Graviton Theory

[10d9]

this is the way to understand matter and to use it produce energy and food ecc...

collecting electrons into a recipient somethingh will appears. electrons without potential not every electron. like those in the last orbital of hg.

as they were a dust and we cumulate them in a isolant box.

[Jay-qu]

It still doesnt make any sense.. you first state "think time doesnt exsist" then in the last line you say "put all atoms at time 0" :)

[10d9]

that time is that we make focus. all the others exist but we don't focus them.

j am saying that time exists only as a view of matter. it is not an entity like energy or space. and matter is a view of energy and space. but these are things not usefull because we have to game with them.

[Qfwfq]

this is the way to understand matter and to use it produce energy and food ecc...

collecting electrons into a recipient somethingh will appears. electrons without potential not every electron. like those in the last orbital of hg.

as they were a dust and we cumulate them in a isolant box.

Uh, I beg your pardon?

:confused: :confused: :confused: :confused: :confused: :confused: :confused:

[maddog]

I don't think I have really followed any comment made in this thread that was

actually coherent (save maybe the last one)...

 

However, on the same topic (as it has been a long time for me) --

Qfwfq -- do you remember the comment that "GR shows that no other

boson could be greater than a spin of 2" ? (excuse me for paraphrasing as

I only vauguely remember it). I think this was in response to my

speculation whether a boson (yet undiscovered) could have a spin greater

than 2 (ie. Graviton spin is 2, Gravitino spin 3/2). The reason, I ask is I

would like to study the derevation as way on catching up on my GR. Could

you cite where I might find this example layed out so that I might follow ?

I am familiar with Vector Analysis and QM (a bit less so using Tensors). I

not actually disputing this mind you, I just wasn't aware this had been

worked out, so it floored me when you mentioned that statement. :confused:

 

I will see if I can check back sometime tomorrow. Later.

 

maddog

[Qfwfq]

I can't remember that remark, and I don't know of GR demostrating that but I do remember it predicting the gravitational field as having spin 2. You can certainly find it in Weinberg's classic "Gravitation and Cosmology" but I'm not aware of any argument against a greater spin value. Actually, as my hazy memory can't recall the details from years back :confused:, I can only use a bit of logic and expect it must be necessary to use the field equation to say what the spin is, this leaves at least a bit of wiggle room until the terms can be exactly determined.

 

Welcome back! :confused:

[10d9]

tell me what you think about that star j found in 2003-18d_jpg.jpg downloaded by hubble site. now j will say that there every matter is made and then pushed out at a speed more than c (with emission of conic waves perhaps for cerenkoff effect) the widenness is about 100.000 years-light and a galaxy (or more) is made voila. there is another star in the photo 2004-07-a-full_jpg.jpg it is blue and if you zoom has a square black in its centre. that

is the nucleus visible to us perhaps it move round in thoroidal mode and circularly. the non visible is a bigger vertical square instead that in 2003 is all visible and horizzontal.

[maddog]

I do remember it predicting the gravitational field as having spin 2. You can certainly find it in Weinberg's classic "Gravitation and Cosmology" but I'm not aware of any argument against a greater spin value.

Thank You, for the citation. I actually have that book and will look it up.

Actually, I was only speculating the possibility. Somewhat based on the idea

that fermion (baryons in particular) can have spins greater than 3/2.

Though not wanting to confuse the sitch.

 

Actually, as my hazy memory can't recall the details from years back :), I can only use a bit of logic and expect it must be necessary to use the field equation to say what the spin is, this leaves at least a bit of wiggle room until the terms can be exactly determined.

 

Welcome back! ;)

Thank You. I have been very busy. Now I will have a bit of time while I

look for a position somewhere. On another note, I read a very facinating

book on the history of finding the structure of the Monster Group, called

"Symmetry and the Monster", by Mark Ronan. I found this a very exiting

read. There were a lot of applications to the physics-ly interested as well.

I think I have a better understanding of Lie Groups now and why they're

so useful.

[10d9]

when a ship is going absorbed by gravity velocity is many times c it could be also 1000 times c depending by time acceleration (also 1000 * 9,81m/s^2). time is compressed. with light occurs many years to bring a signal.

[Jay-qu]

Not sure what you where trying to say, but under our laws of physics, no ship can travel at faster than c. Now matter how long you sit in a gravitational field.

[10d9]

no earth ship. gravitational waves are not ugual to current gravitational perhaps there our laws are different. in example form of blackhole is cubic instead than spheric (sphere has the greatest volume and the lowest extern area ).

[10d9]

gravity is the strongest power and the only because all the other nature powers are dereved by gravity (electrons have vary speed... in our linear accelerator 40 gev) in matter they involve circularly and determine nuclear powers that are active nearly. amtter at least is made only by electrons and antielectrons as the squared black hole tell us.

[Jay-qu]

Can you please at least try to back up your claims if they are to be agaisnt normal physical laws.

[10d9]

normal laws are that even if seems they are against laws we understand.

then classic physic j think explains many mistery of universe but there is a big probability j am wrong or crazy. the far star that pushed out our galaxy did it 4 or 5 billions year ago ... now the star is not where we see. in 4 or 5 billions year many things appen. me also confused.

[Jay-qu]

I dont think your crazy, wrong probably.. I just think there is a lot you are missing, much to learn we all have!

[10d9]

thank you for encouragement it is true what j say is due to a partial knowledge because that implies a binary and is not good for research of new discoveries. however a lot of objects are as j thought with classic theory. for example j am curious to knows what can be potential of an electron and if it is against it's polarization or is a precession movement.

[Qfwfq]

what can be potential of an electron and if it is against it's polarization or is a precession movement.

This depends on what you mean by "potential of an electron" and it is also unrelated to the topic of this thread.

 

If you mean the potential of the electron's electric field, it's the Coulomb potential but I don't see why it would be against it's polarization. Try searching "Physics and Math" for things about the electron.