Gravitational Engineering - A Basic Transceiver

TVF: I count six such predictions made in my PG article alone, together with discussion of the status of attempts to measure the phenomena predicted. Why do you ignore this and make what appears to be a false claim? -|Tom|-

I have seen what you call "predictions" but I must say again that we have a terminology problem here. On page 120 of Pushing Gravity you state explicitely the following:

1. FTL phenomena
2. Finite range of gravity force
3. Gravitational shielding
4. Graviton Drag
5. Heat flow from masses

I must say that in the terminology I use those do not count as the type of predictions useful in evaluating the necessity of a hypothesis but only it's sufficiency. Let me be specific in two different ways:

A. Explaining the perihelion advace of Mercury with a theory of gravity, such as GTR or PG, is both necessary and sufficient, because it is largely the effect of gravitation and other effects are minimal. In this case, both theories are effective so there is no justification of dropping the old (GTR) for the new (PG) (actually PG is older but only in its present form provides the correct prediction)

B. Explaining 1 through 5 above is only sufficient but not necessary for the cause to be found in the hypothesis of PG. The statement:

If gravitions exist, then there is heat flow from masses. There is heat flow from masses, then gravitons exist.

is called a formal fallacy in logic, that is an affirmation of the consequent. In order to show that gravitions cause mass heat flow, not only gravitons must be detected first but also one must show that they accurately predict the heat flow.

Any predictions by Pushing Gravity have an implicit hidden assumption of the existence of the graviton. Therefore, such entity must be confirmed first to establish the necessity of any claims regarding predictions. However, the theory can be corroborated only, without a detection of the graviton, if it provides specific quantitative measures or predictions other theories fail to make. That is what I referred to as "predictions". In my sole assesments, I have not seen a unique quantitative prediction regarding a real phenomenon that is empirically measured where Pushing Gravity has done better than GTR or other theories. Therefore, there is not even an issue of corroboration at this point, save confirmation.

Please note that corroboration of a hypothesis is very weak in place of confirmation and the predictions it must provide must be several, very strong and unique. All of 1-5 above can be explained by other theories so I fail to see how they can be uniquely attributed to gravitons.

I hope you perceive this whole thing as a constructive discussion as there are no intentions of it being any sort of attack against anyone or anything but it remains within strict scientific limits.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by Enrico</i>
<br />I must say that in the terminology I use those do not count as the type of predictions useful in evaluating the necessity of a hypothesis but only it's sufficiency.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

You quoted only the qualitative aspect of five of the predictions, but not their quantitative aspect. The equations shown together with the parameter values suggested make all the predictions quantitative as well. And the 6th prediction -- a difference in the predicted rate of perihelion advance when both masses are large -- is specific and quantitative from the outset. That was written up in two MRB articles.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">A. Explaining the perihelion advace of Mercury with a theory of gravity, such as GTR or PG, is both necessary and sufficient, because it is largely the effect of gravitation and other effects are minimal. In this case, both theories are effective so there is no justification of dropping the old (GTR) for the new (PG) (actually PG is older but only in its present form provides the correct prediction)<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

Well, this shows precidely where our respective understandings have diverged. I see nothing in this paragraph I can agree with.

First, GR's prediction of the Mercury perihelion advance was purely ad hoc, not a true prediction at all. The going hypothesis at the time was that an inter-Mercurial planet must exist, or the Sun must be oblate, or some other natural cause existed. Changing the law of gravity was considered the most extraordinary idea of all.

Then Einstein noticed that a metric theory of gravity could produce some perihelion advance, but only in integer multiples of 14.4"/cy. Knowing that he needed three such multiples, he literally jiggered the metric corfficients until he got the needed multiplier of 3. But he could not get it in one step, so it came from three contributions, one producing a multiplier of 4, another a multiplier of 1, and the last a multiplier of -2. The sum of these three gives the needed multiplier of 3. It is the right-hand sides of the field equations that contain the arbitrary choices of metric coefficients.

As I noted above, the graviton interpretation requires a different perihelion advance rate when both masses are large, as for binary pulsars and close double stars. But even for Mercury, the Le Sage model has a unique physical basis for its prediction and gets the correct result with a single contribution. The GR approach is non-unique and more complex.

But the most important point in this context is probably the meaning of "theory". GR is a unique mathematical theory with multiple physical interpretations, of which the "field" interpretation and the "geometric" interpretation are the best known. Our recent papers show that the geometric interpretation is now falsified on physical grounds because it provides no cause for initiating motion and no source for new momentum. The graviton model simply fills out cause and effect for the field interpretation of GR, thereby allowing the bigger picture to be seen and more consequences to be derived. When does a new physical interpretation of an old theory become a new theory? The geometric interpretation was not classified as a new theory even though Einstein himself never bought into it. I have argued that the graviton model simply tidies up the physics of a very good mathematical theory. Its additions to the mathematics are all at higher orders than Einstein considered.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">B. Explaining 1 through 5 above is only sufficient but not necessary for the cause to be found in the hypothesis of PG.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

Because the predictions are quantitative and not just qualitative, both necessary and sufficient conditions are met -- and far better met than GR was ever able to claim.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">The statement: "If gravitions exist, then there is heat flow from masses. There is heat flow from masses, then gravitons exist." is called a formal fallacy in logic, that is an affirmation of the consequent. In order to show that gravitions cause mass heat flow, not only gravitons must be detected first but also one must show that they accurately predict the heat flow.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

Of course. I thought I made that clear in PG. And the graviton model now makes a specific prediction of heat flow. But apparently another cause is acting too, confounding our attempts to correlate prediction and observation. Meteor heating is a good suspect because it is known to exist and is plausibly of the right order of magnitude. Once we measure heat flows from more bodies besides our Moon that have no significant meteoritic contribution, we can test the prediction.

But why did you chose the weakest case from the list? In several other cases, the predictions are doing very well quantitatively and qualitatively.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Any predictions by Pushing Gravity have an implicit hidden assumption of the existence of the graviton.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

I consider that a very strange sentence. Do you argue with the proposition that gravitation has a physical cause? Or just that the cause behaves like Le Sage gravitons? Even standard physics presumes the existence of a "spin-2 graviton" in quantum gravity because a physical cause is mandated by logic alone. The only alternative is magic.

So given that there must be a graviton, our job reduces to finding its physical properties. But that negates the point of your sentence.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Therefore, such entity must be confirmed first to establish the necessity of any claims regarding predictions.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

Did air molecules have to be discovered before theories of wind or sound were valid? Did the photon have to be discovered before our theories of light were accepted?

The frustrating part of your claim is that it is said in support of the status quo, a mathematical theory lacking a sensible physical interpretation. Or are you unaware or unaccepting of the geometric interpretation of GR being falsified?

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">All of 1-5 above can be explained by other theories so I fail to see how they can be uniquely attributed to gravitons.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

Einstein's three predictions could also be explained by other theories. Ad hoc theories can be invented to explain anything. Yet we still consider that <i>a priori</i> predictions from unified theories have some value in aiding our understanding of nature.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">I hope you perceive this whole thing as a constructive discussion as there are no intentions of it being any sort of attack against anyone or anything but it remains within strict scientific limits.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote

tom

i am also reading "pushing gravity"(i am on page 107)i am just not clear on the graviton shield,if the earths surface were dense enough would there be two sources of gravity,the surface and the core,am i way off?

also how can gravity be finite if these gravitons are everywhere,or are they coming from both space and mass? i thought thats what LeSage was saying that gravitons were everywhere from every angle?

enrico

i think the point that you have missed about "pushing gravity" is, this is a theory on what gravity "is" not on just its behavior as GR is.

North: i think the point that you have missed about "pushing gravity" is, this is a theory on what gravity "is" not on just its behavior as GR is.

I hardly missed anything I believe. I don't even care to contrast GTR and PG. In the analytic tradition, statement about what something "is" are purely of metaphysical nature and cannot be justified within a scientific framework. You probably mean about what causes gravity, not what it "is", and if that has to do with the material graviton, for the hypothesis to gain scientific status, the graviton must be detected and not merely its effects.

Unless TVF or some other PG supporter brings to the table a description of a physical phenomenon that can only be explained by the existence of the graviton. In order to convince the scientific community to make the giant step from physics to metaphysics, some dramatic statement regarding the graviton must be made and simply not the six predictions TVF refers to. This is a serious message to TVF:

The scientific community will trade off less predictive ability with a model based on ontology even if providing better predictions but based on not verified hypotheses. This has nothing to do with resistance to change or people not catching up with advances, as you claim, but with a reasonable refuse to embarge physics in the metaphysical domain without prior justification.

I still fail to see something that can be justified by the existence of the graviton only. If TVF has something in mind along these lines, it can serve as the basis for changing the minds of those unachronistic scientists like me.

Those who do not understand that physics deals at the phenomenal level only are subject to the terrible mistake to call those who reject metaphysical claims as opposing progress.

To TVF:

It is wrong to say that GTR does not provide a cause for gravity. In GTR, 4-space geodesic motion does not require a cause. The equations TVF provides in his paper are for a very weak field limit and do not provide the full picture. The "principle" of physics that "every effect requires an antecedant cause" already implies a separation of space and time, as the term antecedant means time can be measured apart from motion, in a universal sense. While that might be truth for time alone, it may not hold when motion and time are considered together in a "block" universe model. In this sense, those called unanchronists may reply back and claim that the other side simply lacks understanding and makes appeal to trivial principles that are unjustifiable at large from looking at the phenomena. Conclusion, I'm not convinced about PG carrying any empirical value setting it ahead from competing theories.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">[Enrico:]...the graviton must be detected and not merely its effects.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

Of course, this would be preferrable. However, one could say the same about black holes.

enrico

are you saying there is NO physical explaination for gravity and if not is this not "metaphysical",therefore gravity is based on nothing that does something? therefore you believe that gravity has no physical reality?