Gravitational lensing

The explanation for Graviational lensing is in fact one of the best supports of the MM in my opinion. Remember that in the MM that the LCM is composed of matter ingredients which are opaque to CG's (classical gravitons). The congregation of the LCM around stars and other high mass bodies due to pushing by the CG's causes an increase in the density of the LCM from that of surrounding space. The differences in density act as a lens causing the observed red shift. I hope this helps, Mark

EBTX,

What Mark said, plus one more detail ...

[EBTX] "How does a graviton go in a curved path ... "

Gravitons don't move in curved paths. But they do cause photons to do so (indirectly, via their effect on the LCM). Just like a glass lens causes photons to move in curved paths without itself moving in curved paths.

LB

Scale matters a great deal in this discussion. The theorized size of the graviton being much smaller than the photon. The photon would appear to be mostly empty space from the viewpoint of a graviton, just as the atom is mostly empty space if viewed from the point of view of a photon. The CG is passing though the photons and whacking the MI's of the LCM which gets forced up against the massive body in question.
I am curious how the magnetic field of a star may affect the LCM and if support for the MM can be gathered from testing congregation of the LCM due to magnetic effects. If a connection between gravitational effects and magnetic effects can be identified in the human frame of reference, then one of the major identifiers for Relativity will be unsupported and lend weight to the MM. Cheers, MV

I think part of the problem with magnetic fields is they may not be dense enough. If we could use magnetism to trap some sort of radiation in a containment, we could probably create a field which has a low density by the measurement of conventional attractive gravity, but a relatively immense resistance to classical gravitons. Imagine it like a sheet of plastic, and gravitons like water. It wouldn't be drawn down much by attractive gravity simply because it's density is so low, and it's mass is low too, but it's good at stopping the water, so the water being sprayed at it would push it much harder than something like window screen. It's not a great analogy, but I think maybe you can see what I'm getting at....

Maybe somehow if we could compress a magnetic field though.... maybe then we could use it much the same way by itself. I think there was a lot of research done on that very thing in the development of nuclear weapons. I'm sure there's a huge amount of data out there on it. The compression would have to be immense to get the flux density so high that you'd have any real significant increase in graviton intradiction. I think even if we ever could fabricate something that stopped 1% of all gravitons that hit it, it would have an effective mass unlike anything we've ever constructed. Maybe I'm misunderstanding the hit/miss ratio though.

"Regret can only change the future" -Me