'Elastivity' of graviton collisions

I think my original question have been answered, graviton collisions are not elastic.
Until I have received and read the new book 'pushing gravity' I'll probably have to wait until some additional questions have been answered (or new ones come up).
One thing I have not heard anyone speculate is wherever it is possible that there might be different types of gravitons or different energy level gravitons? Also, can gravitons influence other gravitons? Collisions between gravitons should be rare considdering their small size but then again there are so many of them.

Rudolf

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote><font size=2 face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>[Rudolf]: ... wherever it is possible that there might be different types of gravitons or different energy level gravitons? Also, can gravitons influence other gravitons? Collisions between gravitons should be rare considdering their small size but then again there are so many of them.<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size=2 id=quote>

In the Meta Model, we consider all gravitons as much alike as air molecules or water droplets, and all with a normal dispersion around a single characteristic speed. Maybe someday we will learn about different varieties, but we have to discover them first.

The mean distance between graviton-graviton collisions is about 1-2 kiloparsecs (about the size of a galactic halo or the thickness of the disk). These collisions are why the gravitational force law appears to change on scales larger than that distance, which explains the large scale behavior of the universe without need of most dark matter.

This is all in <i>Pushing Gravity</i>. -|Tom|-

thanks, now I can't wait for the book to arrive! Perhaps someday we will all look back at this time as the time when the true nature of gravity became known (until the next generation change the theories <img src=icon_smile.gif border=0 align=middle>

Rudolf

I'm a couple of more chapters past Tom's in Pushing, but I'm still thinking about the implications of some aspects of the Meta Model he presents.

What is the physical meaning of the Gravitational Shielding Coeffecient? It is said to be about 2 * 10 -19 meters square per kilogram. I think this means that at any given moment - since there is no time component - gravitons are impacting that amount of area on a mass basis. Among other things that would mean that such an area literally defines the graviton equivalent of a kilogram measure of mass. [Would compressing matter as with the technique used to fuse an atomic bomb proportionately reduce the GS coeffecient?]. At the baryon scale it seems to mean that some piece of an atom systematically presents itself in such a way as to be susceptable to interaction with a graviton. If/since our graviton has a very long wavelength would this then mean that a susceptable quark, say, would be presenting itself through the orientation of its wave component in such a way as to be in synchrony with the graviton wave and thereby amplified by it via resonance so as to increase its momentum in the direction of the graviton?

Likewise, would not some baryons of radioactive elements by definition exist at some threshold momentum such that absorbing energy from a graviton triggers a decay event? And would not the difference between the threshold baryons and those at some lower potential be exploitable to construct an elysium detector which would presumably be the light carrying medium (?) that sweeps away some decay heat as photons? I would think also that the diffences in decay rates provide clues to the nature of both gravitons and elysiuum.

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote><font size=2 face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>What is the physical meaning of the Gravitational Shielding Coeffecient?<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size=2 id=quote>

I try to use the word “shadowing” to refer to the ordinary blockage of gravitons (by scattering and absorption) that produces ordinary gravitational force. By contrast, I use the word “shielding” to refer to the as-yet-undiscovered, hypothetical property of gravity whereby ordinary gravitational force is reduced below its normal proportionality to total source mass. For shielding, I borrowed the analogy of a swarm of bees flying in front of the Sun. Ordinarily, the amount of sunlight blocked by bees is proportional to the total number of bees. But if the swarm gets dense enough, some bees will be in the shadow of other bees and contribute nothing to the blockage of sunlight. Likewise, if matter gets dense enough, some matter ingredients will be in the shadow of other matter ingredients and contribute nothing to graviton blockage, and therefore nothing to the external gravitational field. That is “shielding”, as opposed to shadowing. The first matter ingredient encountered by a graviton along any path through a body produces a graviton “shadow”, and any other matter ingredients along that same path are “shielded” from that graviton.

With the definition of “shielding” clarified, then the “shielding coefficient” is a measure of the fraction of mass in a body that fails to contribute to a gravitational field because of shielding. For example, when the Earth comes between the Sun and a Lageos satellite, part of the Sun’s gravitational force might be shielded by Earth. If so, the amount of shielding depends on the density of matter within the Earth, and the length of the path gravitons must take through the Earth. The product of density and path length has units of kg/m^2. Hence, the product of the shielding coefficient, the density, and the path length is dimensionless.

I did not understand some of the questions that followed, but probably because they were based on a different assumption about what the shielding coefficient meant. Perhaps Don could see how the preceding explanation might impact his questions, and rephrase those that remain alive?

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote><font size=2 face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>would not the difference between the threshold baryons and those at some lower potential be exploitable to construct an elysium detector which would presumably be the light carrying medium (?) that sweeps away some decay heat as photons?<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size=2 id=quote>

Again, I do not fully understand. Our eyes are elysium detectors. In what sense are lightwaves emitted during radioactive decay processes any different or any more susceptible to detection than ordinary sunlight?

Our problem in detecting elysium is like that of a smart fish trying to detect the ocean. Because everything in his universe is wet, how can he prove that isn’t just the nature of all material entities? I suspect that zero-point energy detection has come the closest to revealing elysium because it shows the unexpected result that even what we consider “vacuum” is filled with energy. -|Tom|-

Given the clear distinction you make between "shielding" and "shadowing," I don't see why normal shadowing would not be detectable when one body eclipses another. Start with the free field of gravitons on the other side of the Sun. The Sun shadows some of these gravitons, just as the Earth shadows some gravitons coming from its "unshaded" side. Now consider a satellite in the Sun's gravitational "field," (although it's in orbit around the Earth). Some gravitons are shaded coming through the body of the satellite, so there is a shaded area between the satellite and the Sun, and gravitons pushing from the unshaded side of both bodies is the force of gravity between them.

Now interpose the Earth. It doesn't matter if you "shadow" some gravitons or "shield" even more gravitons, either way, there are still less gravitons now between the satellite and the Sun, than there were when the Earth was not interposed, because the Sun had already created a shadow, and now the Earth's shadow compounds it. So that, it seems to me, should affect the force of gravity between the satellite and the Sun. To picture this, imagine shining a flashlight through a translucent object. You get say, a faint shadow. Now put another translucent object behind the first one. The shadow becomes darker. Doesn't it? Or am I all wet?