A different take on gravity

Stoat, I can see that you are trying to make sense, now, so I'll respond.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">As I'm saying that the speed of light squared, divided by the speed of gravity squared, equals h then of course I'm saying that h is a dimensionless number, a pure number. I take the blame for this idea.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

You are correct. However, I would advise you to choose another designation, besides lower case "h", when you are not referring to Planck's constant, which is not dimensionless. In this discussion, you seem to be confused by your own terminology. You don't know when "h" means (speed of gravity over speed of light)^2, when "h" means Planck's constant, or when "h" means twice the wavelength of the Higgs. That's what happens when you assign a new meaning to a commonly used symbol.

Stoat:24 Jun 2009 : 13:37:12 <blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">e^2 / barhc = 7.3E-3 fine structure constant, no units<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

Yes and no. The fine structure constant is a dimensionless constant. However, it is defined by e^2/(barhc 4pi episilon zero); "e" is electric charge (Coulombs), c is the speed of light (m/s), and "episilon zero" is the electric constant (whose units boil down to Farad/meter). The fine structure constant is dimensionless because the dimensions of its components cancel out.

Stoat:24 Jun 2009 : 13:37:12 <blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">me / mp = 0.54E-3 mass ratio of electron to proton, no units.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">Correct.

Stoat:24 Jun 2009 : 13:37:12 <blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Gmp^2 /ke^2 / = 8.08E-37 ratio of grav to elect force, no units (but I say that this becomes h, I can remove 2pi from it and use the reciprocal of the fine structure constant.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

G has units of m^3/kg/s^2. So Gmp has units of m^3/s^2. I'm not sure what the name of "k" is, so I don't know where to find its units. I shall attempt to apply common sense, as follows:

Gmp is the gravitational attraction (force) between a proton's mass and a kilogram of mass. Ke is the electrostatic repulsion (force) between a proton's charge and a Coulomb of charge. The forces cancel (except for the minus sign), so Gmp/ke has units of mass/charge. It is the ratio of the proton's mass in kilograms to its charge in Coulombs. Therefor, I tentatively conclude that Gmp^2/ke^2 is not dimensionless.

Stoat:24 Jun 2009 : 13:37:12 <blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">me c^3 /e^2 H = about 10.6E 39 age of universe in atomic units, again no units. <hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

I am clueless, here! Do you mean that the age of the universe is dimensionless? Doesn't time count as a dimension in your book? And what "atomic units" are you refering to? Are those units of time?

Now, c/H is the Hubble length, i.e., radius of visible universe. So (me c^3/e^2 H) reduces to (me c^2/e^2) times the Hubble length. And me c^2 is the energy equivalent, E, of an electron's mass. So me c^3/e^2H further reduces to E/e^2 times the Hubble length. E has units of energy (Joule); e has units of charge (Coulomb); so we end up with Joule meter / Coulomb^2. Can you show me how those units cancel to give you a dimensionless constant?

Stoat: 24 Jun 2009 : 13:37:12 <blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">8pi rho c^3 / 3 mp H^3 = 1.2E 78 no. of particles in the observable universe, again no units,<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

I'm guessing that rho is the average density of the observable universe, and it has units of kg/m^3; mp has units of kg; H has units of sec^-1.

So we have (kilogram/meter^3) (meter^3/second^3) / kg (sec^-3) = 1. Congratulations! This is a dimensionless constant. Can you give a source or an explanation, please, so we can be convinced that it is a reasonable approximation for the number of particles in the observable universe? In particular, I'm curious how you arrived at a known value for rho.

Fractal Foam Model of Universes: Creator

panteltje,

I want to go back to your original post so I am quoting it here.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by panteltje</i>
<br />I've been thinking about what gravity is so many times...

It seems to me now, that probably the closest thing that makes sense to *me*,
is the Le Sage model [1].
In the Le Sage model, very small particles are moving in every direction,
and pushing matter together.
There is a shadow effect where a mass is, as the mass absorbs ? some of those particles,
or changes their energy (speed?).

This is a well known model, and was rejected by mainstream science,
among other reasons because of the fact that those particles needed to be faster then light,
and also the mechanism of interaction is unknown..<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

Who says/said that the particles responsible for gravity had to be faster than light?


<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">My question to myself was:
"Where could such particles come from, and if this theory is true, what does it predict."

Now I proposed long time ago that those particles could originate in stars.
If so, then the universe would push itself apart faster and faster.
After I predicted that, the observation of an ever faster expanding universe was made.

But 'originate in stars' should show also a counter force close to the sun....
We do not seem to see much (or any) of that.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

Is this because of the equal and opposite reaction theorem of Newton?

What if the stars were created by and are continuously being supported (fed) by incoming particles (due to their geometrically central star-crossing positions in the cosmos), that over a long enough time build up to the point of pressure that they "ignited" or began to reflect or re-energize their compacted "mass" of particles, and the resultant light and solar winds <i>are</i> the counter force to the incoming particles that are the "gravitating" inward force. I see this occurring as an extreme delayed reaction of cosmic-ly stored energy eventually being released--not unlike how trees store the suns energy through a complex process of converting simple elements into more complex molecules which requires energy initially, but which holds those tenuous constructs for a while, only to later re-release the energy when burning and returning the component elements to their lower individual states.


<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">*However*, there is a funny thing with galaxies, and those seem to normally have
a black hole at the centre.

The effect observed seems to be, that stars further away from the centre move too fast for
their orbit around the centre [2].

My thought (now something new) is, that those stars at the outside do not move too fast,
but the stars at the centre move too slow, so we got the mass of the centre black hole wrong.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

I think what you must mean is that the ratio of the speed of the further stars to the closer stars is not compatible with a pulling notion of gravity originating from the center of the galaxy getting weaker as it gets further from the center.

However, what if the gravity force is originating from particles far outside the galaxy coming together toward the center of the galaxy because of its central location between the entire population of galaxies, just one of billions of such locations where other galaxies are also formed. Then, the force of the incoming particles that first encounters the outer most stars is going to be in some way the strongest and most energetic Gravity region coming into the galactic system. As the particles get closer to the center of the galaxy, they would encounter ever denser conditions that would cause their inward force to concentrate in pressure but also to slow down due to the higher density on average or the "thickening of space density" causing an increase in forward (toward the center) resistance.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">
To see this, suppose what would happen if those Le Sage particle originated in black holes.
First, to be able to leave the black hole, they would need to be faster then light.
Now there is your speed of gravity.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

I do not grasp this need for gravity to be supra-light-speed. Particles at velocities anywhere up to light speed would have ample enough energy and momentum acting together to account for the force exerted on material elements to push them into the center of gravity wells, e.g. planets, stars, moons or black holes--in other words, to account for gravity.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">
Such a black hole would be 'black' - not emitting any electromagnetic radiation -,
but emitting FTL Le Sage particles.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

If black holes at the center of galaxies were solely responsible for emitting all Le Sage gravity particles that are capable of pushing matter around, wouldn't the main thrust of gravity, then, have to be going outward from the center of the galaxy? How could that make any sense with what we observe?

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">
This would then provide the counter-force that the MOND theory [2] models mathematically,
and drop the need for 'dark matter' around the galaxy as a solution to the star speed there.
The universe would still push itself apart, and the source of the 'dark force' would be explained.

It also shows or predicts that gravity is not uniform, if you left the environment of galaxies
(so far out we cannot see), you would get a reduced, and possible directional, Le Sage field.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

If you just consider the straight forward outward direction of solar winds and stellar light, you already have organized, directional "Le Sage / Nicholson" gravitons, no need to go out beyond the edge of the universe nor to invent exotic particles that act in some unimaginable ways at impossible propagation speeds.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">
The more I think about this, the more I believe I am correct.
It would also explain why black holes have a maximum size, and do not keep on growing, the
counter force they generate sets a limit, a balance.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

Black holes could have a relative maximum size as a simple matter of reciprocation, though, too. They may be literally "pressured" into their incredible density by external forces that will eventually wane or taper off. When that happens the pressure begins to reverse and radiate out. Can you tell by looking at a photo of a distant galaxy whether it is growing bigger under inward pressure or throwing out matter by outward pressure? (I actually don't know the answer to this question, BTW)

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">
I do absolutely not believe in 'singularities' or 'infinities' in nature, and in the highly
compressed matter in the black holes for sure new physical processes unknown to us must happen.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

I think that I believe that our boundaries will continue to expand as we develop better tools to look further out and farther in with no end in either direction. Black holes may not be as mysterious as all that; they may be very similar to our perception of things outside just packed tighter, wound in a more organized way but analogous to life at the depths of the oceans with things that have adapted to life at such comparatively incredible pressures.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">
After nuclear fission, fusion, there is something creating an other radiation, gravity, Le Sage particles.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

In fact, perhaps, gravity is just part of a <i>cycle</i> where, gravity is the action of particles coming together, and this action "fuses" matter into existence until it no longer can (like the tide coming in as far as it can), and then the highly compressed matter eventually begins to come apart because the internal pressure to expand begins to exceed the external pressure that had forced it all together, and then the "weak force" --the outward force--radiates or throws off energy/partilces that will go out and contribute to the next generation of "gravitons." Just acting as vectors of momentum in Atomic and (at the same time) in Cosmic geometries. Very simple. No woo-woos. No whoop.


<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">
[1] en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Le_Sage's_theory_of_gravitation
[2] en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galaxy_rotation_curve
[3] en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modified_Newtonian_dynamics
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

Thanks for the links. What do you think?

Best Wishes, Aaron

<b>[Aaron]"Who says/said that the particles responsible for gravity had to be faster than light?</b>

This is a conclusion that comes to us from logic and observation.


<u>If:</u> gravity is caused by something, such as a particle, that moves from one mass to another

<u>Then:</u> some (speed dependent) amount of time must elapse as that particle travels the distance between the masses.

Even if we cannot actually detect the hypothetical gravity particle, we can observe the behavior of two masses as they respond to each other in the gravitational sense, and set a lower bound on the speed of propagation of the gravity particle.

===

We can detect photons and we know that they take 500 seconds to travel from Sol to Earth. That means that we see Sol in the sky where it was 500 seconds ago, not where it is now. The angle between these two positions is know to be 20 arc seconds (after correcting for Earths rotation - this effect is cause by Earth's orbital speed). This is a small angle and not easy to see visually but it is easily detectable with modern instruments.
<ul>
Luna has a visual diameter of about half a degree (but it varies as Luna's orbit varies).
One degree is 60 arc minutes, and 3600 (or 60 X 60) arc seconds.
So Luna's visual size is about 1800 to 1900 arc seconds.
</ul>
Sol appears to be about 20 / 1900 or 0.01 Lunar diameters behind where it really is. If Sol were a speck of light like Venus, and you had normal eyesight, you might be able to see the difference.

===

We can also measure the direction in the sky toward which Sol's gravitational force pulls Earth, and that direction is 20 arc seconds ahead of the visual sun (or zero arc seconds from where Sol really is). Obviously the hypothetical gravity particles travel faster than photons. (If they traveled slower, we would see Earth being pulled toward a spot in the sky behind the visual sun, and if they traveled at the same speed we would see Earth being pulled toward the same place in the sky as the visual sun.)

These angles are known as aberration angles, and mathematically they are (speedOfEarth)/speedOfGravity) and (speedOfEarth)/speedOfLight). The well known small angle approximation allows us to set a lower limit on the speed of the hypothetical gravity particle of 20 times the speed of light. Any proposed speed slower than this is falsified by observation, but it can be any speed faster than this and still match observation, because the angle (speedOfEarth)/(speedOfGravity) will still be zero.

Observations of other higher mass and faster orbiting objects, such as binary pulsars, have allowed us to observationally constrain the speed of gravity to a minimum value of 20 X 10^9 * c. The actual value is likely to be much higher.

GR attempts to get around this by proposing either:
<ul>
<li>gravity is not a real force and does not propagate (and thus behaves as if it propagates instantaneously), or
</li><li>gravity propagates at c, but behaves as if it propagates faster because it can extrapolate where the mass will be at later times.
</li></ul>

Obviously, there is room for skepticism here. How much difference is there, really, between "behaving" as if it moves faster than light and actually moving faster than light?

Regards,
LB

I've made several edits to my previous post, and I see now that I want to make one more. But rather than just edit it like did previously, I want to emphasize this change. So ...

[original sentence]
"Obviously, there is room for skepticism here. How much difference is there, <u>really</u>, between "behaving" as if it moves faster than light and actually moving faster than light?"

[edited sentence]
"Obviously, there is room for skepticism here. How much difference is there, <u>physically</u>, between "behaving" as if it moves faster than light and actually moving faster than light?

I changed one word. The from and to words are underlined. To me the difference is significant.

LB

Re: Larry's comments on Tom's gravitons moving ~20 billion times the speed of light theory

I admit I may be in over my head here but I've always found a possible flaw in this part of Tom's argument in his adaptation of the LaSage "pushing gravity" theory. I argued (with Tom and he shot my argument down of course) that we don't see a delay for the effects of gravity, as we do for light propagation, because the gravitons are impinging on the two "attracting" bodies from opposite directions, and they do so simultaneously. There is no need for them to (hypothetically) travel from one object to the other before the effect can be felt, as is the case with light or EM radiation. Gravity effects are felt immediately and constantly because new gravitons are always impinging on the objects from all directions with the net effect or force being felt from the opposite sides of the bodies pushing them together.

Theoretically, the speed of the "gravitons" could be anything, but it seems logical to me that elysons (elysium particles) are the likely agents of gravity, as they act in one of their several functions and move through space at roughly the speed of light. Just as gasses and air in general can be the medium for sound to travel in but also exerts pressure on objects, so too the aether or elysium. Just a thought. [Neil]

neilderosa: 28 Jun 2009 : 20:39:19: <blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Gravity effects are felt immediately and constantly because new gravitons are always impinging on the objects from all directions with the net effect or force being felt from the opposite sides of the bodies pushing them together.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">I would answer you by arguing that the "speed of dark" is the same as the speed of light. During a solar eclipse, there is a speed-of-light delay before the moon's shadow reaches Earth. If two masses shade one another from the background of gravitons, there must be a speed of gravity delay before each feels the arrival of that shade.

The net force due to the shade is responsible for the net push of gravity. In the middle of a cosmic void, the push of gravitons against a solitary mass is the same from all directions, so there is no net force. If a second mass suddenly appears and blocks a fraction of the gravitons from one direction, that shade would not be felt until the blocked gravitons fail to arrive at the first mass.

This principle is applicable in my own Fractal Foam model, even though my medium of gravity is ethereal pressure waves, rather than elastic particles.

Fractal Foam Model of Universes: Creator