Gravity Probe B

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by north</i>
<br />Ans: really, show me where i have lacked perspective,feel free to show me.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">The perspective I spoke of can come only from experience.

Right now, you have great confidence in your idea. Most people feel that about their own ideas. But if a wise man who learns from experience shoots his own idea down, he is a bit more cautious with the next idea. My point was that you must find flaws in at least three of your own best ideas before you develop this "perspective", which is self-imposed caution leading to rigorous attempts at falsification even when "everything seems right" about an idea.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">well here are some tests of your own.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">Your best defense of your own ideas is to challenge some unrelated ideas of mine? This seems to change the subject with no purpose except to distract attention from the questions about your ideas that you cannot answer, all of which you ignored.

Okay, we'll digress for the moment, if only to illustrate that a model that survives falsification efforts has its own answers. The author doesn't have to think up explanations because they are implicit already in the model.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">1)what is the source of these gravitions?<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">What is the source of air molecules? The answer is outgassing during the formation of a protoplanet. In an infinite universe, the graviton "atmosphere" is a "local" phenomenon extending to a mere thousand or so times the radius of the visible universe. The graviton medium is the atmosphere of some mega-planet on a scale that we can barely conceive and are utterly unable to observe.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">2)what is the density of the gravitons?<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">That is Slabinski's "N" parameter. The best constraints we have are listed at the end of Slabinski's chapter in PG. Because we cannot yet observe gravitons, we cannot measure this directly, but can set limits from bulk physical properties.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">3) how do they keep their momentum, 20 [billion] times the speed of light?<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">All motion is relative, so they have no absolute speed. The only reason the speeds seem fast to us is because change occurs rapidly on the scale of gravitons compared to change on our scale. If intelligent creatures live on a small "planet" orbiting a graviton, they will see other gravitons in their sky seemingly stationary for many generations.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">since they have no spin, electronics, no internal energy, what gives them this momentum for eternity?<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">Of course they spin because everything does from angular momentum. The have no charge only because they help cause charge, as described in our December Meta Research Bulletin. They have plenty of internal energy, and are perhaps like the stars on their own scale, radiating enormous (to them) energy into space. No graviton is eternal any more than any air molecule is eternal. They come and go as forms change on their own scale. Eventually, the whole graviton medium will perish, just as Earth's atmosphere will perish someday.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">4) do they have a medium themselves?<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">Gravitons are a medium. They reside in infinitely many smaller mediums throughout an infinity of ever smaller scales.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">5) what gives them a sense of direction, from a geometrical point of view, in other words how does it differentiate from one line of direction from another?<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">How does an air molecule do this? I'm not sure what your question means. It is the infinity of sub-scale mediums that causes "background" space to exist.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">in you picture on pg.35 of your book you show straight lines but no sense of pervasive geometry and yet outside of the shadow area there is pervasive geometry. the shadow area strictly speaking should have many angles on both masses, they do not. why?<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">Only because one cannot crowd too much into a single diagram. Slabinski's article shows that, in the math, every possible graviton pathway is taken into account.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">it will be interesting how you defend your own PET!!<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">I have learned not to get attached to the ideas I write about. That has allowed me to see several mistakes almost as quickly as they were pointed out to me. More to the point, I shot down all my own models for the first 30 years of my career as an astronomer, including every assumption I could conceive of. This ruthless rigor helped me recognize a fruitful pathway (deductive reasoning) when I stumbled across it. Today, these deductive models continue to teach me about the universe, even though none of my own original ideas ever worked out.

But in mid-career, I made a choice: I decided I would rather have a few answers that made sense than have credit for anything. For me, that was when the obstacles to clear thought began to dissolve. As Emerson put it, “The universe is full of magical things patiently waiting for our wits to grow sharper.” -|Tom|-

<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 /><blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by north</i>
<br />Ans: really, show me where i have lacked perspective,feel free to show me.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">The perspective I spoke of can come only from experience.
___________________________________________________________________

Ans: but that has nothing to do with how i have been on this site!!
____________________________________________________________________

Right now, you have great confidence in your idea. Most people feel that about their own ideas. But if a wise man who learns from experience shoots his own idea down, he is a bit more cautious with the next idea. My point was that you must find flaws in at least three of your own best ideas before you develop this "perspective", which is self-imposed caution leading to rigorous attempts at falsification even when "everything seems right" about an idea.
____________________________________________________________________

Ans: you seem to have reiterated what i myself have said awhile ago on the creation ex-nihlo forum.
____________________________________________________________________

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">well here are some tests of your own.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">Your best defense of your own ideas is to challenge some unrelated ideas of mine? This seems to change the subject with no purpose except to distract attention from the questions about your ideas that you cannot answer, all of which you ignored.
____________________________________________________________________

Ans: did i not just admit that my theory has flaws in my last message? and yet you go on and on about questions i can't answer,HELLO!!
____________________________________________________________________
<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">1)what is the source of these gravitions?<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">What is the source of air molecules? The answer is outgassing during the formation of a protoplanet. In an infinite universe, the graviton "atmosphere" is a "local" phenomenon extending to a mere thousand or so times the radius of the visible universe. The graviton medium is the atmosphere of some mega-planet on a scale that we can barely conceive and are utterly unable to observe.
____________________________________________________________________

Ans: so when this "protoplanet" becomes more solid we become imbeded in it!!? i mean the whole of our universe!!?

_____________________________________________________________________




<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">2)what is the density of the gravitons?<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">That is Slabinski's "N" parameter. The best constraints we have are listed at the end of Slabinski's chapter in PG. Because we cannot yet observe gravitons, we cannot measure this directly, but can set limits from bulk physical properties.
____________________________________________________________________

Ans: could not analyize to see if it were actually true,sometimes math can lead us down a path that we want.so math does not necessarily prove it's viability.

____________________________________________________________________

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">3) how do they keep their momentum, 20 [billion] times the speed of light?<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">All motion is relative, so they have no absolute speed. The only reason the speeds seem fast to us is because change occurs rapidly on the scale of gravitons compared to change on our scale. If intelligent creatures live on a small "planet" orbiting a graviton, they will see other gravitons in their sky seemingly stationary for many generations.
____________________________________________________________________

Ans: what about in our universe,why could we not have an example of this graviton here?could you not figure out a way to detect a large scale graviton that perhaps we or whatever is orbiting?

_____________________________________________________________________

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">since they have no spin, electronics, no internal energy, what gives them this momentum for eternity?<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">Of course they spin because everything does from angular momentum. The have no charge only because they help cause charge, as described in our December Meta Research Bulletin. They have plenty of internal energy, and are perhaps like the stars on their own scale, radiating enormous (to them) energy into space.
_____________________________________________________________________

Ans: again i think though that it would be helpful to find something on our scale. since on the large scale would they not be saying that we are orbiting a graviton,so there must be one in this universe somewhere.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">4) do they have a medium themselves?<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">Gravitons are a medium. They reside in infinitely many smaller mediums throughout an infinity of ever smaller scales.
___________________________________________________________________

Ans: why could there not be a large scale medium?

____________________________________________________________________

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">5) what gives them a sense of direction, from a geometrical point of view, in other words how does it differentiate from one line of direction from another?<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">How does an air molecule do this? I'm not sure what your question means. It is the infinity of sub-scale mediums that causes "background" space to exist.
____________________________________________________________________

Ans: would there not be an example of a large medium since from large scale perspective we would be sub-scale.actually why could we not have examples of all scales in our universe?

by the way another way to look at the Cavendish experiment could be absorbing aether approach,pulling action,this not my idea but i talked to someone who i contact very occasionally this was his thought, his theory is based on a Aethro-Kinematic approach,just a different approach.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">in you picture on pg.35 of your book you show straight lines but no sense of pervasive geometry and yet outside of the shadow area there is pervasive geometry. the shadow area strictly speaking should have many angles on both masses, they do not. why?<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">Only because one cannot crowd too much into a single diagram. Slabinski's article shows that, in the math, every possible graviton pathway is taken into account.
__________________________

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by north</i>
<br />Ans: so when this "protoplanet" becomes more solid we become imbeded in it!!? i mean the whole of our universe!!?<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">I don't know what you mean by "becomes more solid". But ignoring that, how is our situation any different from that of a microbe on an atom deep in the Earth's interior, or deep in the ocean, or high in the atmosphere, or in the interstellar medium?

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Ans: what about in our universe, why could we not have an example of this graviton here? could you not figure out a way to detect a large scale graviton that perhaps we or whatever is orbiting?<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">We have detected a countless number of them. We name them planets or stars or galaxies or galaxy clusters or superclusters or "great walls". The one we are orbiting is named "Sol".

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Ans: why could there not be a large scale medium?<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">There is. Scale is infinite in both directions, just like the other four dimensions.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Ans: would there not be an example of a large medium since from large scale perspective we would be sub-scale. actually why could we not have examples of all scales in our universe?<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">Again, we do. These matters were developed in chapter one of <i>Dark Matter, Missing Planets and New Comets</i>, which I believe you said you have.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">by the way another way to look at the Cavendish experiment could be absorbing aether approach, pulling action<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">The momentum transferred in an absorption event is still a push. If you think you see a way to get a pull (other than by missing pushes, as in the Le Sage model), do speak up. Please explain in detail.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Ans: and perhaps mine won't either however using a fluid-dynamic approach would give us a more in depth picture of what is going on out there and help us see if there any small or large dynamics we may have missed and i'm not the only one who thinks this.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">I'm not suggesting we ignore any tools that might help us. I am suggesting that we avoid the "one-tool" approach. The problem with that approach is "When the only tool you have is a hammer, all your problems start to look like nails..." [] -|Tom|-

You say Sol is a gravitron? How is that any different than saying mass is a gravitron?

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by Jim</i>
<br />You say Sol is a gravitron? How is that any different than saying mass is a gravitron?<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">Sol is not a graviton, Sol is to us as a graviton is to tiny beings living on a mini-planet orbiting a true graviton. -|Tom|-

So then the tiny gravitron is the center of a tiny planetary system that has tiny beings on it? The picture seems the same as the solar system in tiny scale. How am I getting this wrong? Or do I have it correct as you seem to be describing scale in the MM?