Quantum Gravity and the Nuclear Force

This is a derivation of the mechanism of gravity and its relationship to the nuclear force. Gravitons are dismissed as mathematically impossible by way of the true field gradient ... linear curved space rather than an inverse square field.

Category:

Science & Technology

Tags:

• gravity
• quantum
• nuclear
• force
• inverse
• square
• law
• field
• Einstein
• Newton
• uncertainty
• principle
• gravitation
• general
• relativity
• Compton
• wavelength
• cause
• of

[Rudeones1not]

Bloody hell, I shall return & see what the discussion yields later. An interesting concept all the same. I will follow this with great interest .

[Bantokfomoki]

@Rudeones1not More than interesting ... It's 'simple' which is all that is acceptable to me. I won't take "floating abstractions" as physical principles. ;o)

[Zareste]

believes in gravitons...

[macdaddylorenzo]

@CACBCCCU Thanks a lot for your reply. Very interesting!

[CACBCCCU]

@macdaddylorenzo The question leads me immediately to consider that the statement may seem silly, and/or even incorporative of a de-humanizing of scientists, which was not my intent. Anyway, it has a lot to do with my ideas about gravity being, as far as I know and in the public domain, entirely mine. I'm never of one mind about anything scientific, but these ideas get me totally engaged into physics, so the fact that they're mine and they're highly unconventional (or eccentric) has to be key.

[CACBCCCU]

@macdaddylorenzo Thanks for asking, by the way. Your question got me to review all my comments here, and I see where I neglected to correct my assertion about the size and nature of the so-called "sombrero galaxy." Apparently it's twice as large as I noted below, so it's about as large as Hoag's galaxy and not at all unique.

Also by the way, if anyone knows of a ring galaxy that has a significantly different size, I'd really like to know about it

[CACBCCCU]

@macdaddylorenzo It produces different reactions with different types of people. People are extremely complex at times and how I process their reactions is very person-dependent, so, for too many reasons to list, discussing that further here does not appear to me to be productive. Sorry about that.

As for scientists, reactions are much simpler to process. It has a lot to do with related concepts like dark energy and dark matter, which have substantial open questions associated with them.

[macdaddylorenzo]

@CACBCCCU

Hi CACBCCU. How does that help you understand people and scientists?

Thanks so much!

[CACBCCCU]

The quantum emission/absorbtion rule I'm considering using for gravitons is a directional rule that should rapidly converge to the abundantly-documented 1/r^2 gravity relation. FWIW, the rule is much the same as the simplest neural learning rule, but it's simply a bounce-back exchange rule with a corner-reflector character to it, and it should explain why different precise measurements of G are being produced with different experiments.

[CACBCCCU]

There another problem, besides the one I mentioned before, with using an inverse square law for gravity and that problem has to do with mass being somewhat independent of volume, nothing about algebra. This problem shows up if one assumes gravity flux doesn't bend. IMO using an appropriate set of rules for graviton emission/absorbtion direction will remedy the problem without bending gravity flux, rules producing gravity's highly-documented inverse-square relation as a steady-state solution.