Gravitons and Push Gravity question.

Larry Burford
Offline
Platinum Member

19 years 8 months ago #12551 by Larry Burford

Replied by Larry Burford on topic Reply from Larry Burford

Hmmm.

Think about some of the questions you have asked recently, such as ...

[Jim, 26 Jan 2005 : 13:29:42]
"Tom, You say above Newton proved the force of gravity points toward the center of mass. Is the center of mass also the barycenter of a two(or more than two) body system? This is so the center of mass can be located even though there is no mass at that center as is the case in real structures."

[Jim, 28 Jan 2005 : 11:34:52]
"It doesn't matter if there is mass or not mass at a point that is a focus of force?

Why would that be?

Wouldn't there be a different effect if mass was there than the effect would be if no mass was there?"

===

Now think about the light bulb analogy I used. Think about the similarities (AND about the differences) between center-of-mass in a two mass system and center-of-radiation in a two light bulb system.

Note how the results in the two light bulb model change depending on how close you are and in which direction you look.

Think about what this implies for gravity in a two mass system.

(
These differences that depend on where you are, and on where you look while you are there, are the reason that multiple-source gravitation problems require the "hairy" differential equation solutions that tvf mentioned.
)

===

Keep in mind that we do not have directional gravitational sensors. My model is not intended to be an exact analog of gravity. In fact it is intended to be different in certain ways (like directional sensing) in an attempt to simplify certain aspects of the problem.

Think. That takes time, so don't rush.

LB

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

Larry Burford
Offline
Platinum Member

19 years 8 months ago #12206 by Larry Burford

Replied by Larry Burford on topic Reply from Larry Burford

[Jim, 28 Jan 2005 : 11:34:52] "It doesn't matter if there is mass or not mass at a point that is a focus of force?"

Note that a center-of-mass is NOT a "focus of force". Except in a few special cases.

LB

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

Youjaes
Offline
Junior Member

19 years 8 months ago #12215 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
 Gravity is a big subject.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

I suppose. Thanks for taking the time to answer my questions. I have a few more, but I think I'm getting a clearer picture of how you see things. (I'd have replied sooner, but my motherboard fried and I had to build a new computer.)

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">The graviton itself has yet to be observed in isolation, much less its constituents.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

This is the main reason that I don't believe in gravitons. A century of exploration on the subject and no one has detected one.

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><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.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

Thanks for the short answer. I like those.

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><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.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

I don't think you understand the consequences of the conservation of angular momentum. Simple momentum does not conserve just like kinetic energy doesn't conserve. Orbital mechanics proves this.

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><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.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

I think my question may have been too vague. I was referring to graviton-graviton collisions.

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><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.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

Tsk, tsk. Your cosmology is supposed to be assumption free. Let's clean this answer up a bit.

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><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.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

It's probably for the best, considering how much their kid looks like the mailman.

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><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.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

No, it doesn't presume a finite universe, only that the universe isn't being created or destroyed. Mathematically, we can label infinite sets, such as the set of positive intergers where there are an infinite number of them, and ascribe properties to them. The universe is such a set. As far as angular momentum is concerned, you seem to have a distaste for the subject. Anyway, back to gravitons....

James

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

tvanflandern
Topic Author
Offline
Platinum Member

19 years 8 months ago #12216 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
 I'd have replied sooner, but my motherboard fried and I had to build a new computer.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">Ugh. I hope you had back-ups and that all is recovered.

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">... I don't believe in gravitons. A century of exploration on the subject and no one has detected one.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">That is a truly weird reason. Lots of phenomena are predicted long before they are discovered. The planet Neptune and meteor streams from comets are two examples from astronomy that leap to mind. It was the better part of a century after atoms were proposed before we had electron microscopes powerful enough to actually see one. We still have never seen most quantum particles, just their effects on other matter.

As for gravitons, we know for certain that no human has ever built an instrument capable of observing one. So it is not possible for early 21st century humans to see them, being a million times less massive than quantum particles. But we do plainly see their effects on other matter, which is why they are in the theory.

"Gravitons" are even a part of the standard model. Because all substance in nature can be classified at much larger scales as either waves or particles, what is your alternative to particles as the carriers of gravitational force? Waves? Magic? What else is there?

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">[tvf]: 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.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">I don't think you understand the consequences of the conservation of angular momentum. Simple momentum does not conserve just like kinetic energy doesn't conserve. Orbital mechanics proves this.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">I have no idea what is bothering you here. I told you where the new momentum comes from fundamentally. For an orbiting body, kinetic energy and gravitational potential are continually being interchanged, in accord with the virial theorem. Is that not clear to you? (But that is about energy, not angular momentum.) Or are you concerned about aberration and non-conservation of angular momentum with finite force propagation speeds? Several of my published papers are about that topic.

You sound as if you may not realize that all 2-body orbits conserve angular momentum throughout the entire orbit. Is there a possible confusion in your mind about the difference between angular velocity and angular momentum? But whatever your point is, if you want serious discussion, you will have to spell out what it is. I can't read your mind.

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Are graviton-graviton collisions elastic in nature?<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">They appear to be from our scale. Although no collision can be truly perfectly elastic in physics because all are composed of smaller entities, we have yet to detect inelasticity in air molecules and many other common gases.

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Tsk, tsk. Your cosmology is supposed to be assumption free. Let's clean this answer up a bit.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">That is why I keep referring back to the base cosmology underlying all of this. In any truly deductive cosmology, premises downstrean look like assumptions, whereas they are actually conclusions from previous steps in the sequence of syllogisms.

You like short answers, which are only possible if one starts with, but does not re-justify, the needed previous conclusions.

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">[tvf]: Now you've done it. Mrs. Piper just hired a divorce attorney. You shouldn't speculate out loud before you have all the facts.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">It's probably for the best, considering how much their kid looks like the mailman.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">Graviton-produced chromosome damage? That's the risk of pickled gravitons.

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">[tvf]: 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.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">As far as angular momentum is concerned, you seem to have a distaste for the subject.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">To vague to answer. We agreed the angular momentum of the universe is zero. But you then concluded that implies an absolute frame, when that is far from the case. We can be sure something is non-rotating without having a clue what the standard for "absolute rest" is, or even that one exists. -|Tom|-

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

Youjaes
Offline
Junior Member

19 years 8 months ago #12218 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">Originally posted by Youjaes
 I'd have replied sooner, but my motherboard fried and I had to build a new computer.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">Ugh. I hope you had back-ups and that all is recovered.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

Fortunately, I was able to recover both of my hard drives with minimal damage. The motherboard, on the other hand, is scheduled for reassignment to the local landfill. On the up side, I now have a computer that is five times faster than the old one (yippee

. Thanks for the concern.

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">... I don't believe in gravitons. A century of exploration on the subject and no one has detected one.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">That is a truly weird reason. Lots of phenomena are predicted long before they are discovered. The planet Neptune and meteor streams from comets are two examples from astronomy that leap to mind. It was the better part of a century after atoms were proposed before we had electron microscopes powerful enough to actually see one. We still have never seen most quantum particles, just their effects on other matter.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

Whether the reason is weird or not, I stand by it. As for Neptune, it's existence and position were predicted based on perturbations of other celestial objects. Until it was observed, however, no one could be sure it existed at all, but knowing where to look helped quite a bit. Then on to atoms. Perhaps you've forgotten about x-ray crystalography? This isn't meant as some type of argument, and I don't remember enough about the logical progression of thought on the history of the atom as a physical model at the moment, so please consider it a simple query.

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">As for gravitons, we know for certain that no human has ever built an instrument capable of observing one. So it is not possible for early 21st century humans to see them, being a million times less massive than quantum particles. But we do plainly see their effects on other matter, which is why they are in the theory.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

That seems all too convienient to me. Saying they are too small to detect simply doesn't justify a claim of existence. Setting my previous statement aside, can you propose a design for an instrument that can detect gravitons? I know my opinions are just that, opinions, but I think it would be tremendously useful to science if you could successfully do it.

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">"Gravitons" are even a part of the standard model. Because all substance in nature can be classified at much larger scales as either waves or particles, what is your alternative to particles as the carriers of gravitational force? Waves? Magic? What else is there?<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

Indeed, what else is there? There are forces in nature, such as the Coriolis Force which is observable on the surface of the Earth, that are macroscopic such that it is the environment that is accelerated instead of the observed objects. In brief, there are other possibilities for gravitation than a carrier of force between objects by particles. I believe that you have touched on these possibilities with what you have posited, hence my interest in your model. Would you like to play a bit of "What if?" with me about gravitons not existing, or at least not existing as force propagating particles?

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">[tvf]: Momentum is always conserved.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">Simple momentum does not conserve just like kinetic energy doesn't conserve. Orbital mechanics proves this.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">I have no idea what is bothering you here.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

Does my simplification help you here?

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">For an orbiting body, kinetic energy and gravitational potential are continually being interchanged, in accord with the virial theorem.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

Doesn't this statement strike you as the least bit odd? The standard picture uses the mathematical 'trick' of gravitational potential energy, or the energy of position assigned to an object, in order to balance energy equations when we have a perfectly good angular momentum conservation that is founded in what is real?

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Are graviton-graviton collisions elastic in nature?<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">They appear to be from our scale. Although no collision can be truly perfectly elastic in physics because all are composed of smaller entities, we have yet to detect inelasticity in air molecules and many other common gases.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

Good enough. I think we have the intent of the question and the intent of the answer matching now.

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">[tvf]: Now you've done it. Mrs. Piper just hired a divorce attorney. You shouldn't speculate out loud before you have all the facts.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">It's probably for the best, considering how much their kid looks like the mailman.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">Graviton-produced chromosome damage? That's the risk of pickled gravitons.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

I see, perhaps someone will someday find a cure. Do you think it will hold up in court?

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">[tvf]: 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.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">As far as angular momentum is concerned, you seem to have a distaste for the subject.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">To vague to answer. We agreed the angular momentum of the universe is zero. But you then concluded that implies an absolute frame, when that is far from the case. We can be sure something is non-rotating without having a clue what the standard for "absolute rest" is, or even that one exists.[/quote]

I'm glad we agree that the total angular momentum of the universe is zero. It comes in handy. So, we do have a clue to what the standard for an "absolute inertial frame of rest" might be, or at least get close to finding it. The idea is that we add up all of the angular momenta of the universe that we can observe and negate it to find the absolute angular momentum for an observer.

I'd like to interject something that I believe is valid from a mathematical viewpoint, specifically, "The total angular momentum, including internal and external angular momenta, of every part of the universe is zero." This might be of use to you, but you are free to discard it. It will take me some time to make the math into a computer presentable form given the length of the derivation, so let me know if it interests you.

James

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

tvanflandern
Topic Author
Offline
Platinum Member

19 years 8 months ago #12219 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
 <blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">[tvf]: As for gravitons, ... it is not possible for early 21st century humans to see them, being a million times less massive than quantum particles.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">That seems all too convienient to me. Saying they are too small to detect simply doesn't justify a claim of existence.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">Isn't that a stage that many new entities at ever smaller or larger scales go through? First we see evidence for effects on other bodies. Then, as our vision improves, we finally see the little bitty causes themselves.

Moreover, the "million times smaller" was not set for convenience to remove them from the visible range. It is a constraint set by the theory. And if gravitons were significantly larger, they could produce appreciable drag forces. These details are all worked out in Slabinski's paper.

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Setting my previous statement aside, can you propose a design for an instrument that can detect gravitons? I know my opinions are just that, opinions, but I think it would be tremendously useful to science if you could successfully do it.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">I'm not an instrument designer. But I know what the physics would require of such an instrument. All ordinary matter is so transparent to gravitons, and they travel so fast, that we would first need the capability of creating ultra-dense matter states capable of stopping a graviton. So condensed-matter physics might take the lead in this effort.

Attainable much sooner is spotting elysons, which are perhaps marginally within range of existing instrumentation. I've suggested that one recent experimental resullt might be explained by the presence of single elysons.

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Indeed, what else is there [besides particles, waves, and magic]? There are forces in nature, such as the Coriolis Force which is observable on the surface of the Earth, that are macroscopic such that it is the environment that is accelerated instead of the observed objects.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">I don't agree. Coriolis forces are fictitious forces, not real changes of momentum (the definition of a force). They are illusions created by accelerations of the reference frame. All real forces, without exceptions (physically and logically), are carried by real, tangible entities. There are no magical forces in physics.

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Would you like to play a bit of "What if?" with me about gravitons not existing, or at least not existing as force propagating particles?<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">Particles or waves would be ordinary physics. Dual entities would be boring QM "hyperphysics". Anything else would be new physics. If you have such a concept that is not too "off the wall", bring it on.

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">[tvf]: For an orbiting body, kinetic energy and gravitational potential are continually being interchanged, in accord with the virial theorem.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">Doesn't this statement strike you as the least bit odd? The standard picture uses the mathematical 'trick' of gravitational potential energy, or the energy of position assigned to an object, in order to balance energy equations when we have a perfectly good angular momentum conservation that is founded in what is real?<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">I see nothing "odd" about energy and momentum conservation. So you will still have to elaborate exactly what is on your mind.

I see it this way. Consider a target body moving in what will turn out to be an elliptical orbit around a source mass. if a graviton wind blows toward a source mass, then the new momentum from that wind can increase the target body's speed as it "falls". That continues until the total speed causes the target body to pull away from the source mass faster than the graviton wind can make it fall, and the body begins to reach greater and greater distances in its orbit. The graviton wind then slows its total speed until it is insufficient to keep the body from resuming its fall toward the source mass, and the cycle continues.

Exchange of kinetic energy and gravitational potential. Works both ways. Ordinary, classical physics. Where's the mystery?

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">[tvf]: Graviton-produced chromosome damage? That's the risk of pickled gravitons.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">I see, perhaps someone will someday find a cure. Do you think it will hold up in court?<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">It will after the court orders a DNG test. No two pickled gravitons are exactly alike.

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">"The total angular momentum, including internal and external angular momenta, of every part of the universe is zero."<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">What about microscopic observers inside a spinning beach ball? Their universe would seem to have non-zero angular momentum, wouldn't it? -|Tom|-

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

Time to create page: 0.436 seconds