A different take on gravity

>But if there is a force traveling around the cosmos at such fantastic speeds, shouldn't it push or accelerate particles or such to at least a fraction of this speed, well above the observed speed >limit of light. Is there any evidence

Well, a very good question in my view!!
Thinking about this, it seems the universe (as far as we can see or detect it) is expanding faster and faster.
maybe it simply has not existed long enough (since the big bang?) for that speed to be reached by matter in the form
of planets etc...
Small pieces of matter would have left that observable area long ago perhaps...
And how would you detect such a particle or object, even if it was radiating EM radiation, like heat or light,
because its radiation when the source leaves us FTL, would never reach us.

There is also an other issue with Le Sage type particles with a speed much bigger then c.
If those are of such a fine grain (so small), that they act even on the smallest particles
like quarks and electrons, is it those particle that keep those elementary particle together?
What I am trying to say is, that that the edge of the universe, if such a thing exists,
there would only be force from one side, the universe, not from the outside,
and would not the elementary particles we know, be blown apart,
because nothing would keep them pushed together?
What happens to 'absolute zero'... Is there a new state of matter.
It seems if you go smaller and smaller a whole new world of science may open.

Sure then also FTL communication should be possible, by modulating some property of the Le Saga particles,
say their intensity, or quantity, a detector at the other end of the galaxy could detect the variations
within a very short time, opening up the possibility, good or bad, for communication
between alien civilisations and us

We only have seen some big science advances in physics in the last say 200 years.
How little we know... and what is out there will very likely boggle the imagination

Aaron: Posted-30 May 2009: 12:35:14 <blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">But if there is a force traveling around the cosmos at such fantastic speeds, shouldn't it push or accelerate particles or such to at least a fraction of this speed, well above the observed speed limit of light. Is there any evidence of this? There should be, I think.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

Not if I am right about ethereal pressure waves and ethereal shear waves. There is no reason for exchange of momentum between speed-of-gravity pressure waves and speed-of-light shear waves to alter the speed of either. Perhaps the speed of pressure waves is determined by the inertial density and compressive modulus of the ether, while the speed of shear waves is determined by the inertial density and shear modulus of the ether. There might be an equivalency between the properties of density and modulus and the properties of permitivity and permeability---perhaps in the sense that x & y are equivalent to r & theta.

Massive particles are limitted by the speed of shear waves because they consist of shear waves orbiting one another under the influence of LeSage-type forces. The LeSage-type forces result from exchange of momentum between shear waves and pressure waves. Relative motion of the particle's center is necessarily slower than the speed of the constituent shear waves because the shear waves must follow a longer path than the center around which they orbit one another.

Thank you for your interest in my model. You are the first person to ask relevant questions about it, other than, "Ever think of writing fiction?" I prefer not to go too deeply into my model in the middle of someone else's discussion. I started my own thread Might all forces propagate a speed of gravity? last week. If you Google "Fractal Foam Model of Universes", you'll probably get a long list of nothing but my own rantings.

I will say this much, here:

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Am I understanding you correctly that when you refer to ". . . the speed of pressure waves is determined by the inertial density and compressive modulus of the ether." that you are making reference to the 20X10^9 c that Larry made mention of as the possible minimum velocity for the--what should we call it--transmission speed of Gravity.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

Yes, I am proposing that ethereal pressure waves propagate at the speed of gravity. VanFlandern's estimate, at least 20 billion c, sounds reasonable to me, though my mind has trouble imagining how pressure waves can be that much faster than shear waves. Perhaps pressure waves go directly across the voids of the ether foam, while shear waves follow the walls of the foam.

For the remainder of my response, go to Might all forces propagate a speed of gravity?

panteltje--

I would like to get back to you regarding Le Sage and, of course, prior to him, Nicolas Fatio de Duillier.

I have to admit that I have not spent enough time reading the theories of historical physicists, since I have tried to insulate myself from being overly influenced by anything other than first principle ideas to build a model from the ground up for how Energies, Masses and Forces could work in a unified way to describe physical interactions at every level from the sub-atomic to the cosmic.

So, after going to wikipedia and getting a brief introduction, I feared that I had been scoped three centuries ago. But alas, as you, too, seem to glean, they all lacked some very important elements to make the model viable. First off, where do these gravity causing corpuscles--today, we are more comfortable with the word 'particles'--come from? Also, where did these particles get their 'original' individual momentum?

However, here is the much more major oversight that Le Sage et. al. failed to realize. The movement of these player particles that bring about the inward force effect, that we call "gravity", are not moving about in an independently random and chaotic manner, as Le Sage proposed, but, rather, they could act, in fact, in very rigidly organized, geometric, straight-line, billiard ball like transferences of vector-type momentum as they leave one star in its stellar wind and eventually encounter the solar winds at all kinds of various geometric angles from all the other stars.

In my mind (and model) I have come to the conclusion, also--as you have, to look to the obvious--the tremendous powerhouses right in our faces, the sun and the other stars as the source and origin of a whole range of particles, including photons, that can or will, under the right configurations gravitate toward an equally opposing range or "field" of particles to act as "gravitons." This is because any particles with their own momentum that can be transferred to another particle or object--just "Ordinary particles" coming together in balanced opposition--is all that is needed to set up a "condition of Gravity" -- a surrounding field of force or individual "forces" concentrating their individual momentum contributions toward a common focal point or center.

There is no doubt that the stars are casting off enormous amounts of energy continuously, which after Einstein we can equate to a massive amount of, well,--Mass--being thrown off, that can be calculated and analyzed as a natural force pushing outward from each star. Each star producing a massive "pushing" force in all directions, but all perpendicular to their star's spherical surface--perfectly, simply, even beautifully geometrical.

Is this an "overlooked" Force distinction, perhaps? Not quite fitting into the usual Four forces, Gravity, Electro-Magnetic, the Strong or the Weak nuclear Force categories? Yet, the solar winds are so obviously an undeniable force and so easy to understand intuitively.

I would like to offer this working definition for gravitons, here, as: The physical materials/energies, in whatever form, that are responsible for the actual "pushing" force acting on other physical objects directed toward central geometrical focus points in three dimensional space/s.

This definition makes a subtle distinction between all the many similar-to-identical particle types zipping about but not participating in a gravitating situation, solely determined by their individual geometric vector orientations in any local space under consideration. So that, only those particles that are ultimately aiming at specific regions of space, where they will be met by an equal amount of opposing particles adequate enough to form a mutual barrier by the sheer number of collisions at such focal points, and only those particles or tiny bits alone will be contributing to the "gravitating" force at that particular location. All the other particles that miss or bypass these particular focal-blockading-density-centers will simply continue on their way, perhaps being slightly diverted if they come very close to the "gravity well," as so many incoming particles from all directions would create an accelerating particle density going into the focal center that appeared to Einstein as a "warping of space." Well, if the very density of particulate matter (or energy) varies continuously as an inverse square function of the the Radius approaching a Gravity Center, isn't that a way to understand the "warping of space" in a three dimensional way rather than a two dimensional metaphorical way as a trampoline with a bowling ball sitting in the middle of it? The path of any bypassing particles going through the greater density particle field that is incoming at a star or other large massive object could be "bent" by this great number of tiny bits heading directly or nearly directly into a local common center or focal point of a star or a planet or a galaxy .

There is nothing preventing any tiny bit from this mixture of cosmic particles, including photons, from colliding with another bit at any angle and each influencing the other, according to their own individual momentum. In fact, this is conceivably the normal condition for particles to push on each other and collide and pulverize each other just as particles do in our relatively puny (by the cosmic scale) particle colliders or "atom smashers."

Less energetic particles, having smaller or slower bits, would contribute less to the gravity effect (or the bending effect on bypassing particles) than would the larger or faster bits/particles/photons/etc., but each tiny bit will contribute to the overall net gravitating effect according to their own particular material physical potential or momentum.

There would naturally be a grand statistical averaging taking place throughout the entire process in which each tiny bit is just following its own path of least resistance.

In the very existing placement of the stars, there has to be statistically favored locations of denser balanced comings together of "light" as well as heavy/heavier particles. These resulting locations would manifest naturally as "gravitating" wells or depositories where tiny bits of matter will begin to collide and interact with the oncoming/incoming and opposing bits, thus, causing them to concentrate and compress, forming the associated inertial (locally constrained) "Mass" as a result of the tremendous concentrating of energy densities approaching the primary focal points or centers of all such naturally occurring locations.

All stars would then, themselves, be located at the centers of such focal crossings and must have been formed by this same geometrical focusing process, as we can witness from stars that are/were being "born" in the nebulous clouds of cosmic "stelar nurseries."

Even galaxies with their characteristic super massive black hole centers must be at the centers of even much more major cosmic geometric crossings or focal points, and new galaxies could/should be forming in the Dark spaces at various geometrically balanced positions in between the active "bright" galaxies.

The size of any particular gravity-well being determined purely by the overall force of the total combined number of balanced incoming tiny bits of momentum coming together per relative or comparable time at each location. So, that whether the gravity well forms a planet, a star or a galaxy depends on the rate and quantity of incoming tiny bits of momentum. This model of gravity can be seen or treated as a concentration of pressures levels, also, resulting from an ever increasing photonic density as the momentum from all the tiny bits from opposite directions focus tighter and tighter toward their mutual geometric center or focus point.

The initial level of denser concentration at these massive collision fields would most likely first "nucleate" only mutually repellent, slightly "massive", very fast moving particles--each pushing violently away from every other one. This would correspond to an electron plasma cloud. As the density continues to concentrate over time with more incoming bits being "trapped" or detained in the inner regions of the collision field over and above the number of bits that can rebound and escape the incoming onslaught, eventually the electron plasma becomes so pressurized and densely populated with "electrons" that a secondary nucleation begins to take place forming larger more relatively stationary nuclei that would correspond to Protons.

Over time, the central density of every gravity "well" just continues to increase along with the photonic pressure levels (the density and pressure go hand in hand, really) as you get closer to the center of their focus point.

Once the collision field cloud becomes saturated with protons, then the protons begin to reflect as much momentum inward as they reflect outward, thus beginning the third level of nucleation corresponding to a massive amount of completely enclosed tiny bits of momentum approximately equal to the mass of a proton, that we call the neutron. Since it is completely enclosed, it contributes only mass to the nucleus but no additional outward electrical force, charge or "photonic pressure."

This concentration of photonic pressure should continue from the very first few balanced collision field collisions into eventually forming electrons then protons, then neutrons, then second electrons and second protons, and on and on up the periodic chart, as simply, a building up / stacking up of gravitating pressure levels one on top of another on top of another--all driven by the massive energy output of the stars solar winds colliding irresistibly with each other.

Although, there is another Geometric factor that could account for an even faster and more stable progression in the building up of heavier elements. That is, that there could be multiple equally balanced opposing solar wind directions at very particular locations especially in the regions close to stars where planetary orbits are located, resulting in instant balances of three directions and four directions and five directions, etc. as "sets of Probability" within the larger overall field of averaged photonic pressure, with each progressional balanced configuration corresponding to the next element on the periodic table. In this model the heavy elements form not so much from the left overs of stars going super-nova and imploding to produce heavier elements, (although, that action could account for some of the heavy elements, also) but, rather, gradually and continuously forming in the deep interiors of planet's gravitational pressures just because this is where all these massive numbers of various particles manifesting as "gravitons" are caught between a star's expanding solar wind and the entire expanse of the cosmos's incoming solar winds. These are the very same cosmic winds that are and were originally coming together to compress the star into a star at its precise location in the first place. Gravitons include the entire conglomerate of particles that contribute any amount of caught, trapped or bounded momentum to the location where they come together in a balanced way. They most reasonably have a maximum velocity of light speed, due to the fact that they could be, to a large extent, mostly comprised of photons. (Next we will have to take a new look at photons,)

But I do believe that the "shadowing" of gravitons that Le Sage proposed by large masses, is nevertheless still defendable as a secondary effect between two large bodies that are close to each other, explaining the reason that the Earth's tides are in sync with the moon's relative position, due to the shadowing of particles that would have otherwise contributed their momentum to the "gravity" force from that (the Moon's) direction, now being blocked or absorbed by the moon, before they can reach the Earth.

I really want to show you how this statistical/geometric approach would work at the atomic formation level as an atomic model, as well, with photons coming together to form electron density clouds as a first step. Then this electron plasma gets pushed further together until it begins to nucleate as a natural path of least resistance organization to form denser centers as protons with an outward resistance to the inward pressure of the electron density plasma and finally to a pressure level that completely encloses an equal amount of mass (to the proton) internally so that it cannot react directly with the electron level making it neutral--a "neutron" Electrons pushing inward, protons resisting outward--on the one hand, and densely inward on the other hand, enclosing an equal mass or a Plank amount of photonic momentum trapped within as the Neutron. This is kind of repeating what I said earlier, but I believe that it bears repeating.

And then we can look at how light conforms to the same kind of geometric constraints to repeat patterns of coming together and separating to maintain perfect patterns across the entire expanse of the universe by interacting reciprocally with other photons. This is really cool. You are going to love it.

Best Wishes, Aaron

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Aaron:
However, here is the much more major oversight that Le Sage et. al. failed to realize. The movement of these player particles that bring about the inward force effect, that we call "gravity", are not moving about in an independently random and chaotic manner, as Le Sage proposed, but, rather, they could act, in fact, in very rigidly organized, geometric, straight-line, billiard ball like transferences of vector-type momentum as they leave one star in its stellar wind and eventually encounter the solar winds at all kinds of various geometric angles from all the other stars. <hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">


If a star or black hole were a net source of gravitons, as you seem to be suggesting, then all other objects would be pushed away from that source by antigravity. Therefor, no object which has positive mass can be a net source of gravitons. The solar wind is know to be made up of ordinary matter which is pushed toward other matter by gravitons.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Aaron:
Is this an "overlooked" Force distinction, perhaps? Not quite fitting into the usual Four forces, Gravity, Electro-Magnetic, the Strong or the Weak nuclear Force categories? Yet, the solar winds are so obviously an undeniable force and so easy to understand intuitively.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

The force exherted by the solar wind is extremely small compared to the sun's graviational attraction, and it is in the opposite direction. You seem to be saying that a component of the solar wind, which fails to push planets away from its own star is somehow responsible for pushing far away planets toward other stars. That makes no sense to me, at all.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Aaron:
Well, if the very density of particulate matter (or energy) varies continuously as an inverse square function of the the Radius approaching a Gravity Center, isn't that a way to understand the "warping of space" in a three dimensional way rather than a two dimensional metaphorical way as a trampoline with a bowling ball sitting in the middle of it? <hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

Warped space is not a cause of gravity; it is a mathematical description of the effect of gravity. 3D space is not warped; 4D space-time is warped. That is a direct consequence of the definition of Minkowski space-time, in which photons follow straight lines by definition. Looking a photon trajectories in 3D space, they are curved. A photon changes direction in 3D space as it passes a star. Since the photon has momentum in the direction of its travel, and that direction changes, the photon's momentum changes. If momentum is conserved, a change of the photon's momentum requires an equal and opposite change of the star's momentum. Therefore, a photon has gravitational mass in 3D space. In general relativity, a photon has no mass; evidently, mass doesn't have its old familiar meaning in general relativity.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Aaron:
Gravitons include the entire conglomerate of particles that contribute any amount of caught, trapped or bounded momentum to the location where they come together in a balanced way. They most reasonably have a maximum velocity of light speed, due to the fact that they could be, to a large extent, mostly comprised of photons. <hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

If gravitons move at the speed of light, they should push the Earth toward where the sun was eight minutes ago; that is the direction from which gravitons from behind the sun are blocked. As VanFlandern argued, the sun's gravity would pull the planets into higher and higher orbits, soon hurling them completely out of the solar system. The speed of gravity has to be at least 20 billion times faster than light.

VanFlandern's argument is intuitively obvious. I confess that I am no mathematician; I am unable to understand or refute Kopeikin's and Carlip's arguments to the contrary. I recommend you study the [url=:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Speed_of_gravity:]discussion page[/url] for Wikipedia's article on "Speed of Gravity". At present, the speed of gravity = the speed of light arguments dominate the Wiki article. They have swept VanFlandern under the rug. Perhaps you can explain explain Carlip's and Kopeikin's arguments to me in plain English, and I will then abandom this sinking ship.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Aaron:
But I do believe that the "shadowing" of gravitons that Le Sage proposed by large masses, is nevertheless still defendable....<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

LeSage "shadowing" is predicated upon gravitons which move many times faster than light and which bounce off of massive particles in the manner of perfectly elastic spheres. If gravitons move at the speed of light, they simply don't have enough momentum to account for gravity. Besides, random scattering, alone, produces zero net force between massive particles. To understand that, imagine being in a perfectly white room with two silver spheres suspended from the ceiling. If you are wearing a white suit with only a small opening for your eyes, the spheres will be invisible to you, except for the reflection of your eye opening. You won't see one invisible sphere reflected by the other invisible sphere.

For gravitons to produce a net force between two particles, some of the gravitons must be absorbed. If gravitons move 20 billion times faster than light, the amount of energy absorbed in a picosecond would be equivalent to the mass of the particles. VanFlandern proposed that the energy of the few absorbed gravitons is transferred, via the elysium, to the many scattered gravitons. Slabinski calculated that for each absorbed gravition, the energy must be transferred to at least 10^20 scattered gravitons.

For my own part, I don't understand VanFlandern's elysium, nor do I see any need for it. In my own model, both momentum and energy balance in each individual collision. There is no absorption or scattering; instead, there is a very small nonrandom deflection of pressure waves when they pass thru shear waves in the solid ether. The pressure waves move at the speed of gravity, and the shear waves move at the speed of light; so the deflection of the shear wave is at least 20 billion times grater than that of the pressure wave. These deflections are non-random because they depend on wavelength, phase and polartiy.

One shear wave may look like a bright source of pressure waves from one direction and like a pressure-wave shadow from another direction. Therefor, shear waves may feel either attraction or repulsion to one another. Attractive forces result in the formation of particles which are orbiting pairs or groups of shear waves, orbiting converts their energy to mass. Each particly type is a strange attractor in the chaotic mix of pressure and shear waves.

As shear waves orbit one another, their individual patterns of brighter and darker aspect, against the otherwise random sea of pressure waves, becomes spun into some sort of conical pattern. Different conical patterns interact with one another in various ways, accounting for all the forces of nature---not just gravity.

Unfortunately, it will take many minds greater than mine to work out the details of each particle and the forces among them.



Fractal Foam Model of Universes: Creator

<b>[PhilJ] "For my own part, I don't understand Van Flandern's elysium, nor do I see any need for it."</b>

See if this helps. It is a (probably over) simplified summary of the Deep Reality explanation of gravity.

Observed gravitational effects fall into two categories. Primary (Newtonian) and secondary (Einsteinian).
<ul><li>The primary observed effect is the behavior we usually refer to as an attractive force. Mathematically this is a 1/r^2 phenomenon.</li>
<li>The secondary observed effects are things like EM wave bending near a large mass, the velocity dependent slowing of clocks that use EM wave phenomena to keep time, the slowing of those same kinds of clocks near large masses (even if not moving) and the perihelion advance of the planets, especially Mercury. Mathematically these are 1/r phenomena.
</li></ul>

Gravitational potential is the integral of gravitational force. Force (1/r^2) integrates to potential (1/r). Alternately force is the derivative of potential. Potential (1/r) differentiates to force (1/r^2). Mathematically the two process are inverses of each other and it is OK to go either way. Physically it makes a difference. The mainstream point of view is that potential creates force. The Deep Reality view is that force creates potential. Which view you hold makes a difference in how you think about things.

All of these secondary gravitational effects are obviously related to EM waves except for the perihelion advance. It is also related to EM waves, but indirectly and not in such an obvious way.

A universal field of very small and very fast particles nicely accounts for the the primary effect of gravitational attraction, but not for the observed secondary effects. This is part of why elysium is needed.

A second universal field of particles (elysons), also very small but larger than gravitons and slower than gravitons, does account for them. The speed of any given elyson relative to a gravitating mass can be as small as zero. Elysons are subject to gravitational force and therefore become more dense near a mass and less dense in open space. Mathematically that density is a 1/r phenomenon, so Elysium is the physical embodiment of the gravitational potential field. Space and time and space-time are concepts. Physical things cannot warp them. But a field of particles can be "warped" (made more dense or less dense) by a physical thing like a mass. The mainstream's concept of a warped "space-time continuum" becomes both the concept and the physical reality of the elysium in DRP. Space-time &lt;=&gt; elysium &lt;=&gt; gravitational potential field.

And besides, since light propagates as a wave rather than as a particle we need a field of particles for it to "wave in".

Like I said, this a summary of what is happening at the physical level (with a little very basic math to help). For more details go to the Home page and follow the Cosmology tab, then the Gravity tab, to see a list of papers (some published in mainstream journals) and articles Tom wrote on these topics.

Regards,
LB