Kopeikin and "the speed of gravity"

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote><font size=2 face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>(TVF)Nonetheless, in common parlance in physics, the speed of the momentum carriers or the speed of the force generators is said to be the speed of the force.<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size=2 id=quote>
So then, if momentum has speed and force has speed then does that mean that acceleration has speed?

Just learning!
Magoo

Oh, I forgot to add that the reason for my question is because of a statement you made earlier in this thread;
"(TVF)Because acceleration is not a speed nor anything like a speed, it cannot be compared to a speed."

I was about to say that I'm confused but then I realized that perhaps it's not really me who is confused. <img src=icon_smile_blush.gif border=0 align=middle>

Just learning!
Magoo

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote><font size=2 face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>So then, if momentum has speed and force has speed then does that mean that acceleration has speed?<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size=2 id=quote>

Further on, I said:

-- The "speed of acceleration" is the same as the "speed of force", which is the same as the "speed of momentum", all of which are mass-independent. These are common conventions, especially in celestial mechanics. You can see these concepts in operation in, for example, Fundamentals of Celestial Mechanics by J.M.A. Danby. --

I explained this is just a speech shorthand. The "speed" in question is really the speed of the arriving momentum transfers. But when those are summed over time, the result is an acceleration. So we speak of the "speed of acceleration" or the "speed of force" without ambiguity, even though technically we always mean the speed of momentum. -|Tom|-

"The "speed of acceleration" is the same as the "speed of force", which is the same as the "speed of momentum", all of which are mass-independent. These are common conventions, especially in celestial mechanics. You can see these concepts in operation in, for example, Fundamentals of Celestial Mechanics by J.M.A. Danby. --"

and I will add... bla bla bla bla...

Well, I don't know who Mr. Danby is and what are his qualifications but I know for sure if he were a student in my Physics class he end up with a grade just or below D by just saying those things.

There is nothing like the "speed of acceleration, speed of momentum or speed of force". This is what pushing gravity pushers had to invent to justify speed of gravity in the presence of gravitons.

Whether gravity is pulling or pushing you cannot get away from an "infinite speed of gravity" and inventing all that non sense Physics will not help you gain peer respect. You will have to keep increasing your estimates of graviton speeds to hide the theory's flaws, from your old estimate of 20 x c to your current estimate of 20 billion c , what is next? 20 trillion c?

Kopeikin won. Good thing graviton theory was only valued at a nickel. lol

and all the bla bla bla bla won't do you any good

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote><font size=2 face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>[mechanic] ... you cannot get away from an "infinite speed of gravity" ... Kopeikin won. <hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size=2 id=quote> I can't infer your position on all this. Infinite speed is one model and light speed (Kopeikin) is another, right?

OK, now I'm confused (it doesn't take much). I will start off with saying that I have a BS in physics (electromag) with minors in remote sensing and oceanography, so I have had the basic mechanics courses.

Let 'a' be acceleration, 'v' be velocity, 'm' be mass, 'p' be momentum, and 'f' be force. In classical mechanics (for a single particle), a = dv/dt, p = mv, and f = ma. Systems of particles are treated somewhat similarly.

These are all vector quantities derived from velocity, which has speed AND direction. When you (tvf) speak of the 'speed' of acceleration, momentum, and force, are you referring to the directionless scalar of 'speed', which is a component of those properties?

I ask because I haven't heard the terms combined that way before. I do however, think that Kopeikin is incorrect in his interpretation of his measurements, since he was basically measuring an electromagnetic effect.

Also, I was wondering if (in theory) gravitons would have any appreciable acceleration component when they are generated or are involved in a collision, or like photons, would they just have basically an instantaneous velocity?