Elastic Gas Theory of Gravity

Have you read Tom's book? He essentially proposes a kinetic "gas" of graviton particles that are responsible for gravitation. Your particular version I think has problems. You mention in statement 4 that "the mutual attraction causes these particles to form a body". Haven't you just replaced the mystery of gravitation with the mystery of what force causes the elastic gas particles to mutually attract?

Atoms do have some aspect of jiggling around but we are at the quantum limits of measurement and probability comes into play. The atoms would appear to jump around whether they actually were or not.

Light's path does have to bend, it doesn't just appear that way. We know our position, the Sun's and the star. The only way we can see it where it appears is if the light path bends around the Sun. Gravity wells slow light velocity down(relative to us), they don't speed it up.

Curiosity,

You could have spared all the details and ask if the Ether theory is a viable alternative.

Jeremy,

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote><font size=2 face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>
Have you read Tom's book? He essentially proposes a kinetic "gas" of graviton particles that are responsible for gravitation. <hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size=2 id=quote>

I've ordered a copy and look forward to reading it.

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote><font size=2 face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>
Your particular version I think has problems. You mention in statement 4 that "the mutual attraction causes these particles to form a body". Haven't you just replaced the mystery of gravitation with the mystery of what force causes the elastic gas particles to mutually attract? <hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size=2 id=quote>

Yes, I see your point. My thinking is that these "particles" are so small their surface to volume ratio is so high that something about their surface characteristics makes them stick to each other. But, that too still leaves a mystery. It would be easy to say that the "particles" are arranged in a lattice of alternatedly positively and negatively charge, and so the mutal attraction, but that would still leave the mystery of explaining what "charge" is.

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote><font size=2 face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>
Atoms do have some aspect of jiggling around but we are at the quantum limits of measurement and probability comes into play. The atoms would appear to jump around whether they actually were or not.<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size=2 id=quote>

I remember, from a very long time ago, seeing images of individual tungsten atoms generated using a field ion microscope. The atoms weren't stationary, they were jiggling in Brownian-like motion. I was looking for more recent evidence. So, does quantum theory say that even though they appear to be jiggling they might not actually be jiggling, or explain the origin of the forces that cause this jiggling?

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote><font size=2 face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>
Light's path does have to bend, it doesn't just appear that way. We know our position, the Sun's and the star. The only way we can see it where it appears is if the light path bends around the Sun. Gravity wells slow light velocity down(relative to us), they don't speed it up. <hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size=2 id=quote>

I'm rethinking my statement as you're right, if light has mass and travels through space in straight lines, gravitational bending is a way to explain how the star could be seen behind the Sun. Your last statement intrigues me.

I don't know about "gravity wells" perhaps Tom's book will discuss them? Or perhaps you could describe them?

And, I've evidently been operating under the misconception that the velocity of light in a vaccuum is, according to modern physics, an absolute and unvarying constant. If these "gravity wells" slow the velocity of light then evidently modern physics does not say that the velocity of light is an absolute, unvarying, constant?

I assume these gravity wells are something like the gravitation field around the Sun? Light from that star behind the Sun is bent so we can see it. This implies that the velocity of light traveling from that star directly toward the Sun will be accelerated to a higher velocity by the same gravitational force that bends light passing the Sun, doesn't it? And conversely, light traveling away from the Sun will start out at a lower velocity due to the Sun's gravity and then gain velocity with distance from the Sun? Doesn't accepting gravitational bending of light imply that?

Like I said, I've evidently been operating under the misconception that light's velocity is supposed to be an absolute, unvarying constant. Just like a layman isn't it!

Thanks,

Curiosity

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote><font size=2 face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>
So, does quantum theory say that even though they appear to be jiggling they might not actually be jiggling, or explain the origin of the forces that cause this jiggling?
<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size=2 id=quote>

The "jiggling" according to quantum theory is not that of random impacts like a gas. The particles in the atom are viewed as being probabilistic in nature like a cloud. When you are far away from a cloud it seems to have a well defined form but if you are right next to the cloud it is hard to see the boundary at all. Quantum theory does not view these objects like a well defined thing like a billiard ball. Our measuring instruments have a limit of accuracy and fundamentally affect these objects when we take the measurement. Therefore they appear to be all over the place as though they had brownian motion. We do not know with certainty that this is the case.

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote><font size=2 face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>
And, I've evidently been operating under the misconception that the velocity of light in a vaccuum is, according to modern physics, an absolute and unvarying constant. If these "gravity wells" slow the velocity of light then evidently modern physics does not say that the velocity of light is an absolute, unvarying, constant?
<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size=2 id=quote>

I'm not a relativist but the standard view is that constancy occurs relative to the local spacetime curvature. The claim is not that the velocity of light will measure the same relative to two different frames but that it is constant in the frame that the measurer is doing his measurements. On Earth we will measure the velocity as C and in the gravity well of the Sun we will measure the same value because time also slows down in a denser gravity well.

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote><font size=2 face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>
I assume these gravity wells are something like the gravitation field around the Sun?
<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size=2 id=quote>

You got it.

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote><font size=2 face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>
Light from that star behind the Sun is bent so we can see it. This implies that the velocity of light traveling from that star directly toward the Sun will be accelerated to a higher velocity by the same gravitational force that bends light passing the Sun, doesn't it? And conversely, light traveling away from the Sun will start out at a lower velocity due to the Sun's gravity and then gain velocity with distance from the Sun? Doesn't accepting gravitational bending of light imply that?
<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size=2 id=quote>

This is basically true but remember what I said about where you are measuring from. You don't need a gravity well to create this situation and can do the same thing by light passing through a prism or lens. The light changes frequency to compensate for the change in speed through the material.

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote><font size=2 face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>
Like I said, I've evidently been operating under the misconception that light's velocity is supposed to be an absolute, unvarying constant. Just like a layman isn't it!
<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size=2 id=quote>

Anyone who doesn't have all the answers to how the universe runs is a layman.

Math Power Needed

I've obtained a copy of the Michelson, Pease, Pearson data from the 1930s experiment that supposedly demonstrates cyclic variation in the velocity of light. In order to analyze the data for the predicted 12 hour cyclic variation I need more solid geometry math power than I have available. If you're a math person perhaps you can steer me in the right direction.

What I need to be able to calculate is the distance between Pasadena, California and the Moon for various rotational positions of the Earth. I've downloaded a program that outputs the distance between centers of the Earth and the Moon. It also outputs the location of the Moon in two coordinate systems, Right Ascension/Declination and Azimuth/Altitude. With that data it should be possible to calculate the distance between Pasadena and the Moon, but my math power is sorely lacking for the task.

If you're reading this and can work out how to calculate that distance I'd appreciate the assistance.

Thanks,

Curiosity

Have you tried the NASA JPL/Horizons generator for the distance to the moon? That generator will give you the distance from any place on Earth to the center of the moon at any second of any year for several centurys.