The preceding explanation of gravity, like other parts of the qm view,
has significant advantages. It is simple and plausible. Because gravity is due to imbalances
in the exchange of energy quanta within bodies, nature can be described without
the need for a separate gravitational force. Also, many have wondered why the gravitational force is so weak
compared with electromagnetic and nuclear forces, which are more than 10E30 times stronger.
The qm view shows why gravity is weak and why bodies fall to Earth with
speeds that increase by 9.8 meters per second every second. The qm view also shows
why gravity is a force where bodies attract, but never repel, one another.
Many believe that relativity theory is correct because it agrees with experimental
evidence. The qm view shows that relativity theory can agree with experimental evidence
and still be misleading. For centuries, Ptolemy's theory of the heavens agreed with
experimental evidence, but at the same time it was fundamentally wrong and misleading. The history of science
indicates that good theories also need to rest on logical assumptions and lead to logical conclusions
and they need to explain plausible physical causes for phenomena.
We have tried to show that the qm view has these characteristics of a good theory and therefore is
probably an accurate representation of nature.
(For opposing views on science theory click here.)
The basic features of the qm view have been described briefly because few readers
would be interested in a long explanation. The brevity increases the chances for misunderstandings,
and it also means that some aspects of the qm view are not discussed. For example, the qm view explains
the so-called anomalous precessions of planet orbits, including the 43 arcsecond per century anomalous
precession of Mercury's orbit. The qm view also has a bearing on "black holes." The qm view's equations do not
preclude the emission of weak radiation from any massive concentrations of mass/energy because rg and cag are
never negative. Therefore, the equations disagree with the concept of an "event horizon" within which light is
trapped. However, the equations do predict massive attractors from which little EM radiation escapes and which
cause gravitational lensing. Please feel free to contact us about these or any other aspects of the qm view.
Our objective has been to show why we believe the qm view is a far more plausible
description of nature than spacetime theory and therefore merits consideration by anyone trying to understand nature.
We hope it is now apparent that constant light speed c is very likely an illusion and that, consequently,
spacetime theory is probably an unnecessary, artificial combination of space and time aspects of nature.
Also, we hope it is clear why we feel the qm view is a deeper understanding of physical
causes of c and related phenomena and therefore can help better understand mass/energy and how it evolves.
If you have questions, suggestions, or positive/negative comments, please send them via the next page. Thank you.