Let's check for gravitational screening, simple...

> If I get it correctly, all particle gravity models imply gravitation screening as possible to some extent.

True, but not at a level presently detectable in any laboratory experiment.

> If so, then ordered crystalline structures should exibit slightly different gravitation along the crystalline axes, as the atoms' nuclei would screen each other along the axes.

To a graviton, an atomic nucleus would look bigger and emptier than our planetary system looks to us. The chances of hitting anything in a random pass through are miniscule.

You have the right general idea, but are orders of magnitude off on the feasibility. If the Lageos satellite data is a real gravitational shielding detection (which is far from assured), then the gravitational acceleration anomaly resulting from shielding by 1000-km thickness of 20 g/cc matter is only or order 10^-10 cm/s^2. -|Tom|-

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote><font size=2 face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>
You have the right general idea, but are orders of magnitude off on the feasibility. If the Lageos satellite data is a real gravitational shielding detection (which is far from assured), then the gravitational acceleration anomaly resulting from shielding by 1000-km thickness of 20 g/cc matter is only or order 10^-10 cm/s^2. -|Tom|-

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

I beg to disagree exactly upon those qualitative estimates basis. If your figures are about real, then my scheme must produce detectable effect by all means. That's because the effective number of atomic nuclei in cylindric volume of diameter of a few nucleus' diameters and of the length of a 10cm monocrystall can be orders of magnitude greater than that number for such a cylindric volume in a 1000km polycrystalline body, especially if that monocrystall is deeply cooled... Add to that the huge Q-factor of a 10cm crystall's main resonance that filters out at least six orders of magnitude of noise energy from the signal, and the effect must be VERY macroscopic.

OK, I didn't want to push too hard, but here you go...
A seemingly inexplicable coupling between two identical crystalls of quartz really does exist. It's normally observed for crystall sizes of 2cm and above; when one actively oscillates the other picks up vibration. Physicists never cared of the effect considering it a result of poor acoustic/electrical shielding; electronic guys don't care as well since nobody uses such big X-talls any more...

This association does not seem credible without some specific quantitative estimates. I'm not aware that atomic nuclei can align to within a few nuclear diameters in any body. And if that were possible, why wouldn't we see large magnetism?

Try putting together some realistic numbers, preferably with citations, and let's see if this can really produce a macroscopic laboratory effect. -|Tom|-

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote><font size=2 face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>
Try putting together some realistic numbers, preferably with citations, and let's see if this can really produce a macroscopic laboratory effect. -|Tom|-

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

Basically, we just have to make an estimation of relative crossections of "graviton scattering" along certain preferred directions in a monocrystall wrt a polycrystalline structure. Let's assume that the macroscopic density of our monocrystall is about the same as that of polycrystalline object. Let's consider a cylindric volume of diameter of 1/1000th the average atomic diameter of the substance of our objects. In case of a big enough polycrystalline object, the number of nuclei within such a cylindric volume would be the same for every direction and position within the object. In case of a monocrystall object, most directions/positions of such cylindric volume would include only the electrons' component of mass. Thus we get a factor of almost 1000 for certain preferred directions (nucleon/electron mass ratio). Now if the monocrystall is forced to oscillate, the crossection of graviton interaction along certain directions is modulated by a factor of 1000, that's more or less 100% modulation, as if the shielding mass oscillates between zero and 1000 its polycrystalline equivalents for certain positions of the receiver crystall. Further, there's the much more important effect of the Q-factor of a big X-tall oscillator of about at least 10^13, that effectively accumulates the energy of 10^13 oscillations.
All things considered, the amplitude of the mechanical forces inside the receiver crystall is about the force shielded by a (10^16)x(diameter of crystall) non-monocrystalline object, or a static shielding effect of a mass 10^48 times greater than that of 10cm crystall. That's too much, but that's a very rough estimate, counting only the favourable aspects, so I'm quite prepared to shed a few orders of magnitude and it would still be quite macroscopic a value...

This is way too vague for me. Where did the 10^13 come from? What does oscillation have to do with a shielding effect anyway? Any why did you cube the final number? The only figure in your message that I understood was the factor of 1000, and I can understand *squaring* (not cubing) it to get the absorption of gravitons along some particular line. But even that number you didn't justify. I questioned whether nuclei could align that accurately in a monocrystal. Where did you get that figure from? -|Tom|-