Dear Emmanouil Markoulakis ,

Thus, based on the title, my writing cannot be reconciled with this writing, if I only take its title as a basis.

Article Fizikailag-metafizikailag bizonyítható a graviton létezése

(Hungarian)

Chapter 230902-En-H-Gr-t

Raw Data Fizikailag-metafizikailag bizonyítani lehet a graviton létezésesét

(conclushion: English)

Research Proposal Physico-metaphysical proof of the existence of graviton (Fiz...

(abstract)

After I had an accident. I fell from a height of 2.5 metres after the wooden ladder below me broke, but I escaped, intuitively concluding the following thought experiment:

Research Proposal Egyszerű kísérlet egy EM-gravitációs elmélet alátámasztására

(First comment has English Translation)

Research Proposal Addendum to 'A Simple Experiment to Support an EM Gravity Theory'

abd yesterday I have made a short video on my YouTube Channel,

Geo-intition:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=URLzVTfA0_I&t=57s

I would like to know what you think about the forecast's of experiment

Conclusion based on my work:

The answer is in there..

I have to read the writing to know if what seems to be a mistake at first sight is true or not...

Regards,

Laszlo

Emmanouil Markoulakis i can only fully agree and be very curious, if your important RG question contribution will become likewise as popular of a host for discussing a multitude of close by related ranges (as seen by some truly popular threads here running over years (!) with 5000+ (!!) post contributions and still increasing.

From the physical aspect here iSpace theory, able to derive constants of nature from simple multiplicative integer geometric base entities has something - if not a lot - to say:

While some both in mainstream and even here in RG doubt even about the existence of a - or better the - graviton at all, it is shown - prooven - beyond any reasonable doubt that the graviton is very much real by the derivation of the quantum of gravitational force or iFg for short in the following exact symbolic form from Fg/FE=FE/FPlanck force relation as derived initially by John A. Macken and from this the following core physical force equation relation as derived by me (iSpace):

iFg = (alphaG)^2 * PlanckForce

witn alphaG being just the well known gravitational finestructure constant calculable from (among other relations) electron mass squared over Planck-Mass squared - or - fully surprising in the following 100% compatible iSpace-SI unit system specific form (the derivation of iFg was btw. based on the following, and only later on the former physically correct interpretation of the initially very surprising indeed numerical and integer geometric result that iFg indeed resembles):

iFg = 3/(299792458*(10)^3)^4 [Newton]

or iSpace-SI unit wise fully a fit to the power of 4 as can be seen above to actual physical base quantum units of [Volt * Ampere * Second * 1/Meter] as iSpace theory prooved are the only physical base units one ever needs!

Of all the not only interesting but outright stunning physical and theoretical perspectives of a likely superluminal core aspect of an upcoming (more) complete theory of gravity to come will be the top aspect however of this question to be discussed in-depth! here!

https://arxiv.org/pdf/2212.01228

Elizabeth Asmus

The fabric of spacetime according to SR, can. Also I am not taking about tachyons but superluminal oscillations at rest. Also, bare in mind that if spacetime is quantized and its quanta is at the sub-Planck scale then by definition it must be superluminal energy.

Emmanouil Markoulakis ,

spacetime does not exist. It is a tool of calculation based on the equivalence of inertial frames. If that existed then no background would be possible.

It has been the last attempt to reinstate the Galilean relativity of inertial frames against the Lorentz and Larmor background which was the synthesis of a study initiated by Huygens.

This compulsory option between spacetime and a background is one of the few things that can be said for sure.

Stefano Quattrini is amazing for me to see, how someone on your talent level is able to finally get it wrong on the „last mile“ (Meter): By „spacetime does not exist.“ you‘ve got it completely wrong - maximally as could be!

Christian G. Wolf ,

there are two alternatives

space-time supported by Einstein, Minkowski and followers

which singles out any background or preferred frame..

A background supported by Larmor, Lorentz, Heaviside and twenty others including giants like Maxwell and Helmoltz.

These views cannot co-exist...

Stefano Quattrini Oh, of course - this kind of definition of spacetime - words are not at all self explainable - then l fully agree, but take your option two, please (with iSpace theory on constants of nature implied background in 10D=3D+6D+1D form, so real ether medium in 6D subspace, undetectable in 3D space with 1D strictly discrete time (as implied by iSpace derived quantum of time).

But then - yes - surely NOT option one.

I do not recognise my Opponent who has till now discredited ANY theoretical considerations which were not supported by experiment. Or, perhaps there are some experimental evidences of superluminal motion "at the root of the governing dynamics". This WOULD BE Nobel, Mr. Stefano Quattrini .

Surely! Nothing exists, as many philosophers claimed. However we the people do not care for this when facing the everyday real matter. The space-time is a tool of the same position of our understanding the world like distance (which obviously does not exist!) or time (which is even much more nonexistent than distance) etc. etc.

the uniformed Joachim Domsta wrote

the fast variable theory is part of t'Hoft latest paper. The superluminal hypothesis is also part of somebodyelse's.

Surely! Nothing exists, as many philosophers claimed.

time is for sure a human invention, imagine how much space-time is, which relies on invisible flying entities at constant speed.

I STILL do not recognise what is this 'something . . . which is at the root of the governing dynamics'.

LARMOR , HEAVISIDE, MAXWELL, GREEN, HERTZ, ABRAHAM... there is a background at least to drive light and gravitational waves

@Stefano Quattrini commented on my post continuing forbidden application of adjectives

Let me remind that his opinions are worthless which lately was illustrated within the page

https://www.researchgate.net/post/Frank_R_Tangherlini-Iconventient_truth_or_Honest_Omission/32

For instance, in post #7 there, Stefano has evaluated a presented by me formula by saying:

>

despite I have presented DETAILED proof of it, which obtained confirmation in an article by @K.Kassner (cf. the above mentioned thread)

It's characteristic that the negative evaluations made by Stefano are not supported by even one reasoning. Moreover there are other threads with unexplained statements by Stefano about many errors in my posts, they are presented even without formulation of any one of them. I hope that finaly he will get off my personality and begin to present scientifically justified comments on my presentations.

The low level of honesty of Joachim Domsta can be checked by going where he himself indicated where infact I recognized in that situation that what he proposed was indeed right.

dear Stefano the question is not what you have said because you were saying statements mutualy contradicting one the other. Among them you stated many of my errors. NOW FOR ME AND YOU IT IS IMPORTANT TO ANSWER:

Do you know NOW any of my scientific ERRORS (not opinions), please?

There are also posts of Mohanna showing and affirming that.

JoaD: "dear Stefano the question is not what you have said because you were saying statements mutualy contradicting one the other. Among them you stated many of my errors. NOW FOR ME AND YOU IT IS IMPORTANT TO ANSWER:

Do you know NOW any of my scientific ERRORS (not opinions), please?"

Stefano Quattrini:

Ok, dear Stefano Quattrini, I see that NOW (Sept 30, 2024) you do not know any scientific error within my posts in ResearchGate.

Thank you for honest answer,

Best regards, Joachim Domsta

Sorry, but I will not allow this thread to be used for personal debates and disputes. Please, use private RG messaging or open your own discussion thread.

Kind Regards,

Emmanouil

Emmanouil Markoulakis ,

you are totally right infact. I simply replied to provokations of Joachim Domsta .

Emmanouil Markoulakis ,

Preprint Fast Vacuum Fluctuations and the Emergence of Quantum Mechanics

this is the paper which I wanted to highlight

Emmanouil Markoulakis , all,

should there be indeed „… that the vacuum is intrinsically and fundamentally at the Planck scale hidden compact extra dimensions, superluminal vibration energy:“ compacted extra dimensions - and we imho have lots of indications and scientific reasoning to believe so - these will be integer Calabi-Yau style 6D subspace compatifications as deriver, indicated and predicted by iSpace theory on constants of nature.

iSpace theory is able to predict exact value and integer geometry for by now 50+ constants of nature from a strictly discredited LEGO stxle integer geometric model, mathematical solid founded on the basis of the so called „changed distance definition“. This grometric phase change is happening exactly at the root of Boht radius a0 times classical electron radius re, or the Comozon wavelength of the electron over 2*Pi - geometrically from Euklidic circle circumference 2*Pi (2*3.14…) to iSpace LEGO style 6 cells around 1 cell cell based distance circle integer geometry leading inevitable to Pi3=3 (!) with a circle circumference of 6 (!!).

Such is further physically substantiated justified by the fact exactly such 6 is the quantum of iSpaceVolt in novel iSpace-IQ unit system, the first ever able to fully do away with any human artefacts whatsoever.

1) GoldenRatio iSpaceAmpere is the quantum of iSpaceAmpere (and Ampere!)

2) 2*Pi3*1=6 iSpaceVolt is the quantum of iSpaceVolt

3) 1/6961 iSpaceSecond is the quantum of time (!!!)

4) GoldenRatio iSpaceMeter is the quantum of distance (not length as in a continuum, but hop distance in jumps from cell to cell)

That is all one needs (plus 10*(1+111111+1)) or 1111130 integer electron mass factor iEMF) to calculate all (by now 50+) constants of nature with both zero error bar and so much by all desired zero unit pressure (!). And as constants of nature agreed by all for sure form the basis of all other models or theories whatever their root or „schools“ (like GR or QM or String-theory) it’s clear they are based on exactly iSpace integer geometric model (and weather they like it or not).

Have a look on my papers and preprints on RG why no one is able to escape constants of nature (I’ll post some important links with the post following this one)!

Kind regards and thank you for your resting time,

Christian G. Wolf

Founder of iSpace theory

Some links to my message on iSpace theory right above:

Preprint Values of the Fundamental Physical Constants - Comparions of...

Preprint iSpace - Quantization of Time in iSpace-IQ Unit-System by 1/...

Method iSpace - Quick check of α and Φ0 from Markoulakis & Antonidakis

Article New novel physical constants metric and fine structure const...

Conference Paper iSpace - Deriving G from α, e, R∞, μ0 and Quantum of Gravita...

Conference Paper iSpace - Exact Symbolic Equations for Important Physical Con...