[swoarg]

i am not sure if theres a difference,
but i think if you look at gravity (gravitons) at a particle level you might get an answer to you question.
this is my favorite.
http://home.earthlink.net/~danielemi...f_gravity.html
probably caus its easy reading but its just how i view gravity my self.

[dipayankar]

Which means that gravitational energy converts into force. Whether Gravitron is responsible or not we need to establish that.

Originally Posted by Mohan.C

Yes energy or mass can have force. Without energy or mass there cant be any force.

[Felix Schrodinger]

Originally Posted by swoarg

If you look at gravity (gravitons) at a particle level you might get an answer to your question. This is my favorite.
http://home.earthlink.net/~danielemi...f_gravity.html Probably because it's easy reading but it's just how I view gravity myself.

Thanks for the link Swoarg. This model is on a par with Expansion Theory and neither of then make much sense.

We appear, in this thread, to be making an assumption that gravitons exist as particles in the real world. There is no evidence whatsoever for this or indeed, any of the other bosons in the Standard Model - they are simply attempts to explain the forces of nature in one particular way.

I contend that gravitons don't exist as particles but perform a linking role in the underlying fabric of space (the gravitational field - GF). They contract in the presence of mass and this causes the deformation of the GF which we encounter in General Relativity. Gravity is not therefore a force at all - it is an effect, due to the bending of space, on matter which causes it to follow the path of least resistance.

regards
Felix

[Mohan.C]

Originally Posted by dipayankar

Which means that gravitational energy converts into force. Whether Gravitron is responsible or not we need to establish that.

I don't think it is needed to establish if graviton is responsible or not. Particle or a wave it doesn't make much of a difference. The phenomenon of gravity will not change just because the way we see becomes different. But I think it is important to establish if it is gravitons or not to harness this energy. What do you think, to understand gravity is it necessary to find a graviton.

[Mohan.C]

Originally Posted by Felix Schrodinger

Thanks for the link Swoarg. This model is on a par with Expansion Theory and neither of then make much sense.

We appear, in this thread, to be making an assumption that gravitons exist as particles in the real world. There is no evidence whatsoever for this or indeed, any of the other bosons in the Standard Model - they are simply attempts to explain the forces of nature in one particular way.

I contend that gravitons don't exist as particles but perform a linking role in the underlying fabric of space (the gravitational field - GF). They contract in the presence of mass and this causes the deformation of the GF which we encounter in General Relativity. Gravity is not therefore a force at all - it is an effect, due to the bending of space, on matter which causes it to follow the path of least resistance.

regards
Felix

So do you view graviton as a kind of an aether?

[swoarg]

I contend that gravitons don't exist as particles but perform a linking role in the underlying fabric of space (the gravitational field - GF). They contract in the presence of mass and this causes the deformation of the GF which we encounter in General Relativity. Gravity is not therefore a force at all - it is an effect, due to the bending of space, on matter which causes it to follow the path of least resistance.

hmm i find it so hard to comprehend that gravity or gravitons cant exist as particles of sort, i thought all particles had a gravational field,
so do particles carry or transport gravity ?.
what about point particles?.
maybe we should define particle, and then theorise
on gravitional energy.

[Felix Schrodinger]

Originally Posted by Mohan.C

So do you view graviton as a kind of an aether?

Hi Mohan

Yes indeed - gravitons are the flexible links that go to make up the gravitational field (the fabric of space or aether) but we need another component for them to join with. My concept for this (it's called a 'mason') is a substitute for the Higgs Boson and they form the nodes of the GF. Neither of these are 'particles' as they don't exist in the world which we experience.

I am just about to update my article 'The Dance of Shiva' which includes this framework.

regards
Felix

[Felix Schrodinger]

Originally Posted by swoarg

I find it so hard to comprehend that gravity or gravitons can't exist as particles of sort, I thought all particles had a gravational field, so do particles carry or transport gravity? What about point particles? Maybe we should define particle and then theorise on gravitional energy.??

Hi Swoarg

Yes indeed we need a definition of 'particle'. Mine only includes those that we can experience in our real world. As my graviton is a part of the underlying structure, it is not part of our 'real' world and whilst we experience its effects, we can't detect it directly. Something which is part of the GF itself cannot have a GF. Gravity is not a force at all - it's an effect - and so does not have energy.

See reply above for my more detailed explanation.

regards
Felix

[dipayankar]

Could be Mohan. Our understanding of light changed bythe discovery of the photon. We do not know how Gravitron might change our understanding of Gravity. However gravitron could explain a lot of anomalies of Gravity... What say Felix / Prof???

Originally Posted by Mohan.C

I don't think it is needed to establish if graviton is responsible or not. Particle or a wave it doesn't make much of a difference. The phenomenon of gravity will not change just because the way we see becomes different. But I think it is important to establish if it is gravitons or not to harness this energy. What do you think, to understand gravity is it necessary to find a graviton.

[Mohan.C]

Originally Posted by swoarg

hmm i find it so hard to comprehend that gravity or gravitons cant exist as particles of sort, i thought all particles had a gravational field,
so do particles carry or transport gravity ?.
what about point particles?.
maybe we should define particle, and then theorise
on gravitional energy.

Hi swoarg,
So do you think even gravitons should have a gravitational field.
And a point is zero dimensional so a particle with zero dimensions would be hard to imagine as it cannot exist.
I think I'll define particle as condensed space.
In which case we can explain gravity because it is an effect due to the contraction of space.