# What are the fundamental requirements for a theory of gravity?

• December 17th, 2013, 06:08 AM
3SwordBunny
What are the fundamental requirements for a theory of gravity?
Evening folks. The glossary I've provided is what I have compiled as definitive to my understanding of a theory of gravity and mass and is intended to describe the universe from the FoR of spin. My approach is to define the system within the fermionic/bosonic state. Is this a practical approach to the subject and what is the conventional one? Please confine your responses to the latter question or that in the thread title.

DEFINITIONS:

particle= an event

geodesic= state a particle exists in between events

singularity= geodesic bereft of events

boson geodesic= state in which both ends of a path are a point of origin

fermion geodesic= state in which both ends of a path are a point of destination

neutron geodesic= state in which the nature of either end of a path are determined by the event

mass= disparity between point of origin and point of destination

charge= disparity between point of destination and point of origin

fermion event= resolution of interval disparity

boson event= resolution of spatial disparity

The observer here is the function of the fermion and boson spin functions respectively. This is intended to break down all interactions to the simplest element possible. I imagined this as a practical means to approximate the algebraic equivalent. When I specify a particle as only the event, I am referring to the up or down state being decided at the event the particle intercepts.

Fermions being restricted to the Exclusion Principal exhibits(to my appraisal), a distinctly different opposition to space and time to that of the boson. I have attempted to qualify this in the specification of the structures of a particles path. The exercise supplied intends to illustrate mass and charge as properties of the intrinsic interdependance of transversely opposing AM characteristics. The exercise has been supplied as reference and to illustrate the aim of the question.
• December 17th, 2013, 06:30 AM
Strange
Quote:

What are the fundamental requirements for a theory of gravity?
Mainly, the ability to make predictions at least as good as those of general relativity; i.e. for your calculations to match reality.

Secondly, using standard terminology to mean completely different things from their generally understood meanings is probably not a good idea.
• December 17th, 2013, 06:41 AM
3SwordBunny
Quote:

Originally Posted by Strange
Quote:

What are the fundamental requirements for a theory of gravity?
Mainly, the ability to make predictions at least as good as those of general relativity; i.e. for your calculations to match reality.

Secondly, using standard terminology to mean completely different things from their generally understood meanings is probably not a good idea.

That is not what I have done, which is to provide relative approximations of the position of mathematical terms within the understood system. I have done this with a methodical approach to answer a specific question. If you cannot address the material other than to indicate your lack of comprehension, how have you provided anything of relevance?
• December 17th, 2013, 06:42 AM
3SwordBunny
Quote:

Originally Posted by Strange
Quote:

What are the fundamental requirements for a theory of gravity?
Mainly, the ability to make predictions at least as good as those of general relativity; i.e. for your calculations to match reality.

Secondly, using standard terminology to mean completely different things from their generally understood meanings is probably not a good idea.

I haven't made any calculations. I have assigned definition parameters only.
• December 17th, 2013, 06:48 AM
3SwordBunny
this should present my question with less verbal confusion.

The glossary I've provided is what I have compiled as definitive to my understanding of a theory of gravity and mass. My approach is to define the system within the fermionic/bosonic state. Is this a practical approach to the subject and what is the conventional one?

The glossary I’ve provided below is what I have compiled as definitive to my understanding of a theory of gravity and mass. My approach is to define the system within the fermionic and bosonic states. I still have to define my use of the terms 'point of origin’ and 'point of destination’ which will provide some clarification to the structure of thect?
• December 17th, 2013, 06:53 AM
PhDemon
• December 17th, 2013, 06:53 AM
3SwordBunny
Quote:

Originally Posted by PhDemon

• December 17th, 2013, 06:55 AM
PhDemon
It still makes no sense at all. Please stop posting nonsense in the physics forum. If you must post crap put it in Pseudo or Trash.
• December 17th, 2013, 06:57 AM
3SwordBunny
Quote:

Originally Posted by PhDemon
It still makes no sense at all. Please stop posting nonsense in the physics forum. If you must post crap put it in Pseudo or Trash.

what makes no sense. The question I edited is perfectly straight forward.
• December 17th, 2013, 06:59 AM
3SwordBunny
Quote:

Originally Posted by PhDemon
It still makes no sense at all. Please stop posting nonsense in the physics forum. If you must post crap put it in Pseudo or Trash.

The glossary I've provided is what I have compiled as definitive to my understanding of a theory of gravity and mass. My approach is to define the system within the fermionic/bosonic state. Is this a practical approach to the subject and what is the conventional one?

What don't you understand?
• December 17th, 2013, 06:59 AM
PhDemon
None of your definitions make any sense, they are meaningless strings of words randomly cobbled together.

Why do you prefer making up nonsense to studying reality?
• December 17th, 2013, 07:03 AM
3SwordBunny
Quote:

Originally Posted by PhDemon
None of your definitions make any sense, they are meaningless strings of words randomly cobbled together.

I originally indicated that clarification of the terms "point of origin" and "point of destination" would provide that glossary with proper structure. I did not ask for your evaluation of the content of the glossary but for reference on how the question of a theory for gravity and mass was conventionally approached. You have gone looking for trolls I believe. Unless you are the question quality control round here.
• December 17th, 2013, 07:07 AM
PhDemon
Nope, I have no authority here but people posting nonsense in the hard science areas is generally frowned upon, and your definitions are nonsense. I'll leave you to it but don't hold your breathe waiting for a meaningful answer to the guff you've posted.
• December 17th, 2013, 07:08 AM
3SwordBunny
Quote:

Originally Posted by PhDemon
Nope, I have no authority here but people posting nonsense in the hard science areas is generally frowned upon, and your definitions are nonsense. I'll leave you to it but don't hold your breathe waiting for a meaningful answer to the guff you've posted.

Your opinion of my definitions are nonsense as it addresses neither of the questions actually provided. Would you mind toddling off if you cannot address those specifically.
• December 17th, 2013, 07:17 AM
Implicate Order
Quote:

Originally Posted by 3SwordBunny
....... for reference on how the question of a theory for gravity and mass was conventionally approached.

Here is something to get your teeth into from an extraordinary and accomplished physicist. If you have a chance, get your hands on the book. Take it slow as it extends on your query with a number of additional questions you will need to include in your ponderings. :-))
• December 17th, 2013, 07:20 AM
3SwordBunny
Quote:

Originally Posted by Implicate Order
Quote:

Originally Posted by 3SwordBunny
....... for reference on how the question of a theory for gravity and mass was conventionally approached.

Here is something to get your teeth into from an extraordinary and accomplished physicist. If you have a chance, get your hands on the book. Take it slow as it extends on your query with a number of additional questions you will need to include in your ponderings. :-))

Thank you very much. A volume of context would certainly be appreciated. :D
• December 17th, 2013, 07:40 AM
RedPanda
Quote:

Originally Posted by 3SwordBunny
Quote:

Originally Posted by Strange
Quote:

What are the fundamental requirements for a theory of gravity?
Mainly, the ability to make predictions at least as good as those of general relativity; i.e. for your calculations to match reality.

That is not what I have done

I think you should have stopped there.

Quote:

Originally Posted by 3SwordBunny
The glossary I've provided...

That is not a glossary.

DEFINITION:
glossary = a small marsupial from Indonesia.
• December 17th, 2013, 08:07 AM
Strange
Quote:

Originally Posted by 3SwordBunny
That is not what I have done, which is to provide relative approximations of the position of mathematical terms within the understood system. I have done this with a methodical approach to answer a specific question. If you cannot address the material other than to indicate your lack of comprehension, how have you provided anything of relevance?

I was simply doing what you requested:
Quote:

My answer to the question in the thread titles is: you need to make predictions that match reality (i.e. the same or better than GR)

My answer to "Is this a practical approach to the subject and what is the conventional one?" is that I don't think it is practical to redefine standard terms to mean something else. The conventional approach is to develop a mathematical model and use it to test the idea.
• December 17th, 2013, 08:19 AM
3SwordBunny
Quote:

Originally Posted by Strange
Quote:

Originally Posted by 3SwordBunny
That is not what I have done, which is to provide relative approximations of the position of mathematical terms within the understood system. I have done this with a methodical approach to answer a specific question. If you cannot address the material other than to indicate your lack of comprehension, how have you provided anything of relevance?

I was simply doing what you requested:
Quote:

My answer to the question in the thread titles is: you need to make predictions that match reality (i.e. the same or better than GR)

My answer to "Is this a practical approach to the subject and what is the conventional one?" is that I don't think it is practical to redefine standard terms to mean something else. The conventional approach is to develop a mathematical model and use it to test the idea.

If you read the edit I defined the terms to describe the universe form the FoR of boson/fermion spin. Your analysis lacks context.
• December 17th, 2013, 08:21 AM
3SwordBunny
Quote:

Originally Posted by RedPanda
Quote:

Originally Posted by 3SwordBunny
Quote:

Originally Posted by Strange
Quote:

What are the fundamental requirements for a theory of gravity?
Mainly, the ability to make predictions at least as good as those of general relativity; i.e. for your calculations to match reality.

That is not what I have done

I think you should have stopped there.

Quote:

Originally Posted by 3SwordBunny
The glossary I've provided...

That is not a glossary.

DEFINITION:
glossary = a small marsupial from Indonesia.

I didn't actually need you to point out that I hadn't identified my context. Got anything appropriate or relevant to the OP questions?
• December 17th, 2013, 08:22 AM
3SwordBunny
Quote:

Originally Posted by RedPanda
DEFINITION:
glossary = a small marsupial from Indonesia.

Cassowary = something that stomps all over your glossary....
• December 17th, 2013, 08:24 AM
Strange
Quote:

Originally Posted by 3SwordBunny
If you read the edit I defined the terms to describe the universe form the FoR of boson/fermion spin. Your analysis lacks context.

You specifically requested people not to comment on the content of your "glossary" so I won't say anything about your definitions appearing to be meaningless. But I will reiterate that it is almost certainly counter productive to change the meanings of standard, widely-used terms. At best it will confuse your readers. At worst it will lead people to dismiss you as a practitioner of psychoceramics.

Look, you asked for feedback on your approach. You have got it. Don't just respond with, "but that is not the feedback I want."

Would you prefer:
* Your approach is brilliantly insightful and should be very productive. I look forward to seeing more.

(I have used the '*' prefix with the usual meaning in linguistics.)

How can "spin" be a frame of reference? I assume you will be bringing aether vortices into it at some point.
• December 17th, 2013, 08:28 AM
3SwordBunny
Quote:

Originally Posted by Strange
Quote:

Originally Posted by 3SwordBunny
If you read the edit I defined the terms to describe the universe form the FoR of boson/fermion spin. Your analysis lacks context.

You specifically requested people not to comment on the content of your "glossary" so I won't say anything about your definitions appearing to be meaningless. But I will reiterate that it is almost certainly counter productive to change the meanings of standard, widely-used terms. At best it will confuse your readers. At worst it will lead people to dismiss you as a practitioner of psychoceramics.

Look, you asked for feedback on your approach. You have got it. Don't just respond with, "but that is not the feedback I want."

Would you prefer:
* Your approach is brilliantly insightful and should be very productive. I look forward to seeing more.

(I have used the '*' prefix with the usual meaning in linguistics.)

The terminology is specific to the FoR of Fermion and Boson spin, if you had properly assessed my edit. Your terminology is specific to an overbearing sense of entitlement to trivial and meaningless opinions being flounced about as wit and character. Give up
• December 17th, 2013, 08:32 AM
Strange
Quote:

Originally Posted by 3SwordBunny
The terminology is specific to the FoR of Fermion and Boson spin, if you had properly assessed my edit.

How can "spin" be a frame of reference?

Also, adding context to your definitions doesn't change the fact that you are redefining standard terms. This will cause you problems. That's all.

As requested, I am not commenting on the content of your definitions. If you want me to be more specific about some of the apparent problems with some of your definitions, I will be happy to do so.
• December 17th, 2013, 08:33 AM
3SwordBunny
Quote:

Originally Posted by Strange
Quote:

Originally Posted by 3SwordBunny
The terminology is specific to the FoR of Fermion and Boson spin, if you had properly assessed my edit.

How can "spin" be a frame of reference?

Also, adding context to your definitions doesn't change the fact that you are redefining standard terms. This will cause you problems. That's all.

As requested, I am not commenting on the content of your definitions. If you want me to be more specific about some of the apparent problems with some of your definitions, I will be happy to do so.

Everything substantial is a FoR. You can entertain yourself however you wish but you haven't impress me as yet.....
• December 17th, 2013, 08:36 AM
Strange
Could you, perhaps, explain what you mean by FoR, it seems to be somewhat different from my understanding of the term?
• December 17th, 2013, 08:36 AM
3SwordBunny
[QUOTE=3SwordBunny;503650]
Quote:

Originally Posted by Strange
Quote:

Originally Posted by 3SwordBunny
The terminology is specific to the FoR of Fermion and Boson spin, if you had properly assessed my edit.

How can "spin" be a frame of reference?

Also, adding context to your definitions doesn't change the fact that you are redefining standard terms. This will cause you problems. That's all.

As requested, I am not commenting on the content of your definitions. If you want me to be more specific about some of the apparent problems with some of your definitions, I will be happy to do so.

Everything substantial is a FoR. Spin is certainly more substantial than "the FoR of an observer on a rotating Dumb Bell".......
• December 17th, 2013, 08:38 AM
Strange
Quote:

Originally Posted by 3SwordBunny
You can entertain yourself however you wish but you haven't impress me as yet.....

I'm not trying to impress you. Just trying to be helpful by giving straightforward answers to your questions. They seem unwelcome so just ignore them.
• December 17th, 2013, 08:38 AM
3SwordBunny
Quote:

Originally Posted by Strange
Could you, perhaps, explain what you mean by FoR, it seems to be somewhat different from my understanding of the term?

FoR is given global properties such as perspective on an observer in thought experiments. In this one I am making the FoR as local as the opposing spin integers.
• December 17th, 2013, 08:39 AM
3SwordBunny
[QUOTE=Strange;503654]
Quote:

Originally Posted by 3SwordBunny;503650You can entertain yourself however you wish but you haven't impress me as yet.....[/QUOTE

I'm not trying to impress you. Just trying to be helpful by giving straightforward answers to your questions. They seem unwelcome so just ignore them.

Your last remark prompted a relevant response....
• December 17th, 2013, 08:42 AM
Strange
Quote:

Originally Posted by 3SwordBunny
FoR is given global properties such as perspective on an observer in thought experiments. In this one I am making the FoR as local as the opposing spin integers.

Can you be a bit more specific about what you mean by "global properties"?

And when you say "perspective" do you literally mean geometric perspective (things appearing smaller with distance) or the more general sense of "point of view"?

And, I apologise if this sounds picky but it does change the meaning significantly, do you mean "on the observer" of "of the observer"?

And I don't really know what "opposing spin integers" means; could you explain that?
• December 17th, 2013, 08:45 AM
3SwordBunny
Quote:

Originally Posted by Strange
Quote:

Originally Posted by 3SwordBunny
You can entertain yourself however you wish but you haven't impress me as yet.....

I'm not trying to impress you. Just trying to be helpful by giving straightforward answers to your questions. They seem unwelcome so just ignore them.

I apologise if I over-reacted to your befuddlement. I had communication learning issues so being encouraged to not explain myself triggers hostility measures...
• December 17th, 2013, 08:47 AM
Strange
Quote:

Originally Posted by 3SwordBunny
[ I had communication learning issues so being encouraged to not explain myself triggers hostility measures...

OK. But I am trying to encourage you to explain yourself better :) (explaining things is what I do for a living, so I hoped I could provide some insight into why your ideas might not be very clear so far)
• December 17th, 2013, 08:52 AM
3SwordBunny
Quote:

Originally Posted by Strange
Quote:

Originally Posted by 3SwordBunny
FoR is given global properties such as perspective on an observer in thought experiments. In this one I am making the FoR as local as the opposing spin integers.

Can you be a bit more specific about what you mean by "global properties"?

And when you say "perspective" do you literally mean geometric perspective (things appearing smaller with distance) or the more general sense of "point of view"?

And, I apologise if this sounds picky but it does change the meaning significantly, do you mean "on the observer" of "of the observer"?

And I don't really know what "opposing spin integers" means; could you explain that?

The observer here is the function of the fermion and boson spin functions respectively. It breaks down all interactions to the simplest path possible. I imagined this as a practical means to approximate the algebraic equivalent without a functional understanding of how to do that, so this is where I started.

Fermions being restricted to the Exclusion Principal exhibits, to my appraisal, a distinctly different opposition to space and time to that of the boson. I have attempted to qualify this in the specification of the structures of a particles path.
• December 17th, 2013, 08:55 AM
3SwordBunny
Quote:

Originally Posted by Strange
Quote:

Originally Posted by 3SwordBunny
[ I had communication learning issues so being encouraged to not explain myself triggers hostility measures...

OK. But I am trying to encourage you to explain yourself better :) (explaining things is what I do for a living, so I hoped I could provide some insight into why your ideas might not be very clear so far)

I can take criticism and did edit to improve the delivery of the questions. Thanks for bearing with the process of figuring out what it is I have actually being trying to do for so long. I'm thinking it hasn't been as painful for you as for myself ;)
• December 17th, 2013, 08:56 AM
Strange
Quote:

Originally Posted by 3SwordBunny
The observer here is the function of the fermion and boson spin functions respectively. It breaks down all interactions to the simplest path possible. I imagined this as a practical means to approximate the algebraic equivalent without a functional understanding of how to do that, so this is where I started.

Fermions being restricted to the Exclusion Principal exhibits, to my appraisal, a distinctly different opposition to space and time to that of the boson. I have attempted to qualify this in the specification of the structures of a particles path.

Well, you have lost me there.

I think I have said enough about your initial two questions so I shall leave the thread at this point.
• December 17th, 2013, 08:58 AM
3SwordBunny
for instance, when I specify a particle as only the event, I am referring to the up or down state being decided at the event the particle intercepts...
• December 17th, 2013, 09:01 AM
3SwordBunny
Quote:

Originally Posted by Strange
Quote:

Originally Posted by 3SwordBunny
The observer here is the function of the fermion and boson spin functions respectively. It breaks down all interactions to the simplest path possible. I imagined this as a practical means to approximate the algebraic equivalent without a functional understanding of how to do that, so this is where I started.

Fermions being restricted to the Exclusion Principal exhibits, to my appraisal, a distinctly different opposition to space and time to that of the boson. I have attempted to qualify this in the specification of the structures of a particles path.

Well, you have lost me there.

I think I have said enough about your initial two questions so I shall leave the thread at this point.

Thanks for addressing the minimal clarity. If the thread has anywhere to go you've given it a nudge. Have a good night
• December 17th, 2013, 09:12 AM
Implicate Order
Quote:

Originally Posted by 3SwordBunny
My approach is to define the system within the fermionic/bosonic state. Is this a practical approach to the subject and what is the conventional one?

Lee Smolin sums up three different approaches taken to unification.

1. The path taken from a solid foundation in quantum theory that ultimately unifies with General relativity (GR) - examples include say string theory and its variants (The universe is comprised of fundamental things embedded in a multi-dimensional space);
2. The path taken from a solid foundation in General relativity that ultimately unifies with Quantum Mechanics (QM) - examples include loop quantum gravity and its variants (eg. The universe is made of processes and not things that give rise to notions of events in spacetime); or
3. The path taken afresh from first principles (where both the foundations of QM or GM are deemed to be incomplete and not suitable commencement points) - This path is frequently the path taken by those with a philosophical bent questioning things such as what is time?, do conscious observers have a role to play in the universe etc?

Each path has its pros and cons.

Given your approach, you would probably firmly sit in the 3rd category above. Unfortunately it is going to be very hard however engaging in meaningful debate unless you start with some foundation stones upon which participants in this forum can all agree. While this may be a challenge to achieve this, it will probably be the more fruitful path for you. If experience on forums is any guide to me, you have to use stealth to answer your queries through pushing the boundaries in a careful manner. Learning and longevity on this forum is all about survival :-))
• December 17th, 2013, 09:12 AM
Dywyddyr
Quote:

Originally Posted by 3SwordBunny
If the thread has anywhere to go

Trash?
• December 17th, 2013, 09:18 AM
3SwordBunny
Quote:

Originally Posted by Implicate Order
Quote:

Originally Posted by 3SwordBunny
My approach is to define the system within the fermionic/bosonic state. Is this a practical approach to the subject and what is the conventional one?

Lee Smolin sums up three different approaches taken to unification.

1. The path taken from a solid foundation in quantum theory that ultimately unifies with General relativity (GR) - examples include say string theory and its variants (The universe is comprised of fundamental things embedded in a multi-dimensional space);
2. The path taken from a solid foundation in General relativity that ultimately unifies with Quantum Mechanics (QM) - examples include loop quantum gravity and its variants (eg. The universe is made of processes and not things that give rise to notions of events in spacetime); or
3. The path taken afresh from first principles (where both the foundations of QM or GM are deemed to be incomplete and not suitable commencement points) - This path is frequently the path taken by those with a philosophical bent questioning things such as what is time?, do conscious observers have a role to play in the universe etc?

Each path has its pros and cons.

Given your approach, you would probably firmly sit in the 3rd category above. Unfortunately it is going to be very hard however engaging in meaningful debate unless you start with some foundation stones upon which participants in this forum can all agree. While this may be a challenge to achieve this, it will probably be the more fruitful path for you. If experience on forums is any guide to me, you have to use stealth to answer your queries through pushing the boundaries in a careful manner. Learning and longevity on this forum is all about survival :-))

I would have thought I were more in the second category seeing as I was seeking to describe a universal interfunction of spin with the best respect I knew how to give GR. I definitely haven't got time to start things from scratch. I did that only with my kid and my guitar and I've got miles to go on the kid.....
• December 17th, 2013, 09:23 AM
3SwordBunny
Quote:

Originally Posted by Implicate Order
Unfortunately it is going to be very hard however engaging in meaningful debate unless you start with some foundation stones upon which participants in this forum can all agree. While this may be a challenge to achieve this, it will probably be the more fruitful path for you. If experience on forums is any guide to me, you have to use stealth to answer your queries through pushing the boundaries in a careful manner. Learning and longevity on this forum is all about survival :-))

I have provided an edit of the title post best approximates my method. If people think globally quantifying spin is ooger booger it kinda alarms me. I don't expect I'll forget to cleanly edit a question before posting again
• December 17th, 2013, 09:34 AM
Implicate Order
Quote:

Originally Posted by 3SwordBunny
I have provided an edit of the title post best approximates my method. If people think globally quantifying spin is ooger booger it kinda alarms me. I don't expect I'll forget to cleanly edit a question before posting again

I think the usage of "FoR with spin" probably threw a wobbly to the audience. It certainly did to me, but if your query is taken from the perspective of "a purely relational viewpoint" it might have taken a more solid footing. :-))

PS The definitions also would have thrown a wobbly to he viewer as the notion of 'geodesic commencement points and end points' would certainly not be thought of as a conventional way to address the nature of fermions and bosons.
• December 17th, 2013, 09:36 AM
3SwordBunny
Quote:

Originally Posted by Implicate Order
Quote:

Originally Posted by 3SwordBunny
I have provided an edit of the title post best approximates my method. If people think globally quantifying spin is ooger booger it kinda alarms me. I don't expect I'll forget to cleanly edit a question before posting again

I think the usage of "FoR with spin" probably through a wobbly to the audience. It certainly did to me, but if your query is taken from the perspective of "a purely relational viewpoint" it might have taken a more solid footing. :-))

My familiarity with the language is sorely limited :/
• December 17th, 2013, 09:42 AM
Implicate Order
Quote:

Originally Posted by 3SwordBunny
My familiarity with the language is sorely limited :/

No probs 3SwordBunny. Thinking about it a bit more you should have a read of Lee Smolins 'Three Roads to Quantum Gravity". I think this is where you are coming from and it will get you up to speed with the lingo and also give you a perspective from the Loop Quantum Gravity camp. :-))
• December 17th, 2013, 09:44 AM
Strange
(I know I said I would leave the thread but ...)

Quote:

Originally Posted by 3SwordBunny
I would have thought I were more in the second category...

Being in this category means starting with a "solid foundation in General relativity"; do you fully understand differential geometry, tensors, pseudo-Riemannian manifolds, etc? If not, you are not in category 2. :

Quote:

My familiarity with the language is sorely limited :/
Just to expand on my problem with the phrase "FoR of spin" a bit more.

A frame of reference is (normally) defined as a coordinate system used to represent and measure properties of objects, such as their position and orientation, at different moments of time. On the other hand, spin is the intrinsic angular momentum of elementary particles. It is hard to see how a coordinate system can be defined in terms of angular momentum.
• December 17th, 2013, 09:45 AM
Strange
Quote:

Originally Posted by Implicate Order
No probs 3SwordBunny. Thinking about it a bit more you should have a read of Lee Smolins 'Three Roads to Quantum Gravity". I think this is where you are coming from and it will get you up to speed with the lingo and also give you a perspective from the Loop Quantum Gravity camp. :-))

But it will only give you a layman's understanding based on analogies. That is not a basis on which one can develop new scientific theories.
• December 17th, 2013, 09:47 AM
Implicate Order
Quote:

Originally Posted by Strange
(I know I said I would leave the thread but ...)

ROFL. I will leave it in your capable hands Strange. Night all :-))
• December 17th, 2013, 10:17 AM
KJW
Quote:

Originally Posted by 3SwordBunny
I definitely haven't got time to start things from scratch.

Do you really think there is a shortcut?

• December 17th, 2013, 04:40 PM
3SwordBunny
Quote:

Originally Posted by Strange
(I know I said I would leave the thread but ...)

Quote:

Originally Posted by 3SwordBunny
I would have thought I were more in the second category...

Being in this category means starting with a "solid foundation in General relativity"; do you fully understand differential geometry, tensors, pseudo-Riemannian manifolds, etc? If not, you are not in category 2. :

I focus on the nature of spin because particles don't have any of these things, which are mathematical approximations that don't concern me.

Quote:

My familiarity with the language is sorely limited :/
Just to expand on my problem with the phrase "FoR of spin" a bit more.

A frame of reference is (normally) defined as a coordinate system used to represent and measure properties of objects, such as their position and orientation, at different moments of time. On the other hand, spin is the intrinsic angular momentum of elementary particles. It is hard to see how a coordinate system can be defined in terms of angular momentum.[/QUOTE]

As spin(I prefer not to simply refer to it as AM) is the fundamental perspective of a particle, I do not see much point applying FoR to the question in any other fashion. The intrinsic feature I am focussing on is spin, nothing else.
• December 17th, 2013, 04:46 PM
3SwordBunny
Quote:

Originally Posted by KJW
Quote:

Originally Posted by 3SwordBunny
I definitely haven't got time to start things from scratch.

Do you really think there is a shortcut?

err, no. Which is why I began with getting a grasp on the available material. The idea of proposing a whole new approach to physics is really not one I'm interested in. I study spin for a very specific reason. If people think that is misguided that is not my concern.
• December 17th, 2013, 04:51 PM
Strange
Quote:

Originally Posted by 3SwordBunny
As spin(I prefer not to simply refer to it as AM) is the fundamental perspective of a particle, I do not see much point applying FoR to the question in any other fashion. The intrinsic feature I am focussing on is spin, nothing else.

Spin, which is angular momentum whether you like it or not, is just one intrinsic property of a particle. It isn't clear why you think it is more important than the others.

I also don't see how you can base a set of of coordinates on spin. Unless that coordinate system is rotating? But even that doesn't make much sense in the quantum domain as spin exists in all three dimensions.
• December 17th, 2013, 04:51 PM
Strange
Quote:

Originally Posted by 3SwordBunny
The idea of proposing a whole new approach to physics is really not one I'm interested in.

So why start by redefining a bunch of standard terms?
• December 17th, 2013, 05:03 PM
3SwordBunny
Quote:

Originally Posted by 3SwordBunny
Quote:

Originally Posted by KJW
Quote:

Originally Posted by 3SwordBunny
I definitely haven't got time to start things from scratch.

Do you really think there is a shortcut?

err, no. Which is why I began with getting a grasp on the available material. The idea of proposing a whole new approach to physics is really not one I'm interested in. I study spin for a very specific reason. If people think that is misguided that is not my concern.

The questions in the OP are aimed at clarifying how to turn the features I've plotted into a functional equation. The question is how to mathematically illustrate a specific FoR, not so much for how I might go about being recognised as a 'Good' Theoretical physiscist.. I apologise for the unedited language that confused readers but I was simply distracted by other things at the time of submission.
• December 17th, 2013, 05:12 PM
3SwordBunny
Quote:

Originally Posted by Strange
Quote:

Originally Posted by 3SwordBunny
As spin(I prefer not to simply refer to it as AM) is the fundamental perspective of a particle, I do not see much point applying FoR to the question in any other fashion. The intrinsic feature I am focussing on is spin, nothing else.

Spin, which is angular momentum whether you like it or not, is just one intrinsic property of a particle. It isn't clear why you think it is more important than the others.

To have provided that sort of clarification would have required an in depth explanation of the terms "point of origin" and "point of destination". A) the FoR I have supplied for algebration is required to provide context, b) each of those terms are a very specific equation of their own of which I have little idea of the complexity without being able to comprehend the contextual equations they are set in. Attempting to explain these things verbally is not an exercise with much merit, which is why I have begun where I have.[/QUOTE]

I also don't see how you can base a set of of coordinates on spin. Unless that coordinate system is rotating? But even that doesn't make much sense in the quantum domain as spin exists in all three dimensions.[/QUOTE]

Can you assume that the stationary(non-spinning) aspects of space are not a feature of a system of balance? I cannot...
• December 17th, 2013, 05:15 PM
3SwordBunny
Quote:

Originally Posted by Strange
Quote:

Originally Posted by 3SwordBunny
The idea of proposing a whole new approach to physics is really not one I'm interested in.

So why start by redefining a bunch of standard terms?

You keep seeming to miss what I have specifically requested, which is not how to redefine terms, but how to present a contextual FoR mathematically for the purposes of further defining two equations related to it.
• December 17th, 2013, 05:19 PM
3SwordBunny
Quote:

Originally Posted by Strange
Quote:

Originally Posted by 3SwordBunny
As spin(I prefer not to simply refer to it as AM) is the fundamental perspective of a particle, I do not see much point applying FoR to the question in any other fashion. The intrinsic feature I am focussing on is spin, nothing else.

Spin, which is angular momentum whether you like it or not, is just one intrinsic property of a particle. It isn't clear why you think it is more important than the others.

I also don't see how you can base a set of of coordinates on spin. Unless that coordinate system is rotating? But even that doesn't make much sense in the quantum domain as spin exists in all three dimensions.

Can you name me an aspect of a particle that isn't a product of FoR? Charge, mass, momentum, are all calculable as something else from other F'soR. Can AM ever be calculated as anything else, from varying perspectives? It is a genuinely intrinsic feature.
• December 17th, 2013, 05:19 PM
Strange
Quote:

Originally Posted by 3SwordBunny
each of those terms are a very specific equation of their own of which I have little idea of the complexity without being able to comprehend the contextual equations they are set in.

1. Do you not see the problem of providing your own definitions for standard terms? For example, "geodesic" has a very specific meaning which has nothing to do with the definition you give it.

2. You mention equations, but you have not provided any so I'm not sure what equations you mean.

Quote:

Attempting to explain these things verbally is not an exercise with much merit, which is why I have begun where I have.
You are only describing things verbally.
• December 17th, 2013, 05:26 PM
3SwordBunny
I suppose the exercise might be intended to demonstrate how charge and mass are opposing products of AM FoR, rather than intrinsic properties.....
• December 17th, 2013, 05:27 PM
3SwordBunny
Quote:

Originally Posted by Strange
Quote:

Originally Posted by 3SwordBunny
each of those terms are a very specific equation of their own of which I have little idea of the complexity without being able to comprehend the contextual equations they are set in.

1. Do you not see the problem of providing your own definitions for standard terms? For example, "geodesic" has a very specific meaning which has nothing to do with the definition you give it.

2. You mention equations, but you have not provided any so I'm not sure what equations you mean.

Quote:

Attempting to explain these things verbally is not an exercise with much merit, which is why I have begun where I have.
You are only describing things verbally.

Have you missed the fact the question I aked was how to turn verbal description into equation?
• December 17th, 2013, 05:30 PM
3SwordBunny
I hope that leaves enough useful information. I have a job to finish. Have a good day.
• December 17th, 2013, 05:32 PM
3SwordBunny
Quote:

Originally Posted by Strange
Quote:

Originally Posted by 3SwordBunny
each of those terms are a very specific equation of their own of which I have little idea of the complexity without being able to comprehend the contextual equations they are set in.

1. Do you not see the problem of providing your own definitions for standard terms? For example, "geodesic" has a very specific meaning which has nothing to do with the definition you give it.

Within this FoR, geodesic is applied to accomadate contextual phenomena. It is a reference within a context, not a redefinition of a term.
• December 17th, 2013, 05:49 PM
Strange
Quote:

Originally Posted by 3SwordBunny
Within this FoR, geodesic is applied to accomadate contextual phenomena. It is a reference within a context, not a redefinition of a term.

I assume English is not your first language so let's be more specific.

Your definition of "geodesic" is: state a particle exists in between events.

The standard definition is: a generalization of the notion of a "straight line" to "curved spaces". In the presence of an affine connection, a geodesic is defined to be a curve whose tangent vectors remain parallel if they are transported along it.

A "state" is not (cannot be) the same thing as "a straight line". Therefore you have redefined the meaning of the word.
• December 17th, 2013, 06:28 PM
3SwordBunny
Quote:

Originally Posted by Strange
Quote:

Originally Posted by 3SwordBunny
Within this FoR, geodesic is applied to accomadate contextual phenomena. It is a reference within a context, not a redefinition of a term.

I assume English is not your first language so let's be more specific.

Your definition of "geodesic" is: state a particle exists in between events.

The standard definition is: a generalization of the notion of a "straight line" to "curved spaces". In the presence of an affine connection, a geodesic is defined to be a curve whose tangent vectors remain parallel if they are transported along it.

A "state" is not (cannot be) the same thing as "a straight line". Therefore you have redefined the meaning of the word.

A straight line is a mathematical notion only within this definition. The curvature of space is a function of the interdependance of trasversely opposing AM's, within the context of the FoR I am attempting to illustrate. The common application of the term geodesic is a mathematical approximation. I am applying it to cover a fundamental area of context. There is no redefinition of term, only the provision of parameters for a system.
• December 17th, 2013, 06:32 PM
3SwordBunny
Quote:

Originally Posted by Strange
Quote:

Originally Posted by 3SwordBunny
Within this FoR, geodesic is applied to accomadate contextual phenomena. It is a reference within a context, not a redefinition of a term.

I assume English is not your first language so let's be more specific.

You make massively presumptive assumptions and you appear to avoid addressing the question posted to analyse a reference provided for context. Can you supply anything to the question of a conventional approach to mathematically illustrating the origin of mass?
• December 17th, 2013, 06:37 PM
Strange
Quote:

Originally Posted by 3SwordBunny
You make massively presumptive assumptions and you appear to avoid addressing the question posted to analyse a reference provided for context.

Sorry, what question am I avoiding? You asked what the requirements are for a theory; I said: "to make testable predictions". What needs to be analysed?

Quote:

Can you supply anything to the question of a conventional approach to mathematically illustrating the origin of mass?
Such as the Higgs mechanism?

(So, what is your first language? Just curious... It might be one of the ones I know. :))
• December 17th, 2013, 06:51 PM
3SwordBunny
Quote:

Originally Posted by Strange
Quote:

Originally Posted by 3SwordBunny
You make massively presumptive assumptions and you appear to avoid addressing the question posted to analyse a reference provided for context.

Sorry, what question am I avoiding? You asked what the requirements are for a theory; I said: "to make testable predictions". What needs to be analysed?

The question was specifically, what is the conventional approach to providing a fundamental context for mass. A child could tell me the purpose and proof of an equation.[/QUOTE]

Quote:

Can you supply anything to the question of a conventional approach to mathematically illustrating the origin of mass?
Such as the Higgs mechanism?

(So, what is your first language? Just curious... It might be one of the ones I know. :))[/QUOTE]

A title is not an illustration. The Higgs mechanism has it's own concerns. I have provided the exercise that informs the context of my question. I don't require a perfunctory, minimally informed analysis of that exercise. If I can be provided enough information as to how to structure the equations I am seeking to illustrate, the context of the exercise would become apparent. I apologise for the developing re-edits of the OP post but developing a proper perspective on the information I have collated is the intention.
• December 17th, 2013, 06:56 PM
3SwordBunny
Quote:

Originally Posted by Strange

(So, what is your first language? Just curious... It might be one of the ones I know. :))

Your first language seems to be condescension. Possibly my first language was "?". My grammar is entirely provided by lifelong exposure to English. I was born in Sydney. What can I say. I would state that my interpersonal presumption was provided me by an awareness that I don't know another before I have met them. Did yours originate with a sense of inferiority?
• December 17th, 2013, 07:20 PM
RedPanda
Quote:

Originally Posted by 3SwordBunny
My grammar is entirely provided by lifelong exposure to English.

That is a very odd answer to the question "What is your first language?".
• December 17th, 2013, 07:49 PM
3SwordBunny
Quote:

Originally Posted by RedPanda
Quote:

Originally Posted by 3SwordBunny
My grammar is entirely provided by lifelong exposure to English.

That is a very odd answer to the question "What is your first language?".

Was the question posed relevant? Should it have recieved greater attention?
• December 17th, 2013, 07:51 PM
RedPanda
Quote:

Originally Posted by 3SwordBunny
Quote:

Originally Posted by RedPanda
Quote:

Originally Posted by 3SwordBunny
My grammar is entirely provided by lifelong exposure to English.

That is a very odd answer to the question "What is your first language?".

Was the question posed relevant? Should it have recieved greater attention?

I was thinking it deserved a similar amount of attention to what you gave it - but with some clarity instead.
The fact that you decided to dance around it was what I thought odd.
• December 17th, 2013, 08:20 PM
3SwordBunny
Quote:

Originally Posted by RedPanda
Quote:

Originally Posted by 3SwordBunny
Quote:

Originally Posted by RedPanda
Quote:

Originally Posted by 3SwordBunny
My grammar is entirely provided by lifelong exposure to English.

That is a very odd answer to the question "What is your first language?".

Was the question posed relevant? Should it have recieved greater attention?

I was thinking it deserved a similar amount of attention to what you gave it - but with some clarity instead.
The fact that you decided to dance around it was what I thought odd.

I did not post this thread to examine the history of my learning of the english language. I found the presumption of diverting the question to examine titillating mundanities profoundly deconstructive and counter-productive.
• December 17th, 2013, 08:36 PM
diddly-squat
Hi Everyone,

This is my first post on this forum but I thought it prudent to provide some context for you all after I was directed to this thread by the OP on another forum. I have had previous interactions with the poster "3SwordBunny" on a number of other science forums where he has posted under a number of other pseudonyms. His theories are available on his website "Omegafour" or feel free to google "Zarkov site:www2b.abc.net.au".

Hope this helps give some context.

Cheers

diddly-squat
• December 17th, 2013, 08:42 PM
tk421
Quote:

Originally Posted by 3SwordBunny
I did not post this thread to examine the history of my learning of the english language. I found the presumption of diverting the question to examine titillating mundanities profoundly deconstructive and counter-productive.

Your attitude must change -- soon -- or you will not last long here.

You write extremely poorly, so you ought not complain that others can't understand you.

You unnecessarily redefine common terms of art, guaranteeing a minimum of comprehension.

You demand that others here conform to your constraints in responding. You seem not to understand that we are under no obligation to work for you. It is arrogant and rude of you to act as if we are your serfs.

You claim to have a theory, yet you refuse to show anything that would support that claim. Where are your predictions? Where is the experimental support for those predictions? How does your "theory" do a better job at predicting than the current mainstream? Etc.

Do not demand that we produce your equations for you, particularly when you've expressed your ideas in a manner that is designed to obfuscate.

As of now, your score on the Baez Crank Index is rising to alarmingly high levels. Do you want to have a discussion? Then knock that chip off your shoulder and discuss. Do you want this to head to the trash? Then keep going as you have. Quit being an arrogant, thin-skinned ass if you want this to continue.
• December 17th, 2013, 08:46 PM
Implicate Order
Quote:

Originally Posted by diddly-squat
Hi Everyone,

This is my first post on this forum but I thought it prudent to provide some context for you all after I was directed to this thread by the OP on another forum. I have had previous interactions with the poster "3SwordBunny" on a number of other science forums where he has posted under a number of other pseudonyms. His theories are available on his website "Omegafour" or feel free to google "Zarkov site:www2b.abc.net.au".

Hope this helps give some context.

Cheers

diddly-squat

Hey Diddly. It's me Copper Knickers. A few of us from old are here. I hope you can stay. :-))
• December 17th, 2013, 09:28 PM
3SwordBunny
Quote:

Originally Posted by Implicate Order
Quote:

Originally Posted by diddly-squat
Hi Everyone,

This is my first post on this forum but I thought it prudent to provide some context for you all after I was directed to this thread by the OP on another forum. I have had previous interactions with the poster "3SwordBunny" on a number of other science forums where he has posted under a number of other pseudonyms. His theories are available on his website "Omegafour" or feel free to google "Zarkov site:www2b.abc.net.au".

Hope this helps give some context.

Cheers

diddly-squat

Hey Diddly. It's me Copper Knickers. A few of us from old are here. I hope you can stay. :-))

Please ignore this misinformed post from Diddly. He knows not what he speaks of and has taken the opportunity to assign all his pet hate experiences to the personality he has engaged with here.

For the benefit of those who think that a question gets posted for their comprehension, I have absorbed enough progress from those with genuinely constructive insight here to redress the question with clarity on another forum. I have no interest in asking one question to be told I am asking another, completely moronic question. YOU ALL NEED TO LEARN HOW TO IDENTIFY THE QUESTION BEING ASKED AND STOP SEEKING YOUR OWN INTERPRETATION OF ANOTHER PERSONS BELIEFS BE GIVEN ANY CREDIT
• December 17th, 2013, 09:32 PM
3SwordBunny
Quote:

Originally Posted by tk421
Quote:

Originally Posted by 3SwordBunny
I did not post this thread to examine the history of my learning of the english language. I found the presumption of diverting the question to examine titillating mundanities profoundly deconstructive and counter-productive.

Your attitude must change -- soon -- or you will not last long here.

You write extremely poorly, so you ought not complain that others can't understand you.

You unnecessarily redefine common terms of art, guaranteeing a minimum of comprehension.

You demand that others here conform to your constraints in responding. You seem not to understand that we are under no obligation to work for you. It is arrogant and rude of you to act as if we are your serfs.

You claim to have a theory, yet you refuse to show anything that would support that claim. Where are your predictions? Where is the experimental support for those predictions? How does your "theory" do a better job at predicting than the current mainstream? Etc.

Do not demand that we produce your equations for you, particularly when you've expressed your ideas in a manner that is designed to obfuscate.

As of now, your score on the Baez Crank Index is rising to alarmingly high levels. Do you want to have a discussion? Then knock that chip off your shoulder and discuss. Do you want this to head to the trash? Then keep going as you have. Quit being an arrogant, thin-skinned ass if you want this to continue.

I did not claim to have a theory or anything else you apply to my actions. I asked a question. That was ignored so that others could fluff around with material I supplied to indicate that there is a direction to my line of questioning. I attempted to very clearly specify my question and it is readily available within that question that I comprehend my own limitation. Respond to the phrased question. If you don't have context for the references you only, in the end, sound like the goose.
• December 17th, 2013, 09:49 PM
GiantEvil
Quote:

Originally Posted by 3SwordBunny
I did not claim to have a theory or anything else you apply to my actions. I asked a question. That was ignored so that others could fluff around with material I supplied to indicate that there is a direction to my line of questioning. I attempted to very clearly specify my question and it is readily available within that question that I comprehend my own limitation. Respond to the phrased question. If you don't have context for the references you only, in the end, sound like the goose.

http://dashburst.com/wp-content/uplo...ides-goose.jpg
• December 17th, 2013, 09:55 PM
3SwordBunny
Quote:

Originally Posted by GiantEvil
Quote:

Originally Posted by 3SwordBunny
I did not claim to have a theory or anything else you apply to my actions. I asked a question. That was ignored so that others could fluff around with material I supplied to indicate that there is a direction to my line of questioning. I attempted to very clearly specify my question and it is readily available within that question that I comprehend my own limitation. Respond to the phrased question. If you don't have context for the references you only, in the end, sound like the goose.

http://dashburst.com/wp-content/uplo...ides-goose.jpg

Now there is a river crossing partnership that doesn't end in a rat getting tricked into being eaten by a fox. Improves my mood invariably. :D hehehe
• December 17th, 2013, 10:16 PM
diddly-squat
Quote:

Originally Posted by Implicate Order
Hey Diddly. It's me Copper Knickers. A few of us from old are here. I hope you can stay. :-))

Sorry, I can't say I recognise that particular user name... you are ex-sssf I take it?? Who else frequents this place?
• December 17th, 2013, 10:21 PM
diddly-squat
Quote:

Originally Posted by 3SwordBunny

Please ignore this misinformed post from Diddly. He knows not what he speaks of and has taken the opportunity to assign all his pet hate experiences to the personality he has engaged with here.

no hate as far as I can see, just providing people with the facts so that they can judge for themselves.
• December 17th, 2013, 10:25 PM
3SwordBunny
Quote:

Originally Posted by diddly-squat
Quote:

Originally Posted by 3SwordBunny

Please ignore this misinformed post from Diddly. He knows not what he speaks of and has taken the opportunity to assign all his pet hate experiences to the personality he has engaged with here.

no hate as far as I can see, just providing people with the facts so that they can judge for themselves.

Which facts are those? That you have taken a straight forward denial of being Zarkov as confirmation of the same? You only seek contrariness here. Thanks for the inordinate attention to imaginary detail.
• December 17th, 2013, 10:28 PM
Implicate Order
Quote:

Originally Posted by diddly-squat
Quote:

Originally Posted by Implicate Order
Hey Diddly. It's me Copper Knickers. A few of us from old are here. I hope you can stay. :-))

Sorry, I can't say I recognise that particular user name... you are ex-sssf I take it?? Who else frequents this place?

Copper Knickers = Copernicus. Does that help? Someone took that handle before I joined hence now Implicate Order.

Others here are KJW & Chrispan Evan. Adelady may or not be an old SSSFer. Probably more but also lot's of Australians.

John Galt might like another geologist to help the cause, if you are keen......and no BC is not here! :-))
• December 17th, 2013, 10:31 PM
Chrispen Evan
Copernicus, diddly. 3swords isn't zarkoz.

apologies to other forum members for bringing past issues from elsewhere here.

i should add that i guided 3swords here because i know him from elsewhere and have seen his "science" before. he never listened to me when i told him it was rubbish so i thought maybe getting it from strangers may hammer the point home.
• December 17th, 2013, 10:32 PM
Implicate Order
Quote:

Originally Posted by Chrispen Evan
Copernicus, diddly. 3swords isn't zarkoz.

apologies to other forum members for bringing past issues from elsewhere here.

Ta Chrispen :-))
• December 17th, 2013, 10:42 PM
diddly-squat
Quote:

Originally Posted by Chrispen Evan
Copernicus, diddly. 3swords isn't zarkoz.

apologies to other forum members for bringing past issues from elsewhere here.

i should add that i guided 3swords here because i know him from elsewhere and have seen his "science" before. he never listened to me when i told him it was rubbish so i thought maybe getting it from strangers may hammer the point home.

Hi guys and thanks...

I can't say I'm completely convinced, it just all sounds a little too familiar for my liking
• December 18th, 2013, 12:44 AM
KJW
Quote:

Originally Posted by diddly-squat
Hi Everyone,

This is my first post on this forum but I thought it prudent to provide some context for you all after I was directed to this thread by the OP on another forum. I have had previous interactions with the poster "3SwordBunny" on a number of other science forums where he has posted under a number of other pseudonyms. His theories are available on his website "Omegafour" or feel free to google "Zarkov site:www2b.abc.net.au".

Hope this helps give some context.

Cheers

diddly-squat

Ahhh, I see.

Anyway, welcome to the forum diddly-squat. :)
• December 18th, 2013, 12:52 AM
KJW
Quote:

Originally Posted by Chrispen Evan
Copernicus, diddly. 3swords isn't zarkoz.

apologies to other forum members for bringing past issues from elsewhere here.

i should add that i guided 3swords here because i know him from elsewhere and have seen his "science" before. he never listened to me when i told him it was rubbish so i thought maybe getting it from strangers may hammer the point home.

Ok.
• December 18th, 2013, 04:23 AM
RedPanda
Quote:

Originally Posted by 3SwordBunny
Quote:

Originally Posted by Strange
I assume English is not your first language so let's be more specific.

You make massively presumptive assumptions...

...which are completely correct.

Maybe if you were less disingenuous then people might be more welcoming.
Just a suggestion. :)
• December 18th, 2013, 04:29 AM
Strange
Quote:

Originally Posted by RedPanda
Quote:

Originally Posted by 3SwordBunny
Quote:

Originally Posted by Strange
I assume English is not your first language so let's be more specific.

You make massively presumptive assumptions...

...which are completely correct.

If English is his first language then perhaps he has a mild case of aphasia.
• December 18th, 2013, 08:44 AM
John Galt
Quote:

Originally Posted by 3SwordBunny
[YOU ALL NEED TO LEARN HOW TO IDENTIFY THE QUESTION BEING ASKED AND STOP SEEKING YOUR OWN INTERPRETATION OF ANOTHER PERSONS BELIEFS BE GIVEN ANY CREDIT

No. You need to learn how to write clearly and simply. So far no one has been able to understand your precise meaning (and in many cases, even your general meaning). A diverse group of persons have responded to you and they all have the same problem. I know most of these people and I know there reading comprehension is excellent. That, then, clearly points to your writing as being the problem.

If English is not your native language, if you have a condition that makes communication difficult for you, if you are very young, (or very old), or have some other reason for the poor quality of your writing members will be sympathetic and will make appropriate efforts to assist you. But for that to happen we need to know what your difficulty is. Please help us to help you. If you have no excuse, then please make an effort to improve.
• December 18th, 2013, 11:05 AM
Markus Hanke
Quote:

What are the fundamental requirements for a theory of gravity?

Same as any other theory - you need to be able to extract numerical predictions from it, and those predictions must match experiment and observation.