.researchgate.net/post/Ideas_for_Aether_Theory_of_Gravity/1that is well relevant to this thread question as well.

Cheers

Fred-Rick Schermer "Can you declare the storyline? How do we move from a dark energy reality into an outcome that also contains (some) sustained outcome that includes matter?"

The storyline is as follows:

Any mass is surrounded by a gravitational field. The energy density of the gravitational field is negative. This negative energy density is compensated by an incredible high positive dark energy density. Any mass, with its gravitational field slightly reduces the dark energy density. Even a small mass causes a tiny dent in the dark energy density.

A moving dent in the dark energy density enforces some movement in that dark energy density. This movement contains kinetic energy which must be provided by the moving mass, which causes the moving dent.

The moving mass can be a photon. The moving dent in the dark energy density caused by a photon then leads to a red shift.

The storyline still is to be continued until it leads to a new cosmology. But the current extend of the storyline surely is sufficient for now.

Wolfgang Konle

I understand what you are describing, Wolfgang.

Let me see if I can describe a similar perspective, but then using my model.

First off, the gravitational field is just one aspect of matter, albeit the more complex setting. The other aspect of matter is that it is already on the move in a non-gravitational aspect. In short, the gravitational aspect is not the entire field of how matter behaves.

This means that the negativity you describe can be translated into the distinct aspect of matter, on the move and yet behaving in a non-gravitational manner. This is then a neutral reality.

Nevertheless, the model I use also works with immaterial energy, yet it is limited in scope (i.e. the intact state of immaterial energy is never larger or not much larger than a galaxy, since it is directly related to matter).

It also declares that immaterial energy is subjected to matter (neutrons and protons) and immaterial energy is therefore not identical in its enforcement as matter. Meanwhile, this immaterial realm is connected to matter (the protons) via the electrons.

This means that the electrons belong to the immaterial realm, but are forced to show some material aspects due to the relationship with the protons; their needing to neutralize the positive charges of the protons, which undermines their cloaked nature. Like a wet piece of cloth draped on a face, one can see the contours, but nothing too much detailed.

Let me mention how matter enforces itself: It takes in its power position by ignoring all other aspects of energy. The reason being is that quarks were produced under a very complex situation, crunched and churned, misshapen. Once the complex situation had subsided the quarks could not return to their original energized state, and they had no other option but to align themselves collectively at first opportunity into neutrons and protons.

As such, they are damaged goods not capable of doing anything other than what they are doing. In response, immaterial energy cannot do anything other than following.

--

I review photons as very specific kinds of matter. It is more like pure energy in which matter is near absent, yet physical nevertheless. Just as a model, I envision a single photon to be -say- 10 million particles strong, the point of this example being that I see a single photon as a collective therefore. It truly brings the dial down to a super microscopic level, far below the level now considered.

I also like that photons are not visible, unless they are directed toward something/us. The moon in the night sky shows that photons are everywhere in the night sky (except for the umbra), and we see none of them unless intercepted by moon or planets. Nearly the entire night sky would be lit up if we could see every photon in it, and we do not.

Thank you for your reply. I am slowly starting to see the model you are holding in your mind. I'll probably need more input from you to get the picture better in focus.

Fred-Rick Schermer "I am slowly starting to see the model you are holding in your mind. I'll probably need more input from you to get the picture better in focus."

The focal point of that model is quite simple. We are surrounded by an extremely strong omnipresent field of dark energy density. Various properties of that field lead us to a new cosmology.

The existence of that field results from the fact that gravitational fields have a negative energy density and because a negatively definite energy density cannot exist.

Wolfgang Konle

Yes, understood, Wolfgang. I see the essential parts of the model.

As a modeler, I never reject models. I try to understand them.

Then, I compare models, and in the comparing process I often find interesting aspects.

What is interesting is that we are both claiming to be standing on grounds that Einstein readied for us.

In simple terms, you are standing on spacetime being an omnipresent field of dark energy, and I am standing on matter in which immaterial energy is also present.

The models are an inverse of one another to some extent. I hope you can see that.

Your model is based on immaterial energy that also produces matter. My model is based on matter, but immaterial energy is still part of the picture.

We cannot both claim Einstein. Something's gotta give.

--

I can see how you are claiming to stand on grounds that Einstein readied for you. But I don't think Einstein was standing where you are standing.

As far as I can see, Einstein worked with the behavior of matter, and once he learned about the Big Bang model he added 'local' to the word space. I am actually not certain when he started describing 'local space' but I suspect it was not there right from the start.

That means that he was aware that his reference point was not the universe. He realized he had captured part of the big picture, and knew that this part was -- when phrased in the appropriate manner -- correct. He stood his ground, made his ground ever slightly smaller by adding 'local' to space, and no one could get him out of his spot.

--

Einstein's best buddy was Kurt Gödel, and he is not everyone's favorite. I could not read him for too long; it was too boring. And yet his Incompleteness Theorems that he will have discussed with Einstein more than once is exactly the difference between Einstein saying spacetime and Einstein saying 'local space'.

Next, others did not see the very fine distinction, and accepted Spacetime and applied it not to 'local space' but to everything there is to consider.

--

Wolfgang, we do not need to have the same discussion again. I understand that you are standing on different grounds, but I want to hear from you yourself in how far your footing with the omnipresent field of dark energy is based in science.

Thank you for not shutting doors.

Fred-Rick Schermer "I want to hear from you yourself in how far your footing with the omnipresent field of dark energy is based in science."

I just explained that:

The existence of that omnipresent field results from the fact that gravitational fields have a negative energy density and because a negatively definite energy density cannot exist.

The omnipresent field then must be strong enough to compensate for the negative energy density of the gravitational field at the surface of a neutron star.

Wolfgang Konle

Let me try getting more information out of you. I have a hard time understanding from where you are getting the negative energy density of gravitational fields. Will you explain further?

--

Let's take planet Earth as the gravitational entity to discuss. As mentioned, I need to stand on matter, otherwise I consider it freewheeling. Gravity is associated with matter.

At the surface, gravity pulls a human body down (yes, I know, the heavier center parts of planet Earth are pulling even harder, but the human body is the reference point here, so the position is the surface position; plus I like to keep the story simple). The entire planet is pulling on the individual at the surface. Gravity is 1 (as in max) for this human body.

Then, to keep this as short as can be, the center position. The entire planet is gravitationally in balance in the center of planet Earth. Gravity is then 0 (the minimum).

We do not have a negative position in this center spot. We have a net-zero position. All is in balance in that center.

That is part one.

--

I claim that gravity is the synergistic outcome of the other forces. They are of course also associated with matter, but so in specific, whereas gravity is more generic in essence.

In effect, once we have the weak- and strong-nuclear forces and the electromagnetic force, then I claim that we automatically have the gravitational force as well.

So, when I add these three forces together, I not only get gravity as synergistic fourth force, but I must also have that gravity be directional in essence.

Here comes one of my analogies, be forewarned, it is not one of the best:

* If I had a bag and I could put the weak-nuclear, the strong-nuclear, and the electromagnetic forces in there, just as forces without any matter (which cannot be true in real life), then inside the bag these forces not only combine into a collective force, but this combination must then have a direction as well. The only collective direction available is inwardly because the outward direction will not (cannot) be collective.

There cannot be an outwardly direction to the combination of forces. That is only possible for some of the specific forces. That is why gravity is different from the specific forces. Gravity is generic in essence.

From this, I still see matter in the center of all scientific outcomes, and from this, I recognize the gravitational force and how it will have an effect on other matter. Yet the negative pull is not coming from matter; it is coming from the protons with their positive charges. The quarks are the source of connecting matter with immaterial energy.

--

Thank you for having this conversation with me. I know we don't see eye to eye on everything. It must be as difficult for you to follow me as it is complicated for me to see where you are going, foundation-wise.