Dear Ryoji,
You can see how to deduce the Newton law of gravitation in the concept of gravitons in the paper: Fedosin S.G. Model of Gravitational Interaction in the Concept of Gravitons. // Journal of Vectorial Relativity, March 2009, Vol. 4, No. 1, P.1-24. The concept of gravitons in the framework of Le Sage approach leads then to Covariant theory of gravitation and determination of energy and mass. By the way you can evaluate my essay.
Sergey,
Thank you for your comment.
It would still be difficult to say anything before I understand your theory which is also exceeded my knowledge.
I remember someone told me Le Sage's model is similar to mine quite a long ago. What I agreed with it was that his graviton is falling from the sky to the ground beside gravitons lead from general relativity are running opposite direction as we accelerated upward. That is one of the different points from common perspective. And if these could be discussed here, I would like to explain why I think as they are.
Well, pushing or pulling difference will effect just plus or minus so it won't make so serious difference anyway.
Regards,
Ryoji
Dear hoang cao hai,
Thank you for your comment to my postings.I would be glad to hear positive opinions to mine?
If I can answer to some of your questions, it would be the first one that the difference of gravitation (acceleration) of moon and earth. I noted acceleration as velocity "v" in my paper as it is already quantized. So in the weaker field (moon), you get weaker acceleration as gravitational energy expressed as, (\gamma-1)\sqrt{1-\sqrt{v}}. (applied Ernst Fischer's curve)
you may understand it easier with my attached graph. What I am curious is that it converges to 1/2 and then turn to zero when v=1. These should be explained with actual mechanism of mass energy conversions. time has 1 dimension and space has three. these fact would be the key of this 1/2 value.
regards,
After studying about 250 essays in this contest, I realize now, how can I assess the level of each submitted work. Accordingly, I rated some essays, including yours.
Cood luck.
Dear Sergey G Fedosin, Hoang Cao Hai,
Thank you for your messages.
I couldn't read any of others essays so many like you regardless I could have much time. And most of them are too difficult for me to understand within this limited period. So I will take more time to read through what has been discussed in this essay contest. I may get contact to you again when I find the subjects I would like to share. I really had a good time being here.
Thank you again,
Ryoji Furui
If you do not understand why your rating dropped down. As I found ratings in the contest are calculated in the next way. Suppose your rating is [math]R_1 [/math] and [math]N_1 [/math] was the quantity of people which gave you ratings. Then you have [math]S_1=R_1 N_1 [/math] of points. After it anyone give you [math]dS [/math] of points so you have [math]S_2=S_1+ dS [/math] of points and [math]N_2=N_1+1 [/math] is the common quantity of the people which gave you ratings. At the same time you will have [math]S_2=R_2 N_2 [/math] of points. From here, if you want to be R2 > R1 there must be: [math]S_2/ N_2>S_1/ N_1 [/math] or [math] (S_1+ dS) / (N_1+1) >S_1/ N_1 [/math] or [math] dS >S_1/ N_1 =R_1[/math] In other words if you want to increase rating of anyone you must give him more points [math]dS [/math] then the participant`s rating [math]R_1 [/math] was at the moment you rated him. From here it is seen that in the contest are special rules for ratings. And from here there are misunderstanding of some participants what is happened with their ratings. Moreover since community ratings are hided some participants do not sure how increase ratings of others and gives them maximum 10 points. But in the case the scale from 1 to 10 of points do not work, and some essays are overestimated and some essays are drop down. In my opinion it is a bad problem with this Contest rating process. I hope the FQXI community will change the rating process.
Dear Ryoji Furui,
A very impressive essay. Thank you for contributing it. I hope you can read my essay "Rethink the Double Slit Experiment," which also discuss the energy of particle with space time.
Yours,
Ke Xiao
Dear Ryoji Furui,
I have just seen your essay. After 10 years of work on it I can understand how important it must be for you and how much you would like constructive feedback or appreciation of it. I'm sorry your entry hasn't had more attention. I don't feel qualified to comment on the mathematics myself, so I have not studied it but extend my good wishes to you. Georgina
Dear Sergey Fedosin,
What I have been curious about infinite density at massive point (on the surface of Schwarzschild radius) is that infinite field covers a certain finite mass. Like photons had confirmed the limited and constant speed by the experiment, I was expecting it could be let the limit as observation data but now I guess it can be solved by some modifications within thesis itself.
Regards,
Ryoji
Dear Ke Xiao
Thank you for your comment.
If I try to mention about quantum mechanics for further inspect from gravitational (non compactified dimensions) interactions, I would imagine (with no math nor strict understanding of the matters) the whole view could be a certain math framework like lie algebra, e7 which can be the minimalistic framework with standard model plus gravitation whose symmetry is possibly renormalized within 4D spacetime framework. And I wonder if wave function of equation 9 in my paper can be applied to multidimensional (D>4) world as the hidden value.
Regards,
Ryoji
Dear Georgina Parry,
Thank you for your comments.
I just log on to this site for replying comments right now. I've already got much things here so I would be fine with any of result. As I stated above, I might take the time to read yours for days so now I just wish you good luck!
Regards,
Ryoji
Hi,
There might be a correction that time is a compactified dimension as its scaler state and other 3 spacial dimensions remain as the non-compactified.
Thank you
Ryoji
Hi,
I would like to post an attached file as corrections for previous post. What I correct is the term of mass and energy in geometrical description in the comparison list.
Regards,
Ryoji FuruiAttachment #1: comparison2.pdf
