Hi there, Well, it is a good try, but it has been proven wrong already indeed. To see a better refutal, see Feynman's popular book 'QED'. For instance, that theory seems even better once you realize that it also acounts for the inverse-square law. But the main flaw, if I recall it, is that objects moving around in space would feel a larger flux of 'iGravitons' coming against the direction of movement, causing a decrease in velocity. So much for inertia...
-Eric. > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Eric Hawthorne" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Sent: Thursday, February 26, 2004 6:46 AM > Subject: Re: Gravity Carrier - could gravity be push with shadows not pull? > > > > Caveat: This post will likely demonstrate my complete lack of advanced > > physics education. > > > > But here goes anyway. > > > > Is it possible to model gravity as space being filled with an > > all-directional flux of "inverse gravitons"? These would be > > particles which: > > 1. Zoom around EVERYWHERE with a uniform distribution of velocities (up > > to C in any direction). > > 2. Interact weakly with matter, imparting a small momentum to matter (in > > the direction that the "iGraviton" > > was moving) should they collide with a matter particle. The momentum > > comes at the cost that the > > "iGraviton" which collided with mass either disappears or at least > > reduces its velocity relative > > to the mass's velocity. > > > > So note that: > > 1. If there was just a single mass, it would not receive any net > > momentum by collisions from iGravitons > > because iGravitons with an even distribution of velocities impact it > > from all sides with equal probability, > > no matter what the mass's velocity. (This is true because C is the same > > for each mass no matter how > > it's travelling, so "even distribution of velocities up to C" is also > > the same from the perspective of each > > mass regardless of its velocity. > > > > 2. If two masses are near each other, they shadow each other from the > > flux of iGravitons which > > would otherwise be impacting them from the direction in between them. > > This shadowing would > > be proportional to the inverse square of the distances between the > > masses, and would be proportional > > to the probability of each mass colliding with (i.e. absorbing) > > iGravitons, and this probability would > > be proportional to the amount of each mass. > > (So the iGraviton shadow between the masses would have properties like a > > gravitational field). > > > > 3. The mutual shadowing from momentum-imparting flux from all directions > > means that net momentum > > would be imparted on the masses toward each other (by nothing other than > > the usual collisions > > with iGravitons from all other directions.) > > > > 4. The deficit of iGravitons (or deficit in velocity of them) in between > > absorbtive masses > > could be viewed as inward curvature of space-time in that region. Amount > > or velocity distribution > > of iGraviton flux in a region could correspond in some way with the > > dimensionality of space in that region. > > > > I find this theory appealing because > > 1. it's fundamental assumption for causation of gravity is simple (a > > uniformly-distributed-in-velocity-and-density > > flux of space-involved (i.e. space-defining) particles.) > > 2. The paucity of iGravitons (or high iGraviton velocities) in a region > > corresponding to inward-curving space > > is an appealingly direct analogy. You can visualize iGravitons as > > "puffing up" space and a lack of them > > causing space there to sag in on itself. > > > > I'd be willing to bet that someone has thought of this long before and > > that it's been proven that > > the math doesn't work out for it. Has anyone heard of anything like > > this? Is it proven silly already? > > > > Cheers, > > Eric > >
