The Noise of Gravitons

So to be frank you are oing to engage what lol, you have quantified it this QG, no , he has quantified it l, no , Wilczek has quantified it, no, is it really necessary to discuss about a general false reasoning about these gravitons massless ., lol you are going to make what, to change the energy tensor product with the geometrical algebras like this E8 and a non commutativity with different groups and orders, let s be serious, it is not renormalisable like this simply. The feynman diagrams cannot solve,m the GR cannot solve becaiuse the infinute resulsts cannot disappear and also the gravitons interact with nthemselves infinitelly.If the thinkers don t understand this, there is a serious problem there. And the planck scale it is the same still , it is just an assumption and all they try to unify G c and h with foundamental strings in 1D at this planck scale, is it a joke in fact , a hidden camera maybe and after hop hocus pocus a low vibrational state of energy and the ADS CFT correspondance, and after hop hocus pocus, different vibrational states in this GR explain the DM, I see an ocean of nnon sense still due to this relativistic prison, they are not able now to consider a deeper logic than just these photons, these strings and this GR,and it is sad because the 3D spheres and the DM and DE are there to solve.

and too I am going to tell you an assumption, for me our biggest error is to have considered only these photons like primary essence and this GR. And in fact the EFE and the SR and the mass energ equivalence have create this prison , because if the photons are not massless and that the gravitons are not massless and that we superimpose this DE and DM with the main codes for this DE, we can explain many unknowns in respecting the logic.Sometimes I tell me thaqt this GR and the EFE and the SR have simply been invented and improved by very smart persons to creatre this prison , like this during this time, the others that we don t see them continue to rank correctly the unknowns in secret in respecting newton, if you understand this, you understand the internal conpetitions about the physics and the conflicts of interest. I don t affirm but I tell me that it is not possible all this in fact , it is a joke. The best actual thinkers work in secret somewhere and don t publish , the otehrs makie a circus of vanity in trying to explain things not possible to explain with our actual lines of reasoning and this GR and SR. Threy give prizes lol but it is a joke

So in resume, if and I tell if my reasoning is correct, our biggest error is to have considered these photons massless and if the photons and the DM are simply fuelds of mass and of energy encoded in the real particles massless the DE , there all can be solved , and when they merge together the 3 systems due to fact that this DE possesses the main codes, the bayonic matter appers and so we must change the mass energy equivalnce for the baryonic matter in considering my intuitive equation.

so that implies even that this DE is pure energy and pure information and probably massless , but I am not sure of course, I try just to see how the universe acts to create this baryonic matter. If you consider the photons like the primary essence and the only one truth, many things are not renormalisable or explainable , I don t understand why the thinkers in majority consider only these photons and this GR and the fields like origin of the reality instead of particles in a superfluidity with the 3 systems free cosmologically speakinga nd the fourth when they merge the baryonic matter , many things are easier to explain in this line of reasoning.

You can see easily that if these particles,bosons in our standard model have a non zero mass , a very very very small mass , that solves the quantum gravitation, but also the constant cosmological problem, so yes I insist the biggest error if to have considered this GR like the only one piece of puzzle, the error of the SR and mass energy equivalence and also to consider thes ephotons massless and now these gravitons, and also to consider the fields like primary essence, It is not coimplicated to consider these photons have a very small mass and more energy and the opposite for thecold dark matter, all this reasoning does not contridict the thermodynalics, it even don t contredict the observations of a kind of GR wich must be simply adapted in superimposing the deeper parameters and a superfluidity for the 3 spacetimes.

Tom,

that brings up an interesting thought. Given the locality of pendular action, we can envision that pendulum swinging at various chosen distances from a center of gravity, yet still responding to the 'penny a day, doubled each day' harmonic series of a ballistic curve. Mechanically however, that curve operates along a circle arc determined by the fixed length of the rod or string. The bob cannot follow a ballistic curve, but its rate of change of fall does. So would we find the natural exponential function along a line from the pivot point of the pendulum, and the midpoint on the circle arc where the bob suffers reversal from fall to climb? jrc

John, I see this time very simply you know, it is correlated with the changes and motions and we have an evolution, with or without the general relativity this time does not really exist in fact in a sense. It is just a parameter that we have invented correlated with the motions and to have a duration.

So local, linear, non linear or this or that, they are just interpretations of humans and they search problems where they don t exist, we have like an universal clock of evolution at all scales irreversible , it is only simple than this for me . Not need to discourse about the time in fact and even in consdidering the GR and SR that does not change the reality ,so local or non local, linear or non linear they serach probelems where they don t even exist these problems.....

Steve, please. I asked to have a dialogue with Steve Agnew.

Steve D.

If you hold that Time is not existential, and only an emergent phenomenon propagated by the relative motion among groups of physical objects, then why do you continue to speak of Spacetime? Spacetime by definition is physically real, including the Time parameter. That is perhaps the most fundamental disagreement between Quants and Relatives. No Time: No Spacetime. jrc

Tom,

"The question of whether the bob was ever initially in its equilibrium state is the deep question posed by Lamaitre."

Well, ... that also goes to the question of choice of geometry in GR, there being no center of a sphere from which to protract a radial boundary. In practical terms, that provides the dynamism inherent to GR, or more properly provides for the quantitative definition of dynamism in the real world of observable phenomenon. That Dog does hunt! :-) jrc

Like if the dialogue that you search is going to be relevant lol yes of course Tom, of course

John, Our error is to consider this time like a parameter that we can check, it is not the case and for the spacetime, it is just a tool that we observe with the relativity, it permits to rank the universe and the evolution because we see our past in going in space, I believe that many don t really understand the meaning of the spacetime of the GR, it is just a tool and the time is an invenction and due to the SR we just observe the past , that does not mean that we can check this time. And the EFE or others like the tensors or actionsor....are not the problem, that doe not change the meaning of this time wich is purelly irreversible on the entropical arrow of time universally speaking.

Tom, when you are on this kind of platform,you must understand that we have different points of vue and the real respecdt is to debate the different ideas in arguing. You don t do this , you put congratulations there and you don t explain deeper why . If you have persons debating other ideas , you could try to find roads for debating in tellingaguments against or for and why. Steve A have some ood ideas but there are common ideas like his antiverse , what I tell and repeat is that many consider only these pho9tons and GR like primary essence and they turn in rou nd in this philosophical prison, so now if you can tell me why the persons are persuaded that we have just this like primary essence , so give the proof , but you cannot give this proof and if ^persons are persuaded to better understand the philosophy of origin like if they have a syndrom of elected , it is not my problem, my problem is to find unknowns and our actual reasonings cannot do it

Forget it. I'll try to talk to Agnew privately.

Right on, John. Just the point I made in my paper, "Dynamic spacetime imposes Matter Wave Continuity."

Steve D.

GR is clearly stated to be a 'field theory' and that field IS Spacetime. There are many that wish to equivocate both SR and GR with something they originally came to conceive, but which is more a collection of naive intuitive ideas.

It is the selection of several maths that express different aspects of field properties and response which are the "tools". But if you start by making GR fit your ideas instead of learning what GR is about, it all falls apart. Though it is not a complete theory, and Einstein never claimed it to be, it should not be confused with such developmental evolutions of relativistic thinking such as Blocktime. Incomplete as it may be, the extent to which GR can go to adequately describe and predict existential phenomenon is wholistically integrated.

And as one of the most consistently successful theories ever devised, the onus is on those with competing notions to categorically show mathematically how their results agree with the vast redundancy of observations that have accumulated over the past century of application and refinement of measurement in General Relativity. Both SR and GR rest solidly, and intentionally, on Maxwell. The postulates were not something drawn from nothing as a convenience to be put in by hand. You of course are free to follow your own ideas, but no one is required by scientific discipline or civility to indulge in arguments which divest GR of its inherent theoretic structure and reasoning. If people find some agreements with your musings on the 'Music of the Spheres" be happy with that, but I really doubt that many are ever very much swayed by arguments coming from a competing paradigm. best wishes, as always jrc

Make what you want Tom, you impress nobody you and his ideas too impress nobody, sorry I am frank, for me you are still one of the persons thinking he is relevant and know better the physics and the philosophy of origin but in fact you don t know the philosophy of origin and tha main causes and you don t know if the GR is the only one piece of puzzle and you don t know furtheremore what are the foundamental objects, so the real question is why you cannot debate about this . All what you make like thaq majority is to repeat the things knomn and in trying to add some personal ideas to this but nothing of generally innovative for me,so yes speak in private with him lol repeat the things known and congratulate yourselves , it is better indeed than to discuss about general new ideas . Regards

John, I know that it is a field theory and it is mainly there that I try to explain that these fields are just for this GR and we cannot affirm that the origin of our bvaryonic matter and standard model is from these fields of this GR. The majority considers the gteonetrical algebras of Lie , or clifford or Hopf and consider in 1D at this planck scale inside the photons , strings or points like in the geometrodynamics of wheeler, so they try for exaple to consider two E8 exceptional groups and quasicrystals and holography principles to link the 1D main cosmic field of this GR with the 1D main field of strings or points, and with the non associativity or non commutativity and with groups,subgroups and different orders so they try to explain all with these fields, but all this is a pure general assumption, nothing has proved that this GR is the cause of our standard model and the baryonic matter. Do you understand my point. If you prefer the strings and others or if you want in writing beautiful words in englishl, you are free my firends but it could be better to discuss about what I tell in having concrete arguments than to repeat still like make tom the things known, if you prefer the strings or points it is your choice, I know the human nature and his vanity you know, I know

I know Jhn that I irritate many thinkers, fortunally many loves, the dr ray munroe told me here on FQXi ,I don t understand steve how we have not thought about you7r spheres and spherisation like general link before, it is simply due to fact that the thinkers have forgot the simplicity of the universe and its generality, We have just this in our universe cosmologically spe3aking my friend , Spheres yes with or without your approvement, and I have explained that the fields and strings and this GR have enormpous ontological and philosophical problem considering a kind of infinite eternal consciousness creating this universe, the strings or points and fields contredict the evolution and god simply. I don t tell that this GR is not true, I tell it must be improved and it is not the only one piece of puzzle but apparently the persons are endoctrinated and cannot now think beyond the box, the DE and DM must be added and superimposed and the spheres for the 3 systems permit to have a sueprfluidity and if you understand this, there is a problem for me, you believe that god has only created photons or what lol , is it a joke, so god is an infinite heat conscious playing at guitar, it is total non sense.