Gravitons and Push Gravity question.

Youjaes
Offline
Junior Member

19 years 10 months ago #12485 by Youjaes

Replied by Youjaes on topic Reply from James Youlton

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by tvanflandern 
<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">To be fair, I don't believe in gravitons, but I like to understand the competing theories.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">That's okay, because I side with Einstein and argue that "black holes" don't exist. [}

] -|Tom|-
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"> 

I agree with you that the concept of "black holes" is problematic at best and has a greater likelihood of being simply fictitious. On to gravitons.

To get a handle on the properties of gravitons, as you posit them, I have a series of questions. I'll list them seperately here for now.

1. Does a graviton have mass?

2. What is the source of gravitons?

3. Does anything absorb gravitons?

4. Does the number of gravitons in the universe change over time?

5. Can a graviton's path be deflected, and if so, how?

6. Do gravitons interact with each other?

7. Can gravitons constructively or destructively interfere with one another?

8. How much wood can a graviton chuck if a graviton can chuck wood?

9. And lastly, a tenuously related question, do you believe in an absolute frame of rest? (I do, but I'd like to get your take on this one.)

I also have questions regarding your elysium concept, but I'll wait until we've hashed out the graviton questions.

James

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

tvanflandern
Topic Author
Offline
Platinum Member

19 years 10 months ago #12486 by tvanflandern

Replied by tvanflandern on topic Reply from Tom Van Flandern

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by Youjaes
 To get a handle on the properties of gravitons, as you posit them, I have a series of questions.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">Good questions.

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">1. Does a graviton have mass?<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">Well, yes, but... the concept of "mass" needs to be carefully defined. Gravitons certainly do not have inertial mass or gravitational mass, the two types we usually think of, because they exist on smaller scales than those forces. So I prefer to say they have "substance", meaning they are material, tangible entities that would satisfy our intuitive concept of "mass", even if not one of the usual physics definitions.

To be a bit less vague, gravitons have momentum relative to other entities, and that relative momentum can be used to define a new type of relative mass.

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">2. What is the source of gravitons?<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">What is the source of air molecules? To answer the latter question, we would have to know something about the origin of the Earth and the impacts that caused it to outgas. We can learn very little about the origin of air molecules by studying only air molecules.

So to answer your question, we need to understand something about cosmology, where the answers about the origin of gravitons (and everything else) may be found. The Meta Model is one such cosmology. It concludes (after a number of deductive steps) that gravitons are the atmosphere of a "mega-planet" of a larger scale that originated unimaginably long ago and formed, then outgassed, gravitons. And because scale is infinite in both directions (large and small), the same sort of processes are going on at every scale.

We are like a fish in the ocean. We have no realization that, if we swim far enough in one direction, we will eventually come to "land"; and in another direction we will come to "air". It is in the nature of everything that exists to be finite, after which there is a change of form to something else. One day, we humans will discover an end to our ocean of galaxies, and will see "something else".

But this makes more sense after you have read the introduction to the Meta Model, as in chapter one of my book.

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">3. Does anything absorb gravitons?<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">All ordinary matter is capable of absorbing gravitons.

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">4. Does the number of gravitons in the universe change over time?<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">To a first approximation, no, just as the same is true of air molecules. (Over longer time scales, Earth does lose air to space. But that's a minor issue.) Gravitons absorbed by atoms are the source of energy within atoms (and electrons jumping to higher orbitals). They keep an energy balance by re-emitting energy as photons (light waves), with electrons dropping to lower orbitals. Over longer time spans, excess graviton-deposited energy is released by alpha or beta decay.

See the "Meta Cycle" at metaresearch.org/cosmology/gravity/meta_cycle.asp to see why momentum is conserved at every scale. The universe is not running down because, while electromagnetic forces are entropic, gravitational forces are anti-entropic.

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">5. Can a graviton's path be deflected, and if so, how?<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">Gravitons collide with one another and scatter with a mean free path of 1-2 kpc. This changes the inverse square behavior to inverse linear, and explains the odd behavior of galactic dynamics.

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">6. Do gravitons interact with each other?<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">As above.

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">7. Can gravitons constructively or destructively interfere with one another?<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">They are particles. Interference is a wave property. "Gravitational waves" are elysum waves, not graviton waves.

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">8. How much wood can a graviton chuck if a graviton can chuck wood?<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">Peter Piper picked a peck of pickled gravitons.

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">9. And lastly, a tenuously related question, do you believe in an absolute frame of rest? (I do, but I'd like to get your take on this one.)<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">No. But each local gravity field with its gravitationally entrained elysium acts just like an absolute frame to the locals. However, in an infinite universe, an absolute frame makes no sense. -|Tom|-

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

Youjaes
Offline
Junior Member

19 years 10 months ago #12151 by Youjaes

Replied by Youjaes on topic Reply from James Youlton

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by tvanflandern
 Good questions.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

Thanks. Please let me know when I've gotten a pretty good grasp of your concepts. I'm not there yet, so hopefully you can answer more questions.

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">1. Does a graviton have mass?<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">Well, yes, but... (snip) I prefer to say they have "substance", meaning they are material, tangible entities that would satisfy our intuitive concept of "mass", even if not one of the usual physics definitions.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

1.1 Do you have a name for this substance so we can refer to it as something other than "What gravitons are made of"?

1.2 Are you infering that gravitons are composed of smaller things?

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">To be a bit less vague, gravitons have momentum relative to other entities, and that relative momentum can be used to define a new type of relative mass.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

1.3 Do you have some observation or bit of logic that persuades you to define gravitons as having relative momentum?

1.4 Do all gravitons have the same momentum, relative or otherwise, and do you have a formula or method for computing it?

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">2. What is the source of gravitons?<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">
So to answer your question, we need to understand something about cosmology, where the answers about the origin of gravitons (and everything else) may be found. The Meta Model is one such cosmology.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

Allow me to rework this question a bit at a later time, as I was looking more for how a graviton came in to being from the point of being emitted by a mass.

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">3. Does anything absorb gravitons?<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">All ordinary matter is capable of absorbing gravitons.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

I'd call that a yes. A short, simple, and concise answer. I like those kind.

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">4. Does the number of gravitons in the universe change over time?<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">To a first approximation, no, just as the same is true of air molecules. (Over longer time scales, Earth does lose air to space. But that's a minor issue.)<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

Ok, I think I follow you here. To use an analogy, If I were to drop a million pennies on the ground, I would expect the ratio of 'heads' vs. 'tails would be near enough to unity so as to persuade me not to count them. I know that it isn't exactly unity, but if I repeated the drop a million times and added the results all together, I would get even closer to unity.

Having said that...

4.1 Is it your position that the ratio of gravitons being emitted to those being absorbed is at least next to unity?

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Gravitons absorbed by atoms are the source of energy within atoms (and electrons jumping to higher orbitals). They keep an energy balance by re-emitting energy as photons (light waves), with electrons dropping to lower orbitals. Over longer time spans, excess graviton-deposited energy is released by alpha or beta decay.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

I see too many problems with this bit of information based on the answers you've given so far to be able to form cogent questions, so let's leave this one be for now and you can interject it at a later time.

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">See the "Meta Cycle" at metaresearch.org/cosmology/gravity/meta_cycle.asp to see why momentum is conserved at every scale. The universe is not running down because, while electromagnetic forces are entropic, gravitational forces are anti-entropic.

Thanks for the interesting read. I would like to point out, however, that simple momentum in the universe is known to not conserve because the conservation of angular momentum precludes it. For example, an object in an eliptical orbit alternately increases and decreases its momentum over the course of its trajectory. But back to gravitons...

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">5. Can a graviton's path be deflected, and if so, how?<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">Gravitons collide with one another and scatter with a mean free path of 1-2 kpc. This changes the inverse square behavior to inverse linear, and explains the odd behavior of galactic dynamics.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

5.1 Are graviton collisions elastic in nature?

5.2 How did you compute the mean free path?

5.2.1 Knowing the mean free path, does this mean you know what the graviton 'density' is (i.e. the number of gravitons per cubic meter)?

5.2.2 Given that gravitons collide, what is the graviton's cross sectional area?

5.2.3 Are the qualities of all gravitons basically the same, similar to how protons have about the same mass?

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">7. Can gravitons constructively or destructively interfere with one another?<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">They are particles. Interference is a wave property. "Gravitational waves" are elysum waves, not graviton waves.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">
Photons exhibit both wave and particle properties, which is why I asked the question. I do, however, accept your answer. I was going to ask about elysum later, but it is starting to seem to me that it is an essential part of your graviton position. Should I be asking questions about it now?

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">8. How much wood can a graviton chuck if a graviton can chuck wood?<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">Peter Piper picked a peck of pickled gravitons.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">
Maybe Peter just 'bought' the pickled gravitons so his wife wouldn't find out that he had a mistress?

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">9. And lastly, a tenuously related question, do you believe in an absolute frame of rest? (I do, but I'd like to get your take on this one.)<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">No. But each local gravity field with its gravitationally entrained elysium acts just like an absolute frame to the locals. However, in an infinite universe, an absolute frame makes no sense.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

Perhaps I can make it sensible for you. The total angular momentum of the universe is taken as a constant based on the idea that there isn't anything external to the universe to give it a torque. Also, given that there never has, nor ever will be, an external torque on the universe, that constant must be zero and that there must exist an unique inertial frame where the summed measurement of angular momentum in the universe is also zero. This special inertial frame can be called the "absolute frame of rest".

James

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

tvanflandern
Topic Author
Offline
Platinum Member

19 years 10 months ago #12153 by tvanflandern

Replied by tvanflandern on topic Reply from Tom Van Flandern

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by Youjaes
 Please let me know when I've gotten a pretty good grasp of your concepts. I'm not there yet, so hopefully you can answer more questions.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">Gravity is a big subject. There are innumerable issues that need to be addressed. That is why the PG book and Gravity CD exist. And for context questions, one must look into the Meta Model, which is an assumption-free cosmology that shows how gravitons are an ordinary past of the natural order of things, not something exotic or special.

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">1.1 Do you have a name for this substance so we can refer to it as something other than "What gravitons are made of"?<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">"Substance" is a generic term for what everything is made of. We can no more say today what entities gravitons are made of than humans of a thousand years ago could say what air or water were made of. The graviton itself has yet to be observed in isolation, much less its constituents.

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">1.2 Are you infering that gravitons are composed of smaller things?<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">Again, see the Meta Model for all context questions. But yes, everything is infinitely composed. Gravitons are nothing special.

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">1.3 Do you have some observation or bit of logic that persuades you to define gravitons as having relative momentum?<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">Yes, in the Meta Model. Everything that exists can be characterized by an amount of substance that it contains and a relative velocity. In a single vector parameter, this is relative momentum.

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">1.4 Do all gravitons have the same momentum, relative or otherwise, and do you have a formula or method for computing it?<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">No. I presume gravitons have a Maxwellian velocity distribution, as naturally would the particles comprising any medium.

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">4.1 Is it your position that the ratio of gravitons being emitted to those being absorbed is at least next to unity?<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">Yes.

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">simple momentum in the universe is known to not conserve because the conservation of angular momentum precludes it. For example, an object in an eliptical orbit alternately increases and decreases its momentum over the course of its trajectory.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">Consider a single mass falling in a gravitational field. It is obviously gaining momentum. But is momentum not conserved? That would be a form of miracle because it would require creating new momentum out of nothing (one of the two principal arguments against geometric GR).

In Le Sage-type gravity, the new momentum arises from the push of a graviton wind, which is simply exchanging momentum with the falling body. Momentum is always conserved. No miracles.

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">5.1 Are graviton collisions elastic in nature?<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">If gravitons provided force only through elastic collisions, there could be no net force. The details of inelastic absorptions and the more significant graviton scattering mechanism are in Slabinski's article in PG, and on the Gravity CD.

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">5.2 How did you compute the mean free path?<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">We first derived the essential property that gravitons must have an rms flight distance between collisions, and what must happen to gravitational fields if they extend over larger distances. We then looked in nature for that behavior, and found it in galaxies. We then fitted a plot of "mass-to-light" ratios vs. scale size for galactic dynamics, and measured the rms characteristic distance that would produce that behavior. See e.g. Figure 4 at metaresearch.org/cosmology/gravity/possi...pertiesofgravity.asp

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">5.2.1 Knowing the mean free path, does this mean you know what the graviton 'density' is (i.e. the number of gravitons per cubic meter)?<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">We have been able to set several constraints on various gravition property parameters. See table at end of Slabinski article mentioned above.

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">5.2.2 Given that gravitons collide, what is the graviton's cross sectional area?<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">Same comment.

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">5.2.3 Are the qualities of all gravitons basically the same, similar to how protons have about the same mass?<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">In nature, whether we are talking air, water, sand, or interstellar medium, there is a tendency for like particles to affiliate. We assume the same is true of gravitons until such time as some observation or experiment compels us to assume otherwise.

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Photons exhibit both wave and particle properties, which is why I asked the question.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">As you will see when you read deeper on this subject, I argue for the pure-wave nature of light because it has all known wave properties and only two particle properties (photoelectric effect and Compton effect), neither of them essential particle properties and both of them with possible wave interpretations.

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">I was going to ask about elysum later, but it is starting to seem to me that it is an essential part of your graviton position. Should I be asking questions about it now?<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">It is indeed an essential element. For example, one could not get GR effects from Le Sage gravitons in a simple, classical way without elysium. And we do need a medium to carry light. But surprisingly, elysium turns out to be synonymous with gravitational potential, and therefore has no absolute frame, but only local frames based on the dominant masses in the vicinity.

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Maybe Peter just 'bought' the pickled gravitons so his wife wouldn't find out that he had a mistress?<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">Now you've done it. Mrs. Piper just hired a divorce attorney. You shouldn't speculate out loud before you have all the facts.

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">The total angular momentum of the universe is taken as a constant based on the idea that there isn't anything external to the universe to give it a torque. Also, given that there never has, nor ever will be, an external torque on the universe, that constant must be zero and that there must exist an unique inertial frame where the summed measurement of angular momentum in the universe is also zero. This special inertial frame can be called the "absolute frame of rest".<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">This presumes a finite universe. In MM, the universe is infinite, so at best you can make statements about some local bit of space, such as the space inside a beach ball. It may or may not have angular momentum. But that has no significance to the rest of the infinite universe. -|Tom|-

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

Jim
Offline
Platinum Member

19 years 10 months ago #12159 by Jim

Replied by Jim on topic Reply from

Refering back to the hairy differential equations it seems to me a good graph of the gravity field lines can be drawn using vectors of the force from both massave bodies. This field is different than when a single mass field is generated from a point. The two point field is directing a third body differently than a one point field. Is this a correct picture of the force field? The space between the two primary masses is empty but the center of mass of the two body system is half way between the two primaries. And the force is directed to that point more or less until the third body gets near the system. Then one of the primaries takes control of the third body. It this right?

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

tvanflandern
Topic Author
Offline
Platinum Member

19 years 10 months ago #11025 by tvanflandern

Replied by tvanflandern on topic Reply from Tom Van Flandern

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by Jim
 Then one of the primaries takes control of the third body. It this right?<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">Allowing for a wide area where control is shared, your picture is approximately right. -|Tom|-

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

Time to create page: 0.376 seconds