@Rudeones1not More than interesting ... It's 'simple' which is all that is acceptable to me. I won't take "floating abstractions" as physical principles. ;o)
The quantum emission/absorbtion rule I'm considering using for gravitons is a directional rule that should rapidly converge to the abundantly-documented 1/r^2 gravity relation. FWIW, the rule is much the same as the simplest neural learning rule, but it's simply a bounce-back exchange rule with a corner-reflector character to it, and it should explain why different precise measurements of G are being produced with different experiments.
There another problem, besides the one I mentioned before, with using an inverse square law for gravity and that problem has to do with mass being somewhat independent of volume, nothing about algebra. This problem shows up if one assumes gravity flux doesn't bend. IMO using an appropriate set of rules for graviton emission/absorbtion direction will remedy the problem without bending gravity flux, rules producing gravity's highly-documented inverse-square relation as a steady-state solution.
Here's a wild idea to remove the wild paradox: normalize that distance "r" to one too. Since 1^4 =1^2=1^1=1^0=1, the problem disappears, voila, Q.E.D., solved. Thanks for an entertaining discussion.
Another little point. Physics tries to explain galactic-scale rings as dynamically-expanding vortex phenomena, basically collisionally-generated. My sense is the galactic rings I've seen clearly so far are too flat, and their structure too evolved, to be considered as being so far from radial equilibrium. On the other hand, vortices in liquid media do not expand as in the vacuum model, so, to get from the vacuum to the stable galactic ring, antimatter and vacuum energy have to be considered.
Trying to make my presentation here brief. It's not difficult to think that ideal proton diameter is still being overestimated by a factor of nearly two, particularly if a very cold background is to be considered ideal. Suppose the ring of Hoag's galaxy rests near the 2nd maxima of the cosine factor, its diameter is roughly around 120,000 ly, so the best 10^21m scale wave seems roughly around 60,000 ly. The Sombrero galaxy diameter is around 60,000 ly, hypothetically fitting an antimatter core.
BTW, I get 10^21 meters as the wavelength scale by multiplying proton diameter scale (10^-15 m) by the ratio of EM/Gravity forces between protons (10^36). The most recent precise calculation I have puts it at around 108,000 light-years, but picking a proton diameter is background-sensitive process, one has to estimate the unexcited state using many assumptions and none of them are foolproof guaranteed best.
I'd like to note that the inverse-square law is one of the most beautiful things in physics. I vividly remember the teacher and the classroom where I was taught it.
All of the mathematic greats of the last two centuries have had a chance to find a problem with it. One needs a sense of where the pickings are hidden.
For instance, the quantum wave correction to gravity's inverse-square law is negligible until r reaches many light years, the evidence is in photos only recently available.
No idea what you're doing at 2:10 but If you want to fix Newton's static-case law of gravity, replace G with Gcos[(2*pi*r)/(10^21 meters)], assume matter emits gravitons having 0 phase (cosine[0]=+1), antimatter emits gravitons with phase pi (cosine[pi]=-1), positive graviton phase is matter-attractive and antimatter-repulsive, and graviton negative phase is matter-repulsive and antimatter-attractive. Works for me to explain galaxies, anyway. It also helps me to understand people and scientists.
Unfortunately, I can't "assume" that matter emits gravitons because that would create an inverse square "field" which is algebraically impossible as I gave in the video. In my view, gravitons are only possible if physics as an abstraction logically subsumes algebra.
"an inverse square 'field' which is algebraically impossible"
How strange and confusing is that. Is that supposed to apply to electric fields also? It self-evidently applies to flux intensity, using simple geometry, so really I'm utterly lost here.
As I said, I couldn't follow what you're trying to do at 2:10, I don't see where you derive the two terms on the right that you're multiplying together to make your point. Anyway, good luck with that approach.
The "force" is ... M1M2/r^2 ... that's the result of multiplying two fields together from two different massive bodies (M1 and M2). So ... what is the field equation for just M1? It can't be M1/r^2 ... or else ... M1/r^2 times M2/r^2 ... would equal M1M2/r^4 ... out of algebraic necessity. The gravitational "field" for one body must fall off as M/r. If so, M1/r times M2/r equals the familiar M1M2/r^2.
So ... graviton theory is algebraically impossible. Hence, no gravitons
and ... it applies to the electromagnetic field as well. It falls off as 1/r too. Not 1/r^2.
This rules out photons as the carrier of the electromagnetic field. Photons are the neutral emissions of energy from an electromagnetic field. They don't interact with electromagnetic fields at all ... hence ... we can use this fact to calculate the gravitational effect of the sun on starlight to verify general relativity.
The exchange particle "paradigm" of force is mostly wrong.
Looks like you've made an error, m1/r^2 would be the force if m2 and G are normalized to 1, m2/r^2 would be the force if m1 and G are normalized to 1. Nothing wrong with norming out G or the other mass, but to un-normalize either term all you needed to do was simply multiply by G and the other mass. More importantly, the inverse-square law for static (non-dynamic) gravity is testable and verified. BTW, my modification to G is only testable by simulation.
"G" is just there to quantify the force relative to the electromagnetic force and turn [mass^squared over distance ^squared] into the dimensions of a force [(mass x distance) / time^squared].
The force observed varies directly as the product of the two masses and inversely as the square of the distance between them. NOTHING else is known about gravity ... NOTHING . I'm trying to add a piece to the KNOWN. Hence, the difficulty.
I am the most solid logical ground possible ... mathematics.
@macdaddylorenzo It produces different reactions with different types of people. People are extremely complex at times and how I process their reactions is very person-dependent, so, for too many reasons to list, discussing that further here does not appear to me to be productive. Sorry about that.
As for scientists, reactions are much simpler to process. It has a lot to do with related concepts like dark energy and dark matter, which have substantial open questions associated with them.
@macdaddylorenzo Thanks for asking, by the way. Your question got me to review all my comments here, and I see where I neglected to correct my assertion about the size and nature of the so-called "sombrero galaxy." Apparently it's twice as large as I noted below, so it's about as large as Hoag's galaxy and not at all unique.
Also by the way, if anyone knows of a ring galaxy that has a significantly different size, I'd really like to know about it
@macdaddylorenzo The question leads me immediately to consider that the statement may seem silly, and/or even incorporative of a de-humanizing of scientists, which was not my intent. Anyway, it has a lot to do with my ideas about gravity being, as far as I know and in the public domain, entirely mine. I'm never of one mind about anything scientific, but these ideas get me totally engaged into physics, so the fact that they're mine and they're highly unconventional (or eccentric) has to be key.
Looks like the gravity of sun pulls down the plain of sun and the Earth if that is the case, then sun and the ecliptic plain must create a cone shape like a funnel that at the top is the sun and at the base the plane that Earth gos around the sun in that plain.
Then there will be no ecliptic plain.
The fabric of space and time, will be bented and then the Sun and the earth make a cone shape not a plain.
Bloody hell, I shall return & see what the discussion yields later. An interesting concept all the same. I will follow this with great interest .
Rudeones1not 2 months ago
@Rudeones1not More than interesting ... It's 'simple' which is all that is acceptable to me. I won't take "floating abstractions" as physical principles. ;o)
Bantokfomoki 2 months ago
believes in gravitons...
Zareste 9 months ago
The quantum emission/absorbtion rule I'm considering using for gravitons is a directional rule that should rapidly converge to the abundantly-documented 1/r^2 gravity relation. FWIW, the rule is much the same as the simplest neural learning rule, but it's simply a bounce-back exchange rule with a corner-reflector character to it, and it should explain why different precise measurements of G are being produced with different experiments.
CACBCCCU 1 year ago
@CACBCCCU Thanks a lot for your reply. Very interesting!
macdaddylorenzo 10 months ago
There another problem, besides the one I mentioned before, with using an inverse square law for gravity and that problem has to do with mass being somewhat independent of volume, nothing about algebra. This problem shows up if one assumes gravity flux doesn't bend. IMO using an appropriate set of rules for graviton emission/absorbtion direction will remedy the problem without bending gravity flux, rules producing gravity's highly-documented inverse-square relation as a steady-state solution.
CACBCCCU 1 year ago
Here's a wild idea to remove the wild paradox: normalize that distance "r" to one too. Since 1^4 =1^2=1^1=1^0=1, the problem disappears, voila, Q.E.D., solved. Thanks for an entertaining discussion.
CACBCCCU 1 year ago
Another little point. Physics tries to explain galactic-scale rings as dynamically-expanding vortex phenomena, basically collisionally-generated. My sense is the galactic rings I've seen clearly so far are too flat, and their structure too evolved, to be considered as being so far from radial equilibrium. On the other hand, vortices in liquid media do not expand as in the vacuum model, so, to get from the vacuum to the stable galactic ring, antimatter and vacuum energy have to be considered.
CACBCCCU 1 year ago
Trying to make my presentation here brief. It's not difficult to think that ideal proton diameter is still being overestimated by a factor of nearly two, particularly if a very cold background is to be considered ideal. Suppose the ring of Hoag's galaxy rests near the 2nd maxima of the cosine factor, its diameter is roughly around 120,000 ly, so the best 10^21m scale wave seems roughly around 60,000 ly. The Sombrero galaxy diameter is around 60,000 ly, hypothetically fitting an antimatter core.
CACBCCCU 1 year ago
BTW, I get 10^21 meters as the wavelength scale by multiplying proton diameter scale (10^-15 m) by the ratio of EM/Gravity forces between protons (10^36). The most recent precise calculation I have puts it at around 108,000 light-years, but picking a proton diameter is background-sensitive process, one has to estimate the unexcited state using many assumptions and none of them are foolproof guaranteed best.
CACBCCCU 1 year ago
I'd like to note that the inverse-square law is one of the most beautiful things in physics. I vividly remember the teacher and the classroom where I was taught it.
All of the mathematic greats of the last two centuries have had a chance to find a problem with it. One needs a sense of where the pickings are hidden.
For instance, the quantum wave correction to gravity's inverse-square law is negligible until r reaches many light years, the evidence is in photos only recently available.
CACBCCCU 1 year ago
No idea what you're doing at 2:10 but If you want to fix Newton's static-case law of gravity, replace G with Gcos[(2*pi*r)/(10^21 meters)], assume matter emits gravitons having 0 phase (cosine[0]=+1), antimatter emits gravitons with phase pi (cosine[pi]=-1), positive graviton phase is matter-attractive and antimatter-repulsive, and graviton negative phase is matter-repulsive and antimatter-attractive. Works for me to explain galaxies, anyway. It also helps me to understand people and scientists.
CACBCCCU 1 year ago
Unfortunately, I can't "assume" that matter emits gravitons because that would create an inverse square "field" which is algebraically impossible as I gave in the video. In my view, gravitons are only possible if physics as an abstraction logically subsumes algebra.
Bantokfomoki 1 year ago
@Bantokfomoki
"an inverse square 'field' which is algebraically impossible"
How strange and confusing is that. Is that supposed to apply to electric fields also? It self-evidently applies to flux intensity, using simple geometry, so really I'm utterly lost here.
As I said, I couldn't follow what you're trying to do at 2:10, I don't see where you derive the two terms on the right that you're multiplying together to make your point. Anyway, good luck with that approach.
CACBCCCU 1 year ago
The "force" is ... M1M2/r^2 ... that's the result of multiplying two fields together from two different massive bodies (M1 and M2). So ... what is the field equation for just M1? It can't be M1/r^2 ... or else ... M1/r^2 times M2/r^2 ... would equal M1M2/r^4 ... out of algebraic necessity. The gravitational "field" for one body must fall off as M/r. If so, M1/r times M2/r equals the familiar M1M2/r^2.
So ... graviton theory is algebraically impossible. Hence, no gravitons
Bantokfomoki 1 year ago
and ... it applies to the electromagnetic field as well. It falls off as 1/r too. Not 1/r^2.
This rules out photons as the carrier of the electromagnetic field. Photons are the neutral emissions of energy from an electromagnetic field. They don't interact with electromagnetic fields at all ... hence ... we can use this fact to calculate the gravitational effect of the sun on starlight to verify general relativity.
The exchange particle "paradigm" of force is mostly wrong.
Bantokfomoki 1 year ago
@Bantokfomoki
Looks like you've made an error, m1/r^2 would be the force if m2 and G are normalized to 1, m2/r^2 would be the force if m1 and G are normalized to 1. Nothing wrong with norming out G or the other mass, but to un-normalize either term all you needed to do was simply multiply by G and the other mass. More importantly, the inverse-square law for static (non-dynamic) gravity is testable and verified. BTW, my modification to G is only testable by simulation.
CACBCCCU 1 year ago
"G" is just there to quantify the force relative to the electromagnetic force and turn [mass^squared over distance ^squared] into the dimensions of a force [(mass x distance) / time^squared].
The force observed varies directly as the product of the two masses and inversely as the square of the distance between them. NOTHING else is known about gravity ... NOTHING . I'm trying to add a piece to the KNOWN. Hence, the difficulty.
I am the most solid logical ground possible ... mathematics.
Bantokfomoki 1 year ago
@CACBCCCU
Hi CACBCCU. How does that help you understand people and scientists?
Thanks so much!
macdaddylorenzo 10 months ago
@macdaddylorenzo It produces different reactions with different types of people. People are extremely complex at times and how I process their reactions is very person-dependent, so, for too many reasons to list, discussing that further here does not appear to me to be productive. Sorry about that.
As for scientists, reactions are much simpler to process. It has a lot to do with related concepts like dark energy and dark matter, which have substantial open questions associated with them.
CACBCCCU 10 months ago
@macdaddylorenzo Thanks for asking, by the way. Your question got me to review all my comments here, and I see where I neglected to correct my assertion about the size and nature of the so-called "sombrero galaxy." Apparently it's twice as large as I noted below, so it's about as large as Hoag's galaxy and not at all unique.
Also by the way, if anyone knows of a ring galaxy that has a significantly different size, I'd really like to know about it
CACBCCCU 10 months ago
@macdaddylorenzo The question leads me immediately to consider that the statement may seem silly, and/or even incorporative of a de-humanizing of scientists, which was not my intent. Anyway, it has a lot to do with my ideas about gravity being, as far as I know and in the public domain, entirely mine. I'm never of one mind about anything scientific, but these ideas get me totally engaged into physics, so the fact that they're mine and they're highly unconventional (or eccentric) has to be key.
CACBCCCU 10 months ago
Looks like the gravity of sun pulls down the plain of sun and the Earth if that is the case, then sun and the ecliptic plain must create a cone shape like a funnel that at the top is the sun and at the base the plane that Earth gos around the sun in that plain.
Then there will be no ecliptic plain.
The fabric of space and time, will be bented and then the Sun and the earth make a cone shape not a plain.
mansourkhosroabadi 1 year ago