# Fw: Gravity Carrier - could gravity be push with shadows not pull?

From: Eric Cavalcanti <eric.domain.name.hidden>
Date: Thu, 26 Feb 2004 10:18:36 -0300

Hi there,

Well, it is a good try, but it has been proven wrong already indeed.
To see a better refutal, see Feynman's popular book 'QED'.
For instance, that theory seems even better once you realize that it
also acounts for the inverse-square law.
But the main flaw, if I recall it, is that objects moving around in space
would feel a larger flux of 'iGravitons' coming against the direction
of movement, causing a decrease in velocity. So much for inertia...

-Eric.

> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Eric Hawthorne" <egh.domain.name.hidden>
> To: <everything-list.domain.name.hidden>
> Sent: Thursday, February 26, 2004 6:46 AM
> Subject: Re: Gravity Carrier - could gravity be push with shadows not
pull?
>
>
> > 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.
> > 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 - 08:21:35 PST

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