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

From: Eric Cavalcanti <eric.domain.name.hidden>
Date: Thu, 26 Feb 2004 19:40:41 -0300

Oops, I realize that it wasn't in 'QED' but in the 'Lectures' that I
read that...

----- Original Message -----
From: "Eric Cavalcanti" <eric.domain.name.hidden>
To: <everything-list.domain.name.hidden>
Sent: Thursday, February 26, 2004 10:18 AM
Subject: Fw: Gravity Carrier - could gravity be push with shadows not pull?


> 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 - 17:49:27 PST