Minimum range of gravity

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote><font size=2 face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>At what level (scale) does the force of gravity becomes irrelavant? It is commonly known (as far as I have it) that at atomic and subatomic levels the strong and weak nuclear forces are stronger than the effects of gravity (on objects of that scale)<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size=2 id=quote>

Gravity is the weakest of the four "fundamental forces" presently recognized by physics. It is 10^40 times weaker than the electrostatic force. However, gravity owes its dominance at our scale to the fact that most matter is electrostatically neutral (no net charge), whereas single structures may consist of almost 10^20 to 10^60 atoms all exerting gravity, making gravity the strongest overall force acting.

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote><font size=2 face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>I know the meta model has not extensively been extended into the quantum levels yet but are there any 'basic' explanations where these forces comes from? Perhaps a medium of particles on another scale like we have for the LCM for light?<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size=2 id=quote>

The book "Pushing Gravity" gives a complete model for gravitation, including its relation to the LCM. In this model, gravitons do provide another medium perhaps 20 orders of magnitude smaller than LCM constituents. The latter are already too small for present-day physics to detect. -|Tom|-

At 'molecule' level where groups of atoms 'stick' together I assume electrostatic still plays a larger role.

Another thing I was wondering about is in an environment like a massive star that has collapsed (but not black hole) the matter is squased and atomic particles are pressed together. Are there any substancial gravital effects on the atomic particles at some point?

thanks

Rudolf

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote><font size=2 face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>At 'molecule' level where groups of atoms 'stick' together I assume electrostatic still plays a larger role.<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size=2 id=quote>

Yes.

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote><font size=2 face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>Another thing I was wondering about is in an environment like a massive star that has collapsed (but not a black hole) the matter is squeezed and atomic particles are pressed together. Are there any substantial gravitational effects on the atomic particles at some point?<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size=2 id=quote>

Outside the collapsed star, the gravity field is quite strong, but nonetheless is weaker than it otherwise would be because gravitational shielding starts to set it. That is because not all "matter ingredients" can be reached by gravitons.

At a much smaller scale (for any body), the nuclei of all atoms are so dense that the gravitational fields outside those nuclei would be relatively strong. This would cause the elysium (LCM) outside the nuclei to be packed very densely, rather like a super-dense, extended atmosphere of the nucleus. This is apparently what gives matter wave-like properties, and is probably the mechanism behind proton charge. (The super-dense extended atmospheres of two protons would repel one another if they approached too closely.) However, putting these general ideas into a specific model that agrees with all experiments has not yet been done. -|Tom|-

Thanks again,

Are there any plans to extend the meta model to the quantum world? I believe the model would be more acceptable to the wider audience if 'more' things are explained - esspecially things other models already 'seem' to explain and work.

I also do not accept the geometry explanation of gravitational effects as such. To a similar degree the current explanations of quantum physics also seems too complex. Like the gravity model it seems more to describe the effects instead of 'explaining' the 'why' it works the way it does. Sure, explaining the effects help to predict certain other results but if we could have an understanding of why it works we can do so much more.

Just the thoughts of a layman

Rudolf

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote><font size=2 face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>[Rudolf]: Are there any plans to extend the meta model to the quantum world?<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size=2 id=quote>

The will is there. But the interpretation of many experiments is so ambiguous that one has almost no checkpoints to keep the modeling fully deductive. And as soon as one must make a guess, the odds (in my experience) are overwhelming that the guess will be wrong.

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote><font size=2 face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>if we could have an understanding of why it works we can do so much more.<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size=2 id=quote>

I'm sorry, but there are so many correspondents on this MB that I sometimes forget what background each one has. The "why" part is in <i>Pushing Gravity</i>. Have you not seen that, or did you find it wanting? -|Tom|-

I was merely refering in general that if you understand how something 'works' you (probably) have a better chance to manipulate or control it.

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote><font size=2 face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote> |Tom| ... the interpretation of many experiments is so ambiguous that one has almost no checkpoints to keep the modeling fully deductive. And as soon as one must make a guess, the odds (in my experience) are overwhelming that the guess will be wrong<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size=2 id=quote>

Perhaps that is the way to do it? Making 'calculated' guesses and bumping your head along the way until you have found the direction. On the way you probably will learn some more and go back to 'correct' yourself. Perhaps that is just the way I do things but there might be something helpfull in the idea. Again , just my thoughs.

I' still reading 'Pushing gravity'. Progress is slow due to personal time contraints but it is going. I would love to have read it completely by now.

thanks

Rudolf