Speed of gravity

[EWright]

So then the gravitons do or do not leave their source and then return to it again with the thing that was more distant???

[alxian]

matter sponges up ambient gravity radiation, where its more noticeable in larger quantities of matter?

[damocles]

Previous in response to Bobby:

 

Quote:

Damocles; Speculations to various:

 

1. If gravitation is a particle wave phenomenon(boson transmitted binding force) then it is an experimentally observed propogating force with the suspected properties of;

 

a. range limitation,

b. bounded velocity limit,

c. density of interaction(gravitons per cubic volume of space proportional to the original mass particle pairs, triplets, quadruplets, etc.....).

d a dynamic tractor that proportionally directly delimits the rate and shape of spatial expansion caused by electromagnetism.

e. and paired with the action of light pressure determines the passage of information(time) through the static(volume) properties of space-time.

 

Could ( a ) through ( e ) be true even if gravitation is not a particle?

 

No.(see below)

 

 

Gravitation is the process, The graviton is the suspected particle.

And no gravitation is not some phenomenon independent of the class of phenomena known as binding forces. Here is why;

 

For gravitation to exhibit the property of retardation and to transfer angular momentum, there must be some kind of force transference mechanism that operates between the paired masses. We see it in the simplest of observed gravitational effects, the distortion of fluids' shapes due to the orbiting of masses that we call "tides".

 

Quote:

That refutes instantly the notion that the graviton is;

 

a. symmetric,

b, polarizable in the sense of possessing paired properties such as charge, spin, etc.

c. inhibitable by any screening effect.

d. or is its own anti-force(as you can find in electro-magnetism. in the form of symmetric ant-particles with opposite charge pairs.)

 

That means to me that gravity should indeed move through space as a force.

 

To wit;

 

Quote:

That there should be a retardation effect(angular momentum transfer) caused by its upper velocity bounding.

 

That there is some limiter that introduces gravitational drag is observed by the fact that it takes time for things to "fall'.

 

Could you expound on retardation effect and angular momentum transfer?

 

 

Simple. Gravitational drag slows. Gravitation applies a drag to a massive object pairs'' spin that slows it down(that we see and measure over time) and balances out the angular momentum in the paired system by proportionally equalizing the angular momentum within the system based on the relative mass ratios of the tractored mass pairs. If gravitation's effect was instantaneous, there would be no tides, or inverse square law effect either, or lateral variability in tractor "field" strength as proportional to distance that you could measure at a distance. It would be instantaneous and thus would;

 

a. require a binding force far more powerful than electro-magnetism.

b. render any time delta that relies on the property of "volume" impossible to measure since the measured gravitational effect is instantaneous instead of delayed.

c. would close space to a point geometry due to a. and b.

 

Nevertheless gravitation defines the shape of space, even though it is a retarding binding force and thus it is obvious to me;

 

Quote:

That gravity should distort space, itself, as its waves pass through space.

And that it is gravity and electromagnetism that defines the shape and density of mass on the macro-scale as it is the strong and weak nuclear forces that define it on the microscale in spacetime..

 

How do the strong and weak forces define spacetime on the microscale?

 

Quickly:

 

http://web.mit.edu/murj/www/Features/Feat5/m5flpun.pdf

 

The SNF defines the permissible quark bundlings that shape the minimum volume of neutrons. protons, and similar particles and contributes to how those particles clump.

 

The Weak Force

 

http://www.nationmaster.com/encyclopedia/Weak-nuclear-force

 

defines the range limit at which particles can be affected so it like the SNF defines individual hadron volume to its maximum.

 

Quote:

That gravity and electromagnetism should be considered as operating as force pairs instead of in splendid isolation from each other when trying to cobble together GUT theories.

 

Which I observe, as those are the two macro-scale binding forces that distribute mass and volume through space, as well as control all physical vectors currently observ ed outside the influence range of the SNF and the WNF.

 

I'm not sure I agree, but it is an interesting view.

 

This observation is clear enough to me; since electromagnetism is the well known long range inflation mechanism for space, while gravitation is the long range mass concentration mechanism within that inflated space.

[Erasmus00]

So then the gravitons do or do not leave their source and then return to it again with the thing that was more distant???

 

No, they do not. At least, not in the way quantum field theory would have them. Like photons, they travel between the source and the object the source is attracting.

-Will

[Southtown]

No, they do not. At least, not in the way quantum field theory would have them. Like photons, they travel between the source and the object the source is attracting.

-Will

I think he understands that you're saying they travel outward. He's asking what force is transmitted by gravitons to constitute a negative propulsion.

[EWright]

i'm saying that for gravitons to be emmitted as a wave or a particle, it seems they must be 'bi-directional'. Photons, for example, are emitted but they never return to their source. They head out in one direction indefinitely, being altered in their course only by strong gravitational influences. If they encounter something they'd be more apt to push it along (ie, solar sail) than to attract that object.

 

Gravitons or gravity waves, on the other hand, seem as thought they must be emitted from a source (hence travel away from it), find the source they wish to attract, reverse their momentum which is thought to travel at c, and return that object to the source. I'm sure I just don't understand the nature of how gravitons or gravity waves are expected to work in this sense, but if someone could explain that or how they're not expeted to -go out, latch on, and return- i'd appreciate it.

 

Thanks

[damocles]

I suspect that the graviton action is not a standard one way gauge boson emission from and too; but is actually a pair exchange between two tractored masses with the gravitons passing each other in transit between the two masses.

[Southtown]

Is there any contradictory evidence to a theory depicting a gravitational field as a "local deficit" in energy density? Kind of like the difference in the size of a mass body and the former volume of (lesser dense) energy that the mass is made of... This would make it instantaneous of course, but the quasar measurement of gravity at c was in dispute, last I heard. It would also mean that ED doesn't even itself out...

[damocles]

Is there any contradictory evidence to a theory depicting a gravitational field as a "local deficit" in energy density? Kind of like the difference in the size of a mass body and the former volume of (lesser dense) energy that the mass is made of... This would make it instantaneous of course, but the quasar measurement of gravity at c was in dispute, last I heard. It would also mean that ED doesn't even itself out...

 

By Southtown

 

 

Wouldn't the implicit assumption underlying your speculation that gravitation is not always directly proportional to observed mass density per given volume of space(defined as radian distance delta measured as time from observer to event set) violate the principle of information conservation? That binding force doesn't mysteriously vanish. It has to either be present in proportionality to mass observed or it has to manifest itself as something else(another force) to not violate the conservation prionciple.

 

So, lets look at some crackpots;

 

http://philsci-archive.pitt.edu/archive/00001365/01/THE_HOLOGRAM_MODEL.pdf

 

http://www.iisc.ernet.in/pramana/dec1999/c10.pdf

 

as they discuss topological defects in space time mimicing "local energy deficit" observations

 

Of course there are limits to the scale at which we can measure any information-especially gravitationally transmitted information,

 

http://arxiv.org/pdf/quant-ph/0505064

 

which is restricted to about Planck length and to a time interval of events that equates to no more than roughly 10^125+/-10^5 operations since original force discontinuity.

 

For some speculations as to what this means;

 

http://everythingforever.com/pdf/cosmicabsolutes.pdf

 

which seems to imply that gravitation per volume decreases over time as something(an inflationary force) expands the volume of space.

 

I don't agree with that interpretation. I suspect that we are witnessing the breaking of a brane boundary that causes gravitation to appear to decay, but we are misinterpretating the observation.

[Southtown]

Could that coinside with an exponentially decreasing speed of light? Widly distorting everything from the age of the universe, speed of observed events, and redshift, to atomic clocks and radio-isotope dating?

 

http://www.setterfield.org/recent.htm#zperedshiftandexpansion

[Erasmus00]

Could that coinside with an exponentially decreasing speed of light? Widly distorting everything from the age of the universe, speed of observed events, and redshift, to atomic clocks and radio-isotope dating?

 

http://www.setterfield.org/recent.htm#zperedshiftandexpansion

 

Setterfield simply isn't good science. I suggest getting a good grip on modern physics before venturing into "alternative" territory.

-Will

[Southtown]

Setterfield simply isn't good science. I suggest getting a good grip on modern physics before venturing into "alternative" territory.

-Will

I'll venture where I please, not where I'm told.

[Erasmus00]

I'll venture where I please, not where I'm told.

 

Only trying to help. It's easy to get mislead if you don't have your feet firmly planted.

 

edit: Here is the ICR on Setterfield's idea of c decay: http://www.icr.org/index.php?module=articles&action=view&ID=283

 

-Will

[Bobby]

Originally Posted by Erasmus00

Setterfield simply isn't good science. I suggest getting a good grip on modern physics before venturing into "alternative" territory.

-Will

 

 

I'll venture where I please, not where I'm told.

 

 

Hmmm. It appears to me that Will could have chosen different words to express his opinion, but what's done is what's done.

 

"There is a saying I like that goes something like this ===> "If you can't convince them with logic, then dazzle them with Bull ****". Many people on boards like this seem to have a compulsion be make themselves out to be something they are not. They make up some wild *** idea and wrap some bad science around it and hope to impress others with their genius. IMO, the best way to spot these pretenders is to develope at good, basic understanding of physics. Then, when they try to throw you Bull ****, you can spot it right away. It appears to me that this Setterfield fellow fits the above very well.

[Southtown]

edit: Here is the ICR on Setterfield's idea of c decay: http://www.icr.org/index.php?module...ion=view&ID=283

Then, when they try to throw you Bull ****, you can spot it right away. It appears to me that this Setterfield fellow fits the above very well.

Answers, now I can live with answers. Thank you both very much. I am asking these radical questions in a science forum where I expect to get serious answers, and I would be shocked and amazed to receive anything but negative responses. I expect only seriousness. Forgive me, but my learning is severely limited since I have neither the time nor money for a doctorate. My curiosity persists, nonetheless.

[Bobby]

Answers, now I can live with answers. Thank you both very much. I am asking these radical questions in a science forum where I expect to get serious answers, and I would be shocked and amazed to receive anything but negative responses. I expect only seriousness. Forgive me, but my learning is severely limited since I have neither the time nor money for a doctorate. My curiosity persists, nonetheless.

 

 

LOL. If you needed a PHD to get a basic understanding of physics, there would be no boards such as this. A high school physics book would be nice as would knowledge of high school math. I am always open to questions or discussions on physics. I can be reached at [email protected]. If you are a member of AOL, check out the research and learn board "Anything Goes Science"

[nkt]

I am afraid I must agree with all three of you.

 

You need a sound understanding of what you are looking at before you can validate or refute the ideas of others, and so you should be wary where you read things, and factor your level of knowledge into it, as well as the knowledge of those supporting that idea (or, more often, that person - it's an important difference!)

 

I've argued with groups of "betters" and "peers" and often been the only person who was correct, despite the arguements of other "experts".

 

I once spent two hours argueing that sodium metal could be induced to explode on contact with water. The school science teacher in the group insisted it was impossible, and that it would only burn - and he had done the experiments to prove it! But, of course, he was wrong, as I demonstrated the following week. If you want more recent proof, search for "sodium lake" on Google, and watch the videos.

 

Perceived wisdom is often wrong. Look to good science to show you results, and look to yourself to understand them, and the weight they should be accorded.

 

Unless it is evolution, in which case, it is a FACT! ;-)