Re: do photons interact with gravitons?
From: Ole D. Rughede (ole.rughede_at_privat.dk)
Date: 08/31/04
- Next message: Muay Thai Gold: "Going into the field of physics"
- Previous message: tj Frazir: "Re: SOLAR-POWERED Sonar."
- Next in thread: Ole D. Rughede: "Re: do photons interact with gravitons?"
- Reply: Ole D. Rughede: "Re: do photons interact with gravitons?"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Date: Tue, 31 Aug 2004 06:05:01 +0200
"zigoteau" <zigoteau@ausi.com> skrev i en meddelelse
news:9da9cba1.0408300936.5e59c6e4@posting.google.com...
> "Ole D. Rughede" <ole.rughede@privat.dk> wrote in message
news:<413223b4$0$281$edfadb0f@dread11.news.tele.dk>...
>
> Hi, Ole,
>
> Thanks for the response. I had almost given up hope of getting one.
> >
> >
> > I. There is/was no big-bang and no universal expansion.
> > The redshifts are simple gravitational effects indicating
> > the universal gravitational work.
>
> I'm not saying you're wrong, but there seem to be difficulties with
> your two statements. I thought the alternative to "one big bang" was
> many big bangs, not "0 big bangs"?
No big-bang.
Innumerable local galactic bangs and local expansion
by light pressure.
I wonder if the gamma-flashes we observe at random
intervals from all directions of space should in fact be
evidences of such galactic births from giant black holes.
If you assume that the observed red
> shift is an effect associated with gravity rather than with expansion,
> why is it red in all directions? Surely the earth is not at the centre
> of the Universe?
Everywhere in the universe is THAT centrum.
Everywhere the great mass distribution is the same.
> > II. GR extended in 5D Kaluza-Klein for energy-parameters
> > and with correct "cosmological constant" Lambda (which is
> > not any constant at all) in terms of energy-mass density and
> > pressure, constitutes GAR, the General Theory of Aether
> > and Relativity.
>
> I quite like Kaluza-Klein theory, and although various people have
> told me that there is evidence against it, they have never said what
> that evidence is. I know that string theory is based on a
> multidimensional extension to it.
http://xxx.lanl.gov/pdf/gr-qc/9805018
http://xxx.lanl.gov/pdf/gr-qc/0104045
Lines connecting gravitating bodies are simple strings,
though in fact the energy of gravitational exchange is
provided from all directions of the space-time-energetic
continuum of the Aether.
> > III. The Aether equations leading to the above conclusions are
> > discussed in thread "Aether is the empty space....", where
> > the Aether is defined as the space-time-energetic continuum
> > provided by the radiation from all astrophysical bodies, and
> > the quantum-gravitational process as an universal exchange of
> > radiant EM energy between all astrophysical bodies (particles).
> >
> > (CGS) kappa*U*V / G*h*c^2 = 1 dimensionless
> > G*c / kappa*L^2 = U*L / h*c = K dimensionless
> > V * L/c * u / K*h = 1 dimensionless
> >
> > kappa = 1 erg/(sec*g^2) = 4Ghc^2 / 3SVT
> > S = 1.968074E-13 erg/Kelvin = Entropy of the Aether
> > U = 3.973637E-13 erg = specific aether energy at T(Aether)
> > T(Aether) = 2.692064 Kelvin = T(CMBR) theoretical
> > u = U/V erg/cm^3
> > p = u/3 dyn/cm^2
> > V = 1 cm^3
> > L = 1 cm
> > G = 6.672426E-8 cm^3/(g*sec^2) theoretical
> > h = 6.626176E-27 erg*sec
> > c = 2.99792458E10 cm/sec
> > K = 2.000343E3 dimensionless
> >
> > IV. Considerations on coefficients x to U, y to G, and
> > z to c, lead to a tentative sketching of the dependence of
> > G and c as functions of the local aether energy density u
> > and the implications in low energy physics at temperatures
> > below T(Aether) and in the extreme of galaxy kernels and
> > so-called "black holes" with u proportional to T(Aether)^4.
At present I tentatively assume: y = x(x+1)/2x and
z^2 = (x + 1). Future experiments must show better.
> > V. Gravitons as tensor bosons spin-2 are assumed to be
> > modulations of the ordinary EM vector boson gas spin-1
> > of the aether by any moving, swinging, or oscillating mass.
> > They are believed to be represented by gravitational waves
> > which has been looked for since Joseph Weber began the
> > research.
>
> > VI. There is, to my knowledge, no indications or experim-
> > ental evidence for neutrinos to have mass, why I assume
> > they (presently) must be conceived as ordinary EM-waves
> > as of emitted photons.
>
> There is evidence. It is based on measurements of the neutrino flux
> from the sun which indicates that electron neutrinos convert into muon
> neutrinos between the time they are created and when they are detected
> on earth. I must say that I am not totally convinced, because if they
> have nonzero mass, I would have thought that the different sorts
> should have different masses, precluding any such pendelloesung. I
> would also have thought that the wavefunctions of different
> fundamental particles ought to be orthogonal. However it is incorrect
> to say that there is no experimental evidence for the statement.
> Neutrinos are certainly not photons. Two major differences: (1) they
> are fermions and (2) the interaction with ordinary matter is perhaps
> 12 orders of magnitude weaker.
Agree we have some minor problem here.
Nevertheless, I prefer to look at it as said for the present.
> Thanks for your thoughts on the matter: can you answer my
> difficulties? I'll check out the other thread to see if I can
> understand/agree with it.
O.K. There's a lot of garbarge now, but try find your way.
Ole D. Rughede
- Next message: Muay Thai Gold: "Going into the field of physics"
- Previous message: tj Frazir: "Re: SOLAR-POWERED Sonar."
- Next in thread: Ole D. Rughede: "Re: do photons interact with gravitons?"
- Reply: Ole D. Rughede: "Re: do photons interact with gravitons?"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Relevant Pages
|
