• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Gravitons

A further question, if I might jump in. Back to a variant on the OP. As I understand relativity, you are traveling at the speed of light through the 4D spacetime continuum. Hence if you start moving faster through 3-space, relative, something else has to give, and all that's left is the time dimension, which you must thus decrease speed along. Hence time slows for you the faster you go, you can't go faster than light, etc.

And gravity on a planet represents a warpage in that spacetime continuum. In other words, acceleration and gravity aren't just similar phenomena -- they're the exact same phenomena. The 4D spacetime is warped, time slows for you, and thus you have to increase relative speed through 3-space, and that means acceleration, even though you're standing still. Or something like that. :)


So the question is, how do these gravitons play with respect to the suggestion that gravity is a literal warpage of this 4D spacetime?
 
Beerina said:
A further question, if I might jump in. Back to a variant on the OP. As I understand relativity, you are traveling at the speed of light through the 4D spacetime continuum. Hence if you start moving faster through 3-space, relative, something else has to give, and all that's left is the time dimension, which you must thus decrease speed along. Hence time slows for you the faster you go, you can't go faster than light, etc.

And gravity on a planet represents a warpage in that spacetime continuum. In other words, acceleration and gravity aren't just similar phenomena -- they're the exact same phenomena. The 4D spacetime is warped, time slows for you, and thus you have to increase relative speed through 3-space, and that means acceleration, even though you're standing still. Or something like that. :)


So the question is, how do these gravitons play with respect to the suggestion that gravity is a literal warpage of this 4D spacetime?
Click to expand...

This is what I was getting at too actually. When I did a search for 'graviton' before starting this thread I noticed a post like this from you that was never answered.

The answer seems to be this curvature of spacetime doesn't work at the quantum level and all other forces have a messenger particle so it's likely Gravity does too.
 
Delvo said:
It's not that gravity has like or unlike charges attracting or repelling; it's that it doesn't even appear to have two separate charges at all. But that doesn't really matter. Another of the fundamental forces (which keeps quarks together) has three kinds of "charge" instead of just two, metaphorically referred to as colors, with yet another completely unrelated set of rules for when they attract or repel. But that doesn't affect that force's dual descriptions as both a particle and a wave/field. The basic idea is that there should be both a wave/field and a particle for all of them, without their numbers or attraction/repulsion of "charges" having anything to do with that duality. It's like comparing the mechanical similarities and differences between two cars, and getting a question thrown in there about their seats' upholstery.
Click to expand...

I think a force that has more than one type of interaction is explainable by the interaction of particles, virtual or not, but not only one type of interaction. Do you agree that the shape of the universe and the expansion of the universe has to appear somewhere in the equations and when it does it will not require particles at all? If not that would be like talking about a car but not talking about the engine.
 
Beerina said:
So the question is, how do these gravitons play with respect to the suggestion that gravity is a literal warpage of this 4D spacetime?
Click to expand...

martu said:
The answer seems to be this curvature of spacetime doesn't work at the quantum level and all other forces have a messenger particle so it's likely Gravity does too.
Click to expand...

Did you not read post #6 in this thread? Gravitons are the quanta of gravity waves, and gravity waves are waves in the spacetime curvature.
 
Beerina said:
A further question, if I might jump in. Back to a variant on the OP. As I understand relativity, you are traveling at the speed of light through the 4D spacetime continuum. Hence if you start moving faster through 3-space, relative, something else has to give, and all that's left is the time dimension, which you must thus decrease speed along. Hence time slows for you the faster you go, you can't go faster than light, etc.
Click to expand...

This is SR, and yes that is one way to look at it, I am not sure how common that view is, but it is not wrong the math works out.
And gravity on a planet represents a warpage in that spacetime continuum. In other words, acceleration and gravity aren't just similar phenomena -- they're the exact same phenomena. The 4D spacetime is warped, time slows for you, and thus you have to increase relative speed through 3-space, and that means acceleration, even though you're standing still. Or something like that. :)


So the question is, how do these gravitons play with respect to the suggestion that gravity is a literal warpage of this 4D spacetime?
Click to expand...

Don't know the GR to address this statement.
 
Originally Posted by Perpetual Student
Does that imply that the graviton exists when there is a relative motion that creates waves, but that if two objects are at relative rest no gravitons are present or created? Or is it an acceleration that creates the waves and the gravitons, but a uniformly moving object does not?
s. i. -----"You can ask the same questions about the electromagnetic field, where I can answer with certainty. There, static configurations create static electric and magnetic fields. But any static field can be decomposed into waves using Fourier transforms - a static field is the superposition of a stream of waves going in opposite directions. In quantum theories, that means static classical fields are composed of photons - but enormous numbers of them."
Click to expand...

Some time ago, when I asked about the photons involved in an electrostatic force, you described the involvement of virtual photons. Would we be dealing with virtual gravitons in a situation of static gravitational pull?
 
Perpetual Student said:
Some time ago, when I asked about the photons involved in an electrostatic force, you described the involvement of virtual photons. Would we be dealing with virtual gravitons in a situation of static gravitational pull?
Click to expand...

Yes.
 
We have not discovered gravitons because gravity is a myth.

And I offer this conclusive essay as definitive proof of this once and for all.

http://www.bringyou.to/apologetics/p67.htm
All physics textbooks should include this warning label:

“This textbook contains material on Gravity. Universal Gravity is a theory, not a fact, regarding the natural law of attraction. This material should be approached with an open mind, studied carefully, and critically considered.”

The Universal Theory of Gravity is often taught in schools as a “fact,” when in fact it is not even a good theory. [....]
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
Ziggurat said:
Hey Zeuzzz, you found a source which supports your electric sun model!
Click to expand...


So, you dont have any comments about that webpage? Heh, I thought not. If you cant attack the message, just attack the messenger.

Lol
 
Zeuzzz said:
So, you dont have any comments about that webpage? Heh, I thought not. If you cant attack the message, just attack the messenger.

Lol
Click to expand...

Indeed. You did catch the picture at the bottom, right?
einstein.jpg

There's no point in attacking the "message" because the message is an intentional joke. At first I thought you knew that, but now I'm not so sure...
 
I think the author of that webpage was aware of the arguments of one of the all time chief conspiracy theorists; Ralph Rene. He had a unique approach to physics and other sciences. If he did not understand the science then the scientist must be wrong! Not only that but he was not afraid to make his own "theories" up on the spot. For a few good laughs here is his web site:

http://ralphrene.com/

He had a huge following in the Moon landing conspiracy. One of his proofs: Since he could not make a glove that would work in a vacuum with material he bought from the corner hardware store, then NASA couldn't either.
 
All you gravitationalists have nothing. All you have is "maths" and "science" and "observations".

maybe my previous posts should have come with a sarcasm disclaimer... :)
 
Ziggurat said:
Indeed. You did catch the picture at the bottom, right?
http://www.bringyou.to/apologetics/einstein.jpg
There's no point in attacking the "message" because the message is an intentional joke. At first I thought you knew that, but now I'm not so sure...
Click to expand...
And then there is the bit at the bottom:
"by Ellery Schempp posted by Kiri 2/18/2005 on the ARN “Intelligent Design” discussion board
A different version of this parody article appeared in The Humanist magazine for Sept/Oct 2006. Used by permission of author."

:rolleyes:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom