CATEGORY:
FQXi Essay Contest - Spring, 2017
[back]
TOPIC:
The Thing That Is Space-Time by Don Limuti
[refresh]
Login or
create account to post reply or comment.
Author Don Limuti wrote on Jan. 31, 2018 @ 20:32 GMT
Essay AbstractNumbers are fundamental to mathematics, sounds are fundamental to language, bits are fundamental to information processing, atoms are fundamental to ordinary mass, and cells are fundamental to living things. In general we know about our world by building with simple “fundamentals” to get our complex reality. Historically we have thought of Space-Time as a void (nothing) within which the stars exist and where we live our lives. This changed about 100 years ago when Einstein argued successfully that Space-Time had the property of being curved. All of a sudden Space-Time became a thing that had properties. This essay will focus on an aspect of light (electromagnetic radiation) and show that it has a fundamental aspect that can be interpreted as a quantum mechanical particle having mass. It will be argued that accumulations of this fundamental precursor of the photon on a large scale creates Space-Time with its curvature (aka gravity). This quantum mechanical particle will be called a graviton.
Author BioDon Limuti created this essay at Einstein’s Bagels in Missoula, Montana, where he invoked the spirit of Einstein while contemplating the perfect torus. He has a bachelor of Engineering degree from the City College of NY and has garnered multiple patents for multiple companies. He created and maintains the website digitalwavetheory.com This essay was written to honor one of his heroes Sir Roger Penrose.
Download Essay PDF File
Christian Corda wrote on Feb. 1, 2018 @ 11:04 GMT
Hi Don,
It is a pleasure re-meeting you here in FQXi.
You wrote a very interesting Essay. Einstein vision's of gravity is indeed the first motivation because I became a researcher. Thus, I appreciate your efforts. In particular, I like your statement that
"graviton theory extends general relativity without changing it significantly"
I also have the idea that general...
view entire post
Hi Don,
It is a pleasure re-meeting you here in FQXi.
You wrote a very interesting Essay. Einstein vision's of gravity is indeed the first motivation because I became a researcher. Thus, I appreciate your efforts. In particular, I like your statement that
"graviton theory extends general relativity without changing it significantly"
I also have the idea that general relativity must be extended, despite I thing that such an extension must be weak in order to pass the solar system test.
Concerning your statement that
"graviton theory is able to calculate the precession of Mercury about the Sun to the same accuracy as the theory of general relativity"
I suggest you to write a detailed research paper on this fundamental issue and to submit it to some important journal. This will give success and interest to your theory. I have seen you paper published in Prespacetime Journal, but a more detailed derivation in a more prestigious journal will be better.
In any case, your Essay is really entertaining. You deserves the highest score that I am going to give you.
By the way, you will see that you have not been the sole guy, in this Essay competition, who invoked the spirit of Einstein if you will read my
Essay. In fact, you will see that I meet Einstein directly!
Good luck in the Contest.
Cheers, Ch.
view post as summary
report post as inappropriate
Author Don Limuti replied on Feb. 1, 2018 @ 19:36 GMT
Hi Christian,
Thanks for your generous comments, which I appreciate very much. I look forward to reading your current essay because I liked your last one on Einstein very much. Like many I forget that Einstein may have been a genius but he still worked hard and had to overcome many obstacles.
I say I am trying to extend general relativity, but it is not in a way that changes it. Einstein started with "mass curves space-time". What I am attempting is to explain how does mass accomplish this task.
I look forward very much to reading your essay and visiting your blog.
Don Limuti
Joe Fisher wrote on Feb. 1, 2018 @ 17:42 GMT
Dear Don Limuti,
FQXi.org is clearly seeking to confirm whether Nature is fundamental.
Reliable evidence exists that proves that the surface of the earth was formed millions of years before man and his utterly complex finite informational systems ever appeared on that surface. It logically follows that Nature must have permanently devised the only single physical construct of earth...
view entire post
Dear Don Limuti,
FQXi.org is clearly seeking to confirm whether Nature is fundamental.
Reliable evidence exists that proves that the surface of the earth was formed millions of years before man and his utterly complex finite informational systems ever appeared on that surface. It logically follows that Nature must have permanently devised the only single physical construct of earth allowable.
All objects, be they solid, liquid, or vaporous have always had a visible surface. This is because the real Universe must consist only of one single unified VISIBLE infinite surface occurring eternally in one single infinite dimension that am always illuminated mostly by finite non-surface light.
Only the truth can set you free.
Joe Fisher, Realist
view post as summary
report post as inappropriate
Author Don Limuti wrote on Feb. 1, 2018 @ 19:51 GMT
Hi Joe Fisher,
Joe you have me worried. I think I am beginning to understand you ....a little. I look forward to reading your essay.
In a way all we can see is surfaces. We never see or know "the thing in itself". The ancients knew this and talked about "attributes" and quantum physicists know this and talk about "observables".
I grew up in Brooklyn NY, and we have a saying there: "The truth may set you free, but what you really want to know is how much it is going to set you back".
Don Limuti
Ajay Pokhrel wrote on Feb. 4, 2018 @ 06:38 GMT
Hello Don,
Well written essay; although I understood your essay partially (because of my qualification as I am a high school student). Your first line is what
my essay shows. I liked your last line which is inspiring for a physicist.
Please discuss and give feedback on my essay
Kind Regards
Ajay Pokharel
report post as inappropriate
James Lee Hoover wrote on Feb. 8, 2018 @ 18:20 GMT
Don,
I like your style, your website (that I've bookmarked) and your out-of-the-box concepts. You have an impressive collection of materials and concepts in your essay. I like your graviton-oriented explanation of dark matter and dark energy. Neither is explained by conventional physics (Standard model) and elementary particles. Our essays share references to current scientific events and phenomena -- LIGO detectors and laser measurements considered.
Good luck on the contest.
Jim Hoover
report post as inappropriate
Wilhelmus de Wilde de Wilde wrote on Feb. 9, 2018 @ 10:45 GMT
Dear Don,
Good to meet again in the newest contest. I really like these FQXi contests because you can receive thoughts from other thinkers on your ideas, like your approach.
In the first paragraph of your abstract, you gave in my opinion already the indication of causal emergence (each new layer of emergence influences the next one). I don’t know if you can underwrite...
view entire post
Dear Don,
Good to meet again in the newest contest. I really like these FQXi contests because you can receive thoughts from other thinkers on your ideas, like your approach.
In the first paragraph of your abstract, you gave in my opinion already the indication of causal emergence (each new layer of emergence influences the next one). I don’t know if you can underwrite this.
“We have recently been detecting them en mass on the cosmological scale as dark matter and dark energy.”. The only remark I can make here is that both dark matter and dark energy are still “unknown phenomena”. Do you catalogue them as that?
Page 5: First you mention :”Dark Matter as developed here, is a line of mass (a bundle of gravitons)”, then you say:”I believe the answer is that this graviton mass is a wave phenomenon and manifests quite differently than observable mass such as a golf ball or planet, and to detect it we need to couple to it.”. I can agree with the wave phenomenon, but that the gravitons would be a bundle between as you say 2 planets is hard for me to believe because this implicates that each “particle” in our reality has a specific “bundle”. Maybe I am totally wrong because I am not an expert like you.
Page 6: “This graviton mass is distributed in such a way as to make the universe expand at an accelerated rate.” Does this mean that in the last 5 billion years ago the number of gravitons have changed in a way to have accelerated the universe?
“These galaxy to galaxy gravitons have less mass than inter-galaxy gravitons, but they outnumber the inter-galaxy gravitons and are dominant in the universe”.Here you introduce different masses for gravitons for different areas of reality. It is a bit like in the “Standard Model”. In the beginning, it was comprehensible but it was growing and growing so...If your model could work with just ONE graviton, it would be more acceptable I think.
Note 3: the “big end” in my view is just a crossing point in the sinus-wave of what we call the “history” of our emerging reality.
Page 7:”But the most amazing thing about the graviton prism is that it curves the path of light and also curves the path of ordinary masses (according to general relativity)” I like this part of your model very much, but you still have to convince me about the essential character of the graviton.
“Physics is amazing, but I believe that completeness is not one of its properties. And it keeps on getting better.” I can fully underwrite that. The intelligence of humanity is only existing one second and is its beginning, it is not so long ago that we all thought that the sun was turning around the earth. I just don’t think that we (and the next generations) will be able to find the ultimate foundations of our reality. You can also see that in all the essays that we are encountering now in this contest.
I liked your approach of the problems we are all struggling with, a very thoughtful essay and I brought you UP a little in this “goofy” contest because you are trying to escape from the establishment. I also hope that again you will read, comment and maybe also rate my contribution
“Foundational Quantum Reality Loops” where I attack the same problems as you did.
Best regards and good luck
Wilhelmus de Wilde
view post as summary
report post as inappropriate
Author Don Limuti wrote on Feb. 10, 2018 @ 03:10 GMT
Hi Wilhelmus,
Thanks for visiting my blog. I am a little slow in getting started in this essay contest. And I look forward to visiting your essay.
In answer to your questions:
1. The question of emergence usually puts me in a spin. Does life emerge from the universe or does the universe emerge from life. I am in the vortex of the snake eating itself (Ouroboros). In this essay...
view entire post
Hi Wilhelmus,
Thanks for visiting my blog. I am a little slow in getting started in this essay contest. And I look forward to visiting your essay.
In answer to your questions:
1. The question of emergence usually puts me in a spin. Does life emerge from the universe or does the universe emerge from life. I am in the vortex of the snake eating itself (Ouroboros). In this essay am postulating that space time is composed of smaller units called gravitons. And yes, I hijacked the term from the standard model and the only thing they have in common is that they are quantum mechanical in nature. In the sense that I believe that we move from truth to truth I agree with your emergence thesis.
2. Do I consider dark energy and matter unknown phenomena? I would say no, cosmologists have measured the phenomena of unexpected rotations of galaxies (dark matter) and the unexpected motion of far away galaxies (dark energy). Astronomer Tarun Souradeep makes a good case that both dark matter and dark energy are basically the same phenomena.
3. I have only one type of graviton. Its mass is inversely related to its wavelength. The wavelength of a graviton is the distance it spans. Thus intergalactic galaxies have more mass than gravitons that span between galaxies.
4. Newton's law of gravity is mind boggling. Everything connects to everything... What I am proposing here is that this everything to everything has a limit of the Planck mass (this is in agreement with notions of Roger Penrose). So the graviton connections between Mercury and the Sun are Planck mass to Planck mass connections. There are a lot of them and I take the liberty to talk about them as a wire bundle. At the present time we cannot detect this bundle of mass because it has a wavelength of the distance between Mercury and the Sun. Now, many believe the graviton to be a boson that must have mass. This I believe is incorrect the graviton is a precursor to the photon and it has mass. Think of a guitar string that has mass. The guitar string can be made to resonate at sub-harmonics of its length. These harmonics produce sound that has no mass. Photons are are the mass-less sub-harmonics of the guitar string like gravitons.
You say:
"I just don’t think that we (and the next generations) will be able to find the ultimate foundations of our reality."
I say: What a great game. The divine goddess has a sense of style.
I am off to read your essay, and will comment there.
Don Limuti
view post as summary
Wilhelmus de Wilde de Wilde replied on Feb. 10, 2018 @ 08:27 GMT
Dear Don,
1. "Does life emerge from the universe or does the universe emerge from life. I am in the vortex of the snake eating itself (Ouroboros)" If there was no consciousness what would be the "universe"? The origin of the"self-awareness" of reality is consciousness in my perception. This self-awareness is limited by both the time and space dimension that emerge from Total Simultaneity...
view entire post
Dear Don,
1. "Does life emerge from the universe or does the universe emerge from life. I am in the vortex of the snake eating itself (Ouroboros)" If there was no consciousness what would be the "universe"? The origin of the"self-awareness" of reality is consciousness in my perception. This self-awareness is limited by both the time and space dimension that emerge from Total Simultaneity (where there is no time and no space ALL "parts" to form an event are simultaneous. So I put the primal cause in Total Consciousness that is a property of Total Simultaneity. Indeed if you don't do that the Ouroboros is created...
2. Dark matter and energy may be the result of the same kind of fluctuations at the border of the Before Planck Area (TS), what exactly it is? I don't' know, both you and I are thinking about solutions, but maybe both of us are wrong and maybe one of us is right.
3.Maybe I am just too stupid to understand you, but in my view when there are different masses involved there are different "particles". I can understand that the wavelength may differ with distance, but how does that influence mass? A wave is a wave (probability). Are you implying "collapse" of the wavefunction?
4.I do the same with the limits of emerging reality: the Planck length and time. I think that your problem with the "bundle" is the amount of Planck lengths and HOW those are connected to create a "flow". Here the factor TIME is looking around the corner...Furthermore, I think that if gravitons have mass (and maybe they have), then their top-speed is C, which could be the speed of your wave-form. Am I right?
I fully agree with you that we have a great game in this quest, in my model I even am looking to try to describe this divine goddess in a scientific way....
best regards
Wilhelmus
view post as summary
report post as inappropriate
Author Don Limuti replied on Feb. 10, 2018 @ 16:47 GMT
Hi Wilhelmus,
Consciousness without a universe ....could be.....can you prove it?
A universe without consciousness ....could be.....can you prove it?
You may may be able to experience either condition but it would be a personal experience in the realm of mystical/religious experience (in my opinion). You could form a church to promote either view and then make the other view...
view entire post
Hi Wilhelmus,
Consciousness without a universe ....could be.....can you prove it?
A universe without consciousness ....could be.....can you prove it?
You may may be able to experience either condition but it would be a personal experience in the realm of mystical/religious experience (in my opinion). You could form a church to promote either view and then make the other view wrong.....what fun :)
In your point 3: You are correct different masses imply different objects or particles. These particles do have different wavelengths that depends upon velocity as per deBroglie's equation.
I am postulating that another type of particle exists, a graviton, that spans a distance between two masses. This distance is the wavelength of the graviton. I believe this as yet undetected particle has a mass as calculated in the essay.
Can we detect this particle? I believe so because it is very close in nature to light and can be detected with very long antennas.
My essay could be clearer, its a skeleton outline form and I could use an editor.
Non of the above impacts your concept of total simultaneity which I find valuable. It also took me a while to appreciate.
Thanks,
Don Limuti
view post as summary
John Brodix Merryman wrote on Feb. 11, 2018 @ 15:24 GMT
Don,
While I should read it several times, my experience with harmonics is not deep enough to fully connect with the evidence.
That said, there is a sense of getting the bigger picture.
My sense though, is the whole Big Bang/expanding universe is a dead end.
That what Hubble discovered, with redshift, was evidence of Einstein's original Cosmological Constant. That...
view entire post
Don,
While I should read it several times, my experience with harmonics is not deep enough to fully connect with the evidence.
That said, there is a sense of getting the bigger picture.
My sense though, is the whole Big Bang/expanding universe is a dead end.
That what Hubble discovered, with redshift, was evidence of Einstein's original Cosmological Constant. That it is a balance, or opposite side of the cycle, to gravity, that explains why space is "flat" and the universe is neither collapsing or expanding, but is simply infinite space.
Consider the rubber sheet and ball analogy for gravity and the curvature of spacetime; What is the shape of the sheet, if there is no ball? Presumably it is flat. Yet if you put that ball onto it, what is the logic of it simply creating a dimple? Wouldn't that assume some underlaying force, pulling the ball down?
Wouldn't a more useful and accurate analogy be that this rubber sheet is over water; Such that while the ball pushes the sheet down, the sheet reacts by being pushed up an equal amount in the areas where there is no ball. Now since we can only detect light from sources very far away, by the necessity of it crossing the most empty and thus upward pushed areas of space, that redshift is evidence of this balance of gravity/CC.
Thus this "stretching" of space is canceled out and balanced by it being gravitationally contracting into gravity wells, most notably the galaxies.
This was actually my first insight, from a completely outsiders point of view, that cosmology was overlooking the obvious. It was reading Hawking's A Brief History of Time, when it first came out, in '89, that he made the point that it was theorized the expansion and gravity were balanced. Omega=1, was the term he used. While his assumption was this meant the rate of expansion was neither increasing or slowing and thus flat, from my simple minded view, it seemed to be more of a cosmic convection cycle, where what was pushing out was the opposite side of the cycle from what was pulling in and they were naturally balanced, by being opposite sides of the same cycle.
In the mid '90's I was discussing this on the old NYTimes Mysteries of the Universe section of their forums and had developed some idea of it being some dynamic of what was falling into black holes was emerging or being matched by a vacuum fluctuation between galaxies and one of the other participants, mention that it could be much more effectively explained by the basic relationship between light and mass and had been doing graduate studies in cosmology when it occurred to him. When he presented it to his adviser, it was suggested he might want to get into some other field, if he wanted any career advancement.
As I pointed out in my essay, using the premise of spacetime to explain redshift otherwise completely overlooks the idea of time and distance, clocks and rulers, being dilated equally, thus light always being measured at C, because if it is redshifted, then the speed of light is not increasing to match the ruler. This was all proposed as a patch to explain why we appear at the center of this expansion and since we are at the center of our point of view, an optical cause for redshift, rather than actual recession, would be something worth exploring.
Regards,
John
view post as summary
report post as inappropriate
Author Don Limuti replied on Feb. 11, 2018 @ 19:52 GMT
Hi John,
Thanks for visiting. Yours was the one of the first essays I visited...of course because it dealt with space. I liked it and think you me and Penrose are suspicious of the big bang.
Comments:
1. I tried to make a simple analogy between a guitar string and my postulated graviton. And I could have done a better job of it. I wanted to convey that the graviton like the...
view entire post
Hi John,
Thanks for visiting. Yours was the one of the first essays I visited...of course because it dealt with space. I liked it and think you me and Penrose are suspicious of the big bang.
Comments:
1. I tried to make a simple analogy between a guitar string and my postulated graviton. And I could have done a better job of it. I wanted to convey that the graviton like the guitar string has mass. The graviton is postulated to be the fundamental of the photon. Sound vibrations ride on the guitar string and have no mass but can deliver energy. Light vibrations ride on the graviton string and have no mass but can deliver energy. Of course the guitar string is classical and the graviton is quantum mechanical with a vengeance since it can span the universe. There are a lot of gravitons in that every mass consists of a lot of Planck masses and each of these Planck masses connect to every other Planck mass in the universe. I call this network space-time.
2. This space time is linked to us because we always bring our mass with us into every measurement we make. Michelson-Morley found a constant speed of light because they brought their own space-time (graviton array) to the measurement, and light rides on gravitons at the speed c. It did not make a difference what velocity the experimenters had because all the gravitons that connected to them conveyed light at the speed of light.
Said another way we are always centered on the ether because light comes to us via gravitons.
All this is easy to say and good experiments are called for. OK all you gals and guys ...go to it!
John thanks for making space fundamental,
Don Limuti
view post as summary
Luca Valeri wrote on Feb. 11, 2018 @ 15:26 GMT
Hi Don,
When I was preparing my essay for the essay contest, I had to think sometimes at your presentation of the Zeno's paradox. I also went sometimes to your website. The reason is because I wanted to derive the observable properties and their quantification by simple 'physical' symmetry transformation. And certainly there is a relation between measuring a distance as difference of...
view entire post
Hi Don,
When I was preparing
my essay for the essay contest, I had to think sometimes at your presentation of the Zeno's paradox. I also went sometimes to your website. The reason is because I wanted to derive the observable properties and their quantification by simple 'physical' symmetry transformation. And certainly there is a relation between measuring a distance as difference of location as a symmetry invariant measure under translation and the measuring of a distance by measuring the time to move from one place the other (as time dependent) symmetry transformation.
However I did not find a consistent framework. So I limited myself to explore, what can be know under symmetric constrains of the laws. Still I tried to defend a Copenhagen view on quantum mechanics. I wonder, what you think about.
To discuss your essay. I like the way you combine the Plank-Einstein equation with Newtons law. I remember how my physics professor used a similar reasoning to heuristically derive the electro magnetic interaction strength. I was quite impressed by the simplicity of the argument and wondered, whether a precise derivation of the EM or other forces was possible. The critical part in your essay is in my opinion your section A. In my opinion you make a pretty non standard use of a connection of the eigen modes and the number of photons. That needs a better justification, since it is your starting point of the discussion.
Hope you find the time to read and comment on
my essay, although it won't reflect your opinion on quantum mechanics. I belief I show a pretty new way on how one can see physical concepts.
Best wishes
Luca
view post as summary
report post as inappropriate
Author Don Limuti replied on Feb. 11, 2018 @ 21:55 GMT
Hi Lucas,
Thanks for visiting my essay and my website. Really, that makes you part of a select group :)
Your question: "Still I tried to defend a Copenhagen view on quantum mechanics. I wonder, what you think about."
Answer: When you are stuck with the Schrodinger equation and the standard model as your tools, then Bohr's Copenhagen view (particle and wave ...depending) can...
view entire post
Hi Lucas,
Thanks for visiting my essay and my website. Really, that makes you part of a select group :)
Your question: "Still I tried to defend a Copenhagen view on quantum mechanics. I wonder, what you think about."
Answer: When you are stuck with the Schrodinger equation and the standard model as your tools, then Bohr's Copenhagen view (particle and wave ...depending) can keep you sane. I personally feel that quantum mechanics is a misread of phenomena that is discontinuous. This is not bad because it is the best we can do until some of the super people (maybe yourself) in this essay can come up with a math? that can handle discontinuous phenomena.
On my way to your essay,
Don Limuti
view post as summary
Dizhechko Boris Semyonovich wrote on Feb. 11, 2018 @ 16:48 GMT
Dear Don Limuti, you have a beautiful essay. Numbers are fundamental to mathematics, sounds are fundamental to language, bits are fundamental to information processing, atoms are fundamental to ordinary mass, and cells are fundamental to living things.On the basis of identity of space and matter Descartes Foundation for fundamental theories is the physical space which is matter and which is moving. Look at my essay,
FQXi Fundamental in New Cartesian Physics by Dizhechko Boris Semyonovich Where I showed how radically the physics can change if it follows the principle of identity of space and matter of Descartes. I hope you will not leave without attention to this principle and appreciate good New Cartesian Physics for his radicalism
Sincerely, Dizhechko Boris Semyonovich.
report post as inappropriate
Author Don Limuti replied on Feb. 12, 2018 @ 03:22 GMT
Hi Dizhechko Boris,
Good to be with you in another contest. And thanks for your kind words about my entry.
I hope you noticed that in my essay I have developed a theory that has both matter and space as having mass. Descartes was very insightful! Also you should have also noticed that I have a diagram that shows the vortexes produced by gravity. Descartes on the ball again!
Be sure to reference my essay in your New Cartesian physics :)
I'm on my way to your site to comment and vote for a fine essay.
Don Limuti
Dizhechko Boris Semyonovich replied on Feb. 12, 2018 @ 09:45 GMT
Dear Don Limuti, I sure to reference your essay in New Cartesian physics. To say that space and matter consist of mass is the same thing, that to say the space, which matter, moves, because according to the formula of mass-energy equivalence , mass is the energy of motion. Time is a synonym for the movement. For thinking that we ought to praise each other. Look at my page,
FQXi Fundamental in New Cartesian Physics by Dizhechko Boris Semyonovich Where is the principle of identity of space and matter of Descartes. I hope you will not disregard this principle.
I wish you success in the contest.
Sincerely, Dizhechko Boris Semyonovich.
report post as inappropriate
Satyavarapu Naga Parameswara Gupta wrote on Feb. 13, 2018 @ 12:07 GMT
Hi Prof Don Limuti
Very good work ......." All of a sudden Space-Time became a thing that had properties. This essay will focus on an aspect of light (electromagnetic radiation) and show that it has a fundamental aspect that can be interpreted as a quantum mechanical particle having mass. It will be argued that accumulations of this fundamental precursor of the photon on a large scale...
view entire post
Hi Prof Don Limuti
Very good work ......." All of a sudden Space-Time became a thing that had properties. This essay will focus on an aspect of light (electromagnetic radiation) and show that it has a fundamental aspect that can be interpreted as a quantum mechanical particle having mass. It will be argued that accumulations of this fundamental precursor of the photon on a large scale creates Space-Time with its curvature (aka gravity). This quantum mechanical particle will be called a graviton." Best wishes to your paper...
Here in my essay energy to mass conversion is proposed...……..….. yours is very nice essay best wishes …. I highly appreciate hope your essay ….You may please spend some of the valuable time on Dynamic Universe Model also and give your some of the valuable & esteemed guidance
Some of the Main foundational points of Dynamic Universe Model :-No Isotropy
-No Homogeneity
-No Space-time continuum
-Non-uniform density of matter, universe is lumpy
-No singularities
-No collisions between bodies
-No blackholes
-No warm holes
-No Bigbang
-No repulsion between distant Galaxies
-Non-empty Universe
-No imaginary or negative time axis
-No imaginary X, Y, Z axes
-No differential and Integral Equations mathematically
-No General Relativity and Model does not reduce to GR on any condition
-No Creation of matter like Bigbang or steady-state models
-No many mini Bigbangs
-No Missing Mass / Dark matter
-No Dark energy
-No Bigbang generated CMB detected
-No Multi-verses
Here:
-Accelerating Expanding universe with 33% Blue shifted Galaxies
-Newton’s Gravitation law works everywhere in the same way
-All bodies dynamically moving
-All bodies move in dynamic Equilibrium
-Closed universe model no light or bodies will go away from universe
-Single Universe no baby universes
-Time is linear as observed on earth, moving forward only
-Independent x,y,z coordinate axes and Time axis no interdependencies between axes..
-UGF (Universal Gravitational Force) calculated on every point-mass
-Tensors (Linear) used for giving UNIQUE solutions for each time step
-Uses everyday physics as achievable by engineering
-21000 linear equations are used in an Excel sheet
-Computerized calculations uses 16 decimal digit accuracy
-Data mining and data warehousing techniques are used for data extraction from large amounts of data.
- Many predictions of Dynamic Universe Model came true….Have a look at
http://vaksdynamicuniversemodel.blogspot.in/p/blog-page_15.h
tml
I request you to please have a look at my essay also, and give some of your esteemed criticism for your information……..
Dynamic Universe Model says that the energy in the form of electromagnetic radiation passing grazingly near any gravitating mass changes its in frequency and finally will convert into neutrinos (mass). We all know that there is no experiment or quest in this direction. Energy conversion happens from mass to energy with the famous E=mC2, the other side of this conversion was not thought off. This is a new fundamental prediction by Dynamic Universe Model, a foundational quest in the area of Astrophysics and Cosmology.
In accordance with Dynamic Universe Model frequency shift happens on both the sides of spectrum when any electromagnetic radiation passes grazingly near gravitating mass. With this new verification, we will open a new frontier that will unlock a way for formation of the basis for continual Nucleosynthesis (continuous formation of elements) in our Universe. Amount of frequency shift will depend on relative velocity difference. All the papers of author can be downloaded from “http://vaksdynamicuniversemodel.blogspot.in/ ”
I request you to please post your reply in my essay also, so that I can get an intimation that you repliedBest
=snp
view post as summary
report post as inappropriate
Author Don Limuti replied on Feb. 14, 2018 @ 07:23 GMT
Hi Satyavarapu Naga Parameswara Gupta,
I did visit your blog and responded there. I cannot agree or disagree with much that you have listed, mainly because because I just do not know.
For example a feature of your dynamic universe theory is: -No differential and Integral Equations mathematically.
This could be good because, as I believe, calculus has its limits and has been...
view entire post
Hi Satyavarapu Naga Parameswara Gupta,
I did visit your blog and responded there. I cannot agree or disagree with much that you have listed, mainly because because I just do not know.
For example a feature of your dynamic universe theory is: -No differential and Integral Equations mathematically.
This could be good because, as I believe, calculus has its limits and has been misapplied in quantum mechanics (see my website: www.digitalwavetheory.com). But it could be bad in that calculus, where it is valid, is a very valuable tool.
So what do I think about your theory having -No differential and Integral Equations- Answer: ????????
However, I did get an intuitive flavor that you were on to something...
I also wish that my essay was clearer!
Wishing you the best.
Don Limuti
view post as summary
Satyavarapu Naga Parameswara Gupta wrote on Feb. 14, 2018 @ 13:58 GMT
Dear Don Limuti
Thank you for the nice analyzing reply...and nice blessings on my essay...
You are exactly correct saying "Einstein never got a Nobel prize for relativity, but after " verification" of bending of light rays near Sun.
You are correct again ..about atomic theory... and for your wonderful words..."
The individual being is Brahman...."
Best
=snp
report post as inappropriate
Satyavarapu Naga Parameswara Gupta wrote on Feb. 14, 2018 @ 14:01 GMT
Dear Don Limuti
I gave 10 for your wonderful essay it was 6.1 and after 10 it became 6.5
Best wishes to your essay
=snp
report post as inappropriate
John-Erik Persson wrote on Feb. 15, 2018 @ 12:02 GMT
Don Limuti
Thanks for an essay with many new and interesting ideas. It was stimulating toread it. However, it is very difficult for an amateur, as I am, to decide the value of these ideas.
I agree to your statement that physics is far from complete.
I do not completely understand how black matter, at half the radius of Mercury, can have the same period as Mercury?
With the best regards from _____________ John-Erik
report post as inappropriate
Author Don Limuti replied on Feb. 15, 2018 @ 18:54 GMT
Hi John-Erik,
I am glad you found the ideas interesting. And I am first to say they are not agreed upon reality. Experiments need to be made and others will need to see the usefulness of this new type of graviton before it becomes accepted.
To answer your question: There is gravity between Mercury and the Sun. I postulate that this gravity is composed of many gravitons connecting...
view entire post
Hi John-Erik,
I am glad you found the ideas interesting. And I am first to say they are not agreed upon reality. Experiments need to be made and others will need to see the usefulness of this new type of graviton before it becomes accepted.
To answer your question: There is gravity between Mercury and the Sun. I postulate that this gravity is composed of many gravitons connecting Mercury and the Sun. These many gravitons are what I call a graviton bundle and it is a "wire bundle" that is in a straight line between Mercury and the Sun. I make (a reasonable ?) calculation for the mass of this wire bundle (which will be very difficult to detect because of its long wavelength). I make another reasonable proposal that this wire bundle (graviton bundle) follows Mercury about the sun because Mercury in its orbit is always attracted by the Sun.
Two more assumptions:
1. The mass of this graviton bundle is uniformly distributed along the length of the bundle.
2. For the purpose of calculating the precession of Mercury (an angular momentum problem) I assume that the center of mass of the graviton bundle is in the middle of the bundle. Go to my web site to see the angular momentum calculation of Mercury's precession (just classical physics).
I tried to put that bunch of words above into the diagram I included in the essay. My fault for not including more words.
I remember your essay, and I believe this essay addresses some of the problems you pointed out. What I have not explicitly pointed out is that the network of gravitons that connects all the mass in the universe is "the ether" and it is this ether that supports the transmission of light. This ether is centered on the observer because the observer always brings their mass distribution with them (another diagram in my essay). And in a very interesting way the observer becomes the center of the universe. In other words Michelson-Morley did not have a chance of measuring a speed of light with respect to the ether because the light moves on the graviton network ether.
Did I just make Einstein wrong? No, I just explained why the speed of light is constant and independent of relative motion.
And yes, all speculative stuff .....but perhaps better that the craziness that passes for current science?
Thanks very much for responding and giving me the chance to explain.
Don Limuti
view post as summary
John-Erik Persson replied on Feb. 16, 2018 @ 12:35 GMT
Don Limuti
You are right regarding that particles is the best way to explain gravity. However, you could also point out that Fatio also said so 300 years ago.
Best regards from _____________ John-Erik Persson
report post as inappropriate
Author Don Limuti replied on Feb. 16, 2018 @ 21:04 GMT
John-Erik,
Thanks for your post. I never knew of Fatio, so I did a little investigation. He was a most fascinating character at an interesting cusp of history:
http://www.mathpages.com/home/kmath041/kmath041.htm
H
e was one of those influential people who formed a transnational club of the best and brightest in Europe. He somehow dropped through net of history.
He did conceive of gravity as particles. And if he knew about the Planck-Einstein equation and the wavelengths of particles, I would not have written this essay.
Thanks again,
Don Limuti
George Kirakosyan wrote on Feb. 17, 2018 @ 05:02 GMT
Hi Don
I am really happy to meet you here again and I am so thankful for your high opinion to my work. But I was thinking till now that you are only a witty critics of our unhappy science that deviated from right way. Excuse me, because I see now you have suggested your own serious approach to greatest mystery of gravity. This very intrigued to me, moreover I am also felt myself as a good friend of not ordinary Dr Roger Penrose!
So, you can be sure - I will carefully read and properly rate your nice work after small time! Best wishes my dear!
George K.
report post as inappropriate
George Kirakosyan wrote on Feb. 17, 2018 @ 07:12 GMT
Dear Don,
I have completed study your work and I have made my high duty as I promised (but it is not very important in my view, as they do not preparing prizes for us!)
I can say you many nice words on your work, but both we are critics and we well realize that honest criticism are much more preferable than many empty favorable words. Your approach can be interesting for...
view entire post
Dear Don,
I have completed study your work and I have made my high duty as I promised (but it is not very important in my view, as they do not preparing prizes for us!)
I can say you many nice words on your work, but both we are critics and we well realize that honest criticism are much more preferable than many empty favorable words. Your approach can be interesting for specialists, of course, as an alternative way to construct gravity theory. But, if this can have some value for you, my opinion is that we need try to understand in first the essence (or, the physical nature) of gravity phenomenon. I mean - how to connect (to derive) the gravity parameters from known to us forms of materia?
In other words it means - how to get the value of Cavendish constant (gamma = 6.72 x 10^-11) from basic natural constants (c, h, pi, a=1/137).
The matter is there existing already huge quantity of different interpretations, connected with the field, with the ether, with the distorted space-time, with Mach principle, with hypothetical gravitons, or without that, etc. What is interesting here – in all of different kinds of interpretations have used this experimentally opened constant - without asking from where it comes and why it is this much and not other? (and here is the whole mystery of gravity!) And all of this theories has brought to almost the same quantitatively results! But, as a logical people, we can just conclude from aforesaid that actually we have deal with the different names of a same thing, which we can’t yet understand how need to name correctly! So, What can I say you better than only that I already saying in my works! Just try to look those (from at last reference) in any best for you time.
Best wishes,
George Kirakosyan
view post as summary
report post as inappropriate
Vladimir Nikolaevich Fedorov wrote on Feb. 21, 2018 @ 06:50 GMT
Dear Don,
Here we are again all together.
I like your graviton.
Your Essay is really entertaining. You deserves the highest score that I am going to give you.
I hope that my modest achievements can be information for reflection for you.
Vladimir Fedorov
https://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/3080
report post as inappropriate
Steven Andresen wrote on Feb. 22, 2018 @ 06:59 GMT
Dear Don
If you are looking for another essay to read and rate in the final days of the contest, will you consider mine please? I read all essays from those who comment on my page, and if I cant rate an essay highly, then I don’t rate them at all. Infact I haven’t issued a rating lower that ten. So you have nothing to lose by having me read your essay, and everything to...
view entire post
Dear Don
If you are looking for another essay to read and rate in the final days of the contest, will you consider mine please? I read all essays from those who comment on my page, and if I cant rate an essay highly, then I don’t rate them at all. Infact I haven’t issued a rating lower that ten. So you have nothing to lose by having me read your essay, and everything to gain.
Beyond my essay’s introduction, I place a microscope on the subjects of universal complexity and natural forces. I do so within context that clock operation is driven by Quantum Mechanical forces (atomic and photonic), while clocks also serve measure of General Relativity’s effects (spacetime, time dilation). In this respect clocks can be said to possess a split personality, giving them the distinction that they are simultaneously a study in QM, while GR is a study of clocks. The situation stands whereby we have two fundamental theories of the world, but just one world. And we have a singular device which serves study of both those fundamental theories. Two fundamental theories, but one device? Please join me and my essay in questioning this circumstance?
My essay goes on to identify natural forces in their universal roles, how they motivate the building of and maintaining complex universal structures and processes. When we look at how star fusion processes sit within a “narrow range of sensitivity” that stars are neither led to explode nor collapse under gravity. We think how lucky we are that the universe is just so. We can also count our lucky stars that the fusion process that marks the birth of a star, also leads to an eruption of photons from its surface. And again, how lucky we are! for if they didn’t then gas accumulation wouldn’t be halted and the star would again be led to collapse.
Could a natural organisation principle have been responsible for fine tuning universal systems? Faced with how lucky we appear to have been, shouldn’t we consider this possibility?
For our luck surely didnt run out there, for these photons stream down on earth, liquifying oceans which drive geochemical processes that we “life” are reliant upon. The Earth is made up of elements that possess the chemical potentials that life is entirely dependent upon. Those chemical potentials are not expressed in the absence of water solvency. So again, how amazingly fortunate we are that these chemical potentials exist in the first instance, and additionally within an environment of abundant water solvency such as Earth, able to express these potentials.
My essay is attempt of something audacious. It questions the fundamental nature of the interaction between space and matter Guv = Tuv, and hypothesizes the equality between space curvature and atomic forces is due to common process. Space gives up a potential in exchange for atomic forces in a conversion process, which drives atomic activity. And furthermore, that Baryons only exist because this energy potential of space exists and is available for exploitation. Baryon characteristics and behaviours, complexity of structure and process might then be explained in terms of being evolved and optimised for this purpose and existence. Removing need for so many layers of extraordinary luck to eventuate our own existence. It attempts an interpretation of the above mentioned stellar processes within these terms, but also extends much further. It shines a light on molecular structure that binds matter together, as potentially being an evolved agency that enhances rigidity and therefor persistence of universal system. We then turn a questioning mind towards Earths unlikely geochemical processes, (for which we living things owe so much) and look at its central theme and propensity for molecular rock forming processes. The existence of chemical potentials and their diverse range of molecular bond formation activities? The abundance of water solvent on Earth, for which many geochemical rock forming processes could not be expressed without? The question of a watery Earth? is then implicated as being part of an evolved system that arose for purpose and reason, alongside the same reason and purpose that molecular bonds and chemistry processes arose.
By identifying atomic forces as having their origin in space, we have identified how they perpetually act, and deliver work products. Forces drive clocks and clock activity is shown by GR to dilate. My essay details the principle of force dilation and applies it to a universal mystery. My essay raises the possibility, that nature in possession of a natural energy potential, will spontaneously generate a circumstance of Darwinian emergence. It did so on Earth, and perhaps it did so within a wider scope. We learnt how biology generates intricate structure and complexity, and now we learn how it might explain for intricate structure and complexity within universal physical systems.
To steal a phrase from my essay “A world product of evolved optimization”.
Best of luck for the conclusion of the contest
Kind regards
Steven Andresen
Darwinian Universal Fundamental Origin
view post as summary
report post as inappropriate
Kamal L Rajpal wrote on Feb. 22, 2018 @ 14:12 GMT
Dear Don Limuti,
For conceptual views on space-time and Dark Matter, please read: http://vixra.org/pdf/1303.0207v3.pdf
Quantum Mechanics claims that an electron can be both spin-up and spin-down at the same time. In my conceptual physics Essay on Electron Spin, I have proved that this is not true. Please read: https://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/3145
Kamal Rajpal
report post as inappropriate
Vladimir Rogozhin wrote on Feb. 23, 2018 @ 10:18 GMT
Hi Don,
I read your wonderful essay with great interest. You give deep ideas and make important conclusions aimed at overcoming the crisis of understanding in fundamental science. To "grasp" the original structure of the Cosmos today, it is necessary to maximally support competitive ideas, primarily in
cosmology . Thanks to the FQXi for supporting the competition of fundamental ideas..
Pavel Florensky made a good conclusion, which is topical for physicists and mathematicians: "Мы повторяем: миропонимание — пространствопонимание./ We repeat: world understanding is spaceunderstanding." … Physicists and
poets should have a single picture of the Universum as an holistic generating process, filled with the meanings of the "LifeWorld" (E. Husserl).
Best wishes!
Vladimir
report post as inappropriate
Peter Jackson wrote on Feb. 23, 2018 @ 16:41 GMT
Don,
Great job, again. Fundamental and well written. I'm always interested in your excellent ideas and explanations.
You Penrose and still share rejection of the BB. (You may recall my cyclic model published in 2013, similar to 'Conformal' but overcoming the issues Roger accepted with that).
If you don't like QM I this year finally have an option; a classical mechanism fully reproducing it's predictions, rather complex but easy as it's logical and sequential, from a starting assumption off OAM, so different to 'singlet' states.
(unfortunately few read carefully enough to form it in their minds, and dogma will defeat it, but Declan Traill's short essay & plot confirms it works!
May I ask, can we refer more to 'current physics theory' than 'nature itself' in saying; 'completeness is not one of its properties'? If so I heartily agree.
Well done.
Peter
report post as inappropriate
Peter Jackson replied on Feb. 25, 2018 @ 17:53 GMT
Don,
Thanks for your comments on mine. I see your score has slipped, probably the 1's issue I've also had! Mine should boost it back up. Well done for yours. I really did like;
"completeness is not one of its properties". I think teaching year in year out causes most academics to forget or ignore that.
Best
Peter
report post as inappropriate
Colin Walker wrote on Feb. 24, 2018 @ 00:49 GMT
Hi Don
Thanks for posting on my blog or I would have missed your essay. We are on the same wavelength as far as gravitons, and I really like your Quantum-Newtonian deductions. And LLF, LOL!
I expect that the lowest graviton energy would be Hh/2, which is related to the energy, Hh, lost from a photon each cycle in the tired light scenario. If that is true, then an expanding universe ought to be ruled out, as I argued in my essay. However, it is merely a quibble whether associated terms such as dark energy are appropriate.
Incidentally, there is apparently a theoretical limit to the temperature which can be attained by a solar concentrator, and that limit is the temperature of the radiation from the Sun. I would guess that gravitons have a temperature similar to photons given by kT=hf, where k is Boltzmann and hf is photon energy. The graviton temperature would be quite low corresponding to its low frequency, and should not raise the temperature of matter when it interacts, if this reasoning is valid.
Cheers,
Colin
report post as inappropriate
Vladimir Nikolaevich Fedorov wrote on Feb. 24, 2018 @ 07:02 GMT
Dear Don,
(copy to yours and mine)
Many thanks for the kind words about my work and for mutual understanding.
Understanding, respect and your advices are highly valued.
I wish you happiness in your scientific work in search of truth.
Vladimir Fedorov
https://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/3080
report post as inappropriate
Juan Ramón González Álvarez wrote on Feb. 25, 2018 @ 06:00 GMT
General relativity represent gravitation as curved spacetime. But it is possible to formulate theories of gravity without any spacetime curvature. This fact shows that spacetime doesn't really has such properties.
In fact, spacetime
per se doesn't exist. It is merely a mathematical construct build over the extensions of the real particle positions.
Quantum mechanics is needed...
view entire post
General relativity represent gravitation as curved spacetime. But it is possible to formulate theories of gravity without any spacetime curvature. This fact shows that spacetime doesn't really has such properties.
In fact, spacetime
per se doesn't exist. It is merely a mathematical construct build over the extensions of the real particle positions.
Quantum mechanics is needed when Newtonian interaction is introduced in a quantum description.
"The key postulate is that mass curves space-time". No really, massless particles can curve spacetime as well because the source of curvature in GR is T
ab, not m alone.
The same argument that gives photons a zero mass also gives zero mass to gravitons.
Why would one assume all photons have the same wavelength?
"E = Nhc/d" isn't correct because Newtonian gravitational energy is negative.
Also graviton model cannot be "fit" into Newton theory. Gravitons are quanta for contact-action model of interactions. Newton theory is action-at-a-distance. Graviton model can be fit into a field theory of gravity.
Gravitons associated to the scalar potential are virtual.
For rotating masses we have to include velocity-dependent potentials. Multiplying by 2pi a scalar potential doesn't give the gravitational energy of rotating masses.
The energy of a graviton is not E=mc
2. Besides the graviton being massless and energy of massless particles being given by E=|p|c; this is a special relativistic expression lacking the corrections due to gravity.
Dark matter and dark energy couldn't be more different. One is a fictitious distribution of mass measuring 'inertial' corrections to the 1/r law. The other corresponds to a matter-gravitation interaction term is lacking in T
ab in the metrics equations of GR.
Vulcan was introduced as hypothesis to explain the discrepancies between Mercury orbit and the predictions made by Newtonian gravity. We know today that Vulcan doesn't exist and that the discrepancies are due to relativistic effects not considered by Newtonian gravity.
Does "05.3" mean 5.3? Or is it a typo and means 0.53?
The discrepancy between perihelion shift of Mercury and GR prediction is of 0.1%. Table in page 5 doesn't represent this.
"Thus we do not call the effect the curving of light but the curving of Space-Time." Light bends both in the geometrical picture of GR and in the non-geometrical picture. See attachments.
"By increasing the density of gravitons we can create a black hole." No really, the gravitons generate a pressure that prohibits the collapse into a singularity.
view post as summary
attachments:
1_curvedspacetime.gif,
1_flatspacetime.gif
post approved
Jack Hamilton James wrote on Feb. 26, 2018 @ 05:33 GMT
Thanks for your kind comments Don.
I checked out your website and it is fantastic! A great source of many ideas contrasted to each other in the ways worth caring about.
Best,
Jack
report post as inappropriate
Maxim Yurievich Khlopov wrote on Feb. 26, 2018 @ 10:13 GMT
Dear Don,
Your interesting essay offers new ideas on the nature of gravity and dark matter and deserves high estimation
With the best regards
M.Yu.Khlopov
report post as inappropriate
Giovanni Prisinzano wrote on Feb. 26, 2018 @ 17:31 GMT
Hi Don,
your essay is dense and well written. It's also nice on a graphic level, which does not hurt :)
It deals with very complex problems and hypothesizes the existence of gravitons, which, as we know, is considered by many to be essential, if one wants to include gravity within the Standard Model, but it is very difficult to prove. Your theory goes further and considers gravitons not only as carriers of a fundamental force, but as "bilding blocks" of space-time.
I don't have sufficient skills to evaluate your theory in depth, but it seems to me that it is meditated and coherent. I hope you have the opportunity to support it and make it known as much as possible.
Last, but not least, I can only share your "parting thought":
"Physics is amazing, but I believe that completeness is not one of its
properties. And it keeps on getting better."
All the best,
Giovanni
report post as inappropriate
Giovanni Prisinzano replied on Feb. 26, 2018 @ 17:52 GMT
Don,
I have to correct my previous post. Your theory does not just go beyond the Standard Model, but out of it, because you don't consider the graviton as a boson!
I apologize for the inaccuracy,
Giovanni
report post as inappropriate
Jeffrey Michael Schmitz wrote on Feb. 26, 2018 @ 21:14 GMT
Don,
I am doing some "speed" reviewing. This is well-written and presented nicely. Many years ago I had a course were for homework we did a matrix for gravitons, it take me two days and never made sense to me, but I got a "B" for the course. I do feel this essay is a little off topic because it presents a case for a fundamental, but is not about what a fundamental is.
All the best,
Jeff Schmitz
report post as inappropriate
Author Don Limuti replied on Feb. 26, 2018 @ 22:27 GMT
Hi Jeff,
I considered whether my essay was on topic. I believe it fit the topic.
1. If you were a language purist then this contest would be answered by a dictionary(s). I do not believe this is what was intended.
2. Your criticism states: "I do feel this essay is a little off topic because it presents a case for a fundamental, but is not about what a fundamental is."
I just took a look at your essay:
It is interesting that you start off with a definition: One way of defining “fundamental” is as something that is not dependent on anything else. Then you go off evaluating examples of what is or is not fundamental. I will use your logic on your own essay: One sentence explains what fundamental means. All the rest of the essay is off topic.
So, by your own logic you would flunk your own essay. I am glad you cannot grade your own essay, I think it has some merit in that I agree with the conclusion "Perhaps that true fundamental, that end of questions, is only of value as an inspiration."
All the best,
Don Limuti
Juan Ramón González Álvarez wrote on Feb. 27, 2018 @ 01:19 GMT
"Historically we have thought of Space-Time as a void (nothing) within which the stars exist and which we live our lives." No exactly. In relational theories there is not such void.
"This changed about 100 years ago when Einstein argued successfully that Space-Time had the property of being curved. All of a sudden
Space-Time became a thing that had properties." It is possible to...
view entire post
"Historically we have thought of Space-Time as a void (nothing) within which the stars exist and which we live our lives." No exactly. In relational theories there is not such void.
"This changed about 100 years ago when Einstein argued successfully that Space-Time had the property of being curved. All of a sudden
Space-Time became a thing that had properties." It is possible to formulate gravity without spacetime curvature, which implies spacetime doesn't really has such properties.
"The key postulate is that mass curves space-time". That is not a postulate of GR. Curvature is generated by T
ab, not by m alone.
The same argument that shows that photons are massless also shows that gravitons are massless. Equations proposed in this essay "for the mass of a single graviton" are incorrect.
There is no reason to assume that all photons have the same energy.
"We now have the total gravitational quantum energy connecting two objects as E = Nhc/d". Gravitational energy is negative, so this expression is invalid.
The energy of a system of rotating masses is not obtained by dividing by 2pi the energy of non-rotating systems. For moving masses the interaction energy also depends on the velocities, not only on positions.
Dark matter and dark energy couldn't be more different. The first is a fictitious distribution of mass introduced in equations that are lacking a proper treatment of inertia. The other is a correction term that accounts for a mass-graviton interaction term is missing in the right hand side of the metric equations.
Vulcan was introduced to account for dynamical terms missing in Newtonian gravity. Vulcan is no more needed. Of course it doesn't exist.
Table in page 5 doesn't show that the GR prediction deviates from the observed value by 0.1%.
"By increasing the density of gravitons we can create a black hole". No really, the graviton field generates a pressure that prohibits a collapse
a la GR. No singularity is formed; so no horizon is formed.
view post as summary
post approved
Robert D. Sadykov wrote on Feb. 27, 2018 @ 06:02 GMT
Dear Don Limuti,
Your essay seems very interesting to me. I wish success in the contest.
Best wishes,
Robert Sadykov
report post as inappropriate
John-Erik Persson wrote on Mar. 13, 2018 @ 18:03 GMT
Don Limuti
Thanks for interesting discussions. If you see this you may be interested in my latest blog post at:
blogBest regards from ______________ John-Erik Persson
report post as inappropriate
Login or
create account to post reply or comment.