C-Graviton Inertial Mass Augmentation

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by DAVID</i>
<br />And the earth not moving out of place, when hit by a single pebble, we perceive as “inertia”. Is that right?<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">That is indeed the right idea, and you explained it very well. -|Tom|-

Sorry, but I'm still under severe time constraints. This may have to be my last comment in this thread for a while, unless there is some very short follow-up I can make.<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by kcody</i><br />by deduction, a force applied to a single molecule has no dilution, and thus no measurable effects of inertia?<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">No. I used "molecule" as a metaphor. You have read about the Meta Model, so you would know the correct term is "matter ingredient".

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">How about a single atom, or a single particle of the light carrying medium, or even a single C-Graviton colliding with another. Do they not display apparent resistance to acceleration?<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">Yes, it's the same as for larger bodies for all forces except gravity.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">All the transparency principle says is that there are so many collisions per unit time that the effects seem uniform at the -large- scale.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">No, the transparency principle says that a particular force (gravity) is able to accelerate each and every matter ingredient (MI) separately and independently from each other MI. So there is no need for any MI to share its changed momentum with its neighbors, and the force is not "diluted" by sharing. It is only dilution of force by sharing that appears to us like resistance to acceleration, as David so eloquently explained.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">This would seem to give rise to a "sea" of such density as to actually affect the passage of any significantly larger particles. Is this property observed?<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">Gravitons do not "have gravity"; they <i>are</i> gravitational force carriers. The momentum they share is the product of a very tiny mass and a very large speed -- not less than 20 billion times faster than light.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">What gives rise to the actual -amount- of force required to accelerate a real object to an arbitrary velocity, regardless of delivery?<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">Each graviton has a mass and speed, and its momentum is transferred to any MI that it collides with. The rate of such collisions gives the time rate of change of momentum for the MI, which is a force by definition. -|Tom|-

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by tvanflandern</i>
<br /><blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by DAVID</i>
<br />And the earth not moving out of place, when hit by a single pebble, we perceive as “inertia”. Is that right?<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">That is indeed the right idea, and you explained it very well. -|Tom|-
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

I think your idea about the reason for “inertia” is the best explanation I’ve ever heard.

I'll try to wrap this up succinctly:

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by tvanflandern</i>
Gravitons do not "have gravity"; they <i>are</i> gravitational force carriers.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

I do not claim otherwise. I claim that C-Gravitons do other things consequent to their existence besides provide gravitational attraction between macroscopic objects.


Ruminating over this discussion has led to the realization, I've been confusing two concepts; both labeled 'Inertia'. One of those is a feeling of resistance, the other is a mathematical relation between force and acceleration.

I'm sensing some frustration on all sides of this discussion that I'm just not getting it, and my 'thinko' is looking like a likely culprit. I'm feeling the same frustration, that my point is being missed thanks to some real swift communication blunders on my part.

As to the first 'inertia' concept: The transparency principle explains this completely and exactly. 'Feeling' is something our nervous system does in response to physical stimulae, in this case the distention of structure to distribute externally applied force. We're not actually feeling the inertia - we're feeling the mechanical stress caused by bearing the external force unevenly through the thickness of our body.

The second 'inertia' concept, the one we usually think of in 'F=ma', is what I'm trying to drive at. There has been some thought that the rest mass of an object is not necessarily constant, such as in Mach's Principle.

I propose a possible explanation of such behavior, deriving by logical deduction from C-Graviton theory. For readability, I'm going to start over with what's published about C-Gravitons, and deduce from there.

Note, I'm describing a behavior that has nothing at all to do with gravitational attraction, so let's assume we're deep in intergalactic space, and that C-Gravitons behave the same way there as they do here.

You said it in your last reply, C-gravitons have speed and mass. They are therefore particles. They affect matter ingredients by colliding with them at extreme speed, but most gravitons don't collide with any MI's on their way through any given macroscopic object.

I've previously deduced that there must be a great many C-gravitons present per unit volume if substantially all matter ingredients are hit, and yet most gravitons hit nothing. I've yet to see a rebuttal.

I've also deduced that these numerous C-gravitons cannot be coming from a point source; if they were, all MI's would be pushed away from that source. No rebuttal yet here either.

For so many C-gravitons to be going nowhere in particular at such speeds, they must be colliding with each other like molecules in a chamber of compressed gas. Indeed, the book postulates that gravity has no effect beyond a certain distance due to C-gravitons colliding with each other.

Temperature is usually defined as a measure of particle collisions per unit time in the region being measured. It follows that any given region of C-gravitons has a 'temperature', and presumably a 'pressure'.

The deduction that C-Gravitons must move like particles in a gas implies that a sufficiently large group of them should obey the same laws as any other gas, or variable-density fluid - is that an unreasonable leap?

If that is reasonable, then a macroscopic object moving through such a medium should be slowed by outright resistance. The magnitude of such an effect would be proportional to the density of the medium, and to the surface area of the object. In our case the surface area would be the summation of the leading and trailing faces of the matter ingredients comprising the object.

Thus, there should be a region of compression ahead of the object, and a region of rarefaction behind it. There should also be some kind of circlation to restore equilibrium after the object has passed. Everyone's seen this effect, it's a wake. Boats, jets, and spacecraft alike leave them even with the engine turned off. Why should this medium be any different?

Finally, there should be back-pressure when the parameters of that circulation are changed suddenly, such as when the object accelerates; and a larger effect when its acceleration changes sharply.

The above deductions about the CG medium, if all correct, lead me to the following two conclusions; both (hopefully) clearer ways of saying what I've been trying to get at all along:

1) There is a component of an object's rest mass that derives from the fluid resistance of the nearby C-Graviton medium, probably quite a small one but real nevertheless; and

2) That component is most influential during changes of acceleration.


Hopefully I haven't studdered so badly that I've already been judged a crackpot. Calling this thread the 'origin of inertia' was surely a poor choice of name. It might be better named something like, 'C-Graviton Inertial Mass Augmentation?' or something like that.

I can only apologize, and say that I hadn't caught the thinko at the time I made the first post. I should further confess that the idea wasn't fully developed when this discussion began. I can also be fairly sure that this discussion led to the idea's refinement.


Some direct responses for tvanflandern:

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by tvanflandern</i>
No. I used "molecule" as a metaphor. You have read about the Meta Model, so you would know the correct term is "matter ingredient".<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

Wasn't picking on your choice of words, but rather on the idea that C-graviton bombardment wouldn't distend even a singleton MI, or any other particle at any other size - even a C-Graviton should be distended when impacted by another. But, presumably, neither can "feel", so arguing whether it feels distended is moot; and shape shouldn't have any effect on rest mass, either.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">How about a single atom, or a single particle of the light carrying medium, or even a single C-Graviton colliding with another. Do they not display apparent resistance to acceleration?<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">Yes, it's the same as for larger bodies for all forces except gravity.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

I'm not dealing with the "force of gravity", but with the force of a C-Graviton colliding with something. Individually, I mean. This seems like a point where my thinko has left its mark. Even though any size of MI seems like it should distend when impacted, all MI's in an object would do so uniformly, and the effects of distention would not be felt at larger scales.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">So there is no need for any MI to share its changed momentum with its neighbors, and the force is not "diluted" by sharing. It is only dilution of force by sharing that appears to us like resistance to acceleration, as David so eloquently explained.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

I think this is the two-concepts-of-inertia thinko at work again, because I agree fully with what you said, and still think it has little bearing on the argument I'm (amateurishly) trying to present.
In that light, David's eloquence applies to the perception-based definition of inertia.

To accurately reword what another says is to prove understanding, so: Dilution in this context seems to mean mechanical transfer of force to anything physically connected to the particular MI acted upon by a given external force. The structural distortion caused by this mechanical transfer is responsible for the perception of resistance to acceleration, whether the accelerating body is the human that perceives, or the object with which the human interacts. If every connected MI receives an external force, no distortion occurs.

Note, it seems self-evident that 'not quite all' MI's in a given object would be struck. If I'm even close to right about gas-like behaviors, then the law of averages applies - there must be a few MI's that get missed, and another few involved in an inordinate number of collisions.

This gives rise to a very slight distention due to C-Graviton impact, but would be proportional only to the mean density of the local CG medium, and would have nothing to do with whether an object was in another's shadow.

Thanks for taking a good look at this. If I've erred in this revision, I hope you have the time to point out exactly where. I appreciate the time you've spent already - hopefully in the future I can communicate an idea using less of it.

Finally, if all I've done is prove that I'm incapable of reason, then someone please say so before I blow my money on higher education.

- Kevin

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by kcody</i>
<br />I've previously deduced that there must be a great many C-gravitons present per unit volume if substantially all matter ingredients are hit, and yet most gravitons hit nothing.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">Your statement omits the time factor. Yes, many CGs are present, but each for only the briefest, fleeting moment of time. The unit volume retains it "empty" look and feel.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">[CGs] must be colliding with each other like molecules in a chamber of compressed gas.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">True. But the mean distance any one CG travels before it hits another is 1-2 kpc, over 10^16 km.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">If that is reasonable, then a macroscopic object moving through such a medium should be slowed by outright resistance.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">CG drag on macroscopic bodies is discussed, and constraints on it worked out, in Slabinksi's article in the book <i>Pushing Gravity</i>. The same article appears on our "Gravity" CD.

Yes, drag exists, but its amount is still too small to be detected by our most sensitive experiments. CD drag force has a more important counterpart in "drag" by the elysium medium ("elysium" is called LCM in my book), which is responsible for such effects as perihelion advance for orbits.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Dilution in this context seems to mean mechanical transfer of force to anything physically connected to the particular MI acted upon by a given external force. The structural distortion caused by this mechanical transfer is responsible for the perception of resistance to acceleration, whether the accelerating body is the human that perceives, or the object with which the human interacts. If every connected MI receives an external force, no distortion occurs.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">Yes, this seems about right. I'd prefer to say that resistance to acceleration arises from the the need for every MI acted on by a force to share its new momentum with many other MIs, rather than to say it is from structural distortion. I see the latter as the vehicle for sharing momentum rather than as the cause of inertia. But to some extent, the two are inseparable, so this may be just a semantic quibble.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Note, it seems self-evident that 'not quite all' MI's in a given object would be struck. If I'm even close to right about gas-like behaviors, then the law of averages applies - there must be a few MI's that get missed, and another few involved in an inordinate number of collisions.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">Again, you overlook the time variable. Integrated over even rather short time intervals, every MI is struck so many times that each is hit in statistically equal amounts.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Finally, if all I've done is prove that I'm incapable of reason, then someone please say so before I blow my money on higher education.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">You are doing fine. You may want to select teachers with the patience to answer questions. Not all of them have it. -|Tom|-

Tom,

Flipping back through your book on my lunch hour, I came across the section where you anticipated the fluid-behavior objection to the C-Graviton model. That turned on the proverbial light, that you might be interpreting my questions as a revisit to those challenges.

I'm not challenging the CG model. I'm embracing it on its virtues of logical deduction and abhorrence of "magic". I don't feel the need to prove something beyond doubt before entertaining it seriously. I have no vested interest at all in any existing theory, except the one that happens to represent our universe. You have stated the hope that the Meta Model will be extended to other areas of physical science. I'm just trying to run down one small such area.

Put another way: the theory fits, so I'll wear it.

I understand that the behaviors and effects I'm arguing for are miniscule to say the least. I'm fully expecting a two or three digit negative number in the tens' exponent - but the effects are nonzero, and that's what counts. Small effects can be exploited repeatedly to achieve a larger effect. CG theory itself depends on that principle.

So, with that in mind, one more round of responses:

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by tvanflandern</i>
<br /><blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by kcody</i>
<br />I've previously deduced that there must be a great many C-gravitons present per unit volume if substantially all matter ingredients are hit, and yet most gravitons hit nothing.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">Your statement omits the time factor. Yes, many CGs are present, but each for only the briefest, fleeting moment of time. The unit volume retains it "empty" look and feel.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

My next thought is that it doesn't matter if it's the *same* CG's present from one point in time to the next, there are still always many present to participate in collisions.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">[CGs] must be colliding with each other like molecules in a chamber of compressed gas.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">True. But the mean distance any one CG travels before it hits another is 1-2 kpc, over 10^16 km.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

Should that affect the number of collisions occurring in any given volume per unit time? I suggest not; for any given point in space there are an infinite number of points 1-2kpc away, in three dimensions. The mean distance between collisions should be more applicable to the pure particle-driven gravitational attraction effect than to any medium-like behaviors.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Yes, drag exists, but its amount is still too small to be detected by our most sensitive experiments. CD drag force has a more important counterpart in "drag" by the elysium medium ("elysium" is called LCM in my book), which is responsible for such effects as perihelion advance for orbits.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

I'm looking for evidence of gas-like behavior, so I'll take that as agreement that such behaviors exist <i>in very very small amounts</i>. It goes without saying that any plain drag effect from the CG medium must be too small to be observed, except maybe at intergalactic distances.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Yes, this seems about right. I'd prefer to say that resistance to acceleration arises from the the need for every MI acted on by a force to share its new momentum with many other MIs, rather than to say it is from structural distortion. I see the latter as the vehicle for sharing momentum rather than as the cause of inertia. But to some extent, the two are inseparable, so this may be just a semantic quibble.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

Semantic quibble, or that same thinko again? Your wording seems to describe more clearly why the pebble thrown at the earth does not significantly accelerate the earth; mine seems to address why a person feels flattened into their seat when they stomp on the accelerator, and why that pebble would shatter if thrown at an airless planet.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Again, you overlook the time variable. Integrated over even rather short time intervals, every MI is struck so many times that each is hit in statistically equal amounts.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

Accepted that no such effect would be observed at any time scale we humans can perceive. But the integral working out to zero doesn't mean that each point on the graph is zero, just that the areas between the line and the axis <i>add</i> to zero.

Looking at a scale of time meaningful to individual C-Gravitons, or perhaps the time it takes for most MI's in an object to be hit once, shouldn't such distention exist? Therefore, shouldn't there be secondary effects, such as creating heat from friction between MI's? Could this add up enough to explain Jupiter giving off more heat than it seems to receive? Could it serve as one possible trigger for a planetary explosion event. if the planet is almost ready to pop?

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">You are doing fine. You may want to select teachers with the patience to answer questions. Not all of them have it. -|Tom|-<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

Thank you Sir. Don't suppose you teach somewhere?

Also, that book you mentioned - "Pushing Gravity" - doesn't seem to be anywhere in the eastern Massachusetts inter-library system. Do you have an ISBN, so I'm sure I have the right book?

- Kevin