Oops, I realize that it wasn't in 'QED' but in the 'Lectures' that I read that...
----- Original Message ----- From: "Eric Cavalcanti" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Thursday, February 26, 2004 10:18 AM Subject: Fw: Gravity Carrier - could gravity be push with shadows not pull? > 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 > > >
