Gravity never zero

It's a hypothetical discussion.

If they exist, based on the evidence we have available to us, what properties must they have.

If you can't handle having a discussion about a hypothetical particle that has been neither proven to exist, nor excluded from existing, I suggest you stop interjecting in an aspect of the conversation you clearly have no interest in participating in. Otherwise you simply come accross as a troll and an ass.

For someone who was recently berating someone else for speaking authoritatively on an ambiguous matter, you're certainly doing a good job of that here and now.

 

No, that's a strawman hypothesis. It's not what I am saying at all.

I am saying that if we are considering a theorey which predicts them, then they must have certain properties otherwise theories predicting their existence would be contradicted by available evidence. For example, if you accept Kopeikins methodology, then if gravitons exist, then they must be massless, which in turn implies that gravity has an infinite range. If, they are predicted to be massive, then other observations would provide an upper limit to their mass.

Understand yet?

 

They act in both ways, like photons do.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Is it possible for you to rephrase this so that it can actually be made sense of?

 

I'm not interested in justifying their existence to someone who can not retain context, doesn't know what he's talking about, and engages in dishonest behaviour. Nor am I interested in getting into a discussion that is off topic, and a side track from a point that was raised by someone else.

The point you have repeatedly failed to comprehend is that RJ Beery posed the hypothesis that "If gravitons exist, then A is implied" to which my response was "Any theory that predicts that gravitons exist, must also imply B, which in turn implies C, which negates your concern".

Do you understand yet? Is your comprehension up to speed? Should I post it in swahili instead?

Understand this, and get it through your skull.

I AM NOT CLAIMING GRAVITONS EXIST.

I'm also not claiming they don't exist, and I'm not interested in debating with you whether or not they actually exist.

I am simply making the point that if you ask a question predicated on the assumption of their existence, then that assumption has other implications, hence the irrelevance of the debate as to whether or not they actually do.

Same goes for you (see above).

If you're genuinely interested in these things, then perhaps you should consider starting your own thread and trolling someone elses, or, alternatively, you can do some research in to quantum field theory, String Theory, and maybe if you can find a particle physicist to harass, and maybe if you ask them very nicely, they might explain it to you. Although I suspect Alphanumeric would be able to explain why gravitons couple to the stress-energy tensor, but so far, I am not convinced that either of you would understand that explanation.

Now, the pair of you.

ARE WE CLEAR?

I will no longer be addressing your inane attempts at trolling. If you're incapable of inferring that I was simply discussing other implications of the existence of gravitons without neccessarily arguing for or against their existence, then I strongly reccomend you both work on your prose literacy skills.

If you can't figure out that considering the implications of a model makes no implications about acceptance, well then maybe the pair of you need to consider careers other than science.

Either way, kindly stop trolling.

Meanwhile, I leave you with these words from Aristotle:
"It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it."

 

In so far as the Huse-Taylor binary system goes, it is my understanding that:
The rate of energy loss has been measured to be as predicted by relativity.
Relativity predicts that the energy loss occurs via gravity waves.
Relativity predicts that, among other things, the rate of energy loss from the system is dependent on the 'speed of gravity', because the radiation of gravity waves is itself dependent on the retarded (relative) positions rather than their instantaneous positions.

Do you see?

If Gravity traveled at some speed other than c, then relativity would make a prediction that is different from what is observed, and so the assumption that gravity travels at c is confirmed as being accurate, until someone comes along with a theory that gravity travels at something other than c and makes all of the same predictions as relativity and does so at least as accurately as relativity does, and predicts that in circumstances such as the Huse Taylor binary system, it will look almost like relativity predicting that gravity travels at c even though it really doesn't.

And yet, when combined with Dark Matter, it remains the only theory that can account for things such as the observed distribution of gravitational lensing in the bullet cluster, and accurately predicts the arisal of early SMBHs.

Point of trivia - MOND (and presumably by extension TeVeS) also requires the existence of dark matter, it just requires less of it.

 

You can understand how I might have been (or might be) feeling a little dog piled yes?

Accepted.

At this point, though, my advice remains the same. You would be better off talking to Alphanumeric than you would be talking to me. I am, first and foremost an environmental chemist whos full time employment is enforcing environmental legislation, whose job involves applying the scientific method to real world problems to come to pragmatic conclusions that meet certain minimum legal standards of proof, and writing papers in language that politicians and lawyers can understand.

Alphanumeric, on the other hand, is a published, peer reviewed author in a relevant field to the question you're asking me.

My advice to you based on that is to start a thread in the Physics and Math forum, entitled something useful like "Mechanics of Graviton Coupling", and ask him, politely:
What the stress-energy tensor represents, what it means, and how gravitons couple to it.
Keep in mind that he currently has a great deal going on in his personal life, and that Prometheus has also published papers in a similar (or the same) field.

Take the time to try and understand what they tell you, and if you have genuine questions, do not be afraid to ask.

 

Or VIRGO.