Re: Intrinsic Spin
Warren York ( infonet@home.com )
Fri, 27 Aug 1999 21:27:43 -0500
Jeremy wrote:
Gpiano99@aol.com wrote:
>
> "GRAVITON = Spin 2 [0 charge] (THEORETICAL) "
>
> That's what made me confused. It seemed to contradict your gravitation
> document. I do believe your wrote it, however, there isn't any name posted
> as the author, but I think it was you. I'm not to clear on if you meant
> gravity has rotation of what ever, but it didn't seem to fit your line of
> thinking as of the document you sent me. I was wondering if you were useing
> gravity as the starting rotation of pi. I haven't a clue. You can check it
> out yourself to see if you wrote it or if it was someone else. Address is
> down below.
>
> http://personal.bellsouth.net/lig/i/n/infonet/Spin.htm
Jeremy Lynn Mumme
======================================================================
Warren writes:
OK, I was blitzing out there. No, That page was written by "Skully"
(Charlotte Geier). We shared in the original work. I produced the
graphics
after I read what she had written. I am in agreement. An important
part of her work was the SPIN work. She did a fantastic job while I was
off looking into something else. Remember this was back in 1994. The
theory was only just forming then. We had not linked everything back to
light (photons) at that time. We had control over not trying to make
everything fit by breaking up the areas of research. We would meet and
present our findings. Over a period of time the pattern started to form.
When I was able to take what she had given me and produce a graphic
of intrinsic spin (we were told no one can produce a graphic of
intrinsic
spin) I knew we were both seeing the same thing. The sad part is we
didn't
get paid for our work and uncle sam kept adding more on top of my
normal job. I talked to her last night and we were able to get back
into a short brain storming session as we did back then. The comment was
made that we seem to trigger hidden information as we brain storm that
apart never seems to come out on its own. Anyway to answer your
question.
"GRAVITON = Spin 2 [0 charge] (THEORETICAL) " was something she found
listed somewhere. She put it in to show what was thought at that time
by others. She also noted that it was "Theoretical". I do not agree that
there are "gravitons" and that is why your comment through
me off balance. THERE ARE NO GRAVITONS They have never been found and
never will. Smash everything together as much and as hard as you want.
You will never find a graviton even if something does splatter all over
you in the process. Gravity is a field process and not a particle as
such. Again I know that gravity is an interesting subject but we need
to stick to our goals of getting the formal paper completed. That paper
on gravity I sent was a page from a book I am writing that will cover
the theory for layman and give a story one to boot. I just wanted you
to follow my thinking. I guess "Skully" should have made it clear that
it was from a printed list she had found. Sorry about that.
By what you yourself have already concluded about the "intrinsic" mass
of a photon being 0 (ZERO), it shows that it comes from a particle that
has "intrinsic - connected to spin" mass known as a photon.
By the way, Mike York just put out a 40 page paper on SPIN. I think he
did it the hard way. http://xxx.lanl.gov/multi Warren