Quantized redshift anomaly

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by Tommy</i>
<br />what if one took a wire, say, and suspended it horizontally. It would have so much downward push. But what happens if the wire is suspended vertically, would some of it be shielded from the graviton flow and therefore be lighter?<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">Good thinking. Now you are asking the same kind of questions that astronomers and physicists have asked about Le Sage "pushing gravity" for the past 350 years.

Gravitons are now estimated to be roughly a million times smaller than the smallest quantum particle, and matter is made of mostly empty space -- even inside atomic nuclei. So gravitons are able to fly through the entire Earth without hitting anything, even more easily than neutrinos are known to do. But once in a while, a graviton does hit something "solid" and get absorbed. The largest entities that are opaque to gravitons are called "matter ingredients", or MIs for short. Current estimates are that about one in every 100 million gravitons flying through the Earth hits a matter ingredient and gets absorbed (blocked). But gravitons are very numerous and very fast, so all MIs are being constantly hit by gravitons.

Your wire is then made up of a certain number of matter ingredients. Each MI has an equal chance to absorb gravitons, regardless of the orientation of the object it resides in. So the reason why the force of gravity is proportional to the source mass rather than its surface area or some other measure is because each MI in it contributes equally to blocking gravitons. The distribution of those MIs (the shape of the mass they comprise) doesn't matter. The more MIs in a body such as Earth, the more gravitons blocked, and the stronger the imbalance between the downward and upward winds pushing on an apple or a wire. This imbalance applies to each individual MI in the target body, so it just doesn't matter how many MIs are present or what their distribution is. This explains why all bodies, big or small, fall at the same rate.

In the 19th century, to picture MIs blocking gravitons, J.C. Maxwell used the analogy of a swarm of bees blocking sunlight. If two equal swarms of bees are superimposed, twice as much light will be blocked – unless the swarms are so dense that a few bees overlap bees in the other swarm, in which case slightly less than twice as much light is blocked.

Of course, it might be possible for one swarm to be so dense that it blocks almost all the light by itself. Then the second swarm blocks little or no additional light. In "pushing gravity", superdense matter (probably denser than a neutron star) might be of this type, blocking almost all gravitons that try to pass through it. One could add mass to such a body with little or no increase in its gravity because of little or no additional graviton blocking. This is called a "gravitational shielding" effect, one of several such effects in pushing gravity with no counterparts in GR or Newtonian gravity. -|Tom|-

Tom,
Let me see if I understand gravitons correctly. An apple hanging from a tree absorbs more downward gravitons than the earth below absorbs upward gravitons thereby causing the apple to “fall”. Then it should hold that the falling apple will “fall” angular to the tree trunk because the trunk must also absorb horizontal gravitons, unless of course, all of the gravitons, being as small as they are, pass through the tree without being absorbed. Correct? Thank you for your time.
thebobgy

[thebobgy] "Then it should hold that the falling apple will “fall” angular to the tree trunk because the trunk must also absorb horizontal gravitons, ... "

YES - another good one.

Of course the tree trunk is much less massive than Earth, so the attractive force between trunk and apple has proportionately less effect. Another tiny effect is that Earth falls toward the apple. There were also tiny forces of attraction between Newton's body and the apple.

On Earth these tiny effects are masked by the larger effect of Earth's gravitation. In space they are not. Small bits of stuff, such as ejected garbage or paint chips knocked loose by micro-meteorite strikes or dropped tools and parts, have been observed orbiting manned space craft.

Although the escape velocity from an Apollo capsule or a shuttle is very small, a few mm or cm / second, it has to be exceeded before an object will leave the vicintity forever. There are some other things that have to be considered when the small mass is close to a much larger mass. See the chapter dealing with orbits in Tom's book for the very interesting details of this phenomenon.

LB

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">(From Tom's article on the speed of gravity)

GR involves gravitational source masses and their fields. If a source mass and its field move in lockstep to infinity, so that whatever happens to the source happens to the whole field instantly in coordinate time, that is defined to be “instantaneous” propagation of the gravitational field. But if a change in the motion of a source mass results in a delayed corresponding change in its field, then the propagation of that field is said to be “retarded”. <hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

This "instantaneous propagaton" sounds very much like "non-locality" the effects of which are also instantaneous. Alan Aspect's experiments with twin photons indicate that the photons, well there are two interpretations that I am aware of A, the photons can communicate faster than light; or, B, the photons form a single entity even while separated. Some physicists accept non-locality as fact. To me, non-locality indicates there is a connection in some other dimension outside of space/time. Since "outside" would place this dimension somewhere else, I prefer to think of it as the INSIDE.

I wonder if the observations of gravity and motion in the solar system could be considered a independant verification of non-locality?

Another interesting observational tid-bit:

Some gravimeters are sensitive enough that they can track the movement of a person (or any roughly 75 kg mass) around a laborotory. To the best of my knowledge no one has tried to find the lower mass limit or the upper distance limit of this tracking ability.

LB

Here we have an introduction to process physics and following that the abstract to a paper describing

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">the in-flow of space into matter which manifests as gravity."<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">
<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">

Process Physics
Associate Professor Reg Cahill
Dr. Christopher Klinger
Dr Susan Gunner
Kirsty Kitto
Dr Lance McCarthy
Anton Dickmann

www.scieng.flinders.edu.au/cpes/people/c.../processphysics.html


A new paradigm for the modelling of reality is currently being developed called Process Physics. In Process Physics we start from the premise that the limits to logic, which are implied by Gödel's incompleteness theorems, mean that any attempt to model reality via a formal system is doomed to failure. Instead of formal systems we use a process system, which uses the notions of self-referential information with self-referential noise and self-organised criticality to create a new type of information-theoretic system that is realising both the current formal physical modelling of reality but is also exhibiting features such as the direction of time, the present moment effect and quantum state entanglement (including EPR effects, nonlocality and contextuality), as well as the more familiar formalisms of Relativity and Quantum Mechanics. In particular a theory of Gravity has already emerged.


In short, rather than the static 4-dimensional modelling of present day (non-process) physics, Process Physics is providing a dynamic model where space and matter are seen to emerge from a fundamentally random but self-organising system. The key insight is that to adequately model reality we must move on from the traditional non-process syntactical information modelling to a process semantic information modelling; such information is `internally meaningful'.


The new theory of gravity which has emerged from Process Physics is in agreement with all experiments and observations. This theory has two gravitational constants: G, the Newtonian gravitational constant, and a second dimensionless constant which experiment has revealed to be the fine structure constant. This theory explains the so-called `dark matter' effect in spiral galaxies, the bore hole gravitational anomalies, the masses of the observed black holes at the centres of globular clusters, and the anomalies in Cavendish laboratory measurements of G.



Absolute Motion and Gravitational Effects
Published: Apeiron, Vol. 11, No.1, pp. 53-111(2004).
Abstract: The new Process Physics provides a new explanation of space as a quantum foam system in which gravity is an inhomogeneous flow of the quantum foam into matter. An analysis of various experiments demonstrates that absolute motion relative to space has been observed experimentally by Michelson and Morley, Miller, Illingworth, Jaseja et al, Torr and Kolen, and by DeWitte. The Dayton Miller and Roland DeWitte data also reveal the in-flow of space into matter which manifests as gravity. The in-flow also manifests turbulence and the experimental data confirms this as well, which amounts to the observation of a gravitational wave phenomena. The Einstein assumptions leading to the Special and General Theory of Relativity are shown to be falsified by the extensive experimental data. Contrary to the Einstein assumptions absolute motion is consistent with relativistic effects, which are caused by actual dynamical effects of absolute motion through the quantum foam, so that it is Lorentzian relativity that is seen to be essentially correct.

<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

My first thought is that if gravity is the inflow of space into matter, why don't we see this inflow amonst galaxies?