A Space & astronomy forum. SpaceBanter.com

Go Back   Home » SpaceBanter.com forum » Others » Misc
Site Map Home Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

How is Gravity Actually Caused? (was - How Do Gravitons . . .)



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old April 15th 08, 02:59 PM posted to alt.astronomy
oldcoot
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,357
Default How is Gravity Actually Caused? (was - How Do Gravitons . . .)

On Apr 12, 11:02*am, "N:dlzc D:aol T:com \(dlzc\)"
wrote,

And more importantly, how do you see
this as having the power to result in a
supernova?


Separate issue.

Ahem. Separate issue NOT! A supernova is one of the most dramatic and
DIRECT displays of gravity-in-action. A *real* force (not a pseudo or
'fictitious' force) POWERS the stellar collapse that powers the fusion
that rebounds as a SN blast.
Unless and until the prevailing theories of
gravitation can explain the literal _acting mechanism _ that POWERS a
supernova, those theories are worthless. It's crunch time :-), time
for those theories to put up or shut up. The two competing theories
a 1.) geometry and 'curvature' of 'Something that is yet Nothing'
and 2.) "gravitons". So how does either theory explain the real
_mechanism of causation_ driving a supernova, and in train, the causal
mechanism of gravity itself?

Per Occam's razor, the most obvious answer would be: a spatial medium
under a state of pressurization exceeding degeneracy pressure of the
atomic nucleus.. and the pressure-driven FLOW of that medium into the
core of every atomic nucleus.. and that herein lies unification of
gravity and the strong nuclear force. And yes, it is a PUSH force. And
no, it is not a Le Sage theory. The resemblance is only superficial.
Le Sage proposed a "shadowing" effect of sorts, and had no concept of
the hyperpressurized state of the spatial medium or of its FLOW into
all atomic nucleii, thereby sustaining and perpetuating all nuclear
processes AND the action-at-a-distance effect we call "gravity".

Either gravity is exactly what it appears to be and behaves as (i.e.,
the pressure-driven, accelerating flow of the spatial medium into mass
with mass synonymous with flow sink), or it's angels, imps and Sky
Pixies.


  #2  
Old April 15th 08, 03:59 PM posted to alt.astronomy
dlzc
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,426
Default How is Gravity Actually Caused? (was - How Do Gravitons . . .)

On Apr 15, 6:59*am, oldcoot wrote:
On Apr 12, 11:02*am, "N:dlzcD:aol T:com \(dlzc\)"
wrote,

And more importantly, how do you see
this as having the power to result in a
supernova?


Separate issue.


Ahem. Separate issue NOT! A supernova is
one of the most dramatic and DIRECT
displays of gravity-in-action.


Unquantified assertions ot the contrary, people have been crushed to
death by other people trying to get through a confined space. No
single person can crush another one to death (not including some world
record holders) "Traffic jam" is sufficient to provide the pressure
to achieve the conditions necessary to form heavier nucleii in a
supernova.

A *real* force (not a pseudo or 'fictitious' force)
POWERS the stellar collapse that powers the fusion
that rebounds as a SN blast.
* * * * * * * * * * *Unless and until the prevailing theories
of gravitation can explain the literal _acting
mechanism _ that POWERS a supernova,


force =/= power

those theories are worthless. It's crunch time :-),


Quite literally.

time for those theories to put up or shut up. The two
competing theories a 1.) geometry and 'curvature'
of *'Something that is yet Nothing' and *2.) "gravitons".


Still not observed.

So how does either theory explain the real
_mechanism of causation_ driving a supernova, and
in train, the causal mechanism of gravity itself?


1) the choices of "forward" tend to favor "towards a mass
concentration", for the host of assembled particles. Including the
hundred trillion or so "behind" you.

2) gravitons are virtual exchange particles, like the virtual photon
that provides the effect of "electric field". Don't place too much
faith in a praticle that seems to have a mass / energy larger than
most molecules.

Per Occam's razor, the most obvious answer would be:
a spatial medium under a state of pressurization
exceeding degeneracy pressure of the atomic nucleus..
and the pressure-driven FLOW of that medium into the
core of every atomic nucleus.. and that herein lies
unification of gravity and the strong nuclear force. And
yes, it is a PUSH force. And no, it is not a Le Sage
theory. The resemblance is only superficial. Le Sage
proposed a "shadowing" effect of sorts, and had no
concept of the hyperpressurized state of the spatial
medium or of its FLOW into all atomic nucleii, thereby
sustaining and perpetuating all nuclear processes AND
the action-at-a-distance effect we call "gravity".


You still describe Le Sage. And your model also still has issues.

Either gravity is exactly what it appears to be


It appears to be curvature. Witness "corilois effect". Witness
curvature requires no "action at a distance", all forces are contact
forces.

and behaves as (i.e., the pressure-driven, accelerating
flow of the spatial medium into mass with mass
synonymous with flow sink), or it's angels, imps and Sky
Pixies.


Occam's razor does not favor your position. You should not rely on
it.

David A. Smith
  #3  
Old April 15th 08, 06:08 PM posted to alt.astronomy
oldcoot
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,357
Default How is Gravity Actually Caused? (was - How Do Gravitons . . .)

On Apr 15, 7:59*am, dlzc wrote:

1) the choices of "forward" tend to favor "towards a mass
concentration", for the host of assembled particles. *Including the
hundred trillion or so "behind" you.

And so what POWERS the inexorable inward force of all the stuff
"behind" you...

...except the obvious : the hyperpressurized state of the spatial
medium venting down to the lowest pressure-state at the core of every
atomic nucleus?
The prevailing theories of gravitation are predicated
on space being a universally-isotropic 'void-nothing' all the way back
to the Big Bang. This premise of space being functionally void (the
void-space paradigm or VSP) necessates ad hockery such as 'exchange
particles', 'virtual particles', 'flying photons', 'gravitons',
geometry-as-the-cause-of-gravity
etc. But what if space is NOT a void but a universe-filling Plenum, a
hyperpressurized, highly mobile Fluid that's amenable to expansion/
compression and density gradients? Only this model offers a compelling
explanation of the mechanism POWERING the collapse of a massive star
down to a black hole, popping off a supernova in the process.




  #4  
Old April 15th 08, 09:16 PM posted to alt.astronomy
oldcoot
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,357
Default How is Gravity Actually Caused? (was - How Do Gravitons . . .)

On Apr 15, 7:59*am, dlzc wrote:

It appears to be curvature. *Witness "corilois effect". *Witness
curvature requires no "action at a distance", all forces are contact
forces.

Take this analogy: you have a bathtub full of water. The plug has been
pulled so the tub is draining. At the far end of the tub away from the
drain a rubber ducky is floating. The duck is observed to be moving
inexorably toward the drain, slowly at first, then faster and faster,
*going with* the accelerating flow. Note that the duck is not being
"pulled" but is being PUSHED along by the flow. This is the essence
of gravity's 'action at a distance', wherein a gravitating mass is the
flow sink or 'drain'.
The "attraction" of gravity is a pseudo or fictitious
force like "vacuum", "suction", "centrifugal" force, corialis effect
etc.

If the flowing-space model of gravity is bunkum, it *is* interesting
is that increasing numbers of people worldwide, independantly and
without collaboration, are deducing essentally the *same* mechanism.
Their models differ only superficially, but all are seeing the same
accelerating, omnidirectional 'reverse starburst' flow of the spatial
medium into mass with mass synonymous with flow sink. It's a no
brainer like "Doh! The Earth really is round and revolves around the
sun."

  #5  
Old April 15th 08, 10:08 PM posted to alt.astronomy
dlzc
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,426
Default How is Gravity Actually Caused? (was - How Do Gravitons . . .)

Dear oldcoot:

On Apr 15, 10:08*am, oldcoot wrote:
On Apr 15, wrote:

1) the choices of "forward" tend to favor "towards a mass
concentration", for the host of assembled particles.
*Including the hundred trillion or so "behind" you.


And so what POWERS the inexorable inward force of all
the stuff "behind" you...


Momentum. To move off teh geodesic takes energy / momentum other than
what it has.

David A. Smith
  #6  
Old April 17th 08, 02:01 PM posted to alt.astronomy
G=EMC^2 Glazier[_1_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 10,860
Default How is Gravity Actually Caused? (was - How Do Gravitons . . .)

oc As i've pointed out Gravity being a push force rather than a pull
like static electricity and magnetizim creates more problems. You
relate it like a drain. I posted you could put holes in the bottom of a
fish tank and the fish will be "pushed to the floor" Virtual photons
can be made to act like a push force,and still come out of two objects
giving them mutual gravity. Outside space push has been theorized for
over 200 years. You say space curve is baloney because who can show the
curve. I could come back with in push gravity "What particle or wave
is doing the pushing? You see oc push or pull Concave and convex
"curves" does not give us the mysteries of the force of gravity.
Reality is no one knew that better than Einstein. He spent the last 30
years of his life on that quest,and in vain. He knew GR could not work
in th3e microscopic realm. That is why you read "quantum gravity" That
is is the reason for my "Spin is in theory" to help solve the mystery
of gravitation Bert

  #7  
Old April 17th 08, 02:40 PM posted to alt.astronomy
BradGuth
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 21,544
Default How is Gravity Actually Caused? (was - How Do Gravitons . . .)

On Apr 15, 1:16 pm, oldcoot wrote:
On Apr 15, 7:59 am, dlzc wrote:

It appears to be curvature. Witness "corilois effect". Witness
curvature requires no "action at a distance", all forces are contact
forces.


Take this analogy: you have a bathtub full of water. The plug has been
pulled so the tub is draining. At the far end of the tub away from the
drain a rubber ducky is floating. The duck is observed to be moving
inexorably toward the drain, slowly at first, then faster and faster,
*going with* the accelerating flow. Note that the duck is not being
"pulled" but is being PUSHED along by the flow. This is the essence
of gravity's 'action at a distance', wherein a gravitating mass is the
flow sink or 'drain'.
The "attraction" of gravity is a pseudo or fictitious
force like "vacuum", "suction", "centrifugal" force, corialis effect
etc.

If the flowing-space model of gravity is bunkum, it *is* interesting
is that increasing numbers of people worldwide, independantly and
without collaboration, are deducing essentally the *same* mechanism.
Their models differ only superficially, but all are seeing the same
accelerating, omnidirectional 'reverse starburst' flow of the spatial
medium into mass with mass synonymous with flow sink. It's a no
brainer like "Doh! The Earth really is round and revolves around the
sun."


Your duck to drain theory has some merit, especially if the horrific
outflow of photons and gravitons is what's pushing ducky along.

However, it could still be the drag or pull of that fast moving stream
of photons/gravitons as gravity that's zooming past ducky, if not the
stellar wind like friction aspects.

Why not consider all of the above as having something to do with
moving ducky towards that drain (there's also a negative slope to
consider, in space possibly an upward or positive drainage slope), as
then we get back to salvaging what little is left of Earth before it's
too late?
.. - Brad Guth
  #8  
Old April 17th 08, 04:01 PM posted to alt.astronomy
oldcoot[_2_] oldcoot[_2_] is offline
Banned
 
First recorded activity by SpaceBanter: Apr 2007
Posts: 608
Default How is Gravity Actually Caused? (was - How Do Gravitons . . .)

Bert wrote,

You say space curve is baloney because who can show the curve.


Never said it was baloney, Bert. "Curvature" is a cryptic but brilliant
metaphor of the _acceleration rate_ of flowing space. It is GR's
'accelerometer readout'. If there is no acceleration component to a
flow, there is no "curvature of space", no gravity, no momentum imparted
to matter embedded in the flow _irrespective of the actual velocity of
the flow_.

I could come back with in push gravity "What particle or wave is

doing the pushing?

No particle or wave. As stated mucho many times previously, the
hyperpressurized state, the 'supra-cosmic overpressure' (or SCO) of the
spatial medium itself "does the pushing" into the lowest pressure-state
at the core of every atomic nucleus. The SCO demonstrates a
pressure-state far exceeding degeneracy pressure of the atomic nucleus
in its (the SCO's) ability to crush a massive star down to a BH, often
popping off a supernova while so doing.
It demonstrates one Flow, driven by one Force, the SCO,
unifying all the fundamental forces _including gravity_ in the Unified
Field of Spatial Flows. And it don't take one iota of math to understand
it. :-)

  #9  
Old April 17th 08, 04:32 PM posted to alt.astronomy
oldcoot
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,357
Default How is Gravity Actually Caused? (was - How Do Gravitons . . .)



Your duck to drain theory has some merit, especially if the horrific
outflow of photons and gravitons is what's pushing ducky along.

However, it could still be the drag or pull of that fast moving stream
of photons/gravitons as gravity that's zooming past ducky, if not the
stellar wind like friction aspects.

Why not consider all of the above as having something to do with
moving ducky towards that drain (there's also a negative slope to
consider, in space possibly an upward or positive drainage slope), as
then we get back to salvaging what little is left of Earth before it's
too late?

Mythical 'exchange particles' aside, what you've more or less
outlined is the 'spagettification' effect one would experience falling
into a BH due to the extreme accelerational gradient of the inflow
(the inflow of the spatial medium itself). Such an extreme gradient
would be true of a several-solar-mass BH. But a supermassive, galactic-
scale BH would exhibit a much less severe gradient and you wouldn't
get 'spagettified' crossing the event horizon.

And as mentioned several times previously, a "pull" aspect could be
envisaged in the spagettification effect if one is still a fan of the
"pull" model of gravity,

  #10  
Old April 17th 08, 11:13 PM posted to alt.astronomy
oldcoot
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,357
Default How is Gravity Actually Caused? (was - How Do Gravitons . . .)

Addendum to last sentence

...as mentioned several times previously, a "pull" aspect could be
envisaged in the spagettification effect if one is still a fan of the
"pull" model of gravity.


Think of the venturi in your carburetor.

 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
How is Gravity Actually Caused? (was - How Do Gravitons . . .) G=EMC^2 Glazier[_1_] Misc 17 April 28th 08 08:46 PM
[WWW] Gravity Probe B has anomalous data. Could this be caused by gravito magnetism? Supertech Research 0 April 26th 07 02:57 PM
A fluxuating variation in a propelled gravity field may have caused dino extinction [email protected] Astronomy Misc 0 January 8th 07 01:43 AM
Dark matter and dark energy are caused by only gravity and the boyancy effect [email protected] Astronomy Misc 3 April 16th 06 06:40 PM
Dark matter and dark energy are caused by only gravity and the boyancy effect [email protected] Astronomy Misc 1 April 12th 06 08:03 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 09:44 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 SpaceBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.