Re: Latter Day MMX
- From: "Gerald L. O'Barr" <globarr@xxxxxxxxx>
- Date: 2 Jan 2006 09:29:32 -0800
In <dp897c$d54$1@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Martin Hogbin <goatREMOVETHIS...@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> Gerald L. O'Barr" <globarr...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> . . .
O'Barr wrote: . . .
>>>> I told you exactly what gravity was, . . .
Martin Hogbin wrote:
>>> Maybe, but that is not what I asked. What I want
>>>to know is whether you think LIGO and othe similar
>>>experiments will detect gravitational waves?
O'Barr wrote: . . .
>> O.K. So you want me to lead you by the hand. . .
Martin Hogbin wrote:
> No, I want you to answer the question, Yes or No?
O'Barr comments:
I gave you a direct answer. You just deleted it,
or probable did not even read what I wrote. But that
is O.K. Let me repeat what was posted: 'There are
no physical wave actions in gravity.'
Let me say it again: Gerald L. O'Barr says that
there are no physical wave actions in gravity! This
means that no waves will ever be detected!
Now to cover myself, because it is necessary in
this case, there could be cyclic changes in the force
of gravity that might be able to be detected, but
these will not be true wave effects. They can be
interpreted to be, the math might support such
changes, but they are not waves.
Gravity is the most universal of all forces,
'riding' upon almost all other forces. Therefore,
there is no fixed velocity that is associated with
gravity, except to the degree that there are fixed
velocities associated with all other forces. You
might say that gravity is due to the extremely slight
imperfections of all other actions, and how these
imperfections are slightly magnified each time these
other forces are used.
Now the word graviton is often used, and although
there are no such separate and independent particles
such as gravitons, it is possible to use the concept
of gravitons. I often use 'e' as a symbol for these
'particles,' and to use these e's as representations of
the excess or deficit of mass that is causing the
force. Thus, gravitons are imagined particles that
could be said to be of both positive and negative
mass, but there are no spins associated with these
particles. I find this spin concept as used by the
modern day mathematicians to be very interesting.
There are some particles that really do have a spin,
a fixed spin. But in many cases the spin that is
attached to some of these fundamental particles is
only a book keeping act, and have nothing at all to
do with anything physical. We sure do have a sick
science to work with!
Thanks for reading.
Gerald L. O'Barr <globarr...@xxxxxxxxx>
(I am sure no one cares, but the 'e' I use can be
assume to stand for errors! Gravitons are the slight
errors in mass that was exchanged in spalls when
other forces are in action. And rather than work
with the total mass being exchanged, it is
mathematically convenient to use some standard value,
and then modify it by the e's. And I do not want to
be misunderstood in any of this. These e's represent
only the effective average or mean error, the actual
physical e's can have a large range of values, and
are themselves a function of the initial e's. The
linearity of gravity, in a very slight way, depends
upon this function.)
.
- References:
- Re: Latter Day MMX
- From: Martin Hogbin
- Re: Latter Day MMX
- From: Gerald L. O'Barr
- Re: Latter Day MMX
- From: Martin Hogbin
- Re: Latter Day MMX
- Prev by Date: Re: 100 Years
- Next by Date: Re: 100 Years
- Previous by thread: Re: Latter Day MMX
- Next by thread: Re: Latter Day MMX
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
