Is gravity a function of scale?

Your speculations are more or less in line with the way most of us here see these things. Chapter 1 and chapter 2 in TVF's book discuss these issues in detail. Recommended reading. Pay close attention to the ch 1 section titled <i>Zeno-like Paradox for Matter</i>.

LB

I will have to track down a copy of the book again. It has been a while since I read it. I actually read it cover to cover as many as 10 times, but my memory isn't the most solid thing in the universe....

I don't recall, however, seeing any mention that gravitons may actually be large systems on a smaller scale, but only incredibly microscopic to us. In fairness, he probably made the right decision to not extrapolate too far with that idea anyway. There's so little observational evidence at this point to really cement anything that we would perhaps be rash to speak with much authority on the matter. If anything such speculation would best be put in the part of the book where he expressly states that the theories in that section are very speculative(intelligent life having been on Mars, the exploded planet's potential effect on carbon dating(if I recall correctly..), and various other points related to the rest of the book, but too speculative to fit in a more assertive context.

I also recall the implication that scale and time may correlate, but I don't recall Mr. Van Flandern ever really fleshing that out very far. Assuming I don't owe the library any money I should be able to check it out tomorrow or maybe Monday.

"Regret can only change the future" -Me

[Dangus] "I don't recall, however, seeing any mention that gravitons may actually be large systems on a smaller scale ... "

I don't believe he dwelled on this aspect for any length, but it is mentioned. This is one of the areas where reading the message archives will fill in lots of detail.

<b>Really Short Version</b> - Since the scale dimension is infinite there is no absolute zero. Any point you pick can be arbitrarily labeled zero and you can go up and down from there forever.

[Dangus] "I also recall the implication that scale and time may correlate, but I don't recall Mr. Van Flandern ever really fleshing that out very far."

Same answer. The articles and the message archives contain much additional detail.

<b>Really Short Version</b> - Over the part of the scale dimension we can observe, there is a very clear inverse relationship between size and how fast things move.

Small things generally move faster than large things. This holds whether the motion is unidirectional or oscillatory. The latter is what we use for keeping (measuring) time.

There is no reason for the part of this scale we can see right now to be special, so logic suggests that the entire scale dimension is this way.

We do see some minor exceptions to this rule (mostly for unidirectional motion) within the part of the dimension we can detect, so logic also suggests that we will find exceptions elsewhere.

LB

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Since the scale dimension is infinite there is no absolute zero.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">
That statement doesn't make any sense. The key word here being (is).

One might say that if the scale dimension is ifinitely reduced, we have in effect reduced to nothing. No two ways about it.