The latest dark matter distribution map, so high in fibre, one might as well call it a map of Einstein's cataracts.
I suppose the graviton-nucleon retroreflectivity effect which generally serves to confine gravitons within a galaxy has formed weak gravitational couplings between galaxies. Huge streams of intergalactic gravitons will bend light as if they're hiding a long column of matter, I've described it before as being analogous to ruts forming in the hills between gravity wells.
@webcam224 If you listened to him you'd know that he knows gravity exists. The title refers to the lack of any particle interactions occurring between two bodies with gravity. For example, strong nuclear forces are interactions of quarks using the transfer of gluons, but there's no exchange of particles that we've observed so far with gravity. The only particle that could potentially explain gravity would be the graviton. And that's only a theoretical particle right now.
its easy. A big and heavier body creats a force to a smaler and more lightly body pulling him to the heavier body... . So the earth is the heavy body and YOU are the more lightly body. The earth pulls you to the ground. So you don't lift off and the earth stays on its way around the sun!! thats all...
Einstein's piloting the search for the "keys to unlocking the mysteries of the universe" now that he can't tell everyone what god wants, apparently because people of course naturally expect that from any evolving paleo-ethnic con artist, apparently meaning one has to please every gob-fearing thug while having the nerve to attempt to explain just what a modern piece of self-serving crap the guidance system is. No wonder Einstein pretended to distance himself from political shitstains.
The go-to move by the gang of happy-stupid assholes here who hate gravity but love curved-space bullshit and supremacist tactics is to suggest I'm crazy for taking on such a well-moneyed bunch of shitstains. Words here are cheap, they'll make sure that changes soon.
Like the force that attracts magnets together, magnetism, gravity is simply the flow of electrons around an object that when another object's electrons enter that field they become hooked and pulled together. However, unlike magnetism, the electrons in gravity are not flowing in the samedirec
This would explain why objects with more mass have greater gravitational pull, simply due to the fact that they have more electrons flowing in a wider space.
@peterjoseph001 So... When a conductor has a current flowing through it, does it have a proportional increase in weight (not mass, weight--the effect of gravity) ? I suspect the answer is no, which would dismantle your explanation; but I'm not a 100% certain.
@Figaera69 My theory is that gravity is simply the flow of electrons around a larger mass, however unlike a magnets field, the gravitational field of electrons are not moving in any constant direction, ... or perhaps they are and this is why object orbit one another.
I'm boycotting the self-serving gravity establishment. They're untouchable. I refuse to pretend they're genuinely stupid, it's a ruse, it's a racket, stupidity-for-profit, a pisspride club, 100% mental thuggery of the highest degree, obscurist history, vastly-overstated accuracy with a globalist undertone, ultimately they must be turned into a worn-out joke. That's the point.
@dMoniker You know that tin foil hats protects the brain from logic and reason? CACBCCCU is obviously wearing one, you can stop wasting your time now. xD
I'll be standing my ground here, all you shoving and absolutely-inauthentic complaining types out there. I'd suggest you try wasting your time somewhere else reading highly-avoidable things that you don't want to read for reasons you'll never raise, perhaps beneath another video on something else you have nothing to contribute to and no apparent interest in.
Einstein had gelijk. De tijdruimte kromt rondom materie.Er is alleen maar energie en materie vormt zich daar uit tijdens de oerknal. Energie die zich sneller verplaatst dan mogelijk is rolt zich op.
Maybe my comment are impeding advances in youtube marionette theory. Seriously, the repetetive "go write a book" stuff is a pretext obviously designed to annoy, only a thug orders people around like that, it's a threat a puppet would send. As the gang in question regularly engages by professional annoyance and has ample puppet resources, I'll simply let everyone know that the moment youtube goes to a paid subscription I'm gone. Surely the gang's puppet resources can busy itself with that.
CACBCCU - While you may be talking some sense, you wont achieve anything by talking to yourself on youtube. Nobody is listening to you. Please write a paper or a book and stay away from youtube.
Looks possible to me that an atom could be ever-so-slightly deformed by an external gravitational gradient, resulting in redirecting interacting photons and the result could move the atom toward an increasing gravitational gradient. In a spherical gravity-flux-mirror model of matter-gravity interaction there is typically highly-bidirectional symmetry in flux between any pair of atoms. EM presumably would couple/balance with the comoving portion of flux and cross-align with cross-moving flux. .
I mentioned to someone on youtube that positronium appeared to have some potential in gravitational mass experiments, and that apparently happened several months before it was very recently announced that UC Riverside would attempt to make it work. I've also made an observation on youtube that parity violation might be linked to black hole spins and practically the same notion by a physicist in the UK was in the news months later. My informal youtube-documented physics credentials are adequate.
Seems that at the sun's core nucleons could be significantly coordinated in terms of their spin axis. An overall solar gravitational flux lacking perfect symmetry is possible. I've tended to put the highest flux at the equator, seems a point of even-higher flux-density right at each of the sun's poles is also very possible. It's largely a question of what mass estimate to use for the sun etc, there has to be much play in that parameter-set in any model. Frame drag is intuitive with flux models.
On using a tight-borromean ring model for a quark triplet, it has 8 largely-trihedral dimples for a gravitational multiple-corner-reflection/quark-mixing-locus effect, and there's possibly the suggestion of consistent 3-axis gyro-effect at normal low-kinetic energies of the quark triplet as a body. At the temperature of the sun, a triplet is apparently capable of behaving more like a random reflecting object for quanta, so tracking with detectable GR mass effects, including LT frame drag.
Maybe one way to go with entropy-related quantum gravity concepts is to let gravity quanta progressively deform the surface of a quark triplet, which is responding to quanta practically as a spinning diffusive mirror with some corner-reflective properties to it, with respect to exchanging quanta with another mass. Maybe consistent deformation of the triplet can ratchet up to a state-relaxation trigger, resetting the deformation and letting loose a gravity-effect-oriented photon.
People apparently keep suggesting here that I write write a paper or book on one or more of quantum gravity, the quantum gravity and physics industries, the publishing and educational institutions handling quantum gravity theory publications, and closely-related important social topics. Try to embarrass at least thousands of people, using a face-first approach, in other words. I'm considering it seriously, but a cautious low key approach seems best now. The entanglement stuff also must wait.
On request/demand, my last aptitude test was ~16 years ago, the LSAT, and a perfect score (180) apparently doesn't even merit a 150 IQ comparison. It was a bad day, I got a 176, seemed great to me. Apparently the test is too verbally-oriented to give a 150+. I've a BSEE degree and so I've avoided discussing EM here beyond photons - no currents, electrons or magnets were relied upon in my remarks, partly because that doesn't draw my interest and the topic here relates to gravity.
The comments were, with rare exception,enjoyable until the gamers arrived en masse and commenced with the haxoring and the word-substitution ciphering experts with the gas-powered turbo-self-crap-feed word engine approach running on passive-aggressive/inexplicably-self-entitled mode.
Apparently there a huge image problem at my side, as far as gamers who may like gravity, but don't want to talk about it, go. I'm suggesting new ideas that only apply to galaxies and beyond over long scales of time. There's no way to exploit that in a video game, so I'm out of luck. Seems I'll continue to be an easy target for any gangs of gamers.
In case it's not clear already, it seems an optical fiber is a sort of ideal EM/graviton exchange channel and this gets exploited in time-symmetric-exchange entanglement schemes.
I gave a perfectly good suggestion for an IQ test on quantum gravity and general relativity. One can describe gravity as an attractive force, or a repulsive force, in either direction of time, depending on whether one wants to focus on what happens at one mass (or the other of two masses) or both. In response to all the questions on roll-out, my expectations are to peacefully and fully leverage the stupidity of GR with all the pace and wit that it demands.
@CACBCCCU It strikes me as extremely odd that someone intelligent enough to grasp these ideas would want to spend their time trolling random strangers on youtube.
There are plenty of places where you will find the intellectual stimulation that you seek, but youtube is not one of them. I learned that several years, and countless wasted hours, too late. Now stop spamming the message board and write a book about it if you're that confident.
@CACBCCCU That comment makes no sense whatsoever. Apart from the fact that you quote me, your comment seems to be addressing somebody else entirely.
Opinions and advice cannot be inherently true of false, and considering the tone of my comment, I don't see how you managed to conclude that I'm a lying asshole who OBVIOUSLY take advice from other lying assholes, whatever that means.
I don't normally feed trolls. I thought I'd indulge you, however, because you seemed reasonably intelligent.
@gamegloss "I don't see how you managed to conclude that I'm a lying asshole"
Replace "you" with "I" and there's a premise we can agree upon. But that's just one of many errors. Do you know the meaning of "you're tediously pestering me with ever-increasing distortion"? Because that's me, telling you to knock off the garbage you're sending my way. To be direct as possible. Leave me alone now. If you have any friends here you may pass on this advice. TIA.
Minor note: I have gravitons as antisymmetric fluxes individually, fluxes gain symmetry by matching off in opposites. Actually the whole thing ends up attracting in time-reverse. Had your chance...
Tossing general relativity into the garbage is obviously bothering a significant number of insects afflicted with acute royal entitlement syndrome, but I was looking for on-point constructive critiques, not the pathetically-pinheaded sniveling I'm seeing.
Verlinde has studied the subject well, I believe, and he shows clearly that gravity can be seen as some kind of entropic effect. I've described how gravity gradually behaves contra-entropically, especially if entropy flows are not considered free-energy motherlode divinations. The passing graviton flow thru any sufficently small region is equal in opposing directions in any direction. Opposing gravitons don't cancel each other's contributions to an entropy-type effect, they add to them.
@CACBCCCU Instead of telling us all this bunk, why not take it to your local U? Sounds liek you have at least thought out some aspects of your ideas at least. But you are swamping this board. Go change the world if you can. YT posts dont mean anything if not backed up by solid investigated science.
@CACBCCCU So in other words you have no intention of taking it to a university to see if its true, you were just looking for a response so you could make your sly, witty, angry little replies lol :D K, stay on YT man. Post away to your hearts content. Doesnt mean anything on here except to be an annoyance. Feel free to be one. No shortage of trolls on this site :P
That's just one example of your incredible knack for backwards self-serving. I expected something called for when the responder has been wrong or concealing something, because that's exactly what's required, that's what makes something a typical troll (you) and another thing a precise and annoying observation made in the middle of an annoyance fan club. Sought admissions honest about relativity and all I got was dishonesty about relatives
@CACBCCCU Lmao and you have no real theory thats been tested I guess. I did stop writing but I see you just cant resist replying back lmao! Lets just quit here ;) Your less then witty use of insults is itself insulting lol. Promise I shall leave you be to post away.
Maybe the biggest obstacle to seeing a flow-based gravity as workable is that any flow is antisymmetric under time reversal: F(t)= -F(-t), considering that "down" still remains "down." By studying the model given below, an EM-proxy-force gravity, it's possible to see how time-reversed gravity repels even as "down" pulls "down," since r-moving gravitons largely balance with l-movers, but with a 1/r^2 density gradient, and the gravitons do little except slowly prompting cross-entropic photons.
Wiki claims Gauss's gravity is equivalent to Newton's, which, since a flux is "flow of stuff," implies that Newton's gravity was decidedly non-instantaneous. I think wiki's correct there, and that Newton would naturally suppose gravity flows at lightspeed, so Newton probably had the same concept of gravity's effect on matter as GR has. All Newton may have lacked was a clear understanding of gravity's effect on light. For clear reasons, Einstein had no interest in quantizing it.
GR Quantum gravity researchers can quantize general relativity by quantizing space time, if they're really into applying the notion everywhere there exists gravity, they go through a process of shoveling spacetime dirt under the curved-space trampoline until it's packed tight. If they're not into applying the notion everywhere, they do a process of never describing "BH microstates," which apparently reside on the event horizon and magically call the shots everywhere in normal curved space-time.
The way that flux-based gravity (which is a notion that all gravity is caused by gravitons) surpasses GR is by the wavefunctions of the gravitons. As noted before there's no appropriate window size in GR for gravity wavelength extraction from a linearly moving mass, making quantization impossible. QG can provide a window related to the Dirac sense-horizon of nucleons. It's also been noted that all massless bosons should have mutually cancelling phases, and QG may allow negative-mass antimatter.
Quick recap: there's a fairly simple flux gravity model for interaction with matter, where dense gravity flux (fundamental graviton particles) exchanged between two masses has the effect of directing, from the masses, sparse opposed EM flux emissions (photons) in directions pushing the masses together, and there's a flux gravity model for interaction with light, where photons migrate along positive gradients in incoming gravity flux. It can replicate GR and surpass it at extremely long scales.
Blue shift increases photon energy proportional to an increase in incoming gravity flux energy, and it's the same, but with decreases instead, for red shift. Matter-incoming gravity flux at the surface of a photon emitter is essentially balanced, though retro-reflection, with matter-outgoing gravity flux.
I got the why! At least the start of it all in my book, "The Answer to 42". Lulu.com check it out! The start of the universe tells us alot about why things are the way the are. I mean the real start, from nothing, zero, when there was no material in the universe at all.
Relativity is great and all, but my biggest question is why things move???? We have great descriptions and explinations as to HOW things move, but (as far as i can tell) no one has explained WHY things move.
It's said the physics Nobel was originally supposed to be given for coming up with something that can actually be used to improve the world. Let's ponder the world-improving aspects of "dark energy" for a moment. Well, you can write about it, teach it, make money writing about it or teaching it, it can attract Nobel money and resonate with the wallets of public institutions everywhere, there's expert books, insane pseudo-counter-notions to dream up and artificially link to disliked notions etc.
Eddington was a real lynchpin in the GR/big-bang setup. The whales on top knew much more had to be done elsewhere so it wouldn't be so obvious that Eddington was not an open broker of facts but an agent of globalism. More later...
Now a big part of the game seems to be emphasizing broad dark energy with a Nobel, prompting reminisces of Einstein's goofy (now "relevant") cosmo-loco constant to flatten the U, while downplaying narrow-stream counter-effects ("dark flow") with supposed disproofs.
As some may have already figured out, if those bright, hot, core-things we call "black holes + hot inflow" can always get bigger and will never fall apart, then there absolutely must have been an event called "the creation of the universe." All the drama with Eddington's tongue-thrashings over the guy who came up with black holes has the classic hallmarks of another elite puppetry gimmick, just more crap-creation designed to resemble removal, so documented/authentic, a true crap-teaching moment.
It seems that the key motivation for having black holes, instead of extremely dense objects, is that it's not possible to imagine a black hole breaking up. I guess the elite would naturally jump to framing that as being an extremely dangerous notion to propagate among the great un-initiated. Although some scientists may now be attempting to explain exactly how a black hole interior operates so smoothly, the motivation is apparently to win cash and prizes while building the dizzification level.
As far as I can tell, the purpose of BH entropy seems to be that it's another excuse to create more theories that do nothing except make most people dizzy, stir existing nationalistic artificially-inflated supremacism and create more work for supremacist theorists who don't care enough to get dizzied. If no photons are emitted from a black hole then the only heat diffusion it can create is in surrounding matter, notably the accretion disk, by the gravitons exchanged with the event horizon.
Refining a comment I just deleted, photons may gain energy at the expense of incoming attraction-phased gravitons in a direct energy trade-off. This effect resembles photons bending gravity energy, but no passing gravitons are bent and any actual bending of energy paths occurs after the energy becomes part of the photon. This seems the simplest, broadest take on direct photon/graviton interaction, anyway.
My notions about gravitons are not incompatible with the notion of linking the dark energy effect to growing antimatter-dominated regions, though antimatter may not be required (longer graviton wavelengths could do) for the effect. The reasoning involves seeing that the distance where peak reverse phase occurs is an ideal place for negative mass to reside. Antimatter apparently would emit reversed-phase gravitons and treat incoming reverse-phase gravitons as attractive.
I'll note here again that entropy gain for n-body sims is EM crypticized into bodies inelastic, it's diffusion of heat or of gas. Gravity, on the other hand, is clearly anti-diffusive and can remain operative against a heat gradient. All of this mix seems to be about very cleverly converting all the free energy in order to keep the entropy game going. Anyway, photons seem to conform to incoming gravitons as they move the opposite way, similar to what goes on with masses in the QGED diagram.
Really need to discuss how gravitons could make photon paths bend. I suppose a photon's energy is drawn along any positive gradient in the density of incoming gravitons. An increase in incoming gravity flux to a photon means an increase in photon energy. In some ways photons are like reversed gravitons (in line with the QGED energy-balance trellis and the cryptically counter-entropic character of gravity noted earlier).
The Higgs is supposedly giving mass part-time while being too heavy to do that where it lives when it's cold unless it's exploiting its part-time character to massively run around and in ghostlike fashion mass-up the machines of many many atoms, while the Higgs field shoulders its responsibility to be uniformly everywhere in giving all matter the flavor of tossed electroweak bosons. High energies thus become relevant to everyday reality in this rigged-up way, since flux-gravity is "crazy."
Seems BH micro-states effectively consist of the energies and virtual force-vector rotation-planes of the gravitons it emits. These gravitons are, retroreflectively, largely mirrorlike with surrounding graviton input, but with a phase-reset back to -cos(0) = -1 on any reflection. Gravity isn't really doing anything inside the event horizon. As all emitted gravitons are return gravitons, BH mass scales with BH surface area, a property about which I briefly wrote on earlier.
A general relativity troll going under the name of Alan Sokal pulled a fascinating little quantum gravity relativity-family hangover pre-innoculation stunt a few years ago. It became grist for the backwards-forwards millers to grind out stories on how the connections of "science" (read: "massive insider pervert-friendly crap") to society were tenuous at best, and always for the better.
Maybe I should condense it further, just for Cass Sunstein's benefit: Curved space-time is a pointed epistomology-crippling weapon of mass social destruction. The media is there to prevent it from backfiring, even today another physics-blogging clown implies it will be aeons before experimental evidence of quantum gravity can be obtained, meanwhile quantum gravity is written all over the sky and hidden as dark matter. GR people are the clowns of relentless cryptic hatred.
Just to be clear, it's clear to me the elite have been exploiting that which is purposefully wrong about GR since day one of its grand (t)roll-out, primary affects being seen in the science profession, secondary effects being seen in the effectiveness of social approaches mimicking time-reversal (like entangled mind-readers with a winning script) on an artifically disoriented out-of-the-know society trained to think with distorted symmetries
Maybe I should've written "How does new energy (binding energy) arise when quarks are staying put and spinning countless attraction-photon shotputs." After noting kinetics are diffusion on cryptic EM in noncharged n-body sims, and gravity is anti-entropic over long scales of space and time, it seems fair to say that gravity and EM are driving time in opposite directions, the idea of entropy setting the arrow of time has the idea of gravity reversing time's arrow for gasses.
Electroweak bosons are so heavy that they'd only have to have an effect only a fraction of the time, if all nucleons had an electroweak boson inside them, to explain the mass of a proton. Even less time for effect if a Higgs particle needs to be in there part-time hardly ever having any effect too. At the moment the question of how mass arises seems like the question of "how does new energy arise when quarks are staying put and spinning a shotput." It seems to be all about the gravitons.
Since the retroreflection model I use is quark-based, the effective surface area of a matter particle scales with *gravitational* mass very closely. It's hard to believe I've written so much without mentioning that there is also the concept of "inertial mass" upon which n-body simulation kinetics are based, n-body kinetics capture temperatures (non-migratory particle speeds) and diffusion (entropy), but kinetics are basically crypticized EM-based interactions since each body can be uncharged.
So I'm basically saying the bunch of clowns who pulled strings to create an ostracization pretext over a good US-based discovery were ultimately the same bunch who made sure that the good discovery, with all its nature-based mental associations (quasicrystals are heavily imbued with five-pointed and six-pointed stars), was rewarded to the discoverer as an Israeli. The elite go to the well far too incessantly with that sort of BS backwards walking-in story-crafting approach. Curved space hides.
But anyway, being in the extended general relativity family has had its perks beyond warding off evil flux-gravity crazies who don't see the supreme beauty of the garbage in terms of its role as face-shoving ammo supply. General relativity has given the general relativity family heaping scads of in-house-inspirationional/out-of-house-desperational scientific motivation for almost a century.
Really need to add that the whole background story regarding the Shechtman Nobel typifies how the elite have no intention of changing their walking out backwards oppression tactics. The story is he was ostracized by powerful idiocy in the US and forced to leave for Isreal. The story is an obvious hoax, but I don't suppose Shechtman was in on the plan, which was to craft a long-heartrending story by pulling strings opposite ways. The comedyrama sets the illusion of Jews get no respect in the US.
Masses in a perfectly graviton-retroreflective matter particle system emit and receive gravitons in proportion to their mass, and to the extent retroreflection is not obtained (mass is moving too fast to pick up the return graviton) graviton absorbtion by any backup mass particle defaults to being proportional to the effective surface area of the mass. Since the retroreflection model I use is quark-based, the effective surface area of a matter particle scales with mass very closely.
I should've written "Gaussian (flux-type, with c-rate flux speed in flat space) gravity theory." instead of "Gaussian-type (nominally c-rate, for flat space, flux)". I note that Newton hitting his sister and negative mass dark matter theories were big in the news yesterday. They don't miss a thing in the gravity media, do they.
To visualize the impact of matter retroreflectivity in Gaussian-type (nominally c-rate, for flat space, flux) I don't worry about graviton balances in any mass in the system, first off. I see that any flux that doesn't hit something in the system (btw I should say the canonical graviton's cross-section seems to be practically as narrow as its wavelength is long, as tough as this is to imagine) will have no effect on the system, so the portion of flux presumed there can be played with in any way.
To make that last equation I gave clearer, it should be (/Y/sin-/X/cos))(kx)GmM/x^2 where /X/ and /Y/ are unit vectors on the X,Y axes, and the graviton propagates a distance x on the X axis. Retroreflectivity (non-uniform surface flux density) can be considered a variation in G which is normally considered a constant but I guess should have a characteristic value for highly planar mass systems by which the effect of a uniform 1/r^2 character is maintained, and our standard value of G fits that.
It is actually the negative of the integral of cos(kd)GmM/d^2 that is < 0, noted earlier, to be clear. With a planar rotation of the virtual force vector in a propagating fundamental quantum graviton the full equation is (jsin-cos)(kd)GmM/d^2 where j is a 1/4-cycle delay operator, d is distance and kd is 2pi/wavelength in radians. If coplanar gravitons have opposite spin the jsin (lateral) term drops out. The math is kind of boring/tedious to me but there's a simple wave equation in that.
so is he basically saying gravity does exist but its not caused by a ever present force???? how is there then no gravity ??? im confused some one please explain ? how does this change anything?
Seems for the most part like I've thoroughly debunked GR over all my comments here, and doing any more is just a tedious jumping of waving hoops. So, back to Arp 147: I'll call it a "little-bang" but I can't exacly say how the pistons blew, seems it would require a galactic interloper, but what sort, how major. Identifiable interloper or not, exactly how/why are such galactic systems destined to blow seems to be a big question. The old galaxy is re-forming its core, a new galaxy is generated.
It looks like I should confine my efforts to looking for slop/play/wiggle-room in the GR retro/pre-dictions for binary system cycle-rate loss, the ones that earned a Nobel. Like how do they know how far apart the binary pair is. Duh here, somewhat. It's not a very approachable discussion, seems slightly crafted for that. The cycle-rate loss model probably has several free parameters to fudge with in it, not that I doubt the classical effect is residing there in the real mix.
A planetary object would be nondamping and invisible to planar (long-travelled) classical g-waves with a wavelength much larger than the diameter of the planet, if gravity is not flux-based. If gravity is flux-based then a nonclassical-graviton retroreflective property emphasizes a major flux-based difference from GR. This effect creates damping/o.o.p-gravitational feedback (currently hiding as GR-radiation loss), explaining a lack of gravity-wave positives, and accretion planes around binaries.
Arp 147 has two approximately equal-size ring structures, it's easy to imagine the ring that's still with-core is a vortex ring, both seem vortex-influenced although the core-lacking ring seems largely a normal galaxy config that's lost a core to a major event which has broken the core up into large parts. My take is that a major core piece is evidently big enough to form a substantially deep ring minima trapping some plasma etc, thus deepening further over time, soon enough to be seen there.
As noted the integral of cos(kd)GmM/d^2 is also < 0, and what I'm noting with that equation is that quantum-intrinsic core-sourced static ripples do not remove the gravity wells of massively dense compact galactic core systems, the static ripples modify the well effect and in doing so they give multiple ring-minima enabling non-degenerate states, probably including endlessly random practically-irrepeatable state-multicycles, and all the steady-state modelling potential arising from that.
The accuracy of GR in the solar system is fine enough, that's part of the problem of removing it. I'm not clear on how much retrodict was involved in mimicking Mercury's moves. I find it hard to imagine there is not a lot of slop to fudge around in. Had Mercury been tracked for a while off the record and results distributed in same fashion? Looking at the center of a cluster for maximal red-shift is pure politics and cherry picking for longer GR. Integral of cos(kd)GmM/d^2 is also < 0, btw.
No matter the cause,there IS a force between masses.Call it what you want.
Yes,the fundamental principle of how gravity works is not yet known (the Higgs Boson is a possible candidate,probably either proven or disproven later this year).If the Higgs Boson does not exist,a fundamentally new theory has to be created for the microscopic level.
But GR is so far very accurate and even predicted phenomena like gravity lenses. It's at least a (VERY) good theory.
I mentioned that it seems classical gravitons on the spin plane of a binary system could have a spin-plan mass-clearing effect, so I'll add that the classical dynamic regime also has the concept of vortex rings, where a BH system effectively blows an expanding-at-sub-luminal-rate matter-trapping toroid of sorts, like a smoke ring. I've had the notion such a thing could possibly settle at the bottom of a static ripple in an all-flux-QG so-called "gravity well" to make a galactic ring.
So what is general relativity, really. In practice, as I see it, it's a bunch of people who have, for a very long time, been saying "shut up, you're stupid, here, you're so worthless that we created a special bit of plastic curvacious relious inspiration for you, be grateful, do not question authority, take this crud and eat it." I can't see ever really getting over that. It will be described as being "hateful" I suppose, by the guardians of the holy short attention-span.
One might ask how can it appear that science (media) is edging away from the immaculate big-bang and yet someone could be blacklisted just for putting up a steady-state "theory" (aka hypothesis, notion, idea, concept, model, ravings-set, whatever). The reasoning is that the concept in question (mine) finds GR conceptually abysmal and abhorrent, and my understanding of human nature & IQ boasts can't possibly preclude the possibility of standing, let alone intial, intent to remain precisely that.
Just wanted to re-emphasize I'm discussing realistic steady-state universe models when I'm talking about looking for alternative to the immaculate big-bang and all the cultural voodoo in the nasty politico-theocratic campus hijinx that probably motivated (and still assists) the standing creationist/bing-bang pap-fest industry. My writings make me worthy of blacklisting by the PTB, iow, even absent the hard digs I've mixed in with my models.
If compact massive objects have a 50k LY equilibrium spacing and they're capable of evaporating (Hawking radiation) there's no obvious reason why everything ends up in one object or why all objects have to evaporate at the same time. That's the simplest alternative to the big-bang that I can think of at the moment. I'd rather not rely entirely on evaporation for a model though, so I look for other mechanisms that could stabilize the size of massive compact objects, including black holes.
Seems to me that black holes are still not well understood, although I appreciated hearing Hawking's ideas an the possibility of BH shrinkage, I basically just say they're extremely massive and compact objects and leave it at that. I suppose there may be a number of mechanisms keeping such objects from growing or combining at an appreciable rate, one of them being the nondegenerate balanced nature of the graviton particle quantum wavefunction has an equilibrium BH-BH spacing of around 50k LY.
When I'm looking at things optimistically, I realize it will take years to flush the gravity-theorist job pipeline, not to mention the cosmologists that can retire, etc, etc. Trying to publish in official style seems like trying to push hundreds of scientists out of jobs, maybe more, and I'm not even touching on the political and religious aspects of my ideas here.
As to why I don't attempt a peer-review, the basic models could use a lot of work, I don't have a research infrastructure supporting me with any astronomical data I'd desire, and I like to size up situations before investing a lot into them. I do not think the physics power structure will be an honest broker, the media is fully-invested in the power structure, the extended general relativity family is known for extremism of all forms. Had thoughts of trying it when I retire but I don't know.
It seems the operative strategy with general relativity crowd is to leverage the absolutely ghastly abysmal nature of it, it's a simple power-circle strategy when firmly in control to take a conceptual abortion and shove it in the face of the "enemy" to demoralize. Rather than think about the careers they've destroyed, I'd prefer to concentrate on the fact that they currently have no intention of apologizing and it seems most unlikely that the power-circle will drop the demoralization approach.
In a ring galaxy it seems most gravitons are in-galactic-plane and most graviton force vector rotations may be co-planar, with a balance between clockwise and ccw. Btw, in my nonclassical concept of gravitons the effect of mass resembles a gravity well with fixed-size nonmoving ripples embedded in it, so I refer to this as a "static" wave. A classical gravity wave ripple (classical graviton) climbs up the well, growing in radius at lightspeed, so I call that kind of gravity wave "dynamic."
For those interested in countering immaculate creationists of any variety, I might start with all gravity is actually flux-based and the flux is a balanced quantum wavefunction and thus lacks a determinate terminal-state and is non-degenerate before moving on to explaining how positive gravitational phases work against entropy over long time-scales. Classical gravitational waves operate on the planet to sift solids into layers while static gravity is sifting liquids and gasses, counter-entropy .
Most galaxies are nowhere near a state of equilibrium in terms of their canonical quantum-wave-intrinsic (non-classical, non-dynamic) gravity waves, the waves show up obliquely in the spacing of swirls in spiral galaxies, which lack equilibrium rings. A major point not to overlook is that this non-dynamic gravity wave ends up balanced in planar rotational effect over the entire wavecycle, so quantum gravitational equilibria are nondegenerate in contrast to GR equilibrium, obviating the big-bang.
I'm a little surprised to see the milky way is now depicted as being about the same size as andromeda in the latest incarnation of the powers of 10 concept-videos. The latest one also has lots of other galaxies of various sizes, including the sombrero, which is still half the size of andromeda and hasn't somehow semi-officially doubled in size, as the MW seems to have done. I guess I can start saying the MW could be a double-cycle-delineated system of quantum gravity waves, just like andromeda.
Graviton retroreflectivity in matter could also have quite a bit to do with the lack of "classical graviton wave" (i.e gravity-wave) detection positives, btw. The discovery of a planetary system around a binary star made some waves in the news recently, anyway. Also seems a strong plane of classical graviton (classical dynamic) gravity waves would have the effect of clearing out matter in the binary spin plane instead, unless something theoretically-radical is added to the picture.
Meant to write that if an n-body mass cloud is denser in the direction a graviton is received from, the *return* graviton has that much of a better chance of being intercepted. This would be the retroreflectivity in effect systematically biasing the momentum effects of photons emitted by the n-bodies, which work to produce a gravitational attraction effect. If one ignores the graviton cause it appears counter-entropic (diffusion-opposing), aiming for vague one can describe it as entropy-related.
Nucleons seem adept at sending gravitons right back in the direction they were received from. If a gas cloud is denser in the direction a graviton is received from, the graviton has that much of a better chance of being intercepted. I suppose nucleons could obtain a graviton retroreflective effect in octahedrally-oriented mixing-dimples of the tight borromean ring model of quark triplets.
Where I wrote "neglible" I could've added "on the relative positions of the masses."
I guess QGEM should balance the energy of x graviton pairs to 1 photon pair's momentum-change-based mass-attractive (gravitational) effect or n photon pair's partial momentum-change-based gravitational effect, no reason to stick with 10^36/2 graviton pairs, that is just a number picked from the force ratio, it has to show up somehow in the simplest model. No reason to insist the direct effect of gravitons on mass, without the photon reaction, is not interesting although conceivably negligible.
Seems in any basic mass-particle model of gravity/EM energy transformation there should be huge number of mutual-type graviton exchange cycles, ~10^36 for an effect in the simplest model. That corresponds to multiple event-stages in a QG-ED event-sequence trellis of indefinite breadth. Running extended exchange sequences backward in time will look the same in terms of the movements of indistinguishable gravitons, but a rare photon pair is reversed, or pairs may be slightly redirected in reverse.
Whoooo, could be the closest general-relativity zit is loading up for more inbred-family-anger-misdirected pinheadedness.
Anyway, I'm considering a number of possibilities for matter-mediated gravity-to-EM energy transfer. In one scenario, gravitons could modify matter's reflectivity in the appropriate direction, in another they could alter the direction of re-emitted absorbed photons.
From what I remember from school most everything in the universe would be considered having a "neutral" charge, however since nothing is truly 100% perfect the charge would be so close to null that we would not be able to detect it. Since gravity is mostly experienced with extremely large objects then such a small electromagnetic pull could in theory be multiplied enough to cause such an effect. Gravity is not magnetism as we define it, but I see it as a possible weak version of the phenomenon
Ok... I'm not going to pretend that I know a ton about this little subject, but from what I can see is since both gravity and magnetism /electromagnetism do act very much alike there should be a connection between the two. Yes, I agree that the universe can not or would not be set up with planets, stars, ext. having a definite charge.
Moffat's STVG is I guess the most similar to Verlinde's and mine that I know of, he's got the gravity vector flipping around or getting lost or something, can't say. The idea is that gravity/EM is unified in expression as the sum of an EM-based antisymmetric rank-2 tensor component and a gravity-based symmetric rank-2 tensor component. I've basically explained both forces as antisymmetric and distinct in propagation path (what defines a straight line is bent for EM) with distinct wavefunctions.
Been reading all the gravity stories these days and it seems I may be picking up the tip of a trend, things now seem edging slowly toward downplaying Einstein and replacing the leftover drool-space with music-theory-insights and Hitler/nazi anecdotes.
@CACBCCCU lol pseudo-intellect piece of shit. You're not picking up any portion of a trend because you're too stupid to understand the basic relationships between the theories you read and you take loose analogies as literal fact.
You're far too stupid to be even attempting to talk about this stuff, please kill yourself. This is why you're theorizing on youtube, and not in peer-reviewed papers, because you're a moron and no one takes anything you're saying seriously. Stupid fucking trash.
@CACBCCCU lol you're a moron, I would love to meet you in person, I'm sure you don't ever speak when you're face to face with anyone. You're laughable to me. Keep going with your youtube PhD, I'm sure you'll be revolutionizing the scientific community's opinions any day now.
@CACBCCCU let me know when you've submitted your theories for peer review and one single scientist on the face of the earth takes you remotely seriously, professor youtube.
@a3th3r Let me know when you can find two brain cells to rub together on the topic of how much of a perverted conceptual abortion your holy demented general relativity family bullshit is.
8:08 found the smile!
skydome29 22 minutes ago
The latest dark matter distribution map, so high in fibre, one might as well call it a map of Einstein's cataracts.
I suppose the graviton-nucleon retroreflectivity effect which generally serves to confine gravitons within a galaxy has formed weak gravitational couplings between galaxies. Huge streams of intergalactic gravitons will bend light as if they're hiding a long column of matter, I've described it before as being analogous to ruts forming in the hills between gravity wells.
CACBCCCU 6 hours ago
well if gravity doesn´t exist why do i keep falling on the floor when i´m drunk ? lol
11045168 8 hours ago
@11045168 For a second there I thought you said why do you keep falling off the floor while you are drunk. I was about to say there is your answer.
unbound1978 8 hours ago
bill clinton
CrazeSniper 20 hours ago
This retard just wasted my time.
OverLordSky 21 hours ago
In the thumbnail he is showing how big Black People's penis is.
kourosh89 23 hours ago
The nose is shiny
Viltska 1 day ago
Just by looking at the title we can all say that this guy should go fuck himself because gravity definately exists
webcam224 1 day ago
@webcam224 If you listened to him you'd know that he knows gravity exists. The title refers to the lack of any particle interactions occurring between two bodies with gravity. For example, strong nuclear forces are interactions of quarks using the transfer of gluons, but there's no exchange of particles that we've observed so far with gravity. The only particle that could potentially explain gravity would be the graviton. And that's only a theoretical particle right now.
flamingfalkor 1 day ago
its easy. A big and heavier body creats a force to a smaler and more lightly body pulling him to the heavier body... . So the earth is the heavy body and YOU are the more lightly body. The earth pulls you to the ground. So you don't lift off and the earth stays on its way around the sun!! thats all...
Sorry for my english i'm german....
Dirtpros 1 day ago
He just killed my understanding of science :P
BrawnyLion 1 day ago
hehe, he has a butt chin
DazzaJee 1 day ago
Einstein's piloting the search for the "keys to unlocking the mysteries of the universe" now that he can't tell everyone what god wants, apparently because people of course naturally expect that from any evolving paleo-ethnic con artist, apparently meaning one has to please every gob-fearing thug while having the nerve to attempt to explain just what a modern piece of self-serving crap the guidance system is. No wonder Einstein pretended to distance himself from political shitstains.
CACBCCCU 2 days ago
The go-to move by the gang of happy-stupid assholes here who hate gravity but love curved-space bullshit and supremacist tactics is to suggest I'm crazy for taking on such a well-moneyed bunch of shitstains. Words here are cheap, they'll make sure that changes soon.
CACBCCCU 2 days ago
Gravity exists.
StringTheory808 2 days ago
Here's my theory on what exactly gravity is:
Like the force that attracts magnets together, magnetism, gravity is simply the flow of electrons around an object that when another object's electrons enter that field they become hooked and pulled together. However, unlike magnetism, the electrons in gravity are not flowing in the samedirec
This would explain why objects with more mass have greater gravitational pull, simply due to the fact that they have more electrons flowing in a wider space.
peterjoseph001 2 days ago 3
@peterjoseph001 So... When a conductor has a current flowing through it, does it have a proportional increase in weight (not mass, weight--the effect of gravity) ? I suspect the answer is no, which would dismantle your explanation; but I'm not a 100% certain.
Figaera69 2 days ago
@Figaera69 no, however it does have an increase in the flow of electrons because of the magnetic domains lining up, we see this has magnetism.
peterjoseph001 2 days ago
@Figaera69 My theory is that gravity is simply the flow of electrons around a larger mass, however unlike a magnets field, the gravitational field of electrons are not moving in any constant direction, ... or perhaps they are and this is why object orbit one another.
peterjoseph001 2 days ago
@peterjoseph001
That's not a theory. It's a hypothesis. Now go test it.
luminaeus 2 days ago
@peterjoseph001 Someone has already tested your hypothesis. Gravity affects neutrons.
frogman360 1 day ago
I'm boycotting the self-serving gravity establishment. They're untouchable. I refuse to pretend they're genuinely stupid, it's a ruse, it's a racket, stupidity-for-profit, a pisspride club, 100% mental thuggery of the highest degree, obscurist history, vastly-overstated accuracy with a globalist undertone, ultimately they must be turned into a worn-out joke. That's the point.
CACBCCCU 3 days ago
@CACBCCCU Again, let me point out that nobody is paying the slightest bit of attention to you :-)
dMoniker 2 days ago
@CACBCCCU I find you extremely entertaining though i must say!
dMoniker 2 days ago
@dMoniker You know that tin foil hats protects the brain from logic and reason? CACBCCCU is obviously wearing one, you can stop wasting your time now. xD
Figaera69 2 days ago
@dMoniker He is fun to read about when hes flipping out, isnt he? :D I swear a trip to the psychiatrist may do the lad some good.
shkotay 2 days ago
I'll be standing my ground here, all you shoving and absolutely-inauthentic complaining types out there. I'd suggest you try wasting your time somewhere else reading highly-avoidable things that you don't want to read for reasons you'll never raise, perhaps beneath another video on something else you have nothing to contribute to and no apparent interest in.
CACBCCCU 3 days ago
@CACBCCCU Douche.
ollenbergerstudios 3 days ago
Einstein had gelijk. De tijdruimte kromt rondom materie.Er is alleen maar energie en materie vormt zich daar uit tijdens de oerknal. Energie die zich sneller verplaatst dan mogelijk is rolt zich op.
gitaarman1956 3 days ago
Maybe my comment are impeding advances in youtube marionette theory. Seriously, the repetetive "go write a book" stuff is a pretext obviously designed to annoy, only a thug orders people around like that, it's a threat a puppet would send. As the gang in question regularly engages by professional annoyance and has ample puppet resources, I'll simply let everyone know that the moment youtube goes to a paid subscription I'm gone. Surely the gang's puppet resources can busy itself with that.
CACBCCCU 3 days ago
CACBCCU - While you may be talking some sense, you wont achieve anything by talking to yourself on youtube. Nobody is listening to you. Please write a paper or a book and stay away from youtube.
dMoniker 3 days ago
@dMoniker "stay away from youtube"
Get the fuck off youtube, you stupid asshole.
CACBCCCU 3 days ago
@CACBCCCU You are so very polite and open-minded arent you? What an elegant rebuttal. I have no further points to make :-)
dMoniker 3 days ago
Looks possible to me that an atom could be ever-so-slightly deformed by an external gravitational gradient, resulting in redirecting interacting photons and the result could move the atom toward an increasing gravitational gradient. In a spherical gravity-flux-mirror model of matter-gravity interaction there is typically highly-bidirectional symmetry in flux between any pair of atoms. EM presumably would couple/balance with the comoving portion of flux and cross-align with cross-moving flux. .
CACBCCCU 3 days ago
I mentioned to someone on youtube that positronium appeared to have some potential in gravitational mass experiments, and that apparently happened several months before it was very recently announced that UC Riverside would attempt to make it work. I've also made an observation on youtube that parity violation might be linked to black hole spins and practically the same notion by a physicist in the UK was in the news months later. My informal youtube-documented physics credentials are adequate.
CACBCCCU 3 days ago
Seems that at the sun's core nucleons could be significantly coordinated in terms of their spin axis. An overall solar gravitational flux lacking perfect symmetry is possible. I've tended to put the highest flux at the equator, seems a point of even-higher flux-density right at each of the sun's poles is also very possible. It's largely a question of what mass estimate to use for the sun etc, there has to be much play in that parameter-set in any model. Frame drag is intuitive with flux models.
CACBCCCU 4 days ago
On using a tight-borromean ring model for a quark triplet, it has 8 largely-trihedral dimples for a gravitational multiple-corner-reflection/quark-mixing-locus effect, and there's possibly the suggestion of consistent 3-axis gyro-effect at normal low-kinetic energies of the quark triplet as a body. At the temperature of the sun, a triplet is apparently capable of behaving more like a random reflecting object for quanta, so tracking with detectable GR mass effects, including LT frame drag.
CACBCCCU 4 days ago
Maybe one way to go with entropy-related quantum gravity concepts is to let gravity quanta progressively deform the surface of a quark triplet, which is responding to quanta practically as a spinning diffusive mirror with some corner-reflective properties to it, with respect to exchanging quanta with another mass. Maybe consistent deformation of the triplet can ratchet up to a state-relaxation trigger, resetting the deformation and letting loose a gravity-effect-oriented photon.
CACBCCCU 4 days ago
People apparently keep suggesting here that I write write a paper or book on one or more of quantum gravity, the quantum gravity and physics industries, the publishing and educational institutions handling quantum gravity theory publications, and closely-related important social topics. Try to embarrass at least thousands of people, using a face-first approach, in other words. I'm considering it seriously, but a cautious low key approach seems best now. The entanglement stuff also must wait.
CACBCCCU 4 days ago
On request/demand, my last aptitude test was ~16 years ago, the LSAT, and a perfect score (180) apparently doesn't even merit a 150 IQ comparison. It was a bad day, I got a 176, seemed great to me. Apparently the test is too verbally-oriented to give a 150+. I've a BSEE degree and so I've avoided discussing EM here beyond photons - no currents, electrons or magnets were relied upon in my remarks, partly because that doesn't draw my interest and the topic here relates to gravity.
CACBCCCU 4 days ago
The comments were, with rare exception,enjoyable until the gamers arrived en masse and commenced with the haxoring and the word-substitution ciphering experts with the gas-powered turbo-self-crap-feed word engine approach running on passive-aggressive/inexplicably-self-entitled mode.
CACBCCCU 4 days ago
Apparently there a huge image problem at my side, as far as gamers who may like gravity, but don't want to talk about it, go. I'm suggesting new ideas that only apply to galaxies and beyond over long scales of time. There's no way to exploit that in a video game, so I'm out of luck. Seems I'll continue to be an easy target for any gangs of gamers.
CACBCCCU 4 days ago
i think he smiled at 5:52
unholychunk 4 days ago 6
@unholychunk ahh AHHH nope just a twitch
Megaman1904 11 hours ago
Interesting video, but not a fan of the title.
strebr0 5 days ago
lol "why is gravity an illusion"
yeah, that's not begging the question at all...
AssistingHealth 5 days ago
Im not saying it was aliens, but it was aliens.
BuffaloTPU 5 days ago
In case it's not clear already, it seems an optical fiber is a sort of ideal EM/graviton exchange channel and this gets exploited in time-symmetric-exchange entanglement schemes.
CACBCCCU 5 days ago
I gave a perfectly good suggestion for an IQ test on quantum gravity and general relativity. One can describe gravity as an attractive force, or a repulsive force, in either direction of time, depending on whether one wants to focus on what happens at one mass (or the other of two masses) or both. In response to all the questions on roll-out, my expectations are to peacefully and fully leverage the stupidity of GR with all the pace and wit that it demands.
CACBCCCU 5 days ago
Slightly annoyed at the thinly-veiled demented-supremacist whiningly-vacuous baloney I'm getting from demented general relativity fans here.
CACBCCCU 5 days ago
Seems I've proven youtube's not the place for taking advice from suckers, especially balloon suckers. Laughing.
CACBCCCU 5 days ago
@CACBCCCU It strikes me as extremely odd that someone intelligent enough to grasp these ideas would want to spend their time trolling random strangers on youtube.
There are plenty of places where you will find the intellectual stimulation that you seek, but youtube is not one of them. I learned that several years, and countless wasted hours, too late. Now stop spamming the message board and write a book about it if you're that confident.
gamegloss 5 days ago
@gamegloss "Now stop spamming the message board and write a book about it if you're that confident."
I've never taken any advice from lying assholes on youtube. That is a problem for you, obviously.
CACBCCCU 5 days ago
@CACBCCCU That comment makes no sense whatsoever. Apart from the fact that you quote me, your comment seems to be addressing somebody else entirely.
Opinions and advice cannot be inherently true of false, and considering the tone of my comment, I don't see how you managed to conclude that I'm a lying asshole who OBVIOUSLY take advice from other lying assholes, whatever that means.
I don't normally feed trolls. I thought I'd indulge you, however, because you seemed reasonably intelligent.
gamegloss 4 days ago
@gamegloss You've implied you're not trolling random strangers on youtube.
What is the proof?
CACBCCCU 4 days ago
@gamegloss "your comment seems to be addressing somebody else entirely"
And this supposedly bothers you how?
"I don't see how you managed to conclude that I'm a lying asshole"
You?
CACBCCCU 4 days ago
@gamegloss "I don't see how you managed to conclude that I'm a lying asshole"
Replace "you" with "I" and there's a premise we can agree upon. But that's just one of many errors. Do you know the meaning of "you're tediously pestering me with ever-increasing distortion"? Because that's me, telling you to knock off the garbage you're sending my way. To be direct as possible. Leave me alone now. If you have any friends here you may pass on this advice. TIA.
CACBCCCU 4 days ago
Minor note: I have gravitons as antisymmetric fluxes individually, fluxes gain symmetry by matching off in opposites. Actually the whole thing ends up attracting in time-reverse. Had your chance...
CACBCCCU 5 days ago
Tossing general relativity into the garbage is obviously bothering a significant number of insects afflicted with acute royal entitlement syndrome, but I was looking for on-point constructive critiques, not the pathetically-pinheaded sniveling I'm seeing.
CACBCCCU 5 days ago
why the hell is this guy typing hundreds of paragraphs?
emachines390 6 days ago
Verlinde has studied the subject well, I believe, and he shows clearly that gravity can be seen as some kind of entropic effect. I've described how gravity gradually behaves contra-entropically, especially if entropy flows are not considered free-energy motherlode divinations. The passing graviton flow thru any sufficently small region is equal in opposing directions in any direction. Opposing gravitons don't cancel each other's contributions to an entropy-type effect, they add to them.
CACBCCCU 6 days ago
@CACBCCCU Instead of telling us all this bunk, why not take it to your local U? Sounds liek you have at least thought out some aspects of your ideas at least. But you are swamping this board. Go change the world if you can. YT posts dont mean anything if not backed up by solid investigated science.
shkotay 6 days ago
@shkotay
Glad it bothers you, I'm sure you'll never admit why, and I'm absolutely certain your opinion is worth less than nothing.
CACBCCCU 5 days ago
@CACBCCCU So in other words you have no intention of taking it to a university to see if its true, you were just looking for a response so you could make your sly, witty, angry little replies lol :D K, stay on YT man. Post away to your hearts content. Doesnt mean anything on here except to be an annoyance. Feel free to be one. No shortage of trolls on this site :P
shkotay 5 days ago
@shkotay "you were just looking for a response"
That's just one example of your incredible knack for backwards self-serving. I expected something called for when the responder has been wrong or concealing something, because that's exactly what's required, that's what makes something a typical troll (you) and another thing a precise and annoying observation made in the middle of an annoyance fan club. Sought admissions honest about relativity and all I got was dishonesty about relatives
CACBCCCU 5 days ago
@CACBCCCU Lol relatives? Sorry man, you are not even trolling, you are nuts :D
shkotay 5 days ago
@shkotay "nuts :D"
Obviously you're done describing yourself only when you've stopped writing. Maybe you should stop while your behind is where your head is stuck.
CACBCCCU 5 days ago
@CACBCCCU Lmao and you have no real theory thats been tested I guess. I did stop writing but I see you just cant resist replying back lmao! Lets just quit here ;) Your less then witty use of insults is itself insulting lol. Promise I shall leave you be to post away.
shkotay 5 days ago
Maybe the biggest obstacle to seeing a flow-based gravity as workable is that any flow is antisymmetric under time reversal: F(t)= -F(-t), considering that "down" still remains "down." By studying the model given below, an EM-proxy-force gravity, it's possible to see how time-reversed gravity repels even as "down" pulls "down," since r-moving gravitons largely balance with l-movers, but with a 1/r^2 density gradient, and the gravitons do little except slowly prompting cross-entropic photons.
CACBCCCU 6 days ago
The most shiny nose I have ever seen.
afzal067 6 days ago 46
@afzal067 you read my mind
MrChrisfranko 3 days ago
@afzal067 and the closest butt to the mouth lol did you see it ?
spitfirelmd 2 days ago
Wiki claims Gauss's gravity is equivalent to Newton's, which, since a flux is "flow of stuff," implies that Newton's gravity was decidedly non-instantaneous. I think wiki's correct there, and that Newton would naturally suppose gravity flows at lightspeed, so Newton probably had the same concept of gravity's effect on matter as GR has. All Newton may have lacked was a clear understanding of gravity's effect on light. For clear reasons, Einstein had no interest in quantizing it.
CACBCCCU 6 days ago
GR Quantum gravity researchers can quantize general relativity by quantizing space time, if they're really into applying the notion everywhere there exists gravity, they go through a process of shoveling spacetime dirt under the curved-space trampoline until it's packed tight. If they're not into applying the notion everywhere, they do a process of never describing "BH microstates," which apparently reside on the event horizon and magically call the shots everywhere in normal curved space-time.
CACBCCCU 6 days ago
The way that flux-based gravity (which is a notion that all gravity is caused by gravitons) surpasses GR is by the wavefunctions of the gravitons. As noted before there's no appropriate window size in GR for gravity wavelength extraction from a linearly moving mass, making quantization impossible. QG can provide a window related to the Dirac sense-horizon of nucleons. It's also been noted that all massless bosons should have mutually cancelling phases, and QG may allow negative-mass antimatter.
CACBCCCU 6 days ago
Quick recap: there's a fairly simple flux gravity model for interaction with matter, where dense gravity flux (fundamental graviton particles) exchanged between two masses has the effect of directing, from the masses, sparse opposed EM flux emissions (photons) in directions pushing the masses together, and there's a flux gravity model for interaction with light, where photons migrate along positive gradients in incoming gravity flux. It can replicate GR and surpass it at extremely long scales.
CACBCCCU 6 days ago
Blue shift increases photon energy proportional to an increase in incoming gravity flux energy, and it's the same, but with decreases instead, for red shift. Matter-incoming gravity flux at the surface of a photon emitter is essentially balanced, though retro-reflection, with matter-outgoing gravity flux.
CACBCCCU 6 days ago
How many theoretical physicists does it take to change a lightbulb?
Probably two.
CPCGamer 6 days ago
"The Answer to 42" by Ronald von Mitchel!
rvm429111 1 week ago
I got the why! At least the start of it all in my book, "The Answer to 42". Lulu.com check it out! The start of the universe tells us alot about why things are the way the are. I mean the real start, from nothing, zero, when there was no material in the universe at all.
rvm429111 1 week ago
Relativity is great and all, but my biggest question is why things move???? We have great descriptions and explinations as to HOW things move, but (as far as i can tell) no one has explained WHY things move.
TheHomelessCripple 1 week ago
@TheHomelessCripple I bet the reason for "WHY things move" is related to the Law of Entropy. So, why Entropy increases?
Drgunzet 6 days ago
This has been flagged as spam show
It's said the physics Nobel was originally supposed to be given for coming up with something that can actually be used to improve the world. Let's ponder the world-improving aspects of "dark energy" for a moment. Well, you can write about it, teach it, make money writing about it or teaching it, it can attract Nobel money and resonate with the wallets of public institutions everywhere, there's expert books, insane pseudo-counter-notions to dream up and artificially link to disliked notions etc.
CACBCCCU 1 week ago
Comment removed
CACBCCCU 1 week ago
Eddington was a real lynchpin in the GR/big-bang setup. The whales on top knew much more had to be done elsewhere so it wouldn't be so obvious that Eddington was not an open broker of facts but an agent of globalism. More later...
Now a big part of the game seems to be emphasizing broad dark energy with a Nobel, prompting reminisces of Einstein's goofy (now "relevant") cosmo-loco constant to flatten the U, while downplaying narrow-stream counter-effects ("dark flow") with supposed disproofs.
CACBCCCU 1 week ago
As some may have already figured out, if those bright, hot, core-things we call "black holes + hot inflow" can always get bigger and will never fall apart, then there absolutely must have been an event called "the creation of the universe." All the drama with Eddington's tongue-thrashings over the guy who came up with black holes has the classic hallmarks of another elite puppetry gimmick, just more crap-creation designed to resemble removal, so documented/authentic, a true crap-teaching moment.
CACBCCCU 1 week ago
It seems that the key motivation for having black holes, instead of extremely dense objects, is that it's not possible to imagine a black hole breaking up. I guess the elite would naturally jump to framing that as being an extremely dangerous notion to propagate among the great un-initiated. Although some scientists may now be attempting to explain exactly how a black hole interior operates so smoothly, the motivation is apparently to win cash and prizes while building the dizzification level.
CACBCCCU 1 week ago
As far as I can tell, the purpose of BH entropy seems to be that it's another excuse to create more theories that do nothing except make most people dizzy, stir existing nationalistic artificially-inflated supremacism and create more work for supremacist theorists who don't care enough to get dizzied. If no photons are emitted from a black hole then the only heat diffusion it can create is in surrounding matter, notably the accretion disk, by the gravitons exchanged with the event horizon.
CACBCCCU 1 week ago
Refining a comment I just deleted, photons may gain energy at the expense of incoming attraction-phased gravitons in a direct energy trade-off. This effect resembles photons bending gravity energy, but no passing gravitons are bent and any actual bending of energy paths occurs after the energy becomes part of the photon. This seems the simplest, broadest take on direct photon/graviton interaction, anyway.
CACBCCCU 1 week ago in playlist Liked videos
My notions about gravitons are not incompatible with the notion of linking the dark energy effect to growing antimatter-dominated regions, though antimatter may not be required (longer graviton wavelengths could do) for the effect. The reasoning involves seeing that the distance where peak reverse phase occurs is an ideal place for negative mass to reside. Antimatter apparently would emit reversed-phase gravitons and treat incoming reverse-phase gravitons as attractive.
CACBCCCU 1 week ago in playlist Liked videos
Comment removed
CACBCCCU 1 week ago in playlist Liked videos
I'll note here again that entropy gain for n-body sims is EM crypticized into bodies inelastic, it's diffusion of heat or of gas. Gravity, on the other hand, is clearly anti-diffusive and can remain operative against a heat gradient. All of this mix seems to be about very cleverly converting all the free energy in order to keep the entropy game going. Anyway, photons seem to conform to incoming gravitons as they move the opposite way, similar to what goes on with masses in the QGED diagram.
CACBCCCU 1 week ago in playlist Liked videos
Really need to discuss how gravitons could make photon paths bend. I suppose a photon's energy is drawn along any positive gradient in the density of incoming gravitons. An increase in incoming gravity flux to a photon means an increase in photon energy. In some ways photons are like reversed gravitons (in line with the QGED energy-balance trellis and the cryptically counter-entropic character of gravity noted earlier).
CACBCCCU 1 week ago in playlist Liked videos
I don't like this guy.
teh1owner 1 week ago
Well, w/e 'gravity' is and how it's caused... it's still there, making it impossible for me to fly. I don't like it lol
allfitch84 1 week ago
The Higgs is supposedly giving mass part-time while being too heavy to do that where it lives when it's cold unless it's exploiting its part-time character to massively run around and in ghostlike fashion mass-up the machines of many many atoms, while the Higgs field shoulders its responsibility to be uniformly everywhere in giving all matter the flavor of tossed electroweak bosons. High energies thus become relevant to everyday reality in this rigged-up way, since flux-gravity is "crazy."
CACBCCCU 1 week ago
Seems BH micro-states effectively consist of the energies and virtual force-vector rotation-planes of the gravitons it emits. These gravitons are, retroreflectively, largely mirrorlike with surrounding graviton input, but with a phase-reset back to -cos(0) = -1 on any reflection. Gravity isn't really doing anything inside the event horizon. As all emitted gravitons are return gravitons, BH mass scales with BH surface area, a property about which I briefly wrote on earlier.
CACBCCCU 1 week ago
A general relativity troll going under the name of Alan Sokal pulled a fascinating little quantum gravity relativity-family hangover pre-innoculation stunt a few years ago. It became grist for the backwards-forwards millers to grind out stories on how the connections of "science" (read: "massive insider pervert-friendly crap") to society were tenuous at best, and always for the better.
CACBCCCU 1 week ago
Maybe I should condense it further, just for Cass Sunstein's benefit: Curved space-time is a pointed epistomology-crippling weapon of mass social destruction. The media is there to prevent it from backfiring, even today another physics-blogging clown implies it will be aeons before experimental evidence of quantum gravity can be obtained, meanwhile quantum gravity is written all over the sky and hidden as dark matter. GR people are the clowns of relentless cryptic hatred.
CACBCCCU 1 week ago
Just to be clear, it's clear to me the elite have been exploiting that which is purposefully wrong about GR since day one of its grand (t)roll-out, primary affects being seen in the science profession, secondary effects being seen in the effectiveness of social approaches mimicking time-reversal (like entangled mind-readers with a winning script) on an artifically disoriented out-of-the-know society trained to think with distorted symmetries
CACBCCCU 1 week ago
Maybe I should've written "How does new energy (binding energy) arise when quarks are staying put and spinning countless attraction-photon shotputs." After noting kinetics are diffusion on cryptic EM in noncharged n-body sims, and gravity is anti-entropic over long scales of space and time, it seems fair to say that gravity and EM are driving time in opposite directions, the idea of entropy setting the arrow of time has the idea of gravity reversing time's arrow for gasses.
CACBCCCU 1 week ago
Electroweak bosons are so heavy that they'd only have to have an effect only a fraction of the time, if all nucleons had an electroweak boson inside them, to explain the mass of a proton. Even less time for effect if a Higgs particle needs to be in there part-time hardly ever having any effect too. At the moment the question of how mass arises seems like the question of "how does new energy arise when quarks are staying put and spinning a shotput." It seems to be all about the gravitons.
CACBCCCU 1 week ago
Since the retroreflection model I use is quark-based, the effective surface area of a matter particle scales with *gravitational* mass very closely. It's hard to believe I've written so much without mentioning that there is also the concept of "inertial mass" upon which n-body simulation kinetics are based, n-body kinetics capture temperatures (non-migratory particle speeds) and diffusion (entropy), but kinetics are basically crypticized EM-based interactions since each body can be uncharged.
CACBCCCU 1 week ago
So I'm basically saying the bunch of clowns who pulled strings to create an ostracization pretext over a good US-based discovery were ultimately the same bunch who made sure that the good discovery, with all its nature-based mental associations (quasicrystals are heavily imbued with five-pointed and six-pointed stars), was rewarded to the discoverer as an Israeli. The elite go to the well far too incessantly with that sort of BS backwards walking-in story-crafting approach. Curved space hides.
CACBCCCU 1 week ago
But anyway, being in the extended general relativity family has had its perks beyond warding off evil flux-gravity crazies who don't see the supreme beauty of the garbage in terms of its role as face-shoving ammo supply. General relativity has given the general relativity family heaping scads of in-house-inspirationional/out-of-house-desperational scientific motivation for almost a century.
CACBCCCU 1 week ago
Really need to add that the whole background story regarding the Shechtman Nobel typifies how the elite have no intention of changing their walking out backwards oppression tactics. The story is he was ostracized by powerful idiocy in the US and forced to leave for Isreal. The story is an obvious hoax, but I don't suppose Shechtman was in on the plan, which was to craft a long-heartrending story by pulling strings opposite ways. The comedyrama sets the illusion of Jews get no respect in the US.
CACBCCCU 1 week ago
Masses in a perfectly graviton-retroreflective matter particle system emit and receive gravitons in proportion to their mass, and to the extent retroreflection is not obtained (mass is moving too fast to pick up the return graviton) graviton absorbtion by any backup mass particle defaults to being proportional to the effective surface area of the mass. Since the retroreflection model I use is quark-based, the effective surface area of a matter particle scales with mass very closely.
CACBCCCU 1 week ago
Dat nose.
pobbart13 1 week ago
I should've written "Gaussian (flux-type, with c-rate flux speed in flat space) gravity theory." instead of "Gaussian-type (nominally c-rate, for flat space, flux)". I note that Newton hitting his sister and negative mass dark matter theories were big in the news yesterday. They don't miss a thing in the gravity media, do they.
CACBCCCU 1 week ago
To visualize the impact of matter retroreflectivity in Gaussian-type (nominally c-rate, for flat space, flux) I don't worry about graviton balances in any mass in the system, first off. I see that any flux that doesn't hit something in the system (btw I should say the canonical graviton's cross-section seems to be practically as narrow as its wavelength is long, as tough as this is to imagine) will have no effect on the system, so the portion of flux presumed there can be played with in any way.
CACBCCCU 1 week ago
To make that last equation I gave clearer, it should be (/Y/sin-/X/cos))(kx)GmM/x^2 where /X/ and /Y/ are unit vectors on the X,Y axes, and the graviton propagates a distance x on the X axis. Retroreflectivity (non-uniform surface flux density) can be considered a variation in G which is normally considered a constant but I guess should have a characteristic value for highly planar mass systems by which the effect of a uniform 1/r^2 character is maintained, and our standard value of G fits that.
CACBCCCU 1 week ago
It is actually the negative of the integral of cos(kd)GmM/d^2 that is < 0, noted earlier, to be clear. With a planar rotation of the virtual force vector in a propagating fundamental quantum graviton the full equation is (jsin-cos)(kd)GmM/d^2 where j is a 1/4-cycle delay operator, d is distance and kd is 2pi/wavelength in radians. If coplanar gravitons have opposite spin the jsin (lateral) term drops out. The math is kind of boring/tedious to me but there's a simple wave equation in that.
CACBCCCU 1 week ago
so is he basically saying gravity does exist but its not caused by a ever present force???? how is there then no gravity ??? im confused some one please explain ? how does this change anything?
supadee33 1 week ago
Each utter...
MichaeIRedd 1 week ago
Netherlands!
lucasvinzon 1 week ago 11
Seems for the most part like I've thoroughly debunked GR over all my comments here, and doing any more is just a tedious jumping of waving hoops. So, back to Arp 147: I'll call it a "little-bang" but I can't exacly say how the pistons blew, seems it would require a galactic interloper, but what sort, how major. Identifiable interloper or not, exactly how/why are such galactic systems destined to blow seems to be a big question. The old galaxy is re-forming its core, a new galaxy is generated.
CACBCCCU 1 week ago
It looks like I should confine my efforts to looking for slop/play/wiggle-room in the GR retro/pre-dictions for binary system cycle-rate loss, the ones that earned a Nobel. Like how do they know how far apart the binary pair is. Duh here, somewhat. It's not a very approachable discussion, seems slightly crafted for that. The cycle-rate loss model probably has several free parameters to fudge with in it, not that I doubt the classical effect is residing there in the real mix.
CACBCCCU 1 week ago
A planetary object would be nondamping and invisible to planar (long-travelled) classical g-waves with a wavelength much larger than the diameter of the planet, if gravity is not flux-based. If gravity is flux-based then a nonclassical-graviton retroreflective property emphasizes a major flux-based difference from GR. This effect creates damping/o.o.p-gravitational feedback (currently hiding as GR-radiation loss), explaining a lack of gravity-wave positives, and accretion planes around binaries.
CACBCCCU 1 week ago
Arp 147 has two approximately equal-size ring structures, it's easy to imagine the ring that's still with-core is a vortex ring, both seem vortex-influenced although the core-lacking ring seems largely a normal galaxy config that's lost a core to a major event which has broken the core up into large parts. My take is that a major core piece is evidently big enough to form a substantially deep ring minima trapping some plasma etc, thus deepening further over time, soon enough to be seen there.
CACBCCCU 1 week ago
As noted the integral of cos(kd)GmM/d^2 is also < 0, and what I'm noting with that equation is that quantum-intrinsic core-sourced static ripples do not remove the gravity wells of massively dense compact galactic core systems, the static ripples modify the well effect and in doing so they give multiple ring-minima enabling non-degenerate states, probably including endlessly random practically-irrepeatable state-multicycles, and all the steady-state modelling potential arising from that.
CACBCCCU 1 week ago
The accuracy of GR in the solar system is fine enough, that's part of the problem of removing it. I'm not clear on how much retrodict was involved in mimicking Mercury's moves. I find it hard to imagine there is not a lot of slop to fudge around in. Had Mercury been tracked for a while off the record and results distributed in same fashion? Looking at the center of a cluster for maximal red-shift is pure politics and cherry picking for longer GR. Integral of cos(kd)GmM/d^2 is also < 0, btw.
CACBCCCU 1 week ago
I find the title very misleading.
No matter the cause,there IS a force between masses.Call it what you want.
Yes,the fundamental principle of how gravity works is not yet known (the Higgs Boson is a possible candidate,probably either proven or disproven later this year).If the Higgs Boson does not exist,a fundamentally new theory has to be created for the microscopic level.
But GR is so far very accurate and even predicted phenomena like gravity lenses. It's at least a (VERY) good theory.
EldaEragon 1 week ago
I mentioned that it seems classical gravitons on the spin plane of a binary system could have a spin-plan mass-clearing effect, so I'll add that the classical dynamic regime also has the concept of vortex rings, where a BH system effectively blows an expanding-at-sub-luminal-rate matter-trapping toroid of sorts, like a smoke ring. I've had the notion such a thing could possibly settle at the bottom of a static ripple in an all-flux-QG so-called "gravity well" to make a galactic ring.
CACBCCCU 1 week ago
So what is general relativity, really. In practice, as I see it, it's a bunch of people who have, for a very long time, been saying "shut up, you're stupid, here, you're so worthless that we created a special bit of plastic curvacious relious inspiration for you, be grateful, do not question authority, take this crud and eat it." I can't see ever really getting over that. It will be described as being "hateful" I suppose, by the guardians of the holy short attention-span.
CACBCCCU 1 week ago
One might ask how can it appear that science (media) is edging away from the immaculate big-bang and yet someone could be blacklisted just for putting up a steady-state "theory" (aka hypothesis, notion, idea, concept, model, ravings-set, whatever). The reasoning is that the concept in question (mine) finds GR conceptually abysmal and abhorrent, and my understanding of human nature & IQ boasts can't possibly preclude the possibility of standing, let alone intial, intent to remain precisely that.
CACBCCCU 1 week ago
Just wanted to re-emphasize I'm discussing realistic steady-state universe models when I'm talking about looking for alternative to the immaculate big-bang and all the cultural voodoo in the nasty politico-theocratic campus hijinx that probably motivated (and still assists) the standing creationist/bing-bang pap-fest industry. My writings make me worthy of blacklisting by the PTB, iow, even absent the hard digs I've mixed in with my models.
CACBCCCU 1 week ago
If compact massive objects have a 50k LY equilibrium spacing and they're capable of evaporating (Hawking radiation) there's no obvious reason why everything ends up in one object or why all objects have to evaporate at the same time. That's the simplest alternative to the big-bang that I can think of at the moment. I'd rather not rely entirely on evaporation for a model though, so I look for other mechanisms that could stabilize the size of massive compact objects, including black holes.
CACBCCCU 1 week ago
Seems to me that black holes are still not well understood, although I appreciated hearing Hawking's ideas an the possibility of BH shrinkage, I basically just say they're extremely massive and compact objects and leave it at that. I suppose there may be a number of mechanisms keeping such objects from growing or combining at an appreciable rate, one of them being the nondegenerate balanced nature of the graviton particle quantum wavefunction has an equilibrium BH-BH spacing of around 50k LY.
CACBCCCU 1 week ago
Yeah... say it apple which fell on Newtons Head!=|
DoomVik 1 week ago
When I'm looking at things optimistically, I realize it will take years to flush the gravity-theorist job pipeline, not to mention the cosmologists that can retire, etc, etc. Trying to publish in official style seems like trying to push hundreds of scientists out of jobs, maybe more, and I'm not even touching on the political and religious aspects of my ideas here.
CACBCCCU 1 week ago
As to why I don't attempt a peer-review, the basic models could use a lot of work, I don't have a research infrastructure supporting me with any astronomical data I'd desire, and I like to size up situations before investing a lot into them. I do not think the physics power structure will be an honest broker, the media is fully-invested in the power structure, the extended general relativity family is known for extremism of all forms. Had thoughts of trying it when I retire but I don't know.
CACBCCCU 1 week ago
It seems the operative strategy with general relativity crowd is to leverage the absolutely ghastly abysmal nature of it, it's a simple power-circle strategy when firmly in control to take a conceptual abortion and shove it in the face of the "enemy" to demoralize. Rather than think about the careers they've destroyed, I'd prefer to concentrate on the fact that they currently have no intention of apologizing and it seems most unlikely that the power-circle will drop the demoralization approach.
CACBCCCU 1 week ago
In a ring galaxy it seems most gravitons are in-galactic-plane and most graviton force vector rotations may be co-planar, with a balance between clockwise and ccw. Btw, in my nonclassical concept of gravitons the effect of mass resembles a gravity well with fixed-size nonmoving ripples embedded in it, so I refer to this as a "static" wave. A classical gravity wave ripple (classical graviton) climbs up the well, growing in radius at lightspeed, so I call that kind of gravity wave "dynamic."
CACBCCCU 1 week ago
Michio Kaku > Whatever this fool's name is
luisr12491 1 week ago
The Dutchness is very high in this one.
Gyroglle 1 week ago
For those interested in countering immaculate creationists of any variety, I might start with all gravity is actually flux-based and the flux is a balanced quantum wavefunction and thus lacks a determinate terminal-state and is non-degenerate before moving on to explaining how positive gravitational phases work against entropy over long time-scales. Classical gravitational waves operate on the planet to sift solids into layers while static gravity is sifting liquids and gasses, counter-entropy .
CACBCCCU 1 week ago
Most galaxies are nowhere near a state of equilibrium in terms of their canonical quantum-wave-intrinsic (non-classical, non-dynamic) gravity waves, the waves show up obliquely in the spacing of swirls in spiral galaxies, which lack equilibrium rings. A major point not to overlook is that this non-dynamic gravity wave ends up balanced in planar rotational effect over the entire wavecycle, so quantum gravitational equilibria are nondegenerate in contrast to GR equilibrium, obviating the big-bang.
CACBCCCU 1 week ago
HEY! YOU'RE NOT KAKU! WHERE'S KAKUUUUUUUUUUU?
DarthSkater6 1 week ago
I'm a little surprised to see the milky way is now depicted as being about the same size as andromeda in the latest incarnation of the powers of 10 concept-videos. The latest one also has lots of other galaxies of various sizes, including the sombrero, which is still half the size of andromeda and hasn't somehow semi-officially doubled in size, as the MW seems to have done. I guess I can start saying the MW could be a double-cycle-delineated system of quantum gravity waves, just like andromeda.
CACBCCCU 1 week ago
Graviton retroreflectivity in matter could also have quite a bit to do with the lack of "classical graviton wave" (i.e gravity-wave) detection positives, btw. The discovery of a planetary system around a binary star made some waves in the news recently, anyway. Also seems a strong plane of classical graviton (classical dynamic) gravity waves would have the effect of clearing out matter in the binary spin plane instead, unless something theoretically-radical is added to the picture.
CACBCCCU 1 week ago
Meant to write that if an n-body mass cloud is denser in the direction a graviton is received from, the *return* graviton has that much of a better chance of being intercepted. This would be the retroreflectivity in effect systematically biasing the momentum effects of photons emitted by the n-bodies, which work to produce a gravitational attraction effect. If one ignores the graviton cause it appears counter-entropic (diffusion-opposing), aiming for vague one can describe it as entropy-related.
CACBCCCU 1 week ago
Nucleons seem adept at sending gravitons right back in the direction they were received from. If a gas cloud is denser in the direction a graviton is received from, the graviton has that much of a better chance of being intercepted. I suppose nucleons could obtain a graviton retroreflective effect in octahedrally-oriented mixing-dimples of the tight borromean ring model of quark triplets.
Where I wrote "neglible" I could've added "on the relative positions of the masses."
CACBCCCU 1 week ago
I guess QGEM should balance the energy of x graviton pairs to 1 photon pair's momentum-change-based mass-attractive (gravitational) effect or n photon pair's partial momentum-change-based gravitational effect, no reason to stick with 10^36/2 graviton pairs, that is just a number picked from the force ratio, it has to show up somehow in the simplest model. No reason to insist the direct effect of gravitons on mass, without the photon reaction, is not interesting although conceivably negligible.
CACBCCCU 1 week ago
gravity is bullshit, how dare you teach it in school!!!
YourRoadToHell 1 week ago
@YourRoadToHell Aimen brodar. All praeiz the Lawd.
Nithus0 1 week ago
interesting but most flawed...
YourRoadToHell 1 week ago
Seems in any basic mass-particle model of gravity/EM energy transformation there should be huge number of mutual-type graviton exchange cycles, ~10^36 for an effect in the simplest model. That corresponds to multiple event-stages in a QG-ED event-sequence trellis of indefinite breadth. Running extended exchange sequences backward in time will look the same in terms of the movements of indistinguishable gravitons, but a rare photon pair is reversed, or pairs may be slightly redirected in reverse.
CACBCCCU 1 week ago
why when i fall i go boom then?
Zexion98 1 week ago 5
@Zexion98 FSM
EliteDoomer 1 week ago
U had me at hello...
eQual113 1 week ago
Whoooo, could be the closest general-relativity zit is loading up for more inbred-family-anger-misdirected pinheadedness.
Anyway, I'm considering a number of possibilities for matter-mediated gravity-to-EM energy transfer. In one scenario, gravitons could modify matter's reflectivity in the appropriate direction, in another they could alter the direction of re-emitted absorbed photons.
CACBCCCU 1 week ago
From what I remember from school most everything in the universe would be considered having a "neutral" charge, however since nothing is truly 100% perfect the charge would be so close to null that we would not be able to detect it. Since gravity is mostly experienced with extremely large objects then such a small electromagnetic pull could in theory be multiplied enough to cause such an effect. Gravity is not magnetism as we define it, but I see it as a possible weak version of the phenomenon
gameplayer01 1 week ago
Ok... I'm not going to pretend that I know a ton about this little subject, but from what I can see is since both gravity and magnetism /electromagnetism do act very much alike there should be a connection between the two. Yes, I agree that the universe can not or would not be set up with planets, stars, ext. having a definite charge.
gameplayer01 1 week ago
Moffat's STVG is I guess the most similar to Verlinde's and mine that I know of, he's got the gravity vector flipping around or getting lost or something, can't say. The idea is that gravity/EM is unified in expression as the sum of an EM-based antisymmetric rank-2 tensor component and a gravity-based symmetric rank-2 tensor component. I've basically explained both forces as antisymmetric and distinct in propagation path (what defines a straight line is bent for EM) with distinct wavefunctions.
CACBCCCU 1 week ago
Been reading all the gravity stories these days and it seems I may be picking up the tip of a trend, things now seem edging slowly toward downplaying Einstein and replacing the leftover drool-space with music-theory-insights and Hitler/nazi anecdotes.
CACBCCCU 1 week ago
@CACBCCCU lol pseudo-intellect piece of shit. You're not picking up any portion of a trend because you're too stupid to understand the basic relationships between the theories you read and you take loose analogies as literal fact.
You're far too stupid to be even attempting to talk about this stuff, please kill yourself. This is why you're theorizing on youtube, and not in peer-reviewed papers, because you're a moron and no one takes anything you're saying seriously. Stupid fucking trash.
a3th3r 1 week ago
@a3th3r
There you go talking about yourself again, angry pinhead.
CACBCCCU 1 week ago in playlist Liked videos
@CACBCCCU submit your garbage for peer-review, champ. There's a reason you're on youtube and not in a scientific journal, you're an idiot.
a3th3r 1 week ago
@a3th3r You're not done yet, you demented pervert?
CACBCCCU 1 week ago
@CACBCCCU lol you're a moron, I would love to meet you in person, I'm sure you don't ever speak when you're face to face with anyone. You're laughable to me. Keep going with your youtube PhD, I'm sure you'll be revolutionizing the scientific community's opinions any day now.
a3th3r 1 week ago
@a3th3r Let me know when you've exhausted your inner angry pinhead and want to say something stupid about gravity.
CACBCCCU 1 week ago
@CACBCCCU let me know when you've submitted your theories for peer review and one single scientist on the face of the earth takes you remotely seriously, professor youtube.
a3th3r 1 week ago
@a3th3r Let me know when you can find two brain cells to rub together on the topic of how much of a perverted conceptual abortion your holy demented general relativity family bullshit is.
CACBCCCU 1 week ago