Quote:
|
This premise allows that either gravitons and/or other bosons make up spacetime, or are between space time and matter. Because I use the word mass. Of course that gravitons are not in matter, they are in mass. Not exactly "in" mass, but either surrounding it, or as the edge of it.
|
You're right about that. They are of such a nature that they can be said to permeate everything. I think that we agree in that they do not form a constituent component of any of the elements but that they yet keep the company of all the particles that do comprise them, effectively being displaced by those particles. The denser the object, the greater the overall displacement. That is and always has been exactly my way of thinking.
Here's an idea..
In that one must learn to not expect the expected, as often occurs in nature the exact opposite of a predicted outcome is usually encountered, it is also conceivable that gravity is a function of the absence of a homogeneous field of these gravitons/bosons. So that the more there are of these force particles in a given volume the weaker the force of gravity. Close to a large body such as a planet, the atmosphere displaces gravitons as well and we experience gravity for being on the surface, as well as atmospheric pressure. There are relatively far fewer gravitons at the bottom of the ocean, and a great deal of pressure because of the mass of the water. So what is mass, if it cannot be defined as the absence of gravitons? And gravity, if it also cannot be defined as an absence of gravitons? It's worth a good think.