ToeQuest

We're going on a TOE Quest!


Register

Reply

The Thinker

Guille's Avatar

Join Date: Mar 2005
Posts: 3,278
Blog Entries: 7
48 Guille is a jewel in the rough
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!Spurl this Post!Reddit!
Quote  
10-02-2005, 03:51 PM
Universal Frequency

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?
Reply With Quote
Guille is offlineReport Post
Raider of the lost time

AntonioLao's Avatar

Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 6,022
Blog Entries: 6
86 AntonioLao is a splendid one to beholdAntonioLao is a splendid one to beholdAntonioLao is a splendid one to beholdAntonioLao is a splendid one to behold
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!Spurl this Post!Reddit!
Quote  
10-03-2005, 12:50 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by GUILLE
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).
Quote:
Originally Posted by GUILLE
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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by GUILLE
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.
__________________
Time independence: [∂E(g)]²=[∂F(a)×∂r(a)]·[∂F(b)×∂r(b)] and Mass independence: a(tr(t)=c²
Reply With Quote
AntonioLao is online nowReport Post
The Thinker

Guille's Avatar

Join Date: Mar 2005
Posts: 3,278
Blog Entries: 7
48 Guille is a jewel in the rough
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!Spurl this Post!Reddit!
Quote  
10-03-2005, 01:15 PM
Thanks for the answers.

But when you say

Quote:
Originally Posted by AntonioLao
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.
Reply With Quote
Guille is offlineReport Post
Raider of the lost time

AntonioLao's Avatar

Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 6,022
Blog Entries: 6
86 AntonioLao is a splendid one to beholdAntonioLao is a splendid one to beholdAntonioLao is a splendid one to beholdAntonioLao is a splendid one to behold
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!Spurl this Post!Reddit!
Quote  
10-03-2005, 01:23 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by GUILLE
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.
__________________
Time independence: [∂E(g)]²=[∂F(a)×∂r(a)]·[∂F(b)×∂r(b)] and Mass independence: a(tr(t)=c²
Reply With Quote
AntonioLao is online nowReport Post
The Thinker

Guille's Avatar

Join Date: Mar 2005
Posts: 3,278
Blog Entries: 7
48 Guille is a jewel in the rough
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!Spurl this Post!Reddit!
Quote  
10-03-2005, 01:31 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by AntonioLao
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?
Reply With Quote
Guille is offlineReport Post
Raider of the lost time

AntonioLao's Avatar

Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 6,022
Blog Entries: 6
86 AntonioLao is a splendid one to beholdAntonioLao is a splendid one to beholdAntonioLao is a splendid one to beholdAntonioLao is a splendid one to behold
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!Spurl this Post!Reddit!
Quote  
10-03-2005, 01:37 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by GUILLE
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.
__________________
Time independence: [∂E(g)]²=[∂F(a)×∂r(a)]·[∂F(b)×∂r(b)] and Mass independence: a(tr(t)=c²
Reply With Quote
AntonioLao is online nowReport Post
The Thinker

Guille's Avatar

Join Date: Mar 2005
Posts: 3,278
Blog Entries: 7
48 Guille is a jewel in the rough
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!Spurl this Post!Reddit!
Quote  
10-03-2005, 01:43 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by AntonioLao
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.
Reply With Quote
Guille is offlineReport Post
Raider of the lost time

AntonioLao's Avatar

Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 6,022
Blog Entries: 6
86 AntonioLao is a splendid one to beholdAntonioLao is a splendid one to beholdAntonioLao is a splendid one to beholdAntonioLao is a splendid one to behold
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!Spurl this Post!Reddit!
Quote  
10-03-2005, 01:48 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by GUILLE
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.
__________________
Time independence: [∂E(g)]²=[∂F(a)×∂r(a)]·[∂F(b)×∂r(b)] and Mass independence: a(tr(t)=c²
Reply With Quote
AntonioLao is online nowReport Post
The Thinker

Guille's Avatar

Join Date: Mar 2005
Posts: 3,278
Blog Entries: 7
48 Guille is a jewel in the rough
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!Spurl this Post!Reddit!
Quote  
10-03-2005, 01:49 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by AntonioLao
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)?
Reply With Quote
Guille is offlineReport Post
Raider of the lost time

AntonioLao's Avatar

Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 6,022
Blog Entries: 6
86 AntonioLao is a splendid one to beholdAntonioLao is a splendid one to beholdAntonioLao is a splendid one to beholdAntonioLao is a splendid one to behold
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!Spurl this Post!Reddit!
Quote  
10-03-2005, 02:09 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by GUILLE
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.
__________________
Time independence: [∂E(g)]²=[∂F(a)×∂r(a)]·[∂F(b)×∂r(b)] and Mass independence: a(tr(t)=c²
Reply With Quote
AntonioLao is online nowReport Post
Reply

Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Fitz'slatest revision of what Force, Space and Time really are in the wave world. Robert Duncan TOE Theories 3 02-18-2008 02:44 AM
Introduction to 'The Sentient-Centered Theory Of Metaphysics' (SCTOM) mjgeddes Your TOE Theory 10 02-03-2008 07:44 AM
Rearrangement of physic's foundation Duane Ertle Cosmology 41 02-17-2006 03:27 PM
period vs frequency AntonioLao General Physics 0 12-31-2005 06:12 PM



All times are GMT -4. The time now is 01:22 PM. Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.7.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2008, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO 3.2.0 VBulletin Skin by ForumMonkeys.