- Thank you received: 0
Pushing gravity mechanics
21 years 9 months ago #4724
by mechanic
Replied by mechanic on topic Reply from
Good day members of Meta research board. It's cold day and it seems those gravitons do nothing to increase the temperature.
From Tom:
I'm not sure what you are getting at. If you are thinking that gravitons produce significant heating, that is not the case. Even for a body as big as the whole Earth, the excess heat is less than 1/1000 of the arriving solar energy. On a small body, this heat excess would be immeasurably small. -|Tom|-
It's clear what I'm getting at. Two objects with same mass, one solid and the other a heated liquid. Both are hit by gtraviton along their way down. As a matter of fact, motion is initiated by graviton hitting those bodies. I postulate that some of the momentum exchange from the gravitons should go into raising the temperature of the liquid. There is nothing to prevent that, that is a mechanism converting graviton momentum solely into kinetic energy for the liquid in the same way its is converted for the solid, whose molecules are not free to move. Therefore, the two masses should not fall at the same rate. If they do, it is simply an indication of gravity being a phenomenon not caused by momentum exchange of small particles hitting a body.
This is common sense thinking. Whoever's saying all graviton momentun must go into kinetic energy for the liquid in the same way it does for the solid is proposing that in some way graviton kinetic energy must be converted only to falling body kinetic energy.
I have accepted already the explanation of the two cylindres of different surface areas but same mass having the same rate of fall but I wont accept that as an explanation of a solid and a liquid of the same mass having the same rate of fall, when the fall is caused by minute particles hitting them. I may accept another justification for that. I'm wide open but I think it'll be hard to find one without speculating a mechanism, which in my opinion doesn't exist.
This is an assault on graviton theory people. I am preparing an experiment to drop one solid object and a liquid in a plastic enclusure, both of the same mass and measure their rate of fall using laser interferometers. The liquid enclosure will include a heating device with rapidly varying temperature so the liquid won't be in a thermal equilibrium state. The fall will take place in a vacuum chamber 100' high. If both turn out to have the same rate of fall it will simply mean gravitons don't exist. Because there is nothing to say that all graviton momentum should convert to kinetic energy for a free fall and not add to heat tranfer convection of the rapidly moving liquid molecules in random directions.
I'll take your thoughts whether we should go ahead with the experiment. It's a cheap setup anyway.
Experiment copyright (c) by mechanic. All rights reserved.
Time to fix some cars.
From Tom:
I'm not sure what you are getting at. If you are thinking that gravitons produce significant heating, that is not the case. Even for a body as big as the whole Earth, the excess heat is less than 1/1000 of the arriving solar energy. On a small body, this heat excess would be immeasurably small. -|Tom|-
It's clear what I'm getting at. Two objects with same mass, one solid and the other a heated liquid. Both are hit by gtraviton along their way down. As a matter of fact, motion is initiated by graviton hitting those bodies. I postulate that some of the momentum exchange from the gravitons should go into raising the temperature of the liquid. There is nothing to prevent that, that is a mechanism converting graviton momentum solely into kinetic energy for the liquid in the same way its is converted for the solid, whose molecules are not free to move. Therefore, the two masses should not fall at the same rate. If they do, it is simply an indication of gravity being a phenomenon not caused by momentum exchange of small particles hitting a body.
This is common sense thinking. Whoever's saying all graviton momentun must go into kinetic energy for the liquid in the same way it does for the solid is proposing that in some way graviton kinetic energy must be converted only to falling body kinetic energy.
I have accepted already the explanation of the two cylindres of different surface areas but same mass having the same rate of fall but I wont accept that as an explanation of a solid and a liquid of the same mass having the same rate of fall, when the fall is caused by minute particles hitting them. I may accept another justification for that. I'm wide open but I think it'll be hard to find one without speculating a mechanism, which in my opinion doesn't exist.
This is an assault on graviton theory people. I am preparing an experiment to drop one solid object and a liquid in a plastic enclusure, both of the same mass and measure their rate of fall using laser interferometers. The liquid enclosure will include a heating device with rapidly varying temperature so the liquid won't be in a thermal equilibrium state. The fall will take place in a vacuum chamber 100' high. If both turn out to have the same rate of fall it will simply mean gravitons don't exist. Because there is nothing to say that all graviton momentum should convert to kinetic energy for a free fall and not add to heat tranfer convection of the rapidly moving liquid molecules in random directions.
I'll take your thoughts whether we should go ahead with the experiment. It's a cheap setup anyway.
Experiment copyright (c) by mechanic. All rights reserved.
Time to fix some cars.
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.
21 years 9 months ago #4954
by Jeremy
Replied by Jeremy on topic Reply from
Mechanic,
Even if your hypothesis was correct I doubt the effect would be large enough to measure. The changes in temperature of your apparatus would create more noise than what you are trying to measure. By changing the temperature you have increased the random velocity of particles but you have not altered the general level of randomness. The graviton's probability of interaction remains the same whether you increase the rate at which it does it or not.
Even if your hypothesis was correct I doubt the effect would be large enough to measure. The changes in temperature of your apparatus would create more noise than what you are trying to measure. By changing the temperature you have increased the random velocity of particles but you have not altered the general level of randomness. The graviton's probability of interaction remains the same whether you increase the rate at which it does it or not.
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.
21 years 9 months ago #4585
by mechanic
Replied by mechanic on topic Reply from
From Jeremy:
Even if your hypothesis was correct I doubt the effect would be large enough to measure.
That's correct in principle but unless you do the experiment you'll never know. Even the slightest measured deviation in the rate of fall will be a confirmation. Remeber that we are not measuring randomness but total effect from randomness, as part of the molecules will have a momentum in a direction othen than that of the fall. The hypothesis is of a rate of fall being the same when molecules are at equilibrium and when molecules are excited in random directions.
Even if your hypothesis was correct I doubt the effect would be large enough to measure.
That's correct in principle but unless you do the experiment you'll never know. Even the slightest measured deviation in the rate of fall will be a confirmation. Remeber that we are not measuring randomness but total effect from randomness, as part of the molecules will have a momentum in a direction othen than that of the fall. The hypothesis is of a rate of fall being the same when molecules are at equilibrium and when molecules are excited in random directions.
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.
21 years 9 months ago #4593
by Jeremy
Replied by Jeremy on topic Reply from
<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote><font size=2 face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>
That's correct in principle but unless you do the experiment you'll never know. Even the slightest measured deviation in the rate of fall will be a confirmation. Remeber that we are not measuring randomness but total effect from randomness, as part of the molecules will have a momentum in a direction othen than that of the fall. The hypothesis is of a rate of fall being the same when molecules are at equilibrium and when molecules are excited in random directions.
<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size=2 id=quote>
I don't think the rate of fall will change. By increasing thermal movement you are increasing the probability of interactions due to gravitons because the individual molecules are covering more ground per unit time but you are doing so equally for gravitons from all directions, ergo the net rate of falling will remain the same. The energy absorbed might be greater but the acceleration isn't going to change. You would be better off just measuring the temperature and seeing if the temperature rises greater than would be expected for the amount of energy you are putting in.
That's correct in principle but unless you do the experiment you'll never know. Even the slightest measured deviation in the rate of fall will be a confirmation. Remeber that we are not measuring randomness but total effect from randomness, as part of the molecules will have a momentum in a direction othen than that of the fall. The hypothesis is of a rate of fall being the same when molecules are at equilibrium and when molecules are excited in random directions.
<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size=2 id=quote>
I don't think the rate of fall will change. By increasing thermal movement you are increasing the probability of interactions due to gravitons because the individual molecules are covering more ground per unit time but you are doing so equally for gravitons from all directions, ergo the net rate of falling will remain the same. The energy absorbed might be greater but the acceleration isn't going to change. You would be better off just measuring the temperature and seeing if the temperature rises greater than would be expected for the amount of energy you are putting in.
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.
21 years 9 months ago #4595
by mechanic
Replied by mechanic on topic Reply from
From Jeremy:
You would be better off just measuring the temperature and seeing if the temperature rises greater than would be expected for the amount of energy you are putting in.
That's not the experiment I described. I'm interested in finding out whether graviton momentum absorption is affected by random particle momentum and not the other way. Collisions may be not elastic and random motion is not uniform by any means. It is Gaussian. So at any given time t there will be more molecules having a momentum in a direction opposite to the fall and don't you forget fewer graviton are supposed to be coming from the bottom side. Simple vector addition.
As a matter of fact, I am thinking now having two liquids in another experiment, one in bolling state and the other in steady state thermal equilibrium. That will do it.
You would be better off just measuring the temperature and seeing if the temperature rises greater than would be expected for the amount of energy you are putting in.
That's not the experiment I described. I'm interested in finding out whether graviton momentum absorption is affected by random particle momentum and not the other way. Collisions may be not elastic and random motion is not uniform by any means. It is Gaussian. So at any given time t there will be more molecules having a momentum in a direction opposite to the fall and don't you forget fewer graviton are supposed to be coming from the bottom side. Simple vector addition.
As a matter of fact, I am thinking now having two liquids in another experiment, one in bolling state and the other in steady state thermal equilibrium. That will do it.
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.
- tvanflandern
- Topic Author
- Offline
- Platinum Member
Less
More
- Thank you received: 0
21 years 9 months ago #4860
by tvanflandern
Replied by tvanflandern on topic Reply from Tom Van Flandern
<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote><font size=2 face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>[1234567890]: your explanations make much sense but what makes these graviton
particles? You would think that eventually, the universe would run out of these graviton particles as they keep being absorbed by matter.<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size=2 id=quote>
Gravitons are part of what we call "the Meta Cycle", in which the number of gravitons and their momentum is always conserved. Gravitons absorbed eventually heat quantum particles until they explode. We observe these explosions as radioactive decay or as spontaneous "photon" (light wave) emission. Such events return absorbed gravitons to the main medium. The emitted photons experience friction with the medium and redshift as they travel, providing a mechanism for cosmological redshift and returning momentum to the graviton medium.
All this is explained in detail in an MRB article and in <i>Pushing Gravity</i>. -|Tom|-
particles? You would think that eventually, the universe would run out of these graviton particles as they keep being absorbed by matter.<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size=2 id=quote>
Gravitons are part of what we call "the Meta Cycle", in which the number of gravitons and their momentum is always conserved. Gravitons absorbed eventually heat quantum particles until they explode. We observe these explosions as radioactive decay or as spontaneous "photon" (light wave) emission. Such events return absorbed gravitons to the main medium. The emitted photons experience friction with the medium and redshift as they travel, providing a mechanism for cosmological redshift and returning momentum to the graviton medium.
All this is explained in detail in an MRB article and in <i>Pushing Gravity</i>. -|Tom|-
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.
Time to create page: 0.257 seconds