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

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.
*

*> > 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 - 08:21:35 PST

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.

pull?

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
*