The Slabinski Article: Cross sectional area propor

[quoteInstead of considering scattering and absorption as separate attributes, consider that each single graviton that encounters a matter ingredient is mostly scattered but slightly absorbed by that 30-orders-of-magnitude ratio. In that way, there is no difference between scattered and absorbed gravitons. They are each just slightly inelastic.
[/quote]

The implication of this is that matter ingredients are irrelevent - that the effect of absorbtion by a matter ingredient is no different than summing up incremental smaller absorbtions by elysium. So then are matter ingredients really necessary at all? When we consider quantum level modeling we talk about MI's as being absolutes, but I wonder whether elysons can aggregate to yield "net MI's". Consider any two elysons shadowing each other. Just as macroscopic bodies become gravitationaly 'attracted' so too should elysons. It seems to me that the natural state of elysons should therefore be as aggregates.

However, if elysons exist as aggregates then there must be a limit to the size of these aggregates or else outer space would be heterogeneous with respect to elysons - dense clumps of elysium surrounded by voids rarified in elysium. This in turn would affect the speed of light, as rarifaction would serve to speed up light waves by allowing greater velocities of elysons.

Is it possible that the speed of light is variable in "empty" space?

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by dholeman</i>
<br />The implication of this is that matter ingredients are irrelevent - that the effect of absorbtion by a matter ingredient is no different than summing up incremental smaller absorbtions by elysium. So then are matter ingredients really necessary at all?<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">I'm envisioning that each elyson is made up of a very large number of matter ingredients (MIs). One of the characteristics of gravity is that the gravitons operate on each MI independently and equally. So for most bodies (where shielding is not a factor), the acceleration expereinced is independent of the body's own mass (the number of MIs).

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">When we consider quantum level modeling we talk about MI's as being absolutes, but I wonder whether elysons can aggregate to yield "net MI's". Consider any two elysons shadowing each other. Just as macroscopic bodies become gravitationaly 'attracted' so too should elysons. It seems to me that the natural state of elysons should therefore be as aggregates.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">My vision of the model is certainly open to improvement. But as it stands, elysons must be contiguous (always in contact with other elysons on all sides, much like water molecules in the ocean), because that seems to be a requirement to make waves transverse. So while elysons absorb gravitons too, individual elysons are not free to move. But bulk elysium can be made denser or less dense by graviton winds. So I think that means "no elysium aggregates".

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">However, if elysons exist as aggregates then there must be a limit to the size of these aggregates or else outer space would be heterogeneous with respect to elysons - dense clumps of elysium surrounded by voids rarified in elysium. This in turn would affect the speed of light, as rarifaction would serve to speed up light waves by allowing greater velocities of elysons.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">Indeed. In fact, no light of any kind could cross an elysium void. That is why we can be sure there aren't any. Apparently, the background density of elysium is considerable, and density gradients in it are relatively minor changes in density.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Is it possible that the speed of light is variable in "empty" space?<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">That makes perfect sense. It seems likely that "Great Walls" might be places where large-scale elysium waves are much denser than in the "Great Voids", so light would travel faster through the voids and slower through the "walls". That is a possible reason for the quantization of redshift reported. -|Tom|-

<b><i>Ooops!</i> </b> It came to me in my sleep, last night; I was off by a factor of two. An analogy cleared it up for me; perhaps it can do the same for you. (Sorry; no poetry intended.)

I’m sorry you don’t see it, yet, Tom. Ain’t it funny how we see something crooked for so long that we can’t see it straight for the life of us. I’m not smarter than you; I just have the advantage of a fresh perspective.

Consider the analogy of optical absorption by a cloud of tiny opaque floating black balloons. As we discussed earlier in this thread, the principle of equivalence (inertia-mass = gravity-mass) requires that the mass of an MI is proportional, not to the volume of the MI, but to its profile area -- as it is for balloons of a given wall thickness. Illuminated by columnar light, each balloon casts a disk-shaped shadow on a screen. <i>K<font size="1">abs</font id="size1"></i> is analogous to the total area darkened by the shadows of one gram of balloons -- irrespective of size, shape or density of the cloud, and irrespective of the size of the individual balloons. (Areas where two shadows overlap count double.)

Suppose <i>K<font size="1">abs</font id="size1"></i> = one square centimeter per gram. Then one gram of balloons will cast one square centimeter of shadows, regardless of how large or small the individual balloons are. If the density, <i>rho</i>, of the cloud of balloons is one gram per cubic centimeter, then every cubic centimeter of the cloud of balloons will cast one square centimeter of shadows. A cylindrical volume of the cloud of balloons, with its axis parallel to the light column, having a cross-sectional area of one square centimeter, will cast a square centimeter of shadows for each centimeter of depth; and the average number of balloons in the path of a given photon is one balloon per centimeter of depth. Therefore, the average distance a photon may travel thru the cloud of balloons will be one half centimeter -- not one centimeter, as I said two days ago.

All else being constant:
&nbsp &nbsp &nbsp &nbsp Double the density; the distance is halved.
&nbsp &nbsp &nbsp &nbsp Double <i>K<font size="1">abs</font id="size1"></i>; the distance is halved.
&nbsp &nbsp &nbsp &nbsp Double the area of each shadow; the number of shadows is halved.

Therefore, 1 / (2 <i>K<font size="1">abs</font id="size1"></i> <i>rho</i>) = average distance traveled by a CG before being absorbed.

I’m off line ‘til Tuesday, p.m., so chew on this for a couple of days before answering, Tom. Maybe your dreams will be as fruitful as mine, but try not to loose any sleep over it.

<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 />Ooops! It came to me in my sleep, last night; I was off by a factor of two.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">What good is improvement by a factor of two when you are off by 20 orders of magnitude?

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Therefore, 1 / (2 <i>K<font size="1">abs</font id="size1"></i> <i>rho</i>) = average distance traveled by a CG before being absorbed.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">This is not the meaning of <i>K<font size="1">abs</font id="size1"></i>. I've mentioned two other ways of interpreting it to help you see what it means. So far, you seem to be ignoring this point. What's up with that? -|Tom|-

Welcome to this discussion, dholeman. I hope you have read Slabinski's article in <i>PG</i>. If not, it will be most difficult for you to stay with us and not take the discussion off on a tanget.

Tom, is there any chance you could get Slabinski's permission to publish his article here?

<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 />Welcome to this discussion, dholeman.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">Don Holeman is webmaster for the Meta Research site, and is well familiar with PG concepts.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Tom, is there any chance you could get Slabinski's permission to publish his article here?<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">That would require the publisher's permission also. If all good books were republished on the internet, that would drive publishers out of business, similar to what is happening in the music industry. I don't think we're ready for that step yet. -|Tom|-