- Thank you received: 0
Kopeikin and "the speed of gravity"
21 years 9 months ago #4592
by JBailey
Replied by JBailey on topic Reply from John Bailey
In my haste, I wrote, "separated by a distance that is greater than their response times divided by c"
I meant, "separated by a distance that is greater than their response time times c"
The tongue twister must have affected my fingertips.
I meant, "separated by a distance that is greater than their response time times c"
The tongue twister must have affected my fingertips.
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.
21 years 9 months ago #4725
by mechanic
Replied by mechanic on topic Reply from
From JBailey:
Does this not show a speed of the force?
What is "speed of a force?" More importantly, what is a force?
I haven't seen any equation in any physics book involving a speed of a "force". Force is thought to be the cause of acceleration, or vice versa. What then if someone asks; what's the speed of acceleration?
The closest those gravimeters can get is measuring potential disturbance speed, which is equal to c. One reason being is them measuring accelaration and not force directly and actually that is done by differentiating instataneous sampled position. yak!
Does this not show a speed of the force?
What is "speed of a force?" More importantly, what is a force?
I haven't seen any equation in any physics book involving a speed of a "force". Force is thought to be the cause of acceleration, or vice versa. What then if someone asks; what's the speed of acceleration?
The closest those gravimeters can get is measuring potential disturbance speed, which is equal to c. One reason being is them measuring accelaration and not force directly and actually that is done by differentiating instataneous sampled position. yak!
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.
- Larry Burford
- Offline
- Platinum Member
Less
More
- Thank you received: 0
21 years 9 months ago #4858
by Larry Burford
Replied by Larry Burford on topic Reply from Larry Burford
<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote><font size=2 face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>[Mechanic]
The closest those gravimeters can get is measuring potential disturbance speed, which is equal to c.<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size=2 id=quote>
We already know that it is possible <b>in the real world</b> to measure a change in the gravitational [something-or-other] of a person walking around near a gravimeter. So, what is this [something-or-other] that changes?
It cannot be potential, because changes in the potential field, AKA gravity waves, are far too faint for us to detect with present instruments. And they don't cause attraction (or repulsion either). They cause stretching and compressing instead.
If it can't be changes in the potential field, what is it?
Regards,
LB
The closest those gravimeters can get is measuring potential disturbance speed, which is equal to c.<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size=2 id=quote>
We already know that it is possible <b>in the real world</b> to measure a change in the gravitational [something-or-other] of a person walking around near a gravimeter. So, what is this [something-or-other] that changes?
It cannot be potential, because changes in the potential field, AKA gravity waves, are far too faint for us to detect with present instruments. And they don't cause attraction (or repulsion either). They cause stretching and compressing instead.
If it can't be changes in the potential field, what is it?
Regards,
LB
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.
- AgoraBasta
- Offline
- Elite Member
Less
More
- Thank you received: 0
21 years 9 months ago #4859
by AgoraBasta
Replied by AgoraBasta on topic Reply from
OK, boys, those gravimeters measure accelerations and NOT the potentials, better check with manufacturer site.
And why don't you like my proposal "as is"? One thing I can say for sure is that those bigger quartz xtals "feel" each-other quite well, completely unscreenable. And the signal pickup is their built-in feature...
And why don't you like my proposal "as is"? One thing I can say for sure is that those bigger quartz xtals "feel" each-other quite well, completely unscreenable. And the signal pickup is their built-in feature...
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.
21 years 9 months ago #4594
by mechanic
Replied by mechanic on topic Reply from
From Larry:
So, what is this [something-or-other] that changes?
What changes is the acceleration of a a falling body caused by a disturbance in its gravity potential due to the presence of another mass. That's what is measured. Simple. About forces? no such things are for real.
"What are you doing? Why are you doing it? Time is passing", Wilhelm Gottfried Leibniz
So, what is this [something-or-other] that changes?
What changes is the acceleration of a a falling body caused by a disturbance in its gravity potential due to the presence of another mass. That's what is measured. Simple. About forces? no such things are for real.
"What are you doing? Why are you doing it? Time is passing", Wilhelm Gottfried Leibniz
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.
- AgoraBasta
- Offline
- Elite Member
Less
More
- Thank you received: 0
21 years 9 months ago #4596
by AgoraBasta
Replied by AgoraBasta on topic Reply from
<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote><font size=2 face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>[mechanic] About forces? no such things are for real.<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size=2 id=quote>Quite the contrary is true. Potentials are NOT real, forces are direct observables. Would you care for a punch? <img src=icon_smile_clown.gif border=0 align=middle>
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.
Time to create page: 0.286 seconds