Gravitons and Push Gravity question.

Tom, You say above Newton proved the force of gravity points toward the center of mass. Is the center of mass also the barycenter of a two(or more than two) body system? This is so the center of mass can be located even though there is no mass at that center as is the case in real structures.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by Jim</i>
<br />Is the center of mass also the barycenter of a two (or more than two) body system?<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">Technically, yes. But please remember that barycenters are only mathematical points, not physical points, and are often used in inappropriate ways by people who think they are somehow physical. To avoid problems, one must always say what masses are used to calculate any particular barycenter. For example, the Earth-Moon barycenter is a loosely defined point. If we then specify the Earth's and Moon's masses, it becomes a definite mathematical point. If we change our mind about the masses, the location of the point shifts. If we ask about the Earth-Moon-Sun barycenter, the location shifts a great deal.

If you stick with centers of mass, there will be less confusion over this issue. Be suspicious of anyone who attributes physical properties to a barycenter.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">This is so the center of mass can be located even though there is no mass at that center as is the case in real structures.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">The presence of absence of mass at the arbitrary barycenter location is not of any significance. For example, there is always mass at the Earth-Moon barycenter, which is typically located somewhere about 1000 miles below Earth's surface. But that point never knows the difference because there isn't any physical difference. It's a math concept only.

The solar system barycenter is sometimes inside the Sun and sometimes outside of it. But its location can change at our slightest whim. If I hypothesize an undiscovered "Planet X" the size of Jupiter located at 1100 au from the Sun, that body (whether imaginary or real) would shift the solar system barycenter outside the Earth's orbit. Again, it is a point used for calculations, but its location has no physical significance.

For those who know a little celestial mechanics who might wonder what a barycenter can possibly be useful for, given the arbitrariness of its location, the answer is that it defines an anchor point to which we can attach an inertial coordinate system when doing orbit determination or numerical integration. For all other potential uses, we would be better off speaking of the center of mass for some particular collection of bodies for which we have adopted specific masses. -|Tom|-

If antimatter is not repulsive, then certain conditions must exist that are repulsive around jets of antimatter that are seen from center of galactic crunch otherwise the creation of these jets most likely would not have a reverse spin and behavior that appears to be a dispersal force from the central axis in opposition to the ninety degree incoming gravitational waves.

Wow, amazing that Gravitons are possibly one million times smaller then an electron. So how do gravitons create the "Push" in creating gravity? If electrical fields do not activate the "Push", then what positive or negative attraction mechanism would create the attraction of all matter in a matrix of Elysium and constant incoming gravitons. If antimatter waves are a secondary signature within all matter and the Matter shell is the primary structure, then the release of Antimatter Waves from decay or particle collisions surely must have some repulsion do to its reverse time wave.

John

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by cosmicsurfer</i>
<br />If antimatter is not repulsive, then certain conditions must exist that are repulsive around jets of antimatter that are seen from center of galactic crunch otherwise the creation of these jets most likely would not have a reverse spin and behavior that appears to be a dispersal force from the central axis in opposition to the ninety degree incoming gravitational waves.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">This mixes up forces. All jets are repulsive by their nature. My remark was not about jets, but about antimatter particles and antimatter gravity. Apparently, antimatter particles gravitationally attract just as matter particles do.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Wow, amazing that Gravitons are possibly one million times smaller then an electron. So how do gravitons create the "Push" in creating gravity?<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">A push of a given size can be achieved by one big shove or by millions of tiny shoves. So size alone tells us nothing.

An apple in space is continually struck by gravitons from all directions, with no net force to move the apple. An apple hanging from a tree on Earth is struck by more gravitons from above than from below because the Earth blocks some gravitons trying to get to the apple from below. So the net force is trying to make the apple fall.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">the release of Antimatter Waves from decay or particle collisions surely must have some repulsion do to its reverse time wave.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">Don't confuse physical theories and mathematical theories. "Reverse time" is easy in math, but impossible in physics because it violates the causality principle, which requires a miracle (something forbidden as an explanation in physics). -|Tom|-

As you clearly stated then, Gravitons are constantly impacting all objects and due to differential shadowing the push is then activated. Interesting that Gravitons impact matter yet Neutrinos do not yet Gravitons are extremely small. To your knowledge is there any part of the Atom that does not get hit by Gravitons? Also, what do you calculate as the frequency of Gravitons per second say hiting a dime? The frequency must be extremely high as compared to Neutrinos which rarely collide with matter. The effects of Gravity certainly must have an impact on strengthening the electric fields of objects even if Gravity is not activated by that process but is purely a shadow effect with out specificity. It is almost like the chicken or the egg question of what came first the electric field due to super luminal impacts or the impacts are brought on by electric fields that surround all matter. Again, could electric fields generate an attraction force (or repulsive force) for increased (decreased)bombardment of Gravitons, and is there a difference in gravity relationships due to positive or negative charge? (I think that you would say that NO, Gravitons are Neutral. However, surrounding frequencies have been shown to interfere with the Gravity processes.) The extreme motion of Gravitons must create charge related activity in matter and the flow of currents between objects. So, it would seem that Gravitons because they are also waves/particles must have a force field relationship with other waves/particles due to interacting frequencies that are electrical and accumulate capacitance and charge.

There could be loopholes in the causality principle that we do not know about that could enable some sort of limited Time Travel without violation of causality. It certainly does seem that cause and effect cannot be breached. We do know that motion has an effect on Time, maybe Reverse Time waves do exist and would allow for a directional change in motion towards the past. I think we need to be open to all possibilities even though the potential at this juncture in physics seems remote. My intuition tells me that motion plays a huge part in what direction you are going in and in this case our Universe has a forward Time motion. The faster you go the slower Time passes. If Antimatter does have a reverse time wave as some physicists now believe simply because the motion of Antimatter is the reverse to Matter then I would have to say that it would be possible to reverse time. Still hard to comprehend how any event though could be relived since time is a singular point and did already happen.

John

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by cosmicsurfer</i>
<br />Interesting that gravitons impact matter yet neutrinos do not yet gravitons are extremely small.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">Neutrinos do occasionally strike matter or we would not know they exist. A single graviton has a much lower probability of striking anything than does a single neutrino. But there are so many more gravitons in the universe than neutrinos that a given atom finds itself continually struck by gravitons, but only rarely struck by neutrinos.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">To your knowledge is there any part of the atom that does not get hit by gravitons?<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">That would be impossible. Gravitons penetrate all ordinary matter at the atomic scale.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Also, what do you calculate as the frequency of gravitons per second say hiting a dime?<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">We have only upper and lower limits to various graviton properties because the graviton has yet to be discovered. Slabinski's article in <i>Pushing Gravity</i> has these limits as best we know them. For a dime, the graviton impact frequency would be a very large number, certainly well over 10^20 per second.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">The effects of Gravity certainly must have an impact on strengthening the electric fields of objects even if Gravity is not activated by that process but is purely a shadow effect with out specificity.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">Our 2003 MRB article "On the structure of matter in the Meta Model" (Vol. 12, #4) explains how gravitons trap an elysium atmosphere around each proton or electron, and shows how these trapped atmospheres cause attractive and repulsive forces we call "electricity" or "magnetism". Neither of these forces would exist without the presence of both gravitons and elysium. Note that single back issues of the MRB can now be ordered in our store.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">I think that you would say that NO, Gravitons are Neutral. However, surrounding frequencies have been shown to interfere with the Gravity processes.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">Gravitons are electrically neutral because electricity does not exist at their scale. And no effect has yet been shown to interfere with gravity. The so-called "fifth fource" is widely disbelieved because of lack of replication under controlled conditions.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">The extreme motion of Gravitons must create charge related activity in matter and the flow of currents between objects. So, it would seem that Gravitons because they are also waves/particles must have a force field relationship with other waves/particles due to interacting frequencies that are electrical and accumulate capacitance and charge.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">To understand nature, you will need to purge all mystical notions of what forces are about, and get back to particles and waves acting on substance through collisions. Gravity and electricity operate on different scales. It would be impossible for gravitons to be charged, given the physical nature of charge. (See article previously referenced.)

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">There could be loopholes in the causality principle that we do not know about that could enable some sort of limited Time Travel without violation of causality.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">That is a mathematician's or philosopher's dream. However, physical principles such as the causality principle come from logic alone, and exceptions are logically impossible. If we found one, that would prove our existence was a holodeck illusion and not a true reality.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">It certainly does seem that cause and effect cannot be breached.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">You can take that to the bank.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">We do know that motion has an effect on Time<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">Again, I disagree. Special relativity has now been falsified in favor of Lorentzian relativity. In LR, motion affects the ticking of atomic clocks, but "time" and "space" return to their original status as dimentions for measurement and units. They are not material, tangible entities that can be slowed or curved or altered in any way by substance. In MM, "time" simply measures change. So reverse time is a concept, but can never be a reality.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">I think we need to be open to all possibilities even though the potential at this juncture in physics seems remote.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">I agree about remaining open to all possibilities, but sharply disagree that we should also remain open to logical impossibilities. This is where physicists part company with mathematicians and philosophers who deal in a world without constraints.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">the motion of Antimatter is the reverse to Matter<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">To me, this is a meaningless statement.

The problem with including physical impossibilities in theories is that we cannot hope to find valid theories that describe real nature from among an infinitude of theories if we include logical impossibilities in the mix. By contrast, we can make some real progress in understanding once we dispense with the logical absurdities. [I hasten to add that I am entertained by time travel movies as much as anybody is. I just don't get my science and science fiction mixed up.] -|Tom|-