THE LAST WARRIOR POET wrote:

<quoted text>

Do you think string theory is valid or is it a half hearted attempt to bring gravity into the g.u.t.? What exactly is gravity as far as trying to envision it ?

Gravity is a different question.

It does not appear to be a feature of any strings and is instead a feature of the M.

As E=M*C^2 and the mass/energy of physics is conserved, mass condenses and photons & neutrinos radiate. The overall M in these reactions remains the same. ie. annihilate an electron and a positron & the result is 2 gamma rays of equal energy to the mass of the original particles. The mass is not lost, and is now E.

Another noodle baker is that a gamma ray equivalent in mass to an electron or positron may become an electron or positron in conditions where an electron or positron is locally missing @ the time.

This is one of the fun bits that indicates that photons have a mass equivalent.

This fact of conservation of M & E indicates that gravity will have a major effect in the universe as a whole despite at the quantum level the effects being negligible, and despite the fact that initial annihilation of particles with equivalent antiparticles gave a rather bright albeit redshifted background glow on the inside edge of our time bubble view.

Cramming gravity into quantum mechanics is very difficult. The big problem is that gravity will redshift photons which are our measuring yardstick, and gravity depends on M which may definitely NOT be things that we would expect (see the noodle baking bit above). The other problem is that as photons are affected by quantum mechanics a fair quantity of the increase in redshift with distance may have nothing at all to do with mass and instead be an entanglement at quantum level with either the electro weak force carrier that emitted the photon, OR an interaction with another photon that got in the way of the one we see at the detector. For the real teethgrinder bit we may in fact get BOTH at the same time.

This bit needs sorting out before the math curve of redshift gets plugged in. Currently the universe exponential math curve (either big bang(slowing expansion) or Membrane(increasing condensation), is in danger of becoming a flat constant, as a result of the math and the mass associated with the galactic and quantum levels.

As for mass; An expanding universe according to a redshift should evaporate galaxy clusters as they will all fly out in spiral orbits and miss each other. In reality at all levels and distances, precisely the opposite effect is seen and the galaxies tend to be condensing into large clusters and eventually pile up into a big bugger right in the middle (the cD). Even the local group appears subject to condensation into a single object.

It appears that the math model is wrong, hence the review requirement.

Have a nice day: Ag