pushing gravity

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by modu</i>
<br />any idea or theory of what gravitons are made of: ie is it matter or energy, if its matter will it be a kind of new unkown matter?<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">This presumes there is some important difference between "matter" and "energy". But fundamentally, energy is just matter in motion, even if the matter bits are often too small to be detected.

When working on scales much smaller than we can presently resolve (molecules, atoms, quarks), I customarily speak of "substance" as the generalization of matter. In a universe that is infinite in scale, molecules, atoms, and quarks are infinitely divisible; and galaxy superclusters, great walls, and other large scale structures are infinitely assemblable. There are no limits to the size of structures or components.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">what cause gravitons to move at the first place (impact on earth), if they found all over the visible universe, why dont they just seat there, like a big lake?<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">Your question presumes there is some "absolute space" to provide meaning to the idea of "rest". But in infinite-universe cosmologies such as the Meta Model, there is no such thing. So everything is in motion with respect to other things, and nothing is more "at rest" than something else except in a relative sense.

The graviton "sea" is more like an atmosphere than an ocean. Individual gravitons fly around at ultra-fast speeds (at least 20 billion times faster than the speed of light), much as air molecules fly around at high speed in an atmosphere usually "at rest" with respect to us.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">i'm sure much if not all of my qustion will become clearer if i read your book, so again any idea if i can get hold of it outside the USA?<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">The book would indeed help because it explains the Meta Model cosmology from first principles. You can then see that these ideas are not assumptions but deductions from first principles. The on-line store for this web site at metaresearch.org/home/store/advanced/default.asp will enable you to order my book (among others) to be sent anywhere in the world. Internet book stores such as Amazon.com can do the same. -|Tom|-

Hi Tom
I wasnt thinking of absolute space or absolute rest, my qustion is why gravitons are not at rest in our (earth or any other body) frame of reference. in other words, if they "fly around at ultra-fast speeds" all around us shouldnt the forcess balance out? i am awere of the argument that earth block some of the gravitons coming from bellow (so to speake), but dosent taht require all or most gravitons to have a direction towards earth or to converge at any given point in space.
one other qustion that come to mind is that in order for earth to minimise "push gravity" by blocking some of the gravitons, one need to allow for accumulation of forcess between gravitons, very much like in newtonian gravity, is that the case?

modu

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by modu</i>
<br />I wasn't thinking of absolute space or absolute rest, my question is why gravitons are not at rest in our (earth or any other body) frame of reference. in other words, if they "fly around at ultra-fast speeds" all around us shouldn't the forces balance out?<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">I don't understand what you are thinking. What forces? If such forces existed, wouldn't the air molecules in our atmosphere now all be at rest?

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">I am aware of the argument that earth blocks some of the gravitons coming from below (so to speak), but doesn't that require all or most gravitons to have a direction towards earth or to converge at any given point in space?<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">No. It just means that, of all the gravitons that were on a collision course with an apple from all directions, all of them coming from above do hit the apple, whereas some of the gravitons approaching from below get blocked and absorbed by the Earth and so do not hit the apple. These missing graviton collisions with the apple create a net downward push on the apple.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">One other question that comes to mind is that in order for earth to minimize "push gravity" by blocking some of the gravitons, one needs to allow for accumulation of forces between gravitons, very much like in Newtonian gravity. Is that the case?<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">What forces between gravitons? The gravitons create Newtonian gravity between larger bodies. There is no mysterious pulling force reaching out from all matter. So there is no gravity between gravitons. -|Tom|-

TVF

I was thinking about the sizes of nuclei.
If an atom was the size of the Houston Astrodome, then its nucleus would be the size of a pea? Lets call the pea the chance of it being hit by a graviton. We can understand that it would be a small chance indeed, but lets stack a bunch of atoms (Astrodomes) 8000 miles on top of each other, but not directly on top of each other so that the each nucleus (pea) isn't in direct alignment. Don't know how many atoms stacked to 8000 miles would come to (big number), but wouldn't you think the chances that a graviton hits a nucleus are pretty good as it travels through earth? We would be talking about trillions of peas in an Astrodome .. would we not?

hi Tom
sorry about the misunderstanding, which again arise from not knowing the exact mechanical of your theory, i am ordering your book and hopefully it will help, until such time i hope you'll take your time to clarify one more point.
i think my mistake arised from assuming that the gravitons in your theory, extracted certain pushing force or field, that acted on other bodies, from what i understand from your latest reply is that gravitons are actualy particles moving throgh space and their actual impact its what causing the "apple" to be pushed, vary much like one throwing a ball at an object, is that correct?
once more thanks for your time

modu

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by Skarp</i>
<br />Lets call the pea [inside the Houston Astrodome] the chance of [an atom] being hit by a graviton.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">Okay for discussion purposes. However, this greatly exaggerates the real chances of a graviton hitting something solid because the nucleus of the atom, much like a real pea, only appears to be solid but is actually mostly empty space.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">wouldn't you think the chances that a graviton hits a nucleus are pretty good as it travels through earth?<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">Quantum physics already recognizes that neutrinos are so small that they mostly fly through the entire Earth without noticing. Gravitons are roughly a million times smaller than neutrinos. An observer on a graviton flying through the Earth would feel like an astronaut on a spacecraft flying on a random course through the Galaxy. It would be rare when he came close enough to a star to even see its disk, let alone collide with one. -|Tom|-