[General] Energy Density of Spacetime

Mon May 4 12:47:46 PDT 2015

John
Castles in the air are just another name for a spaceship...
In reading the 5 page write up, I'm still a bit skeptical. The theory carefully avoids discussion of Mach theory. However, the derivation of impedance is good with c and G accounted for, but h is not. So while this theory is useful, it's more of a relativistic argument only and not fully embracing QM, and therefore not quantum gravity. Even if cGh were all accounted for, the presumption is that the current values are the maximum. However, this leads to the more daunting challenge of increasing or varying any one of those values. 
What are the 17 different fields? I assume you are referring to the set of 16 standard model particles plus Higgs? What if there is just one more field?
Can the spacetime energy density vary? Is a negative vacuum permitted?
Does it vary linearly? Is it subject to the Schwinger limit where results go from linear to non-linear?
Given your conclusion that waves of any kind that propagate in the medium with impedance Zs = c^3/G and strain amplitude As = Lp/(2pi λ) will propagate at c, the speed of light, are you assuming a fixed numeric value for c? 

David

      From: John Macken <john at macken.com>
 To: Nature of Light and Particles <general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org> 
 Sent: Monday, May 4, 2015 12:12 PM
 Subject: [General] Energy Density of Spacetime

Hello Everyone,  One of my major points has been that I think that your electron models are like castles in the sky that lack a solid foundation.  I am attempting to give you this foundation so that you can explain your models as being constructed of something fundamental and quantifiable.    In an earlier post someone asked me a question to the effect of:  Why does the proposed tremendous energy density of spacetime not collapse into a black hole? This simple question has taken me two weeks and 5 pages to answer. See the attached Word or PDF documents (they are the same).  This has been a wonderful challenge because I expanded this into a challenge to see if I could prove that spacetime possesses energy density of about 10113 J/m3 without referencing any ideas from quantum mechanics.  I have succeeded by using an equation from general relativity and an equation from acoustics.   The attached Word document is actually a revised part of my book that incorporates both the derivation of the energy density of spacetime and the answer to the question about black holes.  My hope is that I can convince some of you that it is not necessary to talk in vague terms of “waves” or “fields”.  These are merely giving names to something that needs to be specified more completely.  The reader should ask: What exactly is the “wave” or “field” made of?  I see your pictures that attempt to represent electrons.  However, the pictures do not specify the fundamental material used to construct the electron.    The first step in elevating these electron models is to convince you that spacetime has quantifiable energy density that is compatible with your existing views about general relativity and cosmology.  I hope that the either of the attached documents take a big step towards that goal.      John M.
_______________________________________________
If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of Light and Particles General Discussion List at davidmathes8 at yahoo.com
<a href="http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/davidmathes8%40yahoo.com?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1">
Click here to unsubscribe
</a>

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/pipermail/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/attachments/20150504/279a0c76/attachment.htm>