Mars is said to be a lightweight planet. As the sun is about 31 arc-minutes wide and Sun-Earth light-ping time around 16.6 light-minutes, if matter's graviton retroreflectivity further incorporates probabilistic angular feedback (a fuzzy-hit/miss loop-formative chain-reaction flux-aiming rule), leverage by an added nucleonic spin-mediated angular-predictive flux-directive property seems possible, so maybe it's just that Mars is just a bit too small and far away for the same Newton's gravity.
I suppose a nucleon could be very retroreflective with gravitons, like an eight-sided collection of corner-reflector mirrors oriented same as the eight tri-corner dimples formed by a tight Borromean ring triplet. A screen around the Sun would have a region of increased gravity flux density located along the planetary plane, with peaks at least close to, possibly even anticipating through spin feedback, the shortest paths to the planets, expressing a graviton version of equal-opposite reactions.
Call me simple, I don't believe in effects that don't involve receiving or emitting a particle, and I suppose gluons don't chain e.g. the earth to the sun, but the funniest thing to me here is that I can't tell where this holographic theory stands on either of those positions, so I'd happily call it one amazingly slippery theory. Not sure if slipperiness is a great quality in a theory, but it does seem to get awarded a lot of points for awesomeness.
I see a nice little concession in this, i.e. that pairs of spin-1 particles (forming links in the "gluon chain") produce a spin-2 particle effect we call "gravity." Apparently we share the belief that gravity is a spin-2 effect effect mediated with a looped pair of spin-1 particles. I don't suppose gravitons are organized between distant masses as gluon chains but as gravitational quanta with a strong proclivity to ocurring in the form of matched opposingly-directed pairs.
"Gravity, in our four-dimensional spacetime, is an emergent phenomenon arising from particle interactions in a gravity-less three-dimensional world (2-space, 1-time)."
"One type of gluon chain behaves in a four-dimensional spacetime as the graviton"
It seems to say *all* matter is linked together by gluon chains, meaning gravity is not spacetime curvature, it's gluon chains, but 1:53 appears to dispell this notion with "a distinct gravitational interaction does not exist on the surface."
It's like the cream of how many different ways can general relativity inspire someone to suggest gravity has no carriers. But I can't say curved space is overdone, or the media might figure out some ingenious way of piling on even more. For anyone who's working on a book or story with curved space in it, my suggestion is to get it published ASAP.
This has been flagged as spam show
check this out - watch?v=EahcC2xfXXQ
enusdesu 4 months ago
Mars is said to be a lightweight planet. As the sun is about 31 arc-minutes wide and Sun-Earth light-ping time around 16.6 light-minutes, if matter's graviton retroreflectivity further incorporates probabilistic angular feedback (a fuzzy-hit/miss loop-formative chain-reaction flux-aiming rule), leverage by an added nucleonic spin-mediated angular-predictive flux-directive property seems possible, so maybe it's just that Mars is just a bit too small and far away for the same Newton's gravity.
CACBCCCU 5 months ago
I suppose a nucleon could be very retroreflective with gravitons, like an eight-sided collection of corner-reflector mirrors oriented same as the eight tri-corner dimples formed by a tight Borromean ring triplet. A screen around the Sun would have a region of increased gravity flux density located along the planetary plane, with peaks at least close to, possibly even anticipating through spin feedback, the shortest paths to the planets, expressing a graviton version of equal-opposite reactions.
CACBCCCU 5 months ago
Call me simple, I don't believe in effects that don't involve receiving or emitting a particle, and I suppose gluons don't chain e.g. the earth to the sun, but the funniest thing to me here is that I can't tell where this holographic theory stands on either of those positions, so I'd happily call it one amazingly slippery theory. Not sure if slipperiness is a great quality in a theory, but it does seem to get awarded a lot of points for awesomeness.
CACBCCCU 5 months ago
I see a nice little concession in this, i.e. that pairs of spin-1 particles (forming links in the "gluon chain") produce a spin-2 particle effect we call "gravity." Apparently we share the belief that gravity is a spin-2 effect effect mediated with a looped pair of spin-1 particles. I don't suppose gravitons are organized between distant masses as gluon chains but as gravitational quanta with a strong proclivity to ocurring in the form of matched opposingly-directed pairs.
CACBCCCU 5 months ago
"Gravity, in our four-dimensional spacetime, is an emergent phenomenon arising from particle interactions in a gravity-less three-dimensional world (2-space, 1-time)."
"One type of gluon chain behaves in a four-dimensional spacetime as the graviton"
It seems to say *all* matter is linked together by gluon chains, meaning gravity is not spacetime curvature, it's gluon chains, but 1:53 appears to dispell this notion with "a distinct gravitational interaction does not exist on the surface."
CACBCCCU 5 months ago
It's like the cream of how many different ways can general relativity inspire someone to suggest gravity has no carriers. But I can't say curved space is overdone, or the media might figure out some ingenious way of piling on even more. For anyone who's working on a book or story with curved space in it, my suggestion is to get it published ASAP.
CACBCCCU 5 months ago
bieeeeeen. gracias!!
adoroailiakulik 8 months ago
@adoroailiakulik Thank you for your feedback. Much appreciated.
DonGarbutt 8 months ago
@adoroailiakulik Thank you for your comment. Really appreciate it!
DonGarbutt 8 months ago
@adoroailiakulik Thanks!
DonGarbutt 8 months ago
Thanks!
DonGarbutt 8 months ago
Grande Juan Maldacena
NikolaTesla234 10 months ago
One of my favorite pieces. Great job Don. Will share it.
lalindalali 1 year ago
El que quiera el artículo en español está publicado en Investigación y Ciencia, Enero 2006.
Miriamrr 1 year ago
¡muchas gracias!
DonGarbutt 1 year ago
Spectacular.
igwa 1 year ago