Frank Martin DiMeglio Posted June 5, 2015 Share Posted June 5, 2015 These are the ideal theoretical requirements of quantum gravity. Notice that this gives us much more than quantum gravity, doesn't it?The true requirements of quantum gravity are:1) Invisible and visible space in fundamental equilibrium and balance.2) Fundamentally balanced and equivalent attraction and repulsion.3) A space that is stretched/expanded and contracted/flattened in balance.4) Fundamentally and ultimately equivalent and balanced gravity, inertia, and electromagnetism. (See how this is fundamentally consistent with 2) ?5) What is the middle distance in/of space.6) A larger space is made smaller, and (on balance) a smaller space is made larger.7) Fundamentally equivalent and balanced gravity and inertia (i.e., half gravity and half inertia).This is a very important (and correct) thread. See how all of these ideas are consistent? Again, it is an important thread.Ask questions please. I know more about all of this. Thanks.If something is wrong with it. What is it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Klaynos Posted June 5, 2015 Share Posted June 5, 2015 Could you describe each of your 7 points mathematically? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mathematic Posted June 6, 2015 Share Posted June 6, 2015 Your statements sound more like Zen than physics. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mordred Posted June 6, 2015 Share Posted June 6, 2015 These are the ideal theoretical requirements of quantum gravity. Notice that this gives us much more than quantum gravity, doesn't it? The true requirements of quantum gravity are: 1) Invisible and visible space in fundamental equilibrium and balance. 2) Fundamentally balanced and equivalent attraction and repulsion. 3) A space that is stretched/expanded and contracted/flattened in balance. 4) Fundamentally and ultimately equivalent and balanced gravity, inertia, and electromagnetism. (See how this is fundamentally consistent with 2) ? 5) What is the middle distance in/of space. 6) A larger space is made smaller, and (on balance) a smaller space is made larger. 7) Fundamentally equivalent and balanced gravity and inertia (i.e., half gravity and half inertia). This is a very important (and correct) thread. See how all of these ideas are consistent? Again, it is an important thread. Ask questions please. I know more about all of this. Thanks. If something is wrong with it. What is it? point 1 Visible invisible space is meaningless. Space is volume, gravity operates on the particles/fields that reside in space. Point 2 gravity is attraction only not repulsive. Point 3 space is not a material that can be stretched. Those terms are mathematical analogies for those that cannot understand the mathematics. Point 4 already pointed out the flaw in point 2. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StringJunky Posted June 6, 2015 Share Posted June 6, 2015 Your statements sound more like Zen than physics. It's drivel. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mordred Posted June 6, 2015 Share Posted June 6, 2015 Point 5 meaningless Point 6 and 7 are also meaningless as space is volume. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ACG52 Posted June 6, 2015 Share Posted June 6, 2015 This is basically the same nonsense he posted in his gravity thread, which was shut down. This seems to simply be an attempt to circumvent the moderator's instruction not to bring it up again. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ajb Posted June 6, 2015 Share Posted June 6, 2015 You will need to express these 'requirements' mathematically for anyone to begin to understand them. The problem is that a (full) quantum theory of gravity may not be quite the kind of theory we are used to dealing with, so making rules bases on theories that we do know about maybe misleading. Anyway, what we do require is 1) The theory should either be renormalisable (maybe non-perturbativly only) or finite. 2) In some sensible classical limit the theory should reduce to general relativity plus small corrections. I can't think of anything else that would be essential. Other technical things probabily matter when examining specific models. Point 1) means that we can make proper calculations using the theory. Point 2) says that we must able to reproduce general relativity. The reason for this is that GR has been so successful at describing classical gravitational physics, the quantum and classical theory must agree in some limits. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
swansont Posted June 6, 2015 Share Posted June 6, 2015 ! Moderator Note We shut your previous thread down. You are precluded from bringing the topic up again, even if you try and mask it behind a legitimate physics title. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts