Quote:
Originally Posted by bojan
I would not call those "gravitons".. because this will create confusion with proposed particles of gravity field
|
Good point.
Quote:
Originally Posted by bojan
Jeff,
I would like to see the derivation of formula you cited above (Newton's law).
In the past, I have challenged many people to do it (not only on this forum, it is amazing how this idea is attractive  ), but so far I have not seen a single line of it, not even in a simple form for idealized case, where matter has no granulation, not to mention more realistic case of matter consisting of particles of apparently all sorts of densities (including infinite, which it seems is the case of electron). |
My understanding is that the origin of Newton's gravitation formula was by fitting to direct terrestrial and planetary observations. The implication of the formula seems to be that the effect weakens as you move further away from a mass .... similar to moving away from a light source, where measured light intensity seems to diminish as it is distributed over an ever increasing spherical area.
I vaguely remember doing some math years ago to demonstrate that when using newtons formula, gravity from a single large body (coalesced chunks/particles) should be equivalent in effect to having the entire mass concentrated at the centre of gravity. I cannot recall the method (eg. calculus, finite element, or finite difference), but I could try to track this down for you if you're really keen ... but it would cost you.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by xelasnave;360483=
so how does attraction work
|
Good question.
Considerable effort has been expended to mathematically unite gravity with other fundamental forces interaction forces (strong, weak, and electromagnetic), but it is possible that gravity is in itself a fundamental force. If so, then the search for an underlying mechanism and unification efforts could go on for a veeeerrrry long time.