Open Letter to TVF

The only substances that must definitely propagate FTL that we know of are gravitons in a Le Sage-type model of gravitation. But we have not yet invented elyson detectors, so we are still about 20 orders of magnitude away from building a graviton detector.

I suggest we concentrate on elyson detectors (unit entities in elysium, the light-carrying medium). Once we find those, we might get lucky and find that the graviton medium has "winds" and "currents" that can be detected (with FTL speeds) by their effects on elysons. This would be analogous to detecting the effects of light long before we detected the photon.

Note: The photon is a soliton light wave, not an elyson. -|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 />The only substances that must definitely propagate FTL that we know of are gravitons in a Le Sage-type model of gravitation. But we have not yet invented elyson detectors, so we are still about 20 orders of magnitude away from building a graviton detector.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

Then I'm in big trouble, Tom, because your reply's about 20 orders of magnitude beyond my understanding.

But something gnaws at me. If we can verify by half a dozen experiments that FTL phenomena exist, does this not imply the capability to detect those phenomena, and how is detection of these phenomena made, if not by receiver? Are we entangled (pun) in semantics, here? Ok, if not a receiver, then perhaps what I'm stumbling for here is instead a meter, or measuring device, but pointed at the populous (in Type I, II, and III civilizations) part of the galaxy (more accurately, pointed at the actual [based on an FTL speed of 20 billion TSOL] as opposed to the apparent position of that part of the galaxy).

Samizdat,

Not answering for Tom but I have read some of the basis for his statement and I believe it has to do with calculations of observed phenomena. i.e. - Planetary orbits would become unstable if gravity were delayed by SOL, etc. It isn't detectors perse but logic and mathematics of natural observations.



Knowing to believe only half of what you hear is a sign of intelligence. Knowing which half to believe can make you a genius.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">The universe is screaming with FTL communication,<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">
This is by no means an established fact. Maybe it is, maybe it ain't.

The big problem with building an apparatus that would detect FTL "somethings" is that the "somethings" may not be capable of being focused. If we have a weak light signal, we just build a parabolic gizmo and gather more to beef it up to our lowest detection limits. How do we do this with gravity when it is not seen to be focused in any natural phenomena?

Posibly gravity "somethings" can't be focused. Therefore, FTL communication or detection may be impossible for practical reasons.

Very interesting topic. There is another possibility however: That FTL phenomena lack causal interaction content. This means that FTL exists but it not a phenomenon of any causal interactions in the phenomenal level but only in the substance level. Please note the difference. We live at the phenomenal level and that's all what we experience and experiment with.

The problem with those prosposing a phenomenal interpretation of FTL and subsequent possibility of a detection is a dichotomy between the phenomenal level explained by LUG and GTR and the substance level for which there is no current accepted hypothesis and the Metal Model is just a proposed theory.

Obviously, those suggesting for measuring FTL existence call, at a philosophical level, for a particular examination of a metaphysical level of reality for which there is not current hypotheses accepted.

How can anyone measure something (FTL) about which there is no theory to describe it at the phenomenal level in terms of causal interactions but only its supposed effects are seen and manifested at the substance level, if they really do?

This question may save someone a few dozen years of futility.

I tend to take for granted some familiarity with the material on this web site, in the Meta Research Bulletin, and in <i>Pushing Gravity</i>. In any of these places, one can find definitions for Le Sage-type gravity models, elysons, and a phenomenological interpretation of FTL. -|Tom|-