Thread: What color is a Graviton?

This question has been posed to me, and I wish to succeed at the challenge

The closest thing I have to a clue is:

Me: so anyway, gravitons exist only hypothetically, and if they exist, have no color charge
Questioner: You only have part of it, and not the important part.


Now, I only have 24 hours, so haste is of the essence. Plus...now I'm just starting to get curious.

Light passes through gravitons. It has no color. They're invisible because light doesn't reflect them.

Wrong kind of color, Jeremyhfht. Color charge is something completely different from EM frequency. As for the original question, I don't know enough to answer.

Oh. charge. I must've skipped that word when I read it...bah. I don't know enough to answer either.

I really don't think gravitons have color charge. The only known particles that have color charge are quarks and gluons. All particles (hadrons) composed of color-charged particles must be color neutral. If a graviton has any color charge, it cannot exist as a free particle. So, either the graviton isn't a free particle (which to my knowledge it would be) or it has no color charge.

Originally Posted by Jeremyhfht

Light passes through gravitons. It has no color. They're invisible because light doesn't reflect them.

I would say that light is bent around gravitons.

Originally Posted by leohopkins

I would say that light is bent around gravitons.

I think you would be wrong. Light is bent around mass. Gravitons hypothetically transmit the gravitational force associated with that mass.

If a gravitational construct was associated to a QUANTUM feature, a feature of a QUANTA, the question would be relevant to which end of the spectrum of light gravity is more likened to. If Gravity, and as some suggest, a Graviton, were associated to light, then that graviton would represent, in displaying a feature of light, that which it takes from light, in being mutually exclusive to light. And that feature which it takes, which it borrows, would have light shifted in the opposite manner, whether it be red or blue. But is there any evidence of such a phenomena.

Take the red-shift effect of light: has a gravitron borrowed a blue-shift?

Why not.

Where though is there evidence of that blue shift?

No where near the red-shift, that's for sure.

How can gravity though behave is such a "ät a distance" manner?

Does any of this make sense to anyone?

Originally Posted by Ophiolite

Originally Posted by leohopkins

I would say that light is bent around gravitons.

I think you would be wrong. Light is bent around mass. Gravitons hypothetically transmit the gravitational force associated with that mass.

And, I'll point out, gravitons are (should they exist) massless. (not that that has anything to do with the actual question here, which is regarding color charge.)

Originally Posted by streamSystems

If a gravitational construct was associated to a QUANTUM feature, a feature of a QUANTA, the question would be relevant to which end of the spectrum of light gravity is more likened to.

What is a gravitational construct?
Give an example of a quantum feature.
How can you have a quanta when quanta is plural?
Whatever that foregoing gobbledegook means, why would that make it relevant as to which end of the spectrum we likened gravity to?

Originally Posted by streamSystems

If Gravity, and as some suggest, a Graviton, were associated to light, then that graviton would represent, in displaying a feature of light, that which it takes from light, in being mutually exclusive to light. ?

This sentence simply does not make any sense. Just what the **** are you trying to say.

Originally Posted by streamSystems

And that feature which it takes, which it borrows, would have light shifted in the opposite manner, whether it be red or blue. But is there any evidence of such a phenomena.

Why should the act of borrowing cause any light shift at all? you are stringing words together with no inherent meaning. Will you please begin to talk sense. I am liable to implode in frustration at your persistently flaunted incomprehensibility.

By the way did you not understand that the reference to colour was not the colour of the spectrum. You do know that quarks have a property called colour that has absolutely nothing to do with colour? You do know that, right? You are offering the world a new view of physics, so you must have some glimmering of an understanding of the old one? Or are you, as your website suggests, a self deluded windbag?

Ophiolite wearing moderator's hat, addressing himeslf:
Dear O, even when provoked by what you perceive as gross stupidity and massive self delusion, please try to resist the temptation to vent your displeasure in personal attacks on the offending party. If your assessment of their character and aptitude is accurate such attacks will achieve nothing. If you have misjudged them, then these attacks become merely rude, foolish and ill judged, showing you in an especially poor light.

Ophiolite: You do make laugh aloud. Thank you for that, on what looks like an otherwise dull Friday night. And no, sarcasm isn't my game here.

Ophiolite, I begin to worry when you talk to yourself.

Originally Posted by Guitarist

Ophiolite: You do make laugh aloud. Thank you for that, on what looks like an otherwise dull Friday night. And no, sarcasm isn't my game here.

Thank you. You are right. It is Friday and I felt like unwinding a little, but being a Gemini I couldn't let it go unremarked. 8)

Originally Posted by Jeremeyfhft

Ophiolite, I begin to worry when you talk to yourself.

It's when you hear me whispering menacingly behind you in the darkness of a winter's evening that you have to worry.

I disagree. Because then you're in for some bones being broken (or organ damage). Martial arts ftw

Wow. The criticism. Give me one second.

Originally Posted by Ophiolite

By the way did you not understand that the reference to colour was not the colour of the spectrum. You do know that quarks have a property called colour that has absolutely nothing to do with colour? You do know that, right? You are offering the world a new view of physics, so you must have some glimmering of an understanding of the old one? Or are you, as your website suggests, a self deluded windbag?

I was making the point that if physics wants to borrow a term, such as the term "colour", to "borrow" that already established term of english, even physics doesn't make sense in doing such a thing (and then you have the hide for telling me that I am the one who plagiarises the english language)...............HENCE my parting statement "Does any of this make sense to anyone?". Still, I guess that's a style of communication you ALSO don't like.

I was also stating that if a gravitron, graviton, whatever, had a feature associated to a QUANTA (latin plural for a cluster of QUNATUM), then what effect would that have of the spectrum itself, the frequency and wavelength of a cluster of QUANTUM, a QUANTA. I thought it was interesting enough to continue being Socratic on that path. You however found much excuse to dive in and start swinging with abuse.

Ophiolite, it seems you just want to argue with me as opposed to taking your time to digest some of the finer unsaid points of my posts.

Most young children and angry folk wants things directly spelt out to them. Why be like that. For the record, I don't know you: what troubles you so?

Originally Posted by streamSystems

I was making the point that if physics wants to borrow a term, such as the term "colour", to "borrow" that already established term of english, even physics doesn't make sense in doing such a thing (and then you have the hide for telling me that I am the one who plagiarises the english language).....?

The physicists who adopted the term colour for a sub-atomic property of matter were very carefull to fully define their use of this term. In contrast here is an example of how you go about defining a term:
In then adding a few more‘ precise’ terms to this scheme of space time UNDERSTANDING ,let us suggest that UNDEFINED space is not only a construct of space that is defined/limited in a 3 dimensional manner, yet that it is dissociative as well,or rather,manifests as an intrinsic ‘force’ of dissociation. And let us define DEFINED space as a defined/limited 3 dimensional construct that is associative ,or rather manifests as an intrinsic ‘force’ of association(once again, as we have briefly suggested). Indeed though when we conceptualize an UNDEFINED construct we are assuming that this conceptualization is valid for all the far quarters of space, as though this conceptualization of space were ‘approaching’ a mathematical value of INFINITY . When we conceptualize DEFINED construct, we are assuming that this conceptualization pales into the ABSOLUTE definition of conceptualization, as though this conceptualization were approaching a mathematical value of 0 in terms of space. That’s quite UNDERSTANDABLE. Pretty simple really.Yet it must be noted that we are pretty much redefining the wheel of space!Such though is the nature of this discussion. Anyway, we can perhaps represent such concepts by way of illustration in the following diagram:
The last time I read such incoherent, unintelligible, jargon ridden nonsense was in the monthly journal of a spiritualist organisation.

Now it is apparent that English is not your native language, so should welcome some correction.
I was also stating that if a gravitron, graviton, whatever, had a feature associated to a QUANTA (latin plural for a cluster of QUNATUM), then what effect would that have of the spectrum itself, the frequency and wavelength of a cluster of QUANTUM, a QUANTA. I thought it was interesting enough to continue being Socratic on that path. You however found much excuse to dive in and start swinging with abuse.

Features are associated with, not associated to.
You do not have a cows, a cars, a anything plural. So you do not have a quanta.
The effect would be on the spectrum, not of the spectrum.

As to the substance of your point - there isn't any. There is no meaningful connection in this context between your different points. Your words lack meaning. They are nonsense. They contain no sense.

Ophiolite, it seems you just want to argue with me as opposed to taking your time to digest some of the finer unsaid points of my posts

I don't wish to argue with you. You cannot be argued with. I simply will no longer tolerate your unscientific, poorly explained, baseless speculations.

Yes dear.

But Darling, hear me out.

The jargon in the book is meant to appeal to kids not just with a silver spoon in their mouth, but the kids in the hood as well: a universal theory for a universal people.

For the pursists of literature, the book is planned to have a revision, but I was advised not to be associated to a more improved revision, because with the theory being correct, I was advised not to put myself in an oratory position, else not be able to be a part of the more refined aspects of the technological-development feature of the theory.

Basically, I am deliberately jeopardising my reputation as a scholar-orator. I thought it was the wise move. You on the other hand don;t seem to think so. Probably why you yourself did not come up qith the theory (you would have fallen short of properly prioritising your role).

From what I've read streamSystems is either ridiculously brilliant beyond my comprehension or a complete and utter idiot.

Trust me, it's the latter.

No. Let me explain myself. I think I have that right.

I departed my medical studies owing to sheer boredom, 4 and 3/4 years into it, and pursued a theory that showed promise in being the actual topology of human thought, the logic of human perception. Clearly it was a maverick study, and still is. But, it had, has, allowed me to theorise, in writing, with mathematics, a virtual space-time reality very similar to our own.

That's not genius. That's taking a huge risk in leaving a stable career in Medicine, in following an idea not taught at University, and sticking at it.

Think about it though. What we "perceive", if it could be explained mathematically, our "ability" of perception, then we would IN THEORY be able to perceive space-time mathematically, the space-time around us. That's not genius> that's simple.

Originally Posted by streamSystems

No. Let me explain myself. I think I have that right.

You have that right. You just don't have that ability.

Originally Posted by streamSystems

I departed my medical studies owing to sheer boredom, 4 and 3/4 years into it, ....

So, you are a college drop out. How quaint. (It takes a special kind of mind to be bored by a University education - I'll hold that thought.)

Originally Posted by streamSystems

and pursued a theory that showed promise in being the actual topology of human thought, the logic of human perception.

This is a prime example of what I call your 'arm waving'. The phrase topology of human thought sounds marvellous, but what does it mean? You never explain, or if you do it will be with more semantically null arm waving.

Originally Posted by streamSystems

But, it had, has, allowed me to theorise, in writing, with mathematics, a virtual space-time reality very similar to our own.

There are no mathematics in your work, only the meaningless juxtaposition of numeric and algebraic terms in a pseudo-intellectual mish-mash of simplistic, ill defined, jargon steeped, primordial nonsense.
In an effort to extend you yet another opportunity to redeem yourself why not give us your definition of perception. Try to deliver it with a minimum of arm waving.

OK.

My definition of perception?

To define perception.

Let me see.

Are we trying to deifne something that thinks independently, has random mish-mash thoughts, as I obviously present with?

Forget that feature of perception, that chaotic "yawn".

No, what I mean about defining perception is the regular repeating pattern of perception. Basically, if our mind were like a movie camera taking snap shot of reality to snap shot of reality, recording the best bits, and so on, what are the mechanics of that frame-to-frame recording of space-time: what is, also, as an extended study on this topic, the way we interact with space-time, as a perception: is it "push-pull" on the most basic level.

Sure, other definitions of perception exist based on either our grandiose experience of what we have been aware of or some other pieces of crap we have been taught via philosophy, but aside from all the bullshit of the observor and their experience, let's be as mathematical as we can be, right, for the sake of logic, when seeking to define perception "mathematically", right?


Now, the "topology" of human thought, well, it is the frame-to-frame repeating sequence of perception, a geometrical-mathematical description of our key-ability to perceive space-time. Knowing that key, is knowing how to explain space-time, as the theory goes.

For the record, Medicine didn't bore me: the idea of healing someone using a misguided sense of science did.


If I can quote a previous response in a general discussion post (response), when asked about my fascination for time:

My fascination for time is simple: it is the construct of space-time we have left unaddressed for too long: it is the one thing left to really bite into, as a potential new theory, to focus not on space, but time: to let space be ordered by time, and not vice-versa.

In my eyes, time is the ruler, the light that shines into the darkness of space, and orders it, controls it, manages it.

It is quite a powerful thing for me.

Time always wins, because it is the one thing we ultimately always feel defeated by.

All of what we know of science has sprung from rulers and measurements of space that aim to capture reality in a free-frame manner with the aim of contiguous laws of space for all time frames, one arbitrarily drawn up time frame to the next, as large a time frame or small a time frame as we require.

I propose the completely alternative view, to understand the nature of time first, according to how we mathematically perceiove, one frame of perception reference to the next, and to then use that algorithm of perception to theoretically draw up laws of space BASED ON the algorithm of time our minds works as one with.


I think my point there to you is that there is, aside from the raw mathematics, a healthy installation of a theme of perception that lead to the many branches of many ideas central to theories of perception (light, darkness, that sort of stuff).

Excuse me, but could you extract the element of the foregoing that was a definition of perception. Remove the arm waving and the adolescent philosophy, just lay down your definition of perception.

Perception, if we are to look at the gross anatomy of the human body, requires TWO basic features of biological organisation, namely SENSORY and MOTOR neuronal fibres.

For instance, if one were to take their brachial plexus of nerves that supplies either of their arms, and create4s a laceration sufficent enough to sever that chord, you would have no "perception" in that arm. It would be useless to you. Flaccid: you would see it like you would see a garbage bin.

Perception is organised most basically as "sensory" and motor": we "sense" information relevant to our survival instinct and then we process that information in accordance with a "motor" response that keeps our sensory-motor system of awareness in-teact, generally: those who do that the best, as a continual automated sequence of sensory-motor appear to stay "alive" better than others.

Now, this is just to start with (as you would know, in having quickly scanned my theory).

To find an automated sequence of sensory-motor ability that adapts hamoniously with space-time, well, that's the task. To achieve that task, one would first need to define "properties" of space and time for our sensory and motor ability, as you would know, in having quickly scanned my theory.

In cutting to the chase, to simplify the task, one would define space and time seperately, and one would also define space from very small (say, zero), to very large (say, infinity), and do the same with time, and then attempt to create a reference within that space and and time line to work with, a reference that can interact with the "everything beyond" that reference of interest........as you would know, in having quickly scanned my theory.

In doing all of that, one would get a feel for the dynamics of the mechanics, the need to create an overall "holistic" mathematical algorithm for space and time, such that no contradictions exist for all the necessary and pre-defined features that are required for this set-up of space-time relevant to the workings of our perception.

The greatest paradox that could be immediately confused for a contradiction (but is not) is how to link "0", mathematically speaking, with "infinity", in regard to space and time, which is why, as you would know, I spend a number of chapters on explaining that potential contradiction of terms.

The way I "generally" link "zero" space with "infinite" space is that space, in theory is nothing: space is just an empty theoretical field: space gets the wooden spoon in this theory. The way zero time is linked with infinite time is that zero time is time that does not pass: it is frozen time. Frozen time, time that does not pass, in theory, is time that stands still. It is a concept that in having no measurement itself is therefore limitless, "infinite". The same could be said about space anyway. The point though is that the envelope of space-time is a zero-infinity appreciation of space and time. The aim in the theory was to define a "reference" within that reality, a reference in between the zero and infinity for space and time.............as you would know, in having quickly scanned the theory.

Now, the interesting thing about the theory is that in actually constructing the very "reference construct" in that virtual space-time reality, it was possible to derive the equation for a sphere for the propagation of time in that 3-d reality, and also the equation for a circle for the 2-d manifold feature of that space-time construct. And I am also making the statement that "pi" was explained by this route of analysing space-time...........as you would know in having quickly scanned the theory.

The great feature of linking zero space with infinite space and zero time with infinite time is that one creates a mandate for the "propagation" of a signature of space-time, as I describe as a QUANTUM, as you would know, in having quickly scanned the theory, continually in between the "theoretically equal" zone of zero and infinite space and time.