Gravitational Engineering - A Basic Transceiver

Hello Samizdat,

Sometimes I get busy. Sorry for the delay in getting back to you ...


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

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).





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

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.


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

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.


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

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

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?

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?

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 [url] www.medicine.mcgill.ca/mjm/issues/v07n01/bk_rev/bk_rev.htm [/url]

another fascinating treatment featuring nonlocal phenomena and their relationship to consciousness and language, which may have bearing on our goals
[url] easyweb.easynet.co.uk/~ursa/philos/quincey.htm [/url]

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.

<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 />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.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

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|-