Maximum gravity

Thanks, this is very interesting. I have not visualized it that way but it is starting to make much more sense.

Basically you say that elysium density near bigger objects (or any object for that matter) is caused by the pressure from radiant gravitons from the one direction because that object blocked a certain number of gravitons from the other direction.

This in turn affects photons because they must travel through this medium causing all the observed effects like refraction as they move through the different densities/layers of the elysium.

Thus gravity affects light indirectly. If only the mainstream will start accepting this possibility. It will make science much more sense at school instead of trying to explain things which seems illogical.

If I can I like to ask another question concerning the interiors of these 'Mitchell stars'. Although the total gravity of the object will not increase anymore if more 'stuff' is added to it (generally) the interior will experience still more increased pressure from the outside layers where gravity still operates. What happens to matter then in the center? I accept that in the center there will be no resulting gravity (outer layers blocked all gravitons) but there will be pressure - kind of the same thing as the center of earth discussion. The only difference the magnitude of the pressure.

Rudolf

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote><font size=2 face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>[Rudolf]: What happens to matter then in the center? I accept that in the center there will be no resulting gravity (outer layers blocked all gravitons) but there will be pressure - kind of the same thing as the center of earth discussion. The only difference the magnitude of the pressure.<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size=2 id=quote>

Right. The interior pressure of a Mitchell star would get very high. But it would remain finite, being limited by the maximum pressure that gravitons can produce if the entire flux comes from one direction. If the star has the critical density throughout so that no gravitons can penetrate below its surface, then the amount of pressure applied by gravitons will be proportional to the star's surface area. That pressure is passed along to the nucleons below, all the way down to the center.

If the pressure becomes so great that the nucleons are crushed into quarks or even smaller constituents, that is okay because that does nothing to increase the pressure further, so there is no runaway collapse toward a singularity as there would be in a "black hole".

Because the external gravity would be proportional to surface area instead of mass, the gravitational mass of the Mitchell star at critical density would be much less than its inertial mass. The inertial mass is unaffected by the star density because any external force must be diluted and shared by all the nucleons or matter ingredients inside the whole Mitchell star. This will alter things such as the constant of proportionality in Kepler's law and the predicted amount of pericenter advance. -|Tom|-

Does the same happen with the galactic core where a 'supposively' massive 'black hole' is located? Or more basic, is it even the same type of object?

Given the active nature of some galaxies where jets of 'stuff' is expelled, like Halton Arp have shown in many of his photographs, it would seem the nature and dynamics of these objects migth be different? Perhars also a magnitude difference or an entirely different type of object?

At the center of massive objects like these, because of the extreme pressures matter as we know it might be squash. Perhaps to the level where the pure energy becomes available and if that is expelled somehow it will create jets of extremely high energy beams like the ones we see for some active galaxies. If the energy 'cools' down it could form new matter (new galaxies) meaning a galaxy center is just a huge recycing machine of matter and energy.

Could this be the case or am I just dreaming?

Rudolf

Rudolf,

This is an unscientifc response to your question. My view is you are correct. I also see Hawkings Radiation as part of that process as well as "Singularities" (if they exists and I don't think they do).

Singularities would be converting matter back into it raw form and storing it in the vacuum where it is re-emerging as virtual particles.

And it seems Black Holes absorb one particle of virtual particle pairs leaving the other free to roam and exist as a real particle. So Black HOles seem to be factories creating matter from the vacuum as well as recycling matter in existance.

I have seen the process as being part of the source and cause of gravity as well as the explanation for the acceleration of expansion of the universe. Virtual particle production and anhililation is also a contributor.

These views are based on the assumption that these events are real in the final analysis.

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



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

Basically I'm just guessing as I'm not educated in the field. My assumptions are based on things I have read in several places including this messageboard and books from Dr Van Flandern, Halton Arp etc.

I recall reading another book about the 'eletronic' universe about everything acting like plasma where the same kind of idea is mentioned altough with different reasoning (recycing of matter)

Despite all we think we know it seems we actually know very little about the things we can see the easiest - the heavens. The same goes probably to the other extreme - quantum world as well.

Getting too philosophical.

Thanks for the insights.

Rudolf

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote><font size=2 face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>[Rudolf]: Does the same happen with the galactic core where a 'supposively' massive 'black hole' is located? Or more basic, is it even the same type of object?<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size=2 id=quote>

Yes, because gravitational force does not continue to increase without limit, single objects of indefinitely large mass can exist. MM calls these "supermassive stars", meaning single bodies with more mass than the roughly 100-solar-mass limit in conventional theory.

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote><font size=2 face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>Given the active nature of some galaxies where jets of 'stuff' is expelled, like Halton Arp have shown in many of his photographs, it would seem the nature and dynamics of these objects migth be different? Perhars also a magnitude difference or an entirely different type of object?<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size=2 id=quote>

Agreed. No one has studied the interiors of supermassive stars, so our knowledge of them is nil.

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote><font size=2 face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>At the center of massive objects like these, because of the extreme pressures matter as we know it might be squash. Perhaps to the level where the pure energy becomes available and if that is expelled somehow it will create jets of extremely high energy beams like the ones we see for some active galaxies. If the energy 'cools' down it could form new matter (new galaxies) meaning a galaxy center is just a huge recycing machine of matter and energy. Could this be the case or am I just dreaming?<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size=2 id=quote>

That is similar to Arp's "Variable Mass" cosmology. It is one possibility. But nature may have a few more tricks still to be discovered. For example, we might bring gravitons and elysons into the picture. Clearly, we are all still babes discovering the basics about the universe around us.

This is in sharp contrast to cosmologist Turner's view that, within another decade or so, we will be done tidying up the details and finally know everything there is to know about cosmology (based on the Big Bang, of course). -|Tom|-