'Elastivity' of graviton collisions

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote><font size=2 face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>[Rudolf]: I'm not a highly skilled scientist and dont have any major degrees behind my name<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size=2 id=quote>

None are required at this site. Your questions are welcome here. [But I will be away for the next 10 days.]

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote><font size=2 face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>From what I remember what the meta model takes as one of it's assumptions for gravitons are that their collision with a MI (matter ingredient) are 100% elastic.<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size=2 id=quote>

Your memory is correct but the proposition is not. Hayes and Slabinski showed that no gravitational force will arise if the collisions are 100% efficient. Instead, a combination of ansorption and scattering is required. But it turns out this "fix" solves several other problems in physics, so it turned out to be a benefit to the Meta Model instead of a potential killer.

The consequences of this are developed in the book <i>Pushing Gravity</i>. In all likelihood, the energy lost in these collisions is restored when the atoms decay (radioactivity) or release photons, which travel through the cosmos and gradually lose their energy back to the graviton medium. So the universe does not run down, which is a good thing if it is infinitely old! <img src=icon_smile.gif border=0 align=middle> -|Tom|-

The universe does not run down but the moon runs away from the Earth. Is this the state of things now?

<font face='Comic Sans MS'></font id='Comic Sans MS'>On the question of whether gravitons collision is 100% elastic, I have thought about this a lot since my training is in chemistry. I think there are two directions that this idea can flow. One: The meta model can use the 100% elasticity assumption in descriptions since it will closely approximate reality (as is seen in ideal gases) Two: An hypothesis that energy transfer in the collision is released as a photon seems probable as well. That release would be seen as heat. I have reasoned that unexplained energy (like zero-point) might be the result. Even in an ideal vacuum, gravitons could interact with other gravitons, stray MI's, and the LCM. Experiments away from gravitational spheres of influence (like earth) might show a less homogeneous distribution of background heat and energy. Z-point experiments on earth are literally in the bombardment zone, where release of energy from inertial transfer is expected.

Mark Vitrone

The use of terms like heat and photons needs to be explained in this model. The contact of two particles can cause a photon to be radiated and slow the particles but how can this generate heat? The photon is not heat and since it exits the model where is heating occuring?

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote><font size=2 face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>
The use of terms like heat and photons needs to be explained in this model. The contact of two particles can cause a photon to be radiated and slow the particles but how can this generate heat? The photon is not heat and since it exits the model where is heating occuring?


<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size=2 id=quote>
In the model I proposed, I should have been more clear to elaborate that the form of released energy will be an electromagnetic wave and not a distinct particle. We interpret that wave as background heat. Interruption or collision of that wave with matter (a detector) could then produce a particle with measureable diameter, spin, etc. Another attibuted observation is entropy. As stars are antientropic, bombardment and collision of particles is entropic. Perhaps the two phenomena cancel one another across all scales? Non elastic interactions of c-gravitons with LCM could explain observed energy in directions in space where there is no detectable matter as well as explaining the presence of energy in micro-scale closed systems where unexplained high amounts of energy are observed.

Mark Vitrone

in a small closed enegy circle wouldn't the enegy have someway of not leaking out or slowing down that process? How much energy are we tyalking per square cm or so just bplease give some peresceptive on that. i believe "elasticicty" is not 100% because nature most likley would not support that or we could make it 100% on our scales for easier calculating or sloving. and can we get a telescope like hubble to find the amount of energy in the background in a desolate space( relativetly a space with no homogenous mixtures of nergy background)How can a change in direction not make the speed of the graviton would maybe slow down.

The intuitive mind