Here, I post my original words along with Merlin's responses, then my
counter response to each set. In later posts, Merlin offers his own
added comments.

************

I wrote:
Actually, there is a way to deterimine how gravity is transmitted, by
assuming that it is faster-than-light, and is therefore a tachyonic
force.
Merlin responds:
Science "assumes" nothing. Since you are comfortable to just "assume"
things, and make 'em true, why not assume that the moon is made of
cheese? We could solve the Irish rat problem that way. Besides, there
is really no need to assume that gravity moves faster than the speed
of light if it emanates from a brane that is non-local. Beyond that,
tachyons are irrelevent - they are unproven, mathematically
unspecific, and observationally unfound. By the way, the only
discipline than does not successfully describe gravity is QM; M-
theory and the Standard Model (Relativity) describe it quite well.

My Response:
In truth, scientists must assume lots of things all the time. They
must assume that their view of reality is somewhat correct; that
mathematics can be used successfully to describe most of what we
discern about nature through experiment; and, perhaps most important,
that there are plenty of things about natural processes that we do
not yet know, do not know well enough, or do not have the most
accurate understanding of.
Furthermore, no experimental physicist would go about contemplating,
designing, and then doing an experiment without first considering a
fairly comprehensive set of initial assumptions about what to expect.
And how many scientists throughout the history of science have
assumed that some theory they came up with was correct, despite the
fact that there was no experimental evidence to prove it at the time,
but which theories were subsequently proven beyond question! Indeed,
science is replete with assumptions, based on educated quesses,
existing scientific facts, or well-established constants, to be sure,
but assumptions nontheless.
As for the assertion that "there is really no need to assume that
gravity moves faster than the speed of light if it emanates from a
brane that is non-local", that is like saying "everthing about nature
that we will ever need to know is already known, and there is
therefore no need to continue even trying to learn more."
That is not in the spirit of scientific inquiry.
And if tachyons are irrelevant, then this implies that any and all
experimental investigations into superluminal phenomena are also
irrelevant, and that many a well-funded research department in many a
well-respected institution these days (including research centers run
by the US Air Force) are only wasting their time.
But the fact that there are a number of very successful descriptions
of gravity is not in dispute. What is at issue is a quantum theory of
gravity that is supported by experimental data, which M-Theory and
General Relativity, though describing gravity "quite well", do not
supply.

I wrote:
Please remember also the reason for this thread; a comparison between
my thesis on gravity and Stromgol's concepts. Somehow, we strayed
from that discussion, and Merlin has even suggested here that there
is no description of gravity that lets us "determine how it is
transmitted".
Merlin responds:
That is correct. I represent what is actually known in science - not
what is assumed. I was quite specific and my words were chosen very
carefully. Take note that I did not state that "all gravity" is
unknown - go back and reread if you missed the point of my comments.

My Response:
OK. I went back to reread what Merlin wrote. I also compared what was
stated in this remark to my words, and I agree that I can find no
place in which Merlin stated that all gravity is unknown, but neither
can I find anywhere that I said so, nor exactly where this statement
comes in, and how it is logically connected to my comment.

I wrote:
With all due respect, that is not correct, because the tachyonic-
gravity hypothesis was not included as a viable possibility in
Merlin's assessment.
Merlin responds:
For very good reason I might add.

My Response:
Rejection of possible valid hypotheses based on personal prejudices
for some other idea, or else because it may conflict with what is
preferred, is not often considered by most scientists that I have
known as a "very good reason" for dismissing new hypotheses out of
hand. And, taking the implications of Merlin's comment a step
further, requiring that experimental proof comes before a theory is
thought up for the data that proves it is not a logical expectation.

I wrote:
Quantum gravity is, in fact, fully explained, and is made compatible
with General Relativity, Newtonian Gravity, and even M-Theory, if the
quanta of gravity are described as a special kind of tachyon. And the
tachyonic-gravity hypothesis is based almost entirely on a
description of how gravity is transmitted (via superluminal quanta).
Merlin responds:
Alrighty. Let's see the math. Trot out the proofs. Given that you are
using an unproven 'mythological' massless object with infinite energy
to transmit a force that is proven to be caused by the warpage of S/T
fabric, I'll be excited to see how you calculate p^W & m^a. I'll also
be astonished to see how you avoid the infinities that will result as
hidden objects in the `Dirac Sea' when e^x is forced negative.
Only "hole theory" can be afoot here, although, no Chernekov
radiation has ever been witnessed. Bring your best math with you, my
pencil is sharpened and ready.

My Response:
I don't know how many times I have referred to my work on this
subject (the results of which I have published online for everyone to
see) where some individual who berates me on it clearly has never
gone and actually read any of it!
An abbreviated version of my thesis (complete with all the math you
may need) is accessed by clicking-on the "Tachyonic Gravity" link at
my web-site, www.TachyonicsSociety.com
<http://www.TachyonicsSociety.com>
The entire 7-page treatement is at
<http://hometown.aol.com/TachyonicGravity/TLQTtGR01.html>
Additonally, a veritable treasure-trove of online sources on
tachyons, Tachyonics, and superluminal phenomena are linked from the
site, as well.
If anyone cares to take the time to look up those sources, then they
will find also many of the most recent sources of information on the
ongoing experimental efforts that are either directly or indirectly
related to the search for tachyons, and the investigation of
superluminal phenomena.
For discussions of this information, please note also my discussion-
group on Yahoo!, at
<http://groups.yahoo.com/group/TheTEPG>
Yet, if you simply do a Google search using the key phrase "tachyonic
gravity", then you will find that it is my work, and various
discussions of it, that are listed first, and that almost everything
on the topic that I have published or posted online is cited in the
overall list.
And the work I have done is highly mathematical in nature; involving
a great deal of theoretical physics (most importantly Special
Relativity). It stands, in fact, as an example of the blending of
some of the most advanced theoretical physics and pure mathematics
concepts of our times.
But don't take my word for it. Go and read it.
Then, maybe, a discussion of how infinities, hole theory, and
Cherenkov radiation may or may not apply to my ideas can be pursued.

I wrote:
What is more, while the spin-2 massless graviton does indeed obtain
its formal representation in the language of Quantum Mechanics, the
original reason for its invention was the desire to cast quantum
gravity as an analog of electromagnetism, so that it would be
compatible with Special Relativity, in hopes that a way could then be
found to make it compatible with General Relativity.
Merlin responds:
Hmmm... Actually I disagree completely. The graviton arose from
mathematics independent from classical interpetation. QM defined it,
and Relativity attempted to co-opt it in order to prove space time
curvature. The Standard Model failed miserably. So - the graviton was
never a QM attempt to copy the photon's success in the standard
model.

My Response:
Oh, I must have made a terrible mistake, simply believing things I
read in books. I will just have to burn all of the physics books
(including textbooks), journal articles, and other works I have
accumulated over the years (and on which I have based my comment),
for they must all be in error! But wait. This is greater than just
the debate we are having. Should we not announce it to the whole
world; that so many physicists have got the history of physics all
wrong?
Hmmm... No. It is Merlin who is wrong.
Please note that the original concept of the graviton came from
string theorists (Schwarz and Scherk) in the early 1970s. They did
indeed arrive at a prediction for a spin-2 massless boson, from the
quantum mechanical equations of string theory, but they almost
immediately associated it with gravity; proposing that it was the one-
and-only quantum mechanical theory of the gravitational force, and
hence the long-sought connection between Quantum Mechanics and
General Relativity. But, lacking experimental proof, the notion fell
out of favor, although a respectable version, involving a point-
particle instead of a string, took its place (due to the many
triumphs of gauge-field theory). So, the theoretical need was then
established for a renormalizable theory of the graviton that fit in
with the rest of the quantum theories used for elementary particles.
And the story goes on.
Reference, for instance, Brian Greene's version of the tale, in his
book "The Fabric of the Cosmos" (from Alfred A. Knopf publishing,
2004), pages 340 to 344.
Oh, and just FYI, the point-particle version of the graviton was
specifically intended to be an anlog of the photon of
electromagnetism. Indeed, all modern quantum mechanical theories of
the elementary particle interactions (including quantum
chromodynamics) are intentionally based on, and involve fields
constructed essentially as analogs of, the electromagnetic field.
As physics textbook author David Griffiths has pointed out: "Quantum
electrodynamics is the oldest, the simplest, and the most successful
of the dynamical theories; the others are self-consciously modeled on
it. [Refer to book "Intro. to Elementary Particles", by David
Griffiths, from John Wiley & Sons, Inc., 1987; page 56.]

I wrote:
That did not happen, because of the incompatibility between Quantum
Mechanics and General Relativity - which problem M-Theory (or Brane-
World Theory) purports to solve; and, to its credit, does
successfully explain why gravity is so weak at subatomic distances
(being weak in our brane, but strong in another). But the M-
Theory "explanation" of gravity actually amounts to yet another macro-
encompassing description of what gravity does (its large-scale
effect), not a quantum-mechanical description of the microcosmic
exchange-particles responsible for the force we know as gravity.
Merlin responds:
I have no idea of what you are saying... M-theory describes exactly
what gravity is. There is absolutely nothing "macro" about the
description of gravity as a vibrational mode upon a closed string
emanating from a D0-brane separated from the D3 brane by only the
Planck length. I'm of the opinion that you do not understand M-theory
at all.

My Response:
Clearly, Merlin has not been keeping up with the latest developments
in M-Theory (I prefer to call it Brane-World Theory, but it does'nt
matter).
In fact, there was even an hour-long televised press-conference that
appeared a few months back in which a co-author (a woman physicist)
of a new book on M-Theory discussed, in some detail, this very topic.
Meanwhile, I looked her up on the Internet, to get the scoop on her
book.
[I can't now recall her name, but so what?]
She explains that gravity is weak in our brane (our spacetime
manifold) but much stronger in another "nearby" brane (alternate-
dimensional spacetime manifold), and this realization solves certain
theoretical diffuculties that have been hindering experimental proof
of M-Theory.
Really. Merlin seems to be holding onto more than one set of out-
dated ideas.

I wrote:
One example of what happens, in this respect, is that many theorists
now assume that there are no gravitational quanta at all, because
Einstein's theory of General Relativity, describing gravity with
great accuracy macrocosmically, does not involve specification of a
field of quanta.
Merlin responds:
???? How many [real] theoretical physicists do you know? I'm appalled
by your proposition.

My Response:
I know, and have known, quite a few.
I am, in fact, an at-large member of the American Institute of
Physics, and I correspond with a number of physicists by e-mail
around the world.
But I am confused at why Merlin is so appalled at my comment. In
fact, General Relativity, in its fundamental form (using Riemannian
geometry to describe the curvature of space due to the mere presence
of mass), does not incorporate a quantum mechanical description of a
field of quanta.
It is often assumed that the standard graviton model goes with it, as
something of an add-on concept, but that is only an assumption - and
it is an erroneous assumption at that, because the standard point-
particle spin-2 graviton model most-often cited is based on non-
renormalizable theory, which renders it incompatible with the
Standard Model of the elementary particles (as opposed to the
standard model of gravity, which is, of course, the very same
fundamental form of General Relativity which I just mentioned).

************

Here I had to stop. I had run out of time. But I continued my
counter responses in subsequent posts; re-posted next.