Re: 'gravitons'
- From: Joe Fischer <efischer@xxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Mon, 26 Dec 2005 17:05:41 -0500
On Mon, 26 Dec 2005 dlzc1 D:cox T:net@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>Dear Joe Fischer:
>>>A solution based on a continuum is already known
>>>NOT to be a solution. Your efforts are your own,
>>>but your effort is in the wrong direction. Please
>>>study some physics, it will be time well spent.
>>
>> If you are saying/thinking quantum theory
>> rules out a spacetime mapping construct, it doesn't.
>
>I am not saying that. I am saying that gravitons are endemic to
>quantum theory, and quantum theory does not require a continuum
>of spacetime.
"does not require" does not equate to "rules out".
>> Why should any theory rule out any way
>> to represent distance or time in any way math
>> can describe it.
>
>Any tool can and should be used within its domain of
>applicability. Quantum theory should not be "dissed" simply
>because it is not a continuum theory.
I did not "diss" quantum theory, but I do diss
any thought of long range particles being the carrier
of gravitation.
>> Has the flow of time been quantized?
>
>Not likely to be.
>David A. Smith
Right, and the same goes for spacetime.
If Einstein really expected to find unified field,
surely he did not expect it to be a physical field made
up of particles or medium.
His spacetime continuum will prevail, regardless
of what the mechanism of gravity is.
Joe Fischer
_
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: 'gravitons'
- From: N:dlzc D:aol T:com \(dlzc\)
- Re: 'gravitons'
- References:
- 'gravitons'
- From: Thomas Heger
- Re: 'gravitons'
- From: Aetherist
- Re: 'gravitons'
- From: Thomas Heger
- Re: 'gravitons'
- From: N:dlzc D:aol T:com \(dlzc\)
- Re: 'gravitons'
- From: Joe Fischer
- Re: 'gravitons'
- From: N:dlzc D:aol T:com \(dlzc\)
- 'gravitons'
- Prev by Date: Re: Hobba's misconceptions
- Next by Date: Re: Gravity of Newton, relativity, and falling space
- Previous by thread: Re: 'gravitons'
- Next by thread: Re: 'gravitons'
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
Loading
