Structure of Graviton-Darkion

More plugging way without validity. Basically the ego trying to save face by attributing a false narrative to ebuc.  This old game by others whose ego walks in fear of truth

Universe { @ } is not big deal, except for Zed who cant grasp anyone in Universe having 2ndary symbolism { icon } that they want associate with a word or phrase.  The problem is with you Zed and others.

Sine-wave pattern ^v^v and /\/\/ is too deep for you or others.

And so on and so on as Ive laid very definitive over and over and over and over for many years.  ( * * ) = bilateral biologic ergo consciousness. OMG what is ebuc talking about?  More of others whose ego walks in fear of truth so they create false narrative to save ego/face.

Please share when you want to address my givens as presented, with any questions, or any shred of logic, common sense critical thinking that adds to them or invalidates them. You certainly have never done that.

Your --and many others--- are the ones not being honest. Far easy to throw false narrative, than do any comprehensive thinking

What is the two decimal number you are talking about?

I made it clear, " I wrote a fourth law of motion describing gravity as a motion not  Isaac Newton"... Contest my 4th law of motion based on geometry law, I am all ears... When ever you are ready. I am taking liberties as non had been offered in the world of educational institution.

I also made it clear, Einstein's general relativity Newton's law of gravity are both  wrong for at lest one  common reason the irrational state of Pi used in describing the force held in a circle it cannot be used in any caluclations which are expecting a result by integer. This means there is no Newton's law of gravitation a law of math would require a answer can be made by calculation. The implication made by FLRW was laws of motion written by Isaac Newton based laws of physics, no they had not been based on laws of physics.  People mistake Newton's law of gravity with laws of motion, maybe but sop what? What I said and repeat now is that Newton's law's of motion are not based on "physics law's" as this is a foolish claim unrelated to fact. The laws of motion are based on calculus and trig law. His own principles of mathematics I might add. Mine are also based on laws of Trig, Geometry, and Calculus as a effort to offset a series of mistakes taking place not just a issue of Pi being an observable approximation. Time riddles a lot of Algebra and Trigonomentry with errores due to a use of natural numbers to which the gedneral public ignores, not correts changing natural numbers to real numbers.

 

So.

Once again in a roundabout way you admit that Ebuc-speak is not necessarily representative of anything factually representative of something.

And for sure, your givens are as presented......Which is a truism......Or an obviousism

Good.

So we have concluded that we are still as uncertain as we always have been.

But we have some ideas.

Graviton-Darkion may be, and if so, will have a structure.

You are in fact wecome to contest the law.

Fourth law of Motion states. "Gravitythe combined energy of elasticity, modulation, and reverberation in whichobjects of mass can both repel or attract as motion, based on how those threeforces interact. With themselves and the other three laws of Motion."

Interesting, I see what you are saying. Newton’s and Einstein’s ideas about the gravity could be found false under the fourth law of motion.

I will have to do more research on this.

According to the fourth law of motion, where each motion need to have it’s own impact, the causes of motion of our galaxy as well as other galaxies could be easily found. For that, we need to know the Chain Bang Theory which was presented by the author in 2012 as an alternative to the Big Bang Theory.Chain Bang Theory states that a chain of explosion on a rotating neutron sphere causes to form a galaxy and for each galaxy, each neutron sphere explosion is inevitable.The neutron sphere explosion theory was presented by George Lamaitre. This theory has two drawbacks. One is that the motionless neutron sphere explosion and next is that the neutron sphere explosion creating a massive universe. If the universe was created by an explosion of a motionless neutron sphere, then the bodies from that explosion would have been moving in a straight line on six directions, and the distance between them would have been gradually increasing over time. But the universe does not exist in such a way.Next, by observing the position and motion of the current galaxies, it can be inferred that the Universe was not created from a single explosion, as they exist and moves in different ways. Moreover, it is now discovered that there are Multiverse. Thereby invalidating the Big Bang Theory.

Where do see me saying any such thing you infer above.  More false narrative projection on your part.

Ive been clear, --and you avoid like the plague--- that, some of what I present is speculation, some is fact, some is well documented truths.

And all of it is obvious, when I have the correct grrammar which includes the correct placement of words in a sentence, etc.

Ive repeatedly ask you too address any specific comments by me ---and your rarely do that---  that you or others have question about. Simple, not complex to grasp that repeated statement. Of course the ego likes to save face by not addressing that which may place itself in doubt of its approach to others. Far easier to make false narratives, and projections that infer anything other than what is presented and often obvious, logical, common sense critical thinking pathways.

As a general point of understanding I try not to speculate on the creation of something that is not mathematically fixed. As it does not in fact exist by technicality. Gravity or energy can be more easily argued to exist in math.

Discovered or theoretically proposed?

The same trouble with theorists as with philosophers....Gotta keep coming up with new s**t.

Justification for the salary.

Not that I haven't recently proposed to Ebuc the Multiverse idea in response to their theory of infinite unoccupied space.

But I did that for free.

BIG BOOMITY BANG BANG as it might be.

Or it might have gone WHOOOOOOSH.

Though actually, without the presence of a listening device to convert it to noise the beginning was very silent.

The fundamentals of multi-verse are that some of these isolated { localized } universes are moving away from each other at speeds beyond the speed-of-radiation

....<<<<<O<<<<< speed-of-radiation >>>>>> O >>>>>>>>>>>...................ergo,

the creatures in those universe can never know of the other universe, becuase there is no occupied space connection between the two universes.

So there can be a finite set of these or infinite set of them, and some are connected, some are not may connect, and some will never connect.

1} option one a non-wholistic { no integrity of whole } of disconnected { isolated universes } we have to ask, how did this slack of integrity scenario come about? Its just eternally been that way.

2} it started from an integrated big bang and evolved in to dissconnectd, faster than speed-of-radiation universes? Well if the Dark Inflation period of expanding space occurred, then maybe the universes were never connected to begin with and the Dark Inflation Energy period just expanded that disconnection of all of them.

....2a} infinite = lack of integrity as a wholistic set ----macro-infinite truly non-occupied space inherenly lacks integrity because there is no occupied space to be intetgral--------

....2b} finite = systemic [ 4 ] and structural / 3 \ integrity of wholistic set  ---ultra-micro Gravity being the unifying integral force, as well as its geometrically diametric Dark Enery, that, we may associate with any inflationary ides of BIg Bang as Dark Inflation { DI } ex

...............DE<<<<<<<<<<<(<<<<(<<<(<<(<(<(<(<<<<<<DI<<(<o>)>>DI>>>>>>>>)>)>>)>>>)>>>>)>>>)>>>>>>>>DE........

...........space......always outer pulling-inward Gravity>( time  )<DE>( tiime  )<Gravity always outer pulling-inward

I do not mean this in a smart a$$ way but a multi-verse cannot exsit because a uiverse does not exist, yet! We just barly have grasp of a Galaxies and that is decribed to us as simply millions or billions of stars with gas, dust, and gravity. "Gravity a speculation" ... As a joke this means we spill peto-B (the pink stuff) in space and we can lose a whole Galaxy. A universe must have a describable size or condition to be repeated more than once. Thus, enter math and it is not is not rocket science it is calculus...?? Maybe? Or Time?

To also add a observation time is proportional only in one direction in math as there is question in precisely looking at minutes in a second, or hours in a minute that create irrational values of real numbers. Also Keep in mind how Ebuc uses Sine and Cosine waves found in trigonometry describing Physics theory of in the realm of speeds of light and the motion as variation by oscilloscope readings.  We are missing a necessary tool needed to accurately  read a form of wave that travels in a circumference around a energy source outward. The linear path of such waveform is curved it is the gaps in time that holds the straight lines in a wave form -v-^-v-^-v-^-v-^-v-^- not time itself.

"I had spoke earlier of a finger print of time, or DNA if you like where time is the monomer of all curve the irrational number braking the state of natural numbers be made with the number 7 in curve of a proportion 360 degrees becomes either 105 degrees, 210 degrees while held by a complete curve circumference, yet, 360 / 7 is real number, not natural number setting a different variation of natural and real numbers than space." A pending Patten right on a device of such kind as to display information of this type in an observable way by simulation would require there be mathematic most likely copy written formulas to assist a computer. Keep in mind the computer itself would require custom binary code as well as the new math.

Hmmmmmm.

Do I see a softening.

Ebuc is now theorising multiverses.

And John is now suggesting barely graspable speculation.....AKA theory.

Yes, one of the more unsettling discoveries in the past half a century is that the universe is not locally real. In this context, “real” means that objects have definite properties independent of observation—an apple can be red even when no one is looking. “Local” means that objects can be influenced only by their surroundings and that any influence cannot travel faster than light. Investigations at the frontiers of quantum physics have found that these things cannot both be true. Instead the evidence shows that objects are not influenced solely by their surroundings, and they may also lack definite properties prior to measurement.

Barely graspable speculation? If you believe natural numbers are different then real numbers is speculation Wow! are you heading toward a big wall to crassh into...

Can I just say, it, the universe has no standard of real measurement? Isn't that all we are saying, the universe has no measurement thus, is not real.  Universe the Galaxy-complura.

Explaining a theory for othes, that,  others have put forward over the years in no way ---accept in your mind perhaps--- that I do not give such scnearios any validity what so ever, and more so wheny or you others add infinite to there mix. 

Ive always been very clear  with my regards cosmic scenarios. An avoid  false narratives.

Exactly.

One should always try to avoid unequivocal statements if they cannot be proven to be unequivocal.

One should always temper ones wholly theoretical  opinions with phrases like.......In my opinion.

So for example........ In my opinion....A theoretical multiverse scenario arises directly as a consequence of Ebucs infinite unoccupied space theory.

Of course.

Stuff is always relative to scale.

So this Universe might actually be very tiny.

Sat on a shelf somewhere.

In a jar.

Sitting on a shelf.

Don't you just hate it when you do that?

Zed your still lack any shred of any logical common sense critical thinking as you keep appear to repeated espousing an occupied space something < from truly a macro-infinite non-occupied space nothing.

Finite = systemic and structural integrity --wholeness--- humans only observe finite, discrete wholes of occupied space---

Infinite = lack of integrity --ergo lack of wholeness---

Zed, you live in illogical mind set of Meta-space infinite potential of this or that, and non-definitive God principle etc with not shred of evidence for any such Meta-space concepts of in fantasy land of biological polka-dot unicorns popped out of tailpipe of Toyota 4runners, that,  run on plutoninium and horse hair is Meta-space  Imagination with no systemic integrity nor structural integrity. 

Ergo, I have to repeatedly bring you out of your Meta-space infinite potential God principle mind set with one rather simple phrase...there can only exist a finite set of five, regular/symmetrical and convex polyhedra, not an infinite set and certainly non infinite potential of more than those five.

3-fold tetrahedron \Y/  = 4 surface quadrilateral stable  triangles

4-fold octahedron <><><><> = 8 surface equilateral stabilizing triangles

5-fold icosahedron = <><><><><><><><><><> 20 triangle equilateral stabilizing triangles

----------------------------------------------------------------------

4-fold cube/hexa-hedron [  ] = 6 equilateral surface squares

5-fold pentagon dodecahedon = 12 equilateral pentagons

In Meta-space of infinite conceptual theory, these five can be eternally subdivided into mirco-infininity ie a never ending set of smaller and smaller subsets of the original five and only five.

Yet this is no differrent then a never ending transcendental Pi or infinite set of whole numbers. No  such infinite set of numbers are written in any PC or in the sky. They only exist as a Meta-space fantasy.  You will never understand this, until you ego can be placed to the side to let logical, common sense critical thinking.

non-spirited, macro-infinite and truly non-occupied space exists and embraces the finite ocuppied space Universe {  @ }. Meta-space Ego blocks your  way logical common sense critical thinking truths, based on what humans observe

[email protected]....................

Nope, I'm theorising that which cannot be observed,  

Same as you.

Which is the whole logical common-sense point of theoretical discourse.

So relative to macro infinite unoccupied space, how tiny is this universe.

It must be so small as to almost not exist.

A speck of dust in the infinite scheme of infinite space.

There could be trillions of them.

But relative to a universe an atom is tiny.

And relative to an atom a nucleus is tiny.

lol.................I just have to say this if all things are relative general relativity is by fact limited by its own relation ship to all things being of limit of percision.

No, relative to the universe an atom is not tiny. As we observe an free floating atom in space by use of micro-scope that can be used by a person standing-up the universe is obsucred by the size of the atom. As fact you are speaking of in scale to a universe an atom is tiny. We can also say in proportion to a universe the atom is tiny. The point mathematics makes against general relativity is not all things are relative forby motion or scale may things are obscured from view by other objects which are by facts of both mass and volume much smaller. 

Tiny small large are simply descriptions relative to appreciation relative to an appreciator.

All that we are doing in this discourse, is attempting to describe something we do not know and cannot directly appreciate.

As such tiny is relative to massive and therefore an atom is tiny when compared to a universe, and a universe is tiny within the immeasurably unlimited realms of infinite space.

Basic logical common sense language guys. 

Of course, whether or not there is such a thing as immeasurably unlimited infinite space is impossible to know.

I was just basing my idea upon Ebuc's idea.

They started it, as it were.

Nonetheless, I like the idea of  immeasurably unlimited infinite space containing trillions of comparatively miniscule universes.

Aka bubble universe  or as multi-verse scenarios and a million is definitive value for finite.

They cannot exist in isolation from each other i.e. they are minimally all connected to each other ---related aka relative to each other--- via Gravity [ mass-attraction } and my exploration say also via Dark Energy--- There is one or two videos by theoretical physcists Ive posted of Eric Verlinde stating similar concepts of Gravity and Dark Energy being likened to two sides of the same coin i.e. intimately related to each other.

Since all of these local universes are connected/related I have to once again repeat, that, any finite value of local universes sum-total as the one Universe { @ }. This old news and logical common sense critical thinking and even more so when considered with context of the seeming Big Bang phenomena.

And yes, I repeat again, eternally existent, finite, occupied space, regenerative/cyclic and transformative  Universe { @ }, is embraced by the macro-infinite and truly non-occupied space. This scenario is same one Ive been a proponent of for over 30 years now.

.......................space..........................@................................space.....................................

Here is next view with the sum-total zoomed in on, to satisfy any scenarios of many connected local universes that sum-total as Universe { capital U }

...space....................(o)(O)(o)(--)(*)(O)(%)(C)(B)(K)...........space..............

Of course that appears as linear cause this is keyboard I'm using to create simplistic scenario.

(   ) = Spirit-3, Gravity ---positive geodesic of occupied space---,

)( = Spirit-4 Dark Energy ---negative geodesic of occupied space---,

These two each invaginate to create observed { quantised } time aka physical reality { energy } as  Quantum Space-tiem Tori, that overlap and interact ergo related/connected to create the sum-total Universe { @ }. Old news.

Reality primary numerical association with numbers 0..3p...6{ see electrons and neutrinos }..9...12...15...18 { see 18 combination of quarks and 18 combination of  anti-quarks }....21....24 { see Vector Equilbrium{ VE } 24 radii and 24 chords as equanimity of system and structure i.e. 8 surface structural triangles, and,

6 systemically transformable, surface squares, balanced and defined by 4 bisecting, equaltorial hexagons, sharing a common center/nuclear location.

See B in this link http://www.rwgrayprojects.com/synergetics/s04/figs/f5511.html

Commonality of VE and Quantum Space-time Torus and their  nucleated hexagons:

1} graviton/darkEon 0 - 13p has nuclear ( 0...3p....6...9 ) hexagons and 91 lines-of-realtionship via 14^2, minus 14 / 2 = 91

2) initiating minimal Quantum Space-time Torus is a 18 nodal events, ergo, 6 nucleated hexagons, and that is two more than the VE. 18/0 share same location when each line is curved around to meet itself in defining the four abstract planes of the torus, ergo, 18^2, minus 18/2 = 153 lines-of-relationship. See final note on 153 bottom of page.

..1...........5p...7p.........11p....13p.............17p.......GravityOuter {><)inward
-
-
0..................6....................12.........................18...Reality Quanta-time

..........3p................9.........................15..................RealityQuantaTime
-
-
......2p....4............8..10.................14....16.............DEnergy Inner <)(> outward

This 153 number did not set off in alerts of association in myknowledge base at first, however,  Ive always  believed the finite set of chemicalelements in Universe is 2 * the 92 regenerative elements, that is184. So just now { fww months ago }, for first time, I subtracted 153 from 184 andgot the prime number 31p. That is tantalizing since thereexists two { left and right } skewed versions of the 5-foldicosahedrons, 31 great circles and some animals ex humans,  have 31 bilateral setof spinal nerves,

Just say what macro infinite is........." ? "

@sedvictor4

The understanding of macro infinite is when someone a programmer or person like ebuce is using a floating point number system with infinite decimal value for computer simulation program that is meant to produce a value which always rounds "up positive" in their work. The value is not crossing the zero boundaries so is not negative ever provable as negative but relies only on laws of motion which are said not to exist anymore according to Einstein's Physics. It is this process that he then uses to describe detail in measuring something without defined logical boundaries in the first place. A curved line does not ever go on infinitely, why? It is curved, and it crosses a boundary of where it has started. Every decimal value that increments past the decimal away from a natural or whole number has in scale crossed a zero boundery is some way.

What ebuc is doing is demonstrating precisely how and why natural numbers are used in math ratio, algebra is not rightfully equipped and why algebra is not equipped. The curved line when in motion, display of energy will at some point start over at one rotation. Never zero like all linear path. The idea of a floating number that is expanding forever in scale is false because scale can be calibrated even sycronized,(hint) thus, time was a geometic mathematic controbution made by navigation called time.

So, if you are following this in the slightest and are looking at a way to prove a negligence in mathematics where do we look, and how? We look at atomic time and the idea of using a tangent on a sine and cosine wave. By the way we can use trigonometry in a very similar way to calculate the circumference of a circle describing the circumference of all circles to have a negative value when in synchronization with the three dimesions of space of any ratio equal or lower the 3: "some value." Some background I was doing this work in math not for the clock to help with the forecast prediction of earthquakes but rather for a better national debt clock. I find the prinicples of the current clock in use to be lacking under scrutiny of detailed mathematical and visual observation.

 If you have 8 different gluons (of course we could discuss if they are the same gluon), they are all charged spin 1 particles under strong force (color force). We don't know what is the true nature of quantum gravity...Why not different spin 2 massless states, with one of those states charged under a non-SM force? I see no contradiction in this idea. Of course, massive gravitons are studied in the literarture (KK states, bigravity, etc...). But my question go beyond...What if gravity behaves as dark matter because of some missing quantum number OR non-linear gravitons?