'Elastivity' of graviton collisions

Greater measurement precision is required to understand this especially in light of discussing the phase of matter that the vacuum and it's loosely associated particles are in, in comparison with thermodynamical laws. We can't talk about entropy unless we define a system and an environment. To talk about the universe without isolating an area is like trying to look outside from a room with no windows. As you are aware, only the REAL gas laws and thermo laws seem riddled with undefined areas. Observation such as walk, Agora, may be our misapplication of data or our misunderstanding of the fundamental idea that temperature and pressure are really the same thing... particles flying around with a certain energy!

In thermo, we assume elasticity of particles, yet this cannot be. Take for instance a system where experimental conditions are ideal. We still cannot quantify (or qualify) the interactions between the matter that we think is in the container and LCM or gravs. So taking older measurements and then applying fouled laws makes it seem that we get the picture... I think that it only seems that way though. What is needed is a reform of current thermodynamics in light of their huge problems at low Temp, low press, and high temps and pressure. The noted deviations in these extremes may provide the clues to these crucial interactions at the sub particle level. Those cohesions and repulsions way very well be influenced by the collision of gravity. As a sidenote, if gravity works to orient cohesions then it can be unified with EM, strong, and weak into an atomic model.

However, it is late and parts of my brain may be taking a vacation into dreamland, let me know what ya'll think... MV

first, I want you to know a fix cars. I do that well. But I am a total idiot when it comes to theories...

I quote below Richard Feynman from one of his book (remember Feynman?)

"Many mechanisms for gravitation have been suggested. It is interesting to consider one of these, which many people have thought of from time to time. At first, one is quite excited and happy when he "discovers" it, but soon finds that it is not correct. It was first discovered about 1750. Suppose there were many particles moving in space at a very high speed in all directions and being only slightly absorbed in going through matter. When they are absorbed, they give an impulse to the earth. However, since there are as many going one way as another, the impulses all balance. But when the sun is nearby, the particles coming toward the earth through the sun are partially absorbed, so fewer of them are coming from the sun than are coming from the other side. Therefore, the earth feels a net impulse toward the sun and it does not take one long to see that it is inversely as the square of the distance because of the variation of the solid angle that the sun subtends as we vary the distance. What is wrong with that machinery? It involves some new consequences which are not true. This particular idea has the following trouble: the earth, in moving around the sun, would impinge on more particles which are coming from its forward side than from its hind side (when you run in the rain, the rain in your face is stronger than that on the back of your head!). Therefore there would be more impulse given the earth from the front, and the earth would feel a resistance to motion and would be slowing up in its orbit. One can calculate how long it would take for the earth to stop as a result of this resistance, and it would not take long enough for the earth to still be in its orbit, so this mechanism does not work. No machinery has ever been invented that "explains" gravity without also predicting some other phenomenon that does not exist."

any comments from the Xperts? Make it simple please for an idiot to understand it!

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote><font size=2 face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>What is wrong with that machinery? ... the earth, in moving around the sun, would impinge on more particles which are coming from its forward side than from its hind side (when you run in the rain, the rain in your face is stronger than that on the back of your head!).<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size=2 id=quote>

We have an equation for the strength of gravity (the gravitational constant) in terms of "graviton" particle densities, masses, and average speeds. We also have an equation for the amount of drag on Earth's orbit in terms of these same parameters.

Feynman believed (incorrectly) that the speeds of these gravitons were limited to the speed of light. When that constraint is removed, then a wide set of possible solutions for graviton parameters exists that meets both constraints; i.e., the correct gravitational constant results, and so little drag on Earth's orbit occurs that it could not possibly have been detected yet. The key was taking the cap off the particle speeds.

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote><font size=2 face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>No machinery has ever been invented that "explains" gravity without also predicting some other phenomenon that does not exist."<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size=2 id=quote>

Such machinery has now been "invented", and appears in the new, 24-author book <i>Pushing Gravity</i>, M.Edwards ed., Apeiron (2002), also available through this web site's store. There you will also find the equations for the gravitational constant and the drag force as described above, and their implications for the properties of gravitons. (They are in Slabinski's chapter.)

This "graviton" model has been hotly debated for 250 years. At each epoch, objections were raised that were thought fatal. Originally, it was not realized that ordinary matter was so porous at very small scales. Later it was thought that gravitons would produce too much heat and would vaporize bodies (the Maxwell-Kelvin debate). Most recently, we had the Feynman objection. Each of these objections has been overcome without any changes to the core model, just in the course of our learning more about nature and physics. Now, in 2003, we think all the model objections have been answered satisfactorily, and that we finally have a viable mechanism for gravity. -|Tom|-

Feynman believed (incorrectly) that the speeds of these gravitons were limited to the speed of light. When that constraint is removed, then a wide set of possible solutions for graviton parameters exists that meets both constraints; i.e., the correct gravitational constant results, and so little drag on Earth's orbit occurs that it could not possibly have been detected yet. The key was taking the cap off the particle speeds.

From Tom

Let's see this point. If the speed of rain drops is very high you still get more drops on your face, unless the rain becomes a water fall and then the speed don't matter cause you're now swimming and there is still drag depending on the shape of your body. But speed of drops by itself won't change that much as far as drops encountered in forward dir versus backwards dir. It may just be more painfull to run in the rain.

Frankly speaking, I don't think speed of gravitons is the only problem and if one offers higher speeds it just goes away. Graviton density is the issue here and then the complications arising from the increasing density.

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote><font size=2 face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>Frankly speaking, I don't think speed of gravitons is the only problem and if one offers higher speeds it just goes away. Graviton density is the issue here and then the complications arising from the increasing density.<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size=2 id=quote>

Why not look at the actual equations for drag and see if you see a mistake in them? Because if there is no mistake, then the amount of drag does depend on the size of the drops of water, or on the size of gravitons. But gravitons could be of any size. If we make them very, very tiny, they are like a fine mist instead of a hard rain, and retardation, while still present, is negligible.

The price we pay for making the gravitons tiny is that they then exert less force. But we can compensate that by increasing their mean speed. It all works out because drag (for some given flux density) is proportional to graviton mass times mean speed; whereas gravitational force is proportional to mass times speed squared. So necessarily, there exists a mass small enough and a speed fast enough to make the model meet both constraints -- enough force with negligible drag.

But then, intuitive reservations should always be tested against applicable physical constraints in a rigorous way, shouldn't they? -|Tom|-

whereas gravitational force is proportional to mass times speed squared

From Van Flandern

I thought force is proportional to acceleration and energy is proportional to speed squared. Some forces like the shock absorber forces in cars are proportional to speed square but then this would mean the graviton medium has spring properties and it is not only pushing but also pulling. In essence, a force proportional to speed squared is a potential force acting on a body in motion which in turn results in a force proporional to acceleration for that body.

You must be talking of the force exerted on the body by the graviton medium then, which is like a spring force and then the constant (Hooke's law) that relates force and dispacement should result in a vertical oscillation for the two bodies in motion. Unless you say that the oscillation is absorbed by some other medium and where does that energy go?

Puzzled by it, but again I am a total idiot so what?