[Kartazion (OP)]

All these points are secondary. The main thing is that my gravitational oscillator is working. From there I will explain it on the points stated. I'll make it clear to you with a level 101. A vertical collision is bound to be subject to gravity whether you want it or not.

[Bored chemist]

Nobody disputes the idea that you can have something oscillating in a gravitational field that's obvious.

http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/Mechanics/earthole.html


If you are looking at the Earth from far away, you can watch the satellites bounce back and to; and the physics is pretty similar..

But the rest of your stuff is hogwash.

[Origin]

The main thing is that my gravitational oscillator is working

I first heard about 'your' gravitational oscillator in science class about 50 years ago.  Hint:  it isn't your idea.

[Kartazion (OP)]

because there's no antimatter there.

The correct sentence is 'I had thought that the center of the earth was the point of antimatter.' This is not a statement but rather a remark. Now how can you say that a positron will not be on earth or at its center?

because it's not clear that they even have an "end".

This determines the quantitative size of a graviton. But there is also a translation problem. We could say 'point to point'.

Nobody disputes the idea that you can have something oscillating in a gravitational field that's obvious.

Can you define and determine what 'something' is and what it means in physical terms?

If you are looking at the Earth from far away, you can watch the satellites bounce back and to; and the physics is pretty similar..

Bounce back? By its magnitude? But I understand what you mean by that. Yes everything is oscillator.

But the rest of your stuff is hogwash.

This is your sole responsibility.

I first heard about 'your' gravitational oscillator in science class about 50 years ago.  Hint:  it isn't your idea.

Yes. Finally. It's validated.

Then and after the gravitational oscillator, there is the avoidance of gravitational singularity by the kinetic energy of the particle or massive object. Easy to understand and obvious. This is where the link between GR and QM is made. That's my idea.

[Origin]

Could you label the axis of your graph.  What do you mean particle and antiparticle on the graph.

[Bored chemist]

Bounce back? By its magnitude?

No.
I mean that you would, depending on your view see it set off to the left, slow down, stop and then bounce back to the right and then it would slow down and stop and bounce back.

This is trivial physics.

Can you define and determine what 'something' is and what it means in physical terms?

I did

http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/Mechanics/earthole.html

Now how can you say that a positron will not be on earth or at its center?

It might, but it wouldn't last long.
And there's no particular reason for it to be there any more than in the middle of my cup of coffee.

This determines the quantitative size of a graviton. But there is also a translation problem. We could say 'point to point'.

Word salad.

This is your sole responsibility.

I am not responsible, in any way for you posting hogwash. That's just silly.
If I was, I would stop you doing so.

Yes. Finally. It's validated.

Well, the old physics was already valid.
Your word salad is
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Not_even_wrong

[Bored chemist]

because there's no antimatter there.

The correct sentence is 'I had thought that the center of the earth was the point of antimatter.' This is not a statement but rather a remark. Now how can you say that a positron will not be on earth or at its center?

because it's not clear that they even have an "end".

This determines the quantitative size of a graviton. But there is also a translation problem. We could say 'point to point'.

Nobody disputes the idea that you can have something oscillating in a gravitational field that's obvious.

Can you define and determine what 'something' is and what it means in physical terms?

If you are looking at the Earth from far away, you can watch the satellites bounce back and to; and the physics is pretty similar..

Bounce back? By its magnitude? But I understand what you mean by that. Yes everything is oscillator.

But the rest of your stuff is hogwash.

This is your sole responsibility.

I first heard about 'your' gravitational oscillator in science class about 50 years ago.  Hint:  it isn't your idea.

Yes. Finally. It's validated.

Then and after the gravitational oscillator, there is the avoidance of gravitational singularity by the kinetic energy of the particle or massive object. Easy to understand and obvious. This is where the link between GR and QM is made. That's my idea.

Have you somehow got the mistaken view that an antiparticle has negative mass?

[Kartazion (OP)]

Could you label the axis of your graph.

As you pointed out and for 50 years that you studied it, the axis is always the one which is in force. Besides do you have a link to the gravitational oscillator that the students are using? Because why when you type gravitational oscillator in Google images are my graphics that we see first?

What do you mean particle and antiparticle on the graph.

I mean the electron transit through a positron. What don't you understand?

No.
I mean that you would, depending on your view see it set off to the left, slow down, stop and then bounce back to the right and then it would slow down and stop and bounce back.

This is trivial physics.

So do you have a trivial link on this point that the students are using? Thanks.

I did

http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/Mechanics/earthole.html

This is not an answer. You give me the link without putting a precise label on what determines a 'somethings'.

It might, but it wouldn't last long.
And there's no particular reason for it to be there any more than in the middle of my cup of coffee.

True.

This determines the quantitative size of a graviton. But there is also a translation problem. We could say 'point to point'.

Word salad.

The graviton is a hypothetical particle. So the quantitative size of a graviton is simply the particle So I said to put the particles end to end. What's wrong with that? You may have some understanding concerns. Here we are talking about quantitative and quantized quantum mechanics.

I am not responsible, in any way for you posting hogwash. That's just silly.
If I was, I would stop you doing so.

You are at least responsible for your answers.

Well, the old physics was already valid.
Your word salad is
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Not_even_wrong

Do you have a ref or a link on this point that the students are using? Thanks.

Have you somehow got the mistaken view that an antiparticle has negative mass?

But I don't see any compulsion relationship. At the LHC, everything is going well with the anti-particles. What do you mean by that? What is the concern? I don't see what you don't understand.

[Origin]

Could you label the axis of your graph.

As you pointed out and for 50 years that you studied it, the axis is always the one which is in force. Besides do you have a link to the gravitational oscillator that the students are using? Because why when you type gravitational oscillator in Google images are my graphics that we see first?

I guess I have to ask again what are the axis of your graph?  Is it a secret or something?

I mean the electron transit through a positron. What don't you understand?

The whole "electron transit through a positron" thing.  What does that have to do with your graph?

[Kartazion (OP)]

I guess I have to ask again what are the axis of your graph?  Is it a secret or something?

Space-time. An electron travelling backwards in time is what we call a positron. In the diagram, the electron travelling backwards in time interacts with some other light energy and starts travelling forwards in time again.

The whole "electron transit through a positron" thing.  What does that have to do with your graph?

In field theory the particle of my oscillator simulates the displacement of the electron and the positron. It is simply related to physics.


https://www.shutterstock.com/fr/image-vector/quantum-field-theory-vector-illustration-scheme-1176179251

The main thing is that my gravitational oscillator is working

I first heard about 'your' gravitational oscillator in science class about 50 years ago.  Hint:  it isn't your idea.

Again. Do you have a link to the gravitational oscillator about your claim?

[Origin]

I asked you again, what are the axis of your graph and you answer with this.

Space-time. An electron travelling backwards in time is what we call a positron. In the diagram, the electron travelling backwards in time interacts with some other light energy and starts travelling forwards in time again.

Why won't you answer my simple question?  I don't get it.  I asked because you have never labeled the X axis and have used different labels for the Y axis.
So let me guess and you tell me if I am right.  The X axis is distance and the Y axis is inflation.  Is that correct?

Don't worry about the other questions let's take these one at a time.

[Bored chemist]

What don't you understand?

Practically everything you say, because it is nonsense.

[Kartazion (OP)]

[Kartazion (OP)]

If I was, I would stop you doing so.

You will never be able.

Don't worry about the other questions let's take these one at a time.

I first heard about 'your' gravitational oscillator in science class about 50 years ago.  Hint:  it isn't your idea.

You are unable to provide a link to what you said.

[Origin]

That isn't the graph that I was referring to, but that's OK, we can talk about this one.
If we look at this graph as written it makes little sense.  The graph says that as "space", which is a volume, increases the total energy increases. However it also says that as the negative volume increases the total energy increases which makes no sense.  I believe that your label 'space' is actually supposed to be displacement.  I also think your label energy is actually Potential Energy (PE).  Let me know if my guess is right.

Your work to the right of the graph shows 2 graduate lines.  The first line shows increasing G until the point Xo and then E begins increasing.  The next line shows the same thing only in the opposite direction.  I assume G is actually PE and that E is actually KE.  I also assume you are trying to show that PE is being converted to KE, and then the KE is being converted to PE.  Let me know if this is also correct

You should not make you audience guess as to what you are trying to say.
  ​
A simple way of showing what I think you are trying to say is to have Y axes, one Y axis is PE and the other Y axis is KE is shown below:


You additionally have the words particle and antiparticle without explanation.  What is the significance of the particle and antiparticle terms being there?

[Kartazion (OP)]

That isn't the graph that I was referring to, but that's OK, we can talk about this one.
If we look at this graph as written it makes little sense.  The graph says that as "space", which is a volume, increases the total energy increases. However it also says that as the negative volume increases the total energy increases which makes no sense.  I believe that your label 'space' is actually supposed to be displacement.  I also think your label energy is actually Potential Energy (PE).  Let me know if my guess is right.

Your work to the right of the graph shows 2 graduate lines.  The first line shows increasing G until the point Xo and then E begins increasing.  The next line shows the same thing only in the opposite direction.  I assume G is actually PE and that E is actually KE.  I also assume you are trying to show that PE is being converted to KE, and then the KE is being converted to PE.  Let me know if this is also correct

This is a very interesting answer. Yes that is correct. We can clearly see the proportionality between potential energy and kinetic energy.

You should not make you audience guess as to what you are trying to say.
  ​
A simple way of showing what I think you are trying to say is to have Y axes, one Y axis is PE and the other Y axis is KE is shown below:

The advantage of my graph is that it also represents the real particle motion with it. But your graph becomes a complement to my publication. It is almost the precise representation of the proportionality of the two energies. PE or KE. Because for a quarter of the total displacement of the particle in my oscillator represents one of two energies. Potential or gravitational. But yours is in contuinity for two consecutive quarters of a single energy. Do you get it?

e.g.

You additionally have the words particle and antiparticle without explanation.  What is the significance of the particle and antiparticle terms being there?

Here is a point that is important. I can give you my opinion on this if you want.

[Kartazion (OP)]

[Kartazion (OP)]

I don't know, but if you want to directly access the previous GIF of the gravitational oscillator to share it, you have the following QR code:

[Origin]

The advantage of my graph is that it also represents the real particle motion with it.

Not sure what you mean by that.  The graph I showed indicates the KE VS the displacement, so you know the particles velocity at each point.

Because for a quarter of the total displacement of the particle in my oscillator represents one of two energies. Potential or gravitational.

What are you talking about?  Potential and gravitational energy are the same thing.

But yours is in contuinity for two consecutive quarters of a single energy. Do you get it?

No, what are you talking about?

Here is a point that is important. I can give you my opinion on this if you want.

You can give me your opinion on why you wrote particle and antiparticle on your graph?  Yes, I would like your opinion on that.

[Kartazion (OP)]

Because for a quarter of the total displacement of the particle in my oscillator represents one of two energies. Potential or gravitational.

What are you talking about?  Potential and gravitational energy are the same thing.

Yes, sorry. Potential and kinetic.

You can give me your opinion on why you wrote particle and antiparticle on your graph?  Yes, I would like your opinion on that.

Simply put, antimatter represents the lifeless side of Schrödinger's paradox. More seriously. I presume from the start of an anti big bang. Therefore this explains why we do not find the expected antimatter in our universe. During a high-energy collision, the particle pair annihilation detects the presence of antimatter through space-time.

For the rest the following video explains well everything that was written on the oscillator that I am describing.

Origin, you will understand that during the movement of the particle and for my oscillator an alternation between potential energy and kinetic energy is done every quarter cycle.