Gravitational Engineering - A Basic Transceiver

<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 />"Pragmatic": Is a valid stand if PG cannot come up with a single phenomenon in the observed universe that cannot be justified unless a graviton exists.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

In experimental physics, a model's value is supposed to be judged by the success of the model's unique, distinctive predictions, not on the visibility of its mechanism. That is for one very good reason: Many physical mechanisms are beyond our means to observe for the foreseeable future. Astronomy is filled with examples. Pulsars, quasars, magnetars, neutron stars, black holes, hypernovas -- even basic things like dwarf stars and novas -- are all consigned to the bin of pure theory until we someday achieve the ability to get real, close-up observations of these objects and their environments, and not just their distant spectra and lightcurves.

You are questioning the philosophical basis for all of experimental physics. As such, you have turned this into a philosophical discussion rather than a physics/astronomy discussion. But we cannot hope to reach agreement on philosophical matters unless we could agree on some common premises. However, philosophy is filled with different schools of thought each with its own premises, many of them mutually exclusive. Speaking for myself, I don't care to go there unless you can state your premises clearly enough that we can debate their merits.

By contrast, the premise of expermental physics that I am using is simple. A model is judged by the criterion of usefulness, which usually requires only three things (besides internal consistency): adds insight or understanding; consistent with all relevant observations and experiments; and makes successful distinctive predictions, the failure of which would falsify the model. Because for most of both sciences that study the extremes of scale -- astronomy and quantum physics -- the fundamnetal building blocks are not directly observable, we must make our inferences and build our models from observations of secondary phenomena only. That is a pragmatic approach.

Correspondingly, you did not answer my question: Would you still reject PG if all its distinctive predictions come true, given that no other model in existence makes most of the same predictions and that they are very unlikely to be true by chance? If so, then logical consistency dictates that you reject most of experimental physics.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">"Dogmatic": Is a stand against PG, after PG comes up with a single phenomenon in the observed universe that cannot be justified unless a graviton exists.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

In the broad sense, gravity cannot exist without the graviton, where "graviton" is defined broadly as "whatever carries the momentum that comprises the force of gravity". It is then our job simply to learn the nature of gravitons -- whether they be particles or waves, their speed, mass or momentum, density, cross-section for absorption or scattering, etc.

But you seem to be asking about the specific type of particle gravitons in the Meta Model's version of PG. But the "finite range" property and the "shielding" property could not exist if gravitons were waves instead of particles because waves in a single medium do not interact; whereas particles do. So I would cite those two properties as phenomena that cannot exist unless the graviton exists.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Mac, when you start thinking about cause and effect as the primary basis of physical theories, you may get deeper and deeper into many paradoxical situations. Causality is a very tricky concept. One should not base a theory about anything primarily on causality. It seems that the strongest card of PG is the causality issue.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

The reality of our modern world is just the opposite of your unfounded assertion. PG has led directly to a resolution of the many paradoxes that had arisen in astronomy and quantum physics, and has not introduced any new paradoxes. It eliminates the need for "dark matter", wave-particle duality, non-locality, EPR paradox, etc.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">If scattering of gravitons is a statistical process wouldn't there exist significant variations in the gravitational attraction between distance pairs, like stars or globular clusters?<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

The pressure of a gas against a container's walls is a statistical process, yet is not expected to vary at a detectible level. Why would it be any different for gravitons?

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">If the variation due to statistical process is insignificant to observe, wouldn't this mean that the universe is "gravitationally fragmented" (sorry for the term but I can't find anything else to describe what I mean), in the sense that there are regions gravitationally independent of other regions?<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

That seems theoretically possible. But one would need the equivalent of container walls to achieve such a dichotomy. Given the absence of such walls in the visible universe, wouldn't it be more logical to expect that the graviton medium would be more like Earth's atmosphere, which is pretty well-mixed and of roughly uniform density everywhere near our biosphere? -|Tom|-

TVF: Correspondingly, you did not answer my question: Would you still reject PG if all its distinctive predictions come true, given that no other model in existence makes most of the same predictions and that they are very unlikely to be true by chance? If so, then logical consistency dictates that you reject most of experimental physics.

I think I answered the question. I would say that MM and PG are corraborated by experimentation but not verified if the graviton is not detected. Also, yes, I reject experimental physics where auxiliary hypotheses are used to corroborate a theory and those auxiliary hypotheses lead essentially to circular interpretations. But this subject is extremely difficult and testability and falsifiability in the sense of Popper has met some serious arguments. Most important, the statement that a theory must be testable and falsifiable, is not testable and falsifiable itselef. But I prefer not to go in these issue but just state that testability and falsifiability without confirmation of any ontology used (in this case gravitons) is very weak.

TVF: The pressure of a gas against a container's walls is a statistical process, yet is not expected to vary at a detectible level. Why would it be any different for gravitons?

But you say later that there are no walls. TVF: But one would need the equivalent of container walls to achieve such a dichotomy. Given the absence of such walls in the visible universe, wouldn't it be more logical to expect that the graviton medium would be more like Earth's atmosphere...

In your two statements, you have employed two contradictory assumptions, one stating that variations do not exist because of walls and the other that fragmantation of gravity does not exist because of the absence of walls.

Any lack of boundary conditions would make it himpighly ossible to obtain solutions and to determine that a universe immersed in a material flux of gravitons is indeed stable, in the sense that there exist no peridodic transients caused by gravity fragmentation and thus accelerated motion of gobular clusters towards those regions.

One solutions is to assume that the universe is pressurized from all sides, an assumption going against the premiss that the universe is infinite. But the pressurization is needed to maintain stability and uniform motion of celestial bodies and clusters in a universe. Unless, all graviton energy has been exausted and converted to kinetic energy of celestial bodies. In this sense, according to my yet unconfirmed hypotheses mathematically, I must state, graviton flux can only be a required initial condition to establish gravity but cannot justify maintaining it in the absence of boundary conditions because of continuously formed fragmantation in gravity fields due to scattering. But if scattering is eliminated, gravity fields become infinite in an infinite universe. This is where I see the plausibility of a paradoxical situation in pushing gravity theory and a computer simulation is recommended and needed to demonstrate the value of the hypothesis, whether truth or false.

Enrico,

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><b>I must state, graviton flux can only be a required initial condition to establish gravity but cannot justify maintaining it in the absence of boundary conditions because of continuously formed fragmantation in gravity fields due to scattering.</b><hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

ANS: In UniKEF the accelerating expansion of the universe is a direct consequence of the force of gravity. It is a natural result of less inward drag or "Push" than "Outward" push due to a shift in volume of sources of the energy decreasing as you reach the outer regions.

It is note worthy to note that the acceleration is an exact balance for gravity from the inward sources. That is an observer on a planet at the outer regions would not be able to tell the difference from one side of his planet to the other if he were gravitating or was experiencing acceleration.


That is there is no "Dark Energy" the same source of gravity is the source of expansion of the universe.

Knowing to believe only half of what you hear is a sign of intelligence. Knowing which half to believe can make you a genius.

Mac: In UniKEF the accelerating expansion of the universe is a direct consequence of the force of gravity. It is a natural result of less inward drag or "Push" than "Outward" push due to a shift in volume of sources of the energy decreasing as you reach the outer regions.

I'm not sure how this relates to the problem we are discussing here, since I infer from your statement that you are talking about a finite universe expanding, into what?

This is a completely different problem in case you are postulating a finite universe which creates space-time by expansion. I would like to stay focussed if you don't mind on the Metal Model principles and postulations, amongst which is that of an infinite universe immersed in a graviton material flux. The finite universe problem you probably consider with your theory is totally different and amongst the things you must answer is where the expansion takes place in and how is space-time created. This is not a problem faced by quasi-static universe models like the Meta Model and in this respect the later models appeal to common sense. The graviton issue is the sticky one and whether such concept is justifiable in the absence of its experimental verification.

Nevertheless, I canot make sense of your stetement since it is incomplete and assumes some kind of distribution I cannot understand. Furthermore, I don't know according to your theory, what the cause of gravity is. It sounds like volume expansion theory but I must tell you right away that volume expansion gravity cannot justify nothing else other than perfectly circular orbits. This is because the centripetal force must be balanced by gravitational acceleration perfectly in this kind of models. An inverse problem solution fails to produce elliptical, parabolic or hyperbolic orbits in volume expansion theories. That is as much I can say for now, if I'm right that you gravity is of that kind.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by tvanflandern</i>
<br />
This means no gravitons originate from Earth's core. Rather, Earth's solid interior helps block some gravitons so the graviton wind blowing toward Earth's surface will not be balanced by one blowing through the Earth from below. We call this effect "shadowing" because any two bodies in space cast a graviton shadow on one another.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

What does the graviton shadow cone cast by the sun over Earth tell us about the celestial mechanics of PG as opposed to Newtonian or Einsteinian?
What new or better kinds of predictions or measurements concerning the sun/Earth system are possible based on their respective cones?

<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 think I answered the question. I would say that MM and PG are corraborated by experimentation but not verified if the graviton is not detected.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

This seems a very subtle distinction indeed. If it merely means the theory is not proved, that always remains true of all physical theories, which can only be falsified but never proved correct. [Only mathematical theorems can be proved ("verified").] But that just means that experimental physics is all about corroboration, not verification, because that is all that is possible -- especially when the theory requires certain elements (e.g., gravitons) that are so small as to be beyond the means for any existing instrument to detect.

So as I see the point you seem to be making, it is a purely philosophical one, and relates to the quality of ideas. As an experimental astronomer/physicist, I adopt a more pragmatic approach. We never seek ultimate "proof" because all theories have limitations of applicability, and knowledge is limitless. So we simply seek to do what we can, which is to devise theories that are *useful*, where their usefulness is measured by the successful predictions they make and the insights they provide that allow us to devise other useful theories.

I have no ambition greater than that, and must leave "verification" (whatever that might consist of) to the philosophers.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">I reject experimental physics where auxiliary hypotheses are used to corroborate a theory and those auxiliary hypotheses lead essentially to circular interpretations.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

I do also, and have written extensively against the use of ad hoc helper hypotheses under any circumstances. I now do most of my theory development deductively from first principles, and do not admit auxiliary hypotheses. But I have a hunch we are going to differ about definitions of terms in this area also because you raise this issue as if PG or MM violates this "auxiliary hypothesis" dictum the way mainstream theories constantly violate it. However, I made an effort to ensure they did not do that.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">the statement that a theory must be testable and falsifiable, is not testable and falsifiable itself.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

It does not need to be. It is just a tool to help us weed out useless theories at an earlier stage than we otherwise could. But we are touching on the meaning of "statistically significant", which is obviously a gray area with some arbitrariness. Beysian analysis has improved things, but not perfected them.

Once again, a pragmatic approach cuts this and other Gordian knots. Theorems do not need to be proved if they are nonetheless found useful.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">But I prefer not to go in these issue but just state that testability and falsifiability without confirmation of any ontology used (in this case gravitons) is very weak.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

Phillosophically weak, perhaps. But highly useful anyway.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">[tvf]: The pressure of a gas against a container's walls is a statistical process, yet is not expected to vary at a detectible level. Why would it be any different for gravitons?

[Enrico]: But you say later that there are no walls.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

The wall is a gedanken experiment. It plays no role in determining the properties of the medium, but only in measuring those properties. It is like sticking a thermometer into a medium. Because the wall reflection is mirror-like, the character of the medium is unchanged by the wall. It simply shows that the medium is statistically the same everywhere because the pressures are the same everywhere.

The same holds for the graviton medium.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">[tvf]: But one would need the equivalent of container walls to achieve such a dichotomy. Given the absence of such walls in the visible universe, wouldn't it be more logical to expect that the graviton medium would be more like Earth's atmosphere...

[Enrico]: In your two statements, you have employed two contradictory assumptions, one stating that variations do not exist because of walls and the other that fragmantation of gravity does not exist because of the absence of walls.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

If you see the walls as having no influence either way, but merely as a gedanken device to sample the medium and show that it is statistically the same everywhere, the alleged "contradictory assumptions" will start to make sense.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Any lack of boundary conditions would make it impossible to obtain solutions and to determine that a universe immersed in a material flux of gravitons is indeed stable, in the sense that there exist no peridodic transients caused by gravity fragmentation and thus accelerated motion of globular clusters towards those regions.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

Any talk of "boundary conditions" for the graviton medium takes us out of the theory of the how and why of gravity, and beyond the scope of PG. We move instead into the domain of cosmology and the subject of the Meta Model, for which the appropriate reference is <i>Dark Matter, Missing Planets and New Comets</i> rather than PG.

I can provide a "sound byte" answer to your boundary conditions objection here. But if you hope to "get it" at a fundamental level of understanding, you will need to follow the theory developed from first principles, and not just drop into the middle of a set of syllogisms. Otherwise, you can say about any syllogism, "I do not accept your premises here."

But the answer to your objection is that the MM is infinite in five dimensions, not just four, the fifth being scale. And MM concludes that every scale is "fundamentally" the same, with only accidental differences. So the sea of gravitons that fills our entire visible universe is merely the "atmosphere" of a "mega-planet" on a scale too large for us to perceive. It is not at all infinite (no structure or medium is), but is bounded in one direction by the "mega-planet" or some equivalent, and in another direction by "empty space" or some equivalent, just as Earth's atmosphere is bounded in those ways at our scale. (Earth's atmosphere would surely seem infinite in extent to a small enough mite.)

The graviton medium is all held together by forces operating on scales that we cannot perceive and have no hope of perceiving. And even if we could someday discover these forces and their unit particle or wave, they too would have boundary conditions that we could not perceive, and so on ad infinitum.

Because we can certainly never discover an infinite number of forces and mediums over an infinite range of scale, time, and space, we can never "complete" the Meta Model. However, that does not prevent us from deducing that an infinity of such forces and mediums must exist, by extension of Zeno's