Jay R. Yablon wrote:

[more good stuff]

Then, solve for the metric, and you will
already have built into from scratch, by construction, all that we know
about QED and QCD and QWD.

so no gravitons then, but still gravity waves, I take it?

Do you feel there is a need to quantise gravity, from a "consistency"
point of view? Or until someone finds a graviton there is no need?

Well, Brendan, I have to very much suspect that there are gravitons, because
I don't see how gravitation can be exempt from energy quantization. I have
spent quite a lot of time thinking about how the energy in T^uv_;u gets
exchanged with the kappa^v.

Cold neutrons in neutron traps fall discretely.

-Aut

Autymn D. C. wrote:
Jay R. Yablon wrote:

[more good stuff]

Then, solve for the metric, and you will
already have built into from scratch, by construction, all that we know
about QED and QCD and QWD.

so no gravitons then, but still gravity waves, I take it?

Do you feel there is a need to quantise gravity, from a "consistency"
point of view? Or until someone finds a graviton there is no need?

Well, Brendan, I have to very much suspect that there are gravitons, because
I don't see how gravitation can be exempt from energy quantization. I have
spent quite a lot of time thinking about how the energy in T^uv_;u gets
exchanged with the kappa^v.

Cold neutrons in neutron traps fall discretely.
So it seems:
http://physicsweb.org/article/news/6/1/9

Sue...

-Aut

GRAViTY & MAGNETiC impulse applies to ALL of a body, at once.!!
WHERE-as, iNERTiAL impulse applies ..ONLY to an OUTside area.!!
ALSO, note, GRAViTY & MAGNETiSM is AUTOMATiC, iNERTiA is NOT.!!
GRAViTY and MAGNETiSM act at-a-distance; iNERTiA, by contact.!!
brian a m stuckless

Autymn D. C. wrote: brian a m stuckless wrote:
Sue... wrote: Ken S. Tucker wrote: Hi Sue, mostly agree with you... Sue... wrote: Ken S. Tucker wrote: Ken S.
Tucker wrote: FrediFizzx wrote: "Jay R.
Yablon" wrote in message
...

Stop cascading or, if I ever find you, I'll beat your head in.

insert ..see top of PAGE, pussie.!!

The Greek YAB-a-dab-a-Sue-doo, mu*eps, in SI GUESS is Uo*Eo = 1 / c^2.

$ 3*VOLUME / AREA, per DURATiON = RADiAL velocity.!!
Delta, VOLUME / surface AREA ..per second, is RADiAL velocity / 3.
Unit TRiAKiSicosa VOLUME / (surf AREA*sec) is TiP-to-TiP / 6*sec.
Unit SPHERiCAL VOLUME / (surface AREA*sec) is, DiAMETER / 6*sec.
Unit CUBiCAL VOLUME / (surface AREA*second) = EDGEside / 6*sec.
GRAViTATiONAL impulse per VOLUME; iNERTiAL impulse, per AREA.

No, they're not. --

Yes they do.
GRAViTY & MAGNETiC impulse applies to ALL of a body, at once.!!
WHERE-as, iNERTiAL impulse applies ..ONLY to an OUTside area.!!
ALSO, note, GRAViTY & MAGNETiSM is AUTOMATiC, iNERTiA is NOT.!!
[i.e. GRAViTY & MAGNETiSM act at-a-distance; iNERTiA, contact.]
brian a m stuckless

-- You need more subscripts. You should also read
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Word_salad_(mental_health).

The force between two charges and the force between
two masses represents no energy exchange.
insert ..see top of PAGE.!! Sue is NOT coy. This is dis-info.
Force x DiSTANCE = ENERGY exchange ..viewed with a CAUTiON.!!
Yes, c-a-u-t-i-o-n ..it spells don't look back, Cracked-pot.!!
no caution -Aut.

$ YAB-a-dab-a-Sue-doo (gr-qc/0511050).
NOTE, G*M1 / (n - 1)*r1 = (vescape)^2 / 2*(n - 1) = r1*g = v1^2.!!

NOTE, (phase)*(group).. .. .. .. .. .. ..velocities
= (vx + vy)*vg = vp*vg = (REFERENCE velocity)^2
= (SECOND RADiATiON constant C_2 ..C2) / {e} = c^2
= h*fL / m1
..new line, 19nov05.. .. = k*{e}*fL*c / m1
..new line, 19nov05.. .. = 2*#*{e}*fL / m1
= fL*wl*c / nL
= 2*pi*fL*rA*c / nA
..line, 19nov05.. .. .. = h*fL*rA*c^2 / nA*G*(Mp)^2
..line, 19nov05.. .. .. .. = h*fL*rA / nA*Mp*lp
..line, 19nov05.. .. .. .. = h*fL*rA / nA*me*wls
..line, 19nov05.. .. .. = 2*pi*h*fL*rA / nA*me*wlc
..line, 19nov05.. .. .. = 4*pi*h*fL*rA / nA*Moo*loo
= h*fL*rA / nA*{mph}*ls
= h*fL*v1^2 / nA*{mph}*ls*g
= h*fL*v1^2 / nA*{mph}*ls*g
= h*fL*(vescape)^2 / 2*(n - 1)*nA*{mph}*ls*g
= Na*(mol part) / Uo*Eo*Mol
..line, 19nov05.. = no*vm*(mol part) / Uo*Eo*Mol
..line, 19nov05.. .. = Ra*(mol part) / Uo*Eo*Mol*k
..line, 19nov05.. .. .. = F*(mol part) / Uo*Eo*Mol*{e}.

Also, note the icon # is GUESS *email text* MAGNETiC flux quantum.
brian a m stuckless

Ken S. Tucker wrote: Sue... wrote: Ken S. Tucker wrote:
The invariant Jay is exploiting is surprisingly simple,
(risking making too many equations) it's just,

F_uv F*^uv = E.B sqrt(g)

(I wish I had thought of that!)

I have to question if that is adaquate consideration
of the eps and mu of the lumps in space that we
call matter.

That's interesting. Suppose, as we are studying, the g-field
and the E-field are related and further suppose we call
a g-field an EM-wave of zero frequency. Then, using an
EM-wave of zero frequency, we measure the refractive
index to find eps and mu.
What I think is the sqrt(g) becomes the refractive index
for an EM wave of zero frequency, and is indistinguishable
from a gravtitational field.

Sue...
New Paper: General Relativity, Maxwell's Electrodynamics, and the
Foundations of the Quantum Theory of Gravitation and Matter
(gr-qc/0511050).

There are NO arbitrary fundamental physical constants of NATURE, now.
SI GUESS iSS units are meter, kilogram, second, Ampere, Kelvin & Mol.

(PLANCK mass Mp)*lp = {mph}*ls = me*wls = hbar / c = m1*rA / nA

Moo Moo*loo hbar G*Mp^2 G*M1*m1
= -- -- -- = -- - -- = ---- = --- -- = -- -- --- -- --
4*pi*Roo 4*pi c c^2 nA*(n - 1)*v1^2

G*Mp*{mph} m1*rA (h + 2*hbar) k*{e}
= -- -- -- --- -- -- -- -- = -- -- = -- --- -- -- = -- --
4*(pi)^2*nA*(n - 1)*v1^2 nA Ra*c 2*pi

m1*(wavelength wl) m1*c me*wlc Planck's h eH*loo
= -- -- --- -- -- -- = -- - -- = --- -- = -- -- -- -- = -- - --
2*pi*nL 2*pi*fL 2*pi 2*pi*c 4*pi*c^2.

Maxwell's authentic equations applied ONLY between FLAT PLATEs.!!
But that doesn't matter for a point-ONLY on a WORLD-line in GR.!!
A WORLD-point in SPACE-time has NO iNSiDE, or OUTside, ANYways.!!
The SHORTEST GR-geodesic iN the SPACE ON the SURFACE of the POiNT
ON a WORLD-line in GR SPACE-time is NOT UNCLE AL's "other, LONGER
way round" GR-geodesic. Go go Google GROUP SEARCH My BiGGER bang.


Autymn D. C. wrote: brian a m stuckless wrote: Sue... wrote:
Ken S. Tucker wrote: Hi Sue, mostly agree with you...
Sue... wrote: Ken S. Tucker wrote: Ken S. Tucker
wrote: FrediFizzx wrote: "Jay R. Yablon"
wrote in message
...

Stop cascading or, if I ever find you, I'll beat your head in.

Greek YAB-a-dab-a-Sue-doo, mu*eps, in SI GUESS= Uo*Eo = 1 / c^2.
$ 3*VOLUME / AREA, per DURATiON = RADiAL velocity.!!
Delta VOLUME / surface AREA, per second = RADiAL DiSTANCE / 3*sec.
Unit TRiAKiSicosa VOLUME / (surf AREA*sec) is TiP-to-TiP / 6*sec.
Unit SPHERiCAL VOLUME / (surface AREA*sec) is, DiAMETER / 6*sec.
Unit CUBiCAL VOLUME / (surface AREA*second) = EDGEside / 6*sec.
GRAViTATiONAL impulse per VOLUME; iNERTiAL impulse, per AREA.

No, they're not. You need more subscripts. You should also read
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Word_salad_(mental_health).

The force between two charges and the force between
two masses represents no energy exchange.

Since "force" x DiSTANCE = "energy exchange" ("force" isn't "energy
exchange" EVEN if "viewed with a CAUTiON", MAY be WHY Sue said SO).

The GUESS iSS SERiAL index of OBSERVED scale-invariance, follows...


The NEW SI GUESS iSS STATiSTiCAL system of SCALE-invariance:

(h + 2*hbar) (pi + 1) (X + 2*Y)
-- -- -- -- = -- --- = -- -- -- = STATiSTiCAL *tensors* ;
h pi X

nL*(h + nA*hbar) nL*(2*pi + nA) nL*(X + nA*Y)
-- -- -- -- -- = -- -- --- -- = -- --- -- -- = nL*Ni.
h 2*pi X

Planck scale ; LOCAL scale ; Each WAY, and BEYOND.!!

So, NATURE doesn't CARE, if we have COHERENT SI STANDARDs.!!

Therefore, AS per WiTH the BOHR Atom, "AS above SO below".!!

G*{mph)*Mp 4*(pi)^2*{mph}*ls^3 2*pi*ls
-- ---- -- = -- -- -- - -- -- -- = me*(-- --- --)^2*wls .!!
(n - 1) ts^2 ts

brian a m stuckless

no caution -Aut.

brian a m stuckless wrote:
GRAViTY & MAGNETiC impulse applies to ALL of a body, at once.!!
WHERE-as, iNERTiAL impulse applies ..ONLY to an OUTside area.!!
ALSO, note, GRAViTY & MAGNETiSM is AUTOMATiC, iNERTiA is NOT.!!
GRAViTY and MAGNETiSM act at-a-distance; iNERTiA, by contact.!!

Anything is automatic. Anything is distant. Anything is at once.
Anything is an outside.

No, they're not. --

Yes they do.
GRAViTY & MAGNETiC impulse applies to ALL of a body, at once.!!

Your explanation has nothing to do with your screwedup units.

Force x DiSTANCE = ENERGY exchange ..viewed with a CAUTiON.!!
Yes, c-a-u-t-i-o-n ..it spells don't look back, Cracked-pot.!!

Learn how to punctuate and give context. /You've/ no caution.

Jay R. Yablon wrote:

Dr Photon wrote:

Do you feel there is a need to quantise gravity, from a "consistency"
point of view? Or until someone finds a graviton there is no need?



Well, Brendan, I have to very much suspect that there are gravitons, because
I don't see how gravitation can be exempt from energy quantization. I have
spent quite a lot of time thinking about how the energy in T^uv_;u gets
exchanged with the kappa^v.

but could it all go horribly wrong at this point? After all, QED etc
works well until you try to quantise gravity then all you end up with
are non-renormalizable infinities. Or does your approach look like it
should not have such a problem?

br

Sue wrote:
Autymn D. C. wrote:
Jay R. Yablon wrote:
Well, Brendan, I have to very much suspect that there are gravitons, because
I don't see how gravitation can be exempt from energy quantization. I have
spent quite a lot of time thinking about how the energy in T^uv_;u gets
exchanged with the kappa^v.


Cold neutrons in neutron traps fall discretely.



So it seems:
http://physicsweb.org/article/news/6/1/9

Sue...

"According to the researchers, these heights correspond to the peaks in
a standing wave created when the de Broglie wave of the neutron
interferes with its reflection from the mirror"

this does not mean that gravity is quantized though. In a similar way
quantized electron levels around a nucleus does not (by itself) imply
that the EM field is quantized, as the levels can be found using a
continuous V, and not worrying about exchange particles at all. Rather,
it's an interference property of the particle wavefunction rather than
a quantization of the field itself. What are you trying to imply?

br

Dr Photon wrote:
Sue wrote:
Autymn D. C. wrote:
Jay R. Yablon wrote:
Well, Brendan, I have to very much suspect that there are gravitons, because
I don't see how gravitation can be exempt from energy quantization. I have
spent quite a lot of time thinking about how the energy in T^uv_;u gets
exchanged with the kappa^v.


Cold neutrons in neutron traps fall discretely.



So it seems:
http://physicsweb.org/article/news/6/1/9

Sue...

"According to the researchers, these heights correspond to the peaks in
a standing wave created when the de Broglie wave of the neutron
interferes with its reflection from the mirror"

this does not mean that gravity is quantized though.
Indeed. Neutrons are not elementary so the steps should
be no more surprising than FQHE.
In a similar way
quantized electron levels around a nucleus does not (by itself) imply
that the EM field is quantized, as the levels can be found using a
continuous V, and not worrying about exchange particles at all. Rather,
it's an interference property of the particle wavefunction rather than
a quantization of the field itself. What are you trying to imply?
Exactly what you stated. Composite particles have within their
*stucture* sufficient mechanism for attractive and repulsive forces
between neutrally charged particles.
http://www.fz-juelich.de/zam/docs/autoren2002/gibbon

Sue...




br

$ Why single electrons EVEN get squeezed in an AiRY Hole by
continous ambient GRADiENT catenary (if LATERALY stressed) chains.
brian a m stuckless


Sue... wrote: Dr Photon wrote: Sue wrote: Autymn D. C.
wrote: Jay R. Yablon wrote:
Well, Brendan, I have to very much suspect that there are
gravitons, because I don't see how gravitation can be
exempt from energy quantization. I have spent quite a lot
of time thinking about how the energy in T^uv_;u gets
exchanged with the kappa^v.

$ Why EVEN single electrons get squeezed in the AiRY Hole by
continous ambient GRADiENT catenary (if LATERALY stressed) chains.


Cold neutrons in neutron traps fall discretely.

So it seems:
http://physicsweb.org/article/news/6/1/9

Sue...

"According to the researchers, these heights correspond to the
peaks in a standing wave created when the de Broglie wave of the
neutron interferes with its reflection from the mirror"

this does not mean that gravity is quantized though.
Indeed. Neutrons are not elementary so the steps should
be no more surprising than FQHE.
In a similar way
quantized electron levels around a nucleus does not (by itself)
imply that the EM field is quantized, as the levels can be found
using a continuous V, and not worrying about exchange particles
at all. Rather, it's an interference property of the particle
wavefunction rather than a quantization of the field itself.
What are you trying to imply?

Exactly what you stated. Composite particles have within their
*stucture* sufficient --

$ NEW SI GUESS iSS CODATA MOLAR *iNTER-face*, between ..duh
brian a m stuckless

-- mechanism for attractive and repulsive forces between neutrally
charged particles.
http://www.fz-juelich.de/zam/docs/autoren2002/gibbon

Sue... br.