Gravitational Engineering - A Basic Transceiver

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by north</i>
<br />i am just not clear on the graviton shield, if the earths surface were dense enough would there be two sources of gravity, the surface and the core, am i way off?<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

The graviton flux exists throughout space. So normally, a body is struck by gravitons equally from all directions. But when we have two nearby bodies such as an apple in a tree and the Earth below it, more gravitions hit the apple from above than from below because the Earth blocks some of the gravitons headed toward the apple from below. In fact, everything on Earth feels this net graviton wind blowing downward.

This means no gravitons originate from Earth's core. Rather, Earth's solid interior helps block some gravitons so the graviton wind blowing toward Earth's surface will not be balanced by one blowing through the Earth from below. We call this effect "shadowing" because any two bodies in space cast a graviton shadow on one another.

Gravitational shielding is a bit different. It works in a manner in some ways opposite to normal gravity. For example, certain molecules inside the Earth might not be able to block gravitons from hitting an apple because they are in the shadow of other matter that already blocked those gravitons. So it is as if that shadowed matter did not exist. The total gravity of the Earth is not proprotional to its mass, but only to its unshielded mass. There may be additional mass not contributing to its gravity because gravitons cannot reach that extra mass.

An analogy for shielding is a swarm of bees passing in front of the Sun. Normally, the amount of sunlight blocked will be proportional to the number of bees. But if there are too many bees, some will be in the shadow of other bees and therefore block no sunlight. So the total blockage on sunlight is proportional to the number of bees exposed to sunlight and unshadowed by other bees.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">also how can gravity be finite if these gravitons are everywhere, or are they coming from both space and mass? i thought thats what LeSage was saying that gravitons were everywhere from every angle?<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

The graviton flux has a finite density. So they are everywhere over time but not everywhere at any given instant because there is lots of space between gravitons. -|Tom|-

.
.

Gravitational shielding is a bit different. It works in a manner in some ways opposite to normal gravity. For example, certain molecules inside the Earth might not be able to block gravitons from hitting an apple because they are in the shadow of other matter that already blocked those gravitons. So it is as if that shadowed matter did not exist. The total gravity of the Earth is not proprotional to its mass, but only to its unshielded mass. There may be additional mass not contributing to its gravity because gravitons cannot reach that extra mass.


tom

how does this affect its(earth) calculation of weight?

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by north</i>
<br />how does this affect its (earth's) calculation of weight?<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

It means that Earth's actual matter content would be slightly larger than its measured gravitational mass. This could show up as an excess of inertial mass over gravitational mass if we had any way to measure Earth's inertial mass, which we don't.

Earth's "weight" is undefined. Things are weightless in space. Your own weight would change drastically if you went to the Moon. -|Tom|-

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by Enrico</i>
<br />It is wrong to say that GTR does not provide a cause for gravity. In GTR, 4-space geodesic motion does not require a cause.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

This is the trouble with philosophical arguments that contain no physics. The argument often becomes about word meanings, as here. So which is it: GTR <i>does</i> provide a cause for gravity, or it <i>doesn't</i> reuire a cause? Your two sentences seem to draw the reader in opposite directions on this central issue.

Physics, unlike math, is simple. Every effect requires an antecedent, proximate cause. No exceptions because that would require magic, and magic is not allowed into physics. It is okay for a cause to be unknown or unseen, but not for a cause to be non-existent.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">The "principle" of physics that "every effect requires an antecedant cause" already implies a separation of space and time, as the term antecedant means time can be measured apart from motion, in a universal sense. While that might be truth for time alone, it may not hold when motion and time are considered together in a "block" universe model.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

That was an idea put forward by SR, but SR has now been falsified in favor of LR, and LR has a universal time. The non-separation of space and time was never implemented in GR in any physically meaningful way. This is because, when metric equations are converted into equations of motion so they could be compared with observations (which are all made with well-separated space and time parameters), the equations of motion are 3-space representations of acceleration versus time. So there is no longer confusion about what is time and what is motion.

There is a deeper reason for this, and it is evident in my short article at this web site "Does space curve?", to which the answer is an unambiguous "no". I show that "space-time" is definitely <i>not</i> space plus time in some 4-combination, but is just ordinary proper time with no space-like component. That strikes at the very heart of the supposed meaning of metrics. It means GR is really a 3-space theory as implemented, despite its 4-space pretentions. But it can only talk 4-space while describing the "gravitational field" (meaning gravitational potential, also called elysium). As soon as it attempts to describe motion (as when taking the gradient of the potential), the separation between space and time returns sharply.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">those called unanchronists may reply back and claim that the other side simply lacks understanding and makes appeal to trivial principles that are unjustifiable at large from looking at the phenomena.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

The special value of physical principles is that they arise from logic alone and are not "theories" subject to revision or improvement, and also are not dependent on phenomena. (See my paper "Physics has its principles".) That said, I see no justification for your statement here.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Conclusion, I'm not convinced about PG carrying any empirical value setting it ahead from competing theories.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

This might be either pragmatic or dogmatic. How would you feel if the predictions of PG were verified? That's not likely to happen if any of the competing models is better than PG, and it's not likely to happen by chance. -|Tom|-

Enrico,

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><b>...and if that has to do with the material graviton, for the hypothesis to gain scientific status, the graviton must be detected and not merely its effects.</b><hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">


?:Why on earth would you take this position. You apparently buy into Relativity which has never provided any "Cause" of "Affect".


Knowing to believe only half of what you hear is a sign of intelligence. Knowing which half to believe can make you a genius.

TVF: This might be either pragmatic or dogmatic. How would you feel if the predictions of PG were verified? That's not likely to happen if any of the competing models is better than PG, and it's not likely to happen by chance. -|Tom|-

The above is also related to Mac's comment , so I'll respond to both:

Mac: ?:Why on earth would you take this position. You apparently buy into Relativity which has never provided any "Cause" of "Affect".

"Pragmatic": Is a valid stand if PG cannot come up with a single phenomenon in the observed universe that cannot be justified unless a graviton exists.

"Dogmatic": Is a stand against PG, after PG comes up with a single phenomenon in the observed universe that cannot be justified unless a graviton exists.

Mac, when you start thinking about cause and effect as the primary basis of physical theories, you may get deeper and deeper into many paradoxical situations. Causality is a very tricky concept. One should not base a theory about anything primarily on causality. It seems that the strongest card of PG is the causality issue.

It is clear that PG can only be corroborated via predictions but cannot be verified unless the graviton or elyson is detected. This is really an unfortunate situation but I'm not responsible for that.

But I have a question for TVF now: Does he consider scattering a statistical process or a deterministic one? If scattering of gravitons is a statistical process wouldn't there exist significant variations in the gravitational attraction between distance pairs, like stars or globular clusters?

If the variation due to statistical process is insignificant to observe, wouldn't this mean that the universe is "gravitationally fragmented" (sorry for the term but I can't find anything else to describe what I mean), in the sense that there are regions gravitationally independed of other regions?