Gravity is a particle that pushes!

[Astrojan]

No. Quarks does not exists. DIS can just say that: We are able to say that the constituents appear to be point-like and so can be considered to be fundamental particles. Yes, let see torus model:

 

proton builds up by a point-like half-graviton and a point-like electric charge (+) elemental particle,

electron builds up by a point-like (another type) half-graviton and a point-like electric charge (-) elemental particle

 

Thats 4 fundamental/elemental particles builds up all kind of matter, radiation and particles: two kind of gravitons and two kinds of electric charge particles.

 

If you bombard a proton with electrons so you have alltogether 4 elemental particles (2 graviton and 2 charge) from what you investigate (wrongly) 3 of quarks of proton and the rest one the bombarding electron. So DIS may prove my torus model in place of quarks..

 

 

Pyrotex, yes, you are certainly wrong. Matter are the 4 elemental/fundamental particle, not else.

 

Photon contains all of 4, so photon is matter, see Photon model.

 

Thanks forward if you dont bite down of my head...

[Pyrotex]

No. Quarks does not exists. ... Pyrotex, yes, you are certainly wrong. Matter are the 4 elemental/fundamental particle, not else.

 

Photon contains all of 4, so photon is matter, see Photon model.

 

Thanks forward if you dont bite down of my head...

Gosh, Astrojan,

I promise not to bite your head off. Especially if it looks like your avatar! ;)

 

But we do have a big disagreement here. I have to ask this question, and you will hear this question over and over until you answer it:

 

What evidence do you have to support your 4 particle theory?

 

We DO have evidence for the Quark theory.

 

Oh, and a second question: What is a "half-graviton"?

[Astrojan]

OK, thank you. (Holo)graviton energyparticle consists of two different fundamental particle, combined with each other with a double spiral trajectory. Two types of half-graviton (graviton A and B in photon model) fundamental particle constitute the holo-graviton ( = graviton)

 

We DO have evidence for the Quark theory.

No, I think you have measurments, but the investigation is wrong. DIS demonstrates point-like particles, not quarks !!!!

 

Read my previous message carefully and let see what evidence do you have to support your quark theory?

[Pyrotex]

OK, thank you. ...Read my previous message carefully and let see what evidence do you have to support your quark theory?

We have already given our evidence: Deep inelastic scattering of high speed particles inside the proton.

A real scientist, before dismissing this evidence, would first seek to understand the evidence. It is sad that you do not understand this evidence.

 

I read your photon theory paper. You say: The velocity of bald (holo)graviton = c2

[c squared].

C squared would have units of meter squared / second squared. This is clearly wrong. Velocity always has the units of meter / second [in the common metric system].

 

I also notice that you provide no evidence for your theory. Very sad. :hihi:

[Astrojan]

May I ask you standing your mouse on C2 for hidden explanation ! C2 is a label, an estimate, it means about 5 magnitude higher velocity than speed of light. In essence, graviton energy particles has much more speed than light photons.

 

SLAC: ..the (DIS) results suggested that the proton was not an elementary (fundamental) particle but was made of smaller, point-like particles which could deflect the electron..

 

This collisions does not decides whether a proton builds up quarks or graviton-charge fundamental particles, just to say: point-like particles, as graviton and charge particles are.

[Restless Archer]

Let's have Joe walk in front of the hole in the tire. What happens? 50 arrows will go through Joe. Joe will recieve 50 times more push than if he is in the path of a single arrow. This is exactly how gravity works. The closer you get to an object the greater the gravity push.

 

What makes the molecule that's being aimed/shot at (the tire) so special? Why do the arrows only push what's *between* the shooters and the tire (Joe) and not the tire itself?

 

Gravity does no damage as it passes through matter so assume the arrows don't hurt Joe.

 

Now consider another guy, Jack, walking into the path of the arrows right *behind* the tire where they've just left it. Shouldn't he be pushed *away* from the tire??

 

A.

[CraigD]

May I ask you standing your mouse on C2 for hidden explanation ! C2 is a label, an estimate, it means about 5 magnitude higher velocity than speed of light.

Hovering over the [math]c^2[/math] on this page reveals a scripted message “specifically 300 000 x 300 000 km/s”. As Pyrotex notes in post #106, this is approximately (the speed of light is exactly 299792.458 km/s) the conventional meaning of “the speed of light squared”, [imath]c^2[/imath].

 

[imath]c^2 = 89875517873.681764 \,\mbox{km}^2\mbox{/s}^2[/imath]. This is not “about 5 [orders of] magnitudes higher velocity that [the] speed of light”, any more than [imath]10000 \,\mbox{m}^2[/imath] is 3 orders of magnitude (an “order of magnitude” is a common way of saying “power of 10”, that is “3 orders of magnitude greater” means “about 1000 time greater”) greater than the length [imath]100 \,\mbox{m}[/imath]. In both cases, the units of the quantities [imath]a[/imath] and [imath]a^2[/imath] have different units (as Pyrotex also notes) so can’t be sensibly said to be greater, equal, or less than one another.

 

A clue that there is something wrong with you thinking, Astrojan, is that your conclusion that [imath]c^2[/imath] is about 5 orders of magnitude greater than [imath]c[/imath] depends on the units chose for c. If km/s are used, the resulting numbers differ by about a factor of 300000. If m/s are used, the resulting numbers are about 300000000000 – 11 orders of magnitude. If light years/year are used ([imath]c = 1 \,\mbox{light year/year}[/imath]), the numbers are the same. If astronomical units/second are used, the number for [imath]c[/imath] are about 2500 times greater than those for [imath]c^2[/imath].

 

When the ratios of a theory’s physical constants of speed depend on the units chosen, something is wrong with its math. :Exclamati This kind of flaw is very basic, one that a physics student should know how to avoid by high school (grades 1-12) or in his first term of introductory college physics. Until one understands how to avoid such basic errors, he’s unprepared to study conventional physics, and especially unprepared to invent new, unconventional theories. :Exclamati

 

While we at hypography enjoy helping beginning students of physics with their educations, the sort of basic misunderstandings you appear to have are, in my experience, best corrected in a conventional classroom setting, not an internet forum. I strongly recommend you enroll in whatever science class or tutoring is available to you.

SLAC: ..the (DIS) results suggested that the proton was not an elementary (fundamental) particle but was made of smaller, point-like particles which could deflect the electron..

 

This collisions does not decides whether a proton builds up quarks or graviton-charge fundamental particles, just to say: point-like particles, as graviton and charge particles are.

Deep inelastic scattering shows more than that the charge of a proton is not uniformly distributed through it or concentrated at a single point – it shows that it is concentrated at 3 points, two of which (the 2 up quarks) have charge opposite the electron and 2/3 its magnitude, while one (the 1 down quark) has charge the same as the electron and 1/3 its magnitude, and provides an approximation of their masses, which are several (3 to 12) times that of the electron. (sources: wikipedia articles “quark” and “electron”)

 

Assuming that you can correct the basic math flaws in your writing, Astrojan, your theory must be able to explain the DIS data, which agrees with the Standard Model’s proton = up quark + up quark + down quark + many virtual gluons description.

[Astrojan]

Would you kind to try understand the hidden interpretation, and after that I may get your apology for this naive education..

 

So once again, last time:

1. Iv made a rough estimation about speed of gravitons:

2. Velocity of gravitons are roughly 5 magnitudes higher than speed of light.

3. I have bring in an abbreviation, a short label, that is c2.

 

Comprehend ? Read carefully, educate fewer.. You are right with math, naturally, but Im use this labeling despite you are the umpteenth expert who comment that. Im glad if this is your biggest problem with pushing gravity. This labeling expressive enough to demonstrate much more speed than light (but not mathematically correct, you are right again, I know it clearly)

[Pyrotex]

Would you kind to try understand the hidden interpretation, and after that I may get your apology for this naive education...

Why do you keep the interpretation hidden?

Tell us the interpretation and give us the mathematical reasoning behind it.

Or stop wasting our time.

[Illiad]

Why or how do the 'holes' align themselves so that the gravity streams can pass through them to any object large enough to have a appreciable gravity field?