Gravitational Model: L. Riofrio's tc^3 Relation

  • Thread starter Thread starter Mononoke
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    gm
Mononoke
Messages
15
Reaction score
0
In this http://www-conf.slac.stanford.edu/einstein/Talks/aspauthor2004_3.pdf" L. Riofrio introduces a GM = tc^3 relation. where does this come from. Please help

I know that GM=rv^2 for orbits. This is simple enough, but She also introduces a r=ct term and v=c I'd like to know whee this comes from.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Physics news on Phys.org
:( is there really no one
 
Well, the general framework is that, beyond Newton constant, the universe has some empirical data http://pdg.lbl.gov/2009/reviews/rpp2009-rev-astrophysical-constants.pdf and you could look for relationships between. I understand that Louise tries a fresh approach to universe total mass, M, and Hubble constant, 1/t. But after looking at it, you should go to standard cosmology and compare results..
 
arivero said:
Well, the general framework is that, beyond Newton constant, the universe has some empirical data http://pdg.lbl.gov/2009/reviews/rpp2009-rev-astrophysical-constants.pdf and you could look for relationships between. I understand that Louise tries a fresh approach to universe total mass, M, and Hubble constant, 1/t. But after looking at it, you should go to standard cosmology and compare results..

Another foundational question. Here it seems in her paper C is changing with time. IS there a violation of the conservation laws here
 
Last edited:
I seem to notice a buildup of papers like this: Detecting single gravitons with quantum sensing. (OK, old one.) Toward graviton detection via photon-graviton quantum state conversion Is this akin to “we’re soon gonna put string theory to the test”, or are these legit? Mind, I’m not expecting anyone to read the papers and explain them to me, but if one of you educated people already have an opinion I’d like to hear it. If not please ignore me. EDIT: I strongly suspect it’s bunk but...
I'm trying to understand the relationship between the Higgs mechanism and the concept of inertia. The Higgs field gives fundamental particles their rest mass, but it doesn't seem to directly explain why a massive object resists acceleration (inertia). My question is: How does the Standard Model account for inertia? Is it simply taken as a given property of mass, or is there a deeper connection to the vacuum structure? Furthermore, how does the Higgs mechanism relate to broader concepts like...
Back
Top