- Contemporary messages sorted: [ by date ] [ by thread ] [ by subject ] [ by author ] [ by messages with attachments ]

From: Eric Hawthorne <egh.domain.name.hidden>

Date: Thu, 26 Feb 2004 01:46:30 -0800

Caveat: This post will likely demonstrate my complete lack of advanced

physics education.

But here goes anyway.

Is it possible to model gravity as space being filled with an

all-directional flux of "inverse gravitons"? These would be

particles which:

1. Zoom around EVERYWHERE with a uniform distribution of velocities (up

to C in any direction).

2. Interact weakly with matter, imparting a small momentum to matter (in

the direction that the "iGraviton"

was moving) should they collide with a matter particle. The momentum

comes at the cost that the

"iGraviton" which collided with mass either disappears or at least

reduces its velocity relative

to the mass's velocity.

So note that:

1. If there was just a single mass, it would not receive any net

momentum by collisions from iGravitons

because iGravitons with an even distribution of velocities impact it

from all sides with equal probability,

no matter what the mass's velocity. (This is true because C is the same

for each mass no matter how

it's travelling, so "even distribution of velocities up to C" is also

the same from the perspective of each

mass regardless of its velocity.

2. If two masses are near each other, they shadow each other from the

flux of iGravitons which

would otherwise be impacting them from the direction in between them.

This shadowing would

be proportional to the inverse square of the distances between the

masses, and would be proportional

to the probability of each mass colliding with (i.e. absorbing)

iGravitons, and this probability would

be proportional to the amount of each mass.

(So the iGraviton shadow between the masses would have properties like a

gravitational field).

3. The mutual shadowing from momentum-imparting flux from all directions

means that net momentum

would be imparted on the masses toward each other (by nothing other than

the usual collisions

with iGravitons from all other directions.)

4. The deficit of iGravitons (or deficit in velocity of them) in between

absorbtive masses

could be viewed as inward curvature of space-time in that region. Amount

or velocity distribution

of iGraviton flux in a region could correspond in some way with the

dimensionality of space in that region.

I find this theory appealing because

1. it's fundamental assumption for causation of gravity is simple (a

uniformly-distributed-in-velocity-and-density

flux of space-involved (i.e. space-defining) particles.)

2. The paucity of iGravitons (or high iGraviton velocities) in a region

corresponding to inward-curving space

is an appealingly direct analogy. You can visualize iGravitons as

"puffing up" space and a lack of them

causing space there to sag in on itself.

I'd be willing to bet that someone has thought of this long before and

that it's been proven that

the math doesn't work out for it. Has anyone heard of anything like

this? Is it proven silly already?

Cheers,

Eric

Received on Thu Feb 26 2004 - 04:51:55 PST

Date: Thu, 26 Feb 2004 01:46:30 -0800

Caveat: This post will likely demonstrate my complete lack of advanced

physics education.

But here goes anyway.

Is it possible to model gravity as space being filled with an

all-directional flux of "inverse gravitons"? These would be

particles which:

1. Zoom around EVERYWHERE with a uniform distribution of velocities (up

to C in any direction).

2. Interact weakly with matter, imparting a small momentum to matter (in

the direction that the "iGraviton"

was moving) should they collide with a matter particle. The momentum

comes at the cost that the

"iGraviton" which collided with mass either disappears or at least

reduces its velocity relative

to the mass's velocity.

So note that:

1. If there was just a single mass, it would not receive any net

momentum by collisions from iGravitons

because iGravitons with an even distribution of velocities impact it

from all sides with equal probability,

no matter what the mass's velocity. (This is true because C is the same

for each mass no matter how

it's travelling, so "even distribution of velocities up to C" is also

the same from the perspective of each

mass regardless of its velocity.

2. If two masses are near each other, they shadow each other from the

flux of iGravitons which

would otherwise be impacting them from the direction in between them.

This shadowing would

be proportional to the inverse square of the distances between the

masses, and would be proportional

to the probability of each mass colliding with (i.e. absorbing)

iGravitons, and this probability would

be proportional to the amount of each mass.

(So the iGraviton shadow between the masses would have properties like a

gravitational field).

3. The mutual shadowing from momentum-imparting flux from all directions

means that net momentum

would be imparted on the masses toward each other (by nothing other than

the usual collisions

with iGravitons from all other directions.)

4. The deficit of iGravitons (or deficit in velocity of them) in between

absorbtive masses

could be viewed as inward curvature of space-time in that region. Amount

or velocity distribution

of iGraviton flux in a region could correspond in some way with the

dimensionality of space in that region.

I find this theory appealing because

1. it's fundamental assumption for causation of gravity is simple (a

uniformly-distributed-in-velocity-and-density

flux of space-involved (i.e. space-defining) particles.)

2. The paucity of iGravitons (or high iGraviton velocities) in a region

corresponding to inward-curving space

is an appealingly direct analogy. You can visualize iGravitons as

"puffing up" space and a lack of them

causing space there to sag in on itself.

I'd be willing to bet that someone has thought of this long before and

that it's been proven that

the math doesn't work out for it. Has anyone heard of anything like

this? Is it proven silly already?

Cheers,

Eric

Received on Thu Feb 26 2004 - 04:51:55 PST

*
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.0
: Fri Feb 16 2018 - 13:20:09 PST
*