Universal Frequency

[Guille]

Antonio, I have read your paper on Universal Frequency and I have a few questions.

What is the time axis for the graviton? (you give several, but not the one of the graviton).

Do you really believe that the age of the universe that you derived from your equations (2.609241x10^1 is the real age of the universe? If so, what other thing make syou bbelieve it?

Last but not least, I don't understand if the constant you give is the vibration of a graviton or of the whole universe?

[AntonioLao]

What is the time axis for the graviton?

Until we find the graviton, all I can do is guess. it's (+1/2 -1/2).

Do you really believe that the age of the universe that you derived from your equations (2.609241x10^1 is the real age of the universe? If so, what other thing make syou bbelieve it?

If the frequency of vibration of the graviton does not change and the speed of light is a constant.

Last but not least, I don't understand if the constant you give is the vibration of a graviton or of the whole universe?

It is the vibration of the whole universe at the present epoch.

[Guille]

Thanks for the answers.

But when you say

If the frequency of vibration of the graviton does not change and the speed of light is a constant.

Then you say that you do believe that the age of the unvierse is that big, because the speed of light is indeed a constant and the frequency of vibration of the graviton is constant as well (at least I find now reason for why it should change). But the age of the unvierse according to this is tremendouslly big, far too much compared to any other calculation done, some of whcih derived directly from observations. So hwo could your theory work? I think the onyl way that the universe could have such a big age would be that it was very small for a very long time, most of it's age, like 99.7% or something, it was completely dense and small, and then it started to grow grow and grow.

[AntonioLao]

I think the onyl way that the universe could have such a big age would be that it was very small for a very long time, most of it's age, like 99.7% or something, it was completely dense and small, and then it started to grow grow and grow.

You have a good point. Either the universal frequency is not constant or the speed of light is not constant.

[Guille]

You have a good point. Either the universal frequency is not constant or the speed of light is not constant.

As the second one has been predicted to be constant by well-based equations and has been nearly proven, I would say that the universal frequency is not constant.

Does the fact that the universal freqeuncy is not constant impply that the universal energy is not constant?

[AntonioLao]

Does the fact that the universal freqeuncy is not constant impply that the universal energy is not constant?

If we assumed the universal energy is a constant then its frequency must be a constant.

[Guille]

If we assumed the universal energy is a constant then its frequency must be a constant.

and is ther mathetical background to assume this, or is it pure nonsense?

I say this because in string theory vibration itself is energy, so there is an interrelationship between them. more vibration is mor energy, less vibration is less energy.

[AntonioLao]

so there is an interrelationship between them. more vibration is mor energy, less vibration is less energy.

A logical resolution would be to postulate the existence of an anti-universe to absorb all the bonus or deficit energy differences.

[Guille]

A logical resolution would be to postulate the existence of an anti-universe to absorb all the bonus or deficit energy differences.

humm.....true, interesting.

But do you think that we can derive some maths for proving that vibration is dependant on energy (or vice versa)?

[AntonioLao]

But do you think that we can derive some maths for proving that vibration is dependant on energy (or vice versa)?

Planck's quantum theory and Einstein's theory of the photoelectric effect have done that.