On Sep 18, 3:35 pm, Igor
excite.com> wrote:> On Sep 18, 2:30 pm, Sanny
hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>>> How many Gravitons a mass throws every second?
>
>> Gravity is produced as Mass throws out Gravitons at speed of light.
>
>> When 2 mass throw graviton towards each other they create a force of
>> Gravity.
>
>> 2 Boys are sitting in 2 seperate Boxes with lots of balls and the boys
>> start throwing Balls to each other will that create a force of
>> attraction?
>
>> Does throwing Gravitons create attraction between 2 Masses?
>
>> Can we count number of Gravitons a mass is throing?
>
>> When gravitons collide with other gravitons What happens?
>
>> Does Gravitions a wave or it is a partical?
>
>> How much energy each Graviton has?
>
>> Are gravitons like Light waves?
>
>> Bye
>> Sanny
>
>
> The graviton is a hypothetical particle. It has never been
> observed,
Although, perhaps the graviton wave-front propagation can be
indirectly detected (somewhat like detecting a black hole).
The 30 tonne fake Earth might actually help prove this, although our
2e20 N worth of grasping into our highly unusual Selene/moon of
7.35e22 kg seems quantum physics test worthy enough as is.
: Gary Bohn /
: According to your definition of evidence we can know very
: little.
:
>> Joseki359 /
>> Life here could have been initialized by the great Gazoo of
>> Flinstone fame. There is no evidence of that either.
>
> I don't have the time to answer your previous comments until
> sometime in the next few days, but I will make one quick comment
> on what I think is your understanding. I could be wrong so if I
> am I trust you will correct me.
>
> It seems you believe that science must directly observe a
> phenomenon before we can conclude anything about it. This is
> simply wrong, what we need to do is make predictions that can
> differentiate between two hypotheses, based on effects of the
> phenomenon that can be tested. As an extremely simplistic and
> rather poor analogy, but one I believe conveys the essence of my
> argument I put out the following.
>
> If a bicycle weaves a trail through an earthen path we do not
> have to directly observe the bicycle to know that it was there
> and what its likely structure would be, we simply have to
> predict, based on the evidence left behind what possible type of
> contraption it is. We can even bring in other lines of evidence
> such as patterns left by motorcycles, tricycles, cars, trucks
> and unicycles. Even if we have never seen a bicycle before we
> can make predictions that it is a two wheeled contraption, with
> wheels of a specific width and tread, that it is front steered,
> which direction it was headed and even whether it was
> accelerating or decelerating.
>
> Much can be learned by traces left by the phenomenon. This is
> how we learned of the structure of atoms, structure of DNA, the
> existence of subatomic particles and even quantum effects.
>
> Direct observation is simply not necessary and is seldom seen in
> science.
>
> Nor do we have to have 100%% confidence in a theory to conclude
> it is the best explanation.
I can't seem to argue with the logic of Gary Bohn, but obviously you
can.
~ Brad Guth Brad_Guth Brad.Guth BradGuth BG
