PDA

View Full Version : Momentum Gravity



Squashed
2006-Jun-12, 02:27 PM
Momentum Gravity

During recent discussions (see links below) I came to the realization that gravity is simply the result of the "sum of the momentums" of the objects.

All moving objects possess momentum which is just "mass in motion" and since mass can be defined as energy then its momentum can also be defined as "energy in motion".

A photon has momentum as shown by the following:

For:
p = momentum
m = mass
v = velocity
E = energy
c = the speed of light

E=mc2

Solving for m gives:

m=E/c2

Starting with the classical momentum equation:

p = mv

And substituting the m with the m from E = mc2 gives:

p = E/c2v

For a photon v=c and so the above equation reduces to:

p = E/c - the momentum of a photon.

Since the path of light bends in the presence of gravity then that would suggest that gravitons are "smaller" than photons and indeed that gravitons are the elemental substance of photons.

Since matter is composed of energy as stated by: E = mc2 ; and since matter is divisible: from molecules to atoms to protons/neutrons/electrons to quarks to ... photons to gravitons then it would seem that a graviton is the smallest indivisible unit of mass-energy possible in this universe.


If all matter radiates gravitons and all energy can radiate gravitons then so could a photon radiate gravitons.

If a photon radiates gravitons and since gravitons represent momentum then the total momentum represented by a photon is decreased as the photon radiates gravitons.

If this is true then as a photon travels and as it releases gravitons the photon's energy level is decreased or red-shifted.

If a photon "throws off" a graviton then the direction of travel of the photon would be altered which would result in a blurring of images - which is not evident.

This evidence would suggest two possibilities:

1.) Either photons do not emit gravitons or;
2.) Gravitons are emitted as opposing pairs in opposite directions.

Since light is red-shifted from distant celestial objects and since the images of distant celestial objects are not blurred this means that momentum is lost from the photon, enroute, and that gravitons are, indeed, emitted as opposite pairs.

The fictional force of spacetime that Einstein refers to is the result of the interference patterns of the gravitons from matter.

The interference can be either constructive interference or destructive interference.


Since matter can collide and if the two colliding bodies have equal momentum then the sum of the collision would be zero momentum or stationary mass.

If two photons collided, it would not result in stationary energy but would result in the collective graviton momentums of the two photons being "unwound" and cast off in opposite directions perpendicular to the original path of the photons.

Such a collision between two gravitons would, inconceivably, result in a stationary pair of gravitons or stationary energy and the net result would be "lost" repulsive momentum from between the two bodies that emitted the two gravitons.

More likely, there would be indirect collisions between gravitons, which would result in deflected paths for the gravitons that cause the gravitons to "miss" the target of their initial velocity.

So gravity has a repulsive component and an attractive component and the dominance of either component is determined by the interaction of the gravitons between the bodies being studied.

Momentum Gravity: All bodies emit gravitons and so all bodies emit momentum and the net sum of the momentum between two bodies generally results in a fictional force of "gravitational attraction" between the two bodies.

"Momentum Gravity" is similar to "Push Gravity" because the lost repulsive momentum between the two bodies allows the greater attractive momentum to "push" the two bodies together.

"Momentum Gravity" is dissimilar to "Push Gravity" because the gravitons are emitted directly from the bodies rather than being from a "sea of gravitons".

Discussion Links:

http://www.bautforum.com/showpost.php?p=757187&postcount=152

http://www.bautforum.com/showpost.php?p=758698&postcount=7

Squashed
2006-Jun-12, 07:19 PM
After doing a few calculations it seems like the only way for momentum gravity to work is if the gravitons are traveling at like 1,000,000 times the speed of light.

Maybe I figured it wrong: I used a 100kg object and then calculated the amount of mass needed to be "cast off" to impart a 9.8 m/sec velocity (the velocity obtained after one second of gravitational acceleration). It seems like after only 1 year the entire 100kg is gone, graviton by graviton.

ExpErdMann
2006-Jun-12, 09:06 PM
Your model is not too far developed at this stage. It did remind me of Harry Dart's old paper (http://redshift.vif.com/JournalFiles/Pre2001/V00NO17PDF/NR17DAR.PDF) from the Apeiron archives (http://redshift.vif.com/journal_archives.htm). The connection is with the throwing off of particle pairs, gravitons in your case and neutrinos in Dart's case. Harry died a few years ago.

The problem which you noted can be solved if you place more emphasis on having a universal system at equilibrium. Thus, there has to be a way for the gravitons that are lost from your masses to be replaced by new gravitons. In my own model, I put it a bit differently. I would say that it is the gravitons that are associated with masses which degrade to photons. The photons are then reabsorbed by masses to regenerate the gravitons, and in so doing generate the pushing force and shadow effect of Le Sage gravity.

A suggestion for both you and grav would be to go through the Apeiron archive or even purchase it. There's lots of good stuff in there.

Tensor
2006-Jun-13, 03:48 AM
A suggestion for both you and grav would be to go through the Apeiron archive or even purchase it. There's lots of good stuff in there.

Or, actually study GR and the math GR uses. It's a lot of work, but there is a lot of good stuff in there also.

Squashed
2006-Jun-14, 05:37 PM
Or, actually study GR and the math GR uses. It's a lot of work, but there is a lot of good stuff in there also.

I think I am slowly working out my understanding of GR relativity (as well as special relativity) and when I fully understand the theories then I will dig into the mathematics derived from the theories.

It seems to me that what is taught as "relativity" and what actually occurs in real life are two different things (http://www.bautforum.com/showpost.php?p=762158&postcount=39).

I guess this momentum gravity idea was not a total waste because I learned that a tremendous amount of energy flows through matter due to the force of gravity.

Whether it is this flow of force that is the cause of time dilation or the shape of space, as dictated by Einstein, is open to debate in my mind.

Tensor
2006-Jun-14, 06:27 PM
I think I am slowly working out my understanding of GR relativity (as well as special relativity) and when I fully understand the theories then I will dig into the mathematics derived from the theories.

You will not fully understand the theories, until you understand the math. Those word explanations are derived from or the results of, the mathematical equations, put into words. Not, the other way around.


It seems to me that what is taught as "relativity" and what actually occurs in real life are two different things (http://www.bautforum.com/showpost.php?p=762158&postcount=39).

No, what is actually taught in relativity classes is both the math and the concepts behind the math. What you get on websites and most layman level attempts to explain it, are what the math means, without the math,. The confusion arises because the words explaining it are not as precise or limiting as the math.


Whether it is this flow of force that is the cause of time dilation or the shape of space, as dictated by Einstein, is open to debate in my mind.

That's simply becasue you don't understand the math. You can take those imprecise words and stretch and twist them, until you get the confusion, in your mind, of what does what.

The math behind the theory is extremely difficult. I takes about three-four years, before you finish working through the required preliminary courses. Add another year to understand the GR math, and then you can start to work on GR. And, if you aren't taking a course in GR, and have to study it yourself, you're probably looking at another 2-3 years to even begin to have even a halfway decent understanding. So, once you start, you're looking at 6-8 years of work and study. (for those who have gone through this, I want to point out that this is an estimate for someone starting from scratch. If you've had either the calc series, diffy Q's, linear algebra or a SR course and college physics, the time could very well be shorter.