- Contemporary messages sorted: [ by date ] [ by thread ] [ by subject ] [ by author ] [ by messages with attachments ]

From: <sergiorodrigues.domain.name.hidden>

Date: Thu, 25 Mar 2004 14:45:21 +0000

Hi all,

Regarding the graviton theory I've found an interesting description:

"It is proposed that the photon is the sole elementary particle in nature; energy consists of helical wave photons and

matter of orbital interlocking photons; gravitons are spinning linear wave photons which are emitted at a constant rate

to preserve matter; the uneven transmission of gravitons causes the gravitational force and that the gravitational lens

is a misnomer."

I've found an article that in a simplistic way gives an overview of matter, energy and gravitational force. This article is a bit old but helps to

understand the graviton subject.

http://www2.rideau.net/gaasbeek/spap3.html

It seems that gravitons are a form of photon emission different from the one that is defined as energy waves and the one that defines mass. Is this

logical? Well, at least I think

it is a good start for discussion.

Cheers,

"Ron McFarland" <RonMcF.domain.name.hidden> on 17/02/2004 05:35:31

Please respond to RonMcF.domain.name.hidden

From: "Ron McFarland" <RonMcF.domain.name.hidden>

To: everything-list.domain.name.hidden

cc:

Subject: Black Holes and Gravity Carrier

Greetings again to the list. It has been a while since I posted something

to think

about, and in that case I did a lot of arguing for my cause! I enjoyed it a

lot, and I

hope others did too. But I again must stress that I do not rise to the

level where I

can appreciate deep mathematical discussion, and so I hope that discussion

on this

topic that I will now raise can be expressed by logic (I have argued before

that logic

includes mathematics as a subset of logic but that logic also includes all

things that

mathematics seems to have no good way to define -- because mathematics is

ultimately digital and so mathematics by its nature can only approximate

the

analog). Ok, on to the topic! :)

Some experiments have indicated that gravity is associated with a force

carrier, and

that this force carrier moves somewhere below or at the speed of light.

Experiments

continue as the indications have not been absolutely proven. Perhaps I will

be

corrected on this, but it is my understanding that a force carrier is

generally thought

of as some sort of particle that transfers mass/energy between other

particles.

This presents a logical problem relative to black holes. Beyond the event

horizon,

nothing with mass can escape there from and make itself known to our

observable

universe. Apparently every particle has at least some mass, however tiny,

else a

black hole would be seen to radiate for reasons other than absorbsion of

half of a

virtual particle pair. (I always had trouble with that absorbsion mechanism

of black

hole evaporation, since it seemed logical to me that on the average 50% of

what

gets absorbed would be matter as we know it and 50% would be anti-matter,

with an

average net gain of zero absorbsion).

The only logical way that I can fathom for energy to escape from a black

hole, and

express itself as gravity, is if the force carrier "particle" has

absolutely no mass.

Again, perhaps I will be corrected, but it is my understanding that gravity

can only

affect particles that have mass. But a "particle" expressed only as energy

does not

equate with e=mc^2 (e=0 * [the speed of light squared]) because e must

then = 0.

If a gravity carrier has any mass whatsoever then by what mechanism could

it

possibly and in such abundance escape from a black hole event horizon and

make

itself known in our observable universe?

Or could it be that gravity is, in reality, pure nothing -- that gravity is

an expression

of the case where e really does = absolutely zero? Is gravity really just

an attempt

by matter to interact with an absolute nothing? If so, then is a black hole

really --

nothing? Could it be that gravity is expressed relative to the *inverse* of

e=mc^2?

Ron McFarland

*********************************************************************************

The information contained in this e-mail is intended only for the

person or entity to which it is addressed and may contain confidential

and / or privileged material. If you are not the intended recipient

of this e-mail, the use of this information or any disclosure,

copying or distribution is prohibited and may be unlawful.

If you received this in error, please contact the sender

and delete the material from any computer.

BAA, the world's leading airport company - http://www.baa.com

******************************************************************************

Received on Thu Mar 25 2004 - 11:19:45 PST

Date: Thu, 25 Mar 2004 14:45:21 +0000

Hi all,

Regarding the graviton theory I've found an interesting description:

"It is proposed that the photon is the sole elementary particle in nature; energy consists of helical wave photons and

matter of orbital interlocking photons; gravitons are spinning linear wave photons which are emitted at a constant rate

to preserve matter; the uneven transmission of gravitons causes the gravitational force and that the gravitational lens

is a misnomer."

I've found an article that in a simplistic way gives an overview of matter, energy and gravitational force. This article is a bit old but helps to

understand the graviton subject.

http://www2.rideau.net/gaasbeek/spap3.html

It seems that gravitons are a form of photon emission different from the one that is defined as energy waves and the one that defines mass. Is this

logical? Well, at least I think

it is a good start for discussion.

Cheers,

"Ron McFarland" <RonMcF.domain.name.hidden> on 17/02/2004 05:35:31

Please respond to RonMcF.domain.name.hidden

From: "Ron McFarland" <RonMcF.domain.name.hidden>

To: everything-list.domain.name.hidden

cc:

Subject: Black Holes and Gravity Carrier

Greetings again to the list. It has been a while since I posted something

to think

about, and in that case I did a lot of arguing for my cause! I enjoyed it a

lot, and I

hope others did too. But I again must stress that I do not rise to the

level where I

can appreciate deep mathematical discussion, and so I hope that discussion

on this

topic that I will now raise can be expressed by logic (I have argued before

that logic

includes mathematics as a subset of logic but that logic also includes all

things that

mathematics seems to have no good way to define -- because mathematics is

ultimately digital and so mathematics by its nature can only approximate

the

analog). Ok, on to the topic! :)

Some experiments have indicated that gravity is associated with a force

carrier, and

that this force carrier moves somewhere below or at the speed of light.

Experiments

continue as the indications have not been absolutely proven. Perhaps I will

be

corrected on this, but it is my understanding that a force carrier is

generally thought

of as some sort of particle that transfers mass/energy between other

particles.

This presents a logical problem relative to black holes. Beyond the event

horizon,

nothing with mass can escape there from and make itself known to our

observable

universe. Apparently every particle has at least some mass, however tiny,

else a

black hole would be seen to radiate for reasons other than absorbsion of

half of a

virtual particle pair. (I always had trouble with that absorbsion mechanism

of black

hole evaporation, since it seemed logical to me that on the average 50% of

what

gets absorbed would be matter as we know it and 50% would be anti-matter,

with an

average net gain of zero absorbsion).

The only logical way that I can fathom for energy to escape from a black

hole, and

express itself as gravity, is if the force carrier "particle" has

absolutely no mass.

Again, perhaps I will be corrected, but it is my understanding that gravity

can only

affect particles that have mass. But a "particle" expressed only as energy

does not

equate with e=mc^2 (e=0 * [the speed of light squared]) because e must

then = 0.

If a gravity carrier has any mass whatsoever then by what mechanism could

it

possibly and in such abundance escape from a black hole event horizon and

make

itself known in our observable universe?

Or could it be that gravity is, in reality, pure nothing -- that gravity is

an expression

of the case where e really does = absolutely zero? Is gravity really just

an attempt

by matter to interact with an absolute nothing? If so, then is a black hole

really --

nothing? Could it be that gravity is expressed relative to the *inverse* of

e=mc^2?

Ron McFarland

*********************************************************************************

The information contained in this e-mail is intended only for the

person or entity to which it is addressed and may contain confidential

and / or privileged material. If you are not the intended recipient

of this e-mail, the use of this information or any disclosure,

copying or distribution is prohibited and may be unlawful.

If you received this in error, please contact the sender

and delete the material from any computer.

BAA, the world's leading airport company - http://www.baa.com

******************************************************************************

Received on Thu Mar 25 2004 - 11:19:45 PST

*
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.0
: Fri Feb 16 2018 - 13:20:09 PST
*