It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
originally posted by: blackcrowe
a reply to: xpoq47
Texttraveling at lightspeed squared. They would mediate Einstein’s lightspeed limit but certainly not be subject to it.
Light speed (c) squared is c.
The squared is geometrical and rotational. Where in our three dimensions of length, height and width. Squared is a 90 deg by 90 deg rotation = 180 deg. Backwards being square of forward (length), down being square of up (height) and left being square of right (width). And/or vice versa. But all travel at c only.
originally posted by: TheRedneck
a reply to: xpoq47
The matter would react like a sponge in a body of water, pulling in the gravinos from all directions.
"What about gravinos (spin-1 [compressor] bosons)"
"gravino has a minuscule rest mass"
"they would mediate Einstein’s lightspeed limit"
"superluminal gravinos"
"gravinos bend light"
"gravinos might be what holds photons and particles of matter together"
"I have been working out the math behind this theory for several years now. It is possible that at some future time, the equations will imply why and how the waveforms get reflected. I suspect it has something to do with a natural tendency of the aether to reflect specific frequencies, but that is still merely conjecture on my part at this time. "
Yes it is a complex number. Where -1 is the square of 1.
originally posted by: Direne
a reply to: xpoq47
If it is a boson with integer spin, then it must obey Bose-Einstein statistics. If it is a boson, it must carry a force. What force does your 'gravino' carry? It cannot be gravity because gravity is not a force between masses. Gravity is an effect of the warping of space and time in the presence of mass.
a reply to: xpoq47
I'm suggesting that gravinos are the cops that enforce Einstein's speed limit, but cops don't restrict themselves to the speed limits.
originally posted by: Direne
a reply to: xpoq47
I'm suggesting that gravinos are the cops that enforce Einstein's speed limit, but cops don't restrict themselves to the speed limits.
That's a nice metaphor. You suggest gravinos are cops who don't restrict themselves to speed limits. I am suggesting the road is spacetime, and it imposes a speed limit to the both cops and non-cops. No matter how powerful the cops' bikes are, they are limited by how narrow and winding the road is.
That is what spacetime is for any and all particles: a road, which sets how fast they can go.
I don't follow this rationale, though I'm neutral on the idea of gravitons. I can't prove they don't exist and I don't follow your argument about why you doubt them. "raw materials" makes no sense to me, if the gravitons are massless; what "raw materials" do you need to make a massless particle?
originally posted by: xpoq47
How does gravity work? Whatever the truth is, it would likely sound ridiculous to present-day people.
I doubt the existence of gravitons (spin-2 [pulling] bosons), since a neutron deep within a neutron star shouldn’t be able to compete with surrounding neutrons for the raw materials to produce them ad infinitum.
I'm not familiar with gravinos. I found a gravino paper on Vixra but it says they would travel at the speed of light, so they are apprently not the same thing as what you are calling gravinos. It doesn't seem like a very good paper, but in your case, there is no paper linked at all.
What about gravinos (spin-1 [compressor] bosons) that impart a version of radiation pressure powerful enough to result in gravity as we know it?
E=mc² contains the term c² which is the speed of light squared. It doesn't imply anything is going faster than c, it shows the relationship between mass of a stationary object and energy of that object.
originally posted by: blackcrowe
a reply to: xpoq47
There is no faster than c.
c^2 is c.
That may be true.
originally posted by: dragonridr
a reply to: Peeple
Yes i tend to go with Einstine on this one. I think gravity is caused by the bending of space time and not actually a force.
I don't know how you come to that conclusion. The reason why we don't see it in particle physics as far as I know is that the other three forces are on the order of a trillion trillion trillion times stronger, so the gravity of a single particle is unlikely to be measured or detected by any known technology.
This is why we dont see it in particle physics.
It's natural to look for patterns in nature so, why not look for such a relationship or pattern, it seems worth looking into it. Many have had the same idea, looked, and not found a relationship that makes sense. That doesn't necessarily mean it's not there, maybe we just haven't found it yet, except for the electric universe guys who say some things about it that sound like complete nonsense and are contradicted by observation.
Now my other thought i had was the similarity between gravity and the electrostatic force.I find it interesting that the gravitational force and the electrostatic force can be so empirically similar and yet give rise to such completely different theory. Why do we not explain electrostatic attraction by saying that the presense of a charge warps space-time? I still find it odd that two forms of attraction could be so very different. But maybe its just me but i feel things need to be fundamental and connected somehow.
The second created phenomenon is that all aether passing the Scwartzchold's radius exceeds the speed of light (the definition of the Schwartzchild's radius) and thus shifts into another dimension as per Einstein's Relativity equations (the Lorentz function reduces to a function described by the imaginary portion of a complex number). This means that at some point, the aether must shift again into the original dimension (else we would detect a loss of aether and a shifting of known constants based on the properties of the aether). Thus, I theorize that this happens in the minuscule version of a "white hole"... or, as more widely known, antimatter.
originally posted by: Arbitrageur
. . . if the gravitons are massless; what "raw materials" do you need to make a massless particle?
I propose an aether which is not composed of particles, but of energy. It must also interact with matter;
originally posted by: glend
a reply to: TheRedneck
I propose an aether which is not composed of particles, but of energy. It must also interact with matter;
Perhaps matter is just knotted aether that requires an equal amount of energy to knot/unknot. The knots themselves causing directional changes within the aether that we percieve as gravity.
So the eather could be just a wind of potentials.
If gravitons exist, they would be force-carrier or exchange particles like the massless photon force-carrier of the electromagnetic force and the massless gluon force carrier of the strong force, so there's a good chance they would be massless, though there are theories which give them a small mass not unlike the neutrino which was once thought to be massless but we now think neutrinos have very tiny masses.
originally posted by: xpoq47
originally posted by: Arbitrageur
. . . if the gravitons are massless; what "raw materials" do you need to make a massless particle?
Good to hear from you.
If massless particles of any kind exist, maybe they don't exhibit the properties of mass, but they must consist of something, probably pure energy, in which case they must have been produced from some kind of raw material, even if that raw material is energy. Maybe it's just me, but I'm not comfortable with something that consists of nothing.
Some particles have very low interaction profiles with matter. Most neutrinos coming from the sun pass right through the entire earth as if it wasn't even there, it's only very rarely that a solar neutrino would interact with the matter from the earth.
Also, suppose a neutron deep within a neutron star could produce gravitons out of nothing. Am I to believe that those gravitons can penetrate miles of neutrons to make it to the surface and out into space?
In a newly born neutron star, neutrinos are temporarily trapped in the opaque stellar core, but they diffuse out in a matter of seconds, leaving most of their energy to heat the matter in the core to more than 500 billion kelvin. Over the next million years, the star mainly cools by emitting more neutrinos...
The neutrinos carry away energy as they escape from the star, and as the star cools, the number of thermally excited nucleons drops.