A particle gravity model sans gravitons.

The trouble with this model is the vast number of risky assumptions involved. If one starts with a specific model for the nature of gravitation, such as that now published in my chapter in the new book "Pushing Gravity", then one sees that about half of the assumptions made are invalid, starting with the first:

[AN]: Every piece of matter in the universe is in constant momentum exchange with the ZPF - that seems to be uniformly taken for a fact.

That is only true if gravity has an infinite range. But in physically realistic models with momentum carriers, infinite range is impossible.

In short, the price to be paid for this model's result is too high for those of us seeking an understanding of how nature operates at a fundamental level. -|Tom|-

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote><font size=2 face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>

[AN]: Every piece of matter in the universe is in constant momentum exchange with the ZPF - that seems to be uniformly taken for a fact.

That is only true if gravity has an infinite range. But in physically realistic models with momentum carriers, infinite range is impossible.

<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size=2 id=quote>

You seem to mix two different things - the ZPF pressure, which is quite real and experimentally observed, and the assumption of the possible range of the spatial coherence of ZPF, which coherence itself is completely hypothetical for now, even more so its range.
Personally, I don't have a slightest problem with infinite range gravity. BUT(!), since the ZPF pressure is finite and is comprised of a series of momentary interactions, there must be a cut-off range distance where the probability to catch a single act of momentum exchange with the distant body comes below any arbitrarily low figure, and don't forget the direction of that transfer is quite random, add to that the likely existing ZPF cutoff frequency at some hundred THz range - in other words - the cutoff distance range is built in... That's when gravity is not a force field anymore, requiring too long time to average out the mean direction and force of interaction. But the effective cutoff distance would obviously depend on the interacting objects' size if we assume infinite ZPF spatial coherence range.

The ZPF pressure seems so real, the ZPF itself is a quantum entity, quantum effects are often very non-local in nature; so I just put one and one together...

Can you tell me how you can be so sure ZPF is a valid issue? I am very dense on matters like this. thanks

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote><font size=2 face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>
Can you tell me how you can be so sure ZPF is a valid issue? I am very dense on matters like this. thanks


<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size=2 id=quote>

I believe nobody dares to publically doubt its existence ever since the Cazimir force was experimentally measured. Before that it was just a peculiar mathematical consequence of QM.

I am not a doubter and just want to understand what is real or not. The use of zero, for example, is not always real in these issues. Sometimes it is nothing and sometimes it is ambient. The ZPF zero is one or the other and I am wondering which is which?

I just looked up Cazimir force and found little info about it. Can you tell me where I can access details about this subject? thanks