No such animal as Proton Rest Mass

This is probably total rubbish but even rubbish can be interesting[8D] The speed of light can be slowed in the space of gravitational mass. So I wondered just how transparent a body was to gravitons doing 20 billion c. So I gave my graviton a negative refractive index, so that the radius I came up with would be positive. The sun was my target body. I get a radius of about 10 to the minus 7 metres as the radius. So, a graviton can plough through a sun with little chance of energy scatter.

A bit more think about this. i suppose what I'm getting at, is that the Le Sage graviton shadow, is extremely small. The earth is tied to the sun by a "wire " of "space" that is 5000th of a mm in diameter, even less at the earth. This wouldn't be "empty," as near light speed gravitons could live in it.

Just love the idea of it all being tied together with string[8D][]

hf/hf = 1-1/eta** = 2GM/rC**

The hf bit should have subscripts to show the energy ratio but I don't know how to show them.

Some people might wonder, why use a negative refractive index here, when the universe has a speed limit of 20 billion c. The answer is that doing it in terms of light speed doesn't matter, and it is easier to put this into a formulae that is familiar for contracted forms.

For those that may think negative refractive indexes are not possible, it has to be said that the r.i. can be expressed in terms of permitivity and permeability, both can be negative because we a re dealing with complex roots.

Read this on neg refractive metamaterials. The part on negative space is interesting.

www.aip.org/pt/vol-57/iss-6/p37.html

Or you could do a google for John Pendry and superlens.

[Stoat] "The hf bit should have subscripts to show the energy ratio but I don't know how to show them."

Doing fancy math in text is not easy. I fall back on my programming experience and just spell it out. When someone wants to speak about the force of gravity and rocket thrust, they might say "eff sub gee" (the force due to gravity) and "eff sub rocket" (the force due to rocket thrust) To write about them on paper when fancy typesetting is not available, they could be written Fsub_g (or f_sub_g or f_sub_gravity) and Fsub_rocket (or f_sub_rocket or F_sub_rocketThrust). I use the underscore in place of the space, and mixed letter caseing, to help the reader be able to make the same noises in his head when he reads that I make in my head when I write.

They could also be written F_g and F_roc, with the "sub" part understood. As you can see there are no hard rules about this. But the more you abbreviate or leave as understood, the more you have to explain somewhere else in your post. And the more you risk someone missing the explanation and/or not understanding what you are trying to say. This is especially true if members of the audience (or the writer) have a weak technical background.

My personal preference is to be as explicit as possible and to avoid all but the most obvious abbreviations. It takes more typing initially, but I find that later on it saves typing because I don't have to explain what my variables mean. This works expecially well in programming because it produces self documenting code. If you never make any changes it was a waste of time. But if you do need to change something, most of the explanation is also changed automatically.

LB

Okay, I'll have a go.

The equation: the first part of it tells us that we are looking at energy. Plank's constant times the frequency equals the energy. Now, hf/hf is simply the contracted ratio; the top part of the fraction is the contracte part and the bottom part the rest energy.

The equation is saying that a photon at distanc r from the space of some mass object, will scatter energy. Perhaps a few GR people might howl at that but not that many these days.

The second part of the equation is the simple contraction, though her I've replaced v**/c** by 1/eta**

The refractive index of a material is eta = c/v, so square and invert it, then simply plug it into the Lorenzian equation for frequency contraction.

Now, I made the refractive index negative, because we are looking at something travelling faster than light, and I wanted to have a positive radius as my solution. The upshot is that our graviton, doing 20 billion c will not lose energy untill it gets into the ball park of 5000th of a metre.

This suggests that the Le Sage shadow is tiny. What is it? A very thin, very long tube of incredibly low energy density.[8D] Now I'd be tempted to invert the whole shooting match. To say that sub light speed is the negative refractive part of but that assumes too much at the moment.

Remember that I said that this tube/wire could have light speed gravitons living in it. That's because these researchers' data has to be of light speed graviton. So let's give that graviton a positive refractive index. To this little animal, the sun would appear more opaque. i haven't worked it out but a guess would be about 2 km radius; a penumbra shadow perhaps?

I was thinking yesterday about the graviton shadow of an electron pair, bearing in mind that it's a low energy density tube or tunnel. Just for fun take the model of an electron to be a toroid. That might be the place to look for the speed of gravity. the Cooper pair.