- Thank you received: 0
Acceleration due to gravitons
- tvanflandern
- Topic Author
- Offline
- Platinum Member
Less
More
20 years 4 months ago #11499
by tvanflandern
Reply from Tom Van Flandern was created by tvanflandern
<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by kingdavid</i>
<br /><blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">[JUU]: <i>If the gravitational force was present in the absence of anything to produce a counteracting force (friction from air, solid object, rocket thrust, etc.), then the object will continue to accelerate to the upper limits of the force being applied (whatever those are)</i><hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">I would like to ask Tom or anyone else knowledgable about MM, if the above in italics is true for the MM as I understand it?<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">The statement quoted is trivially true for all forces under all circumstances. All forces have a propagation speed. The speed imparted to the target body cannot exceed the speed of propagation of the force, because once the body travels faster than the force, the force can no longer catch up with it.
For example, if you place a projectile into a slingshot, the projectile cannot have a speed greater than that of the slingshot, regardless of the mass of the projectile.
Another example: Solar radiation pressure can accelerate small particles for as long as light continues to shine on them dominantly from one direction. But the dust particle can never be made to go faster than the speed of light through this process because then light from a source could no longer reach the particle and shine on its side facing the source.
<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">I mean would the object continue accelerating until the graviton speed was reached (20 to 20billion * light) - then would it stop accelerating because it has reached the exact speed of all surrounding gravitons hitting from above<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">Yes, if it were possible for objects to travel that fast, they would stop accelerating at the mean graviton speed. But remember that 20 billion c is a lower limit, not an estimate of the actual mean speed of gravitons.
More to the point, though: It would be very difficult for normal objects to exceed the speed of light because of drag from the elysium medium (analogous to terminal speed for falling objects in Earth's atmosphere).
<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">-is this how the MM explains acceleration of an object?<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">Not at all. Objects accelerate because of an imbalance of gravitons arriving from different directions. That would be true regardless of the mean graviton speed. -|Tom|-
<br /><blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">[JUU]: <i>If the gravitational force was present in the absence of anything to produce a counteracting force (friction from air, solid object, rocket thrust, etc.), then the object will continue to accelerate to the upper limits of the force being applied (whatever those are)</i><hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">I would like to ask Tom or anyone else knowledgable about MM, if the above in italics is true for the MM as I understand it?<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">The statement quoted is trivially true for all forces under all circumstances. All forces have a propagation speed. The speed imparted to the target body cannot exceed the speed of propagation of the force, because once the body travels faster than the force, the force can no longer catch up with it.
For example, if you place a projectile into a slingshot, the projectile cannot have a speed greater than that of the slingshot, regardless of the mass of the projectile.
Another example: Solar radiation pressure can accelerate small particles for as long as light continues to shine on them dominantly from one direction. But the dust particle can never be made to go faster than the speed of light through this process because then light from a source could no longer reach the particle and shine on its side facing the source.
<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">I mean would the object continue accelerating until the graviton speed was reached (20 to 20billion * light) - then would it stop accelerating because it has reached the exact speed of all surrounding gravitons hitting from above<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">Yes, if it were possible for objects to travel that fast, they would stop accelerating at the mean graviton speed. But remember that 20 billion c is a lower limit, not an estimate of the actual mean speed of gravitons.
More to the point, though: It would be very difficult for normal objects to exceed the speed of light because of drag from the elysium medium (analogous to terminal speed for falling objects in Earth's atmosphere).
<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">-is this how the MM explains acceleration of an object?<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">Not at all. Objects accelerate because of an imbalance of gravitons arriving from different directions. That would be true regardless of the mean graviton speed. -|Tom|-
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.
20 years 4 months ago #11221
by kingdavid
Replied by kingdavid on topic Reply from David King
<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">-is this how the MM explains acceleration of an object?<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">
Not at all. Objects accelerate because of an imbalance of gravitons arriving from different directions. That would be true regardless of the mean graviton speed. -|Tom|-
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">
I understand how the imbalance of gravitons makes an object fall.
I was meaning the process of the gravitons hitting an object from mostly above, impart a slight momentum to the object in mid air and, everytime this happens an object will accelerate until it hits the ground. Is this how MM explains acceleration?
Not at all. Objects accelerate because of an imbalance of gravitons arriving from different directions. That would be true regardless of the mean graviton speed. -|Tom|-
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">
I understand how the imbalance of gravitons makes an object fall.
I was meaning the process of the gravitons hitting an object from mostly above, impart a slight momentum to the object in mid air and, everytime this happens an object will accelerate until it hits the ground. Is this how MM explains acceleration?
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.
- tvanflandern
- Topic Author
- Offline
- Platinum Member
Less
More
- Thank you received: 0
20 years 4 months ago #10926
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"><i>Originally posted by kingdavid</i>
<br />I was meaning the process of the gravitons hitting an object from mostly above, impart a slight momentum to the object in mid air and, everytime this happens an object will accelerate until it hits the ground. Is this how MM explains acceleration?<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">Yes. -|Tom|-
<br />I was meaning the process of the gravitons hitting an object from mostly above, impart a slight momentum to the object in mid air and, everytime this happens an object will accelerate until it hits the ground. Is this how MM explains acceleration?<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">Yes. -|Tom|-
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.
20 years 4 months ago #10360
by Jan
Replied by Jan on topic Reply from Jan Vink
Tom,
There is a QM paper that says the gravitational interaction depends on object composition and temperature. See:
Donoghue, J.F. and B R Holstein. Aristotle was right: heavier objects fall faster. European Journal of Physics, <b>8</b>: 105-113, 1987.
<b>Abstract</b>. According to the weak form of the equivalence principle all objects fall at the same rate in a gravitational field. However, recent calculations in finite-temperature quantum field theory have revealed that at T>0 heavier and/or colder objects actually fall faster than their lighter and/or warmer counterparts. This unexpected result is demonstrated using elementary quantum mechanical arguments.
Now, it would seem intuitively plausible that the MM is compatible with this conclusion, but what is your view on this?
There is a QM paper that says the gravitational interaction depends on object composition and temperature. See:
Donoghue, J.F. and B R Holstein. Aristotle was right: heavier objects fall faster. European Journal of Physics, <b>8</b>: 105-113, 1987.
<b>Abstract</b>. According to the weak form of the equivalence principle all objects fall at the same rate in a gravitational field. However, recent calculations in finite-temperature quantum field theory have revealed that at T>0 heavier and/or colder objects actually fall faster than their lighter and/or warmer counterparts. This unexpected result is demonstrated using elementary quantum mechanical arguments.
Now, it would seem intuitively plausible that the MM is compatible with this conclusion, but what is your view on this?
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.
20 years 4 months ago #10361
by kingdavid
Replied by kingdavid on topic Reply from David King
<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by tvanflandern</i>
<br /><blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by kingdavid</i>
<br />I was meaning the process of the gravitons hitting an object from mostly above, impart a slight momentum to the object in mid air and, everytime this happens an object will accelerate until it hits the ground. Is this how MM explains acceleration?<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">Yes. -|Tom|-
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">
Excellent. Then the reason for jupiters greater acceleration than earths, is nothing to do with my erroneus thinking about gravitons travelling faster there but, simply that jupiter attracts many more gravitons, hence more will hit from above and the falling object will accelerate quicker than on earth.
<br /><blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by kingdavid</i>
<br />I was meaning the process of the gravitons hitting an object from mostly above, impart a slight momentum to the object in mid air and, everytime this happens an object will accelerate until it hits the ground. Is this how MM explains acceleration?<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">Yes. -|Tom|-
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">
Excellent. Then the reason for jupiters greater acceleration than earths, is nothing to do with my erroneus thinking about gravitons travelling faster there but, simply that jupiter attracts many more gravitons, hence more will hit from above and the falling object will accelerate quicker than on earth.
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.
- tvanflandern
- Topic Author
- Offline
- Platinum Member
Less
More
- Thank you received: 0
20 years 4 months ago #11222
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"><i>Originally posted by Jan</i>
<br />what is your view on this?<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">I can't tell much from the abstract, but will bet this doesn't pass peer review. However, it is reminiscent of Greenberger and Overhauser's paper in the 80s showing a violation of the weak equivalence principle. Unfortunately, it is also reminiscent of Podkletnov's much less credible work and other speculations about a "fifth force" operating at short range. -|Tom|-
<br />what is your view on this?<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">I can't tell much from the abstract, but will bet this doesn't pass peer review. However, it is reminiscent of Greenberger and Overhauser's paper in the 80s showing a violation of the weak equivalence principle. Unfortunately, it is also reminiscent of Podkletnov's much less credible work and other speculations about a "fifth force" operating at short range. -|Tom|-
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.
Time to create page: 0.320 seconds