If Einstien's view of gravity is that it is an effect of curved spacetime, and objects move in a gravitational field according to the local "geometry" of spacetime, then how do gravitons fit into the scheme of things? Are they required by theories of quantum gravity? And if they are the exchange particles of the gravitational force, is there any reason to believe that they could be manipulated or blocked (sort of like shielding against electromagnetic fields)?

I think this would probably lead to violation of the law of conservation of energy..
Block gravity, lift up a weight, unblock, let the falling weight do work.
Ofcourse if the blocking would consume more energy then the lifting of the weight in normal conditions, then I suppose there is a possibility. But I'm just thinking out loud, not that I knew anything about it.

Right. Me either. I'm just wondering if the two world views conflict and how...

I dont think there is a possibility to find a substance of some sort, that canceles out gravitation, as it passes through it, weakening the gravity on the other side of it. But possibly some sort of field, that needs some amount of energy to be in existence.

I remember reading somewhere, that a test had been made where a body was measured to be lighter above a rotating disc. Don't know if its correct and if its got to do anything with actually weakening the gravitational field, but still if anyone else has heard about it, then maybe you could post some links.

Gravitons are not included in General Relativity. They are particles postulated by String Theory to carry gravity.

The modern physics are screwed up because scientists don't care to research more about magnetism. Magnetism is the only force...

Lucas,
does this your assertion mean that GRT does not lead to the possibility of the existence of the gravitational waves?

Lucas wrote:

Gravitons are not included in General Relativity. They are particles postulated by String Theory to carry gravity.

I understand that. So what does this do to the notion of "curved" spacetime as the explanation for the origin of gravity (if gravitons are actually detected)?

If Einstien's view of gravity is that it is an effect of curved spacetime, and objects move in a gravitational field according to the local "geometry" of spacetime, then how do gravitons fit into the scheme of things?They do not.

So what does this do to the notion of "curved" spacetime as the explanation for the origin of gravity (if gravitons are actually detected)?Einstein's theory of general relativity is disprovable by the discovery of gravitons.

I dont think there is a possibility to find a substance of some sort, that canceles out gravitation, as it passes through it, weakening the gravity on the other side of it. But possibly some sort of field, that needs some amount of energy to be in existence.

Hmm, gravitation shield, interesting. You can imagine gravity as a constant stream of gravitons pointed toward the Earth, coming from all directions. if there was some way to produce gravitons in the opposite to the gravity direction, something like a gravitons generator, the both streams of graviton will compensate and you will have exactly the same - A Super Power Anti-Gravitational Engine, which will bring you up to the stars... :)

Anyway, i think that a shiled that do not permits gravitons to pass, something like gravity isolator is impossible because gravitons are produced in gigantic quantities all around us and they are a basic property of the vacuum. There is bothing that can stop gravitons.

I think that GG /Gravitons Generator/ is the only way. But before a proper and complete theory about gravity (or micro-gravity) is nessary ...

does this your assertion mean that GRT does not lead to the possibility of the existence of the gravitational waves?

Yuriy, gravitational waves are a prediction of GR, but they don't have any relation with gravitons. They are simply ripples of spacetime

I understand that. So what does this do to the notion of "curved" spacetime as the explanation for the origin of gravity (if gravitons are actually detected)?
If gravitons are detected (i don't think because I don't believe in their existence) it will mean the GR is dead wrong. But actually Einstein can rest happy, there's no way to detect the damned particle

Yuriy, gravitational waves are a prediction of GR, but they don't have any relation with gravitons. They are simply ripples of spacetime

Light can be considered as a wave too, but that doesn't prohibit viewing it as a flow of particles also.

But that's quantum mechanics and here we are talking about classical GR, a classical theory, thus quantization of waves is not included

Lucas,
Imagine that we went into Museum wearing the red glasses. We can passionate discuss colors of things there, and we will be amazed that some of them totally absent there. We will try to create appropriate theory of that phenomena, dispute on validity of our old theories predicted a full spectrum of colors in Nature, create and challenge specific postulates to explain what we see, etc, etc. But all what it needs to be done is that …we should take off our glasses! The same situation is with your response:
But that's quantum mechanics and here we are talking about classical GR, a classical theory, thus quantization of waves is not included
Simply take off artificial restriction (glasses) “we are talking about classical GR” and you will see another World!

Yuriy, gravitational waves are a prediction of GR, but they don't have any relation with gravitons. They are simply ripples of spacetime


If gravitons are detected (i don't think because I don't believe in their existence) it will mean the GR is dead wrong. But actually Einstein can rest happy, there's no way to detect the damned particle


1 - Would you agree that GR (like Newton) gravitational strength is calculated as a function from the bodies center of mass?

2 - Would you find any test which showed gravity was not based on center of mass required a different view of gravity?

Dear superL
You said:
If Einstien's view of gravity is that it is an effect of curved spacetime, and objects move in a gravitational field according to the local "geometry" of spacetime, then how do gravitons fit into the scheme of things? Are they required by theories of quantum gravity? And if they are the exchange particles of the gravitational force, is there any reason to believe that they could be manipulated or blocked (sort of like shielding against electromagnetic fields)?
Actually there are two huge “themes” in your post:
1. The theme of ties of Gravity and space-time, and
2. The theme of Antigravitational Sield.
My advice is to separate these two themes in different threads. If you do that I will discuss both of them with you.
It is not my caprice – it is a necessity: visitors should know what they will find in each thread, when they read the name of thread. (Believe me, our crank-Museum members will put in any of your thread so many junks that there is no need for us to create more difficulties for readers above that one…)
But both themes are very good and we should not lose any of them...

Makes sense. I didn't necessecarily want to talk about "gravity shielding" so much.

1. The theme of ties of Gravity and space-time, and
2. The theme of Antigravitational Sield.


Both topic are undividable. They will lead to similar kind of answers. It is better all the staff to be neatly collected in one thread.

Would you agree that GR (like Newton) gravitational strength is calculated as a function from the bodies center of mass?

MacM,
there's not such a thing as gravitational force in GR. Objects in GR follow geodesics. A geodesic is a curve whose tangent vector is parallel propagated along itself

If the force of gravity extemnds inversely to the distance squared from a mass center the force of gravity coult not possibly extend very far from the planet earth for instance. To assume the earth is subject to a rain of gravity particles summed over the entire mass of the universe is specious. The contribution of gravity forces from the nearest galaxy tot he planet earth is immeasurable and is only counted in the graphite marks made by theoretical heiroglyphics (sic).

All teh gravity models discussed in this thread after I performed a rapid scan of posts shows one implicit common attribute which is the vopid in inserting nonlocal forces expressely in the model. If we are all led to believe in the quantum and classical models as related functionally but so far indescribable process including local and nonmlocal force exchanges all those models void in local/nonlocal exchanges is grossly incomplete.

In an exchange with Lucas a few post above, Yuriy makes a curious comment:

Lucas makes the statement in quotes.
“ But that's quantum mechanics and here we are talking about classical GR, a classical theory, thus quantization of waves is not included ”

Simply take off artificial restriction (glasses) “we are talking about classical GR” and you will see another World!

Of course Yuriy is correct, but is he suggesting an analysis of GR absent QM imperatives will lead to some useful result? I read Lucas as suggesting the simultaneous analysis using QM and GR. Either one discussed without the functional inclusion of the other is a waste of time and energy.

For those familiar with JS Bell, it is he who remarked that QM modles expressly void in nonlocal forces was incomplete. Bell, always the gentleman was did not wemphacize the statement, which taken on the clear meaning of the word incomplete aka useless.

Geistkiesel

MacM,
there's not such a thing as gravitational force in GR. Objects in GR follow geodesics. A geodesic is a curve whose tangent vector is parallel propagated along itself

Just where did you see a referance to force in GR? I never said that and I am well aware of how they claim GR functions. But it's gravity affect is still based on the center of mass. Testing shows gravity is not based on center of mass. So there you have it.

Testing shows gravity is not based on the center of mass? Is this true? Am I missing something? Please explain.

The terms "center of mass" and "center of gravity" are used synonymously in a uniform gravity field to represent the unique point in an object or system which can be used to describe...

And,

The center of mass, also called the centroid or center of gravity, is the point of...


I find references like this all over the place. What does it mean?

Testing shows gravity is not based on the center of mass? Is this true? Am I missing something? Please explain.

It is indeed true but needs to be duplicated by an independant source to verify.

http://www.unikef-gravity.com/UniKV2/Gravtesting.htm

In your setup, you create a UniKEF "port" in your apparatus that affects the strength of gravity as measured on some test mass. This port, in effect, allows a UniFEF field to "flow" through or not depending on whether it is open or not.

Do I read this correctly?

If so, then would not masses of any kind, that came between one mass and another, cause a similar effect? To somehow enhance or impede the UniKEF field? If so, would this not be an obvious effect seen in large astronomical objects such as moons, planets, and stars obstructing the UniKEF field as they move between and around other objects?

In your setup, you create a UniKEF "port" in your apparatus that affects the strength of gravity as measured on some test mass. This port, in effect, allows a UniFEF field to "flow" through or not depending on whether it is open or not.

Do I read this correctly?

Basically, but it doesn't turn it on or off, it merely attenuates the flux when closed causing a slight decrease in the time for the test mass to move.

If so, then would not masses of any kind, that came between one mass and another, cause a similar effect? To somehow enhance or impede the UniKEF field? If so, would this not be an obvious effect seen in large astronomical objects such as moons, planets, and stars obstructing the UniKEF field as they move between and around other objects?

Yes again, it does and it has been measured many times by different researchers.

http://www.science-frontiers.com/sf074/sf074a05.htm

http://forrootbasic.51.net/wytk/xtwzh/chenshouyuan/inductiongravity/igtvgfdtse.htm


CONFIRMED PREDICTIONS
2 - A "Gravity Shadow" should be found in relation to other massive bodies coupled by gravity.

A shadow is now known to exist and no other theory of gravity satisfactorily explains it. The Geodetic Institute in Frankfurt, Germany measured a 4.28E-9 deviation in gravity during a Lunar eclipse in Norway in 1954. A mechanical view via UniKEF yields results of 4.2E-9 deviation predicted. The Institute granted permission for publication of UniKEF including their work as Chapter 7 - See "History", "Permission to Publish".

Fascinating effect. I had no idea it existed. Here's an alternative explanation:

http://www.eclipse2006.boun.edu.tr/sss/paper01.pdf

Fascinating effect. I had no idea it existed. Here's an alternative explanation:

http://www.eclipse2006.boun.edu.tr/sss/paper01.pdf

Thanks. Note that it may well be a contributing factor but doesn't explain the overall affect. According to Tom's paper it is only 1/100,000th of the total pendulum affect.

In the case of an eclipse the bodies form a complex macroscopic shift in the components of their individual gravity over an extended period of time. In my test the change is relativily sudden being a response in the change of the geometry presented to the flux.

The change is primarily only that component which trigometrically equals 1.000 or is along the line of gravity and is not part of a larger change in flux interception by the two or more masses duriong an extended period of eclipse.

http://www.sciforums.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=3838&stc=1

Wow. I got it the second time!

Wow. I got it the second time!

HeHe. Damn computer. I have had as many as (7) multiple posts pop up.

Note added graphic.

As has been pointed out before, the UniKEF explaination does not jive with what is observed as the pendulum effect. Under push gravity, you would not have two dips as observed, but one.

As has been pointed out before, the UniKEF explaination does not jive with what is observed as the pendulum effect. Under push gravity, you would not have two dips as observed, but one.

Not pointed out before and if pointed out totally unsupported conjecture. Look at the overlaping CoS's, UniKEF indeed predicts pertabation(s) not a single event..

http://www.sciforums.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=3838&stc=1

As measurement improves you will find other undulations besides the leading and lagging dips. Also the mass of the pendulum takes time to be affected by such minor force changes.

This is why the graphics in UniKEF show multiple undulations (pertabation's') and not a singular event. If you understood UniKEF you would know the primary transitions at the onset and termination would be most evident.

http://www.sciforums.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=3873&stc=1

You are typically talking through your hat about something you know little or nothing about.