Instantaneous Speed of Electrical Signal
Abhi
instantaneous because "charge", magnetism and gravity; these are one
and the same thing.
Will you please tell me:
Have scientists ever conducted experiment using two atomic clocks,
powered by same battery, to measure speed of electrical signal?
If two clocks are separated by wire of length L and if you switch off
power supply, then according to QM, this information will run
across the wire with c or less than c. Then two atomic clocks will
show different times as one clock will receive electrical energy for
the period t = L/c than another clock near to switch. This is because,
according to QM and SR, all the electrons in wire will not stop
instantaneously as information regarding switch off will propagate at
c or less than c.
Have ever such experiment is conducted to measure speed of
electricity?
Note to Stephen Speicher: Show me if such "shocking" experiment is
indeed done. I will leave this NG "instantaneously".
Give me news which will "shock" my courage.
-Abhi.
Uncle Al
>
> My "Time Theory" predicts that speed of electrical signal must be
> instantaneous because "charge", magnetism and gravity; these are one
> and the same thing.
You are an idiot. You are an idiot not because you cannot do simple
self-consistent math (unit consistency) - though that is an adequate
reason. You are an idiot because empirical reality screams at you
that you are an idiot. Observation takes precedence over theory.
Read Jackson, fool.
Tutorial,
http://www.acsu.buffalo.edu/~kinho/youare.swf
Electrical signals in simple wires propagate at lightspeed divided by
the square root of the surrounding dielectric constant. Now you work
out the speed in coaxial cable for us.
Science, even heterodox science, has literature citations,
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/eotvos.htm
(Do something naughty to physics)
Your crap is litterature.
--
Uncle Al
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/
(Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals)
"Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?" The Net!
Traveler
<Uncl...@hate.spam.net> wrote:
>Abhi wrote:
>>
>> My "Time Theory" predicts that speed of electrical signal must be
>> instantaneous because "charge", magnetism and gravity; these are one
>> and the same thing.
>[snip]
>
>You are an idiot. You are an idiot not because you cannot do simple
>self-consistent math (unit consistency) - though that is an adequate
>reason. You are an idiot because empirical reality screams at you
>that you are an idiot. Observation takes precedence over theory.
>Read Jackson, fool.
And you Uncle Adolf are a retarded moron because you still can't
figure out that spacetime is abstract and invariant. And BTW, how many
blacks and Mexicans do plan to run over in 2003, you racist asshole?
Louis Savain
-------------------------------------------------
Temporal Intelligence:
http://pages.sbcglobal.net/louis.savain/AI/Temporal_Intelligence.htm
The Silver Bullet:
http://pages.sbcglobal.net/louis.savain/AI/Reliability.htm
Nasty Little Truth About Spacetime Physics:
http://pages.sbcglobal.net/louis.savain/Crackpots/notorious.htm
Richard Perry
Well I guess we'll be minus one pretty soon then:-) Confucius say: Man
who open mouth too much soon get foot stuck in it.
--
Richard Perry
http://www.cswnet.com/~rper
Sam Wormley
>
>
> And you Uncle Adolf are a retarded moron because you still can't
> figure out that spacetime is abstract and invariant. And BTW, how many
> blacks and Mexicans do plan to run over in 2003, you racist asshole?
>
Hey [Time] Trraveler, see Spacetime Interval:
http://scienceworld.wolfram.com/physics/SpacetimeInterval.html
Jack
can pop in too.
I have no idea how to answer your question, I just read this group to see
what physics is all about. From my recollection of schooltime physics, I
think electricity has a speed, it's just under the speed of light. However,
it seems that other learned friends disagree on this:
To my surprise it's about calling other people idiots and misquoting
Confucius.
One seems to think that the speed of electricity is based on the definition
of idiocity. That's certainly a new one to me.
Another probably hasn't worked out this is a physics newsgroup, not
philosophy or confucianism. Also I don't believe that quote about a foot in
the mouth is in the Analects, or indeed has ever been uttured by Confucius.
Ah well Abhi, at you and I are honest enough to ask questions in the hope of
learned replies.
J.
"Abhi" <discov...@yahoo.co.in> wrote in message
news:4bd62e7c.0212...@posting.google.com...
Franz Heymann
> instantaneous because "charge", magnetism and gravity; these are one
> and the same thing.
Nonsense.
>
> Will you please tell me:
>
> Have scientists ever conducted experiment using two atomic clocks,
> powered by same battery, to measure speed of electrical signal?
It is unnecessary to go to such lengths to measure the propagation
speed of an electrical signal in a cable.
This measurement has been done many times.
>
> If two clocks are separated by wire of length L and if you switch
off
> power supply, then according to QM, this information will run
> across the wire with c or less than c.
Yes.
> Then two atomic clocks will
> show different times as one clock will receive electrical energy for
> the period t = L/c than another clock near to switch. This is
because,
> according to QM and SR, all the electrons in wire will not stop
> instantaneously as information regarding switch off will propagate
at
> c or less than c.
>
> Have ever such experiment is conducted to measure speed of
> electricity?
Frequently.
An electrical signal progating in the TEM mode along an evacuated
coaxial cable, or parallel wire transmission line propagates at the
speed c. TE modes and TM modes propagate with phase speeds in excess
of c and group speeds less than c.
The speed of signals in calibrated coaxial cables is routinely used in
laboratories to measure time lapses in the region of 0.5 nanosec. to
around 1 microsec.
Those statements of mine have neen verified hundreds of thousands of
times in
physics and communication engineering laboratories.
> Note to Stephen Speicher: Show me if such "shocking" experiment is
> indeed done. I will leave this NG "instantaneously".
I take it that you will now leave the ng "instantaneously"
> Give me news which will "shock" my courage.
Franz Heymann
Sam Wormley
http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/SpeedOfLight/FTL.html
http://scienceworld.wolfram.com/physics/SpeedofLight.html
Some Scientifically Inaccurate Claims Concerning Cosmology and Relativity
http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/RelWWW/wrong.html
David Robbins
time to start over on your theory and find a new newsgroup. i measure
lengths of wire by sending pulses down them and waiting for the reflection
to come back.... and it is always much slower than c, in the cables i test
it is usually only .8c or so.
Eugen Winkler
"Abhi" <discov...@yahoo.co.in> wrote
> Will you please tell me:
>
> Have scientists ever conducted experiment using two atomic clocks,
> powered by same battery, to measure speed of electrical signal?
>
Yes.
Guess the maximum charge generation speed within a battery.
Eugen Winkler
EL
[EL]
It seems that Big Foot's foot has found a cave.
Not just any foot.
Damn.
Big Foot himself could never dream that he shall find a place to rest
his foot as wide and comfortable as THIS ONE.
EheheL
Arfur Dogfrey
> My "Time Theory" predicts that speed of electrical signal must be
> instantaneous because "charge", magnetism and gravity; these are one
> and the same thing.
>
> Will you please tell me:
>
> Have scientists ever conducted experiment using two atomic clocks,
> powered by same battery, to measure speed of electrical signal?
>
"Scientists" have done an experiment to prove that electrical signals
are not propagated instantaneously. The experiment is called the
"Color Television." In your color television is a coil of wire whose
only purpose is to add extra time to the propagation of an electrical
signal. Without the delay line adding extra delay to one of the signals
in your color television system it will not work properly.
> If two clocks are separated by wire of length L and if you switch off
> power supply, then according to QM, this information will run
> across the wire with c or less than c. Then two atomic clocks will
> show different times as one clock will receive electrical energy for
> the period t = L/c than another clock near to switch. This is because,
> according to QM and SR, all the electrons in wire will not stop
> instantaneously as information regarding switch off will propagate at
> c or less than c.
>
> Have ever such experiment is conducted to measure speed of
> electricity?
>
> Note to Stephen Speicher: Show me if such "shocking" experiment is
> indeed done. I will leave this NG "instantaneously".
>
Turn on your color TV. If it works ok then leave this NG "instantaneously."
Arf!
Arfur
Tom Roberts
> My "Time Theory" predicts that speed of electrical signal must be
> instantaneous because "charge", magnetism and gravity; these are one
> and the same thing.
Then your theory has been refuted. Many times.
> Have scientists ever conducted experiment using two atomic clocks,
> powered by same battery, to measure speed of electrical signal?
One doesn't need atomic clocks, one merely needs a 2-channel 100 MHz
oscilloscope and a few associated accessories. You can EASILY measure
the time delay between signals going in to and coming out of cable, and
one finds that for common coax the speed of propagation is typically
between 0.7 and 0.8 c. In particle experiments it is quite common to
have many different pre-calibrated lengths of coax, labeled 1 ns, 2 ns,
5 ns, 10 ns, etc. (the fast electronics must be timed in to within a few
nanoseconds in order to work properly). The 1 ns cable is about 8 inches
long. This is not even obscure or unusual, it is QUITE COMMONPLACE to
time electrical signals to ~nanosecond accuracy by varying the lengths
of the cables.
Using two atomic clocks, as you suggest, is subject to significantly
higher systematic errors, and you are unlikely to obtain a decent (i.e.
reproducible) result without a lot of care. The equipment is also
hundreds of times more expensive....
Tom Roberts tjro...@lucent.com
Stephen Speicher
> My "Time Theory" predicts that speed of electrical signal must be
> instantaneous because "charge", magnetism and gravity; these are one
> and the same thing.
>
[...]
> Have ever such experiment is conducted to measure speed of
> electricity?
>
> Note to Stephen Speicher: Show me if such "shocking" experiment is
> indeed done. I will leave this NG "instantaneously".
>
Poor Abhi. This is a simple experiment which is done in many
beginning physics courses. You can easily perform this experiment
yourself:
http://plabpc.csustan.edu/general/GeneralPhysicsIIlabs/Speed_of_Electricty/speed.htm
After doing so, please feel free to leave this group at a
convenient rate, but not to exceed c.
--
Stephen
s...@speicher.com
Ignorance is just a placeholder for knowledge.
Printed using 100% recycled electrons.
-----------------------------------------------------------
Abhi
Stephen, plan your schedule of one year.
-Abhi.
___________________________________________________________
--- kope...@missouri.edu wrote: >
Dear Abhi,
>
> thank you for your inquiry and the interest to my
> experiment. I shall
> announce the result on January 7 in Seattle during
> the AAS annual
> meeting. I am not supposed to tell anything right
> now because of embargo.
>
> Sincerely,
>
> Sergei Kopeikin
>
>
>
> Abhijit Patil wrote:
>
> >Dear Dr. Kopeikin-
> >
> >Perhaps, I am most anxious person on planet earth
> >waiting for the result of your speed of gravity
> >experiment to be declared.
> >
> >Can you please give us (people in sci.
> >physics.relativity Newsgroup) some tentative date
> on
> >which you will be able to make the result public ?
> >
> >.........What is the "speed of God"?
> >
> >Thanks.
> >
> >-Abhi.
> >
> >Mr. Abhijit B Patil, B.Sc.(Math), C/o LIC of India,
> >Shahada city, Dist: Nandurbar, Maharastra State,
> >India. Pin: 425 409. E-Mail Address:
> >discov...@yahoo.co.in
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >________________________________________________________________________
> >Missed your favourite TV serial last night? Try the
> new, Yahoo! TV.
> > visit http://in.tv.yahoo.com
> >
>
>
>
Mitchell Jones
discov...@yahoo.co.in (Abhi) wrote:
> I just checked my inbox and I found this reply from Dr. Kopeikin.
>
> Stephen, plan your schedule of one year.
>
> -Abhi.
> ___________________________________________________________
>
> --- kope...@missouri.edu wrote: >
>
> > Dear Abhi,
> >
> > thank you for your inquiry and the interest to my
> > experiment. I shall announce the result on January
> > 7 in Seattle during the AAS annual meeting. I am
> > not supposed to tell anything right now because
> > of embargo.
***{Question: if one does a test and determines that the sky is blue, does
one "embargo" the announcement of that result until a prestigious annual
meeting of scientists? :-) --MJ}***
> > Sincerely,
> >
> > Sergei Kopeikin
===============================================
Killfile inmates: Charles Cagle, Stephen Speicher, Mati Meron, Franz
Heymann, Mike Varney, Dirk Van de moortel, Bob Zombiewoof.
Franz Heymann
"Mitchell Jones" <mjo...@jump.net> wrote in message
news:mjones-3012...@66-105-229-37-aus-02.cvx.algx.net...
> In article <4bd62e7c.02123...@posting.google.com>,
> discov...@yahoo.co.in (Abhi) wrote:
>
> > I just checked my inbox and I found this reply from Dr. Kopeikin.
> >
> > Stephen, plan your schedule of one year.
> >
> > -Abhi.
> > ___________________________________________________________
> >
> > --- kope...@missouri.edu wrote: >
> >
> > > Dear Abhi,
> > >
> > > thank you for your inquiry and the interest to my
> > > experiment. I shall announce the result on January
> > > 7 in Seattle during the AAS annual meeting. I am
> > > not supposed to tell anything right now because
> > > of embargo.
>
> ***{Question: if one does a test and determines that the sky is
blue, does
> one "embargo" the announcement of that result until a prestigious
annual
> meeting of scientists? :-) --MJ}***
Idiot.
How many folk have been involved in that experiment?
If the collaborators have decided on a common publication policy, who,
except perhaps Jones, would be churlish enough to break the agreement?
And remember that publication by newspaper announcement or leaking to
individuals is not considered good manners in circles other than the
ones Jones moves in.
I fear Jones will just have to wait patiently, like Abji and the rest
of us.
Franz Heymann
EL
The speed of gravity! When?
New year is tiresome and gravity must be at rest on the seventh of
January.
At rest means that the speed is still zero.
Does he have to wait that long and did he have to make experiments to
find out about that?
I swear by Hemendra this cannot be.
Is there an experiment for the speed of honesty instead?
I cannot find it in my Khazana.
Shahada ya mohandess. :)
EL.
discov...@yahoo.co.in (Abhi) wrote in message news:<4bd62e7c.02123...@posting.google.com>...
Abhi
> On 29 Dec 2002, Abhi wrote:
>
> > My "Time Theory" predicts that speed of electrical signal must be
> > instantaneous because "charge", magnetism and gravity; these are one
> > and the same thing.
> >
> [...]
> > Have ever such experiment is conducted to measure speed of
> > electricity?
> >
> > Note to Stephen Speicher: Show me if such "shocking" experiment is
> > indeed done. I will leave this NG "instantaneously".
> >
>
> Poor Abhi. This is a simple experiment which is done in many
> beginning physics courses. You can easily perform this experiment
> yourself:
>
> http://plabpc.csustan.edu/general/GeneralPhysicsIIlabs/Speed_of_Electricty/speed.htm
>
> After doing so, please feel free to leave this group at a
> convenient rate, but not to exceed c.
Is that so easy, Stephen?
I am surprised, you caught the same site which I caught 2-3 months
ago. I am asking specific question, because I have specific theory of
gravity. Gravity does not travel in the form of "waves". So whatever
these experiments are detecting, those are speed of EM waves. Not
speed of gravity.
Thanks every one who replied to me.
No News, Is A Good News!
-Abhi.
Jim Graber
I don't want to interfere with any arrangements between Abhi and
Stephen Speicher, but I can't ignore the interpretation by Dr.
Kopeikin of the Kopeikin-Fomalont observation.
According to the abstract of Session 101.07 of AAS Meeting #201,
entitled "Measuring the Speed of Propagation of Gravity" Dr. Kopeikin
and Dr. Fomalont "anticipate the result that gravity propagates with
the same speed as light."
Unfortunately, as has been pointed out in Astrophysical Journal by Dr.
Asada, the Kopeikin-Fomalont observation will not do this. Instead,
it merely verifies that the speed of light measured via the Shapiro
effect is the same as the speed of light measured in easier ways.
If Drs. Kopeikin and Fomalont could really measure the speed of
propagation of gravity, this would in fact be a very big deal. It
would have attracted much more scientific ( as opposed to popular
press) attention than it has.
Although only Dr. Asada has published a disagreement with Dr.
Kopeikin's interpretation, I do not believe that the majority of the
knowledgeable community supports Dr. Kopeikin's position. If
authorities such as K. Thorne, C. Will, T Damour, or other comparable
experts say this observation has measured the speed of propagation of
gravity, I will believe it. If this class of people fail to support
this claim and continue to ignore it, I will continue to disbelieve
it.
Jim Graber
Mitchell Jones
jgr...@mailaps.org (Jim Graber) wrote:
***{Regardless of the content of their announcement on Dec. 7, it is now
crystal clear that the physics establishment does *not* regard this as a
humdrum verification that "the sky is blue." This speed-of-gravity stuff
has got their hackles up, and I for one find that to be extremely amusing.
(Why does it bother them so much? Because (a) the principle of continuity
requires that all forces be carried by particles, and (b) if the force of
gravity is carried by particles, then a simple calculation based on the
absence of gravitational aberration, done by Laplace almost 200 years ago,
proves conclusively that the speed of gravity is millions of times the
speed of light. :-) --MJ}***
Richard Perry
The 'speed of gravity' is indeed a senseless statement since a static
field is by definition not moving (not changing), but this is not true
of electrical impulses. In the latter case we have the migration of
particles of matter (electrons and protons), in the former we do not.
Perhaps your argument would make more sense if you had compared the
gravitational field to a 'static' electromagnetic field. As a charge
moves wrt to a static field there is no delay associated with the
interaction between the charge and that static field. A 'change in' that
em field does however involve a propagational speed wrt a passing
charge, in that any change to that field will not be immediately
perceptible in the far field.
For em fields that speed approaches c, depending upon the involved
medium. For changes in the G field that speed is as yet undetermined,
but upon consideration of the details I must concur that there will not
necessarily be a delay involved in G field changes, since only the
migration of a mass wrt anther mass, both with their 'static'
gravitational fields, can change the net gravitational field at any
point in space. In the case of changes in em fields, OTOH, there is a
screening effect that takes place which is not only responsible for the
perceived delay of em energy, but also for the formation of the waves
themselves, the charge components of the waves actually forming the
screen. In the case of gravity, only antigravity could cause such a
screening effect, and AFAIK such doesn't exist, and without it gravity
cannot wave.
Richard Perry
http://www.cswnet.com/~rper
Traveler
<mjones-3012...@66-105-229-125-aus-02.cvx.algx.net>,
mjo...@jump.net (Mitchell Jones) wrote:
[snip]
>
>***{Regardless of the content of their announcement on Dec. 7, it is now
>crystal clear that the physics establishment does *not* regard this as a
>humdrum verification that "the sky is blue." This speed-of-gravity stuff
>has got their hackles up, and I for one find that to be extremely amusing.
>(Why does it bother them so much? Because (a) the principle of continuity
>requires that all forces be carried by particles, and (b) if the force of
>gravity is carried by particles, then a simple calculation based on the
>absence of gravitational aberration, done by Laplace almost 200 years ago,
>proves conclusively that the speed of gravity is millions of times the
>speed of light. :-) --MJ}***
Relativists are scared to death that the result will show that gravity
is instantaneous or much faster than the speed of light within
experimental boundaries. It would show most of them (not all) for the
religious crackpots that they are. I predict that, whatever the
results happen to be, they will be furiously debated by both sides of
the issue.
The truth is that, if gravity only propagated at the speed of light as
relativists claim, Newtonian gravity would be 100% wrong since it
assumes instantaneous gravitational effects. As it is, Newtonian
gravity is extremely accurate. One only needs to add gravitational
clock slowing effects to make it as accurate as anything else out
there.
How can gravity be instantaneous, you ask? The answer is that gravity
is both a local and a non-local phenomenon, i.e., it requires both
local particle interactions and non-local adherence to energy
conservation principles.
------------------------------------------------------------------
Note: I used the phrase "clock slowing" above as opposed to "time
dilation". The problem with "time dilation" is that it assumes that
time can change. Again, as I have written elsewhere, time is invariant
by definition, regardless of what clueless relativists have been
preaching for close to a hundred years. Clocks slow down under
gravity, not because time dilates (that's stupid since time cannot
change) but because of energy conservation.
Jeff Krimmel
"Traveler" <eight...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:jb811vg7qbosktn04...@4ax.com...
>
> How can gravity be instantaneous, you ask? The answer is that gravity
> is both a local and a non-local phenomenon, i.e., it requires both
> local particle interactions and non-local adherence to energy
> conservation principles.
If "it requires...local particle interactions", then how is the idea of
gravity being instantaneous not refuted? If it was entirely non-local, then
sure, but why do you believe that including local interactions does not
destroy the instantaneous gravitational condition in which you believe?
Regards,
Jeff
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
*** Usenet.com - The #1 Usenet Newsgroup Service on The Planet! ***
http://www.usenet.com
Unlimited Download - 19 Seperate Servers - 90,000 groups - Uncensored
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Stephen Speicher
Whatever are you babbling about? You were here talking about the
"speed of electricity," which you claim to be "instantaneous." Do
the experiment for yourself and discover, as is done every year
by beginning students of physics, that the "speed of electricity"
is not "instantaneous."
Stephen Speicher
>
> ***{Question: if one does a test and determines that the sky is blue, does
> one "embargo" the announcement of that result until a prestigious annual
> meeting of scientists? :-) --MJ}***
>
First we had some old lady-type gossip from Mitchell Jones,
and now this silliness. What a first-class moron Jones is.
Stephen Speicher
>
> Unfortunately, as has been pointed out in Astrophysical Journal by Dr.
> Asada, the Kopeikin-Fomalont observation will not do this.
And, as has been discussed in the past, Dr. Asada is wrong.
>
> Although only Dr. Asada has published a disagreement with Dr.
> Kopeikin's interpretation, I do not believe that the majority of the
> knowledgeable community supports Dr. Kopeikin's position. If
> authorities such as K. Thorne, C. Will, T Damour, or other comparable
> experts say this observation has measured the speed of propagation of
> gravity, I will believe it. If this class of people fail to support
> this claim and continue to ignore it, I will continue to disbelieve
> it.
>
Instead of treating physics as an issue of belief, why not judge
for yourself. gr-qc/0212121 should be publicly available in the
next day or so.
Stephen Speicher
>
> ***{Regardless of the content of their announcement on Dec. 7, it is now
~~~
January 7, moron. Can't you even get a simple date correct?
> crystal clear that the physics establishment does *not* regard this as a
> humdrum verification that "the sky is blue." This speed-of-gravity stuff
> has got their hackles up, and I for one find that to be extremely amusing.
I think it is quite fair that Jones should find amusement in
something regarding physics, since those in physics have been so
amused for so long with Jones' own loony tunes version of such.
> (Why does it bother them so much? Because (a) the principle of continuity
> requires that all forces be carried by particles, and (b) if the force of
> gravity is carried by particles, then a simple calculation based on the
> absence of gravitational aberration, done by Laplace almost 200 years ago,
> proves conclusively that the speed of gravity is millions of times the
> speed of light. :-) --MJ}***
>
And does Mitchell Jones have the integrity to stand up now and
state what _he_ expects the experiment to show? I have. I guess
if the experiment shows a near-instantaneous propagation speed to
finite changes in the gravitational field, Jones will then
embrace the experiment and gloat. On the other hand, if the
experiment rules out the near-instantaneous speed, Jones will
disown the experiment.
Mitchell Jones lacks honesty and integrity, which when added to
his being a cuckoo bird in physics, is not a very good
combination. What a pathetic hypocrite Mitchell Jones is.
Uncle Al
>
> On 30 Dec 2002, Jim Graber wrote:
> >
> > Unfortunately, as has been pointed out in Astrophysical Journal by Dr.
> > Asada, the Kopeikin-Fomalont observation will not do this.
>
> And, as has been discussed in the past, Dr. Asada is wrong.
>
> >
> > Although only Dr. Asada has published a disagreement with Dr.
> > Kopeikin's interpretation, I do not believe that the majority of the
> > knowledgeable community supports Dr. Kopeikin's position. If
> > authorities such as K. Thorne, C. Will, T Damour, or other comparable
> > experts say this observation has measured the speed of propagation of
> > gravity, I will believe it. If this class of people fail to support
> > this claim and continue to ignore it, I will continue to disbelieve
> > it.
> >
>
> Instead of treating physics as an issue of belief, why not judge
> for yourself. gr-qc/0212121 should be publicly available in the
> next day or so.
Hot damn! Not that there will be even a single crank that
acknowledges it, much less reads it.
--
Uncle Al
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/
(Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals)
"Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?" The Net!
Dirk Bruere
"Uncle Al" <Uncl...@hate.spam.net> wrote in message
news:3E10C97A...@hate.spam.net...
> >
> > Instead of treating physics as an issue of belief, why not judge
> > for yourself. gr-qc/0212121 should be publicly available in the
> > next day or so.
>
> Hot damn! Not that there will be even a single crank that
> acknowledges it, much less reads it.
I'll only read it if I hear v!=c
Dirk
Traveler
<Pine.LNX.4.33.021230...@localhost.localdomain>,
Stephen Speicher <s...@speicher.com> wrote:
>And does Mitchell Jones have the integrity to stand up now and
>state what _he_ expects the experiment to show? I have. I guess
>if the experiment shows a near-instantaneous propagation speed to
>finite changes in the gravitational field, Jones will then
>embrace the experiment and gloat. On the other hand, if the
>experiment rules out the near-instantaneous speed, Jones will
>disown the experiment.
>
>Mitchell Jones lacks honesty and integrity, which when added to
>his being a cuckoo bird in physics, is not a very good
>combination. What a pathetic hypocrite Mitchell Jones is.
I guess if the experiment shows a c propagation speed to finite
changes in the gravitational field, Speicher will then embrace the
experiment and gloat. On the other hand, if the experiment rules out
the c speed, Speicher will disown the experiment.
Stephen Speicher lacks honesty and integrity, which when added to
his being a cuckoo bird in physics, is not a very good
combination. What a pathetic hypocrite Stephen Speicher is.
What a pathetic ass kisser Stephen Speicher is!
Harry Conover
> Relativists are scared to death that the result will show that gravity
> is instantaneous or much faster than the speed of light within
> experimental boundaries. It would show most of them (not all) for the
> religious crackpots that they are. I predict that, whatever the
> results happen to be, they will be furiously debated by both sides of
> the issue.
Nonsense. Most scientists (including what you call relativists) await
the arrival of a definitive experiment that will demonstrate the
propagation velocity of the gravity field/force.
Unlike electromagnetic radiation, medium characteristics for the
propagation of gravity remain unknown, hence it's velocity of
propagation is correspondingly unknown, either from calculation based
on theory, or experiment. Lacking other evidence, it is ASSUMED that
gravity propagates at a velocity of C, but this is simply a default
assumption and hardly engraved in stone.
Just as an electomagnetic wave can be interpeted as the propagation of
a displacement in magnetic lines of force or an electric field, a
gravitational wave represents the propagation in a kink in a
gravitational field. Sadly, at least to my knowledge, that rate
remains to be either measured of experimentally observed.
I personally consider that observation to be on the very cutting edge
of today's physics knowledge, an a Nobel Prize winning entry to be
sure. At minimum, knowledge of that parameter would be a giant step
forward in our understanding of the physical nature of the universe.
Just my opinion, of course.
Harry C.
Traveler
<mad_sci...@hotmail.com> wrote:
[I hesitated before responding to your post because Krimmel is the
self-righteous asshole who recently posted a sermon in a parallel
about these newsgroups being accessed by kids.]
>"Traveler" <eight...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>news:jb811vg7qbosktn04...@4ax.com...
>>
>> How can gravity be instantaneous, you ask? The answer is that gravity
>> is both a local and a non-local phenomenon, i.e., it requires both
>> local particle interactions and non-local adherence to energy
>> conservation principles.
>
>If "it requires...local particle interactions", then how is the idea of
>gravity being instantaneous not refuted?
How does local interactions preclude non-local influences, huh?
>If it was entirely non-local, then
>sure, but why do you believe that including local interactions does not
>destroy the instantaneous gravitational condition in which you believe?
You are setting up a false strawman so you can wrestle it to the
ground and claim victory. I can easily change your question thus:
Why do you believe that including local interactions
necessarily destroys the instantaneous gravitational
condition?
The simple fact is that a non-local influence is always manifested in
a local interaction. That is how an observer (or a particle) detects
the non-local influence in the first place. How else can it be
manifested? By fucking magic?
Marion Hobba
> For em fields that speed approaches c, depending upon the involved
> medium. For changes in the G field that speed is as yet undetermined,
> but upon consideration of the details I must concur that there will not
> necessarily be a delay involved in G field changes, since only the
> migration of a mass wrt anther mass, both with their 'static'
> gravitational fields, can change the net gravitational field at any
> point in space. In the case of changes in em fields, OTOH, there is a
> screening effect that takes place which is not only responsible for the
> perceived delay of em energy, but also for the formation of the waves
> themselves, the charge components of the waves actually forming the
> screen. In the case of gravity, only antigravity could cause such a
> screening effect, and AFAIK such doesn't exist, and without it gravity
> cannot wave.
Have you ever analysed the Einstein Field Equations in the linear limit?
They are like a more complicated version of maxwells equations. Just as
inevitably they lead to gravitational waves. See page 242 Gravitation and
Space-time by Ruffini.
To quote from that source:
'Gravitational effects cannot propagate at infinite speed. This is obvious
both from the lack of Lorentz invariance of infinite speed and the causality
violations that are associated with signal speeds in excess of that of
light. Since the speed of light is the lorentz invariant speed we expect
that gravitational effects propagate in the form of waves at the speed of
light.'
Thanks
Bill
Arfur Dogfrey
er...you said at the beginning of this thread:
> > > On 29 Dec 2002, Abhi wrote:
> > >
> > > My "Time Theory" predicts that speed of electrical signal must be
> > > instantaneous because "charge", magnetism and gravity; these are one
> > > and the same thing.
> > >
> [...]
> > > Have ever such experiment is conducted to measure speed of
> > > electricity?
> > >
> > > Note to Stephen Speicher: Show me if such "shocking" experiment is
> > > indeed done. I will leave this NG "instantaneously".
> > >
Now you are saying the speed of electricity isn't what you
were talking about. Does that mean you are NOT leaving the
NG? Rats...my hopes are dashed again.
Arf!
Arfur
Uncle Al
>
> discov...@yahoo.co.in (Abhi) wrote in message news:<4bd62e7c.02123...@posting.google.com>...
> > Stephen Speicher <s...@speicher.com> wrote in message news:<Pine.LNX.4.33.021229...@localhost.localdomain>...
> > > On 29 Dec 2002, Abhi wrote:
> > I am surprised, you caught the same site which I caught 2-3 months
> > ago. I am asking specific question, because I have specific theory of
> > gravity. Gravity does not travel in the form of "waves". So whatever
> > these experiments are detecting, those are speed of EM waves. Not
> > speed of gravity.
First: it isn't gravity, it's gravitation. There is a vast and
important difference.
Second: gravitational waves are not the way gravitation propagates.
Gravitational waves are due to quadrupolar excitations of large
compact (sets of) masses. Gravitation is static curvature of
spacetime with a unique value at each point - hence Equivalence
Principle challenges seeking empirical demonstration of two
simultaneous different local spacetime curvatures.
One reason science has literature citations is so some ignorant git
has a chance of catching up with the rest of the world before saying
something pitiably stooopid. One can then spurt an enviably heterodox
original idea backed by common agreement and self-consistency
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/eotvos.htm
and bother much more interesting people.
[snip]
Stephen Speicher
> Stephen Speicher wrote:
> >
> > On 30 Dec 2002, Jim Graber wrote:
> > >
> > > Unfortunately, as has been pointed out in Astrophysical Journal by Dr.
> > > Asada, the Kopeikin-Fomalont observation will not do this.
> >
> > And, as has been discussed in the past, Dr. Asada is wrong.
> >
> > >
> > > Although only Dr. Asada has published a disagreement with Dr.
> > > Kopeikin's interpretation, I do not believe that the majority of the
> > > knowledgeable community supports Dr. Kopeikin's position. If
> > > authorities such as K. Thorne, C. Will, T Damour, or other comparable
> > > experts say this observation has measured the speed of propagation of
> > > gravity, I will believe it. If this class of people fail to support
> > > this claim and continue to ignore it, I will continue to disbelieve
> > > it.
> > >
> >
> > Instead of treating physics as an issue of belief, why not judge
> > for yourself. gr-qc/0212121 should be publicly available in the
> > next day or so.
>
> Hot damn! Not that there will be even a single crank that
> acknowledges it, much less reads it.
>
Because of the embargo until the January 7 press conference, the
specific limits will not be part of that paper. However, I
suspect there will not be too many rational skeptics, as to the
validity of the procedure, after reading this paper.
Stephen Speicher
>
> Unlike electromagnetic radiation, medium characteristics for the
> propagation of gravity remain unknown, hence it's velocity of
> propagation is correspondingly unknown, either from calculation based
> on theory, or experiment. Lacking other evidence, it is ASSUMED that
> gravity propagates at a velocity of C, but this is simply a default
> assumption and hardly engraved in stone.
>
I disagree. It is a prediction of general relativity that finite
changes in the gravitational field propagate at c. See, for
instance,
S. Carlip, "Aberration and the speed of gravity," _Physics
Letters A_, 267 (2-3): pp. 81-87 Mar 13 2000.
R.J. Low, "Speed limits in general relativity," _Classical and
Quantum Gravity_, 16 (2): pp. 543-549 FEB 1999.
and the entire array of papers by Sergei Kopeikin leading up
to the Setpember experiment.
Traveler
>If Drs. Kopeikin and Fomalont could really measure the speed of
>propagation of gravity, this would in fact be a very big deal. It
>would have attracted much more scientific ( as opposed to popular
>press) attention than it has.
First off, the speed of propagation of gravity (if there were such a
thing) is already known (except to religionists, weekend golfers and
politicians) to be much greater than c because of the extreme accuracy
of Newton's theory of gravity. Newton's gravity theory assumes
instantaneous changes in gravity throughout the universe and would be
completely off if it were not so.
>Although only Dr. Asada has published a disagreement with Dr.
>Kopeikin's interpretation, I do not believe that the majority of the
>knowledgeable community supports Dr. Kopeikin's position. If
>authorities such as K. Thorne, C. Will, T Damour, or other comparable
>experts say this observation has measured the speed of propagation of
>gravity, I will believe it. If this class of people fail to support
>this claim and continue to ignore it, I will continue to disbelieve
>it.
Please don't include Kip Thorne in your list of experts. Kip Wormhole
Thorne is the Caltech crackpot who claims that it is possible to use
time-like loops in wormholes to travel back to the past and have sex
with one's ancestors and even one's own self. Thorne, like Kurt Gödel
(the mental patient) before him, like his mentor, the little crackpot
in the wheelchair, and like most brain-dead relativists on these
boards and elsewhere, is unaware that both SPACETIME AND TIME ARE
INVARIANT, BY DEFINITION.
Traveler
<Pine.LNX.4.33.021230...@localhost.localdomain>,
Stephen Speicher <s...@speicher.com> wrote:
>On Mon, 30 Dec 2002, Uncle Al wrote:
>
>> Stephen Speicher wrote:
>> >
>> > On 30 Dec 2002, Jim Graber wrote:
>> > >
>> > > Unfortunately, as has been pointed out in Astrophysical Journal by Dr.
>> > > Asada, the Kopeikin-Fomalont observation will not do this.
>> >
>> > And, as has been discussed in the past, Dr. Asada is wrong.
>> >
>> > >
>> > > Although only Dr. Asada has published a disagreement with Dr.
>> > > Kopeikin's interpretation, I do not believe that the majority of the
>> > > knowledgeable community supports Dr. Kopeikin's position. If
>> > > authorities such as K. Thorne, C. Will, T Damour, or other comparable
>> > > experts say this observation has measured the speed of propagation of
>> > > gravity, I will believe it. If this class of people fail to support
>> > > this claim and continue to ignore it, I will continue to disbelieve
>> > > it.
>> > >
>> >
>> > Instead of treating physics as an issue of belief, why not judge
>> > for yourself. gr-qc/0212121 should be publicly available in the
>> > next day or so.
>>
>> Hot damn! Not that there will be even a single crank that
>> acknowledges it, much less reads it.
>>
>
>Because of the embargo until the January 7 press conference, the
>specific limits will not be part of that paper. However, I
>suspect there will not be too many rational skeptics, as to the
>validity of the procedure, after reading this paper.
Especially if it disproves the c propagation speed that the
experimenters (including Speicher) are expecting. Nothing like a
little political bias to color one's judgement. I can't wait for the
usual spin doctors to be called in do their dirty work of damage
control.
Traveler
<Pine.LNX.4.33.021230...@localhost.localdomain>,
Stephen Speicher <s...@speicher.com> wrote:
>On 30 Dec 2002, Harry Conover wrote:
>>
>> Unlike electromagnetic radiation, medium characteristics for the
>> propagation of gravity remain unknown, hence it's velocity of
>> propagation is correspondingly unknown, either from calculation based
>> on theory, or experiment. Lacking other evidence, it is ASSUMED that
>> gravity propagates at a velocity of C, but this is simply a default
>> assumption and hardly engraved in stone.
Talk about talking from both sides of one's mouth. You must be really
scared if you find it necessary to go to this length to hedge your
bets and come out ahead regardless of the outcome. The truth is that
both GR and Einstein claim that nothing can move faster than c,
including gravity. What a dishonest jackass you are proving to be,
Conover! I am not surprised.
>I disagree. It is a prediction of general relativity that finite
>changes in the gravitational field propagate at c. See, for
>instance,
>
>S. Carlip, "Aberration and the speed of gravity," _Physics
>Letters A_, 267 (2-3): pp. 81-87 Mar 13 2000.
>
>R.J. Low, "Speed limits in general relativity," _Classical and
>Quantum Gravity_, 16 (2): pp. 543-549 FEB 1999.
>
>and the entire array of papers by Sergei Kopeikin leading up
>to the Setpember experiment.
Well I can't say that I ever hoped for the day when I would thank
Speicher for anything. Surprise, surprise.
Richard Perry
Scalar waves? Are you serious? I think it's time that everyone realizes
that GR does allow for infinite speed, as related by Einstein himself.
He specifically stated that SR was valid only in the absence of
gravitational fields. Why do you suppose he took time out to emphasize
this?
--
Richard Perry
http://www.cswnet.com/~rper
Bob Zombiewoof
> In article <3e10af8d$1...@post.usenet.com>, "Jeff Krimmel"
> <mad_sci...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> [I hesitated before responding to your post because Krimmel is the
> self-righteous asshole who recently posted a sermon in a parallel
> about these newsgroups being accessed by kids.]
>
> >"Traveler" <eight...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> >news:jb811vg7qbosktn04...@4ax.com...
> >>
> >> How can gravity be instantaneous, you ask? The answer is that gravity
> >> is both a local and a non-local phenomenon, i.e., it requires both
> >> local particle interactions and non-local adherence to energy
> >> conservation principles.
> >
> >If "it requires...local particle interactions", then how is the idea of
> >gravity being instantaneous not refuted?
>
> How does local interactions preclude non-local influences, huh?
Because then, the interaction wouldn't be local.
> >If it was entirely non-local, then
> >sure, but why do you believe that including local interactions does not
> >destroy the instantaneous gravitational condition in which you believe?
>
> You are setting up a false strawman so you can wrestle it to the
> ground and claim victory. I can easily change your question thus:
>
> Why do you believe that including local interactions
> necessarily destroys the instantaneous gravitational
> condition?
Because local interactions are, by definition of "local",
not instantaneous.
> The simple fact is that a non-local influence is always manifested in
> a local interaction. That is how an observer (or a particle) detects
> the non-local influence in the first place. How else can it be
> manifested? By fucking magic?
Only if magic is required to know what "local" means.
Jeff Krimmel
> In article <3e10af8d$1...@post.usenet.com>, "Jeff Krimmel"
> <mad_sci...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> >"Traveler" <eight...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> >news:jb811vg7qbosktn04...@4ax.com...
> >>
> >> How can gravity be instantaneous, you ask? The answer is that gravity
> >> is both a local and a non-local phenomenon, i.e., it requires both
> >> local particle interactions and non-local adherence to energy
> >> conservation principles.
> >
> >If "it requires...local particle interactions", then how is the idea of
> >gravity being instantaneous not refuted?
>
> How does local interactions preclude non-local influences, huh?
Look above, my friend. You said, "[gravity] requires both local particle
interactions and non-local adherence to energy conservation principles." I
isolated one of these two qualities: local particle interactions. I care not
whether local interactions preclude non-local influences. My question to you
is quite simple: If "it requires...local particle interactions", then how is
the idea of gravity being instantaneous not refuted? Local interactions
preclude an instantaneous reaction to perturbations in the field.
>
> >If it was entirely non-local, then
> >sure, but why do you believe that including local interactions does not
> >destroy the instantaneous gravitational condition in which you believe?
>
> You are setting up a false strawman so you can wrestle it to the
> ground and claim victory. I can easily change your question thus:
>
> Why do you believe that including local interactions
> necessarily destroys the instantaneous gravitational
> condition?
My answer to your question: Because that is how local interactions can be
defined. Locality presumes field propagations at a speed less than or equal
to the speed of light. I see no "false strawman" here.
>
> The simple fact is that a non-local influence is always manifested in
> a local interaction. That is how an observer (or a particle) detects
> the non-local influence in the first place. How else can it be
> manifested? By fucking magic?
Louis, you are in too great a hurry here to separate the two arguments. It
does not matter whether "a non-local influence is always manifested in a
local interaction." Who cares? My argument is that the local interaction of
which you speak destroys the instantaneous gravitational field propagation
which you espouse (regardless if this local interaction is the manifestation
of a non-local influence or not).
Happy New Year,
Jeff
Harry Conover
> On 30 Dec 2002, Harry Conover wrote:
> >
> > Unlike electromagnetic radiation, medium characteristics for the
> > propagation of gravity remain unknown, hence it's velocity of
> > propagation is correspondingly unknown, either from calculation based
> > on theory, or experiment. Lacking other evidence, it is ASSUMED that
> > gravity propagates at a velocity of C, but this is simply a default
> > assumption and hardly engraved in stone.
> >
>
> I disagree. It is a prediction of general relativity that finite
> changes in the gravitational field propagate at c. See, for
> instance,
Watch my lips carefully: Prediction, one word. Knowing, an altogether
different word.
If there are no calculations based on theory, or no experimental
observations, then the propagaton velocity of gravity remains unknown.
If you have a problem with this statement, you have a much more
serious problem with physics in general.
Predictions (which if you note I already cited) and conjecture don't
count.
Harry C.
Harry Conover
> In article
> <Pine.LNX.4.33.021230...@localhost.localdomain>,
> Stephen Speicher <s...@speicher.com> wrote:
>
> >On 30 Dec 2002, Harry Conover wrote:
> >>
> >> Unlike electromagnetic radiation, medium characteristics for the
> >> propagation of gravity remain unknown, hence it's velocity of
> >> propagation is correspondingly unknown, either from calculation based
> >> on theory, or experiment. Lacking other evidence, it is ASSUMED that
> >> gravity propagates at a velocity of C, but this is simply a default
> >> assumption and hardly engraved in stone.
>
> Talk about talking from both sides of one's mouth. You must be really
> scared if you find it necessary to go to this length to hedge your
> bets and come out ahead regardless of the outcome. The truth is that
> both GR and Einstein claim that nothing can move faster than c,
> including gravity. What a dishonest jackass you are proving to be,
> Conover! I am not surprised.
Thankfully, due to your worthless record of posts to this newsgroup,
your opinion doesn't count much since you have absolutely no
established credibility and obviously lack the ability to read and
understand the content of someone else's post.
I take pains to note here that in your response to my post you failed
to even address its content, simply responding with a brain dead, ad
hominem response, demonstrating that at best you are slow witted and
at worst an idiot.
Let me put it to you:
Can you cite any parameters of space that can be used to compute the
propagation velocity of gravity (as can be done with electromagnetic
waves).
Can you cite any, ANY, experiment in which the propagation velocity of
gravity has been experimentally measured? Even One?
> >I disagree. It is a prediction of general relativity that finite
> >changes in the gravitational field propagate at c.
Excluding the fact that General Relativity is speculative rather than
established science, why don't you demonstrate for us how the
propagation velocity of gravity is derived from General Relativity?
Show us a proof, or at least an experimental validation.
Put up, or shut up, you clueless dork!
Harry C.
Harry Conover
>
> Stephen Speicher lacks honesty and integrity, which when added to
> his being a cuckoo bird in physics, is not a very good
> combination. What a pathetic hypocrite Stephen Speicher is.
>
Hot damn! Talk about the pot calling the kettle black.
Harry C.
Stephen Speicher
> Stephen Speicher <s...@speicher.com> wrote in message news:<Pine.LNX.4.33.021230...@localhost.localdomain>...
> > On 30 Dec 2002, Harry Conover wrote:
> > >
> > > Unlike electromagnetic radiation, medium characteristics for the
> > > propagation of gravity remain unknown, hence it's velocity of
> > > propagation is correspondingly unknown, either from calculation based
> > > on theory, or experiment. Lacking other evidence, it is ASSUMED that
> > > gravity propagates at a velocity of C, but this is simply a default
> > > assumption and hardly engraved in stone.
> > >
> >
> > I disagree. It is a prediction of general relativity that finite
> > changes in the gravitational field propagate at c. See, for
> > instance,
>
> Watch my lips carefully: Prediction, one word. Knowing, an altogether
> different word.
I used the word 'prediction' in the sense that it is often used
in science, namely as a consequence of a theory. See the Oxford
English Dictionary definition at the bottom of this post.
>
> If there are no calculations based on theory, or no experimental
> observations, then the propagaton velocity of gravity remains unknown.
>
I gave you two references, one from Carlip and one from Low, both
of which calculate based upon theory. Perhaps you should read the
references before you continue to make unwarranted assumptions of
your own.
> If you have a problem with this statement, you have a much more
> serious problem with physics in general.
>
All I said is "I disagree," and I then gave you the reason why,
and references in support. Why are you responding with such
hostility as to imply that I have a "serious problem with physics
in general?" What makes your unwarranted remark seem even more
ironic, is that you are entirely wrong in your argument, and I am
correct.
> Predictions (which if you note I already cited) and conjecture don't
> count.
>
A proper use of "predict" is as a consequence of a theory, which
is why the prediction of general relativity, that finite changes
in the gravitational field propagate at c, counts as a proper
consequence of the theory of general relativity.
From the Oxford English Dictionary:
****************************************************************
b. transf. Of a theory, observation, etc.: to have as a deducible
or inferable consequence; to imply. 1961 Physical Rev. CXXI.
1620 The theory predicts a linear dependence of M2p on [Ho/(T +
theta)]^2, where theta is the experimentally determined
Curie-Weiss constant. 1964 E. BACH Introd. Transformational Gram.
viii. 186 General linguistic theory must provide a precise
characterization of the way in which a theory can be said to
`predict' a given sentence. 1975 Nature 6 Feb. 442/1 Sensitivity
to the taste of PTC predicts sensitivity to caffeine. 1976 Sci.
Amer. July 39/3 The present isotopic ratios of neodymium
therefore predict the total depletion in U-235. This calculation
gives a result about 40 percent greater than the observed
depletion. 1977 Lancet 24 Sept. 662/1 Running-water samples are
perhaps closer to the water typically consumed in the home than
are first-flush samples, and our results..indicate that they
predict blood-lead more precisely.
****************************************************************
Traveler
dub...@02-119.071.popsite.net (Bob Zombiewoof) wrote:
>Traveler <eight...@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:<0hl11vcmofeapd1oa...@4ax.com>...
>> In article <3e10af8d$1...@post.usenet.com>, "Jeff Krimmel"
>> <mad_sci...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> [I hesitated before responding to your post because Krimmel is the
>> self-righteous asshole who recently posted a sermon in a parallel
>> about these newsgroups being accessed by kids.]
>>
>> >"Traveler" <eight...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>> >news:jb811vg7qbosktn04...@4ax.com...
>> >>
>> >> How can gravity be instantaneous, you ask? The answer is that gravity
>> >> is both a local and a non-local phenomenon, i.e., it requires both
>> >> local particle interactions and non-local adherence to energy
>> >> conservation principles.
>> >
>> >If "it requires...local particle interactions", then how is the idea of
>> >gravity being instantaneous not refuted?
>>
>> How does local interactions preclude non-local influences, huh?
>
> Because then, the interaction wouldn't be local.
I don't know what you mean since all interactions are local by nature
and definition. An interaction usually occurs when two particles have
equal positions. There is no such thing as non-local interaction. I
merely used the word 'local' above for emphasis. A non-local
*influence* on a particle is not an interaction; the influence is not
manifested until and unless the particle interacts with another,
**locally**.
>> >If it was entirely non-local, then
>> >sure, but why do you believe that including local interactions does not
>> >destroy the instantaneous gravitational condition in which you believe?
>>
>> You are setting up a false strawman so you can wrestle it to the
>> ground and claim victory. I can easily change your question thus:
>>
>> Why do you believe that including local interactions
>> necessarily destroys the instantaneous gravitational
>> condition?
>
> Because local interactions are, by definition of "local",
>not instantaneous.
Wow! There certainly is a communication problem here. Why, pray tell,
must an interaction NOT be instantaneous? Truth is, all interactions
are both local and instantaneous, i.e., they occur within a
fundamental temporal interval. This, BTW, is the reason for the
probabilistic half-life decay of certain composite particles. The
energies involved normally require a much longer interaction than the
fundamental interval, but since all interactions must occur within a
fundamental interval, nature must use the next best thing to decide
when to perform the interaction: probability.
Since I believe that gravitational changes (influences) are non-local
(changes are everywhere at once), it follows that I don't believe that
gravity is propagated at all. I am further convinced that gravity is
due to energy conservation and is a side effect of electric and
magnetic interactions.
>> The simple fact is that a non-local influence is always manifested in
>> a local interaction. That is how an observer (or a particle) detects
>> the non-local influence in the first place. How else can it be
>> manifested? By fucking magic?
>
> Only if magic is required to know what "local" means.
I guess the magic will happen when we all understand what
"interaction" means.
Traveler
Krimmel" <madscie...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>"Traveler" <eight...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>news:0hl11vcmofeapd1oa...@4ax.com...
>> In article <3e10af8d$1...@post.usenet.com>, "Jeff Krimmel"
>> <mad_sci...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> >"Traveler" <eight...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>> >news:jb811vg7qbosktn04...@4ax.com...
>> >>
>> >> How can gravity be instantaneous, you ask? The answer is that gravity
>> >> is both a local and a non-local phenomenon, i.e., it requires both
>> >> local particle interactions and non-local adherence to energy
>> >> conservation principles.
>> >
>> >If "it requires...local particle interactions", then how is the idea of
>> >gravity being instantaneous not refuted?
>>
>> How does local interactions preclude non-local influences, huh?
>
>Look above, my friend. You said, "[gravity] requires both local particle
>interactions and non-local adherence to energy conservation principles." I
>isolated one of these two qualities: local particle interactions. I care not
>whether local interactions preclude non-local influences. My question to you
>is quite simple: If "it requires...local particle interactions", then how is
>the idea of gravity being instantaneous not refuted? Local interactions
>preclude an instantaneous reaction to perturbations in the field.
All particle interactions are local by definition. It is a fallacy to
talk about such a thing as a non-local interaction. There are a bunch
of particles all over the place. Their intrinsic energy levels are
influenced non-locally, i.e., at a distance; no interactions are
involved in that. The changes occur because nature needs to apply its
conservation principles. However, this influence (changes in energy
level, polarity or what have you) is not manifested or felt until and
unless the particles interact with other particles. That's how I see
it.
>> >If it was entirely non-local, then
>> >sure, but why do you believe that including local interactions does not
>> >destroy the instantaneous gravitational condition in which you believe?
>>
>> You are setting up a false strawman so you can wrestle it to the
>> ground and claim victory. I can easily change your question thus:
>>
>> Why do you believe that including local interactions
>> necessarily destroys the instantaneous gravitational
>> condition?
>
>My answer to your question: Because that is how local interactions can be
>defined. Locality presumes field propagations at a speed less than or equal
>to the speed of light. I see no "false strawman" here.
Local simply means "at one point." That is all it means. If a
particle's energy level is influenced (changed) non-locally, this does
not preclude the particle from interacting with another using its new
energy level. Where is the big confusion?
>> The simple fact is that a non-local influence is always manifested in
>> a local interaction. That is how an observer (or a particle) detects
>> the non-local influence in the first place. How else can it be
>> manifested? By fucking magic?
>
>Louis, you are in too great a hurry here to separate the two arguments. It
>does not matter whether "a non-local influence is always manifested in a
>local interaction." Who cares? My argument is that the local interaction of
>which you speak destroys the instantaneous gravitational field propagation
>which you espouse (regardless if this local interaction is the manifestation
>of a non-local influence or not).
I don't see why. For one, there is no gravitational field propagation
taking place. That's what non-local means: influence at a distance.
Second, the influence is continually being renewed or adjusted as
bodies move about throughout the universe. Nature is simply trying to
maintain an energy conservation balance. What this means is that
borrowed energy must be repaid at the earliest opportunity to restore
the balance. Any interaction anywhere is an opportunity for repayment.
Nature is ONE.
The reason for the inverse square nature of gravity should be obvious.
Bodies continually emit zillion of particles, photons to be exact.
Their distribution as they radiate away is like the surface of an
expanding balloon, hence the inverse square law.
Traveler
hhc...@yahoo.com (Harry Conover) wrote:
>Traveler <eight...@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:<45s11vs4hm6j0f1q1...@4ax.com>...
>> In article
>> <Pine.LNX.4.33.021230...@localhost.localdomain>,
>> Stephen Speicher <s...@speicher.com> wrote:
>>
>> >On 30 Dec 2002, Harry Conover wrote:
>> >>
>> >> Unlike electromagnetic radiation, medium characteristics for the
>> >> propagation of gravity remain unknown, hence it's velocity of
>> >> propagation is correspondingly unknown, either from calculation based
>> >> on theory, or experiment. Lacking other evidence, it is ASSUMED that
>> >> gravity propagates at a velocity of C, but this is simply a default
>> >> assumption and hardly engraved in stone.
>>
>> Talk about talking from both sides of one's mouth. You must be really
>> scared if you find it necessary to go to this length to hedge your
>> bets and come out ahead regardless of the outcome. The truth is that
>> both GR and Einstein claim that nothing can move faster than c,
>> including gravity. What a dishonest jackass you are proving to be,
>> Conover! I am not surprised.
>
>Thankfully, due to your worthless record of posts to this newsgroup,
>your opinion doesn't count much since you have absolutely no
>established credibility and obviously lack the ability to read and
>understand the content of someone else's post.
So why do you respond to my posts, asshole? You think I need
credibility with you and your kind? Think again. I post my stuff here
for private reasons. If you don't like it, fuck you.
>I take pains to note here that in your response to my post you failed
>to even address its content, simply responding with a brain dead, ad
>hominem response, demonstrating that at best you are slow witted and
>at worst an idiot.
Look jackass, You made a statement to the effect that relativity does
not claim that gravity propagates at c. Your statement is false,
period. Don't try to wriggle your way out of it. Admit that you are
wrong like a man and move on. Otherwise, fuck you and fuck off,
asshole!
>Let me put it to you:
>
>Can you cite any parameters of space that can be used to compute the
>propagation velocity of gravity (as can be done with electromagnetic
>waves).
First off, I don't believe there is such a thing as space, let alone
parameters of space. Second, every time the movement of the planets
around the sun is measured to sufficiently conform to Newtonian
gravity (which is all the time), it follows that gravitational effects
are very close to being instantaneous. Why? because Newtonian gravity
assumes that changes in gravity are felt instantaneously everywhere.
So, IMO, this alone constitutes a valid test of the instantaneous
gravity hypothesis and I am satisfied with it. The whole world should
be satisfied with it but science is more about power games, politics
and propaganda than actual science.
>Can you cite any, ANY, experiment in which the propagation velocity of
>gravity has been experimentally measured? Even One?
>
>> >I disagree. It is a prediction of general relativity that finite
>> >changes in the gravitational field propagate at c.
>
>Excluding the fact that General Relativity is speculative rather than
>established science, why don't you demonstrate for us how the
>propagation velocity of gravity is derived from General Relativity?
>
>Show us a proof, or at least an experimental validation.
There is no proof to be shown. GR *assumes* a propagation speed of c
for everything, not just gravity. The problem is that GR is tricky.
Here what Steve Carlip, a GR expert wrote in an article titled "Does
Gravity Travel at the Speed of Light?"
In general relativity, on the other hand, gravity
propagates at the speed of light; that is, the motion
of a massive object creates a distortion in the
curvature of spacetime that moves outward at light
speed.
However, elsewhere in the same article Carlip writes:
The net result is that the effect of propagation delay
is almost exactly cancelled, and general relativity
very nearly reproduces the Newtonian result.
Strange thing indeed. How does one cancel a delay? by using math
tricks? a Propagation delay can certainly not be canceled physically,
regardless of what Carlip may desperately want the world to believe.
It sounds more like, we put our foot in our mouth when we insisted on
a finite gravity propagation speed of c, but let's do some clever
tricks with the math to cancel it (in effect resulting in zero
propagation speed) while still claiming that it happens at c. Yeah,
right. Not everybody is fooled.
>Put up, or shut up, you clueless dork!
Pack it up your ass, Conover.
Traveler
Fuck you, cunt. I just repeated Speicher's post word for word and
merely replaced every instances of "Mitchell Jones" in his post with
"Stephen Speicher" in order to make a point. Go fuck a moose or
something if you have nothing better to do.
Mitchell Jones
eight...@hotmail.com wrote:
> In article <b174a6a6.02123...@posting.google.com>,
> jgr...@mailaps.org (Jim Graber) wrote:
>
> >If Drs. Kopeikin and Fomalont could really measure the speed of
> >propagation of gravity, this would in fact be a very big deal. It
> >would have attracted much more scientific ( as opposed to popular
> >press) attention than it has.
>
> First off, the speed of propagation of gravity (if there were such a
> thing) is already known (except to religionists, weekend golfers and
> politicians) to be much greater than c because of the extreme accuracy
> of Newton's theory of gravity.
***{Correct. As I have already noted, the principle of continuity--that
no thing may come into existence out of nothing or vanish into
nothing--requires that all forces be carried by entities. (If they are
not, then we have no basis for believing that our sensations have sources,
and, thus, no basis for believing that entities exist, very specifically
including the entities of which the material universe is composed.) But if
the force of gravity is carried by entities--particles, in this case--then
the absence of gravitational aberration conclusively poves that the speed
of gravity is millions of times the speed of light. The reason: if gravity
particles were raining down on Earth from the sun, as the pull-heory of
gravity requires, they would not pull perpendicular to the direction of
the Earth in its orbit, but slightly forward of that, due to the vector
sum of the particle's velocity (lightspeed) and the Earth's velocity (18
mps). The resultant continuous forward acceleration of the Earth would
hurl it out of its orbit in a few million years. Such a calculation was
first done by Laplace in his *Mechanique Celeste*, almost 200 years ago,
and, when coupled with the inescapable, unarguable validity of the
principle of continuity, it conclusively settles the issue of the speed of
gravity: gravity propagates at millions of times the speed of light.
Period. To a rational mind, this is not a question at issue, and thus
teasing out the intricacies of the Kopeikin-Fomalont experiment in an
attempt to decide whether its design is sound, is a pointless waste of
time. The reason: nobody in his right mind would for an instant consider
abandoning a simple, clear-cut, unarguable result, merely because of a
claimed contradiction with a complex, murky, debatable result. Thus I
consider this matter to have been definitively settled for almost 200
years, and frankly do not give a hoot-in-hell what result Kpeikin and
Fomalont announce, insofar as the speed of gravity is concerned. My
interest in this topic, instead, is due entirely to its entertainment
value, of which there is considerable. (It is no longer possible to go to
a freak show to be amazed and amused, because such entertainment is no
longer viewed as "politically correct." Thus watching the freaks in the
government-funded, conformity-ridden, community of establishment physics,
as they shriek and howl, roll around on the floor, and struggle to remove
the wooden stake that Laplace drove into their hearts before they were
even born, will have to do instead. :-) --MJ}***
Newton's gravity theory assumes
> instantaneous changes in gravity throughout the universe and would be
> completely off if it were not so.
***{Here we disagree: a cause must precede its effect by some interval of
time, however slight. Thus we can reasonably claim that Newtonian gravity
must propagate at millions of times the speed of light, but we cannot
reasonably claim that it, or any other cause, co-occurs with its effects.
--MJ}***
> >Although only Dr. Asada has published a disagreement with Dr.
> >Kopeikin's interpretation, I do not believe that the majority of the
> >knowledgeable community supports Dr. Kopeikin's position. If
> >authorities such as K. Thorne, C. Will, T Damour, or other comparable
> >experts say this observation has measured the speed of propagation of
> >gravity, I will believe it. If this class of people fail to support
> >this claim and continue to ignore it, I will continue to disbelieve
> >it.
>
> Please don't include Kip Thorne in your list of experts. Kip Wormhole
> Thorne is the Caltech crackpot who claims that it is possible to use
> time-like loops in wormholes to travel back to the past and have sex
> with one's ancestors and even one's own self. Thorne, like Kurt Gödel
> (the mental patient) before him, like his mentor, the little crackpot
> in the wheelchair, and like most brain-dead relativists on these
> boards and elsewhere, is unaware that both SPACETIME AND TIME ARE
> INVARIANT, BY DEFINITION.
>
> Louis Savain
===============================================
When I post to a group, I do it to elicit critical feedback that is
substantive in nature. That means those who want to argue with me about
facts or logic relevant to some issue discussed in one of my posts are
encouraged to do so; and it means that those who want to waste my time by
dragging me into infantile flame wars can expect to be killfiled instead.
Once a person is in the killfile, he can get out (once) if he sends me an
e-mail agreeing (a) to not introduce ad hominems into future discussions
with me; and (b) to always quote the material he is criticizing, in cases
where he chooses to argue with something that I said.
Killfile inmates: Charles Cagle, Stephen Speicher, Mati Meron, Franz
Heymann, Mike Varney, Dirk Van de moortel, Bob Zombiewoof.
Dirk Van de moortel
"Richard Perry" <no_mail...@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:3E1119F9...@yahoo.com...
A nice one to end 2002:
http://users.pandora.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/ImmortalFumbles.html#SRValid
Title: "Why SR is only valid in absence of gravitational fields"
Dirk Vdm
Franz Heymann
"Bob Zombiewoof" <dub...@02-119.071.popsite.net> wrote in message
news:306849ae.0212...@posting.google.com...
[...]
> >
> > How does local interactions preclude non-local influences, huh?
>
> Because then, the interaction wouldn't be local.
Nonsense.
An electron (locally) emits a virtual photon. The virtual photon
carries four-momentum. The virtual photon is (locally) absorbed by
another electron, yielding its four-mommentum.
The first electron has thus influenced another electron non-locally,
by the action of entirely local effects..
Franz Heymann
Franz Heymann
"Harry Conover" <hhc...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:7ce4e226.02123...@posting.google.com...
> Traveler <eight...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:<jb811vg7qbosktn04...@4ax.com>...
> > In article
>
> > Relativists are scared to death that the result will show that
gravity
> > is instantaneous or much faster than the speed of light within
> > experimental boundaries. It would show most of them (not all) for
the
> > religious crackpots that they are. I predict that, whatever the
> > results happen to be, they will be furiously debated by both sides
of
> > the issue.
>
> Nonsense. Most scientists (including what you call relativists)
await
> the arrival of a definitive experiment that will demonstrate the
> propagation velocity of the gravity field/force.
>
> Unlike electromagnetic radiation, medium characteristics for the
> propagation of gravity remain unknown, hence it's velocity of
> propagation is correspondingly unknown, either from calculation
based
> on theory, or experiment.
> Lacking other evidence, it is ASSUMED that
> gravity propagates at a velocity of C, but this is simply a default
> assumption and hardly engraved in stone.
No. The speed of gravitational waves has, according to GR, been
predicted theoretically to be c.
In terms of Newtonian gravity and QM, one arrives at the same result:-
Being an inverse square law field, its quanta must have zero mass and
therefore must be propagated at a speed c. So, whether or not GR is
correct, the prediction is that the speed of gravitational waves will
be c.
But we nevertheless await observational results.
> Just as an electomagnetic wave can be interpeted as the propagation
of
> a displacement in magnetic lines of force or an electric field, a
> gravitational wave represents the propagation in a kink in a
> gravitational field. Sadly, at least to my knowledge, that rate
> remains to be either measured of experimentally observed.
>
> I personally consider that observation to be on the very cutting
edge
> of today's physics knowledge, an a Nobel Prize winning entry to be
> sure. At minimum, knowledge of that parameter would be a giant step
> forward in our understanding of the physical nature of the universe.
>
Franz Heymann
Franz Heymann
"Abhi" <discov...@yahoo.co.in> wrote in message
news:4bd62e7c.02123...@posting.google.com...news:<Pine.LNX.4.33.021229...@localhost.localdomain>.
..
> > On 29 Dec 2002, Abhi wrote:
> >
be
> > > instantaneous because "charge", magnetism and gravity; these are
one
> > > and the same thing.
> > >
> > [...]
> > > Have ever such experiment is conducted to measure speed of
> > > electricity?
> > >
> > > Note to Stephen Speicher: Show me if such "shocking" experiment
is
> > > indeed done. I will leave this NG "instantaneously".
> > >
> >
> > beginning physics courses. You can easily perform this experiment
> > yourself:
> >
> >
http://plabpc.csustan.edu/general/GeneralPhysicsIIlabs/Speed_of_Electr
icty/speed.htm
> >
> > After doing so, please feel free to leave this group at a
> > convenient rate, but not to exceed c.
>
> Is that so easy, Stephen?
>
> ago. I am asking specific question, because I have specific theory
of
> gravity. Gravity does not travel in the form of "waves". So whatever
> these experiments are detecting, those are speed of EM waves. Not
> speed of gravity.
>
Abhi, I wish to remark publicly on yout utter lack of integrity.
A few posts ago you said quite plainly that you would cease posting if
anyone would provide the evidence that electrical signals (Yes, you
said electrical signals) were not propagated instantaneously.
Much evidence has been provided. Yet, you seem tom be unablr to stop
posting.
You would not only appear to be ignorant, but also dishonourable.
Franz Heymann
Franz Heymann
news:<Pine.LNX.4.33.021230...@localhost.localdomain>.
..
> > On 30 Dec 2002, Harry Conover wrote:
> > >
> > > Unlike electromagnetic radiation, medium characteristics for the
> > > propagation of gravity remain unknown, hence it's velocity of
> > > propagation is correspondingly unknown, either from calculation
based
> > > on theory, or experiment. Lacking other evidence, it is ASSUMED
that
> > > gravity propagates at a velocity of C, but this is simply a
default
> > > assumption and hardly engraved in stone.
> > >
> >
> > I disagree. It is a prediction of general relativity that finite
> > changes in the gravitational field propagate at c. See, for
> > instance,
>
> Watch my lips carefully: Prediction, one word. Knowing, an
altogether
> different word.
>
> If there are no calculations based on theory, or no experimental
> observations, then the propagaton velocity of gravity remains
unknown.
There are quite precise mathematical arguments in GR according to
which the speed of gravitational waves should be c.
>
> If you have a problem with this statement, you have a much more
> serious problem with physics in general.
Your statement is actually quite simply wrong if you imply that there
are no calculations in existence according to which the speed of
gravitational waves should be c.
>
> Predictions (which if you note I already cited) and conjecture don't
> count.
Not so. The entire purpose of theory is to make predictions for the
results of observations.
Franz Heymann
Robert Kolker
Franz Heymann wrote:
>
> But we nevertheless await observational results.
The prediction that gravity wave propogate at c is precisely a crucial
experiment for the theory. This is a point at which experiment can
falsify the theory. Popper rulz!
One of the lovely things about scientific speculation as that it can be
refuted by a properly designed experiment. This is unlike
philosphical/mathematical speculation which is constrained only by the
law of consistency.
Bob Kolker
Arfur Dogfrey
Arf!
Arfur
Traveler <eight...@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:<abo21v4dj2aik2k4i...@4ax.com>...
> In article <7ce4e226.02123...@posting.google.com>,
> hhc...@yahoo.com (Harry Conover) wrote:
>
> >Traveler <eight...@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:<45s11vs4hm6j0f1q1...@4ax.com>...
> >> In article
> >> <Pine.LNX.4.33.021230...@localhost.localdomain>,
> >> Stephen Speicher <s...@speicher.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> >On 30 Dec 2002, Harry Conover wrote:
[SNIP]
> >> [SNIP] jackass
[SNIP]
> [SNIP] asshole?
> [SNIP] fuck you.
>
[SNIP]
> jackass,
[SNIP]
> fuck you and fuck off,
> asshole!
>
[SNIP]
>
> > you clueless dork!
>
> Pack it up your ass,
[SNIP]
>
> Louis Savain
>
[SNIP]
Ronald Stepp
news:b8a07d3f.02123...@posting.google.com...
> I've taken the liberty of reducing this argument to its essentials.
> [SNIP]
>
> > >> [SNIP] jackass
Oh my god.. ROFLMAO.... priceless...
Arfur Dogfrey
Arf!
Arfur
mjo...@jump.net (Mitchell Jones) wrote in message news:<mjones-3112...@66-105-229-22-aus-02.cvx.algx.net>...
Jeff Krimmel
"Traveler" <eight...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:mfm21vkpkc39f74gb...@4ax.com...
>
> All particle interactions are local by definition. It is a fallacy to
> talk about such a thing as a non-local interaction. There are a bunch
> of particles all over the place. Their intrinsic energy levels are
> influenced non-locally, i.e., at a distance; no interactions are
> involved in that. The changes occur because nature needs to apply its
> conservation principles. However, this influence (changes in energy
> level, polarity or what have you) is not manifested or felt until and
> unless the particles interact with other particles. That's how I see
> it.
I think our dialogue is coming to represent two ships passing in the night,
here. I understand exactly what you are telling me. I completely understand
what you call non-local influences; I understand how violations of Bell's
inequality shows these non-local influences are indeed necessary to explain
observed experimental results. I am perfectly fine with this notion. My
argument is, very simply, that if "local particle INTERACTIONS" are
required, then this is where the "speed of gravity" being instantaneous
breaks down. When particles interact locally (i.e., their speeds, at most,
slightly less than the speed of light), these interactions necessarily are
time-dependent. No instantaneous component is involved in "local
interactions". Thus, I do not see how this is an argument for the "speed of
gravity" being instantaneous.
> Local simply means "at one point." That is all it means. If a
> particle's energy level is influenced (changed) non-locally, this does
> not preclude the particle from interacting with another using its new
> energy level. Where is the big confusion?
Just refer to my previous paragraph above. The part about local interactions
necessarily taking place at a velocity of less than or equal to light speed
is my answer to your question here.
> I don't see why. For one, there is no gravitational field propagation
> taking place. That's what non-local means: influence at a distance.
> Second, the influence is continually being renewed or adjusted as
> bodies move about throughout the universe. Nature is simply trying to
> maintain an energy conservation balance. What this means is that
> borrowed energy must be repaid at the earliest opportunity to restore
> the balance. Any interaction anywhere is an opportunity for repayment.
> Nature is ONE.
When talking about the "speed of gravity", something has to be changing in
order to talk about speed. This reason is why I provided the example of a
gravitational field responding to some defined perturbation. I know that
you're trying to tell me that nature is attempting to resolve the
conservation principles via non-local influences, and I am perfectly fine
with this. But, at the point that these non-local influences are necessarily
manifested with local particle interactions which (according to all known
levels of experimentation up to this point in time) abide by relativity
theory and thus do not take place at a speed greater than that of light.
Regards,
Jeff
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
*** Usenet.com - The #1 Usenet Newsgroup Service on The Planet! ***
http://www.usenet.com
Unlimited Download - 19 Seperate Servers - 90,000 groups - Uncensored
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Jeff Krimmel
"Franz Heymann" <Franz....@btopenworld.com> wrote in message
news:ausaic$rhj$6...@helle.btinternet.com...
Franz,
I do not understand why you say the first electron influenced the second
non-locally. If the first electron emits a virtual photon, and this virtual
photon travels to the second electron and is thus absorbed by this electron,
how is this effect non-local? It appears to me that describing this effect
as "indirect" may be more appropriate, but I do not see where the non-local
description applies.
David Robbins
"Arfur Dogfrey" <dogs...@dog.com> wrote in message
news:b8a07d3f.02123...@posting.google.com...
Harry Conover
Assuming that GR is actually more than simply speculative theory, how
is the speed of gravitational propagation derived, and from which
known physical parameters of free space? Propagation speed is
trivially derived in electromagnetic field theory, so why is it that
no one seems able to cite an analogous computation for gravitational
propagation based on GR?
I am not questioning the fact the the incompleted theory of GR
"suggests" that gravity propagates at c, but am questioning the fact
that no one appears to be able to derive this relationship
mathematically based upon the use of known physical constants.
It's the old thing: If you are unable to describe something
mathematically and compute verifiable predictions, it is not
established science but merely theoretical speculation having a
credibility comparable to that of the astronomical theories of
Aristotle in his time.
> > If you have a problem with this statement, you have a much more
> > serious problem with physics in general.
>
> Your statement is actually quite simply wrong if you imply that there
> are no calculations in existence according to which the speed of
> gravitational waves should be c.
> >
> > Predictions (which if you note I already cited) and conjecture don't
> > count.
>
> Not so. The entire purpose of theory is to make predictions for the
> results of observations.
Correct, still there is a vast degree of difference between making
theoretical predictions and establishing these theories as having
scientific validity. The very nature of physical science is to test a
theory by evaluating its predictive accuracy -- not by a theory's
ability to explain what has been past observed (which is an a priori
prerequisite), but by testing its ability to make verifiable
predictions.
In the case at hand, I am looking for either GR or some opposing
theory to produce a verifiable, mathematically derived value for the
propagation velocity of a gravitational wave. Perhaps this has already
been done, and if so I plead ignorance. Still, the reluctance of
everyone to post this derivation suggests, at leat to me, that such a
derivation doesn't yet exist.
Believe me, I'd be happy to be demonstrated wrong in this case! :-)
Harry C.
Abhi
> >
>
> "speed of electricity," which you claim to be "instantaneous." Do
> the experiment for yourself and discover, as is done every year
> by beginning students of physics, that the "speed of electricity"
> is not "instantaneous."
About one hour before posting this thread, I sent email to Dr.
Kopeikin. As you know, we were not sure when he will announce the
result. But second day, when I returned from office, I saw his reply.
Now we know. So talking on this subject, at least upto January 7 will
not be very wise thing.
Why should we talk? Let us wait for the result by Dr. Kopeikin.
After January 7, you will have lot of time. You carry out my
experiment and see by yourself.
-Abhi.
Steve Carlip
> I think it's time that everyone realizes that GR does allow for
> infinite speed, as related by Einstein himself.
A. Einstein, Prussian Acad. of Sci. Sitzungsber. 47 (1915) 833,
``Approximative Integration of the Field Equations of Gravity''
(translated in Collected Papers of Albert Einstein, Vol. 6, Doc. 32):
``It follows from equations (6) and (9) that gravitational fields
always propagate with velocity 1, i.e., at the velocity of light.''
(Note that this was written shortly after Einstein published the
field equations of general relativity, and was his first systematic
look at the general properties of solutions of the equations.)
> He specifically stated that SR was valid only in the absence of
> gravitational fields.
Sure. That, in itself, says nothing about whether there's a maximum
allowable speed in general relativity.
Steve Carlip
Jeff Krimmel
"Abhi" <discov...@yahoo.co.in> wrote in message
news:4bd62e7c.02123...@posting.google.com...
Abhi,
Look at the subject line of this thread!!! It's called "Instantaneous Speed
of Electrical Signal". The "speed of electricity" has _absolutely_ nothing
to do with the gravitation experiment performed by Dr. Kopeikin. Stephen has
already told you that the "speed of electricity" has been experimentally
observed millions of times over, and it is _not_ instantaneous. Not by a
long shot, my friend.
My point is, the "speed of electricity" and the "speed of gravity" have
nothing to do with one another. You measure them with different techniques,
they have different physical meanings, etc. They are _entirely_ separate. We
don't need to wait for the results of an experiment on gravitation to talk
about the speed of an electrical signal.
Stephen Speicher
> In sci.physics Richard Perry <no_mail...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > I think it's time that everyone realizes that GR does allow for
> > infinite speed, as related by Einstein himself.
>
> A. Einstein, Prussian Acad. of Sci. Sitzungsber. 47 (1915) 833,
~~~~~~~~~~~~~
pt. I, 1916, pp. 688-696
> ``Approximative Integration of the Field Equations of Gravity''
~~~~~~~
Gravitation
> (translated in Collected Papers of Albert Einstein, Vol. 6, Doc. 32):
> ``It follows from equations (6) and (9) that gravitational fields
> always propagate with velocity 1, i.e., at the velocity of light.''
>
--
Traveler
dogs...@dog.com (Arfur Dogfrey) wrote:
And that about sums up your own contribution, seeing that you don't
have any.
Stephen Speicher
[Snippie of world's longest paragraph.]
Mitchell Jones, consumate rationalist which he is, _deduces_ the
nature of reality from the contents of his mind, and thumbs his
nose at physical fact. What a totally worthless creature this
Mitchell Jones is.
Stephen Speicher
> I've taken the liberty of reducing this argument to its essentials.
>
I wish you took the liberty of removing my name, lest it be
thought I said any of what was left.
Franz Heymann
"Dirk Van de moortel" <dirkvand...@ThankS-NO-SperM.hotmail.com>
wrote in message news:lcfQ9.81157$Ti2....@afrodite.telenet-ops.be...
Happy new year.
Franz Heymann
Traveler
<mad_sci...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>**** Post for FREE via your newsreader at post.usenet.com ****
>
>"Franz Heymann" <Franz....@btopenworld.com> wrote in message
>news:ausaic$rhj$6...@helle.btinternet.com...
>>
>> "Bob Zombiewoof" <dub...@02-119.071.popsite.net> wrote in message
>> news:306849ae.0212...@posting.google.com...
>> > Traveler <eight...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:<0hl11vcmofeapd1oa...@4ax.com>...
>>
>> [...]
>>
>> > >
>> > > How does local interactions preclude non-local influences, huh?
>> >
>> > Because then, the interaction wouldn't be local.
>>
>> Nonsense.
>>
>> An electron (locally) emits a virtual photon. The virtual photon
>> carries four-momentum. The virtual photon is (locally) absorbed by
>> another electron, yielding its four-mommentum.
>> The first electron has thus influenced another electron non-locally,
>> by the action of entirely local effects..
>
>Franz,
>
>I do not understand why you say the first electron influenced the second
>non-locally. If the first electron emits a virtual photon, and this virtual
>photon travels to the second electron and is thus absorbed by this electron,
>how is this effect non-local? It appears to me that describing this effect
>as "indirect" may be more appropriate, but I do not see where the non-local
>description applies.
Here I agree completely with you. All interactions are local
interactions, period. Franz boldly puts both feet in his mouth to make
a point that is both inconsequential and wrong. Non-local means
'instantaneous and at a distance' and does not involve any
propagation. This is certainly not the case in photon exchange. Again,
I'll reiterate that non-local phenomena are not interactions.
Mitchell Jones
> Franz Heymann wrote:
> >
> > But we nevertheless await observational results.
***{It is an observationally derived fact that the Earth has been in its
orbit for billions of years, a state of affairs which is easily
demonstrated to be *incompatible* with lightspeed gravity. Moreover, the
calculations that demonstrated this have stood unchallenged for almost 200
years. Yet still, Heymann waits. And what is he waiting for? Why, a result
that conforms to his heart's desire, of course! --MJ}***
> The prediction that gravity waves propogate at c is precisely a crucial
> experiment for the theory. This is a point at which experiment can
> falsify the theory. Popper rulz!
***{The theory was falsified before Einstein's grandfather was so much as
a gleam in his great-grandfather's eye, Robert. The aberration associated
with lightspeed gravitation would have hurled the Earth out of its orbit
in a few million years, yet here it is, after almost 5 billion years. Case
closed. --MJ}***
> One of the lovely things about scientific speculation as that it can be
> refuted by a properly designed experiment. This is unlike
> philosphical/mathematical speculation which is constrained only by the
> law of consistency.
***{There is no speculation involved in Laplace's calculations. For pull
gravity at lightspeed, they demonstrate that the Earth would have a
continuous forward acceleration in the amount of roughly 1/10,000th of the
force of the Sun's gravity upon the Earth, and for push gravity they
demonstrate a backward acceleration in the same amount. In either case, it
is *impossible* that the Earth could still be in its orbit after 5 billion
years, and yet here it is. (It's real sad! :-)
As for your remarks about philosophy, they are false because the claim
that it is possible for things to leap into and out of existence is as
fully a statement of philosophy as is its denial. Why so? Because if you
claim that it is possible for things to leap into and out of existence,
your sensations may be doing that--which means: you have no basis for
believing that the world of science, including laboratories, instruments,
and scientists (e.g., Kopeikin and Fomalont) even exists. Thus by the mere
act of agreeing that the Kopeikin-Fomalont experiment took place, you
affirm the principle of continuity and its implication: that gravitational
force is carried by particles. But if the force of gravity is carried by
particles, then the Laplace calculation inescapably applies, and
gravitation propagates at millions of times the speed of light.
Bottom line: either way you go, it's game, set, and match, and you lose. :-)
--Mitchell Jones}***
> Bob Kolker
===============================================
Jeff Krimmel
"Mitchell Jones" <mjo...@jump.net> wrote in message
news:mjones-3112...@66-105-229-41-aus-02.cvx.algx.net...
> In article <3E11C3F9...@attbi.com>, bobk...@attbi.com wrote:
>
> > Franz Heymann wrote:
> > >
> > > But we nevertheless await observational results.
>
> ***{It is an observationally derived fact that the Earth has been in its
> orbit for billions of years, a state of affairs which is easily
> demonstrated to be *incompatible* with lightspeed gravity. Moreover, the
> calculations that demonstrated this have stood unchallenged for almost 200
> years. Yet still, Heymann waits. And what is he waiting for? Why, a result
> that conforms to his heart's desire, of course! --MJ}***
I just want one sentence from the above:
"It is an observationally derived fact that the Earth has been in its orbit
for billions of years, a state of affairs which is easily demonstrated to be
*incompatible* with lightspeed gravity."
Please reproduce this easy demonstration.
Mitchell Jones
> One word: paragraphs.
>
> Arf!
> Arfur
***{It would have required a rewrite. Nevertheless, point taken. :-) --MJ}***
===============================================
Bob Zombiewoof
> news:306849ae.0212...@posting.google.com...
> > Traveler <eight...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:<0hl11vcmofeapd1oa...@4ax.com>...
>
> [...]
>
> > >
> > > How does local interactions preclude non-local influences, huh?
> >
> > Because then, the interaction wouldn't be local.
>
> Nonsense.
>
> An electron (locally) emits a virtual photon.
Sure, but that comes directly from the requirement that the
electromagnetic interaction be locally gauge invariant.
> The virtual photon
> carries four-momentum. The virtual photon is (locally) absorbed by
> another electron, yielding its four-mommentum.
> The first electron has thus influenced another electron non-locally,
> by the action of entirely local effects..
I'm using local in the mathematical sense of the term. An
electromagnetic interaction that was non-local, (i.e., conserves
charge only globally), would allow the anihilation of e+/e-
pairs with space-like separations.
tj Frazir
gravity is te bouyancy of mass in energy .
As the universe expands matter dont so a low forms around mass ..
The speed of gravity is for morons that dont understad gravity .
Energy reacts with energy at C ..
the speed of electric is for morons that dont understand electricity .
DR dumbass ,, go operate on a toaster
Ken S. Tucker
You hi-brows probably have something better to do on New Years
Eve (CHEERS) but, as a lowly technician, I learned to slow
electrical signals with a resistor and a capacitor, commonly
known as an RC circuit. I literally watched electrical signal
propagation through a circuit, I think that's what Uncle Al
said in the second post to this thread, wow this is
interesting.......
Regards (after 6 martini's)
Ken S. Tucker
Franz Heymann
You would be quite safe in making that assumption. GR is a fully
fledged theory, with postulates and predictions from the postulates.
Whilst the predictions are notoriously difficult to test, the three
main ones have come through with flying colours. No test of GR
predictions have ever produced results at variance with its
predictions. Moreover, the GPS would have suffered from a quite
marked reduction in spatial resolution, but for the GR-based
corrections which are applied to the system clocks.
> how
> is the speed of gravitational propagation derived, and from which
> known physical parameters of free space?
Read the theory. It is not easy at all, at least not for a mere
experimenter like me.
In a note in this thread, 31 Dec 18.56 Steve Carlip give a reference
to the original derivation by Einstein.
> Propagation speed is
> trivially derived in electromagnetic field theory, so why is it that
> no one seems able to cite an analogous computation for gravitational
> propagation based on GR?
Many years ago I did read up the derivation. It was done in the
weak-field approximation and it showed that gravitational waves are
spin 2 tensor waves which propagate at the constant which is used to
convert time into space in the metric, i.e. the so-called "speed of
light".
>
> I am not questioning the fact the the incompleted theory of GR
> "suggests" that gravity propagates at c,
It does not suggest. It is proven. Perhaps you should do some
googling on gravitational waves.
> but am questioning the fact
> that no one appears to be able to derive this relationship
> mathematically based upon the use of known physical constants.
Please rest assured that it has been done. The only physical constant
which comes into the picture in the weak field approximation is the
quantity "c" which enters in the expression for an interval in free
space, i.e.
ds^2 = c^2dt^2 - dx^2 - dy^2 - dz^2
>
> It's the old thing: If you are unable to describe something
> mathematically and compute verifiable predictions, it is not
> established science but merely theoretical speculation having a
> credibility comparable to that of the astronomical theories of
> Aristotle in his time.
The existence of gravitational waves is a mathematically derived
prediction of GR.
>
> > > If you have a problem with this statement, you have a much more
> > > serious problem with physics in general.
> >
> > Your statement is actually quite simply wrong if you imply that
there
> > are no calculations in existence according to which the speed of
> > gravitational waves should be c.
> > >
> > > Predictions (which if you note I already cited) and conjecture
don't
> > > count.
> >
> > Not so. The entire purpose of theory is to make predictions for
the
> > results of observations.
>
> Correct, still there is a vast degree of difference between making
> theoretical predictions and establishing these theories as having
> scientific validity.
No theory is ever established as "valid". The main purpose of a
theory is
to seek its own self-destruction by continuing to make testable
predictions.
Cetrain domains of validity may be established by virtue of the fact
that predictions have been verified experimentally in that domain.
> The very nature of physical science is to test a
> theory by evaluating its predictive accuracy -- not by a theory's
> ability to explain what has been past observed (which is an a priori
> prerequisite), but by testing its ability to make verifiable
> predictions.
It does not matter a damn if it makes "predictions" about facts which
are already known. They still count as predictions.
I am quite happy to regard Newtons calculations of planetary orbits as
"predictions" in the sense in which the word is used when discussing
the implications of a theory. Or Einstein's calculations for the
precession of Mercury's orbit.
>
> In the case at hand, I am looking for either GR or some opposing
> theory to produce a verifiable, mathematically derived value for the
> propagation velocity of a gravitational wave. Perhaps this has
already
> been done, and if so I plead ignorance. Still, the reluctance of
> everyone to post this derivation suggests, at leat to me, that such
a
> derivation doesn't yet exist.
The calculation has been done.
>
> Believe me, I'd be happy to be demonstrated wrong in this case! :-)
Be a happy man! Happy new year.
Franz Heymann
Franz Heymann
I think Arfur's was funnier than Traveler's.. Traveler seems a little
short of vocabulary.
I would be happy to sell Traveller some really cutting swear words,
nearly new, at half a crown a dozen.
Franz Heymann
Franz Heymann
"Jeff Krimmel" <mad_sci...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:3e11...@post.usenet.com...
trying to illustrate is that two electrons which may be separated by a
finite distance are able to influence one another in a way which
*appears* to be via a non-local force, whilst in fact it is nothing of
the kind.
Franz Heymann
Franz Heymann
"Robert Kolker" <bobk...@attbi.com> wrote in message
news:3E11C3F9...@attbi.com...
>
>
> Franz Heymann wrote:
> >
> > But we nevertheless await observational results.
>
crucial
> experiment for the theory. This is a point at which experiment can
> falsify the theory. Popper rulz!
>
be
> refuted by a properly designed experiment. This is unlike
> philosphical/mathematical speculation which is constrained only by
the
> law of consistency.
>
Happy new year
Franz Heymann
Franz Heymann
> On 31 Dec 2002, Arfur Dogfrey wrote:
>
> > I've taken the liberty of reducing this argument to its
essentials.
> >
>
> I wish you took the liberty of removing my name, lest it be
> thought I said any of what was left.
The attribution marks as well as the readership's knowledge of
Traveler's remarkably limited vocabulary removes all possible doubt.
You may rest well.
Franz Heymann
Franz Heymann
Savain's poor reading comprehension matches his poor vocabulary.
If he would take the trouble to actually read what Franz said, then
spend a few minutes of absorbing the meaning of it, he would perhaps
realise that Franz, too, knows (perhaps better than Savain?) that
interactions are local. Perhaps Savain might even get to understand
that Franz made the point that an interaction which appears to be an
interaction-at-a-distance is in fact resolved into two local
interactions.
> Non-local means
> 'instantaneous and at a distance' and does not involve any
> propagation. This is certainly not the case in photon exchange.
Again,
> I'll reiterate that non-local phenomena are not interactions.
Franz Heymann
Franz Heymann
"Mitchell Jones" <mjo...@jump.net> wrote in message
news:mjones-3112...@66-105-229-41-aus-02.cvx.algx.net...
You are not forced to make an arse of yourself, so why do you insist
on doing so?
There is essentially a static gravitational field involved in the
earth-sun interaction.
Have you ever contemplated the difference between an electrostatic
field and an electromagnetic wave?
The earth-sun system does have a rotating quadrupole moment, which
should radiate. The effect is, hoewver exceedingly feeble. Jones
might do the calculation and inform us of the result.
>
> > One of the lovely things about scientific speculation as that it
can be
> > refuted by a properly designed experiment. This is unlike
> > philosphical/mathematical speculation which is constrained only by
the
> > law of consistency.
>
> ***{There is no speculation involved in Laplace's calculations. For
pull
> gravity at lightspeed, they demonstrate that the Earth would have a
> continuous forward acceleration in the amount of roughly 1/10,000th
of the
> force of the Sun's gravity upon the Earth, and for push gravity they
> demonstrate a backward acceleration in the same amount. In either
case, it
> is *impossible* that the Earth could still be in its orbit after 5
billion
> years, and yet here it is. (It's real sad! :-)
Laplace could not possibly have had the faintest of ideas of the
possible existence of gravitational radiation, since he lived around
the time of the French Revolution, when not even EM waves had been
dreamt of.
Ipso facto, his calculations could not conceivably have had any
connection with gravitational waves.
Franz Heymann
Stephen Speicher
> In article <3E11C3F9...@attbi.com>, bobk...@attbi.com wrote:
>
> > Franz Heymann wrote:
> > >
> > > But we nevertheless await observational results.
>
> ***{It is an observationally derived fact that the Earth has been in its
> orbit for billions of years, a state of affairs which is easily
> demonstrated to be *incompatible* with lightspeed gravity. Moreover, the
> calculations that demonstrated this have stood unchallenged for almost 200
> years.
"stood unchallenged?" What a total moron this Jones is. Jones is
still living in Laplace's world of 1805. Laplace changed
_Newton's_ law by adding, in effect, a damping term as a
consequence of introducing a finite propagation speed for
Newtonian gravity. All he succeeded in showing is an inherent
limitation in Newtonian theory, i.e., that the propagation speed
must be greater than 7x10^6 times that for light. But, we know
the Newtonian theory is just an approximation to the physical
world, one which is more properly described by general
relativity. Laplace's conclusion is only true for _Newtonian_
theory, not Einstein's general relativity.
Radiation damping and what is known as the relativistic Laplace
effect is something which has been understood in general
relativity for a long time. For a detailed discussion of the
historical development, and for some detailed technical
information, see T. Damour, "The Problem of motion in Newtonian
and Einsteinian gravity," in "Three hundred years of
gravitation," edited by S.W. Hawking and W. Israel, _Cambridge
University Press_, 1987.
It seems as if Mitchell Jones never got past 1805, and blames
general relativity for an inherent limitation of Newtonian
theory. What a complete moron this Jones is.
Arfur Dogfrey
>
> > I've taken the liberty of reducing this argument to its essentials.
> >
>
> I wish you took the liberty of removing my name, lest it be
> thought I said any of what was left.
Sorry 'bout that Chief! I should have removed your name since
none of your words remained in my "abridged" version.
Arf!
Arfur
Steve Carlip
> Propagation speed is trivially derived in electromagnetic
> field theory, so why is it that no one seems able to cite an
> analogous computation for gravitational propagation
> based on GR?
In the weak field approximation, the calculation in GR is
no more complicated than it is in electromagnetism. You
can find the calculation in just about any textbook on
general relativity: for example, section 4.4 of Wald, section
8.3 and 9.1 of Schutz, chapters 18 or 35 of Misner, Thorne,
and Wheeler (it's derived twice), chpter 20 of d'Inverno (or
for a more sophisticated treatment, chapter 21), section 10.1
of Weinberg, or chapter 5 of Foster and Nightingale.
For strong fields, the problem is rather harder than it is
for electromagnetism, because of the nonlinearities and
the lack of a ``preferred'' background. But the paper
by Low that you've been referred to earlier, Class. Quant.
Grav.16 (1999) 543 (gr-qc/9812067) has a careful proof.
Steve Carlip
Traveler
<Pine.LNX.4.33.021231...@localhost.localdomain>,
Stephen Speicher <s...@speicher.com> wrote:
>On Tue, 31 Dec 2002, Mitchell Jones wrote:
>
>> In article <3E11C3F9...@attbi.com>, bobk...@attbi.com wrote:
>>
>> > Franz Heymann wrote:
>> > >
>> > > But we nevertheless await observational results.
>>
>> ***{It is an observationally derived fact that the Earth has been in its
>> orbit for billions of years, a state of affairs which is easily
>> demonstrated to be *incompatible* with lightspeed gravity. Moreover, the
>> calculations that demonstrated this have stood unchallenged for almost 200
>> years.
>
>"stood unchallenged?" What a total moron this Jones is. Jones is
>still living in Laplace's world of 1805. Laplace changed
>_Newton's_ law by adding, in effect, a damping term as a
>consequence of introducing a finite propagation speed for
>Newtonian gravity. All he succeeded in showing is an inherent
>limitation in Newtonian theory, i.e., that the propagation speed
>must be greater than 7x10^6 times that for light. But, we know
>the Newtonian theory is just an approximation to the physical
>world, one which is more properly described by general
>relativity.
Greater than 7x10^6 times the speed of light and you call that
challenged? You're the one who's mentally challenged.
>Laplace's conclusion is only true for _Newtonian_
>theory, not Einstein's general relativity.
This is such unmitigated crap. This is the same crappy argument that
Steve Carlip keeps spewing out at every opportunity. In other words,
Speicher is saying that a gravity theory that hypothesizes (or
assumes) a gravitational propagation speed that is much greater than
the speed of light (instantaneous really) is invalid because the
hypothesis does not exist in a competing theory? And this, regardless
of whether or not the predictions of the theory are so accurate that
the hypothesis can certainly be deemed valid within experimental
margins of error? What are you, a fucking wise guy?
Let's see now. Is there a logic in there somewhere that Speicher and
Carlip are willing to part with. Can the same argument (if it were
valid, which it isn't) be made against GR? Let's rephrase your crap
thus:
Einstein's conclusion is only true for General Relativity theory,
not Newtonian Theory.
Does this fucking make sense to anybody? Where is the beef in this
lame argument?
>Radiation damping and what is known as the relativistic Laplace
>effect is something which has been understood in general
>relativity for a long time. For a detailed discussion of the
>historical development, and for some detailed technical
>information, see T. Damour, "The Problem of motion in Newtonian
>and Einsteinian gravity," in "Three hundred years of
>gravitation," edited by S.W. Hawking and W. Israel, _Cambridge
>University Press_, 1987.
>
>It seems as if Mitchell Jones never got past 1805, and blames
>general relativity for an inherent limitation of Newtonian
>theory. What a complete moron this Jones is.
You're the fucking moron, Speicher. What the fuck are you defending
anyway, crackpot? You are fucking stupid to an obscene degree. And a
fucking dishonest piece of shit to boot. It is because of ass kissing
morons like you that we have jackasses like Kip Wormhole Thorne and
the little fucking crackpot in the wheelchair selling their Star-Trek
voodoo physics with impunity.
I wish you and Thorne could travel back in time through a fucking
wormhole and watch your mothers undergo an operation to abort of your
stupid asses before you were born. Yeah, retroactive abortions would
definitely come in handy. :-) So eat your own shit, assholes.
Mitchell Jones
> **** Post for FREE via your newsreader at post.usenet.com ****
>
> "Mitchell Jones" <mjo...@jump.net> wrote in message
> news:mjones-3112...@66-105-229-41-aus-02.cvx.algx.net...
> > In article <3E11C3F9...@attbi.com>, bobk...@attbi.com wrote:
> >
> > > Franz Heymann wrote:
> > > >
> > > > But we nevertheless await observational results.
> >
> > ***{It is an observationally derived fact that the Earth has been in its
> > orbit for billions of years, a state of affairs which is easily
> > demonstrated to be *incompatible* with lightspeed gravity. Moreover, the
> > calculations that demonstrated this have stood unchallenged for almost 200
> > years. Yet still, Heymann waits. And what is he waiting for? Why, a result
> > that conforms to his heart's desire, of course! --MJ}***
>
> I just want one sentence from the above:
>
> "It is an observationally derived fact that the Earth has been in its orbit
> for billions of years, a state of affairs which is easily demonstrated to be
> *incompatible* with lightspeed gravity."
>
> Please reproduce this easy demonstration.
***{OK, I'll elaborate.
Suppose that you are sitting in your car with the windows rolled up, and
it is raining straight down, with the drops falling at, say, 80 mph.
Result: the raindrops form streaks on your side windows that go straight
down the glass, right? Next, imagine that you start your car and begin
zooming down the highway at 80 mph. Now the streaks angle toward the back
of your side windows at a 45 degree angle, right? (The reason: the
velocity of the drops relative to your car is the vector sum of a
horizontal and a vertical component, with each component having a
magnitude of 80 mph.) Well, the same thing applies to the case where
gravity particles move radially outward from the Sun at lightspeed. In
that case, if the Earth is sitting still in its orbit, the gravity
particles will fall straight down, and will not have a component parallel
to the Earth's orbit at that point. If, however, the Earth is moving
forward in its orbit at 18 mps, then the incoming gravity particles will
have, relative to the Earth, an 18 mps component parallel to the Earth's
motion, pointing backwards, and, since the gravity particles exert a
*pull* when they impact, that pull will be slightly aberrated in the
forward direction. Since the radial component (toward the Sun) will be of
magnitude 186,000 mps and the tangential component (parallel to the
Earth's motion) will be of magnitude 18 mps, it follows that the pull of
the Sun on the Earth (magnitude F = GMm/r^2) will have an Earth
accelerating component of magnitude Ft = (18/186,000)GMm/r^2 in the
forward direction. That component, in a few million years, will drive the
Earth beyond its escape velocity and hurl it out of the solar system.
Note, however, that if the speed of gravity rises *above* the speed of
light to higher and higher levels, the magnitude of Ft decreases, and if
the speed of gravity is large enough, the Earth will be able to remain in
its orbit for the necessary 5 billion years. The necessary velocity,
however, is millions of times the speed of light.
The implication of the above is that the Einstein theory was down in
flames before Einstein was ever born. Unfortunately, the philosophically
motivated desire to believe in magic and the corresponding willingness to
forget the past were so overwhelming at the end of the 19th century that
it didn't matter that Einstein's "universal speed limit" was
overwhelmingly, pathetically, laughably wrong from the outset. During
those times a flood tide of Humian empiricism was pouring out of
philosophy departments like vomit out of a drunkard, and as real
physicists died off their chairs passed over to younger men who had
imbibed that poison. Result: the reasoned base upon which classical
physics had been erected was swept away. The rest is history.
--Mitchell Jones}***
> Regards,
>
> Jeff
Richard Perry
And you are so sure that gravity changes do not propagate
instantaneously. Until the facts are in you would be wise to hold your
tongues.
--
Richard Perry
http://www.cswnet.com/~rper
Ronald Stepp
news:23806-3E1...@storefull-2157.public.lawson.webtv.net...
Man, same old fantasy.. figured you might update it for 2003 to be more
believable, but guess not..
Abhi
> "Abhi" <discov...@yahoo.co.in> wrote in message
> news:4bd62e7c.02123...@posting.google.com...
Dear Franz-
I described experiment and said that "Note to Stephen Speicher: Show
me if such "shocking" experiment is indeed done. I will leave this NG
"instantaneously"".
And no one showed me that such experiment is indeed done. You all
people are telling me which I can easily find by giving few keywords
in google search box and I have done it many times before asking you
such question.
I used word "speed of electrical signal" because you use it while
measuring speed of electricity. Basic idea is same, how long does it
take for every electron across wire to drift i.e. to "know" about
applied potential difference.
Gravity neither travel in form of waves nor does it reflect. So we can
not measure its speed by the experiment like given on site by Stephen.
That is exactly why I thought the experiment I gave above.
If such experiment is indeed done, show me. Or at least tell me what
is the logical flaw in this experiment.
If my theory of gravity is wrong, I will not be here after January 7.
Then you can question my integrity and honesty if I continue to
posting.
-Abhi.
Minor Crank
> ***{The theory was falsified before Einstein's grandfather was so much as
> a gleam in his great-grandfather's eye, Robert. The aberration associated
> with lightspeed gravitation would have hurled the Earth out of its orbit
> in a few million years, yet here it is, after almost 5 billion years. Case
> closed. --MJ}***
if p then q
not q implies not p
If Newtonian mechanics is valid, then the stability of the Earth's
orbit implies that the speed of gravity must be many times the speed
of light, possibly infinite.
A finding that the speed of gravity is comparable to the speed of
light would imply that Newtonian mechanics is invalid.
An alternate theory of gravity was proposed a few years ago by a
former patent clerk that is self-consistent and that has been
reasonably successful over the years, that predicts stable planetary
orbits and that predicts speed of gravity equal to speed of light.
Results from the Kopeikin experiment may serve to distinguish between
the two theories, invalidating at least one of these two.
"Minor Crank"
David Robbins
weasel words if i ever saw them. no matter what you say he won't go away as
promised. he will continue the debate even if it is only about what he has
already said, especially now that he has twisted it into the speed of
gravity instead of electricity as he originally asked about.
Franz Heymann
I waited to see if you would correct yourself on this, but you are
either too ignorant or too lacking in integrity or both.
It was in fact Einstein who produced the first derivation which
predicted the existence of gravitational waves and showed that their
speed would be c.
> He specifically stated that SR was valid only in the absence of
> gravitational fields. Why do you suppose he took time out to
emphasize
> this?
Franz Heymann
Franz Heymann
Imbecile. A static gravitational field is no more a gravitational
wave than a static electric field is an electromagnetic wave.
The rest is bound to be elephant dung of at least of equal vintage, so
I will snip it.
[...]
Franz \Heymann