Gravity Probe B

tvanflandern
Topic Author
Offline
Platinum Member

20 years 6 months ago #9854 by tvanflandern

Replied by tvanflandern on topic Reply from Tom Van Flandern

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by Jim
 I'm confused again-I thought the speed of gravity in SR&LR was the same as the speed of light and in MM was FTL. Now you say all these models have gravity at FLT or am I missing something else too?
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">The two choices for gravity (meaning gravitational force) are near-infinite speed or no propagation at all because gravity is not a force. No one who knows what he/she is talking about claims that gravitational force propagates at speed c.

You are probably thinking of gravitational waves, which everyone (including me) agrees must propagate at speed c. However, gravitational waves have nothing to do with gravitational force, and in that way are really mis-named. Gravitational waves are waves of elysium, the light-carrying medium, also called space-time medium, aether, and gravitational potential field. Physicists used to think that the gravitational potential field caused gravitational force, but it now seems clear (to me, at least) that gravitational force causes gradients in the gravitational potential, not the other way around. -|Tom|-

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

north
Offline
Platinum Member

20 years 6 months ago #9855 by north

Replied by north on topic Reply from

Tom

so how does MM account for the Spin of all astronomical bodies? and why is this fundamental property of the Universe basicly ignored?

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

Jim
Offline
Platinum Member

20 years 6 months ago #9550 by Jim

Replied by Jim on topic Reply from

I'm not thinking of waves at all. The speed of gravity was just last year being kicked around and "they" said it was equal to the speecd of light and you said it was FTL. The Jupiter and some star alignment was a big deal at the time.

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

north
Offline
Platinum Member

20 years 6 months ago #9602 by north

Replied by north on topic Reply from

Rendering Error in layout Message/Item: count(): Argument #1 ($value) must be of type Countable|array, bool given. Please enable debug mode for more information.

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

tvanflandern
Topic Author
Offline
Platinum Member

20 years 6 months ago #9515 by tvanflandern

Replied by tvanflandern on topic Reply from Tom Van Flandern

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by north
 now don't get me wrong Tom, but SPIN has been ignored in your theory for the most part.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">I don't get you wrong because I don't get you at all. Spin is just angular momentum being conserved. What has that got to do with gravitational force??

Please be specific. No "magic wand" arguments. -|Tom|-

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

tvanflandern
Topic Author
Offline
Platinum Member

20 years 6 months ago #9516 by tvanflandern

Replied by tvanflandern on topic Reply from Tom Van Flandern

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by Jim
 The speed of gravity was just last year being kicked around and "they" said it was equal to the speecd of light and you said it was FTL. The Jupiter and some star alignment was a big deal at the time.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">The Kopeikin matter was resolved to the satisfaction of everyone except Kopeikin. His paper and claims about the speed of gravity were rejected. But he was later allowed to publish his experimental data as the first measurement of light bending by a planet.

Kopeikin failed to realize the very points I made above about the differences between gravitational force propagation and changes in gravitational potential fields. He was criticized not just by me, but by every mainstream relativist who chose to comment.

As usual, the popular science media covered the original sensational claims, but gave little if any coverage to the very-non-sensational outcome. If popular science media is what you mainly see, it is not too surprising that you missed it. But with each development, our web site added a short note and a citation just before the "Summary" near the end of our report on the Kopeikin affair at metaresearch.org/media%20and%20links/press/SOG-Kopeikin.asp -|Tom|-

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

Time to create page: 0.443 seconds