I forgot to note in the post below that, under the isomorphism I
proposed, it is necessary that the spins of the photon and
graviphoton are 1, and the spins of the messengers, the graviton and
virtual photon are both even and identical. It is thought the
graviton spin must be 2, due to
On Jan 2, 2009, at 7:16 AM, Jones Beene wrote:
Horace,
Thanks for a good analysis of this new theory vis-a-vis your theory
and the mainstream thinking which precedes it.
It can be noted that your objection: It seems to me this thinking
is not right in that it leaves the question: what
?
With this view, one can also see why probabilities figure so prominently in QM!
-Mark
-Original Message-
From: Horace Heffner [HYPERLINK mailto:hheff...@mtaonline.net
mailto:hheff...@mtaonline.net]
Sent: Friday, January 02, 2009 9:30 AM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Dark Energy
- Original Message
From: Mark Iverson
Virtual... Schmirtual! The only reason physics uses the term 'virtual' is
due to the inadequacies of the theories (mathematical equations) to properly
model physical reality!
Yes, of course this is true. The term virtual and dark energy
4 matches
Mail list logo
