On the "Meaning of the "Speed of Gravity""

most metal and material that goes around the ship is lighter then the ship so the spacecraft has something orbiting it? The gravitational wave of the ship moving would be a great explanation.

The intuitive mind

Are you asking what was orbiting the craft? IF so, then it was their ejected ship parts and human wastes. This is an excellent supporter for the idea of spheres of influence. Especially since it is measureable as you come close to the large body (the moon in this case). The meteor storm predictions TVF has made based on this idea are the most accurate to date and seem to support this notion as well. Gravity waves dont contradict it either. I am actually not sure if you supported or refuted my last statement. <MV

I agree with your statement, and it raised a thought in me

The intuitive mind

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote><font size=2 face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>(From TVF)This whole line of reasoning depends on unverified assumptions as its premises. In this case, <b>it assumes that scale is finite and that all we can see is all there is to see.</b>

In the Meta Model, scale is infinite (as deduced from first principles and reasoning from Zeno's paradoxes, not assumed). <b>If that is so, then there must always exist entities just below our ability to detect</b> on the small scale, and just beyond our observational reach on the large scale. <hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size=2 id=quote>
No disrespect intended here but the above statement struck me funny so I have to ask.
Even if there is a smaller or larger scale which cannot be seen *right now* does not mean it can't, at some time, be seen. The first portion of the statement seems most accurate, <b>"all we can see is all there is to see".</b> This statement is similar to a statement by JimiProton in another thread: "All that can be, IS".

The second portion of the statement, <b>"entities just below our ability to detect"</b> seems to confirm the validity of the first statement. If there are entities that are undetectable then they can <b>**NEVER**</b> be detected, otherwise they become <b>SEEN</b>.
The statement seems to be similar to the arguement of Existence and Non-Existence. Non-Existence can *NEVER* exist therefore, it doesn't.

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote><font size=2 face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>

The statement seems to be similar to the arguement of Existence and Non-Existence. Non-Existence can *NEVER* exist therefore, it doesn't.

<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size=2 id=quote>

With all my respect also, it's simpler than that Patrick, it's a logical fallacy.

The premise that because scale is infinite, call it INF, and there must be a set X belonging in INF such that members of X are Undetectable

in conjuction with the premise:

Graviton may be undetectable

cannot give the conclusion that graviton belongs in X, unless there ia an appeal to "undetectability" as a cause for existence of graviton, which is a logical fallacy.

Let me give you an example:

A prosecutor in a courtroom says:

A witness saw a man with a green shirt leaving the crime seen.

The defendant was seen to wear a green shirt and close to the crime seen.

The defentants lawyer then says:

Look at the defendant how small and weak he is. Do you think that such a small man that can hardly be noticed and so weak that can hardly beat a guard could commit this crime? I think it is impossible.

The argument by the defendant lawyer is called a fallacy, or something close to an "Appeal to pity".

I guess the graviton is an "appeal to undetectability" from a logical perspective. Unless it is detected, no conclusions based on premises using it qualify as indications of anything. That's the logical part.

From an experimental physics point of view, it may be possible that it exists.

The question is one of scale not existence. You cannot see gravitons when you use EM. When even the shortest wavelength is smaller than the proposed radius of gravitons, how can we with even the most sophisticated particle accelerators hope to see them. Just as Newton, we can only now more closely approximate the effects of gravity. Gravity based communication and observation systems (if possible to create) will be at the observable scale.