| Author |
 Topic  |
|
Larry Burford
USA
1337 Posts |
 Posted - 21 Apr 2003 : 11:40:50
|
One of the more common themes in the various incarnations of the SOG debate between Dr. Van Flandern and others on USENET and in other venues is the difference (or lack thereof) between gravity waves and changes in the gravitational acceleration field. It puzzles me greatly that intelligent, educated individuals can imagine that something so weak that it is still undetectable and that generates forces in the wrong direction might be involved in the phenomenon of gravitational attraction. But there it is.
I propose a simple demonstration: use a gravimeter and a person to send an actual message using changes in gravitational acceleration as the communications channel. The basic idea is to establish several positions for the person to stand that are easily distinguishable by the gravimeter. By a suitable sequence of movements the person encodes an arbitrary message, which is detected by the gravimeter and then decoded to reveal the contents of the message.
To establish beyond reasonable doubt that the gravitational acceleration field is actually being modulated and detected:
1) There should be a substantial barrier such as the wall of as a bank vault or bomb shelter between the person (transmitter) and the gravimeter (receiver). A lot of mass plus (grounded?) metal reinforcements should eliminate just about all other possible channels for a signal to follow.
2) Vibrations of any sort associated with the movements of mass can be eliminated as a communications channel by waiting for them to dissipate before taking a new reading (wait 2 seconds after moving a mass?). The new value of the acceleration field will be there no matter how long you wait; any vibrations won't after (some time).
If two gravimeters (receivers) and two people (transmitters) are used, a two-way conversation can be conducted.
A more dramatic demonstration: count the money in a SEALED bank vault using gravitational acceleration. A bar or two of gold probably has enough mass to be detected by the gravimeter. A scheme to calibrate the gravimeter would be needed, but once calibrated the count should be fairly accurate. Any movement within the vault (of people or gold) should also be "immediately" detectable. (Lead bars could be used instead of gold to keep the cost down.)
===
It seems to me that this (experiment? - demonstration?) could be done in just a few hours at very little cost (for someone with the right connections). And although it is almost trivially obvious that it can be done, I'm not aware of anyone actually having done it.
It also seems to me that it has the potential to settle the debate about gravity waves vs. changes in the acceleration field, or at least to move it to a whole new playing field. And it has the potential to generate some news. A repeatable demonstration of an unshieldable sensing method, even one with the limits this will have, ought to raise some eyebrows both inside and outside the technical community.
Because current gravimeters have such slow response times, this demonstration has no capacity for settling the speed of gravity question.
===
Does anyone have answers to the following questions?
1a) Has this demonstration ever been done?
1b) Has it been formally reported?
2) How much does a gravimeter with the required sensitivity cost (new, used?)? Are any available for rent? Can one be "borrowed" without cost?
3) How long does it take to learn to use a gravimeter? Is the output clear and unambiguous, or does it require experience to interpret correctly?
4) What is the typical time for taking a reading with a gravimeter? What is the typical cycle time for taking a series of readings?
5) What is the maximum range for detecting a human (assume a mass of 75 kg).
6) How does the time to take a reading vary with range? Or with change of range? Or with mass?
7) What is the minimum distance a human must move in order to create clearly distinguishable reading?
8) What is the minimum mass change that can be detected at close range? (close = 1 meter? 2 meters? 10 meters?)
===
Other opinions about the potential for this demonstration to settle issues and/or generate attention are solicited.
Regards,
LB
|
|
|
north
Canada
518 Posts |
Posted - 21 Apr 2003 : 12:40:07
|
larry
sorry i have no access to any thing related to this type of experiment.
|
 |
|
|
tvanflandern
USA
2793 Posts |
Posted - 21 Apr 2003 : 14:08:09
|
The only gravimeter I've witnessed in operation is in the basement of the Physics Department of Univ. of Maryland at College Park, although I've processed data from other gravimeters with sensitivities of a part in a billion of the local acceleration of gravity.
The Maryland setup has a 500 kg pendulum in an adjacent, sealed room, completely insulated from the gravimeter. The pendulum is used for experiments. However, when the gravimeter is turned on, it is senstitive to changes in gravitational acceleration from any source in any direction. It was using an oscilloscope to display its outputs. And as I walked around the room, it was clearly responding to my every move, showing my path schematically on the screen.
In essence, this means that gravimeters can easily detect the mass in a sealed vault, and any motions going on therein. Such a result would not be news to anyone familiar with these instruments. However, it would probably be news to the generation of physics students who have been given the false impression that changes in gravitational acceleration are gravitational waves. -|Tom|-
|
|
|
|
north
Canada
518 Posts |
Posted - 21 Apr 2003 : 14:34:37
|
tom
what does this mean (i am not an expert in physics i just enjoy thinking on these things),why is this significant?
|
|
|
|
tvanflandern
USA
2793 Posts |
Posted - 21 Apr 2003 : 14:54:06
|
quote:
[north]why is this significant?
Some people say that gravity propagates at the speed of light. But all experimental evidence (six independent experiments) indicate that gravitational force propagates much, much faster than light.
Some relativists then point to evidence that gravitational waves propagate at the speed of light, and call this "the speed of gravity". As Larry points out, gravitational waves are too weak to have yet been directly detected in any experiment, and certainly cannot be contributors to the force we normally associate with "gravity". In fact, we now have reason to believe that "gravitational waves" are really just electromagnetic waves of very long wavelength.
In any event, gravitational waves tell us nothing about the speed of gravitational force. -|Tom|-
|
|
|
|
Larry Burford
USA
1337 Posts |
Posted - 21 Apr 2003 : 15:21:56
|
quote:
[Tom Van Flandern]
... as I walked around the room, it was clearly responding to my every move, showing my path schematically on the screen.
In essence, this means that gravimeters can easily detect the mass in a sealed vault, and any motions going on therein. Such a result would not be news to anyone familiar with these instruments. However, it would probably be news to the generation of physics students who have been given the false impression that changes in gravitational acceleration are gravitational waves. -|Tom|-
Even if a demonstration like this did not prove that the two are different, it would at least open up the topic to further discussion by more practicing scientists. Questions would be asked.
* Do you remember how big the room was?
* Could it track you anywhere in the room, even the far corner?
* If you ran or walked fast, could it keep up with you?
* Did you notice if it could track anything smaller, like a chair or a book or a shop vacuum?
* How big was it?
I've done some digging on the Internet, and found that there are two types of gravimeters: relative and absolute. Relative gravimeters are spring based. I remember playing with one while working on my physics degree. It was about the size and shape of a coffee can, and could tell which step of a stair case it was on. The output display was a +/- ammeter. I remember noticing a small response to people walking past me, but chalked it up to mechanical vibration (which it probably was).
Ablolute gravimeters are projectile based, and sometimes called "ballistic" gravimeters. I've never seen one, but I suspect that this is what you were working with.
I can't find any info on prices, but from the gross physical descriptions I'm guessing that the absolute gravimeters are more expensive.
Do you know anyone with current experience that might be willing to answer my questions?
Regards,
LB
|
|
|
|
north
Canada
518 Posts |
Posted - 21 Apr 2003 : 15:29:16
|
tom
i have meaning to ask you about this 20 arc sec. of the arrival of photons being not parallel to the gravitational lines of force from the sun to the earth.does this mean there is a delay? also what does this mean for the idea for graviton particles? my idea for gravity was based on earths rotation which gives space direction,therefore gravity (with the atmosphere playing a part as well) seems i might have to revise this idea.i just got the book i ordered from you "pushing gravity" i have not started reading this book yet so perhaps some things will become clearer when i do.
one more question,why is the moon moving farther away from us?the reason i ask is that,could this not apply to earth,meaning could we not be doing the same thing only from the sun?
|
|
|
|
tvanflandern
USA
2793 Posts |
Posted - 21 Apr 2003 : 15:57:06
|
quote:
[Larry]:
* Do you remember how big the room was?
* Could it track you anywhere in the room, even the far corner?
* If you ran or walked fast, could it keep up with you?
* Did you notice if it could track anything smaller, like a chair or a book or a shop vacuum?
* How big was it?
It was a large-size laboratory room, maybe 30 feet.
I did not try going to the corner, which was blocked by equipment anyway.
It registered roughly one measure per second, so showed stop action, much like a movie at one frame per second.
The gravimeter was seeing a strong signal, not a marginal one, from the walking around I was doing.
Your last question is a bit like asking "How big is a desktop computer?" Do you include the keyboard, monitor, peripherals? I don't have an accurate recall of the specifics, but several separate components were involved, and I did not ask about the individial functions of each component.
My contacts there are not current, so I have no one of whom to ask questions. If the need were great enough, I could impose on some of my contacts in other departments. -|Tom|-
|
|
|
|
Samizdat
USA
99 Posts |
Posted - 20 Oct 2003 : 23:35:49
|
Like so many of the threads on these fora, this one is truly exasperating. I believe what Burford was driving at was an FTL transceiver concept, but hey, I've been wrong before. Yet this thread has gone absolutely nowhere, exciting as is the prospect of someone's stumbling upon a workable concept/project. Am I missing something here? How did a transceiver proposal transmogrify to an inane discussion of lab furnishings?
Do I have anything concrete to propose myself, project-wise? No, never having been handier than a hippopotamus. I am, however, a catalyst. Let's have discussions which lead to workable experiments, shall we? The Internet is already light-years past overloaded with sites that perpetually examine a ball of navel lint by Delphic symposia. It seems to me that not enough work is being done in the area of quantum tunneling, for instance, which is one of the baby steps that has to be taken, most likely, before we get to the first true steps of FTL com-mun-i-ca-tion, folks, c-o-m-m-u-n-i-c-a-t-i-o-n is the prize our eyes should be focused on, at the very least, in this humble thread. |
|
|
|
Larry Burford
USA
1337 Posts |
Posted - 21 Oct 2003 : 08:36:13
|
Hello Samizdat,
I share your frustration. If Dr. Van Flandern is correct about the true nature of gravity then this simple little experiment is indeed using an FTL channel to send a message.
But (more frustration) there is no way to prove that the communication is occurring at FTL speeds. My research on gravimeters indicates that the current crop of devices has a sample frequency of about one hz. The actual sample period will be somewhat less than that, but still many dozens of milliseconds at the minumum.
In order to prove that the signal is moving FTL with such a machine you would need to be able to send and receive a signal over a distance of several light seconds. Roughly twice the distance to the Moon.
Based on Dr. Van Flandern's description of the "lab furniture" (this is why I asked about it, and why he answered) I'm going to estimate that the maximum range of detection of a gravimeter (for a 75 kilogram target mass) is no more than 20 to 30 meters.
===
But that wasn't the point of my proposed "stunt". The point is to formally demonstrate (formally in the scientific sense) that a static gravitational acceleration (force) field can in fact be modulated, and that those modulations can be detected.
Regardless of the speed of transmission.
With existing equipment. LIGO need not apply (grossly over qualified). [BTW, the silence from that camp is deafening, isn't it?] No gravity waves were actually injured in the making of this film.
Sigh. Even something this mundane is very hard to accomplish. Perhaps someday I'll have the resources to "make it so".
(Resources are the catalyst that we really need ...)
Regards,
LB |
|
|
|
Samizdat
USA
99 Posts |
Posted - 21 Oct 2003 : 14:52:15
|
This is a reply to: Larry Burford Posted - 21 Oct 2003 : 08:36:13
LB: why not build a circuit designed to make your gravitational (force changes) signal travel, say, a light-second, and take a precise measurement of the actual elapse? Unless I'm hopelessly mired in the Twilight Zone, any measured time of less than one second (preferably 20 billion times less) for the signal's light-second traversal would be a measurement of FTL phenomena. My idea depends upon my hunch that gravitational force changes have an RF component which might be sent over a fiber optics network. With a dedicated line making a circuit around Earth (roughly 25,000 miles) roughly 7.5 times, we'd have the necessary distance of one light-second. Now, I know the pooh-poohers are jumping to the conclusion that by definition a fiber optics network will transmit at a maximum of light speed. They, however, make the mistake of the strict Relativists, of saying that the speed of light is the maximum speed limit of anything in the universe. I have no such prejudice that a fiber optics network, for instance, respects, obeys, or is limited by any such "speed limit." The trick is to design the experiment such that the line is rendered free enough of noise and interference to look for our modulated signal. An industrial centrifuge with the object-of-necessary-mass attached, might produce the necessary effects (either at a frequency corresponding to the RPM of the centrifuge or some harmonic thereof). It is necessary that we design the experiment such that it is easily repeatable, and subject it
beforehand to rigorous study, criticism, and revision, the standards of which would not just satisfy, but impress the journal "Nature." |
|
|
|
Samizdat
USA
99 Posts |
Posted - 22 Oct 2003 : 19:20:39
|
quote:
Originally posted by Larry Burford
Even something this mundane is very hard to accomplish. Perhaps someday I'll have the resources to "make it so".
(Resources are the catalyst that we really need ...)
I agree, resources are necessary. But by my reading of Tom's view, we would have to be a Type II, perhaps even Type III Civilization, at minimum, to achieve anything approaching FTL communication capability (admittedly, I have a pronounced bias toward this application). Much of my frustration lies in refusing to surrender to some ineluctable "fact" that we won't likely achieve even Type I in my lifetime (which is roughly half spent). This is unacceptable to me.
So I will continue to toss out ideas for general digestion, and see what comes of them. One idea which comes to mind, and if I have stated it elsewhere on these boards, boards be damned, the subject has since died anyway--hopefully, I'm taking a slightly different tack this time, which may lead to progress: it is known (or shall we say that it is averred by certain quarters in science) that living cells communicate over vast distances instantaneously by means very little understood by physics. Your keywords, should you wish to investigate further, should include "nonlocal phenomena." It is also known that photons can exist (seemingly?) in two places at once, again, over vast distances. Have the limits of these distances been tested? Are there any limits? Do these limits meet or exceed FTL (20 billion TSOL)? Might there be some potential for using evidently unlimited communication speed between distant objects (living cells, for instance--will provide references if your own research proves fruitless) for human or human-to-ET communication? If not, why not? Be specific, and show your evidence, please.
|
|
|
|
Samizdat
USA
99 Posts |
Posted - 23 Oct 2003 : 01:44:56
|
Editor's note of 10/23/03 05:35 A.M. UTC: yo, Burf, where the Hell are ya? I'm twisting in the wind alone out here! Enrico, your silence is as deafening as the staid, stolid SOL-as-absolute-speed-limit-of-the-universe camp's. Speak up any time, yo!
|
|
|
|
Larry Burford
USA
1337 Posts |
Posted - 23 Oct 2003 : 11:23:01
|
Hello Samizdat,
Sometimes I get busy. Sorry for the delay in getting back to you ...
quote:
[Samizdat]
LB: why not build a circuit designed to make your gravitational (force changes) signal travel, say, a light-second, and take a precise measurement of the actual elapse? Unless I'm hopelessly mired in the Twilight Zone, any measured time of less than one second (preferably 20 billion times less) for the signal's light-second traversal would be a measurement of FTL phenomena. My idea depends upon my hunch that gravitational force changes have an RF component which might be sent over a fiber optics network.
From the perspective of a layman speculations like this seem reasonable. But as you get into the technical details you start to see problems that aren't visible form the outside. Gravitational force seems to be a particle based rather than wave based phenomenon. The hypothesized particles that propagate this force have never been directly detected. We infer their existence and the properties that we believe they must have (speed, size, annual income, ethnic origin, etc) from observing how mass responds to mass. We have no means of detecting the particles themselves. Or of enticing them to follow any particular path.
If there are any wave-like phenomena associated with these particles, there are no observations or experiments that have detected them. Gravity waves, if they exist, are an indirect side effect of gravitational force changes. They are hypothesized to travel at light speed in all theories. They play no role in the phenomenon of gravitational acceleration in three space (ie the real world).
quote:
[Samizdat]
The trick is to design the experiment such that the line is rendered free enough of noise and interference to look for our modulated signal. An industrial centrifuge with the object-of-necessary-mass attached, might produce the necessary effects (either at a frequency corresponding to the RPM of the centrifuge or some harmonic thereof). It is necessary that we design the experiment such that it is easily repeatable, and subject it
beforehand to rigorous study, criticism, and revision, the standards of which would not just satisfy, but impress the journal "Nature."
Most of the speculation about how we might actually measure the speed of propagation of gravitational acceleration focuses on macro-sized gizmos, like your industrial strength centrifuge. My proposed bank-vault-stunt does so as well. But this carries with it the need to move a macro-sized mass from here to there in a very short time in order to be able to do any sort of speed-of-propagation test.
The cube-square law says you need LOT$ of power to do this, and at some point well short of success your gizmo will start coming apart at the seams. I think we need to refocus on micro-scale experiments. Gravity is pretty much mass independent, so the same basic design ought to work. But as you go smaller the cube-square law begins to work for you rather than against you. Still some design trade-offs of course, and still not cheap, but ...
MEMS (micro-electro-mechanical-systems) technology is just coming out of its infancy, but I suspect that this is where we will find the pot of gold at the end of our FTL rainbow.
quote:
[Samizdat]
I agree, resources are necessary. But by my reading of Tom's view, we would have to be a Type II, perhaps even Type III Civilization, at minimum, to achieve anything approaching FTL communication capability (admittedly, I have a pronounced bias toward this application). Much of my frustration lies in refusing to surrender to some ineluctable "fact" that we won't likely achieve even Type I in my lifetime (which is roughly half spent). This is unacceptable to me.
I guess I'm not that pessimistic. Sure, things are frustrating as is. Especially considering the communication and terminology problems you mention elsewhere. But just the fact that somebody somewhere is trying to talk about this points to an eventual solution. Hang in there - it will happen.
quote:
[Samizdat]
So I will continue to toss out ideas for general digestion, and see what comes of them. One idea which comes to mind, and if I have stated it elsewhere on these boards, boards be damned, the subject has since died anyway--hopefully, I'm taking a slightly different tack this time, which may lead to progress: it is known (or shall we say that it is averred by certain quarters in science) that living cells communicate over vast distances instantaneously by means very little understood by physics. Your keywords, should you wish to investigate further, should include "non local phenomena." It is also known that photons can exist (seemingly?) in two places at once, again, over vast distances. Have the limits of these distances been tested? Are there any limits? Do these limits meet or exceed FTL (20 billion TSOL)? Might there be some potential for using evidently unlimited communication speed between distant objects (living cells, for instance--will provide references if your own research proves fruitless) for human or human-to-ET communication? If not, why not? Be specific, and show your evidence, please.
Please do - ideas are a resource - but be realistic with your expectations. For example, keep in mind that a lot of the talk about "non local phenomena" comes from (mis-)reporting in the popular science press. If you go to a QM "expert" and ask about it they moan and groan and try to explain that this instant communication thing is a TOTAL MISREPRESENTATION of the situation.
I don't have much faith in the current state of "understanding" re quantum mechanical explanations of anything. It's another one of those situations where the math makes some very interesting and very accurate predictions (and is therefore valuable in the real world) but the "physics" attached to it is just plain stupid.
I guess many of us are not able to "use" a thing if we can't "explain" it. So what if the "explanation" is bogus? It makes us feel good. And it sounds more scientific than blaming stuff on Zeus.
Regards,
LB
|
|
|
|
Samizdat
USA
99 Posts |
Posted - 23 Oct 2003 : 14:13:42
|
Hold the phone a sec, LB. If a gravimeter registers a human being's moving around the room, and if that information is traveling between him and the meter at FTL, we should be able to measure that speed.
Give me a hand, here, would you? |
|
|
|
Larry Burford
USA
1337 Posts |
Posted - 23 Oct 2003 : 15:24:57
|
Hello Samizdat,
It takes several dozen to several hundred milli seconds for current gravimeters to sample the local gravitational acceleration field.
While this is happening:
* light will travel several dozen to several hundred milli light seconds (50 million meters is sort of the middle of that range).
* changes in gravitaional acceleration will travel at least 20 billion times farther.
The maximum useful range of detection for current gravimeters being used for this purpose is *probably* about 30 meters. The slower of these two signals will take 90 nano seconds to cover that distance
To measure the speed difference between these two signals you need to be able to sample the local gravitational acceleration field in about a tenth of that travel time or better.
And, it takes hundreds of milli seconds for a human to move from the "zero" position to the "one" position.
To measure the speed difference between these two signals you *also* need to be able to move the human from "zero" to "one" in about a tenth of that travel time or better.
To achieve your standard of impressing the journal Nature, rather than merely satisfying them, you would probably need to get the sample period and the mass repositioning period down to one percent of the slower signal's travel time.
That would impress the hell out of me, too.
===
Another way to put it - you'd have trouble measuring the speed of *sound* with this experiment. Even for a signal this slow, the setup isn't fast enough to give you more than a ball park reading. Maybe.
===
We have the ability to conceive an experiment that can do the job. That is not the issue. What we lack is the ability to implement such an experiment.
And that, of course, gets us back to the resources issue ...
Regards,
LB
PS - there is a new crop of gravimeters comming on line with faster cycle times. I've seen a Web page here and there that mentions sample rates of "several hundred to about one thousand" per second. But these are from marketing blurbs, not specification sheets. And there is no mention of sensitivity relative to earlier models, or of price, or of availability. So they are just vaporware at this time.
Anyone else hear anything more substantial? |
|
|
|
Samizdat
USA
99 Posts |
Posted - 24 Oct 2003 : 01:26:51
|
Well, I guess a device that would give us the capability to measure FTS (Faster Than Sound) phenomena is better than average for the pre-Type I civilization, but the subject is rather pedestrian for a maverick physics board, I think.
I'm going to study your other (penultimate) reply; there's much to consider and I appreciate your input.
I recall Tom's saying that Coulomb Forces are a likely road to our achieving the capability to modulate FTL signals. Who is working on Coulomb Forces in this vein, and what is their level of progress? Is Meta Research itself party to this kind of work at this time, or planning it?
======================================================================
Some resources:
a fascinating book review featuring cellular nonlocal phenomena http://www.medicine.mcgill.ca/mjm/issues/v07n01/bk_rev/bk_rev.htm
another fascinating treatment featuring nonlocal phenomena and their relationship to consciousness and language, which may have bearing on our goals
http://easyweb.easynet.co.uk/~ursa/philos/quincey.htm |
|
|
|
Enrico
Italy
80 Posts |
Posted - 24 Oct 2003 : 05:29:56
|
Samizdat,
Let us say that we want to measure the speed of sound and we have a speaker and a microphone at a distance away but have no way to synchronize the generation of the audio signal and the reception of it by the mic. There is no way to have a measure of the speed of sound under such conditions. The only way for this to happen is to observe a lightening hitting a specific location and then measure the time it took for the sound made when something at that location was destroyed to travel a specific distance. In every measurement you need a reference event based on which you can calibrate or synchronize your instruments. Form this simple fact you can understand that in order to detect the graviton, one must first detect the elyson, but to detect the elyson, one must first detect the "possibiliton", ad infinitum. This is reasonable, because cosmologies based on infinity degenerate observations ad infinitum and you get Zeno's paradoxes of plurality.
So the problem is that any hypothesis about FTL gravity propagation is not falsifiable. Also, because FTL phenomena apart from gravity may be observed, this is only necessary to support the hypothesis about FTL gravity but not necessary. Before one spends the money to set up experiments, the necessity of the hypothesis must be established. A good ground could rest on graviton theory providing predictions not possible by GTR. But since this is not the case, there is no support for the necessity of the hypothesis made.
Then, if TVF and the others in Pushing Gravity can provide some predictions relevant to gravitation only that overpowers the predictive capacity of GTR, people may take it seriously and invest in experiments. Good or bad, this is how the establishment operates. |
|
|
|
tvanflandern
USA
2793 Posts |
Posted - 24 Oct 2003 : 11:02:45
|
quote:
Originally posted by Enrico
A good ground could rest on graviton theory providing predictions not possible by GTR. But since this is not the case, there is no support for the necessity of the hypothesis made.
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|-
|
|
|
|
Enrico
Italy
80 Posts |
Posted - 25 Oct 2003 : 06:08:19
|
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.
|
|
|
|
tvanflandern
USA
2793 Posts |
Posted - 25 Oct 2003 : 11:56:46
|
quote:
Originally posted by Enrico
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.
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.
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)
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.
quote:
B. Explaining 1 through 5 above is only sufficient but not necessary for the cause to be found in the hypothesis of PG.
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.
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.
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.
quote:
Any predictions by Pushing Gravity have an implicit hidden assumption of the existence of the graviton.
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.
quote:
Therefore, such entity must be confirmed first to establish the necessity of any claims regarding predictions.
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?
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.
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 a priori predictions from unified theories have some value in aiding our understanding of nature.
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.
I was surprised to see you raise these questions. But ultimately they serve to remind me that many people haven't kept up with the rapid pace of our advances in understanding nature in the last five years, and still think in terms of the theories they were originally taught. It does serve a valuable purpose to pull back briefly and reflect on such matters. But having reflected, I see graviton models as filling out GR in an area where GR was always very weak -- its physical interpretation. And when we do that, we start to see unexplored opportunities for future advancement instead of just paradoxes and obstacles such as quantum physics has encountered. So I see a lot of good things for the advancement of physics coming out of these considerations. Only people who find it necessary to resist change are likely to be unhappy with these new avenues for exploration.
In scientific method, incumbency is not a valid reason for preferring one explanation over another. -|Tom|- |
|
|
|
Topic |
|
|
|
Gravitational Engineering - A Basic Transceiver
