Speed of Gravity?

More
20 years 5 months ago #9742 by Jim
Reply from was created by Jim
I'm so glad to see this detail back again because I just got a reply to a question about it from JPL. They tell me gravity can be considered as instantainous because it is a field force. TVF says something different than this and I'm simply puzzled by it.

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

More
20 years 5 months ago #9865 by tvanflandern
<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by Astrodelugeologist</i>
<br />So shouldn't we expect to observe the gravitational lensing around Jupiter's apparent position regardless of the speed of gravity?<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">You are correct. Kopeikin was heavily criticized by all who commented for the record. His paper was rejected by the Astrophysical Journal. It was restyled as the first measurement of light-bending by a planet instead of as a measure of the speed of gravity, and was then published.

Kopeikin is younger than you might have guessed, and this was probably a learning experience for him. It is too bad that he did a disservice to physics in the process. -|Tom|-

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

More
20 years 5 months ago #9866 by tvanflandern
<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by Jim</i>
<br />JPL ... tells me gravity can be considered as instantainous because it is a field force. TVF says something different than this and I'm simply puzzled by it.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">JPL is still speaking of the geometric interpretation of general relativity, in which gravity is caused by the curvature of "spacetime", and is not really a force at all. However, that has now been shown to be false. Curvature cannot initiate motion without a force acting. The "rubber sheet analogy" doesn't work as a model for why things appear to attract unless there is already gravity (a force) underneath the rubber sheet.

This is all explained in metaresearch.org/cosmology/gravity/speed_limit.asp
JPL and I (and all knowledgeable relativists) are at least in agreement that gravity is not a force propagating at the speed of light, even if our views differ about what gravity <i>is</i>. -|Tom|-

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

More
20 years 5 months ago #9868 by Jim
Replied by Jim on topic Reply from
If you are right and they are wrong why do they keep to the wrong position? It seems there is data that proves one is right and the other is not. Why do you say a field is not a part of the universe?

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

More
20 years 5 months ago #9688 by mhelland
Replied by mhelland on topic Reply from Mike Helland
I would presume they keep their wrong position because they are working scientists and must produce accurate results. General Relativity would give them those results.

Is there another model that produces the same or perhaps even more accurate results? If there's not then it seems reasonable to keep the most accuratly known position.

All scientific theories are wrong. Thats just the way it is.

The danger is when acadamia uses the most accurate theories to argue against different metaphysical interpretations of nature, as if the most accurate predictions are somehow derived from accurate understanding of the underlying conjectures regarding nature itself.

mhelland@techmocracy.net

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

More
20 years 5 months ago #10049 by Don Omni
Replied by Don Omni on topic Reply from
To the open minds,

Hello, I think this piece I'm about to present fits here since I'm dealing with the 'gravelocity' as I like to call it. In order to define an exact propagation value for gravity we'd have to do it theoretically, then confirm it experimentally. Basically the speed of gravity experiment isn't going to empirically return an exact speed of gravity if we don't know the rationally precise gravitational velocity yet. I realize it doesn't always work that way but please bear with me. I like what Tom says about gravelocity being greater than (2x10^10)c though because it's still using light speed as a constant which is kind of like saying the 'gravilight speed'. So all we'd do is divide out the speed of light in order to define the gravelocity if we had the precise speed of gravilight to work with of course. Although I do think he's a bit overzealous with the gravitational velocity in the experiment, I also believe the gravelocity is much greater than light speed.

Enough pretense, first I'll show what I believe to be the theoretical gravelocity limit then I'll show a simple proof to detail how I think gravelocity exists. I'm going to do this in simple terms so hopefully everyone that reads this can understand.

gravelocity=(m1m2((G)/(h)))/(c)

This means the speed of gravity is 3.359x10^14m/s. It looks like m1m2Nm^2/m^2/Nms yielding m/s. I have to use the parentheticals because if I don't then the speed is basically a quantum entity it's so small. The large speed is external and the small speed is internal. We need a quantum internal speed in case we're in a vessel traveling at gravelocity so we're not all squooshed against the hull inside. I could go on about this internal speed but I'd rather get onto the proof of gravelocity. I can actually do this in 3 moves but I'll use 4 so as not to confuse what happens in step 3. I'm going to deal with the arbitary F and p in terms of Energy so Force=E/d and momentum=E/c. Now I'll take the uncertainty E&gt;\/=h/4pit times uncertainty E/c&gt;\/=h/4piq to get what I call a 'wave cone'

1. E^2/c&gt;\/=h^2/16pi^2tq

For the second move I'll divide out one of the photons so that we'll have E^2/hc&gt;\/=h/16pi^2tq whose units cancel N^2m^2/Nm^2s/s which's E/d&gt;\/=h/16pi^2tq that would be

2. Force&gt;\/=h/16pi^2tq

Which is what I call quantum uncertainty Force. For the third step Force can be classically generalized as the inverse square law Gm1m2/d^2&gt;\/=h/16pi^2tq and all that's left to do is to flip the photon and the inverse square distance to determine the outright propagation rate of gravi/light velocity(m1m2((G)/(h)))&gt;\/=d^2/16pi^2tq where one of the inverse square distances cancels with the standard deviation of charge because E/F=d and E/F=q (they don't really cancel and actually become an imaginary 'invisible' component that appears to cancel) so gravi/light speed is relatively close to Tom's estimate

3. 1.007x10^23v&gt;\/=d/t16pi^2

The beauty about this is it's just a quantum uncertainty inequality so if we run up the light speed gauge on the right in order to equally divide it from both sides 1.007x10^23v/c&gt;\/=2.998x10^8d/t16pi^2/c

4. 3.359x10^14v&gt;\/=d/t16pi^2

That says gravelocity&gt;\/=d/t16pi^2 which means gravelocity is greater than a million times the speed of light. An ancillary benefit of the parity of quantum uncertainty found in 2. is Kq1q2/d^2&gt;\/=h/16pi^2tq which's only true as long as q1 and q2 are like charges. However this allows for the charge/light speed (q1q2((K)/(h)))&gt;\/=d^2/16pi^2tq that's actually 1.492x10^42v/c&gt;\/=2.998x10^8d/t16pi^2/c so the charge speed is 4.976x10^35v&gt;\/=d/t16pi^2.

Am I sidestepping relativity here or is this simply Lorentzian relativity in a quantum classical bow tie? I believe Tom's experimental &gt;&gt;(2x10^10)c is correct, however I believe it's correct for a gravi/light velo and the speed of light must be divided out in order to find the precise gravelocity.

So, to sum up, in my highly controversial view, the constant speeds can be viewed from least to greatest as

light speed
gravelocity
gravi/light speed
charge speed
charge/light speed

I suppose that my simple equations here will come under as much or more scrutiny from those who read this as Tom's gravelocity explanations have in the mainstream scientific community. If you believe me to be totally off base and some 'hack whack job' please disregard this whole post, don't reply, and cordially forget I exist. If, on the other hand, you believe there is a modicum of truth behind what I've detailed here please reply with your honest thoughts.

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

Time to create page: 0.392 seconds
Powered by Kunena Forum