Pushing gravity mechanics

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote><font size=2 face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>Where did the idea that gravitons miss small bodies come from?
<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size=2 id=quote>
I wanted to say: if small body doesn't produce shading...
My reasonning start with this:

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote><font size=2 face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>And so each cylinder is struck just as often and just as hard by the net downward graviton wind. <hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size=2 id=quote>
If it's true then the outer part of the cylinder or of the sphere in my example, doesn't produce shading.
<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote><font size=2 face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>every atom of the Earth is almost equally accessible to a graviton impact with every other atom <hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size=2 id=quote>
Again this imply that the atoms at the center of the earth are not shaded from the outer layer of the earth.
What I don't understand is that inside earth or a body their's no shading (equally accessible to a graviton impact) and outside of earth or of a body , their is shading.
Is this question clear enought? Don't hesitate to ask me more explainations on this questioning.
Thank you

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote><font size=2 face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>What I don't understand is that inside earth or a body their's no shading (equally accessible to a graviton impact) and outside of earth or of a body , their is shading.<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size=2 id=quote>The "shading" is there, but its cross-section is too small and the graviton flux is too great to get attenuated by that cross-section. I.e. only an infinitesimally small part of the flux is shadowed.

When viewing the gravity in a bowling ball and comparing that to the earth, but then extend that to (sorry guys) a Black Hole (if they exist) then you can see that the field potential is enormous but the attenuation factor is equally infintesimal.

So AB is absolutely right when he says your shadow is there but that it is insignifigant.

This remainds me of a string on another site. The concept was presented and the fellow was infact absolutely correct and that was that he was upset because the standard as tought physics "A feather has the same acceleration due to gravity that a bowling ball would" is actually false.

I'll stop here and wait for the flak, then I'll explain his view.

If I understand well in the MM the shape of the falling object make a small "insignifigant", "an infinitesimally small part " difference.
If we can design an experiment enabling us to mesure this infinitisimal small part, the MM will have made a prevision <BLOCKQUOTE id=quote><font size=2 face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>[Mac]: because the standard as tought physics "A feather has the same acceleration due to gravity that a bowling ball would" <u>is actually false</u>.
<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size=2 id=quote>
but I doubt that a so small effect would be mesurable.
Thank you every body for your answers!
<img src=icon_smile_shy.gif border=0 align=middle>
I have an other question about MM gravity and light. I readed in the thread about the light duality question, that in MM the propation medium of light is elysium.
Does graviton interract with elysium ?

Since there seems to be no arguement, there would be no need to waste board time explaining that commonly taught physics are false on the point of different objects having the same rates of free fall - they do not. But you would be surprised how many people normally want to challenge that fact. His point was valid in this respect however and I don't think it should be lost.

Physics is purportedly a precise science, at least to our best estimate, and the teachings ignore that fact and teach a falsity.

From Mac,

The concept was presented and the fellow was infact absolutely correct and that was that he was upset because the standard as tought physics "A feather has the same acceleration due to gravity that a bowling ball would" is actually false.

---

Just a moment Mac,

I'm interested to hear the argument. Very much so. It seems you have a lot to contribute in this area. Surely, the whole foundation of modern Physics rests on Galileo's free fall and reference frames. Actually Newton just placed Galileo's postulates in a formal framework. Did Galileo actually prove free fall indepedence of mass? My own opinion and many other's I 've read is he did NOT by any means. Yet, everyone rushed in and accepted his postulates like a religion. Why? It's a puzzle to me and I guess to many others.

I'm all ears Mac.