Here, I continue with my counter responses.

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

I wrote:
... 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.
Yet, that assumption is not a scientific fact. It is just an
assumption. And, what is more, it implies a mandated discrepancy
between the way gravity and the other fundamental forces behave.
Merlin reponds:
My goodness - this is a case of the pot calling the kettle black,
yet, it is entirely ficticious! No one has abandoned quanta of
gravity (gravitons), this is only an assertion on your behalf.

My Response:
Obviously, Merlin does not regularly conduct searches on the
Internet, routinely read phsysics periodicals, or keep himself
apprised of the latest news and information in this arena, or he
would have realized that there are a great many theorists who insist
that there is no need for the specification of quanta for gravity,
since General Relativity and/or M-Theory are good enough by
themselves.
Indeed, Merlin's own position is that M-Theory explains gravity quite
well; implying that a particle-based quantum gravity theory is really
unnecessary (although, if it is desired, then the old graviton model
is - somehow - the best).
Everyone is entitled to their own opinions and preferences on any
subject. But it is a sure sign of dishonesty when someone infers that
someone else is lying when the accusation itself is not true, and
when the evidence given for the accusation is inaccurate.
In particular, the assumption that there are no quanta for gravity is
not consistent with what we know about natural processes.
Merlin responds:
And.... Your point is?

My Response:
My point is stated in the following sentences, and, if Merlin had
just read the whole paragraph before commenting on what I said in
this one sentence, then he would have known that.

I wrote:
Every other force of nature has been described empirically using
Gauge-Field Theory (a branch of Quantum Theory) to represent the
exchange and interactions of quanta.
Merlin responds:
No, gauge theories are classical transformations that have been
around far longer than QM, and are the very method that general (and
special) relativity were proven. The idea that symmetries can be both
local and global are the heart of the transformations. Do you have
any experience with math at this level? I find that you level of
understanding tends to make me question whether or not you
can "prove" your "theory".

My Response:
I must apologize to the reader for the length of the following
reponse, but I felt it necessary (in self-defense against Merlin's
insinuation), to show why I did not make a mistake in wording, and
therefore that Merlin is being unfair in his characterization of me.
There are a great many reliable sources on this, but have I chosen
one of my favorites to explain why my statement was correct.
I happen to own a copy of the Encyclopedia of Physics, edited by R.G.
Lerner and G.L. Trigg (2nd Edition, from VCH Publishers, 1991), in
which M.E. Peskin, of the Standford Linear Accelerator Center
(Standford University), wrote the entry on Quantum Field Theory
(starting on page 974).
Therein (page 977), Peskin says:
"To discuss the applications of quantum field theory to physics, it
is necessary to discuss the symmetries of quantum field theories and
the manner in which they might be realized. ... In quantum field
theory, symmetries can appear in four different ways:
"1. Manifest Global Symmetries
"This is the simplest situation; the various fields of the model form
multiplets under a symmetry group, which also interrelates their
couplings. ...
"2. Spontaneously Broken Symmetry
"This phenomenon is similar to spontaneous magnetization, ...
"3. Local Gauge Symmetries
"Quantum electrodynamics [QED] possesses a higher type of internal
symmetry, in which a different ratation can be applied at each point
of space-time. ... Yang and Mills showed that any continuous group
can be promoted to a local symmetry, as long as one adds to the
thoery one vector field for each symmetry generator and assigns this
field an inhomogeneous transformation law similar to that of the
photon field in QED. ...
"4. Spontaneously Broken Local Symmetry
"If the symmetry of a Yang-Mills theory is spontaneously broken, the
theory undergoes a further transformation, known as the Higgs
mechanism. ... "
Forgive me, but presentations like this are what have caused me to
view gauge-field theories as collectively forming a "branch" of
quantum-field theory. I understand, of course, that gauge theories
can be handled separately, and that they have a history of their own,
but still, what I said above was essentially correct.
More to the point, in context, I stated that all but gravity has been
successfully described using gauge-field theory. But, again, don't
take my word for it.
In the same encyclopedia, W.J. Marciano, of the Brookhaven National
Laboratory, wrote the entry on Gauge Theories (page 427), in which he
states:
'Gauge theories provide a findamental description of elemenatary
particles and their interactions. In that framework, forces between
particles are mediated by gauge fields associated with an underlying
symmetry. A gauge theory based on the symmetry group SU(3)x(SU(2)xU
(1) accounts for all the obsereved strong, weak, and electromagnetic
interaction phenomena. ... Because of its mathematical elegance,
simplicity, and many phenomenological successes, that thoery is
called the "standard model" of elementary particles, ... "
Clearly, I would be reading something wrong if I did not take such a
statement, in such a well-respected physics encyclopedia, very
seriously.
As for my ability to "prove" my "theory", as I have stated many times
in this forum, in other forums, and in all my work; I do not have a
theory of gravity. I have a thesis, about an hypothesis, and the
proofs (experimental evidence and mathematical implications) for its
validity establishes only, in my opinion, that it merits further and
continued investigation, because of the possible tremendous rewards
for breakthroughs that may come of such investigations.

I wrote:
They have, to-date, been able to establish a quantum-mechanical
description of all of these fundamental forces, sans gravity, in a
single Unified Field Theory, which is wholly supported by
experimental data.
Merlin responds:
Not so much... QCD falls apart in many instances during observation.
A major tenant of QCD is asymptotic freedom, and, without quantum
Perturbation theory and a healthy "fudge" factor, the theory flops.
Non-perturbative QCD does not actually exist. So, until QED and QCD
can be nenormalized without perturbation, we do not get to use the
term "wholly supported" - observations aren't as supportive as you
think. For the record, QCD is a gauge invariant; Lagrangian.

My Response:
Merlin's point, in this instance, I must and willingly concede.
Perhaps I should have used the phrase "largely supported" instead
of "wholly supported". Therefore, I stand corrected.
My zeal in knowing that there is at least some experimental support
for the Standard Model of elementary particles, as far as it has come
up to now, has gotten the better of me.

I wrote:
So, it is reasonable to conclude that gravity can likewise be
quantized, and then unified with the other forces. But the assumption
that the quanta of gravity must travel either at lightspeed or at
infinite speed, but never, for some reason, in-between, does not make
sense. The in-between possibility has been dismissed for far too long.
Merlin responds:
This statement alone indicates that your understanding of physics is
low. Even if it was a 'mythical tachyon' the fact that it is massless
is what determines its speed (through a vacuum). It was deemed
massless due to its infinite range. SR and QM tell us that it will
not move faster than the speed of light, and GR tells us that it can
move slower. No one is saying that it cannot move more slowly, when
obstructed.

My Response:
Merlin has confused the type of tachyon I have described as
responsible for gravity with the concept of the graviton. They are
not the same or even similar. Clearly, then, he has not read what I
have written about tachyons or tachyonic gravity, and is thus
commenting according to an inaccurate assessment of my ideas, tainted
by a preference for out-dated theories.
My thesis on tachyonic gravity rests almost entirely on the
hypothesis that there could exist tachyons with imaginary mass (not
massless), restricted to traveling between lightspeed and infinite
speed exclusively, whose collective radiation pressure upon objects
through which they pass (after being emitted from a standard source-
mass) is negative (causes a pull rather than a push), as compared to
ordinary (positive) radiation pressure caused by massive subatomic
particles (protons, neutrons, etc.) emitted from a standard
fissioning or radioactive source.
Merlin's assertion that "SR and QM" tell us that the quanta of
gravity "cannot move at the speed of light" is based on out-dated
assumptions about gravity, SR (Special Relativity), and QM (Quantum
Mechanics); explained as follows.
First, SR and QM "tell us" no such thing. In fact, it is implications
of SR that are behind the very suggestion that tachyons could exist.
And QM does not forbid the existence of tachyons. The idea that
nothing can move faster than light is an old assumption; no longer
valid. It stems from the fact that the equations of SR show that it
would take an infinite amount of energy to accelerate an ordinary
mass up to lightspeed. And since we do not see that sort of thing
happening, and we do not have access to infinite amounts of energy,
then it was widely assumed that nothing at all could exist on the
other side of lightspeed. But the equations do not themselves mandate
such an assumption. They only show, conversely, that, if tachyons
exist, it would take an infinite amount of energy to slow a tachyon
down to lightspeed.
I submit, therefore, that it is Merlin whose understanding of physics
is low.

I wrote:
Why is that? It is because of out-dated ideas. It is not an "a
priori" that the spin-2 graviton has to travel at lightspeed. That
specification is an assumption, based on the old but erroneous
assumption that nothing goes faster-than-light.
Merlin responds:
Negative... Read up on "real science" please.

My Response:
Wrong. I have. I do. And I will continue.

I wrote:
Yet, because that did not work out, it was then widely assumed,
because of the success of General Relativity (which does not specify
a field of quanta), that gravity has no quanta at all!
Merlin responds:
Excuse me? Since when?

My Response:
Please refer to any good text on Einstein's theory of General
Relativity (GR).
In its essence, it is a topological theory, employing Riemannian
geometry to give geodesics corresponding to the paths of objects
subjected to the warping of space due to the mere presence of other
masses in the volume of space under consideration. The notion of
a "field" of force is missing from the so-called "field equations" of
GR, and the incorporation of spin-2 massless gravitons as the quanta
of gravity must be done by hand, as an add-on supplemental idea.

I wrote:
Now, however, that assumption too is no longer adequate, because it
begs the question:
"Why, if the assumption is true, did Mother Nature quantize all of
the forces but gravity?"
No, gravity can be quantized, empirically, but not according to the
spin-2 graviton model.
Gravity's quanta are probably faster-than-light, but do not travel at
an infinte speed. They are more likely to be special kinds of
tachyons, with imaginary masses, that travel between lightspeed and
infinite speed excusively.
Merlin responds:
Observations tell us completely differently. The actions of stars,
moons, galaxies and pencils tell us that gravitons do not move
at "infinite speed." There is no form of math that can prove that
either.

My Response:
Wrong. For example;
Data from current "observations", such as of binary pulsars, hailed
far and wide as proving the old graviton model, is being used
unethically manipulated to support an otherwise unsupportable theory;
the data is being arbitrarily cherry-picked, the math used in the
analysis of it was clearly designed to give only one kind of result
(no matter what the input), and the entire claim of such proof rests
on an interpretation of the rigged results which itself asserts, from
the outset, as an initial assumption, that the said graviton model is
correct.
Also, here again, Merlin confuses my hypothetical gravity-inducing
tachyon with standard gravitons.
And there is math to support what I have said; if only Merlin would
read some of it. Please see, once more, my article "Tachyonic
Gravity" at www.TachyonicsSociety.com
<http://www.TachyonicsSociety.com>

I wrote:
They would be quite easily created by any real mass (because infinite
speed corresponds to a tachyon's zero-energy level).
Merlin responds:
Uh - no. Again, your lack of physical understanding is showing. The
formula for relativistic particle properties & motion is pretty
simple. E^2 = (m^2 ·c4) + (p^2 · c^2). Do the math.

My Response:
OK. Let's do the math.
Here, "E" is a massive particle's energy, "m" is its rest-mass, "p"
is its momentum, and "c" is the lightspeed constant.
Merlin cited the relativistic energy-momentum relation of SR, derived
from the total-energy equation;
E = [m(c^2)]/[1 - [(v/c)^2] = K + m(c^2) ,
where "K" is the kinetic energy of the particle;
K = (p^2)(c^2) .
The momentum is defined;
p = mv/[1 - [(v/c)^2], where "v" is the particle's velocity.
I refer to the factor "1/[1 - [(v/c)^2]" as the "Relativity
Operator", or the "RO", but it results from applying the Lorentz
transformations according to the tenets of SR.
The relation that Merlin wrote is, in fact, an equation that
specifically shows that it would take an infinite amount of energy to
accelerate a real mass up to lightspeed, because of the way the
Relativity Operator (RO) works itself out.
If, for instance, v < c, then the RO is a real number. But if v = c,
then the denominator in the RO goes infinite, and thus the RO is
either undefined, or, by convention, assumed to imply a zero mass,
corresponding to a massless photon. Yet, if v > c, then the RO
becomes imaginary, which defines a tachyon.
By plugging-in arbitrary values of velocity "v", we see that, while
the case in which E = 0 corresponds to v = 0 for an ordinary
particle, the case in which E = 0 corresponds to v = infinity is
reserved for tachyons (because of the reversed causality imposed by
the RO).
It would therefore take an infinite amount of energy to slow a
tachyon down to lightspeed, and, in words, infinite speed for a
tachyon coincides with the tachyon's zero-energy level.
So, although I regret to be the one who has to point it out,
obviously it is Merlin who lacks proper physical understanding of the
math of SR.

I wrote:
And, instead of traveling curved paths, they must travel absolutely
straight paths from their sources to an infinte distance.
Merlin responds:
But a straight path through curved space (geodesic) looks like a
curved path through flat space. You'll need an understanding of
calculus while you are at it.

My Response:
Merlin's point does not alter what I said, and his insinuation was a
not-too-cleverly disguised insult; as the reader will see forthwith.

I wrote:
To explain how this works, note that tachyons have reversed causality
(negative time), compared to that of ordinary particles. When photons
of light from a lightbulb, netrinos from the Sun, or particles coming
from a radioactive substance flow out from their sources, they give
rise to radiation pressure on objects that they hit or pass through.
And that pressure is felt as a force which is directed away from the
source. That is, standard (i.e., positive) radiation pressure is a
repulsive force. Alternatively, due to their reversed causality, the
radiation pressure setup by radiating tachyons would cause a pull
towards thier source, when hitting or passing through the same
objects. They setup an attraction (negative radiation pressure),
rather than a repulsion. And that attraction is what we experience as
the force of gravity.
Thus, these specail tachyons can be described as constituting a
monopole field macroscopically, in accord with a Classical Newtonian
vector-field, applied locally; as causing the overall warping of
spacetime described by the Riemannian geometry of Einstein's theory
of General Relativity (which is equivalent to Newtonian gavity at its
weak-field limit); and as compatible with M-Theory, since they
explain how it is that gravity can be so weak in our brane, but very
strong in another brane (according to the latest M-Theory ideas).
Merlin responds:
There was absolutely nothing correct in the above text.
Mathematically, logically, or observationaly - there was nothing
worth commenting on.

My Response:
Readers familiar with the mathematics will at once recognize that
Merlin is merely expressing an opinion, and one that he cannot
actually prove, because his assertion that there was nothing correct
in what I wrote above was, let's face it, either dishonest or
erroneous.
I am, myself, drawn to the impression that Merlin is dishonest, and
is here attempting to misinform readers who do not feel the need to
confirm for themselves that what I wrote is "mathematically,
logically, or observational(l)y" feasible.

I wrote:
Conclusion: Gravity is faster-than-light, and is therefore a
tachyonic force.
Merlin responds:
CONCLUSION: This guy has no clue as to what a tachyon is, much less
that a graviton is a "special" tachyon. H Kurt Richter needs to go to
school and learn the following (in this order):
Algebra 1, Algebra 2, Analytical Geometry, Trigonometry, Calculus 1-
4, Chemistry, Physics 1, Thermodynamics, Physics 2, QED, QCD, Physics
3, Modular functions, Statistics, Physics 4-6.

My Response:
Once more, Merlin is confusing my description of a gravity-inducing
tachyon with a graviton, which I have never said were the same, and
he appears to be implying himself that a graviton is indeed
a "special" tachyon, if his wording is to be taken as-is.
Either that, or he is misrepresenting what I have said, in a feeble
attempt to debunk me.
In point of fact, I have been doing research on the idea of tachyons
for nearly 30 years.
And, with respect to the meagre list of college courses Merlin cited,
I can say: "Been there. Done that."
As I stated in the first post of this thread, I have a degree in
mathematics (with a second major in computer science), and I am close
to getting another degree, specifically in theoretical physics. I
have also been an at-large member of the American Institute of
Physics for over 6 years, and I am the founder of the online think-
tank I call "The Tachyonics Society of America", whose members and
other supporters include "real" physicists, government researchers,
university professors, and other knowledgeable individuals, and which
is actually dedicated to the study of the tachyon, to finding
whatever applications of Tachyonics there may be now or in the
future, and to understanding all superluminal phenomena.
Reference www.TachyonicsSociety.com
<http://www.TachyonicsSociety.com>

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

This ends my counter responses to the messages that were posted by
Merlin on another thread, and in which he attempted to refute my
ideas. Any readers that have read this far can decide for themselves
if he was successful, or not.

As for the dispute between Merlin and myself, I believe I have
demonstrated in this thread that I am owed a sincere apology.

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

More of Merlin's comments will be given in the next post, along with
additional comments from myself.