The Noise of Gravitons

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

Yes I have answered you, there is a problem, If you cannot debate about what I say, it is in fact a problem one of vanity, or second you don t understand what I say .Like this it is said,

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.

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.

If you don t understand that what we observe actually are just due to pho9tons and that our analysed measured scales too are just due to mphotons, so how could understand that we need deeper parameters to add to go farer . You turn too in round in this relativistic prison, we have 100 years of relativity and lol the thinkers utilise the name TOE like Lisi with his E8 toe , is it a hidden camera or what. Our knowledges about the cosmology and the quantum mechanic is like our travel inside the universe , even mars we don t know well lol and we have more than 2000 billions of galaxies, so instead to repeat thye things known, try to go farer generally speaking, after we could have maybe good discussions beyond this vanity, I am not here to makie competition, but to develop a theory wich is without the approvements of frustreated wanting to show a vanity , a relevant innovative theory with or without I repeat the approvements of these vanitious thinking they undertand the physics, like this it is said , to9 you, utilise beautiful words in english now, lol

and a last thing, my theory merits to be taken seriously by the thinkers and I wait this on FQXi , to have several members relevant like penrose because with persons like him, yes that can be revolutionary in developping some maths, I don t wait this with you or tom sorry but I am frank, I wait this with thinkers like hooft, wilzek, penrose , susskind .... It is the reason why I develop here, not to really discuss with ^persons who have not pondered or invented innovative things or who wnat to prove I don t know me that they are smart by frustration

You know what destroys all on this planet, the vanity and the individualism and normality accepted, yes it is a fact , insteadto work in team, the humans want always to show something like if it was an obligation even, I have the same problem with the3 project that I have created here on FQXi global collaboration, the humans are always vanitious or jealous or individual or others, and you what we are going to have in the future if we don t change, a pure global chaos my friend due to these ^parameters destroying all, even the natural potential of humain in sciences. We have probably a probelm in the DNA due to our sad common past and its adaptations, all what they want is to satisfy their vanity and life, even the most smart and aware of this universalis, they want to satisfy this, even the most aware of the universal love, that is why we shall disappear if we don t change in the future simply.

LOL and more you explain this, more they are vanitious, angry or jealous and more they want to answer to show still their smart mind and wise soul , what a paradox isn t it , welcome on this wonderful blue sphere earth turning aroung this sphere sun, full of humans and full of paradox universally speaking.

John,

I've taken the time to carefully read your valuable insights.

Your question, "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?"

I hadn't thought about that before. (My ability to quantify has declined with age.) I only analyzed it in the most general terms, F = ma. With the restoring force -kx, negative energy is obviated in the upper negative spacetime domain of the complex plane, and accommodated in the lower positive domain, where it is dispersed to further energize positrons.

Your mathematics is correct, however, and deserves to be pursued rigorously.