| Topic: |
Science > Physics |
| User: |
"Michael Lodman" |
| Date: |
30 Mar 2006 12:39:39 PM |
| Object: |
graviton |
If gravity is a force as electromegnetism, how does a graviton escape from
an event horizon to attract other objects?
.
|
|
| User: "Spaceman" |
|
| Title: Re: graviton |
30 Mar 2006 01:01:07 PM |
|
|
"Michael Lodman" <jlodman@baja-montana.com> wrote in message
news:Xns97966C775981Fjlodmanbajamontana@70.169.32.36...
If gravity is a force as electromegnetism, how does a graviton escape from
an event horizon to attract other objects?
The "graviton" does not exist.
It is a figment of imagination only.
:)
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "=?UTF-8?Q?Jeff=E2=80=A6Relf?=" |
|
| Title: Were gravity came from and where it's going. |
01 Apr 2006 01:30:15 AM |
|
|
Hi Michael_Lodman, You asked:
If gravity is a force as electromegnetism,
how does a graviton escape from an event horizon to attract other objects ?
Gravitons are hypothetical/virtual particles, quantizations, discretenesses,
belonging to untested quantum-gravity models, e.g. M_Theory, Brane_Cosmology.
They aren't compatible with the smoothness of General_Relativity.
Further, even if such _Virtual_ particles did, ahem, exist,
they'd shed little light on the true nature of gravity.
See: WikiPedia.ORG/wiki/Graviton
As Hawking said, true event horizons never form.
Infinite density equates to infinite acceleration,
and, therefore, infinite Unruh radiation,
thud emitting more energy than currently exists in the cosmos, and then some.
Likewise, it takes energy to maintain a vacuum... it's an energy consumer.
A perfect vacuum would consume all the energy in the cosmos, and then some.
e=mcc means: Negative_Pressure = Negative_Energy
Because gravitational time dilation is a function of the escape velocity,
I posit that things there are actually traveling that fast,
but in a cyclical fashion, and in more dimensions.
The postulates above refine GR, in my opinion.
Gravitational waves travel at the speed of light
and have so far eluded detection, see LIGO and VIRGO.
Gravity is the weakest force, so it gets lost in the noise.
Likewise, although many are trying to discover if antimatter has negative mass,
the results so far are inconclusive because gravity is too weak to measure
at such scales, where charge plays a much more dominant role.
Ingoring General_Relativity's Cosmological_Constant for the moment,
gravitational acceleration is a function of the density of mass-energy
and one's proximity to it.
The density is what's left-over from the notional start of the big bang.
I posit that the universe has just always been dissipating,
and entropy is the fifth _Spatial_ dimension: Space_Time_Entropy.
That's were gravity came from and where it's going.
WMAP's March 17th data shows only polerizations consistent
with dissipation, -- i.e. ever increasing entropy --,
not from the massive gravity waves we'd see if, absurdly, the entire cosmos
had instantly popped into existence... sheesh, talk about science fiction !
SNLS' preliminary data has GR's lambda _Constant_,
within a 10 percent error, for at least the last 12 billion years,
and WMAP defines lambda's value to within a 5 percent error.
While the spin of the earth and it's path around the sun are well known,
a priori, the spin of a photon and its path are _Never_ fully known,
even after it's, ahem, measured.
So... The key to understanding cosmology and TOEs is noting that
nothing is intrinsically random; instead, some things are simply unknown,
given _Today_'s best observations/theories.
.
|
|
|
| User: "T Wake" |
|
| Title: Re: Were gravity came from and where it's going. |
01 Apr 2006 04:39:44 AM |
|
|
"Jeff.Relf" <Me@Privacy.NET> wrote in message
news:Jeff_Relf_2006_Mar_31_4F4p@Cotse.NET...
I notice you are pasting in a new load of gibberish.
The density is what's left-over from the notional start of the big bang.
Gibberish
I posit that the universe has just always been dissipating,
and entropy is the fifth _Spatial_ dimension: Space_Time_Entropy.
Falsified already.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Eric Gisse" |
|
| Title: Re: graviton |
30 Mar 2006 02:41:02 PM |
|
|
Michael Lodman wrote:
If gravity is a force as electromegnetism, how does a graviton escape from
an event horizon to attract other objects?
Read the sci.physics FAQ.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Sam Wormley" |
|
| Title: Re: graviton |
30 Mar 2006 03:49:07 PM |
|
|
Michael Lodman wrote:
If gravity is a force as electromegnetism, how does a graviton escape from
an event horizon to attract other objects?
Physics FAQ: How does the gravity get out of the black hole?
http://edu-observatory.org/physics-faq/Relativity/BlackHoles/black_gravity.html
.
|
|
|
| User: "Dave Lister" |
|
| Title: Re: graviton |
30 Mar 2006 05:11:45 PM |
|
|
Sam Wormley <swormley1@mchsi.com> wrote in
news:nnYWf.865358$x96.89464@attbi_s72:
http://edu-observatory.org/physics-faq/Relativity/BlackHoles/black_grav
ity.html
That explanation seems pretty dubious to me. A fossil field? If the black
hole has an electric charge it will also be a fossil field, in which case
how would it ever get negated by infalling charge of opposite sign?
--
Elect a Crook - Vote Republican
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "=?UTF-8?Q?Jeff=E2=80=A6Relf?=" |
|
| Title: Where gravity came from and where it's going. |
01 Apr 2006 01:36:30 AM |
|
|
[ Reposted to correct spelling errors and the like ]
Hi Michael_Lodman, You asked:
If gravity is a force as electromegnetism,
how does a graviton escape from an event horizon to attract other objects ?
Gravitons are hypothetical/virtual particles, quantizations, discretenesses,
belonging to untested quantum-gravity models, e.g. M_Theory, Brane_Cosmology.
They aren't compatible with the smoothness of General_Relativity.
Further, even if such _Virtual_ particles did, ahem, exist,
they'd shed little light on the true nature of gravity.
See: WikiPedia.ORG/wiki/Graviton
As Hawking said, true event horizons never form.
Infinite density equates to infinite acceleration,
and, therefore, infinite Unruh radiation,
thus emitting more energy than currently exists in the cosmos, and then some.
Likewise, it takes energy to maintain a vacuum... it's an energy consumer.
A perfect vacuum would consume all the energy in the cosmos, and then some.
e=mcc means: Negative_Pressure = Negative_Energy
Because gravitational time dilation is a function of the escape velocity,
I posit that things there are actually traveling that fast,
but in a cyclical fashion, and in more dimensions.
The postulates above refine GR, in my opinion.
Gravitational waves travel at the speed of light
and have so far eluded detection, see LIGO and VIRGO.
Gravity is the weakest force, so it gets lost in the noise.
Likewise, although many are trying to discover if antimatter has negative mass,
the results so far are inconclusive because gravity is too weak to measure
at such scales, where charge plays a much more dominant role.
Ingoring General_Relativity's Cosmological_Constant for the moment,
gravitational acceleration is a function of the density of mass-energy
and one's proximity to it.
The density is what's left-over from the notional start of the big bang.
I posit that the universe has just always been dissipating,
and entropy is the fifth _Spatial_ dimension: Space_Time_Entropy.
As Hawking says, the universe has no beginning or end.
That's where gravity came from and where it's going.
WMAP's March 17th data shows only polerizations consistent
with dissipation, -- i.e. ever increasing entropy --,
not from the massive gravity waves we'd see if, absurdly, the entire cosmos
had instantly popped into existence... sheesh, talk about science fiction !
SNLS' preliminary data has GR's lambda _Constant_,
within a 10 percent error, for at least the last 12 billion years,
and WMAP defines lambda's value to within a 5 percent error.
While the spin of the earth and it's path around the sun are well known,
a priori, the spin of a photon and its path are _Never_ fully known,
even after it's, ahem, measured.
So... The key to understanding cosmology and TOEs is noting that
nothing is intrinsically random; instead, some things are simply unknown,
given _Today_'s best observations/theories.
.
|
|
|
| User: "T Wake" |
|
| Title: Re: Where gravity came from and where it's going. |
01 Apr 2006 04:37:56 AM |
|
|
"Jeff.Relf" <Me@Privacy.NET> wrote in message
news:Jeff_Relf_2006_Mar_31_qf4q@Cotse.NET...
I posit that the universe has just always been dissipating,
and entropy is the fifth _Spatial_ dimension: Space_Time_Entropy.
Your postulate is already falsified - and this has been repeatedly pointed
out to you.
The rest of your post was word salad.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Eric Gisse" |
|
| Title: Re: Where gravity came from and where it's going. |
01 Apr 2006 03:06:28 AM |
|
|
Jeff...Relf wrote:
[ Reposted to correct spelling errors and the like ]
[snip]
Yet the gaping holes in logic and the breathtaking lack of physics
remains, along with the subject that is different from the original
post.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
