A different take on gravity

>To be fair, panteltje did mention a repulsive effect if stars are a source of gravitons in his opening post. But he seems to have misplaced that understanding by the time he gets to "black holes". >Curious.
Yes, I did mention the repulsive force, and that is the whole essence of it.
When you look at pictures of the centre of galaxies, what do you see?
You see a cloud of bright starts or gas, not a dark dot.
The question is then, does that stuff orbit - or just hang around, the 'black hole'
that is supposed to be there.
Look here for example::
www.solstation.com/x-objects/cenbulge.htm
Now there it mentions jets are spit OUT of that region, and I sort of suspect or think
that there is an area of maximum pressure, where the Le Sage particles from all the rest
of the universe hit the le Sage particles generated in the processes within that area that we do not
understand yet, but FTL particles, so in THAT area of maximum pressure stars are formed,
and those are then sprinkled out -like a garden sprinkler sprinkles water around-
to form the 'arms' of the galaxy.
This would also match the fact that the outer stars in the galaxy are found to be orbiting 'too fast',
as the situation is opposite, the inner stars are orbiting too slow , as they got the mass of that
'hole' wrong, because how did they infer that mass? You guessed it, from the speed of those stars ...
So that for a short answer.
Also note that we are talking in the realm of faster then light particles,
sure a hole that is black in the EM spectrum could still exist perhaps, but it would still emit FTL
Le Sage particles.

<b>[panteltje] = "The question is then, does that stuff orbit - or just hang around, the 'black hole' that is supposed to be there."</b>

The evidence - doppler analysis - suggests orbiting at specific speeds. This is also how we are able to estimate the <u>gravitational</u> mass of the central "object". Wheteher or not its <u>inertial</u> mass is the same is an open question.

===

OK. Your physical model is making some predictions here. Now is the time to generate some math models from your physical model to see how well it works. Note that you cannot just blindly use existing math models because they are likely to be based on different physical assumptions. At the very least you need to show that existing math is valid for your physical model.

---
Prediction - the central mass concentration in our galaxy is an intense source of classical gravitons.

Finish working out the physical model. IOW, work out the physical consequences of this, then generate math models to make some detailed projections of what we ought to see. Compare both physical and mathematical models to observation.

For example, suppose this central mass is the only graviton source between here and the next galaxy. This means that

<ul><li>most of that volume of space is flooded with the normal omni-directional flux of gravitons</li>
<li>the very much smaller volume of space near the central mass is flooded with a radially outward flux of gravitons</li>
<li>At some distance from the central mass I would expect to see a "balance point" (actually, a spherical-shell-shaped region) between these two very different flux fields. (This sounds sort of like your "maximum pressure" area in some ways.)</li>
<li>Outside this distance other masses would experience a normal attractive force. [note that a good case can be made for using existing math, with some adjustments when near the balance distance, in this region outside the balance zone]</li>
<li>Inside this distance other masses would experience a repulsive force</li>
<li>At (or very near) this distance other masses would experience little or no force.</li></ul>
Now suppose that there are other graviton sources that are closer than the next galactic core. Perhaps even within our own galaxy, but not noticed because they do not have a near by high concentration of stars to mark them? How does this change the physical model? What do those changes imply for the mathematical models that now come from the physical model?

Or, might there be physical reasons to preclude such large masses outside of a galactic core?



---
Prediction - galactic jets spew out stars like a water hose spews out drops of water, and this is the source of the spiral arms.

Finish working out the physical model, then let it lead you to the math models that can make detailed predictions, and compare both with observation.

For example, such jets are almost always observed to be aligned - approximately - with the rotational axis of the galaxy that generates them. For your idea to be correct shouldn't they be aligned with the rotational equator of the galaxy? And shouldn't we actually see a spiral arm attached to the end of most jets?


This prediction seems to be a non-starter even before going to the math toolbox, but I have spent very little time thinking about it. Perhaps you have thought of something I did not?

&gt;Prediction - galactic jets spew out stars like a water hose spews out drops of water, and this is the source of the spiral arms.
&gt;Finish working out the physical model, then let it lead you to the math models that can make detailed predictions, and compare both with observation.
&gt;For example, such jets are almost always observed to be aligned - approximately - with the rotational axis of the galaxy that generates them. For your idea to be correct shouldn't they be aligned with the rotational equator of the gal
&gt;
&gt;This prediction seems to be a non-starter even before going to the math toolbox, but I have spent very little time thinking about it. Perhaps you have thought of something I did no

Yes, good questions.
One remark, you were referring to 'gravitons'.
I know nothing about gravitons, those seem to be a particle proposed by physics, but how they define those I dunno.
Le Sage particles could perhaps be a totally different thing, as physics seems to have rejected those (Feynman thought about it).
So I call them Le Sage particles, to give credit to the person who came up with that idea, a shadowing type of gravity.

Then I am no physicist, and no mathematician either.
I am rather old, and the school days are long gone, but I am active in a totally different field, electronics, now
there we work with electrons, particles you cannot see either, so at that level I know
what I am talking about, but hey, if you ask a physicist what exactly 'charge' is, or what the true size of an electron is,
not even mentioning the particle wave duality... the photon.. then already you get back so much
'dunno', crap, confusion... so I prefer not to venture into that,
especially as they say nothing goes faster then light, all their math is based on it, so full circle.
As to predictions: This model I proposed as a solution to what we observe, predicts an ever faster expanding universe,
one that pushes itself apart.
That already brings back the big bang subject, 'why did that bang explode anyways?'
Why would such a singularly all of the sudden explode?
And what about that funny inflation tinkering they do to make their models fit observation?

An other thing the model I propose explains, is the anomality in the motion of the outer stars.
It could also be that after stars are spit out by the jets from the centre that they die after some time in the ends
of the spiral arms, like water falls on the ground in the garden sprinkler after some distance, and form a ring of darker
(cool not visible in telescopes) matter there... again contributing to the speed of the outer stars.

How the jets are aligned is clearly shown in that picture I gave a link to, somebody in the sci.physics newsgroup
proposed there could be matter -antimatter reactions happening in the centre, and the opposite polarities generated
could push things apart... but that was nothing I could think of.

I think the first we will have to do is see if we can detect this kind of Le Sage particle, FTL particle.
It should be many many times faster then 'light' waves propagate.... and would explain the speed of gravity.

I thought quite a few memory cycles about how to build a detector that would
show those particles, but always I could also explain what you see in such a detector by normal gravity.
It is however very possible that there exists a reaction (nuclear or anti-matter matter) where these
Le Sage particles are emitted, just like neutrinos are emitted in some nuclear reactions....

Or send a probe to the centre of the galaxy to measure forces there.....
But that will not arrive in our lifetime, unless we invent some new propulsion, FTL propulsion.
and that chance is especially small as physics already has decided FTL is not possible it seems.
Sure QM effects can only be explained by something with a speed many orders of magnitude bigger then C.....
but how many hundreds of years will it take before people will step over Einstein's dogma and accept FTL particles?
This is an other reason for now to stay clear of any math, mathematics is a model in our mind
of what we think reality is.
If you then start working with that model, you get wormholes and singularities, but beware, those
are fragments of the human imagination, math is not reality, we need to measure and test,
and update and correct out models all the time.
What good is an observation if the data is after that 'corrected' so it fits relativity?
So that it then proves relativity is right?
Seems sort of fraudulent proof to me
So all I wanted to do was point to some idea how it perhaps *can* be, only experiment
will test theories like that, send a probe...
I do not claim it *is* that way, but it sure does make nice predictions.

<b>[JAaronNicholson] "I believe that this is all the particulate matter necessary to account for the effect of gravity without the need for finding some new or exotic particle or corpuscles to be responsible for Gravity ...</b>

None of the known subatomic particles are even remotely small enough to be responsible for the observed properties of gravitational force. If gravity is caused by a flux of particles, those particles must me so small that they pass through normal matter with only a tiny fraction of them ever interacting with that matter.

Neutrinos are the only known particle that has a property like this, but there are not any where near enough of them to generate an obsevable force. Neutrons are stopped cold by no more than a few hundred to a few thousand kilometers of dirt. The rest are stopped by a few meters of dirt or less.

If gravitational force is caused by a particle flux, those gravitons do in fact have to be "new" and "exotic".

<b>"... as is sub-light to light speed velocities sufficient without the need for super light speed gravity, ..."</b>

The observed properties of gravitational force, if that force is caused by a flux of particles, rule out any velocity for those particles that is less than 20 X 10^9 times the speed of light. It can be, and probably is, much faster than this.

This lower limit is set by observation of binary pulsars a few thousand light years from us. If the gravitons traveled any slower we would observe these pulsars spiraling outward from each other.

LB

Larry, Thank you for responding to my post.

Larry Burford:
<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">
None of the known subatomic particles are even remotely small enough to be responsible for the observed properties of gravitational force. If gravity is caused by a flux of particles, those particles must me so small that they pass through normal matter with only a tiny fraction of them ever interacting with that matter.

Neutrinos are the only known particle that has a property like this, but there are not any where near enough of them to generate an obsevable force. Neutrons are stopped cold by no more than a few hundred to a few thousand kilometers of dirt. The rest are stopped by a few meters of dirt or less.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

Exactly, Gravity interacts with even the air molecules within the atmosphere and the water molecules in the ocean as well as all the other heavier elements, and this is what creates the inward gravitational "pressure" of molecule to molecule toward the center, just as the pressure increases as one goes deeper in the ocean.

It is an additive effect.

The Force eventually reaches the center, but only by transference and the stacking of a tiny push on top of a tiny push on top of a tiny push, but all directed toward a common center of balanced pushes or pressures from all directions towards the statistically balanced center.

Some smaller particles, in the photon range, of course, can and do penetrate through otherwise solid material like radio waves, X-rays, even Infra-red (heat). The fact that they do not all completely just pass through us is the very reason why we are "pinned" to the surface or the Planet by them--why we "feel" gravity at all.

So, these are not new or exotic or unknown particles or energies, although they can be extremely varied in size and individual force, and this "common particle" accumulation would also account for the gradual build up of the Earth's (any planet's) crust over the centuries.

Larry: <blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">
If gravitational force is caused by a particle flux, those gravitons do in fact have to be "new" and "exotic". <hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

<b>"... as is sub-light to light speed velocities sufficient without the need for super light speed gravity, ..."</b> -- Me, Aaron

The force of a single cosmic particle entering the upper atmosphere can be like the force of a fast hard ball, I recently read somewhere. That is sub-light speed, and enough of those would surely be "felt" as something like if not exactly like Gravity. And these are being observed already.

Larry: <blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">
The observed properties of gravitational force, if that force is caused by a flux of particles, rule out any velocity for those particles that is less than 20 X 10^9 times the speed of light. It can be, and probably is, much faster than this.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

I cannot imagine the power or force that an alpha or Beta particle entering the upper atmosphere at 20 X 10^9 c would have, but it sounds pretty dangerous to me, if such speeds are even obtainable for common particles.

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.

Larry:<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">
This lower limit (20 X 10^9 times the speed of light) is set by observation of binary pulsars a few thousand light years from us. If the gravitons traveled any slower we would observe these pulsars spiraling outward from each other.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

This is very intriguing (and disturbing) to me. I would like to better understand the thinking behind this final statement. Can you point me in the right direction, at least, where I can read more about these observations and this interpretation.

Warmly, Aaron

Follow the link labeled "Home" at the top of this page.

On the home page you will find a tab labeled "Cosmology"

On the cosmology page you will find a tab labeled "Gravity"

Along the left side of the gravity page is a list of the titles of articles and papers dealing with various aspects of the phenomenon we refer to as gravity. You will probably find all of them interesting but I suggest you start with the ones that specifically address the speed question, since that seems to have gotten your attention.

There are also two books that go into more detail. <i>Dark Matter, Missing Planets and New Comets</i> by Tom Van Flandern is aimed at the less technical audience (almost no math) but still manages to do an excellent job of teaching you how the universe actually works. Gravity is included, but many other phenomena are also explained.

<i>Pushing Gravity</i> (edited by Mathew Edwards) is a collection of papers on gravity by a variety of authors. Many of them are more technical in nature, but they give one a good overview of several related approaches to the question of what gravitational force is and more importantly how it works.

Regards,
LB