Gravity and Inertia

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">2) It is Special Relativity, not General Relativity, that claims to impose a light speed limit on things. If you use Lorentzian Relativity (no speed limit) rather than SR as GR's starting point, GR is quite happy with FTL phenomena.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">Larry, I was under the impression that GR refers to Einstein's General Theory of Relativity, and LR is Laurencian Relativity. In Einstein's GR, I believe he says that nothing travels faster than light; but what he means is no two objects may <b>PASS</b> each other at a relative speed greater than the speed of light. While a space traveler is experiencing acceleration, the whole exterior universe may shrink at such a rate that the distance to the most distant galaxies, fore and aft, changes a rate many times the speed of light. But, in Einstein's mind, that rate of change of the distance is not a velocity; it is a property of space, not of an object in the space.

I am less familiar with Laurentz. He probably defined velocity differently than funny ol' Albert did---in some subtle way, which makes everbody think their results are incompatable. It's the same way that religious zealots end up at eachother's throats; they think they disagree about reincarnation when the real difference is how they define the pronoun, "I".

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">1) Matter ingredients are the conceptual building blocks of all else. IOW, they exist as concepts, not as real forms. So although any real particle is ultimately composed of infinitesimal matter ingredients, no real particle is (or can be) a matter ingredient.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">Larry, perhaps I do use terms like "particle" haphazardly; old habits are hard to break. (It's like saying "vehicle" when you mean "automobile"---which can get you in legal trouble if you don't have a license to "drive". You'll have to search common-law sites to get the distinction.) I interpret Tom's MI to mean the smallest unit of matter capable of interacting with a CG, and therefore having mass. If a CG has mass, then it must be some other form of mass, not measureable as weight and inertia.

In fact, I do believe we live in an infinitely fractal universe, in which every "particle" is composed of smaller "particles". Perhaps the smallest "particle" any human can every postulate will contain within it an entire sub-universe full of great walls of galaxies; and perhaps the universe that we see thru our telescopes is contained within an MI, a CG or an elyson within an unimagineably vast super-universe. But that is beyond the realm of knowability; it is pure philosophy. To keep our theories no more complex than necessary to explain observed phenomena, we might as well treat a "particle" as just a particle until that leads to a contradiction---at which time we must assume that the particle has constituent parts.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">If gravitons had that much mass, matter ingredients would be destroyed by continual high-speed graviton impacts. <hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">Tom, I am assuming that...
<b>A:</b> gravitons "rarely" encounter MI's. Even though billions of CG's may collide with each MI every second, that may only be a tiny fraction of the number of near misses. I surmise that because, as far as we can tell, there is no upper limit on the gravity of a celestial body; one star does not appear to eclipse another star's gravity. Therefore, most CG's probably pass thru a neutron star without hitting any MI's.
<b>B:</b> CG's probably permeate the "empty" space between great walls of galaxies with roughly the same density as in the middle of a neutron star. So the density of CG's may be greater than that of a neutron star, and it may be that dense everywhere.
<b>C:</b> I thought I made a mistake once, but I was mistaken.

And yes, if you multiply the momentum imparted by gravity times your own best guess at a CG's speed, then every MI in the universe would be vaporized in a nanosecond. According to <i>Pushing Gravity</i>, the energy absorbed by an MI can be only a tiny fraction of the CG's velocity times the momentum it imparts to the MI. I still don't understand by what mechanism <i>Pushing Gravity</i> accounts for that discrepancy.

This is leading me off on a tangent that properly belongs in a thread of its own. In a nutshell: Gravity results not from deflection or absorption of CG's, but from the fracturing of CG's into smaller units. I did start such a thread about a year ago. Tom, can you find my old threads; the search tool seems to be on the blink.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by PhilJ</i>
<br />if you multiply the momentum imparted by gravity times your own best guess at a CG's speed, then every MI in the universe would be vaporized in a nanosecond. According to <i>Pushing Gravity</i>, the energy absorbed by an MI can be only a tiny fraction of the CG's velocity times the momentum it imparts to the MI. I still don't understand by what mechanism <i>Pushing Gravity</i> accounts for that discrepancy.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">It's the difference between absorbed and scattered gravitons. The absorbed ones deposit heat but are relatively few in number. The scattered ones don't create any heat, at least not in the MIs.

I used the analogy of a swarm of comets passing a star. Even the comets that miss the star and just swing around it on a parabolic orbit (like scattered gravitons) transfer momentum to the star. But the comets that hit the star also transfer heat (like the absorbed gravitons).

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">can you find my old threads; the search tool seems to be on the blink.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">It has several settings. You might need to coax it a bit. I wouldn't know what to search for. -|Tom|-

Search works now; I found my old posts. Any further response from me, here, would only stray farther from the threads central theme.

[PhilJ] "Larry, I was under the impression that GR refers to Einstein's General Theory of Relativity ... "

You are correct.

GR = General Relativity
SR = Special Relativity
LR = Lorentzian Relativity

GR itself is mute about such things as speed limits. It is Einstein's SR which postulates that the speed of light is a limit. GR traditionally uses SR as its foundation, thus GR inherits this speed limit postulate from SR.

But LR has no such postulate, so if GR uses LR as it's foundation instead of SR, then GR inherits no speed limit. And LR passes all of the same experimental tests that SR uses for validation.

===

TVF has written several good papers on the relationships between SR, GR and LR. Most of them are available online via this site - from the main page go to Cosmology/Gravity.

LB

The issues involved with Gravitational Forces are many and when looking at present GR Universe Models that show extreme expansion of furthest galaxies away from our frame of reference at the speeds of light, it makes you wonder how the curvature of space alone could cause such extreme expansion (which we know from MM that space is flat, light fields curve)or in this case reverse curvature causing expansion since there is no visible negative mass that we can see creating curvature. If the Universe is expanding, then we must address the possibility that Gravitational Forces can also be repulsive.

I have been up on large scaffolds and if I do not keep my caulking gun level with the incoming flow of gravitonic energy, my gun will not work properly. Maybe all forces are related and scalable. If increased gyroscopic spin is a factor in strengthening all forces of flux fields including Gravity, electrical streams, etheric atmospheric rotations, magnetic flux, and field resonance then it may be that the direction of nucleonic spin of proton and neutron may be a key in understanding just how the overall dynamics of attraction repulsion works with the larger scale graviton bombardments.

I recently watched Mindwalk on HBO. Great movie where a former presidential candidate talks with a poet, and physicist. I have heard Tom say that (in posts) that there is mostly space between the Atoms, well what really brought his point home was a description of the atomic structure of an Orange as being mostly made up of space. The physicist in the movie gave a brilliant description, and she stated that in order to get a good understanding of just how huge the space is between the atoms picture an orange the size of the earth, and the atoms would be the size of cherries, and the nucleus inside the cherry would be the size of a grain of sand. My immediate response was "with so much space how do atoms create structure?"

The answer I think lies in the many field relationships that are stable and cause form and the interrelationships between field lattices.

Maybe space is more energetic in maintaining physical atomic structure then we presently understand, and the missing 96% of Universe Mass is in higher dimensional flux fields that are beyond our vision and present capabilities to perceive.

John

Has anyone ever accurately measured the speed of gravity? Does it even have a set speed? One would think that by now, 2005, it would be standard fact in every physics textbook. But it isn't! Where is this missing info?