Re: Gravity Carrier - could gravity be push with shadows not pull?
Eric, It may not explain gravity but your phenomenon seems strikingly similar (with its repulsive push picture) to the concept of cosmological constant or quintessence, which has a great deal (it is believed) to do with the expanding universe and its fate. See http://physicsweb.org/article/world/13/11/8 as one salbeit somewhat dated starting point. The anthropic principle and related multiverse discussions can consider this as one parameter that distinguishes different universes, especially since it can modulate the ability to support life. Fred - Original Message - From: "Eric Hawthorne" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Thursday, February 26, 2004 1:46 AM Subject: Re: Gravity Carrier - could gravity be push with shadows not pull? > Caveat: This post will likely demonstrate my complete lack of advanced > physics education. > > But here goes anyway. > > Is it possible to model gravity as space being filled with an > all-directional flux of "inverse gravitons"? These would be > particles which: > 1. Zoom around EVERYWHERE with a uniform distribution of velocities (up > to C in any direction). > 2. Interact weakly with matter, imparting a small momentum to matter (in > the direction that the "iGraviton" > was moving) should they collide with a matter particle. The momentum > comes at the cost that the > "iGraviton" which collided with mass either disappears or at least > reduces its velocity relative > to the mass's velocity. > > So note that: > 1. If there was just a single mass, it would not receive any net > momentum by collisions from iGravitons > because iGravitons with an even distribution of velocities impact it > from all sides with equal probability, > no matter what the mass's velocity. (This is true because C is the same > for each mass no matter how > it's travelling, so "even distribution of velocities up to C" is also > the same from the perspective of each > mass regardless of its velocity. > > 2. If two masses are near each other, they shadow each other from the > flux of iGravitons which > would otherwise be impacting them from the direction in between them. > This shadowing would > be proportional to the inverse square of the distances between the > masses, and would be proportional > to the probability of each mass colliding with (i.e. absorbing) > iGravitons, and this probability would > be proportional to the amount of each mass. > (So the iGraviton shadow between the masses would have properties like a > gravitational field). > > 3. The mutual shadowing from momentum-imparting flux from all directions > means that net momentum > would be imparted on the masses toward each other (by nothing other than > the usual collisions > with iGravitons from all other directions.) > > 4. The deficit of iGravitons (or deficit in velocity of them) in between > absorbtive masses > could be viewed as inward curvature of space-time in that region. Amount > or velocity distribution > of iGraviton flux in a region could correspond in some way with the > dimensionality of space in that region. > > I find this theory appealing because > 1. it's fundamental assumption for causation of gravity is simple (a > uniformly-distributed-in-velocity-and-density > flux of space-involved (i.e. space-defining) particles.) > 2. The paucity of iGravitons (or high iGraviton velocities) in a region > corresponding to inward-curving space > is an appealingly direct analogy. You can visualize iGravitons as > "puffing up" space and a lack of them > causing space there to sag in on itself. > > I'd be willing to bet that someone has thought of this long before and > that it's been proven that > the math doesn't work out for it. Has anyone heard of anything like > this? Is it proven silly already? > > Cheers, > Eric > > >
Fw: Gravity Carrier - could gravity be push with shadows not pull?
Hi there, Well, it is a good try, but it has been proven wrong already indeed. To see a better refutal, see Feynman's popular book 'QED'. For instance, that theory seems even better once you realize that it also acounts for the inverse-square law. But the main flaw, if I recall it, is that objects moving around in space would feel a larger flux of 'iGravitons' coming against the direction of movement, causing a decrease in velocity. So much for inertia... -Eric. > - Original Message - > From: "Eric Hawthorne" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Sent: Thursday, February 26, 2004 6:46 AM > Subject: Re: Gravity Carrier - could gravity be push with shadows not pull? > > > > Caveat: This post will likely demonstrate my complete lack of advanced > > physics education. > > > > But here goes anyway. > > > > Is it possible to model gravity as space being filled with an > > all-directional flux of "inverse gravitons"? These would be > > particles which: > > 1. Zoom around EVERYWHERE with a uniform distribution of velocities (up > > to C in any direction). > > 2. Interact weakly with matter, imparting a small momentum to matter (in > > the direction that the "iGraviton" > > was moving) should they collide with a matter particle. The momentum > > comes at the cost that the > > "iGraviton" which collided with mass either disappears or at least > > reduces its velocity relative > > to the mass's velocity. > > > > So note that: > > 1. If there was just a single mass, it would not receive any net > > momentum by collisions from iGravitons > > because iGravitons with an even distribution of velocities impact it > > from all sides with equal probability, > > no matter what the mass's velocity. (This is true because C is the same > > for each mass no matter how > > it's travelling, so "even distribution of velocities up to C" is also > > the same from the perspective of each > > mass regardless of its velocity. > > > > 2. If two masses are near each other, they shadow each other from the > > flux of iGravitons which > > would otherwise be impacting them from the direction in between them. > > This shadowing would > > be proportional to the inverse square of the distances between the > > masses, and would be proportional > > to the probability of each mass colliding with (i.e. absorbing) > > iGravitons, and this probability would > > be proportional to the amount of each mass. > > (So the iGraviton shadow between the masses would have properties like a > > gravitational field). > > > > 3. The mutual shadowing from momentum-imparting flux from all directions > > means that net momentum > > would be imparted on the masses toward each other (by nothing other than > > the usual collisions > > with iGravitons from all other directions.) > > > > 4. The deficit of iGravitons (or deficit in velocity of them) in between > > absorbtive masses > > could be viewed as inward curvature of space-time in that region. Amount > > or velocity distribution > > of iGraviton flux in a region could correspond in some way with the > > dimensionality of space in that region. > > > > I find this theory appealing because > > 1. it's fundamental assumption for causation of gravity is simple (a > > uniformly-distributed-in-velocity-and-density > > flux of space-involved (i.e. space-defining) particles.) > > 2. The paucity of iGravitons (or high iGraviton velocities) in a region > > corresponding to inward-curving space > > is an appealingly direct analogy. You can visualize iGravitons as > > "puffing up" space and a lack of them > > causing space there to sag in on itself. > > > > I'd be willing to bet that someone has thought of this long before and > > that it's been proven that > > the math doesn't work out for it. Has anyone heard of anything like > > this? Is it proven silly already? > > > > Cheers, > > Eric > >
Re: Gravity Carrier - could gravity be push with shadows not pull?
Without inventing an "i-graviton" the idea has been put forward by a late collegue of mine Dr. Istvan Vas of Hungary, in the early 1950s. He spoke about a "push" without identifying its nature - as a force, because a general pull is 'counterproductive' an difficult to explain, as Newton's concerns showed. Dr. Vas identified the imbalance in the shadows caused by mass resulting in vectors identified as gravity. At that time the commi authorities barred communication of ideas to the West, so he could not get international discussion on his quite well developed theory. Domestic discussion was not visionary enough under those political conditions then. I communicated Dr. Vas's theory on the internet several times and to diverse lists since the early 90s. I find it a reasonable (naive) solution to the "naive" problem of gravitation. I could not check his math, others found it in order. It would be hard to unearth his 50year old publication in some local Hungarian paper. Cheers John Mikes - Original Message - From: "Eric Hawthorne" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Thursday, February 26, 2004 4:46 AM Subject: Re: Gravity Carrier - could gravity be push with shadows not pull? > Caveat: This post will likely demonstrate my complete lack of advanced > physics education. > > But here goes anyway. > > Is it possible to model gravity as space being filled with an > all-directional flux of "inverse gravitons"? These would be > particles which: > 1. Zoom around EVERYWHERE with a uniform distribution of velocities (up > to C in any direction). > 2. Interact weakly with matter, imparting a small momentum to matter (in > the direction that the "iGraviton" > was moving) should they collide with a matter particle. The momentum > comes at the cost that the > "iGraviton" which collided with mass either disappears or at least > reduces its velocity relative > to the mass's velocity. > > So note that: > 1. If there was just a single mass, it would not receive any net > momentum by collisions from iGravitons > because iGravitons with an even distribution of velocities impact it > from all sides with equal probability, > no matter what the mass's velocity. (This is true because C is the same > for each mass no matter how > it's travelling, so "even distribution of velocities up to C" is also > the same from the perspective of each > mass regardless of its velocity. > > 2. If two masses are near each other, they shadow each other from the > flux of iGravitons which > would otherwise be impacting them from the direction in between them. > This shadowing would > be proportional to the inverse square of the distances between the > masses, and would be proportional > to the probability of each mass colliding with (i.e. absorbing) > iGravitons, and this probability would > be proportional to the amount of each mass. > (So the iGraviton shadow between the masses would have properties like a > gravitational field). > > 3. The mutual shadowing from momentum-imparting flux from all directions > means that net momentum > would be imparted on the masses toward each other (by nothing other than > the usual collisions > with iGravitons from all other directions.) > > 4. The deficit of iGravitons (or deficit in velocity of them) in between > absorbtive masses > could be viewed as inward curvature of space-time in that region. Amount > or velocity distribution > of iGraviton flux in a region could correspond in some way with the > dimensionality of space in that region. > > I find this theory appealing because > 1. it's fundamental assumption for causation of gravity is simple (a > uniformly-distributed-in-velocity-and-density > flux of space-involved (i.e. space-defining) particles.) > 2. The paucity of iGravitons (or high iGraviton velocities) in a region > corresponding to inward-curving space > is an appealingly direct analogy. You can visualize iGravitons as > "puffing up" space and a lack of them > causing space there to sag in on itself. > > I'd be willing to bet that someone has thought of this long before and > that it's been proven that > the math doesn't work out for it. Has anyone heard of anything like > this? Is it proven silly already? > > Cheers, > Eric >
successive measurements
Dear Russel,
What I am considering is this from
http://tph.tuwien.ac.at/~svozil/publ/1999-embed-jfulltext.pdf. The aspect of
a quantum system that can be embedded into an atomic Boolean algebra or
related classical structure.
Could this partial image of a QM system be sufficient, given the ability
of QM system of simulating, function f, classical systems completely, to
act as a partitioning function, function g, over the operators for
observables as to seperate them out into mutually consistence subsets?
The idea looks like this:
f
Q - > {C}
^ |
|g |
-<--
Where Q is a quantum system and {C} is the set of class of simulable
classical systems, f being the simulation function and g being the partial
(non-bijective) map from the Lindenbaum algebra of the classical systems to
Q.
This seems to allow for some kind of quotienting or partitioning of the
operators that make up Q.
I apologize if my question is ill posed. ;-)
Kindest regards,
Stephen
- Original Message -
From: "Russell Standish" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Stephen Paul King" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc: "Russell Standish" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; "Bruno Marchal"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Wednesday, February 25, 2004 9:16 PM
Subject: Re: Tegmark is too "physics-centric"
On Wed, Feb 25, 2004 at 12:08:43AM -0500, Stephen Paul King wrote:
> Dear Russel,
>
> Could we associate this "psychological time" with the orderings that
> obtain when considering successive measurements of various measurements of
> non-commutative canonically conjugate (QM) states?
The word "successive" implies a time dimension already. I'm not sure
what you are proposing here.
> Also, re your Occam's razor paper, have you considered the necessity
of
> a principle that applies between observers, more than that involved with
the
> Anthropic principle? Something along the lines of: the allowable
> communications between observers is restrained to only those that are
> mutually consistent. We see hints of this in EPR situations. ;-)
>
No I haven't considered this second requirement. It would be
interesting to note whether it is a derivative concept (can be derived
from the standard QM principles say), or whether it needs to be added
in as a fundamental requirement (in which case comes the question of
why).
Cheers
> Kindest regards,
>
> Stephen
>
> - Original Message -
> From: "Russell Standish" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: "Bruno Marchal" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Cc: "Russell Standish" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>;
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Sent: Tuesday, February 24, 2004 5:19 PM
> Subject: Re: Tegmark is too "physics-centric"
>
> I think that "psychological time" fits the bill. The observer needs a
> a temporal dimension in which to appreciate differences between
> states.
>
> "Physical time" presupposes a physics, which I haven't done in
> "Occam".
>
> It is obviously a little more structured than an ordering. A space
> dimension is insufficient for an observer to appreciate differences,
> isn't it?
>
> Cheers
>
> snip
>
--
A/Prof Russell Standish Director
High Performance Computing Support Unit, Phone 9385 6967, 8308 3119 (mobile)
UNSW SYDNEY 2052 Fax 9385 6965, 0425 253119 (")
Australia[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Room 2075, Red Centrehttp://parallel.hpc.unsw.edu.au/rks
International prefix +612, Interstate prefix 02
Re: Black Holes and Gravity Carrier
Ron: do you believe there are non-virtual gravitons? John Mikes - Original Message - From: "Ron McFarland" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Wednesday, February 25, 2004 9:24 PM Subject: Re: Black Holes and Gravity Carrier > Combine my response to 2 responses ... > > On 17 Feb 2004 at 21:39, Fred Chen wrote: > > Nice link, great topic. > > > > This does beg the question, is there an event horizon for gravitons, > > and presumably the answer for that would be the singularity. > > > > Here is something to ponder: do virtual gravitons generate more > > virtual gravitons? Consider a planet in circular orbit around its > > star. Consider the gravitational force of this system on an external > > body far away, e.g., a comet. The force on the comet would be due to > > the mass of the planet, plus the mass of the star, plus the > > gravitational energy of the star-planet system. So the gravitational > > field, an exchange of virtual gravitons, would be the source of new > > virtual gravitons to be exchanged with the comet, or in fact anything > > outside this system. This could extrapolate ad infinitum, as we take > > into account each virtual exchange of gravitons generating another > > virtual exchange of gravitons. > > > > Fred > > > > Interesting conjecture! I alludeto it, below... > > And also heard... > From: "Hal Finney" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Sent: Monday, February 16, 2004 4:30 PM > Subject: Re: Black Holes and Gravity Carrier > > > Ron McFarland writes: > >>If a gravity carrier has any mass whatsoever then by what mechanism > >>could it possibly and in such abundance escape from a black hole > >>event horizon and make itself known in our observable universe? > > > > This is not really a multiverse question, but rather a common query > > relating to relativity and QM. See question 6 in part 2 of the > > sci.physics FAQ, "How does the gravity get out of the black hole?", > > at: > > > > http://www.faqs.org/faqs/physics-faq/part2/ > > > > The short answer is that when you model forces as the exchange of > > particles, it is actually done as the exchange of virtual particles; > > and virtual particles can go faster than light, hence can escape > > from black holes. > > > > Hal Finney > > Yes, but particles are not virtual if they do not recombine > and annihilate. SNIP
Re: Gravity Carrier - could gravity be push with shadows not pull?
Eric Hawthorne, <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, writes: > Is it possible to model gravity as space being filled with an > all-directional flux of "inverse gravitons"? Again, this is not really a multiverse question. I hate to be negative, but there are other forums for exploring nonstandard physics concepts. Try the Usenet group sci.physics.relativity, where you will find no end of discussions on this and similar topics. If there is some connection I am missing between this particular model and multiverse theory, then I apologize. These "push gravity" theories have been around for a long time. There is a book out by a small Canadian press called "Pushing Gravity: New Perspectives on Le Sage's Theory of Gravitation" by Matthew Edwards, which summarizes centuries of thought on the matter. The idea goes back to Georges-Louis Le Sage in the mid 1700s. Below is a posting to sci.physics.relativity from 2002 by Steve Carlip which lists some immediate problems with the theory. Hal Finney > In sci.physics.relativity Lawson English <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > Since the "push" theory is (or can be made) 100% compatible > > (corrections welcome) with the more commonly accepted Newtonian > > model of gravity-as-pull, how could it be "crap" unless the Newtonian > > model is also? > > It's not at all clear that the "push" theory can be made compatible > with Newtonian gravity. It's certainly true that no one has managed > to do so yet. > > Here are three major problems: > > 1. Drag: Planets are not at rest with respect to the hypothetical > pushing particles, and as a consequence, would experience drag. > (Standard analogy: if you run through the rain, you experience > a net force on your front side.) It's not hard to compute this drag > quantitatively; it's much too large to be compatible with Solar > System observations. This was Feynman's objection in the > Feynman Lectures. > > 2. Aberration: in a ``push'' theory, the Earth experiences a net > force toward the Sun because the Sun blocks some of the pushing > particles, casting a ``shadow.'' But the Sun is not stationary; its > position changes with time, and the ``shadow'' points to its past > position, not its present position. If, for example, the hypothetical > pushing particles traveled at the speed of light, the Earth ``now'' > would be pushed toward where the Sun had been a bit more than > eight minutes ago. This might seem like a small effect, but in fact > it would drastically destabilize planetary orbits, in a way that is > easily ruled out by observation. > > 3. Equivalence principle: we know from experiment that not only > rest mass, but all forms of energy contribute to gravitational mass. > A hot brick weighs more than a cold one, because of the kinetic > energy of the molecules. A push theory would have to explain why > the hypothetical pushing particles ``push'' against kinetic energy > (and nuclear binding energy, and electrostatic and magnetostatic > energy, and even gravitational binding energy) in exactly the way > they would if that energy had a mass E/c^2. No one, as far as I > know, has come even close to an explanation for this. > > Now, points 1 and 2 operate in opposite directions---drag gives an > acceleration opposed to a planet's motion, while aberration gives > an acceleration in the direction of motion---and one might hope > that they could be made to cancel. But in fact they have drastically > different dependences on masses and distances, so even if they > could be ``fine tuned'' to cancel for one orbit, they would not > cancel for others. > > > Surely someone, somewhere has examined the QM/GR > > implications of the alternative view and found them wanting, > > or at least, a dead end? > > I don't think the theory has ever been formulated clearly enough, > and in a way that isn't already ruled out by observation, to > look at GR implications. But my immediate reaction is that it > simply doesn't have enough local degrees of freedom to be > compatible with GR. For instance, how do you get quadrupole > gravitational waves? And what prevents monopole and dipole > waves? > > Steve Carlip
Re: Fw: Gravity Carrier - could gravity be push with shadows not pull?
Eric Cavalcanti wrote: But the main flaw, if I recall it, is that objects moving around in space would feel a larger flux of 'iGravitons' coming against the direction of movement, causing a decrease in velocity. So much for inertia... Ok but let's say (for fun) that the iGravitons were all moving at C in all directions with "uniform density". So since C is perceived the same by an object no matter what the objects' velocity, there would be no additional iGraviton drag against the direction of the object's motion. Because the iGravitons coming up from behind would still be approaching at C. This property is exactly the property I was trying to convey about the iGravitons. That they don't cause drag no matter the velocity of the mass. Maybe that's just impossible, but there's something very weird about C remember.
Re: Gravity Carrier - could gravity be push with shadows not pull?
Hal Finney wrote: Again, this is not really a multiverse question. I hate to be negative, but there are other forums for exploring nonstandard physics concepts. Alright I take your chastisement somewhat, while also grumbling a bit about list-fascism. For one thing it's possible that such a model, were it a valid reformulation, may be easier to equate to a computational/information-theoretic model of the universe/multiverse (which is in list-scope) than the standard formulation, in that it (the push model) gives a discretizable, local-interaction based model for the curvature of space-time. Eric
Re: successive measurements
A lot of terminology here that I'm not familiar with. I'd have to be
convinced that its worth the effort of learning this language before I
could pass a comment on this proposal.
Cheers
On Thu, Feb 26, 2004 at 11:08:25AM -0500, Stephen Paul King wrote:
> Dear Russel,
>
> What I am considering is this from
> http://tph.tuwien.ac.at/~svozil/publ/1999-embed-jfulltext.pdf. The aspect of
> a quantum system that can be embedded into an atomic Boolean algebra or
> related classical structure.
>
> Could this partial image of a QM system be sufficient, given the ability
> of QM system of simulating, function f, classical systems completely, to
> act as a partitioning function, function g, over the operators for
> observables as to seperate them out into mutually consistence subsets?
>
> The idea looks like this:
>
>f
> Q - > {C}
> ^ |
> |g |
>-<--
>
> Where Q is a quantum system and {C} is the set of class of simulable
> classical systems, f being the simulation function and g being the partial
> (non-bijective) map from the Lindenbaum algebra of the classical systems to
> Q.
> This seems to allow for some kind of quotienting or partitioning of the
> operators that make up Q.
>
> I apologize if my question is ill posed. ;-)
>
> Kindest regards,
>
> Stephen
>
>
> - Original Message -
> From: "Russell Standish" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: "Stephen Paul King" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Cc: "Russell Standish" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; "Bruno Marchal"
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Sent: Wednesday, February 25, 2004 9:16 PM
> Subject: Re: Tegmark is too "physics-centric"
>
> On Wed, Feb 25, 2004 at 12:08:43AM -0500, Stephen Paul King wrote:
> > Dear Russel,
> >
> > Could we associate this "psychological time" with the orderings that
> > obtain when considering successive measurements of various measurements of
> > non-commutative canonically conjugate (QM) states?
>
> The word "successive" implies a time dimension already. I'm not sure
> what you are proposing here.
>
> > Also, re your Occam's razor paper, have you considered the necessity
> of
> > a principle that applies between observers, more than that involved with
> the
> > Anthropic principle? Something along the lines of: the allowable
> > communications between observers is restrained to only those that are
> > mutually consistent. We see hints of this in EPR situations. ;-)
> >
>
> No I haven't considered this second requirement. It would be
> interesting to note whether it is a derivative concept (can be derived
> from the standard QM principles say), or whether it needs to be added
> in as a fundamental requirement (in which case comes the question of
> why).
>
> Cheers
>
> > Kindest regards,
> >
> > Stephen
> >
> > - Original Message -
> > From: "Russell Standish" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > To: "Bruno Marchal" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > Cc: "Russell Standish" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>;
> > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > Sent: Tuesday, February 24, 2004 5:19 PM
> > Subject: Re: Tegmark is too "physics-centric"
> >
> > I think that "psychological time" fits the bill. The observer needs a
> > a temporal dimension in which to appreciate differences between
> > states.
> >
> > "Physical time" presupposes a physics, which I haven't done in
> > "Occam".
> >
> > It is obviously a little more structured than an ordering. A space
> > dimension is insufficient for an observer to appreciate differences,
> > isn't it?
> >
> > Cheers
> >
> > snip
> >
>
> --
>
>
>
> A/Prof Russell Standish Director
> High Performance Computing Support Unit, Phone 9385 6967, 8308 3119 (mobile)
> UNSW SYDNEY 2052 Fax 9385 6965, 0425 253119 (")
> Australia[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Room 2075, Red Centrehttp://parallel.hpc.unsw.edu.au/rks
> International prefix +612, Interstate prefix 02
>
>
--
A/Prof Russell Standish Director
High Performance Computing Support Unit, Phone 9385 6967, 8308 3119 (mobile)
UNSW SYDNEY 2052 Fax 9385 6965, 0425 253119 (")
Australia[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Room 2075, Red Centrehttp://parallel.hpc.unsw.edu.au/rks
International prefix +612, Interstate prefix 02
pgp0.pgp
Description: PGP signature
Re: Gravity Carrier - could gravity be push with shadows not pull?
Oops, I realize that it wasn't in 'QED' but in the 'Lectures' that I read that... - Original Message - From: "Eric Cavalcanti" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Thursday, February 26, 2004 10:18 AM Subject: Fw: Gravity Carrier - could gravity be push with shadows not pull? > Hi there, > > Well, it is a good try, but it has been proven wrong already indeed. > To see a better refutal, see Feynman's popular book 'QED'. > For instance, that theory seems even better once you realize that it > also acounts for the inverse-square law. > But the main flaw, if I recall it, is that objects moving around in space > would feel a larger flux of 'iGravitons' coming against the direction > of movement, causing a decrease in velocity. So much for inertia... > > -Eric. > > > - Original Message - > > From: "Eric Hawthorne" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > Sent: Thursday, February 26, 2004 6:46 AM > > Subject: Re: Gravity Carrier - could gravity be push with shadows not > pull? > > > > > > > Caveat: This post will likely demonstrate my complete lack of advanced > > > physics education. > > > > > > But here goes anyway. > > > > > > Is it possible to model gravity as space being filled with an > > > all-directional flux of "inverse gravitons"? These would be > > > particles which: > > > 1. Zoom around EVERYWHERE with a uniform distribution of velocities (up > > > to C in any direction). > > > 2. Interact weakly with matter, imparting a small momentum to matter (in > > > the direction that the "iGraviton" > > > was moving) should they collide with a matter particle. The momentum > > > comes at the cost that the > > > "iGraviton" which collided with mass either disappears or at least > > > reduces its velocity relative > > > to the mass's velocity. > > > > > > So note that: > > > 1. If there was just a single mass, it would not receive any net > > > momentum by collisions from iGravitons > > > because iGravitons with an even distribution of velocities impact it > > > from all sides with equal probability, > > > no matter what the mass's velocity. (This is true because C is the same > > > for each mass no matter how > > > it's travelling, so "even distribution of velocities up to C" is also > > > the same from the perspective of each > > > mass regardless of its velocity. > > > > > > 2. If two masses are near each other, they shadow each other from the > > > flux of iGravitons which > > > would otherwise be impacting them from the direction in between them. > > > This shadowing would > > > be proportional to the inverse square of the distances between the > > > masses, and would be proportional > > > to the probability of each mass colliding with (i.e. absorbing) > > > iGravitons, and this probability would > > > be proportional to the amount of each mass. > > > (So the iGraviton shadow between the masses would have properties like a > > > gravitational field). > > > > > > 3. The mutual shadowing from momentum-imparting flux from all directions > > > means that net momentum > > > would be imparted on the masses toward each other (by nothing other than > > > the usual collisions > > > with iGravitons from all other directions.) > > > > > > 4. The deficit of iGravitons (or deficit in velocity of them) in between > > > absorbtive masses > > > could be viewed as inward curvature of space-time in that region. Amount > > > or velocity distribution > > > of iGraviton flux in a region could correspond in some way with the > > > dimensionality of space in that region. > > > > > > I find this theory appealing because > > > 1. it's fundamental assumption for causation of gravity is simple (a > > > uniformly-distributed-in-velocity-and-density > > > flux of space-involved (i.e. space-defining) particles.) > > > 2. The paucity of iGravitons (or high iGraviton velocities) in a region > > > corresponding to inward-curving space > > > is an appealingly direct analogy. You can visualize iGravitons as > > > "puffing up" space and a lack of them > > > causing space there to sag in on itself. > > > > > > I'd be willing to bet that someone has thought of this long before and > > > that it's been proven that > > > the math doesn't work out for it. Has anyone heard of anything like > > > this? Is it proven silly already? > > > > > > Cheers, > > > Eric > > >
Re: Gravity Carrier - could gravity be push with shadows not pull?
Caveat: This post will likely demonstrate my complete lack of advanced physics education. But here goes anyway. Is it possible to model gravity as space being filled with an all-directional flux of "inverse gravitons"? These would be particles which: 1. Zoom around EVERYWHERE with a uniform distribution of velocities (up to C in any direction). 2. Interact weakly with matter, imparting a small momentum to matter (in the direction that the "iGraviton" was moving) should they collide with a matter particle. The momentum comes at the cost that the "iGraviton" which collided with mass either disappears or at least reduces its velocity relative to the mass's velocity. So note that: 1. If there was just a single mass, it would not receive any net momentum by collisions from iGravitons because iGravitons with an even distribution of velocities impact it from all sides with equal probability, no matter what the mass's velocity. (This is true because C is the same for each mass no matter how it's travelling, so "even distribution of velocities up to C" is also the same from the perspective of each mass regardless of its velocity. 2. If two masses are near each other, they shadow each other from the flux of iGravitons which would otherwise be impacting them from the direction in between them. This shadowing would be proportional to the inverse square of the distances between the masses, and would be proportional to the probability of each mass colliding with (i.e. absorbing) iGravitons, and this probability would be proportional to the amount of each mass. (So the iGraviton shadow between the masses would have properties like a gravitational field). 3. The mutual shadowing from momentum-imparting flux from all directions means that net momentum would be imparted on the masses toward each other (by nothing other than the usual collisions with iGravitons from all other directions.) 4. The deficit of iGravitons (or deficit in velocity of them) in between absorbtive masses could be viewed as inward curvature of space-time in that region. Amount or velocity distribution of iGraviton flux in a region could correspond in some way with the dimensionality of space in that region. I find this theory appealing because 1. it's fundamental assumption for causation of gravity is simple (a uniformly-distributed-in-velocity-and-density flux of space-involved (i.e. space-defining) particles.) 2. The paucity of iGravitons (or high iGraviton velocities) in a region corresponding to inward-curving space is an appealingly direct analogy. You can visualize iGravitons as "puffing up" space and a lack of them causing space there to sag in on itself. I'd be willing to bet that someone has thought of this long before and that it's been proven that the math doesn't work out for it. Has anyone heard of anything like this? Is it proven silly already? Cheers, Eric
