# Does the field sag in shell after shell, as we suggested so far?

At coupling locations space itself disappears and, while rearranging, make distances to shrink. A distance is the number of vacuum particles on it, that’s all there is to distance, and to space. When there are lesser vacuum marbles along the line connecting two objects, then these objects *thus* are nearer to each other. There is no space behind the space (except for the field of all possible velocities, and those are *superposed* to us).

Take two masses m1 and m2, initially at rest relative to the stars and thus to each other. The masses attract each other by gravitation and as a result they accelerate towards each other. The masses don’t *feel* being dragged. Masses fall weightless in each other’s gravitational field, as if there is no gravitation, as if they are standing still. Mass m1, with a vacuum marble absorbing spot, is standing still and remaining standing still relative to its private vacuum. A dragged-by mass m2 is standing still too and remaining standing still, relative to its private vacuum. No force did act on any mass; no mass went anywhere caused by a force. But when accurately measuring light from stars around, one measures an increasing red or blue shift, due to acceleration of m1 and m2. Velocity *is* building up. And the two private vacuums of m1 and m2 are no longer the same.

The assumption is, a velocity can be put in a box. One can embody a velocity by a mass m2 having that velocity and subsequently raise the walls of a box around it, around a sufficiently large part of its track. We take the box standing still relative to m1, we construct it like that. The walls of the box shield off observation of its content, but we trust m2 being within still has its velocity. When the sagging-in shells around m1 do reach m2 then *the box* is dragged by, and with it all its velocities in it.

As long as the box is closed, in principle something strange happens. Quantum mechanics demands that at the moment full shield is applied, the box content suddenly is in superposition of all possible contents the box could have contained too. Savior are the couplings in mass m2, causing sagging-in shells around m2 that reach outside the box and betray its content to outside observers. So we indeed can trust our mass m2 having its velocity in the box. And when opening the box no - or virtually none - wavefunction reduction is taking place. We find m2 being accelerated along with its enveloping box, despite m2 is not standing still with respect to the vacuum of the sagging-in shells around m1.

There is no ”Pressure from the outside” forcing the marbles around to fill in the empty spot, to ”fall into it”. The disappearance of a vacuum marble, creating a hole there, is equal to the shortening of distances through the hole. But there must be some rearrangement of the remaining vacuum marbles, to decide which marble glues to which other one. It is this decision that defines the *empty spot* mentioned at page 3 of NEG. Mind there is no space behind the space, except for the field of all possible velocities.

The absorption of vacuum particles / Higgs particles is described in QUATERNION GRAVITATION, page 2 and 3. Especially page 3, paragraph *The Higgs Mechanism 2*. But this description is merely an algorithm. A quantum mechanical description of the mechanism how the rearrangement of vacuum marbles actually works, is still missing. Maybe the gravitation theory of prof. Erik Verlinde could give shape to this. Or the simulations of Renate Loll. Also in E8 X E8 there are used tetrahedrons to describe empty space, but I know VERY little about that.

Rule 3.26 at page 3 of QG states that two gluons of opposite sign do not react. This means the vacuum particles as they are do not cohere. But suspected is they *would* start cohering as soon as mutual distances would increase.

Also the application of the dark multiplication rules is not yet completely settled, see the discussion points 3.4 up to an including 3.9 in TONE at the end of chapter 3. Also seems to hold conclusion point 3.6: as long as the quarks do not near within their time borders, their reactions on Earth work out forward time evolving, quarks as well as antiquarks

.

NDER long term ONSTRUCTION

The grid of marbles, spanning empty vacuum, can be called a *solid state vacuum*. All vacuum marble connections are present. The gravitational field in action, the act of sagging-in, acts like a liquid. The gravitational field is supposed to be a *liquid Bose condensate*. The vacuum marble connections are partly present and partly disconnected.

There is no space behind the space. Therefore, when fully disconnected, vacuum marbles will not see each other anymore. Their relative distances become undefined. They have become superposed states relative to each other. The *gaseous vacuum state* is the whole of superpositions of vacuum marble states PLUS all other indistinguishable states. The sea of possibilities.

Dragged-by objects in the field don’t react with the vacuum. Therefore, when objects are dragged by, the wavefunction of the vacuum remains intact. So the act of dragging on itself doesn’t influence any instantaneous or not instantaneous sagging in.

Instantaneous sagging-in is a way of sending messages faster than light. Infinite fast, in fact. Experiment 2 at page 2 of EXPERIMENTS ON THE COLLAPSE OF THE WAVEFUNCTION confirms the speed of light is the upper limit for every displacement, any kind of transfer of information by any means. Especially is stated branching of worlds cannot spread faster than c. We continue this point of view. Sagging in of the gravitational field, originated at a vacuum marble absorbing spot, cannot spread faster than light. It cannot simultaneously sag in everywhere.

Well, one never knows. Within galaxy clusters there is no relativistic moving matter of significant mass. The described paradoxes (see *About messages faster than light* at the right), even when possible, don’t occur. Maybe we just have to wait until the first manmade paradox becomes apparent. In my opinion the past *can* be changed, a new past and corresponding future can *click on* to your present environment, see the storyline THE DIRECTION OF TIME.

Experiment will tell. We will see.

## Propagation speed

The typical reaction time for vacuum particles is 10^-23 sec, when the vacuum is to consist of gluons (gluon pairs). In radius of the vacuum particle is calculated the distance of neighboring vacuum particles to be about 10^-20 m. This then also can be taken as the thickness of a sagging-in shell. The first 10^-23 sec a shell sags in, the next 10^-23 sec the next shell sags in, and so on. So in 1 second 10^23 sagging-ins of 10^-20 m take place: a velocity of 10^23 * 10^-20 = 1000 m/s. Which is very low compared to the speed of light. A little too slow, I guess.

Can this be compared with the speed of electrons that conduct the electricity through a wire?

1 Ampere through a wire with cross section 1 mm

= 1 Coulomb / sec

= 0.63 * 10^19 electron charges / sec through the 1 mm wire cross section,

which turns out to be about 10^-4 m/s average drift velocity of the electrons that conduct the electricity through the wire, very slow compared to the speed of light. While the time needed for the electric potential to cover the entire length of the wire seems to suggest about 0.1 of the speed of light. Is this the same kind of situation?

Another consideration. The vacuum is thought of as a bose condensate, ruled by one single wave function. The sagging‑in shell after shell doesn’t very much look like one single wave function. It rather is a sequence of distinct processes. So for the vacuum to remain a bose condensate maybe the entire vacuum react as a whole, all sagging‑ins in one single stroke (all sagging‑ins that are the result of one marble absorption, one hole), in the frame of reference wherein the vacuum marble was standing still. Subsequent holes filled in by new sagging-ins, those then are subsequent distinct processes.

But then the propagation speed of the sagging-in shell after shell process is infinite. That a strong force coupling has taken place, a Higgs absorption and a hole formed, is at the same moment known at the other end of the universe. A little too fast, I guess.

The speed of branching of localities (storyline EXPERIMENTS ON THE COLLAPSE OF THE WAVEFUNCTION, page 2, paragraph *Experiment 2 ‑ the inverse square force law*) might equal the speed of the propagation of the shell after shell sagging‑in process of gravitation. Which on its turn might equal the speed of light.

NDER long term ONSTRUCTION

## Surely you're joking, mr. Feynman

At page 24 of a Dutch copy of this book I found the following. Start with a rocket from the Earth and be back when the clock on the ground has ticked away 1 hour. Choose your path such that in the rocket elapses as much time as possible. The larger the height, the weaker the Earth gravitational field, the faster runs the internal rocket clock (GR). The larger the rocket's velocity the slower its clocks run (SR). It turns out that free fall (no acceleration except from the gravitational field) gives the maximum total elapse of time in the rocket. So you shouldn't use the rocket's engine to navigate. At the start just give a single upward thrust such it is back after a fall of one hour.

What does this mean? Is it an intrinsic property of the theories of relativity GR and SR? What is the advantage of having maximum elapse of time in the rocket frame, does it save energy or something? Is it the quantum mechanical result of the interference of all possible paths that are back in one hour? If the gravitational field wasn't inversely squared but had a different mathematical dependence, would then free fall tracks still ensure maximum elapse of time in the rocket frame?

Now I red another copy of that book, an English copy, and at page 37 it says: It's the fundamental principle of Einstein's gravity - that is, what's called the

proper time

is at a maximum for the actual curve, the real motion of matter.

In the first copy of the book it was presented as a riddle to which nobody knows the answer yet. In the second copy Feynman points out it isn't. What I understand now is the following. An object in free fall follows a straight line in curved space. It has no acceleration whatsoever due to gravity. Any deviation from the straight line that subsequently returns to a point on that line where the rocket is, would cause SR dilation of the clocks in the deviating rocket. Also when the deviator would stick to the track and only accelerates or decelerates, it would cause SR dilation of the clocks in the deviating rocket. It is the same way as the twin paradox arises.

Let's start over again. The rocket in free fall follows a straight line in curved space. A second rocket, rocket 2, starts at that line, side by side with the original rocket, rocket 1, then deviates from it and then returns to a point on the line where rocket 1 is. Now at the point of collission (be carefull, if the rocket 1 orbit is in the x-y-plane, then perform the rocket 2 track one rocket diameter aside in the z-direction) change to a MCRF* that stands still with respect to rocket 1 at the point of collision. To do so you have to perform a Lorentz transform. Then you have the precise circumstances of the twin paradox.

By the way, the answer to the last question, about if the gravitational field wasn't inversely proportional to squared distance, but had a different mathematical dependence, obviously is: yes, the free fall track still ensures maximum elapse of time in the rocket frame.

*) MCRF: Momentary Comoving Rest Frame, or MCFR Momentary Comoving Frame of Reference