Speed of Gravity Controversy
Tom Van Flandern
>> [ceo]: Don't you think that its a bit cheeky for scientists to
suggest that they could measure the "speed" of gravity when a
gravitational field is a 'gradient' field?
> [sc]: Well, to start with, it isn't, except in the Newtonian
approximation.
This is an inappropriate response. "Gravitational field" is
now commonly used in two different senses, depending on the application.
Relativists use the expression to refer to the gravitational potential
field, the object described by the Einstein field equations.
Dynamicists, most other physicists, and laymen usually use the same
expression for gravitational force, the most obvious and visible
manifestation of gravity. In the latter sense, the field is very much a
gradient field: the gradient of the potential.
>> [ceo]: One may suppose that there are gravitons
> [sc]: Gravitons are completely irrelevant. The speed of gravity, like
the speed of light, is a classical concept.
True, but the classical concept (as first used by Laplace in
the early 19th century to estimate that the speed of gravity was > 10^7
c) refers to the speed of gravitational force propagation, not
gravitational potential wave propagation, which is a completely
different matter.
> [sc]: Orbits of binary pulsars decay by emission of gravitational
waves. The rate of decay depends sensitively on the speed of gravity,
and pins down the speed fairly accurately.
Having just said that the "speed of gravity" is a classical
concept, you suddenly switch to using it for the speed of disturbance
waves in the gravitational potential field, a distinctly modern concept.
In this new sense, the speed of gravitational waves is undisputedly the
speed of light. But in our discussions over the past decade, the "speed
of gravity" concept has been used mainly in the classical sense, the
speed of gravitational force. By switching concepts, you have switched
horses in mid-stream - a sure way to get wet!
This confusion brings me back to the point I have been
emphasizing of late. If you would either agree or state your reasons for
disagreeing, we could once again make progress. But simply switching
definitions to avoid an unwanted conclusion appears disingenuous. So
please indulge me with a response to the following. -|Tom|-
________________________________________________________________________
_____________
Consider the following proposition: "Gravitational waves have nothing to
do with ordinary gravitational acceleration or with changes therein."
** When I walk into a room, a gravimeter can track changes in the
gravitational acceleration I produce. These are not gravitational waves
being detected.
** The GR equations of motion are expressions for accelerations of
bodies as a function of location, velocity, and potential. As such, they
describe changes in acceleration through second order in potential or
fourth order in velocity. Yet there is no gravitational wave component
in these equations.
** In a static potential field, an orbiting body is continually changing
its acceleration. We can easily measure these changes. Where are the
gravitational waves in that scenario?
My qualification "ordinary" gravitational acceleration was intended to
restrict us to 3-space accelerations and to exclude ultra-small, exotic
effects such as binary pulsar angular momentum losses due to
gravitational waves. With those premises in place, kindly show any
example where gravitational waves are related to ordinary gravitational
acceleration. We observe changes in gravitational acceleration every
day, without a trace yet of a gravitational wave. This matter (the lack
of a connection between gravitational waves and ordinary gravitational
acceleration) is a simple but important point for progress in physics
and for everyone's understanding of relativity. A clear exposition of
your contrary opinion, easily understood by all readers, would be
invaluable. Let's resolve this issue, shall we?
________________________________________________________________________
_____________
Tom Van Flandern - Washington, DC - see our web site on replacement
astronomy research at http://metaresearch.org
Ralph Hertle
Would you say that the vibrating quality of tactile, kinesthetic, and
synaptic experience that occurs in every part of the living human body
during everyday life may in fact be due to the unevenness of the flux of
the forces of gravity from numerous sources?
Could it be that the experience of living, not referring to the matters
of emotions and happiness which have their merits, and not to mention
exaltations due to evaluations of events, is caused by the flux of
gravitational existents that are emitted by matter and that travel
through space? That we feel the tingling excitement of being alive, for
one reason selected, because of gravity?
Can we feel gravity every bit as much as we can feel IR radiation?
Possibly at different energy levels and capabilities of feelings and
perceptions due to the ability of the sense organs to respond to the
specify energy levels?
Can we human beings directly experience the flux of discrete
gravitational existents that impinge upon us, and that we also radiate?
Not just the feeling of weight, instead, can we sense and feel the noise
of the gravitational flux of existents just as those existents cause
positional or energy absorption changes at the cells of the human body?
Does gravity result in existents that can be directly perceived?
I'm not a Post Modernist, but is it possible to "trace" the cause of
everyday life experience to the discrete phenomena of gravitational
existents?
Btw, the number of cross posts that you have generated do exceed the
number of cross posts permitted by Usenet. I suggest that, instead, the
news group should be made interesting in order to attract more rational
and creative people. Interventionism need not be promoted in order to
gain the respect of others --- they may be listening.
Ralph Hertle
.............................................
Tom Van Flandern wrote:
[ text and quotation omitted ]
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Paul Schlyter
Tom Van Flandern <to...@metaresearch.org> wrote:
> Having just said that the "speed of gravity" is a classical concept,
> you suddenly switch to using it for the speed of disturbance waves
> in the gravitational potential field, a distinctly modern concept.
Thus, relativity is a classical physics theory, since it does not
use or depend on quantum physics.
> This confusion brings me back to the point I have been emphasizing of
> late. If you would either agree or state your reasons for disagreeing,
> we could once again make progress. But simply switching definitions to
> avoid an unwanted conclusion appears disingenuous. So please indulge
> me with a response to the following. -|Tom|-
Carlip didn't switch definitions -- but he apparently used definitions
you don't understand, such as "classical" when talking about physics;
"classical" has, in such a context, nothing to do with Ancient Greece,
the Renaissance, etc --- it merely means "non-quantum" or "continuous".
--
----------------------------------------------------------------
Paul Schlyter, Swedish Amateur Astronomer's Society (SAAF)
Grev Turegatan 40, S-114 38 Stockholm, SWEDEN
e-mail: pausch at saaf dot se
WWW: http://hem.passagen.se/pausch/index.html
http://home.tiscali.se/~pausch/
Robert Kolker
Ralph Hertle wrote:
> Would you say that the vibrating quality of tactile, kinesthetic, and
> synaptic experience that occurs in every part of the living human body
> during everyday life may in fact be due to the unevenness of the flux of
> the forces of gravity from numerous sources?
Puhleeze! We are subject to electrical forces 10^40 times more powerful
than gravity.
Bob Kolker
Uncle Al
>
> Tom:
>
> Would you say that the vibrating quality of tactile, kinesthetic, and
> synaptic experience that occurs in every part of the living human body
> during everyday life may in fact be due to the unevenness of the flux of
> the forces of gravity from numerous sources?
No. Look at the size of Newton's constant. Since your hypothesis
requires net field changes in magnitude, divergence, and curl rather
than total field strength, push any results back a whole bunch more
decimal places. Yer gonna fall off the elephant and cleanly miss the
tortoises.
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/eotvos.htm
(Do something naughty to physics)
--
Uncle Al
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/
(Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals)
"Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?" The Net!
Ralph Hertle
Please clarify your report. The metaphors don't seem to relate to the
matter of gravity.
Thanks. Ralph Hertle
Ralph Hertle
Seriously, what are the electrical forces to which you refer?
Do you mean electrons? From internal chemical and neurological
reactions? From outside sources, for example, atmospheric electrical
energy? From cosmic particle collisions?
Your thoughts.....
Ralph Hertle
Robert Kolker
Ralph Hertle wrote:
> Bob:
>
> Seriously, what are the electrical forces to which you refer?
The forces that hold the electrons to the nucleii.
Bob Kolker
Ralph Hertle
Yes, I understand. How do the electrical forces relate to or cause human
feelings?
Ralph Hertle
'''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''
Robert Kolker
Ralph Hertle wrote:
> Bob:
>
> Yes, I understand. How do the electrical forces relate to or cause human
> feelings?
>
Nerve impulse consist of ions osmosing thru the nerve fibres. Life is
electrical activity.
Bob Kolker
Martyn Harrison
They are employed to post messages on usenet.
Apparently on date Wed, 05 Mar 2003 00:52:49 GMT, Ralph Hertle
Tom Van Flandern
>> [tvf to sc]: Having just said that the "speed of gravity" is a
classical concept, you suddenly switch to using it for the speed of
disturbance waves in the gravitational potential field, a distinctly
modern concept.
> [ps]: In this context, "classical" means "non-quantum", not
"non-modern". Thus, relativity is a classical physics theory, since it
does not use or depend on quantum physics.
Thank you for that clarification.
>> [tvf]: This confusion brings me back to the point I have been
emphasizing of late. If you would either agree or state your reasons for
disagreeing, we could once again make progress. But simply switching
definitions to avoid an unwanted conclusion appears disingenuous. So
please indulge me with a response to the following.
> [ps]: If you learnt the proper vocabulary, you would be less
confused....Carlip didn't switch definitions -- but he apparently used
definitions you don't understand, such as "classical" when talking about
physics; "classical" has, in such a context, nothing to do with Ancient
Greece, the Renaissance, etc --- it merely means "non-quantum" or
"continuous".
I took the wrong meaning of "classical" here. Okay, I stand
corrected. But that seems to have no consequences of import for my
message. So why did you ignore my main point? Neither Carlip (for over a
month now) nor you nor anyone else has addressed my point, which has
become the crux of the debate over the nature of gravity and its speed
of propagation that has gone on for a decade now. It's a simple point
with major consequences. Do you agree or disagree? If the latter, on
what basis do you disagree? If this is true, shouldn't it be part of the
sci.physics FAQ? I repeat the point again here. -|Tom|-
______________________________________________________________
Larry Burford
> In article <b40bik$gb9$1...@bob.news.rcn.net>,
> Tom Van Flandern <to...@metaresearch.org> wrote:
>
> > Having just said that the "speed of gravity" is a classical concept,
> > you suddenly switch to using it for the speed of disturbance waves
> > in the gravitational potential field, a distinctly modern concept.
>
> In this context, "classical" means "non-quantum", not "non-modern".
> Thus, relativity is a classical physics theory, since it does not
> use or depend on quantum physics.
>
>
> If you learnt the proper vocabulary, you would be less confused....
> Carlip didn't switch definitions -- but he apparently used definitions
> you don't understand, such as "classical" when talking about physics;
> "classical" has, in such a context, nothing to do with Ancient Greece,
> the Renaissance, etc --- it merely means "non-quantum" or "continuous".
So you are saying that the "speed of gravity" is a General
Relativistic concept rather than a Newtonian concept? (Or rather, you
are saying that this is what Dr. Carlip means.)
This makes sense when talking about the field interpretation of GR in
which gravity is a propagating force. But not when talking about the
geometric interpretation in which gravity is not a real force and
*does not propagate*. Most experts (including Dr. Carlip, I believe)
favor the geometric interpretation.
Even though Dr. Carlip was responding to a question about gravitons,
the context would seem to allow him to be refering to either Newton or
Einstein. And, in the decade or so I've been following this debate, I
don't think any aspect Quantum Physics has ever been an issue. It has
always been about GR, with Newtonian gravitation playing a secondary
role.
Therefore, unless I hear him say it I'm going to assume that you are
wrong. Perhaps we should begin using the term "pre-classical" to refer
to Newtonian concepts, in order to avoid confusion like this in the
future?
Regards,
LB
Paul Schlyter
Larry Burford <lbur...@acad.udallas.edu> wrote:
> pau...@saaf.se (Paul Schlyter) wrote in message news:<b41kdu$15o0$1...@merope.saaf.se>...
>> In article <b40bik$gb9$1...@bob.news.rcn.net>,
>> Tom Van Flandern <to...@metaresearch.org> wrote:
>>
>>> Having just said that the "speed of gravity" is a classical concept,
>>> you suddenly switch to using it for the speed of disturbance waves
>>> in the gravitational potential field, a distinctly modern concept.
>>
>> In this context, "classical" means "non-quantum", not "non-modern".
>> Thus, relativity is a classical physics theory, since it does not
>> use or depend on quantum physics.
>>
>>> <snip>
>>
>> If you learnt the proper vocabulary, you would be less confused....
>> Carlip didn't switch definitions -- but he apparently used definitions
>> you don't understand, such as "classical" when talking about physics;
>> "classical" has, in such a context, nothing to do with Ancient Greece,
>> the Renaissance, etc --- it merely means "non-quantum" or "continuous".
>
>
> So you are saying that the "speed of gravity" is a General
> Relativistic concept rather than a Newtonian concept? (Or rather, you
> are saying that this is what Dr. Carlip means.)
is a Newtonian concept though; it's quite tricky to unambiguously
define "Speed of gravity" in GR, as you correctly note here.
> This makes sense when talking about the field interpretation of GR in
> which gravity is a propagating force. But not when talking about the
> geometric interpretation in which gravity is not a real force and
> *does not propagate*. Most experts (including Dr. Carlip, I believe)
> favor the geometric interpretation.
>
> Even though Dr. Carlip was responding to a question about gravitons,
> the context would seem to allow him to be refering to either Newton or
> Einstein. And, in the decade or so I've been following this debate, I
> don't think any aspect Quantum Physics has ever been an issue. It has
> always been about GR, with Newtonian gravitation playing a secondary
> role.
>
> Therefore, unless I hear him say it I'm going to assume that you are
> wrong. Perhaps we should begin using the term "pre-classical" to refer
> to Newtonian concepts, in order to avoid confusion like this in the
> future?
Perhaps we could agree on the definitions below:
+ Classical Quantum
-------------------+-------------------------------------------
Non-relativistic + Newtonian Physics Quantum Physics
+
Relativistic + General Relativity GUT/TOE
-------------------+-------------------------------------------
GUT = Grand Unified Theory
TOE = Theory Of Everything
Paul Schlyter
> corrected. But that seems to have no consequences of import for my
> message. So why did you ignore my main point?
I've understood that defining "speed of gravity" in GR is a quite
tricky issue though, and this you consistently ignore.
> ** When I walk into a room, a gravimeter can track changes in the
> gravitational acceleration I produce. These are not gravitational waves
> being detected.
periodically for many cycles with the same period? Will this still
not produce gravitational waves?
Isn't gravitational waves nothing but small periodic changes in the
gravitational field? And isn't it weird to admit that some changes
in the gravitational field (gravitational waves) travel at the speed
of light, and at the same time claim that other changes in the
gravitational field (non-periodic changes) travels much faster than
the speed of light? Oughtn't ALL disturbances in the gravitational
field travel at the same speed?
> ** In a static potential field, an orbiting body is continually
> changing its acceleration. We can easily measure these changes.
> Where are the gravitational waves in that scenario?
it. However, for your a field to remain static, your orbiting
body would have to have zero mass....
hanson
news:b46t81$1iqs$1...@merope.saaf.se...
> In article <b45oo1$db4$1...@bob.news.rcn.net>,
> Tom Van Flandern <to...@metaresearch.org> wrote:
>
> > I took the wrong meaning of "classical" here. Okay, I stand
> > corrected. But that seems to have no consequences of import for my
> > message. So why did you ignore my main point?
>
> Because I don't have the expertise needed to address it properly.
>
> I've understood that defining "speed of gravity" in GR is a quite
> tricky issue though, and this you consistently ignore.
>
> > ** When I walk into a room, a gravimeter can track changes in the
> > gravitational acceleration I produce. These are not gravitational
> > waves being detected.
>
> But what if you walk into the room, walk out of it, walk into it,
> periodically for many cycles with the same period? Will this still
> not produce gravitational waves?
>
> Isn't gravitational waves nothing but small periodic changes in the
> gravitational field? And isn't it weird to admit that some changes
> in the gravitational field (gravitational waves) travel at the speed
> of light, and at the same time claim that other changes in the
> gravitational field (non-periodic changes) travels much faster than
> the speed of light? Oughtn't ALL disturbances in the gravitational
> field travel at the same speed?
>
Disturbances maybe, but NOT the spread of the gravitational field
itself from the responsible mass outward. THAT is what the question
is about and Tom's main objective: "The gravitational feeler speed"
"the speed of the gravitational field reach", "the speed of the
gravitational gradient" etc. Invent an appropriately descriptive
buzz word to describe the subject matter.
hanson
hanson
news:b45oo1$db4$1...@bob.news.rcn.net...
> (the lack of a connection between gravitational waves and ordinary
> gravitational acceleration) is a simple but important point for
>
[hanson]
Tom, in order for you to get an audience on this, I repeat what I have
suggested to you in the past: use a buzzword when talking about
"gravitational speed". I think it was you who coined the phrase
"gravitational feeler speed". Why did you drop it?
When I read about "gravitational feeler speed" for the first time, the
situation that was trying to be conveyed, was unambiguous and
clear to me, at once.
A case in like fashion occurred a few days ago in sci.physics. Maybe
you followed the recent thread where Louis Savain is urging to test
the speed of the Coulomb field gradient, essentially how fast the
electrostatic field from a charge does spread out. He used a "new"
term, the "speed of the Coulomb field gradient". It got attention.
Only a 1 or 2 very slow posters confused what he was saying with the
EM/photon speed propagation of c.
So, for your purposes, if you don't go with "gravitational feeler
speed", then use the "speed of the Newton gradient", or any other new
catchy term to sell your concept.
Your are at the point, and the time is right, where you should SELL
you views......by any and all means. You got sufficient good arguments
on your side. Don't make new ones. Sell what you got. Sell, sell.
Tom, not even physicists are exempt from "selling". They are hard
customers, but they are still emotional creatures and they like a
story
well told. Most classic papers are about as exiting as a walk thru'
the grave yard. Go lay on you your story Hollywood style. Assholes,
who don't like you will bitch regardless.
Have at it, go for it and good luck to you, Tom,
hanson
PS:
BTW, AFAIAC the grav. feeler speed is c^4 to~ 10^67 cm/sec and
mass dependent, depending on axioms.
"Tom Van Flandern" <to...@starpower.net> wrote in message
news:b45oo1$db4$1...@bob.news.rcn.net...
Aleksandr Timofeev
[snip]
>
> Why not say "non-relativistic" instead?
>
> Perhaps we could agree on the definitions below:
>
>
> + Classical Quantum
> -------------------+-------------------------------------------
> Non-relativistic + Newtonian Physics Quantum Physics
> +
> Relativistic + General Relativity GUT/TOE
> -------------------+-------------------------------------------
>
> GUT = Grand Unified Theory
> TOE = Theory Of Everything
The classical physical theory is obliged to base on experimentally
measured fundamental physical constants.
Whether the trial physical theory (GR) containing the fundamental
hypothetical unmeasured physical constant C can be termed as classical?
Tom Van Flandern
> [ps] I've understood that defining "speed of gravity" in GR is a quite
tricky issue though, and this you consistently ignore.
I have not ignored it. On the contrary, I have been
hammering away at the distinctions that must be made to eliminate the
confusion that abounds.
In a GR context, "gravitational field" is used by
mathematical relativists to mean "gravitational potential field", the
subject of the Einstein field equations. But "gravitational field" is
used by dynamicists for "gravitational force field", the subject of the
equations of motion. These are two distinct physical entities, and there
is no valid reason to think they should have the same properties.
Mathematically, they are related as function to derivative. However, in
general, physical entities that are related as function and derivative
do not share the same properties. Velocity and acceleration are an
obvious example.
The gravitational potential field is normally a static
entity, and requires no propagation to maintain. But when it is
disturbed, the disturbances propagate as waves (called "gravitational
waves") at the speed of light. Such waves are ultra-weak, and have not
yet been directly detected in any experiment. Nor are there any
prospects for detecting any such waves originating within the solar
system. However, LIGO hopes to detect gravitational waves originating in
distant astrophysical events of extreme violence.
By contrast, the gravitational force field is a dynamic
entity responsible for the acceleration of target bodies toward the
source masses that generate the field. It consists of momentum carriers
responsible for the change in the momentum of the target body. All six
existing experiments attempting to measure propagation delay between the
source mass and the target body have failed to detect any delay, with
the most stringent experiment (binary pulsars) setting a propagation
speed lower limit of 20 billion c.
The proposition I stated, "Gravitational waves have nothing
to do with ordinary gravitational acceleration or with changes therein",
is intended to draw everyone's attention to the confusion implicit in
thinking otherwise. Once these two concepts, gravitational waves and
changes in gravitational forces, are separated, the confusion goes away.
But when it does, one would never again make the mistake of mixing up
potential field phenomena such as the Shapiro effect with gravitational
acceleration effects, as Kopeikin did.
>> [tvf]: When I walk into a room, a gravimeter can track changes in the
gravitational acceleration I produce. These are not gravitational waves
being detected.
> [ps]: But what if you walk into the room, walk out of it, walk into
it, periodically for many cycles with the same period? Will this still
not produce gravitational waves?
No. But this is an excellent question, and points up the
important difference between gravitational waves and changes in
gravitational force. If your suggestion were true, someone would have
long ago earned a Nobel Prize for the laboratory detection of
gravitational waves because every pair of revolving masses would
generate easily detectable force oscillations. And Einstein would have
had no cause to deny that gravitational waves exist (since force
oscillations obviously exist), a position he took twice in his career
before finally accepting that such waves probably do exist.
In physics, any force can be modeled as an impulse or a
series of impulses. Each impulse is a momentum exchange. Force therefore
has no natural periodicity or frequency. One can control the impulses so
that they occur only with some desired frequency. But the result is
still a series of periodic impulses that could as easily be at irregular
as at regular intervals. Force has no essential wave character. It is
possible that the impulses (momentum carriers) do have a wave character;
but the resulting force simply represents the momentum transferred at
whatever discrete intervals, regular or irregular.
Walking into a room does theoretically generate a
gravitational wave (GW) in addition to a force change. But the GW is
far, far too weak for the most sensitive detectors in existence to
respond. A gravimeter, OTOH, easily tracks the changes in your
gravitational force on it in detail, whether regular or not, as you walk
around the room. The two phenomena are simply unrelated, as my
proposition notes.
> [ps]: Isn't gravitational waves nothing but small periodic changes in
the gravitational field? And isn't it weird to admit that some changes
in the gravitational field (gravitational waves) travel at the speed of
light, and at the same time claim that other changes in the
gravitational field (non-periodic changes) travels much faster than the
speed of light? Oughtn't ALL disturbances in the gravitational
field travel at the same speed?
With my preamble, the confusion implicit in your questions
is now easily cleared up. Gravitational waves are the result of
disturbances in the gravitational *potential* field, too weak to detect
in most cases. Changes in gravitational force fields, by contrast, are
among the largest and most visible effects we see in astrophysical
systems. Moreover, we detect and respond to many such changes in the
solar system and the laboratory. Because we sometimes refer to two
physically different entities by the expression "gravitational field",
it is not weird that there would be two different propagation speeds,
one for each entity.
As for the identification of these two entities with
physical concepts, the idea mentioned by Eddington in 1920 and by many
authors since seems to work well. The gravitational potential field is
an optical medium, variously called "light-carrying medium", "space-time
medium", or "elysium". (The now-obsolete universal "aether" concept
failed to recognize the association between itself and gravitational
potential fields, and the consequent density gradients that must arise
near masses.) The gravitational force field is a medium of high-speed
momentum carriers that acts on the potential field medium as well as on
all nearby tangible entities. It makes potential "denser" (stronger)
near masses, much as would occur for an extended atmosphere. And this is
what creates the gradient relationship between force and potential.
>> [tvf]: In a static potential field, an orbiting body is continually
changing its acceleration. We can easily measure these changes. Where
are the gravitational waves in that scenario?
> [ps]: Quite obviously, any _static_ field has, by definition, no waves
in it. However, for your a field to remain static, your orbiting body
would have to have zero mass....
Actually, that is not strictly true because the acceleration
of a target body is independent of its own mass. But before we start
discussing absolute vs. relative accelerations, let's get back to the
point of my remark. The acceleration of the target body is obviously
continually changing direction. Where do those changes in
force/acceleration direction come from? Clearly, the answer is not
gravitational waves, agreed? So once again, gravitational waves cannot
be equated with changes in gravitational force or acceleration.
I note again that nothing in this discussion proposes
changes to GR as a mathematical model. This discussion is limited to the
physical interpretation of GR. The conclusion seems inescapable that
gravitational waves have nothing to do with ordinary gravitational
acceleration or changes therein. Widespread recognition of this will
clear up much murkiness and fuzzy-think and help everyone understand the
physical implications of GR much better. -|Tom|-
Tom Van Flandern
> [h]: I think it was you who coined the phrase "gravitational feeler
speed". Why did you drop it?
I do not recall seeing this expression before, and did not
originate it. It doesn't do for me what it apparently does for you. I
get no intuitive sense of what it means from those words alone.
> [h]: Louis Savain … used a "new" term, the "speed of the Coulomb field
gradient".
"Speed of the gravitational potential field gradient" would
be self-descriptive and accurate, but is a bit lengthy and awkward. We
wouldn't have this problem if our predecessors had not adopted
inappropriate terminology. Both "electromagnetic waves" and
"gravitational waves" are misnomers because neither has anything to do
with the forces normally associated with those terms. Calling them
"radiation" instead of waves helps a little; but they really are waves,
and the underlying problem of implied, non-existent associations with
forces remains.
I'm open to suggestions for improving the terminology. But
rarely do terminology discussions reach any sort of consensus.
> [h]: So, for your purposes, if you don't go with "gravitational feeler
speed", then use the "speed of the Newton gradient", or any other new
catchy term to sell your concept.
Every day, I must remind people that I am discussing this
subject in a GR context. Relativists are already too quick to dismiss
the whole discussion as "Newtonian" and therefore irrelevant. And most
people already know that the speed of the gradient in Newtonian gravity
is infinite, without dispute. So the "Newtonian gradient" suggestion is
a good try, but not satisfactory for the purposes that must be served.
> [h]: BTW, AFAIAC the grav. feeler speed is c^4 to~ 10^67 cm/sec and
mass dependent, depending on axioms.
If your friends can't tell you something, who can? You might
want to pick up a general physics text and read about dimensions. I am
reminded of that great line from the cult classic sci-fi flick "Attack
of the Killer Tomatoes", where a human spy has disguised himself as a
tomato and infiltrated the enemy camp. While roasting hotdogs over a
campfire, he says "Will someone please pass the ketchup?", thereby
blowing his cover. Your statement just quoted does the same for you in a
physics newsgroup. Although you may have good instincts and more common
sense than many, your statement shows you never studied physics. Please
look into why. (Hint: The square of a speed is no longer a speed. It is
energy per unit mass.) -|Tom|-
Tom Van Flandern - Washington, DC – see our web site on replacement
hanson
> "hanson" <han...@quick.net> writes:
> > [h]: BTW, AFAIAC the grav. feeler speed is c^4 to~ 10^67 cm/sec
> > and mass dependent, depending on axioms.
>
> [t]..... a human spy infiltrated the enemy camp......
> If your friends can't tell you something, who can? You might
> want to pick up a general physics text and read about dimensions.
> (Hint: The square of a speed is no longer a speed. It is
> energy per unit mass.) -|Tom|-
>
[hanson]
AHAHAHAHA.........ahahhahahaha............
My dear, dear uptight friend, I didn't talk about c^2, Tom.
Leaving your (snipped) polemics aside, I thought you had enough
insight to see that c^4 was meant to the convey in short hand
a numerical value of ~ 10^41 cm/sec. NOT an uncommon notation!
If it struck you as strange and you didn't get it then I apologize.
Besides, what's the matter with you bagging on me when I try to
take your side on the issue. Afraid I will steal your limelight?
...."enemy camp" ...ahaha........"enemy camp"... AHAHAHAHA.........
(Hint: that's paranoia to the max, Tom).... aahahahahhaa...
Sell, Tom, sell!!.....Don't belittle your friends......sell, Tom,
sell!!
hahahahaha..........hahahahhanson
Paul Schlyter
>
>> [ps] I've understood that defining "speed of gravity" in GR is a quite
> tricky issue though, and this you consistently ignore.
>
> I have not ignored it.
of some GR formulae, such as those published in Seidelmann's
"Explanatory Supplement to the Astronomical Almanac", noting that you
don't see any light-time retardation terms there, and from that
jumped your conclusions, claiming that GR says the force of gravity
travels much faster than light. However, one approximation of a
theory is far from the full theory itself.
> In a GR context, "gravitational field" is used by
> mathematical relativists to mean "gravitational potential field", the
> subject of the Einstein field equations. But "gravitational field" is
> used by dynamicists for "gravitational force field", the subject of the
> equations of motion. These are two distinct physical entities, and there
> is no valid reason to think they should have the same properties.
> Mathematically, they are related as function to derivative. However, in
> general, physical entities that are related as function and derivative
> do not share the same properties. Velocity and acceleration are an
> obvious example.
gets very dependent on one another though. Disturbances in one of
these fields _will_ cause disturbances in the other field as well.
> The gravitational potential field is normally a static entity,
......................
> By contrast, the gravitational force field is a dynamic entity
the gradient of the potential field, it's impossible that the
potential field is static (= unchanging) at the same time as the
force field is dynamic (= changing): change one of the fields and
the other will change as well !!!
> All six existing experiments attempting to measure propagation
> delay between the source mass and the target body have failed to
> detect any delay, with the most stringent experiment (binary
> pulsars) setting a propagation speed lower limit of 20 billion c.
> The proposition I stated, "Gravitational waves have nothing
> to do with ordinary gravitational acceleration or with changes therein",
> is intended to draw everyone's attention to the confusion implicit in
> thinking otherwise. Once these two concepts, gravitational waves and
> changes in gravitational forces, are separated, the confusion goes away.
> But when it does, one would never again make the mistake of mixing up
> potential field phenomena such as the Shapiro effect with gravitational
> acceleration effects, as Kopeikin did.
potential, not the gravitational force". That's a false claim: since
the potential is nothing but the integral of the force, and the
force is nothing but the gradient of the potential, you cannot change
one of them without changing the other at the same time.
As a simple example, try:
f(x) = 1 (a function with a constant value)
and let's define:
/ x
|
F(x) = | f(x) dx
|
/ 0
With f(x) = the constant 1, we get F(x) = x right? That's simple
high school mathematics.
Now, retain the relation between f(x) and F(x), and try to change
f(x) to something else, without also changing F(x) .......
When you've failed doing this, I hope you'll also realize why you
cannot have disturbances in the gravitational force field, without
also having disturbances in the gravitational potential field.
Therefore gravitational waves aren't just "periodic disturbances in
the gravitational potential field" or "periodic disturbances in the
gravitational force field" -- gravitational waves are disturbances on
both of them!!!!
> >> [tvf]: When I walk into a room, a gravimeter can track changes in the
> gravitational acceleration I produce. These are not gravitational waves
> being detected.
>
> > [ps]: But what if you walk into the room, walk out of it, walk into
> it, periodically for many cycles with the same period? Will this still
> not produce gravitational waves?
>
> No.
difference is the magnitude of the mass of you and of the pulsar....
> But this is an excellent question, and points up the
> important difference between gravitational waves and changes in
> gravitational force. If your suggestion were true, someone would have
> long ago earned a Nobel Prize for the laboratory detection of
> gravitational waves because every pair of revolving masses would
> generate easily detectable force oscillations.
gravitational waves from the pulsars are not directly detectable by
us (at least not yet), so why should gravitational waves from a
normal planet, or from a person periodically walking in and out of
a room, be "easily detectable"?
> Walking into a room does theoretically generate a gravitational
> wave (GW) in addition to a force change.
> But the GW is far, far too weak
> With my preamble, the confusion implicit in your questions
> is now easily cleared up. Gravitational waves are the result of
> disturbances in the gravitational *potential* field, too weak to detect
> in most cases.
disturbances in the gradient of the potential field, i.e. in the
force field: you cannot introduce disturbances in one without also
introducing disturbances in the other....
> >> [tvf]: In a static potential field, an orbiting body is continually
> changing its acceleration. We can easily measure these changes. Where
> are the gravitational waves in that scenario?
>
> > [ps]: Quite obviously, any _static_ field has, by definition, no waves
> in it. However, for your a field to remain static, your orbiting body
> would have to have zero mass....
>
> Actually, that is not strictly true because the acceleration
> of a target body is independent of its own mass.
motion will introduce changes in the gravitational force field AND
the gravitational potential field.
Oriel36
Alexsandr,
Good to see you back in the forum again,perhaps I may ask your opinion
on the matter of fundamental constants.
While the phi proportion is ultimately involved,it is easier to work
with the inviolate Pi value and its relationship with
diameter,circumference and radius.As the value for Pi is a series of
non-periodic decimals that is neither ordered or disordered,it never
converges to a rational series.
If you set a fundamental discrete lenght such as the Planck lenght,you
naturally can draw a circumference out of the Planck lenght which
acts as a diameter,the proportion between Planck diameter and
circumference maintains the Pi value of 3.1415....,normally you could
then discern a radius half the original Planck lenght and then create
a circumference out of that lenght maintaining Pi as a nonperiodic
value but it is quite an eye-opener to see the parameter of the
Planck lenght as a discrete lenght where the laws of physics no longer
apply.This is tantamount to turning the value of Pi into a rational
number at the Planck lenght so where do the laws of physics begin ?.
I approached Mr Schlyter before in terms of Newtonian absolute time
and pointed out that there is no way to set a fundamental constant for
time as there is no such thing as time=0,he supported the conclusion
that 24:00:00 was a more accurate description of 00:00:00 until he
seen the direction I was taking this for a clock is based on a
circular system which by default includes the value of Pi which in
turn feeds back into qm.I guess the relevance of all this converges
at the polar axis for there is no way to reconcile a circumference
with a center,either as a clock reading or the Planck lenght example I
give above and daily I see participants here give tortured
explanations of reconciling an event horizon (circumference) with a
center (singularity) when mathematically and geometrically it makes no
sense and never will and therefore reconciling relativity with qm
,quantum gravity and such things are pointless.
The reason your excellent work on the cosmological significance of the
phi in terms of the relationship of planetary motion,both
mathematically and aesthetically is going unnoticed is that
mathematical and geometric non -periodicity is being hijacked by qm
where the natural balances between order and disorder is twisted
towards determinism vs probability,warmed over statistics in other
words.
In any case good to see you back.
Painius
in message news:3E64180F...@verizon.net...
>
> Tom:
<sheared>
> Btw, the number of cross posts that you have generated do exceed the
> number of cross posts permitted by Usenet. I suggest that, instead, the
> news group should be made interesting in order to attract more rational
> and creative people. Interventionism need not be promoted in order to
> gain the respect of others --- they may be listening.
>
> Ralph Hertle
> .............................................
It would be nice, Ralph, if you are going to pass yourself off as
an authority on UseNet, for you to get things right. I see five
newsgroups xposted to...
sci.astro.amateur
sci.astro
alt.sci.planetary
alt.astronomy
sci.physics
No excess there. Most ISPs allow five xposts because UseNet
encourages xposting to up to five groups when the subject matter
so deems in order to save bandwidth. If you have a source for
your belief that five groups are in excess of UseNet rules, then i'd
like to see it.
The rest of your article was interesting, however.
happy days and...
starry starry nights!
--
Freedom! free to see
All the stars, all the cosmos
For what it really is--
It is Free!
Paine Ellsworth
Tom Van Flandern
> [ps]: Earlier you've repeatedly pointed to the Newtonian approximation
form of some GR formulae, such as those published in Seidelmann's
"Explanatory Supplement to the Astronomical Almanac", noting that you
don't see any light-time retardation terms there, and from that jumped
your conclusions, claiming that GR says the force of gravity travels
much faster than light. However, one approximation of a theory is far
from the full theory itself.
Huh? You have me mixed up with someone else. I've spoken
only in a GR context about the speed of gravity issue. The Seidelmann
reference doesn't touch that issue. The equations I've consistently
referenced are those on p. 1095 of MTW - the GR equations of motion.
Although these are an expansion, adding a few additional terms to make
them good to 20 decimal places instead of just ten changes nothing
whatever in this discussion, and is unnecessary for any solar system
application.
I don't know where you got your impression, but I suggest
ignoring phony sound-byte claims by people with an axe to grind.
>> [tvf]: In a GR context, "gravitational field" is used by mathematical
relativists to mean "gravitational potential field", the subject of the
Einstein field equations. But "gravitational field" is used by
dynamicists for "gravitational force field", the subject of the
equations of motion. These are two distinct physical entities, and there
is no valid reason to think they should have the same properties.
> [ps]: They are very much related though . Two fields, of which one
field is the gradient of the other field, gets very dependent on one
another though. Disturbances in one of these fields _will_ cause
disturbances in the other field as well.
From the mathematical relationship, you might expect that to
be true, but it isn't. Changes in gravitational force are not, in fact,
gravitational waves, as my examples serve to illustrate. And when a
gravitational wave spreads through the potential field, there is no
corresponding gravitational force. [In the general case of a
function/derivative relationship, note that velocity and acceleration
are related in that way. Yet changes in velocity do not imply
corresponding changes in acceleration, nor do changes in acceleration
(if angular) need to imply any change of velocity.]
This point cuts to the heart of the inconsistency I have
been pointing out for some time now. When dealing with the potential
field, GR uses retarded potentials. When dealing with the force field,
GR uses instantaneous potentials to form the gradient. That is done
because it is necessary to keep consistency with observations. But it
has physical consequences, among which is the independence of changes in
the force and potential fields from one another. Changes in one do not
automatically imply changes in the other.
Specifically, in GR, forces are not computed from retarded
gradients of potentials. So gravitational waves do not contribute to
ordinary gravitational force - a matter I have been emphasizing of late.
>> [tvf]: The gravitational potential field is normally a static
entity, . By contrast, the gravitational force field is a dynamic
entity.
> [ps]: That's a false dichotomy! Since the force field is nothing but
the gradient of the potential field, it's impossible that the potential
field is static (= unchanging) at the same time as the force field is
dynamic (= changing): change one of the fields and the other will change
as well !!!
Your assumption that "the force field is nothing but the
gradient of the potential field" is incorrect. It is an independent
field with independent behavior. And as just noted, the gradient
relation is used in GR only where it would not lead to contradiction
with observations. For all other purposes, it is ignored. And I showed
above an example where changes in a function do not imply corresponding
changes in its derivative.
But there is a good point buried in what you say. If GR used
retarded gradients just as it uses retarded potentials so that the
relationship between force and potential was strictly maintained, this
speed of gravity issue would be quickly resolved because the theory
would be immediately falsified by observation.
>> [tvf]: All six existing experiments attempting to measure propagation
delay between the source mass and the target body have failed to detect
any delay, with the most stringent experiment (binary pulsars) setting a
propagation speed lower limit of 20 billion c.
> [ps]: I _think_ you'll encounter a lot of disagreement to this
claim.... <g>
What disagreement? That conclusion was first published in
1998, followed up in 2000, and renewed in the latest publication last
summer. This latest is still unchallenged. Even those who disagreed with
the earlier papers did not question the experimental results (i.e., no
measurable propagation delay), but only the interpretation. Carlip, for
example, suggested that the reason the experiments give zero propagation
delay is because of a mystical canceling force that hides the effect.
But he certainly does not deny the fact that the experiments show no
propagation delay for gravity. So I anticipate that my statement would
be unchallenged by those in the know.
> [ps]: Therefore gravitational waves aren't just "periodic disturbances
in the gravitational potential field" or "periodic disturbances in the
gravitational force field" -- gravitational waves are disturbances on
both of them!!!!
This idea is contradicted by each of the three examples I
cited in my last message. It also leaves no explanation for the
inconsistency treatment of forces and potentials in GR - using
instantaneous gradients of potentials for forces and retarded potentials
for gravitational waves and other effects of potential.
> [ps]: why do orbiting pulsars produce gravitational waves? The only
difference is the magnitude of the mass of you and of the pulsar....
True, binary pulsars are far more massive than a person
walking into a room, but both produce gravitational waves. The point,
however, is that in neither case is the change in gravitational force a
gravitational wave (GW). The GW are far too weak to be involved in
force. Even for binary pulsars, while each component emits gravitational
waves, those waves are too weak by quite a bit to have any effect on the
other component. There is still no known case where a gravitational wave
has affected any body except the one that emitted it.
>> [tvf]: If your suggestion were true, someone would have long ago
earned a Nobel Prize for the laboratory detection of gravitational waves
because every pair of revolving masses would generate easily detectable
force oscillations.
> [ps]: Why do you conclude they [force oscillations] would be easily
detectable?
Gravimeters are now sensitive enough to detect force
variations even from small masses such as a person walking into a room.
> [ps]: Even the gravitational waves from the pulsars are not directly
detectable by us (at least not yet), so why should gravitational waves
from a normal planet, or from a person periodically walking in and out
of a room, be "easily detectable"?
GW cannot yet be detected from any source. We can only see
their effect on the body that emitted them. Force variations, OTOH, are
continually detected from many sources under a variety of conditions.
Do you see that confusing gravitational waves and force
variations leads to paradoxes, whereas recognizing them as unrelated
answers all questions? -|Tom|-
Ralph Hertle
You say:
[ text omitted ]
> Gravimeters are now sensitive enough to detect force
> variations even from small masses such as a person walking into a room.
>
[ text omitted ]
Wouldn't it be true that any gravimeter that recorded such variations
would be a useless piece of apparatus from a gravity science standpoint?
Any such variations would have to be subtracted as noise from any proper
readings, and any variations of that type would not be due to gravity
but due to the elastic vibrations of the matter supporting the
apparatus, the source of which vibrations not being due to the gravitons
being radiated from the Earth.
One might also be concerned that any lateral emissions of graviton
fluxes from the visitor could interfere with readings being taken from
other directions.
If, however, you do indeed have an apparatus that directly measures the
intensities of graviton fluxes, and not the elastic vibrations of
matter, you will probably get a gift certificate to King Arthur's
Restaurant and a movie pass to see the "Scorpion King".
Are photographs of graviton fluxes next? Will graviton photographers
have to carry inner tubes in their kit?
Ralph Hertle
Larry Burford
[PS]
In this context, "classical" means "non-quantum", not "non-modern".
Thus, relativity is a classical physics theory, since it does not
use or depend on quantum physics.
[LB]
... unless I hear him say it I'm going to assume that you are wrong.
After further consideration of your arguement, I've concluded that you
were right. I had originally interpreted Dr. Carlip's statement in the
narrower context of the SOG debate between him and Dr.Van Flandern.
But now I agree that he most likely meant it in the wider context of
Physics in general. Thanks for the tip.
and from last week...
[TVF]
When I walk into a room, a gravimeter can track changes in the
gravitational acceleration I produce. These are not gravitational
waves being detected.
[PS]
But what if you walk into the room, walk out of it, walk into it,
periodically for many cycles with the same period? Will this still not
produce gravitational waves?
Probably, but it doesn't matter. In addition to the arguments made by
Dr Van Flandern, I'd like to point out that even if gravity waves were
strong enough to be easily detected they could still not have anything
to do with gravitational attraction. The forces exerted on matter by
gravity waves do NOT produce an acceleration toward the source of the
wave. Nor do they produce an acceleration away form the source.
These forces are transvese to the direction of movement of the wave.
They stretch and compress any mass they pass through, but they don't
have any other effect. In particular they don't (can't) cause the mass
to "move".
See Ch 35 of MTW, page 953, for a discussion of how gravity waves
disturb a circular ring of test particles oriented in a transverse
plane. The ring is transformed into an oscillating elipse.
On page 951 they state explicitly:
"Only separations in the transverse direction oscillate; [italic]the
wave is transverse not only in its mathematical description <snip
symbols>, but also in its physical effects (geodesic
deviation)![/italic]"
Regards,
LB
Traveler
> "Tom Van Flandern" <to...@starpower.net> wrote in message
> news:b45oo1$db4$1...@bob.news.rcn.net...
> > (the lack of a connection between gravitational waves and ordinary
> > gravitational acceleration) is a simple but important point for
> > progress in physics.
> >
> [hanson]
> Tom, in order for you to get an audience on this, I repeat what I have
> suggested to you in the past: use a buzzword when talking about
> "gravitational speed". I think it was you who coined the phrase
> "gravitational feeler speed". Why did you drop it?
> When I read about "gravitational feeler speed" for the first time, the
> situation that was trying to be conveyed, was unambiguous and
> clear to me, at once.
>
> A case in like fashion occurred a few days ago in sci.physics. Maybe
> you followed the recent thread where Louis Savain is urging to test
> the speed of the Coulomb field gradient, essentially how fast the
> electrostatic field from a charge does spread out. He used a "new"
> term, the "speed of the Coulomb field gradient". It got attention.
> Only a 1 or 2 very slow posters confused what he was saying with the
> EM/photon speed propagation of c.
>
> So, for your purposes, if you don't go with "gravitational feeler
> speed", then use the "speed of the Newton gradient", or any other new
> catchy term to sell your concept.
Van Flandern is trying to point out that gravitational waves have
nothing to do with the gravitational force. Apparently Van Flandern
has bought the notion that gravitational waves exist. IMO,
gravitational waves are 100% bogus. They don't exist for the same
reason that electric waves do not exist. So-called EM waves are really
pure magnetic waves that come from accelerating a particle with a
magnetic moment. The idea that "EM" waves have an electric compoment
is nonsense. This is the sort of thing that physicists have come to
accept on faith alone. They accept it for the same reason that they
accept that the electric field gradient propagates at c even though
nobody has conducted an experiment to verify this. The reason is that
they belong toa religious cult.
LOuis Savain
Tom Van Flandern
>> [tvf]: Gravimeters are now sensitive enough to detect force
variations even from small masses such as a person walking into a room.
> [rh]: Wouldn't it be true that any gravimeter that recorded such
variations would be a useless piece of apparatus from a gravity science
standpoint?
On the contrary. Gravimeters are the most sensitive
detectors of gravity available on Earth. They can measure variations in
the Earth's field of a part in a billion. For example, they have
recently been used to show that the force of gravity changes slightly in
a unique way during solar eclipses. [See "Allais gravity and pendulum
effects during solar eclipses explained", T. Van Flandern and X.S. Yang,
Phys.Rev.D 67, 022002 (2003).]
> [rh]: Any such variations would have to be subtracted as noise from
any proper readings, and any variations of that type would not be due to
gravity but due to the elastic vibrations of the matter supporting the
apparatus, the source of which vibrations not being due to the gravitons
being radiated from the Earth.
Gravimeters respond to the gravitational fields of bodies,
even ones smaller than a person. If the person moves through a room, a
gravimeter can track that change in his/her gravity - even through a
wall. The same is true of traffic on a highway, or any example of moving
masses. That's not noise, but primary signal.
> [rh]: If, however, you do indeed have an apparatus that directly
measures the intensities of graviton fluxes, and not the elastic
vibrations of matter, you will probably get a gift certificate to King
Arthur's Restaurant and a movie pass to see the "Scorpion King".
I assure you that I had no role in inventing gravimeters.
When you say "vibrations of matter", it sounds as if you share a common
confusion between gravitational waves and changes in gravitational
forces. The former could at best produce tiny vibrations in the atoms of
matter. But I speak of changes in ordinary gravitational forces, which
are a whole other subject, unrelated to gravitational waves.
In fact, that was the main point of my last few posts. Don't
get confused. Gravitational waves and changes in gravitational
potentials have nothing to do with changes in ordinary gravitational
forces or accelerations. Mixing the two concepts will leave you
hopelessly confused about the physical interpretation of GR
equations. -|Tom|-
Tom Van Flandern
> Van Flandern is trying to point out that gravitational waves have
nothing to do with the gravitational force.
True.
> Apparently Van Flandern has bought the notion that gravitational waves
exist. IMO, gravitational waves are 100% bogus. They don't exist for the
same reason that electric waves do not exist.
Well, this question has a semantic element. A phenomenon
that dissipates orbital momentum exists, as evidenced by binary pulsars.
Calling that phenomenon "gravitational radiation" or "gravitational
waves" is a misnomer, as I've said recently, because it has nothing to
do with ordinary gravitational force or acceleration, contrary to what
the name implies. I've given several examples to show that must be true.
So we agree that there is no "spin-2" wave phenomenon associated with
gravity. But there undoubtedly are very-long-wavelength EM waves
generated by accelerating bodies as they propagate through the
light-carrying medium. And that propagation through a medium must
produce drag and wave effects, which will dissipate orbital momentum.
So I suspect we agree about what does and does not exist,
and at worst disagree about what to call things. I would support any
move to change the terminology "gravitational waves" to something more
appropriate. But an argument that no such phenomenon exists at all would
fly in the face of experimental evidence.
> So-called EM waves are really pure magnetic waves that come from
accelerating a particle with a magnetic moment.
Then what do we call "light waves" that have x-ray or radio
wavelengths? Historically, "EM waves" refers to light waves of all
wavelengths. We appear to be stuck with that even if the terminology
presumes an unlikely "particle-wave duality" model and is horrifically
confusing. What is your suggested terminology?
> The idea that "EM" waves have an electric component is nonsense. This
is the sort of thing that physicists have come to accept on faith alone.
They accept it for the same reason that they accept that the electric
field gradient propagates at c even though nobody has conducted an
experiment to verify this.
I tend to agree with this. But the transverse component of
light waves does have two sub-components, as is evident in polarization
experiments. And it is convenient to give them names such as
"electrical" and "magnetic" to be able to speak of them, even if the
names are inappropriate.
Speaking for myself, I'll be content if physics gets the
concepts straight. I do not insist upon a revolution in terminology at
the same time. It is one thing for the U.S. to adopt the metric system,
and quite another to change the name of the yard to a
"tri-dodeca-inch". -|Tom|-
dlzc@aol.com (formerly)
"Traveler" <eightwi...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:308ba22c.03031...@posting.google.com...
...
> So-called EM waves are really
> pure magnetic waves that come from accelerating a particle with a
> magnetic moment.
Interesting. How many neutrons have been observed to produce EM radiation?
Presumably the same would be true in inverse, any particle with a magentic
moment could absorb a photon. When has this been seen to occur? Note that
a neutron is composed of positive and negative quarks, and has a magnetic
moment roughly equivalent to a proton.
You been taking silly pills again?
David A. Smith
Ralph Hertle
You failed to see that the "vibrations" that I was referring to were not
the vibrations or waves in a flux of gravitons, whether on not they were
identified to be repetitive condensations/rarefactions, spins, or even
changes of energy level of the many gravity existents, fluxes, or waves
of combinations of these phenomena in fluxes.
I was referring to mechanical vibrations, that is, the elastic
vibrations of connected or pressurized matter, that may be either
vibrational or acoustical - and that have nothing to do with
gravitational existents, e.g., gravitons or the properties of same.
The mechanical vibrations must be, as I understand these matters that
have been explained by gravity scientists to me, subtracted from the
gross data in order to identify, measure, or get a reading on the
properties of the gravitational existents.
It is somewhat more precise and demanding a matter than arguing about
Post Modernist semantics, which the PMs at any rate consider to be
irrelevant to any discussion.
It is a matter of sifting out the irrelevant (the mechanical noise) in
order to identify the essential (the properties of the gravitational
existents).
Ralph Hertle
Traveler
> "Traveler" <eightwi...@yahoo.com> writes:
>
> > Van Flandern is trying to point out that gravitational waves have
> nothing to do with the gravitational force.
>
> True.
>
> > Apparently Van Flandern has bought the notion that gravitational waves
> exist. IMO, gravitational waves are 100% bogus. They don't exist for the
> same reason that electric waves do not exist.
>
> Well, this question has a semantic element. A phenomenon
> that dissipates orbital momentum exists, as evidenced by binary pulsars.
> Calling that phenomenon "gravitational radiation" or "gravitational
> waves" is a misnomer, as I've said recently, because it has nothing to
> do with ordinary gravitational force or acceleration, contrary to what
> the name implies. I've given several examples to show that must be true.
> So we agree that there is no "spin-2" wave phenomenon associated with
> gravity. But there undoubtedly are very-long-wavelength EM waves
> generated by accelerating bodies as they propagate through the
> light-carrying medium.
Whatever is slowing down the orbits of pulsars has to do with some
energy conservation phenomenon. This is the sort of thing that
physicists can only speculate as to the cause because their
understanding of gravity (and many ohter things) is rather dismal at
this time.
> And that propagation through a medium must
> produce drag and wave effects, which will dissipate orbital momentum.
I have logical reasons to believe that there is indeed a medium but it
serves a different purpose than what traditional aetherists have
proposed. It is not there to serve as a substrate for the propagation
of waves but as the causal energy for the motion of particles of
matter, including photons. Unlike most people, I believe (as Aristotle
did thousands of years ago) that motion is causal. Physicists belive
that things move for no reason at all, as if by magic. I think this is
absurd. So my "aether" does not cause a drag on moving bodies. Heck,
there would be no motion at all if it did not exist. By the way, I
believe we are moving in a highly energetic, lattice-like ocean of
photons. [just one man's opinion]
> So I suspect we agree about what does and does not exist,
> and at worst disagree about what to call things. I would support any
> move to change the terminology "gravitational waves" to something more
> appropriate. But an argument that no such phenomenon exists at all would
> fly in the face of experimental evidence.
Agreed. There is indeed a phenomenon for which there is no real
explanation except maybe lots of hand waving.
> > So-called EM waves are really pure magnetic waves that come from
> > accelerating a particle with a magnetic moment.
>
> Then what do we call "light waves" that have x-ray or radio
> wavelengths?
They are pure magnetic waves, IMO.
> Historically, "EM waves" refers to light waves of all
> wavelengths. We appear to be stuck with that even if the terminology
> presumes an unlikely "particle-wave duality" model and is horrifically
> confusing.
I realize that you subscribe to the concept of smooth waves in a
continuous aether. My view is that it's all particles. A wave is just
a macroscopic phenomenon.
>What is your suggested terminology?
Magnetic waves is OK by me. EM is misleading and just plain wrong,
IMO.
> > The idea that "EM" waves have an electric component is nonsense. This
> is the sort of thing that physicists have come to accept on faith alone.
> They accept it for the same reason that they accept that the electric
> field gradient propagates at c even though nobody has conducted an
> experiment to verify this.
>
> I tend to agree with this. But the transverse component of
> light waves does have two sub-components, as is evident in polarization
> experiments. And it is convenient to give them names such as
> "electrical" and "magnetic" to be able to speak of them, even if the
> names are inappropriate.
IMO, the sub-components are 100% magnetic in nature.
> Speaking for myself, I'll be content if physics gets the
> concepts straight. I do not insist upon a revolution in terminology at
> the same time. It is one thing for the U.S. to adopt the metric system,
> and quite another to change the name of the yard to a
> "tri-dodeca-inch". -|Tom|-
The terminology will have to be changed as soon as someone conducts an
experiment to test the so-called "propagation speed" of the electric
gradient. If it is found to be instantaneous (or thousands of time
faster than c within experimental margins) as I predict, a lot of
physics books will need to be re-written. A huge number of assumptions
about photons will also have to be discarded. Can anybody provide an
explanation as to why this experiment has never been conducted?
Louis Savain
dlzc@aol.com (formerly)
"Traveler" <eightwi...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:308ba22c.03031...@posting.google.com...
...
> The terminology will have to be changed as soon as someone conducts an
> experiment to test the so-called "propagation speed" of the electric
> gradient. If it is found to be instantaneous (or thousands of time
> faster than c within experimental margins) as I predict, a lot of
> physics books will need to be re-written. A huge number of assumptions
> about photons will also have to be discarded. Can anybody provide an
> explanation as to why this experiment has never been conducted?
Any idea why you didn't post this question to sci.physics.research?
David A. Smith
Traveler
Have you considered that a neutron is a composite particle and that
the magnetic moments of its components are opposite and, as a result,
the magnetic effects cancel each other out?
Louis Savain
Traveler
As a rule, I do not post to censored groups. Any idea why you don't
post the question to SPR, if you so value their opinion?
Louis Savain
dlzc@aol.com (formerly)
Have you noted that the magnetic moment of the neutron is non-zero,
therefore your supposition is untrue, and in contratindication to the
facts? Therefore the "magnetic effects" don't cancel out, hence its
ability to be measured.
Have you noted also that there are no documented cases of a neutron
absorbing a photon, and only emits a photon when it decays?
David A. Smith
dlzc@aol.com (formerly)
"Traveler" <eightwi...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:308ba22c.03031...@posting.google.com...
> "dl...@aol.com \(formerly\)" <)dl...@cox.net> wrote in message
news:<2wyba.2004$fA....@news1.west.cox.net>...
> > Dear Traveler:
> >
> > "Traveler" <eightwi...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> > news:308ba22c.03031...@posting.google.com...
> > ...
> > > The terminology will have to be changed as soon as someone conducts
an
> > > experiment to test the so-called "propagation speed" of the electric
> > > gradient. If it is found to be instantaneous (or thousands of time
> > > faster than c within experimental margins) as I predict, a lot of
> > > physics books will need to be re-written. A huge number of
assumptions
> > > about photons will also have to be discarded. Can anybody provide an
> > > explanation as to why this experiment has never been conducted?
> >
> > Any idea why you didn't post this question to sci.physics.research?
>
> As a rule, I do not post to censored groups. Any idea why you don't
> post the question to SPR, if you so value their opinion?
It is not their opinion I value, but their experience. You are posting to
a small subset of groups, some of which are interested in this topic. It
is likely that the research group may be aware of "why" this experiment has
not been run, and most likely has the wherewithal to run it.
I'm not sure the astronomy groups will care, or be able to contribute to
this particular "side step". In particular, your question.
David A. Smith
Aleksandr Timofeev
> "Traveler" <eightwi...@yahoo.com> writes:
[snip]
> > So-called EM waves are really pure magnetic waves that come from
> accelerating a particle with a magnetic moment.
>
> Then what do we call "light waves" that have x-ray or radio
> wavelengths? Historically, "EM waves" refers to light waves of all
> wavelengths. We appear to be stuck with that even if the terminology
> presumes an unlikely "particle-wave duality" model and is horrifically
> confusing. What is your suggested terminology?
VLBI is the direct experimental proof glaring inaccuracy of a
hypothesis
about existence of "photon" as a particle and " "particle-wave
duality"
model ".
The photon is mathematical abstraction, which in the implicit
(latent) form reflects existence of discrete power levels in
microsystems and as a corollary a capability of exchange by
electromagnetic energy between systems only by discrete portions.
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=e16a4a22.0208200006.18f38ef0%40posting.google.com
[snip]
Traveler
I really don't care what the physics community thinks about my
question. Obviously, if they thought that a test of the speed of the
Coulomb gradient was important, they would have tested it long ago.
They seem to be more interested in reinforing their belief system and
various doctrines. I am much more interested in what the lay public
has to say. After all, it's the public's money that pays for science.
Louis Savain
Traveler
Last I heard, the path of a moving neutron is not affected by a
magnetic field. This is what I mean by a neutron having magnetic
properties that are cancelled out.
> Have you noted also that there are no documented cases of a neutron
> absorbing a photon, and only emits a photon when it decays?
I take everything coming from the physics community with a grain of
salt, especially when it comes to photons. I happen to know from first
principles that the Coulomb field gradient is instantaneous. This is
what my model predicts and what Coulomb assumed. I expect my
prediction to be corroborated once the appropriate experiment is
conducted, with or without the help of the physics research community.
This alone, throws 3/4 of what physicists preach about photons and
so-called "EM" radiation out the window. Most of it is crap, IMO.
Louis Savain
Craig Markwardt
eightwi...@yahoo.com (Traveler) writes:
> >
> > Have you noted that the magnetic moment of the neutron is non-zero,
> > therefore your supposition is untrue, and in contratindication to the
> > facts? Therefore the "magnetic effects" don't cancel out, hence its
> > ability to be measured.
>
> Last I heard, the path of a moving neutron is not affected by a
> magnetic field. This is what I mean by a neutron having magnetic
> properties that are cancelled out.
Apparently you have been misinformed. Neutrons can be deflected by
static magnetic fields, as in the classic Stern-Gerlach type
experiment.
Powers, P. N. Phys. Rev. 54, 827 (1938)
Sherwood, J. E., Stephenson, T. E., & Bernstein, S. 1954, Phys. Rev.,
96, 1546
CM
dlzc@aol.com (formerly)
"Traveler" <eightwi...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:308ba22c.03031...@posting.google.com...
>>>>> ...Can anybody provide an
>>>>> explanation as to why this experiment has never been conducted?
>
> I really don't care what the physics community thinks about my
> question. Obviously, if they thought that a test of the speed of the
> Coulomb gradient was important, they would have tested it long ago.
> They seem to be more interested in reinforing their belief system and
> various doctrines. I am much more interested in what the lay public
> has to say. After all, it's the public's money that pays for science.
So when you said "anybody" above, you meant "anybody who could be swayed by
a populist argument, because I'm asking people who don't have ready
resources to answer the question"? In other words you are trying to smear
established science in the eyes of the "lay public".
Do you really care if such an experiment has been run?
David A. Smith
dlzc@aol.com (formerly)
"Traveler" <eightwi...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:308ba22c.03031...@posting.google.com...
> "dl...@aol.com \(formerly\)" <)dl...@cox.net> wrote in message
news:<DVQba.1691$jZ...@news1.west.cox.net>...
...
> > Have you noted that the magnetic moment of the neutron is non-zero,
> > therefore your supposition is untrue, and in contratindication to the
> > facts? Therefore the "magnetic effects" don't cancel out, hence its
> > ability to be measured.
>
> Last I heard, the path of a moving neutron is not affected by a
> magnetic field. This is what I mean by a neutron having magnetic
> properties that are cancelled out.
I won't add to CM's response. This stuff is relatively easy to reasearch.
> > Have you noted also that there are no documented cases of a neutron
> > absorbing a photon, and only emits a photon when it decays?
>
> I take everything coming from the physics community with a grain of
> salt, especially when it comes to photons. I happen to know from first
> principles that the Coulomb field gradient is instantaneous. This is
> what my model predicts and what Coulomb assumed.
Like Newton (in a sense) assumed the speed of light was infinite? When you
can only measure speeds as fast as the planets move, any such approximation
is pretty good. But today?
> I expect my
> prediction to be corroborated once the appropriate experiment is
> conducted, with or without the help of the physics research community.
So you have established that no such experiment has been run, or just not
an "appropriate" experiment?
> This alone, throws 3/4 of what physicists preach about photons and
> so-called "EM" radiation out the window. Most of it is crap, IMO.
I never really cared for virtual photons myself, but there you go.
David A. Smith
Traveler
> eightwi...@yahoo.com (Traveler) writes:
> > >
> > > Have you noted that the magnetic moment of the neutron is non-zero,
> > > therefore your supposition is untrue, and in contratindication to the
> > > facts? Therefore the "magnetic effects" don't cancel out, hence its
> > > ability to be measured.
> >
> > Last I heard, the path of a moving neutron is not affected by a
> > magnetic field. This is what I mean by a neutron having magnetic
> > properties that are cancelled out.
>
> Apparently you have been misinformed. Neutrons can be deflected by
> static magnetic fields, as in the classic Stern-Gerlach type
> experiment.
I am sorry but I was under the impression that only a polarized beam
of neutrons (all having quantized spins in the same direction) could
be deflected by a magnetic field. Has anybody tried to measure the
magnetic field generated by polarized neutron beams? It seems to me
that such a field should be present, however faint.
Louis Savain
dlzc@aol.com (formerly)
"Traveler" <eightwi...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:308ba22c.03031...@posting.google.com...
You're not implying that the spin of a neutron is any different that the
spin of a charged particle are you? A proton is comprised of oppositely
charged quarks also, so it should certainly produce a "magnetic field".
But the spin of either particle is not that of a top... as you well know.
Are you asking the same "anybody" as with the original question?
David A. Smith
Craig Markwardt
Polarized or not, the path of those moving neutrons was "affected by a
magnetic field." And, discussing spin polarization, etc., implies a
magnetic moment of the neutron.
CM
Paul Schlyter
Tom Van Flandern <to...@metaresearch.org> wrote:
> "Paul Schlyter" <pau...@saaf.se> writes:
>
> > [ps]: Earlier you've repeatedly pointed to the Newtonian approximation
> form of some GR formulae, such as those published in Seidelmann's
> "Explanatory Supplement to the Astronomical Almanac", noting that you
> don't see any light-time retardation terms there, and from that jumped
> your conclusions, claiming that GR says the force of gravity travels
> much faster than light. However, one approximation of a theory is far
> from the full theory itself.
>
> Huh? You have me mixed up with someone else. I've spoken
> only in a GR context about the speed of gravity issue. The Seidelmann
> reference doesn't touch that issue. The equations I've consistently
> referenced are those on p. 1095 of MTW - the GR equations of motion.
http://groups.google.com/groups?q=delay+first+order+author:van+author:Flandern&hl=sv&lr=&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&selm=8756p1%242dd%241%40nntp9.atl.mindspring.net&rnum=3
although you don't mention Seidelmann, you focus a lot on the first
order approximation of GR, and argue along the lines "since these
first order terms contain no light-time retardation terms, gravity
must travel much faster than light.
> Although these are an expansion, adding a few additional terms to make
> them good to 20 decimal places instead of just ten changes nothing
> whatever in this discussion,
Case 1: Suppose gravity travelling at lightspeed would introduce measureable
differences at the magnitude of the 20'th decimal digit? Then those 20 decimal
places DOES matter for the question "Does gravity travel at lightspeed, or much
faster?", right?
Case 2: In really strong gravitational fields, such as in the vicinity of
a pulsar or a black hole, those higher order terms definitely have a much
larger effect than just near the 20'th digit.....
> and is unnecessary for any solar system application.
Indeed, in solar system applications you can pretend that gravity propagates
infinitely fast, and use Newtonian mechanics with only small relativistic
corrections if you want really high precision. But that doesn't mean
you can also concluse "By moving masses around one can, in principle,
transfer messages much faster than light", as you seem to believe.
> I don't know where you got your impression, but I suggest
> ignoring phony sound-byte claims by people with an axe to grind.
your last previous comment above in this post.
>>> [tvf]: In a GR context, "gravitational field" is used by mathematical
>>> relativists to mean "gravitational potential field", the subject of the
>>> Einstein field equations. But "gravitational field" is used by
>>> dynamicists for "gravitational force field", the subject of the
>>> equations of motion. These are two distinct physical entities, and there
>>> is no valid reason to think they should have the same properties.
>
>> [ps]: They are very much related though . Two fields, of which one
>> field is the gradient of the other field, gets very dependent on one
>> another though. Disturbances in one of these fields _will_ cause
>> disturbances in the other field as well.
>
> From the mathematical relationship, you might expect that to be true,
> but it isn't. Changes in gravitational force are not, in fact,
> gravitational waves, as my examples serve to illustrate.
waves either, since if one changes, the other will change as well.
> And when a
> gravitational wave spreads through the potential field, there is no
> corresponding gravitational force. [In the general case of a
> function/derivative relationship, note that velocity and acceleration
> are related in that way. Yet changes in velocity do not imply
> corresponding changes in acceleration, nor do changes in acceleration
> (if angular) need to imply any change of velocity.]
both time derivatives, while gravitational force is a space gradient
of the gravitational potential.
To make the comparison valid, you must do it like this: let two
different vehicles start at exactly the same velocity. Subject
them to exactly the same accelerations, and compare their velocities;
they'll always be exactly the same, right? Now, redo the experiment
and modify the accelerations you subject one of the vehicles to, such
that the two vehicles are subjected to different accelerations. Compare their
velocities -- in general they'll be different in this case, right?
> This point cuts to the heart of the inconsistency
you confusing time derivatives with space derivatives. A good example
is your invalid example above.
If you want to continue arguing along these lines, start by providing
an example of two fields which have these properties:
1. One field is the gradient (i.e. "3D space derivative") of the other field.
2. It is possible to change one of these fields without changing the
other field anywhere in space.
> Your assumption that "the force field is nothing but the
> gradient of the potential field" is incorrect. It is an independent
> field with independent behavior.
> And I showed above an example where changes in a function do not
> imply corresponding changes in its derivative.
showed why this example of yours was invalid. Starting two
vehicles with exactly the same velocity, and then subject them to
different accelerations, will in general make the two vehicles
move at DIFFERENT velocities.
> >> [tvf]: All six existing experiments attempting to measure propagation
> delay between the source mass and the target body have failed to detect
> any delay, with the most stringent experiment (binary pulsars) setting a
> propagation speed lower limit of 20 billion c.
>
> > [ps]: I _think_ you'll encounter a lot of disagreement to this
> claim.... <g>
>
> What disagreement?
delay, or something else....
>>> [tvf]: If your suggestion were true, someone would have long ago
>>> earned a Nobel Prize for the laboratory detection of gravitational waves
>>> because every pair of revolving masses would generate easily detectable
>>> force oscillations.
>
>> [ps]: Why do you conclude they [force oscillations] would be easily
>> detectable?
>
> Gravimeters are now sensitive enough to detect force variations even
> from small masses such as a person walking into a room.
detect whether that gravitational disturbance from the person a few
meters away propagated at lightspeed or much faster than lightspeed?
That would require a time resolution of about one nanosecond or better....
> Do you see that confusing gravitational waves and force variations
> leads to paradoxes, whereas recognizing them as unrelated answers
> all questions? -|Tom|-
space derivatives leads to a lot of confusion on your part.....
Try to pick better examples next time to illuminate your points.
--
----------------------------------------------------------------
Paul Schlyter, Swedish Amateur Astronomer's Society (SAAF)
Grev Turegatan 40, S-114 38 Stockholm, SWEDEN
e-mail: pausch at saaf dot se
WWW: http://hem.passagen.se/pausch/index.html
http://home.tiscali.se/~pausch/
Traveler
I have no problem with this. My question remains, has anybody tried to
measure the magnetic field generated by a polarized neutron beam? I
suspect that such a magnetic field is indeed present. From my
perspective, a particle that can be affected by a magnetic field must
also generate a magnetic field during motion. Apparently nobody has
thought of testing for the magnetic field of a polarized beam of
neutrons. For the same reason that nobody has thought of testing the
Maxwellian and Einsteinian prediction that the speed of the Coulomb
gradient is c. Physicists are in the habit of accepting what they are
taught without question. This is how religious doctrines are born.
Louis Savain
dlzc@aol.com (formerly)
"Traveler" <eightwi...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:308ba22c.03031...@posting.google.com...
...
> I have no problem with this. My question remains, has anybody tried to
> measure the magnetic field generated by a polarized neutron beam? I
There are a number of sites that discuss investigating very strong magnets
with spin polarized neutrons. If they inherently created a magnetic field,
there would be no benefit in polarizing them first. The strong external
field would disrupt them.
Spin =/= Magnetic field
> suspect that such a magnetic field is indeed present. From my
> perspective, a particle that can be affected by a magnetic field must
> also generate a magnetic field during motion.
Only a net charge can do this. Does a massive ring accelerate any
differently linearly than an equivalent "lump"? Because a particle has a
varying ability to store energy in a magnetic field, does not mean it has
the wherewithal to create such a field.
> Apparently nobody has
> thought of testing for the magnetic field of a polarized beam of
> neutrons. For the same reason that nobody has thought of testing the
> Maxwellian and Einsteinian prediction that the speed of the Coulomb
> gradient is c. Physicists are in the habit of accepting what they are
> taught without question. This is how religious doctrines are born.
This is now scatological theories are born. By asking questions for which
even a few minutes thought would provide answers. The treating them like
there is a big conspiracy.
David A. Smith
hanson
> > > Craig Markwardt <crai...@cow.physics.wisc.edu> wrote in
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Have you noted that the magnetic moment of the neutron is
> > > > > > non-zero, therefore your supposition is untrue, and in
> > > > > > contratindication to the facts?
> > > > > > Therefore the "magnetic effects" don't cancel out,
> > > > > > hence its ability to be measured.
> > > > >
> > > > > Last I heard, the path of a moving neutron is not affected
> > > > > by a magnetic field.
> > > > > This is what I mean by a neutron having magnetic
> > > > > properties that are cancelled out.
> > > >
> > > > Apparently you have been misinformed. Neutrons can be
> > > > deflected by static magnetic fields, as in the classic
> > > > Stern-Gerlach type experiment.
> > >
> > > I am sorry but I was under the impression that only a polarized
> > > beam of neutrons (all having quantized spins in the
> > > same direction) could be deflected by a magnetic field.
> > > Has anybody tried to measure the magnetic field generated
> > > by polarized neutron beams? It seems to me
> > > that such a field should be present, however faint.
> >
> > Polarized or not, the path of those moving neutrons was
> > And, discussing spin polarization, etc., implies
> > a magnetic moment of the neutron.
>
> I have no problem with this.
> My question remains, has anybody tried to measure
> the magnetic field generated by a polarized neutron beam? I
> suspect that such a magnetic field is indeed present. From my
> perspective, a particle that can be affected by a magnetic field
> must also generate a magnetic field during motion.
> Apparently nobody has thought of testing for the magnetic
> field of a polarized beam of neutrons.
> For the same reason that nobody has thought of testing the
> Maxwellian and Einsteinian prediction that the speed of the Coulomb
> gradient is c. Physicists are in the habit of accepting what they
> are taught without question.
> This is how religious doctrines are born.
> Louis Savain
>
Your new notion that testing for
"the magnetic field of a polarized beam of neutrons", followed by
"the speed of the Coulomb gradient" that was never done may
just be the top of the iceberg of such kinds of missing tests.
Another one which comes to mind is that
"there is no Gravity inside a hollow massive sphere",
an assertion that has never been confirmed experimentally neither.
So, Louis, if you continue your investigative work & the way you go
at it, it wouldn't matter at all if you'd never generate/finish your
new theory. That fact that you point out one fundamental oversight
after another may turn out to be a far, far greater contribution
to physics than any new theory. Too boot, consider the immediate
benefit your suggestions bring to the experimental community.
Offer your paid consulting services in these matters.
Not very many educated people have keen intuition, fertile imagination
and novel perspectives which are prerequisites to push the envelope.
Carry on, Louis, you are a good man.
hanson
PS: Do you have a new e-mail address now?
Deepshark
While unqualified to make real comments on the controversy, I have read both
the papers and Precis as presnted in Science & Nature journals, and have
reached the following conclusions -
1. While gravitational velocity is not directly measurable with current
instrumentation, some derivation as to its possibilities should at least be
attempted - the implications are vast indeed to our better understanding our
universe
2. So far, no decent theroretical explanation as to WHY gravitation works,
exists. We can measure, describe mechanically, and quantify to a fine point
the curvatures associated with mass distorting space time subtly to cause
gravitational fields, but : No-one, not even Einstien could describe why
mass should actually exert gravitational attraction to other mass over a
distance. On the face of it its very shaky - gravitation, as we understand
it, does not operate at an atomic or sub-atomic scale - hence the quest to
desscribe quantum gravity, so far without success, in an effort to explain
condensation within the stellar medium. So far , no luck - or at least
nothing more definitive than theory.
We also cannot even explain why the inverse square rule exists - it does not
apply to magnetic/electric field lines, or the other two forces - so why
should it hold. Hold it does, but we must ask the real question - WHY ? so
far, nothing is forthcoming.
3. All forces have a speed of propagation - weak, strong, and
electromagnetic. Electromagnetic is conclusively tied to the speed of light,
through its interation at the quantum level. Strong and weak are of a small
scale - distances are minute and time is small for propagative force
measurement. But gravity has no measurable time-frame. While this is
consonant with the Einstien model of curved space-time distortion, we can
therefore ask - how long does it take to propagate a change of gravtational
intensity across space-time, as measured by the standard candle of
gravitation, a black hole : i.e. evaporation of min-black-holes, and formati
on after supernovae. We still do not have an answer
4. Lastly, we remain very much in the dark as to light-gravity interaction.
Eddignton successfully proved Einstien correct as far as gravimetric
distortion of light around massy bodies, e.g. the sun during an eclipse -
but so far no-one has measured the interval between gravitational distortion
and distortion of light - admittedly the measurements of jupiter
occultations must take into account the light speed differential of
starlight and reflected sunlight from jupiter, which also cuts observation
down to the speed of light from the observer - a measurable relativistc
effect - but the observations also sought to measure the rate at which
Jupiter's gravitational distortion would have its effect - basically measure
of the edge of its gravitional effect, a fine-scale verification of the
invers-square law of propagation, and the relativistic curvature effected by
mass. These two alone leaves our unfortunate researcher in the Netherlands
in a bit of a bind - he has merely found an exotic way of measuring both a
relativistic curvature in near spac and the speed of light to a new level of
accuracy - but onfortunately not gravitmetric propagation.
Gravimetric propagation was supposedly first measured in th 1920's by
balance - even then this was a refinement of previous acceleration
measurements.
We are left with the real problems as outlined above.
Sincerely,
Martin La Grange.
Odysseus
>
[snip]
> We also cannot even explain why the inverse square rule exists - it does not
> apply to magnetic/electric field lines, or the other two forces - so why
> should it hold. Hold it does, but we must ask the real question - WHY ? so
> far, nothing is forthcoming.
>
It seems quite natural to explain any observed inverse-square
relation as the expansion of a 'wavefront' in space, which
necessarily becomes diffuse or 'stretched' proportionally to the
increase in its area, which in turn is proportional to the square of
its linear size. This doesn't say anything about the nature of the
'wavefront' itself, but is still an obvious consequence of the
geometry concerned and applies equally well to gravity, light
intensity, and the strength of an electrical field surrounding a
point charge.
--Odysseus
eki
wrote:
From Cologne Digital Sanskrit Lexicon:
jyo4tis
Entry jyotis
Meaning n. light (of the sun , dawn , fire , lightning , &c. ; also
pl.) , brightness (of the sky) RV. &c. (%{trI4Ni@jyo4tIMSi} , light
appearing in the 3 worlds , viz. on earth , in the intermediate region
, and in the sky or heaven [the last being called %{uttama4} VS. xx
AV. xviii ; or %{u4ttara} , i , 9 , l ; or %{tRtI4ya} RV. x , 56 , 1]
VS. viii , 36 AV. ix , 5 , 8 MBh. iii ; also personifled as `" fire "'
on earth , `" ether or air "' in the intermediate region , and `" sun
"' in the sky S3Br. xi , 5 , 8 , 2 Sa1n3khS3r. xvi , 21 , 2 , &c. ; `"
fire , sun and moon "' Bhag. xv , 12) ; fire , flash of lightning
Megh. S3ak. ; moonlight RV. iii , 34 , 4 AV. iv , 18 , 1 ; (pl.) S3Br.
x and R. i , 35 , 16 ; eye-light RV. i , 117 , 17 ; the eye MBh. i ,
6853 Ragh. BhP. ix ; du. sun and moon Gobh. iii , 3 , 18 S3atr. i , 28
; pl. the heavenly bodies , planets and stars Mn. Bhag. &c.
%{-tiSAm@ayana} n. course or movements of the heavenly bodies ,
science of those movements [= %{-tiSa}] La1t2y. iv , 8 , 1 S3iksh. ;
sg. the light of heaven , celestial world RV. VS. AV. S3Br. xiv , 7 ,
2 ; light as the divine principle of life or source of intelligence ,
intelligence RV. vi , 9 , 6 VS. xxiv , 3 AV. xvi Bhag. ; (%{pauruSaj-}
`" human intelligence "') Sarvad. ; (paraj'ńpaurushaj "' , highest
light or truth "') Ra1matUp. and Sarvad. ; light as the type of
freedom or bliss or victory (cf. $ , $ and Lat. {lux}) RV. AV. VS.
S3Br. xiv Sus3r. ; N. of several Eka7has TS. vii S3Br. xii. f. &c. ;
of certain formularies containing the word %{jyo7tis} La1t2y. i , 8 ,
13 ; a metre of 32 short and 16 long syllables ; = %{-tiSa} , science
of the movements of the heavenly bodies L. ; a mystical N. for the
letter %{r} Ra1matUp. ; m. fire L. ; the sun L. ; Trigonella foenum
graecum L. ; N. of a Marut Hariv. 11545 ; of a son of Manu Sva1rocisha
, 429 ; of a Praja1-pati VP. ; cf. %{da4kSiNA-} , %{zukra4-} , %{sa-}
, %{hi4raNya-} , &c.
Deepshark
Regarding propagation of gravitation through relativistic spacetime,
Odysseus puts forward
>It seems quite natural to explain any observed inverse-square
>relation as the expansion of a 'wavefront' in space, which
>necessarily becomes diffuse or 'stretched' proportionally to the
>increase in its area, which in turn is proportional to the square of
>its linear size. This doesn't say anything about the nature of the
>'wavefront' itself, but is still an obvious consequence of the
>geometry concerned and applies equally well to gravity, light
>intensity, and the strength of an electrical field surrounding a
>point charge.
I concur, and the observation is reasonable. But a further question should
then be - While gravitational attraction may be distributed over an inverse
sqaure distance (implying a quadratic/exponential curvature in space-time
gravimetric partials around a mass concentration - Eintstienian relativity),
there still remains the problem of activation. This a universal problem in
physics - literally nowhere in any of the sciences have attempts been made
to find a comprehension, or even a beginning of understanding of this
problem. Inchemistry , electronic interactions make things happen - and even
with quantum states and spin hybridisation, there still remains the puzzle
of why electron states should interrelate in covalent and ionic bonds.
Granted, Van Der Waals forces, Debye and other dissociative forces play
their part, as do bonding and hybridised orbital interactions for covalent
satisfaction of charge deficits - but WHY ? silly as it sounds there is no
real explanation of why anti-sense charges should inter-act - and even why
they should interact. I confess that I may be ignorant of a specific set of
mathematical or physical models that will explain this, but then this is
relatively new idea. We must always ask not only how ? but why ? On the face
of it, there does not seem to be a reason for electrons to orbit protons &
neutrons - they just do. We fall back on the weak force - but how does that
interaction operate - we answer quarks. But now we must also ask - why do
quarks have affinity ? We remain in the dark to this day.
Having digressed somewhat from the subject under discussion, I must ask
again - why does gravity propagate at all? Gravitation is a weak force. As
James Blish put it 'It is not strong enough to prevent an athlete from
propelling himself away from the planetary surface powered by no more than
the lever action of a pole and the contraction of his own spasming muscles'
We have not yet measured the propagation of a mass-induced space-time
curvature, a so-called gravity wave yet. When we do, it will confirm some
important questions, but it will rais a few others - for instance, what
quality of the space-time medium encourages formation of curvatures ? Is it
mass (Yes, probably) ? If so , how ? (No answers anywhere so far - but I
readily concede that I have not seen everything on the subject) Velocity ?
(Physicists are trying to measure this now). Is it tied to the Zero-Point
fluctuation region in some way ? (The conceptual region of quantum gravity
and superstrings).
But we should also ask - is Gravity tied t othe elctromagnetic-qualities of
atter in a quantum state in some way , perhaps ? This may be no crazier than
any other theory (And we must remember the comments given to the young
Dirac). There has been some suspicion that it may be tied to the elements of
lepton/meson energy states and concentration - a function of particle spin?
This would explain the density related gravitation of degenerate matter
neutron stars - and may give some leads to quantum level gravitation, as
perhaps we may also ask - is gravity perhaps a function of mesons such as
neutrons & protons ?
I welcome your comments wholeheartedly.
Martin.
Tom Van Flandern
>> {Traveler]: I happen to know from first principles that the Coulomb
field gradient is instantaneous. This is what my model predicts and what
Coulomb assumed. I expect my prediction to be corroborated once the
appropriate experiment is conducted, with or without the help of the
physics research community.
> [das]: So you have established that no such experiment has been run,
or just not an "appropriate" experiment?
Here is one definitive experiment that purports to settle
the matter: ["Electromagnetic mass and the inertial properties of
nuclei", C.W. Sherwin and R.D. Rawcliffe, Report I-92 of March 14, 1960
of the Consolidated Science Laboratory, Univ. of Illinois, Urbana;
obtainable from U.S. Department of Commerce's Clearinghouse for
Scientific and Technical Information, document AD 625706. See
description in Heretical Verities, T.E. Phipps, Jr., Classic Non-fiction
Library, Urbana, pp. 273-282 (1986)].
In essence, the experiment started pairs of charges at rest,
then simultaneously accelerated them identically in-line so as to
maintain a constant separation. The experiment showed that the charges
responded to each other's instantaneous positions, and not to the
"left-behind potential hill" that should lag the instantaneous position.
In general, Traveler is right about experiments that
contradict mainstream thinking being ignored. If people thought these
experiments were erroneous, someone should have tried to replicate them.
But rarely can experimenters obtain funding to attempt replication of an
experiment that goes against mainstream thinking. It's a lose-lose
scenario for the experimenter. If he shows the original experiment was
in error, "everyone knew that", so he is accused of wasting research
funds. If he confirms the original experiment, that can be career
suicide. So these important experiments languish in obscurity.
Here is another example relevant to gravitation: D.M.
Greenberger and A.W. Overhauser, "The role of gravity in quantum theory"
, Sci.Amer. 242 (May), pp. 66-76, 1980. It shows a laser interferometer
experiment that violates the weak equivalence principle. That should
have been followed up also.
> [das]: I never really cared for virtual photons myself, but there you
go.
Few of us do. That would be because "virtual photons" have
no properties in common with real photons, starting with different
propagation speeds. Virtual photons cannot propagate as slowly as
lightspeed because of experiments such as Sherwin-Rawcliffe, and because
Coulomb forces operate from much nearer to the present positions of
charges than to their retarded positions -- which is no doubt why
Coulomb assumed their force propagation speeds to be
instantaneous. -|Tom|-
Tom Van Flandern
>> [tvf]: I've spoken only in a GR context about the speed of gravity
issue. The Seidelmann reference doesn't touch that issue. The equations
I've consistently referenced are those on p. 1095 of MTW - the GR
equations of motion.
> [ps]: In e.g. [link] although you don't mention Seidelmann, you focus
a lot on the first order approximation of GR, and argue along the lines
"since these first order terms contain no light-time retardation terms,
gravity must travel much faster than light.
Is there something not completely rigorous about that
conclusion? I defined "first order" in that message as proportional to
(v/vg) to the first power. (v is orbital speed, vg is speed of gravity.)
For Earth, (v/c) is 10^-4. Second order in (v/c) is about 10^-8. The GR
equations of motion in MTW are complete to fourth order. Obviously,
neither the second-order term nor the sum of all other terms to infinity
can accumulate to as much as the first-order term. So neglect of this
first-order term in GR is equivalent to adopting vg = infinity, because
if vg = c, GR would be in error at the 10^-4 level. (Orbits would spiral
outward, doubling their distances in less than 1000 revolutions.)
You confused matters by introducing the Seidelmann reference
and comparing to Newtonian approximations, neither of which is relevant
to this argument. The question I raised at the link you cited was,
"Where is the gravity propagation delay term in the GR equations of
motion?" The answer is clearly (and without dispute) that no such term
exists. Carlip says it got cancelled by a hypothetical
"velocity-dependent force". I listed some fatal objections to that
explanation in my latest "Foundations of Physics" paper with Vigier. But
in addition, I cited the derivation of those equations of motion by
Einstein, Infeld and Hoffmann, which clearly shows that no such term
ever existed, as opposed to one that existed but was cancelled.
>> [tvf]: Although these are an expansion, adding a few additional terms
to make them good to 20 decimal places instead of just ten changes
nothing whatever in this discussion,
> [ps]: You can't argue like that!!!!
We're talking apples and oranges. My preceding statement
refers to the approximation of GR in the equations of motion. It is
complete to fourth order, which is about 10-12 significant figures for
solar system applications. That is an entirely different matter from the
neglect of an effect in the fourth decimal place by GR, which would be
the case if the speed of gravity were the same as the speed of light. At
Earth's orbit, the propagation delay for *light* produces a transverse
force (as in the Poynting-Robertson effect) of 10^-4 of the main radial
force. Why isn't the same true for gravity if it has the same
propagation delay along the same path as for light?
> [ps]: Case 1: Suppose gravity traveling at lightspeed would introduce
measurable differences at the magnitude of the 20'th decimal digit? Then
those 20 decimal places DOES matter for the question "Does gravity
travel at lightspeed, or much faster?", right?
The actual effect is in the fourth decimal for most
applications, so the 20th decimal place, or even the 10th, is sure to be
irrelevant.
> [ps]: Case 2: In really strong gravitational fields, such as in the
vicinity of a pulsar or a black hole, those higher order terms
definitely have a much larger effect than just near the 20'th digit.....
For binary pulsars, the neglected propagation delay is in
the third decimal, and the approximation shown in MTW (p.. 1095) is only
good to 7-9 decimal places. However, Damour has worked out the equations
with additional terms to preserve 12 decimals of accuracy. This still
does not alter the discussion about neglect of a term in the third
decimal place. I hope you see that clearly.
> [ps]: changes in gravitational potential cannot be gravitational waves
either, since if one changes, the other will change as well.
I might also expect that to be true for consistency.
However, in reality, the GR equations of motion are derived by taking
the gradient of the instantaneous static potential, not the actual
retarded potential. This is another way that the point I have been
making manifests itself. GR is self-inconsistent in using retarded
potentials for the small, special GR effects such as light-bending and
the Shapiro delay, while using instantaneous static-potential gradients
to derive forces.
I understand *why* it is done that way. Taking gradients of
the retarded potential field leads to wrong equations of motion, quickly
falsified by observations. Doing it this "inconsistent" way works and
keeps the theory afloat. But we cannot ignore the consequences of that
choice: Even if changes in the (retarded) potential field propagate at
speed c, changes in the (instantaneous) force field must propagate much
faster than c. This only makes physical sense if the force and potential
fields are separate entities, with the gradient relationship imposed on
the potential field (as, e.g., an increase in density toward masses) by
the force field instead of the other way around.
> [ps]: That's not a valid comparison: velocity and acceleration are
both time derivatives, while gravitational force is a space gradient of
the gravitational potential.
I was just giving an example. Why should the particulars of
the derivative matter for the point that I was making, namely, a
function and its derivative need not have the same physical properties?
> [ps]: To make the comparison valid, you must do it like this: let two
different vehicles start at exactly the same velocity. Subject them to
exactly the same accelerations, and compare their velocities; they'll
always be exactly the same, right? Now, redo the experiment and modify
the accelerations you subject one of the vehicles to, such that the two
vehicles are subjected to different accelerations. Compare their
velocities -- in general they'll be different in this case, right?
One of us made a left turn in Jersey. This doesn't compare a
function and its derivative. So why is this example relevant to the
point under discussion?
For example, the density gradient in Earth's atmosphere is
caused by gravity, but obviously does not influence the properties of
gravity. This is analogous to the gradient of potential being influenced
by force, but not causing or contributing to force. Another example: If
an asteroid hits Earth, we can learn nothing about the propagation speed
of that "force" by studying the speed of the shock wave it set off, even
though the two were causally connected. Whatever damage the force does
happens at one speed, and damage from the shock wave happens at a
different speed.
> [ps]: If you want to continue arguing along these lines, start by
providing an example of two fields which have these properties:
1. One field is the gradient (i.e. "3D space derivative") of the other
field.
2. It is possible to change one of these fields without changing the
other field anywhere in space.
My preceding examples show what I intended to show -- that
the propagation speed of force need not be related to the propagation
speed of changes in the effected medium.
>> [tvf]: Your assumption that "the force field is nothing but the
gradient of the potential field" is incorrect. It is an independent
field with independent behavior.
> [ps]: Are you trying to rewrite the physics book here?
I started with experiments, and showed inconsistencies
between the experiments and the ways they are interpreted in mainstream
theories. I then showed how one can preserve the math of these
otherwise-successful theories by a simple change in physical
interpretation. That much is simply deductive reasoning. If somebody has
to add a paragraph or two in future physics books so that the whole
subject becomes clearer and easier to understand for everyone, where's
the harm in that? The main group that might object consists of those who
insist that our present understanding of physics is already essentially
complete.
In fact, as mentioned in the "Foundations of Physics" paper
I cited, this new physical interpretation also cures most of those
annoying quantum physics paradoxes as a fringe benefit, because
"non-locality" is now perfectly acceptable physics. Isn't just showing a
way to understand the experiments without losing our "deep reality"
worth taking a second look at this approach?
>> [tvf]: All six existing experiments attempting to measure propagation
delay between the source mass and the target body have failed to detect
any delay.
> [ps]: The disagreement will be about whether you're measuring the
propagation delay, or something else....
The experiments measure v-orbital / v-propagation for
gravitational forces (as opposed to potential field changes, as in
Kopeikin's experiment). What other interpretation do you place on them?
>>> [ps]: Why do you conclude they [force oscillations] would be easily
detectable?
>> [tvf]: Gravimeters are now sensitive enough to detect force
variations even from small masses such as a person walking into a room.
> [ps]: Are they also able to do this with a time resolution high enough
to detect whether that gravitational disturbance from the person a few
meters away propagated at lightspeed or much faster than lightspeed?
Not yet. But why did you change the subject? My point was
that force oscillations are clearly not gravitational waves. Are we
agreed they cannot be, given the capabilities of gravimeters?
>> [tvf]: Do you see that confusing gravitational waves and force
variations leads to paradoxes, whereas recognizing them as unrelated
answers all questions?
> [ps]: At least I can see that your confusion of time derivatives with
space derivatives leads to a lot of confusion on your part.....
Now that we have eliminated that red herrings, may I ask my
preceding question of you again? -|Tom|-
Tom Van Flandern
> [ds]: So far, no decent theoretical explanation as to WHY gravitation
works exists. We can measure, describe mechanically, and quantify to a
fine point the curvatures associated with mass distorting space time
subtly to cause gravitational fields, but : No-one, not even Einstein
could describe why mass should actually exert gravitational attraction
to other mass over a distance.
Actually, one such model for quantum gravitation and exactly
WHY masses accelerate other bodies now does exist. The reference is:
"Pushing Gravity: New Perspectives on Le Sage's Theory of Gravitation",
M. Edwards, ed., Apeiron Press, Montreal (2002). This new book contains
a compendium of the works of more than a dozen authors, and answers all
historical objections to this approach in ways that were satisfactory to
referees, editors, and numerous readers so far.
This book is one of only three endorsed by Meta Research in
the last decade, and is available (among other places) through its web
site: http://metaresearch.org/store/advanced/default.asp.
> [ds]: how long does it take to propagate a change of gravitational
intensity across space-time, as measured by the standard candle of
gravitation, a black hole : i.e. evaporation of mini-black-holes, and
formation after supernovae. We still do not have an answer.
Six experiments address that question directly. Their
interpretation may be found in "Experimental Repeal of the Speed Limit
for Gravitational, Electrodynamic, and Quantum Field Interactions", T.
Van Flandern and J.P. Vigier, Found.Phys. 32(#7), 1031-1068 (2002). All
agree that the speed of gravitational *force* is >> c, and no existing
experiment suggests a speed as low as c for gravitational *force*.
(Gravitational waves and changes in gravitational potential fields are a
whole different matter.) -|Tom|-
dlzc@aol.com (formerly)
"Tom Van Flandern" <to...@starpower.net> wrote in message
news:b52jt2$3ki$1...@bob.news.rcn.net...
I submit that had he asked the questions he asked *here* in other settings
(like sci.physics.research), he could have received direct answers to his
questions also. It is not so much the questions he asks, but where he
chooses to ask them. No one living has all the answers, much less all the
questions. I do not fault him for asking the question, I fault him for
harboring it where none can share it.
By the way, the the first reference you cited is only listed on "your" web
page. But the second (Greenberger & Overhauser) is referenced also in two
or three other sites besides yours and Dolphin's. Of course of of these is
talking about aliens..
David A. Smith
.
Traveler
[...]
> [hanson]
> Your new notion that testing for
> "the magnetic field of a polarized beam of neutrons", followed by
> "the speed of the Coulomb gradient" that was never done may
> just be the top of the iceberg of such kinds of missing tests.
> Another one which comes to mind is that
> "there is no Gravity inside a hollow massive sphere",
> an assertion that has never been confirmed experimentally neither.
Yes. BTW, my take on this is that, while gravitational forces cancel
out at the center of a mass like the earth, the clock-slowing effects
should be at their maximum. A hollow sphere is somewhat different. The
area of maximum clock-slowing effects should be an imaginary sphere
concentric to and smaller than the actuall sphere. I must admit that I
haven't given this much thought, so my position may change
significantly.
> So, Louis, if you continue your investigative work & the way you go
> at it, it wouldn't matter at all if you'd never generate/finish your
> new theory. That fact that you point out one fundamental oversight
> after another may turn out to be a far, far greater contribution
> to physics than any new theory. Too boot, consider the immediate
> benefit your suggestions bring to the experimental community.
> Offer your paid consulting services in these matters.
> Not very many educated people have keen intuition, fertile imagination
> and novel perspectives which are prerequisites to push the envelope.
> Carry on, Louis, you are a good man.
> hanson
Thanks Hanson. As I mentioned elsewhere, I intend to use my own money
to conduct some of these experiments, especially the speed of the
Coulomb gradient. I may enlist the help of several other interested
parties. This sort of thing is too important to human knowledge to
leave to politicians, career-mongers and other ass kissers. I am
confident that the Coulomb speed measurement will turn much of physics
on its ear, so to speak. A huge part of that castle in the air will
come crumbling down.
> PS: Do you have a new e-mail address now?
Use eightwi...@yahoo.com for now. I plan to change to a new ISP in
the near future and possibly have a web server and a domain name. I'll
keep you posted.
Louis Savain
PS. I'm rather busy with unrelated projects at this time, so my
contribution to this thread will be parse.
Mike Albanese
Oki Dog on Sunset.
"Traveler" <eightwi...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:308ba22c.03031...@posting.google.com...
Aleksandr Timofeev
> t_...@mail.ru (Aleksandr Timofeev) wrote in message news:<df6db65f.03030...@posting.google.com>...
> > pau...@saaf.se (Paul Schlyter) wrote in message news:<b46t9a$1j03$1...@merope.saaf.se>...
> > [snip]
> > >
> > > Why not say "non-relativistic" instead?
> > >
> > > Perhaps we could agree on the definitions below:
> > >
> > >
> > > + Classical Quantum
> > > -------------------+-------------------------------------------
> > > Non-relativistic + Newtonian Physics Quantum Physics
> > > +
> > > Relativistic + General Relativity GUT/TOE
> > > -------------------+-------------------------------------------
> > >
> > > GUT = Grand Unified Theory
> > > TOE = Theory Of Everything
> >
> >
> > The classical physical theory is obliged to base on experimentally
> > measured fundamental physical constants.
> >
> > Whether the trial physical theory (GR) containing the fundamental
> > hypothetical unmeasured physical constant C can be termed as classical?
>
> Alexsandr,
>
> Good to see you back in the forum again,perhaps I may ask your opinion
> on the matter of fundamental constants.
Hello Gerald,
Excuse me for a long delay, I was sick.
The fundamental physical constants are " corner granite stones ",
which create the epistemological base of any physical theory. The
epistemological base is deep-seated under deceptive, sparkling and
blinding specular surface of shaky and ephemeral " human Knowledge
of a Nature ", it extends in gloomy depths of our "Ignorance".
Thus both fundamental physical constants and any reasonings
concerning them are a purest METAPHYSICS. Eternally magic and
eternal uncertain boundary is flickers between Physics and
METAPHYSICS.
METAPHYSICS
" Metaphysical substance of concept of velocity of gravitation "
Tom Van Flandern carry out very useful and effective METAPHYSICAL
PUBLIC DEBATE. ABSOLUTELY ALL participants of this informal
metaphysical public debate do not understand physical substance of
natural phenomena of GRAVITATION. It is natural, that the fanatical
religious participants, standing on protection of pseudo-scientific
ideological global political interests, here are switched on too,
so-called odious RELATIVISTS.
All participants of a controversy consider central and key
" METAPHYSICAL concept " " of velocity of gravitation ".
1. The relativists can not convincingly prove that the process
of a gravitational interaction of a substance is isolated local process.
2. The relativists can not convincingly prove that the process of
a gravitational interaction of a substance has character spatially of
concentrated central interaction.
3. The relativists can not convincingly prove, that the process of
a gravitational interaction of a substance in gravitational system is
not plurality of spatially - distributed and of mutual - bound processes.
4. The relativists can not convincingly prove that the process of
a gravitational interaction of a substance has not character character
of the off-center interaction, dispersed in space.
5. The relativists can not convincingly prove that the process of
a gravitational interaction of a substance has mixed character of
central and off-center interactions.
Without the experimental solution of problems of a locality and not
localities (locality - nonlocality) gravitational interaction,
the scientific arguing with "metaphysical concept " of " gravitation
velocity " is absolutely senseless.
Absurdity and inaccuracy of the logic structure GR.
Tom Van Flandern has yielded some valuable and convincing
experimental examples refuting "relativity" in the politely
latent shape, and as a corollary he has proved conceptual
physical absurdity and inaccuracy of all logic structure of GR.
Van Flandern convincingly has shown, that in the solar system the
arrangement of celestial bodies is determined by STATIONARY
spatially distributed interdependent gravitational processes,
i.e. the dynamic STATIONARY behaviour of bodies in solar system
does not submit to a principle of a locality of a gravitational
interaction, but it submits to a principle of a distributed
nonlocal gravitational interaction.
( The Newton's principle of a long-range action follows from
here! Well known physical planetary analog for solar system, the
quantum mechanical description of model of atom gives a relativity
principle in complete crash.)
It is senseless to apply the term " velocity of a gravitational
interaction " to a mixed central and not central gravitational
interaction in stationary gravitational system making
_steady-state natural gravitational oscillations_ , since the
character of the shape of "standing" gravitational oscillations is
defined by natural system properties of concrete gravitational system
and it does not depend at all from " velocity of a gravitational
interaction ".
"ANOTHER'S" and "PROPER" or "NATURAL" SPACE
The electrodynamics figures phenomena in " ANOTHER'S SPACES "
Look at natural oscillations of a string with anchored ends
of a string. The shape of natural standing oscillations of a
string does not depend on velocity rate of propagation of waves
of elasticity in a material of a string, for any strings the shape
of standing waves is same. You instantaneously will make declaiming,
that you can calculate velocity of waves of elasticity utillizing an
oscillation frequency of a string or elastic plate. I shall do
declaiming, opposite to yours: we have considered waves in "another's"
spaces, and these waves have not energy sufficient for fracture
of "another's" space. Any electromagnetic waves are always spread in
"another's" spaces, i.e. in "spaces" which are generated by
nonelectromagnetic interaction of substance. The Maxwell
electrodynamics is not applicable for description of physical
processes inside master cells, which pluralities create "another's"
space in which Maxwell electrodynamics already becomes applicable.
Fundamental physical principle is that the Maxwell electrodynamics
is applicable only in "another's" spaces, since the Maxwell
electrodynamics demands the assignment of boundary CONDITIONS.
THE BOUNDARY CONDITIONS are a latent electrodynamic postulate
about physical existence " of ANOTHER'S SPACE " in which the
electromagnetic phenomena are carried out. The concept of
boundary CONDITIONS cannot be eliminated from an electrodynamics.
================================================================
The Maxwell electrodynamics is the theory about dynamic
processes in " ANOTHER'S SPACES ".
================================================================
"PROPER" or "NATURAL" SPACE of gravitational systems
The physical gravitational analog of electrodynamic concept
of boundary CONDITIONS does not exist for Solar system. From my
point of view just this physical fact is the reason of ruin of
any theoretical attempts of the proof of a steadiness and
stability of Solar system undertaken by physicists till now.
On the other hand, there are phenomenological proofs of a
steadiness and stability of Solar system. This fact yields the
warrants or basis for the guess, that the terms of Solar system
are a collective source of self-consistent dynamic INTERIOR
BOUNDARY CONDITIONS for themselves as single unit.
In an electrodynamics the EXTERIOR BOUNDARY CONDITIONS are
applied, in the gravitational dynamic theory of planetary systems
in the latent shape the INTERIOR BOUNDARY CONDITIONS are applied,
therefore Solar system creates " PROPER (NATURAL) GRAVITATIONAL
SPACE " and volume " of gravitational space " is determined by a
gravitational interaction of bodies of Solar system. The
character of "standing" gravitational oscillations is defined
by proper system properties of concrete gravitational system and it
does not depend on metaphysical concept " velocity of a gravitational
interaction ".
============================================================
Who from us now can calculate " velocity of a gravitational
interaction " on measurings positions of planets, if he can
not point out INTERIOR BOUNDARY CONDITIONS in an explicit
view for solar or any other concrete gravitational system?
============================================================
Crash of an individualistic relativity
The terms of natural natural gravitational systems are
collectives of a stationary self-consistent collective dynamic
motion with all sad consequences for an individualistic relativity.
" The experimental time constants " of many processes of
sluggish changes in motions of planets are known now
uncertainly or unreliablly. Main difficulty of study of
"natural" gravitational systems, similar to the solar system,
is the absence of an opportunity to fulfill violent experiments
on arbitrary change of positions of bodies of this system.
All terrestrial laboratory gravitational experiments have
local character and are carried out in " another's gravitational "
space, therefore distribution of results of these experiments on
astronomical spatial gauges has hypothetical character.
Best Wishes,
Aleksandr
> While the phi proportion is ultimately involved,it is easier to work
> with the inviolate Pi value and its relationship with
> diameter,circumference and radius.As the value for Pi is a series of
> non-periodic decimals that is neither ordered or disordered,it never
> converges to a rational series.
>
> If you set a fundamental discrete lenght such as the Planck lenght,you
> naturally can draw a circumference out of the Planck lenght which
> acts as a diameter,the proportion between Planck diameter and
> circumference maintains the Pi value of 3.1415....,normally you could
> then discern a radius half the original Planck lenght and then create
> a circumference out of that lenght maintaining Pi as a nonperiodic
> value but it is quite an eye-opener to see the parameter of the
> Planck lenght as a discrete lenght where the laws of physics no longer
> apply.This is tantamount to turning the value of Pi into a rational
> number at the Planck lenght so where do the laws of physics begin ?.
>
> I approached Mr Schlyter before in terms of Newtonian absolute time
> and pointed out that there is no way to set a fundamental constant for
> time as there is no such thing as time=0,he supported the conclusion
> that 24:00:00 was a more accurate description of 00:00:00 until he
> seen the direction I was taking this for a clock is based on a
> circular system which by default includes the value of Pi which in
> turn feeds back into qm.I guess the relevance of all this converges
> at the polar axis for there is no way to reconcile a circumference
> with a center,either as a clock reading or the Planck lenght example I
> give above and daily I see participants here give tortured
> explanations of reconciling an event horizon (circumference) with a
> center (singularity) when mathematically and geometrically it makes no
> sense and never will and therefore reconciling relativity with qm
> ,quantum gravity and such things are pointless.
>
> The reason your excellent work on the cosmological significance of the
> phi in terms of the relationship of planetary motion,both
> mathematically and aesthetically is going unnoticed is that
> mathematical and geometric non -periodicity is being hijacked by qm
> where the natural balances between order and disorder is twisted
> towards determinism vs probability,warmed over statistics in other
> words.
>
> In any case good to see you back.
David Low
> It is natural, that the fanatical
> religious participants, standing on protection of pseudo-scientific
> ideological global political interests, here are switched on too,
> so-called odious RELATIVISTS.
Does anybody know if the "odious RELATIVISTS" have meetings in the Boston
area? I've always wanted to join; the equipment is cheap and you're not
concerned about snowstorms in the middle of April.
N.B. I'm not talking about odious RELATIONS, like the brother-in-law who
never takes a bath.
David Low
Stephen Speicher
> "Aleksandr Timofeev" <t_...@mail.ru> wrote :
>
> > It is natural, that the fanatical
> > religious participants, standing on protection of pseudo-scientific
> > ideological global political interests, here are switched on too,
> > so-called odious RELATIVISTS.
>
> Does anybody know if the "odious RELATIVISTS" have meetings in the Boston
> area? I've always wanted to join; the equipment is cheap and you're not
> concerned about snowstorms in the middle of April.
>
The ODOR (ODiOus Relativists) group is restricted to a small
section of California -- the Haight-Ashbury district of San
Francisco. However, there is a National group called SURF
(SUpression of Relativity Flaws) whose annual meetings are always
scheduled during the Christmas holidays so that the students will
not get wind of what is going on.
--
Stephen
s...@speicher.com
Ignorance is just a placeholder for knowledge.
Printed using 100% recycled electrons.
-----------------------------------------------------------
Aleksandr Timofeev
> On Tue, 8 Apr 2003, David Low wrote:
>
> > "Aleksandr Timofeev" <t_...@mail.ru> wrote :
> >
> > > It is natural, that the fanatical
> > > religious participants, standing on protection of pseudo-scientific
> > > ideological global political interests, here are switched on too,
> > > so-called odious RELATIVISTS.
> >
> > Does anybody know if the "odious RELATIVISTS" have meetings in the Boston
> > area? I've always wanted to join; the equipment is cheap and you're not
> > concerned about snowstorms in the middle of April.
> >
>
> The ODOR (ODiOus Relativists) group is restricted to a small
> section of California -- the Haight-Ashbury district of San
> Francisco. However, there is a National group called SURF
> (SUpression of Relativity Flaws) whose annual meetings are always
> scheduled during the Christmas holidays so that the students will
> not get wind of what is going on.
Dear Stephen Speicher, I know, that you like
also you is fine know a history of physics.
For the first time in a history, Henry Poincare
has read the lecture about the concepts of
a General Theory of Relativity for a gravitational
interaction of a substance on World's fair in
Louiswill USA in 1904. For the first time in a
history of physics in this lecture Henry Poincare
has formulated GENERAL relativity principle for
a gravitational interaction of a substance.
Dear Stephen Speicher, what judgement do you have
on this the Henry Poincare's lecture?
Best regards,
Aleksandr
Aleksandr Timofeev
>
> > "Aleksandr Timofeev" <t_...@mail.ru> wrote :
> >
> > > It is natural, that the fanatical
> > > religious participants, standing on protection of pseudo-scientific
> > > ideological global political interests, here are switched on too,
> > > so-called odious RELATIVISTS.
> >
> > Does anybody know if the "odious RELATIVISTS" have meetings in the Boston
> > area? I've always wanted to join; the equipment is cheap and you're not
> > concerned about snowstorms in the middle of April.
> >
>
> The ODOR (ODiOus Relativists) group is restricted to a small
> section of California -- the Haight-Ashbury district of San
> Francisco. However, there is a National group called SURF
> (SUpression of Relativity Flaws) whose annual meetings are always
> scheduled during the Christmas holidays so that the students will
> not get wind of what is going on.
Dear Stephen Speicher, excuse me, I should
correct an annoying error in my previous message.
For the first time in a history, Henry Poincare
has read the lecture about the concepts of
a General Theory of Relativity for a gravitational
interaction of a substance on
==========================================================
World's commercial and industrial exhibition in Louisville
USA in 1904.
==========================================================
For the first time in a history of physics in this lecture
Henry Poincare has formulated GENERAL relativity principle
for a gravitational interaction of a substance.
I highly appreciate your thorough knowledge of a history of physics.
Aleksandr Timofeev
> "Paul Schlyter" <pau...@saaf.se> writes:
>
> >> [tvf]: I've spoken only in a GR context about the speed of gravity
> issue.
[snip]
> You confused matters by introducing the Seidelmann reference
> and comparing to Newtonian approximations, neither of which is relevant
> to this argument. The question I raised at the link you cited was,
> "Where is the gravity propagation delay term in the GR equations of
> motion?" The answer is clearly (and without dispute) that no such term
> exists. Carlip says it got cancelled by a hypothetical
> "velocity-dependent force". I listed some fatal objections to that
> explanation in my latest "Foundations of Physics" paper with Vigier. But
> in addition, I cited the derivation of those equations of motion by
> Einstein, Infeld and Hoffmann, which clearly shows that no such term
> ever existed, as opposed to one that existed but was cancelled.
[snip]
> We're talking apples and oranges. My preceding statement
> refers to the approximation of GR in the equations of motion. It is
> complete to fourth order, which is about 10-12 significant figures for
> solar system applications. That is an entirely different matter from the
> neglect of an effect in the fourth decimal place by GR, which would be
> the case if the speed of gravity were the same as the speed of light.
" We're talking apples and oranges. ... if the speed of gravity were
the same as the speed of light."
I am very grateful to my friend from Canada
Walter Babin ( http://www3.sympatico.ca/wbabin/paper/ )
for rectifying of my English text of the message:
I feel deep respect to Tom Van Flandern for scientific courage,
" the standard theory of gravitation " is converted into ideological
dogma, which basic purpose is the upkeep of geopolitical interests..."
The fundamental physical constants are " corner granite stones ",
which create the epistemological base of any physical theory.
The epistemological base is deep-seated under deceptive, sparkling
and blinding specular surface of shaky and ephemeral " human Knowledge
of a Nature ", it extends in gloomy depths of our "Ignorance".
Thus both fundamental physical constants and any reasonings concerning
them are purest METAPHYSICS. Eternally magic and the eternal uncertain
boundary flickers between Physics and METAPHYSICS.
METAPHYSICS
" Metaphysical substance of concept of velocity of gravitation "
Tom Van Flandern carried out very useful and effective METAPHYSICAL
PUBLIC DEBATE. ABSOLUTELY ALL participants of this informal
metaphysical public debate do not understand physical substance
of natural phenomena of GRAVITATION. It is natural, that the fanatical
religious participants, standing on protection of pseudo-scientific
ideological global political interests, here are switched on too;
so-called odious RELATIVISTS.
All participants of the controversy consider central and key
" METAPHYSICAL concept of velocity of gravitation ".
1. The relativists can not convincingly prove that the process
of a gravitational interaction of a substance is isolated local
process.
2. The relativists can not convincingly prove that the process
of a gravitational interaction of a substance has character
spatially of concentrated central interaction.
3. The relativists can not convincingly prove, that the process
of a gravitational interaction of a substance in gravitational
system is not plurality of spatially - distributed and of
mutual - bound processes.
4. The relativists can not convincingly prove that the process
of a gravitational interaction of a substance has not
character character of the off-center interaction, dispersed
in space.
5. The relativists can not convincingly prove that the process
of a gravitational interaction of a substance has mixed
character of central and off-center interactions.
Without the experimental solution of problems of local
and non-local gravitational interaction, the scientific argment
regarding the "metaphysical concept " of "gravitation velocity "
is absolutely senseless.
Absurdity and inaccuracy of the logic structure GR.
Tom Van Flandern has yielded some valuable and convincing
experimental examples refuting "relativity" in the politely
latent shape, and as a corollary he has proven the conceptual
physical absurdity and inaccuracy of all logical structure of GR.
Van Flandern convincingly has shown, that in the solar system
the arrangement of celestial bodies is determined by STATIONARY
spatially distributed interdependent gravitational processes,
i.e. the dynamic STATIONARY behaviour of bodies in solar system
does not submit to a principle of a locality of gravitational
interaction, but it submits to a principle of a distributed
nonlocal gravitational interaction.
( The Newton's principle of long-range action follows from here!
The well known physical planetary analog for solar system,
the quantum mechanical description of the model of the atom gives
a relativity principle in complete disarray.)
It is senseless to apply the term " velocity of gravitational
interaction " to a mixed central and non-central gravitational
interaction in stationary gravitational systems making _steady-state
natural gravitational oscillations_ , since the character of the
shape of "standing" gravitational oscillations is defined by
natural system properties of a concrete gravitational system and
does not depend at all on " velocity of gravitational interaction ".
"PROPER" or "NATURAL" SPACE
The electrodynamics figures phenomena in " ANOTHER'S SPACES "
Look at natural oscillations of a string with anchored ends .
The shape of natural standing oscillations of a string does not
depend on the velocity rate of propagation of waves of elasticity
in the material of a string, for any string the shape of standing
waves is same. You instantaneously will claim that you can
calculate the velocity of waves of elasticity utillizing the
oscillation frequency of the string or elastic plate. I propose
the opposite; we have considered waves in "another's" spaces,
and these waves do not have energy sufficient for fracture of
"another's" space. Any electromagnetic waves are always spread
in "another's" spaces, i.e. in "spaces" which are generated by
nonelectromagnetic interaction of substance.
Maxwell's electrodynamics are not applicable for the
description of physical processes inside master cells, which
pluralities create "another's" space in which Maxwell
electrodynamics already becomes applicable. Fundamental
physical principle is that the Maxwell electrodynamics is
applicable only in "another's" spaces, since the Maxwell
electrodynamics demands the assignment of boundary CONDITIONS.
THE BOUNDARY CONDITIONS are a latent electrodynamic postulate
about physical existence " of ANOTHER'S SPACE " in which the
electromagnetic phenomena are carried out.
The concept of boundary CONDITIONS cannot be eliminated
from electrodynamics.
Maxwell's electrodynamics is a theory about dynamic processes
in " ANOTHER'S SPACES ".
"PROPER" or "NATURAL" SPACE of gravitational systems
The physical gravitational analog of the electrodynamic
concept of boundary CONDITIONS does not exist for Solar system.
From my point of view just this physical fact ruins any
theoretical attempts at proof of the steadiness and stability
of the Solar system undertaken by physicists until now.
On the other hand, there are phenomenological proofs of
steadiness and stability of the Solar system. This fact yields
the basis for the assumption, that the terms of the Solar
system are a collective source of self-consistent dynamic
INTERIOR BOUNDARY CONDITIONS for themselves as single unit.
In electrodynamics, the EXTERIOR BOUNDARY CONDITIONS are
applied. In the gravitational dynamic theory of planetary
systems in latent shape the INTERIOR BOUNDARY CONDITIONS are
applied, therefore the Solar system creates a " PROPER
(NATURAL) GRAVITATIONAL SPACE " and the volume " of
gravitational space " is determined by the gravitational
interaction of bodies of the Solar system. The character
of "standing" gravitational oscillations is defined by
the proper system properties of a concrete gravitational
system and does not depend on the metaphysical concept
of the "velocity of gravitational interaction ".
Who can now calculate the " velocity of gravitational
interaction "on measurings positions of planets if he
can not point out INTERIOR BOUNDARY CONDITIONS in
an explicit way for solar or any other concrete
gravitational system?
Demise of an individualistic relativity
The terms of natural gravitational systems are
collectives of a stationary self-consistent collective
dynamic motion with sad consequences for an individualistic
relativity.
" The experimental time constants " of many processes
of sluggish changes in the motions of the planets are known
now uncertainly or unreliablly. The main difficulty in the
study of "natural" gravitational systems similar to the
solar system is the absence of an opportunity to perform
violent experiments to arbitrarily change the positions
of bodies of the system.
All terrestrial laboratory gravitational experiments have
a local character and are carried out in "another's
gravitational space", therefore, distribution of theresults
of these experiments on astronomical spatial gauges has
a hypothetical character.
[snip]
> Tom Van Flandern - Washington, DC - see our web site on replacement
> astronomy research at http://metaresearch.org
Comments.
---
Regards,
Aleksandr Timofeev
"Latent gravitational chiral symmetry for an actual
gravitational phenomenon of the Nature - the Solar system"
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=3B368678%40MailAndNews.com
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=e16a4a22.0304100111.256ae098%40posting.google.com
Aleksandr Timofeev
I bring apologies, since I do not see in GOOGLE's archive the better
part of those articles, I repost those articles again.
(We are called a Democracy, for the administration is in the hands
of the many and not of the few ... ???)
" We're talking apples and oranges. ... if the speed of gravity were
the same as the speed of light."
===========================================================
===========================================================
Subject: Re: Speed of Gravity Controversy
Date: 2 Apr 2003 02:36:31 -0800
From: a_n_ti...@my-deja.com (Aleksandr Timofeev)
Newsgroups: sci.physics,sci.astro,sci.physics.relativity
I bring apologies, since I do not see in GOOGLE's archive of this article,
I repost it again.
============================================================
Subject: Re: Speed of Gravity Controversy
Date: Mon, 31 Mar 2003 09:13:12 GMT
From: CC <c...@singtech.com>
Newsgroups: sci.physics,sci.physics.fusion,sci.physics.relativity
In article <wyT9a.1804$JR....@news1.west.cox.net>, formerly\
<"dl...@aol.com> wrote:
> Dear CC:
>
> "CC" <c...@singtech.com> wrote in message
> news:060320031723107561%c...@singtech.com...
> > In article <b3bej7$ad7$1...@helle.btinternet.com>, Franz Heymann
> > <Franz....@btopenworld.com> wrote:
> ...
> > > > On the other hand you ignorant dick, we don't have examples of the
> > > > defraction of a gravity wave,
> > >
> > > If you will tell us wha the defraction of a wave might be, I will
> > > inturn tell you whether we have examples of it or not.
> >
> > Right, "defraction" is a typo for 'diffraction'.
>
> A diffraction grating works by having areas of the "glass" that are opaque
> to the light being otherwise transmitted. Two slits behave similarly, only
> transmission does not occur (propagation does).
>
> What would be opaque to gravitational waves, or at least slow down their
> propagation. Something that could be localized. Do gravity waves
> propagate at c, or c_medium?
>
> David A. Smith
First you're assuming the existence of a thing (gravity waves) which
have never been proven to exist. On top of that the whole community of
pseudoscientists (who are taken to be legitimate scientists in the
academic community) don't even really know what gravity is in the first
place. So, it is rather audacious and quite laughable that they are
searching for 'waves' of the thing for which they have no rational
model nor logical explanation for the existence thereof. Do we have
evidence even for the finite propagation velocity of the electric flux
which constitutes the 'field' of a charged particle which comes into
existence with the decay of a neutron (or with the transition of a
gamma ray to a pair of charged particles in a pair creation event)?
The answer, of course, is no. The Aharanov-Bohm effect tells us that
vector potential is the medium of propagation for charged particles and
when the magnetic field is turned on there is a phase shift. Why
should that be except that by creating the magnetic field the number of
particles in the universe just underwent a change. That change is
reflected immediately in the finite number of relationships of which
the unit charge is composed.
The propagation of the relationship is instantaneous. Gravity is a
relationship related field and the instant that a new particle (new
mass) is created in the universe then the magnitude of the unit charge
in terms of the quantity of the finite number of relationships which
compose it is globally changed. Gravity is a gradient field and the
magnitude of the gradient will change infinitesimally but globally in
an instant each time the universe generates a new particle of matter in
the form of a charge and its conjugate.
CC.
============================================================
============================================================
Subject: Re: Speed of Gravity Controversy
Date: Wed, 2 Apr 2003 18:27:12 -0700
From: "dl...@aol.com \(formerly\)" <)dl...@cox.net>
Newsgroups: sci.physics,sci.astro,sci.physics.relativity
Dear Aleksandr Timofeev:
"Aleksandr Timofeev" <a_n_ti...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
news:e16a4a22.03040...@posting.google.com...
> I bring apologies, since I do not see in GOOGLE's archive of this
article,
> I repost it again.
It posted as if CC had said this...
============================================================
>
> Subject: Re: Speed of Gravity Controversy
> Date: Mon, 31 Mar 2003 09:13:12 GMT
> From: CC <c...@singtech.com>
> Newsgroups: sci.physics,sci.physics.fusion,sci.physics.relativity
>
> In article <wyT9a.1804$JR....@news1.west.cox.net>, formerly\
> <"dl...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> > Dear CC:
> >
> > "CC" <c...@singtech.com> wrote in message
> > news:060320031723107561%c...@singtech.com...
> > > In article <b3bej7$ad7$1...@helle.btinternet.com>, Franz Heymann
> > > <Franz....@btopenworld.com> wrote:
> > ...
> > > > > On the other hand you ignorant dick, we don't have examples of
the
> > > > > defraction of a gravity wave,
> > > >
> > > > If you will tell us wha the defraction of a wave might be, I will
> > > > inturn tell you whether we have examples of it or not.
> > >
> > > Right, "defraction" is a typo for 'diffraction'.
> >
> > A diffraction grating works by having areas of the "glass" that are
opaque
> > to the light being otherwise transmitted. Two slits behave similarly,
only
> > transmission does not occur (propagation does).
> >
> > What would be opaque to gravitational waves, or at least slow down
their
> > propagation. Something that could be localized. Do gravity waves
> > propagate at c, or c_medium?
> >
> > David A. Smith
>
> First you're assuming the existence of a thing (gravity waves) which
> have never been proven to exist. On top of that the whole community of
> pseudoscientists (who are taken to be legitimate scientists in the
> academic community) don't even really know what gravity is in the first
> place. So, it is rather audacious and quite laughable that they are
> searching for 'waves' of the thing for which they have no rational
> model nor logical explanation for the existence thereof.
Perhaps it is not rational, but there is evidence that angular momentum is
leaving a system that we believe is an orbiting pair (pulsars). Gravity
waves are a proposed mechanism for allowing this to occur. There is the
anomolous acceleration during flyby of satellites... getting a little more
boost that we expected. Perhaps the two phenomenon are related?
> Do we have
> evidence even for the finite propagation velocity of the electric flux
> which constitutes the 'field' of a charged particle which comes into
> existence with the decay of a neutron (or with the transition of a
> gamma ray to a pair of charged particles in a pair creation event)?
> The answer, of course, is no. The Aharanov-Bohm effect tells us that
> vector potential is the medium of propagation for charged particles and
> when the magnetic field is turned on there is a phase shift. Why
> should that be except that by creating the magnetic field the number of
> particles in the universe just underwent a change. That change is
> reflected immediately in the finite number of relationships of which
> the unit charge is composed.
Creation of a magnetic field is the warping of space. This merely adjusts
the postions of all the other charges. I have no clue how this would
describe the perception of instantaneous "electric flux".
> The propagation of the relationship is instantaneous. Gravity is a
> relationship related field and the instant that a new particle (new
> mass) is created in the universe then the magnitude of the unit charge
> in terms of the quantity of the finite number of relationships which
> compose it is globally changed. Gravity is a gradient field and the
> magnitude of the gradient will change infinitesimally but globally in
> an instant each time the universe generates a new particle of matter in
> the form of a charge and its conjugate.
There is no "new creation" of matter, as you suggest, since any photon
already contributed to the local field.
> CC.
And this is the signature of someone other than "Aleksandr Timofeev".
David A. Smith
============================================================
============================================================
Subject: Re: Speed of Gravity Controversy
Date: 8 Apr 2003 01:20:05 -0700
From: t_...@mail.ru (Aleksandr Timofeev)
Newsgroups: sci.physics,sci.astro,sci.physics.relativity
"dl...@aol.com \(formerly\)" <)dl...@cox.net> wrote in message
news:<Y5Mia.428$6t.116@fed1read05>...
> Dear Aleksandr Timofeev:
> "Aleksandr Timofeev" <a_n_ti...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
> news:e16a4a22.03040...@posting.google.com...
> > I bring apologies, since I do not see in GOOGLE's archive of this
> article,
> > I repost it again.
>
> It posted as if CC had said this...
>
[snip]
> And this is the signature of someone other than "Aleksandr Timofeev".
>
> David A. Smith
You are completely right, it was the lost GOODLE's message wrote by CC.
My message is below. I am very grateful to my friend from Canada
Walter Babin ( http: // www3.sympatico.ca/wbabin/paper/ ) for rectifying
of my English text of the message:
I feel deep respect to Tom Van Flandern for scientific courage,
" the standard theory of gravitation " is converted into ideological
dogma, which basic purpose is the upkeep of geopolitical interests..."
The fundamental physical constants are " corner granite stones ",
which create the epistemological base of any physical theory.
The epistemological base is deep-seated under deceptive, sparkling
and blinding specular surface of shaky and ephemeral " human Knowledge
of a Nature ", it extends in gloomy depths of our "Ignorance".
Thus both fundamental physical constants and any reasonings concerning
them are purest METAPHYSICS. Eternally magic and the eternal uncertain
boundary flickers between Physics and METAPHYSICS.
METAPHYSICS
" Metaphysical substance of concept of velocity of gravitation "
Tom Van Flandern carried out very useful and effective METAPHYSICAL
PUBLIC DEBATE. ABSOLUTELY ALL participants of this informal
metaphysical public debate do not understand physical substance
of natural phenomena of GRAVITATION. It is natural, that the fanatical
religious participants, standing on protection of pseudo-scientific
ideological global political interests, here are switched on too;
so-called odious RELATIVISTS.
All participants of the controversy consider central and key
" METAPHYSICAL concept of velocity of gravitation ".
1. The relativists can not convincingly prove that the process
of a gravitational interaction of a substance is isolated local
process.
2. The relativists can not convincingly prove that the process
of a gravitational interaction of a substance has character
spatially of concentrated central interaction.
3. The relativists can not convincingly prove, that the process
of a gravitational interaction of a substance in gravitational
system is not plurality of spatially - distributed and of
mutual - bound processes.
4. The relativists can not convincingly prove that the process
of a gravitational interaction of a substance has not
character character of the off-center interaction, dispersed
in space.
5. The relativists can not convincingly prove that the process
of a gravitational interaction of a substance has mixed
character of central and off-center interactions.
Without the experimental solution of problems of local
and non-local gravitational interaction, the scientific argment
regarding the "metaphysical concept " of "gravitation velocity "
is absolutely senseless.
Absurdity and inaccuracy of the logic structure GR.
Tom Van Flandern has yielded some valuable and convincing
experimental examples refuting "relativity" in the politely
latent shape, and as a corollary he has proven the conceptual
physical absurdity and inaccuracy of all logical structure of GR.
Van Flandern convincingly has shown, that in the solar system
the arrangement of celestial bodies is determined by STATIONARY
spatially distributed interdependent gravitational processes,
i.e. the dynamic STATIONARY behaviour of bodies in solar system
does not submit to a principle of a locality of gravitational
interaction, but it submits to a principle of a distributed
nonlocal gravitational interaction.
( The Newton's principle of long-range action follows from here!
The well known physical planetary analog for solar system,
the quantum mechanical description of the model of the atom gives
a relativity principle in complete disarray.)
It is senseless to apply the term " velocity of gravitational
interaction " to a mixed central and non-central gravitational
interaction in stationary gravitational systems making _steady-state
natural gravitational oscillations_ , since the character of the
shape of "standing" gravitational oscillations is defined by
natural system properties of a concrete gravitational system and
does not depend at all on " velocity of gravitational interaction ".
"PROPER" or "NATURAL" SPACE
The electrodynamics figures phenomena in " ANOTHER'S SPACES "
Look at natural oscillations of a string with anchored ends .
The shape of natural standing oscillations of a string does not
depend on the velocity rate of propagation of waves of elasticity
in the material of a string, for any string the shape of standing
waves is same. You instantaneously will claim that you can
calculate the velocity of waves of elasticity utillizing the
oscillation frequency of the string or elastic plate. I propose
the opposite; we have considered waves in "another's" spaces,
and these waves do not have energy sufficient for fracture of
"another's" space. Any electromagnetic waves are always spread
in "another's" spaces, i.e. in "spaces" which are generated by
nonelectromagnetic interaction of substance.
Maxwell's electrodynamics are not applicable for the
description of physical processes inside master cells, which
pluralities create "another's" space in which Maxwell
electrodynamics already becomes applicable. Fundamental
physical principle is that the Maxwell electrodynamics is
applicable only in "another's" spaces, since the Maxwell
electrodynamics demands the assignment of boundary CONDITIONS.
THE BOUNDARY CONDITIONS are a latent electrodynamic postulate
about physical existence " of ANOTHER'S SPACE " in which the
electromagnetic phenomena are carried out.
The concept of boundary CONDITIONS cannot be eliminated
from electrodynamics.
Maxwell's electrodynamics is a theory about dynamic processes
in " ANOTHER'S SPACES ".
"PROPER" or "NATURAL" SPACE of gravitational systems
The physical gravitational analog of the electrodynamic
concept of boundary CONDITIONS does not exist for Solar system.
From my point of view just this physical fact ruins any
theoretical attempts at proof of the steadiness and stability
of the Solar system undertaken by physicists until now.
On the other hand, there are phenomenological proofs of
steadiness and stability of the Solar system. This fact yields
the basis for the assumption, that the terms of the Solar
system are a collective source of self-consistent dynamic
INTERIOR BOUNDARY CONDITIONS for themselves as single unit.
In electrodynamics, the EXTERIOR BOUNDARY CONDITIONS are
applied. In the gravitational dynamic theory of planetary
systems in latent shape the INTERIOR BOUNDARY CONDITIONS are
applied, therefore the Solar system creates a " PROPER
(NATURAL) GRAVITATIONAL SPACE " and the volume " of
gravitational space " is determined by the gravitational
interaction of bodies of the Solar system. The character
of "standing" gravitational oscillations is defined by
the proper system properties of a concrete gravitational
system and does not depend on the metaphysical concept
of the "velocity of gravitational interaction ".
Who can now calculate the " velocity of gravitational
interaction "on measurings positions of planets if he
can not point out INTERIOR BOUNDARY CONDITIONS in
an explicit way for solar or any other concrete
gravitational system?
Demise of an individualistic relativity
The terms of natural gravitational systems are
collectives of a stationary self-consistent collective
dynamic motion with sad consequences for an individualistic
relativity.
" The experimental time constants " of many processes
of sluggish changes in the motions of the planets are known
now uncertainly or unreliablly. The main difficulty in the
study of "natural" gravitational systems similar to the
solar system is the absence of an opportunity to perform
violent experiments to arbitrarily change the positions
of bodies of the system.
All terrestrial laboratory gravitational experiments have
a local character and are carried out in "another's
gravitational space", therefore, distribution of theresults
of these experiments on astronomical spatial gauges has
a hypothetical character.
Comments.
---
Regards,
Aleksandr Timofeev
"Latent gravitational chiral symmetry for an actual
gravitational phenomenon of the Nature - the Solar system"
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=3B368678%40MailAndNews.com
============================================================
============================================================
Subject: (No subject)
Date: Tue, 8 Apr 2003 17:10:06 -0700
From: "dl...@aol.com \(formerly\)" <)dl...@cox.net>
Newsgroups: sci.physics,sci.astro,sci.physics.relativity
Dear Aleksandr Timofeev:
"Aleksandr Timofeev" <t_...@mail.ru> wrote in message
news:df6db65f.0304...@posting.google.com...
....
> All terrestrial laboratory gravitational experiments have
> a local character and are carried out in "another's
> gravitational space", therefore, distribution of theresults
> of these experiments on astronomical spatial gauges has
> a hypothetical character.
I am intriged by the anomolous increase in G purported to Pioneer data (I
know there are many ways to skin this particular cat), the need to invent
Dark Matter to hold galaxies together... mostly near the rims, and the
anomolous boost that satellites get on flyby. And then Dark Energy is
invoked to explain expansion and acceleration.
Like you, I don't think GR is in its final form. Not that I understand the
form it is currently in... but the need to invent mystical substances
reminds me too much of "There be Dragons Here...".
David A. Smith
============================================================
============================================================
Subject: Re: Speed of Gravity Controversy
Date: 10 Apr 2003 02:11:13 -0700
From: a_n_ti...@my-deja.com (Aleksandr Timofeev)
Newsgroups: sci.physics,sci.astro,sci.physics.relativity
"dl...@aol.com \(formerly\)" <)dl...@cox.net> wrote in message
news:<IxJka.502$554.497@fed1read05>...
> Dear Aleksandr Timofeev:
>
> "Aleksandr Timofeev" <t_...@mail.ru> wrote in message
> news:df6db65f.0304...@posting.google.com...
> ...
> > All terrestrial laboratory gravitational experiments have
> > a local character and are carried out in "another's
> > gravitational space", therefore, distribution of theresults
> > of these experiments on astronomical spatial gauges has
> > a hypothetical character.
>
> I am intriged by the anomolous increase in G purported to Pioneer data (I
> know there are many ways to skin this particular cat), the need to invent
> Dark Matter to hold galaxies together... mostly near the rims, and the
> anomolous boost that satellites get on flyby. And then Dark Energy is
> invoked to explain expansion and acceleration.
"the anomolous increase in G purported to Pioneer data"
"the anomolous boost that satellites get on flyby"
"to invent Dark Matter"
I shall do some neat hint and singular emphasis on interesting and
exotic dynamic features of behaviour of planets. The dynamic
features of behaviour of planets have a feedforward with "a dynamic
gravitational screening ". The satellite systems of planets are physical
screens fulfilling " dynamic gravitational screening " of planets.
_The Dynamic gravitational screening of planets_ is responsible for
planetary structure of Solar system:
"Latent gravitational chiral symmetry for an actual
gravitational phenomenon of the Nature - the Solar system"
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=3B368678%40MailAndNews.com
Dynamic gravitational screening by satellites of the planets responsible
for absence of ideal equality to integers in the ratios:
Table I
Planetary masses and Ratios of linear combinations of masses
Planet Symbol Mass | Ratio Exact Rounded
used for value | considered value ratio
each planet Earth=1 | of the ratio
.. |
Jupiter MJU or 1 317.735 |(MJU+MSA)/(MUR+MNE) = 12.9959 ~ 13
Saturn MSA or 2 95.147 | MJU/(MUR+MNE) = 10.0010 ~ 10
Neptune MNE or 3 17.23 | MSA/(MUR+MNE) = 2.9948 ~ 3
Uranus MUR or 4 14.54 | (MJU+MSA)/MNE = 23.9630 ~ 24
Earth MTE or 5 1.000 | MUR/(MTE+MVE) = 8.0110 ~ 8
Venus MVE or 6 0.815 | (MNE+MUR)/MVE = 38.9816 ~ 39
Mars MMA or 7 0.108 | (MTE+MVE)/MME = 33.0000 ~ 33
Mercury MME or 8 0.055 | MVE/(MMA+MME) = 5.0000 ~ 5
Inside satellite systems other type of general-system gravitational
mechanisms acts. I intensively work above these problems.
>
> Like you, I don't think GR is in its final form. Not that I understand the
> form it is currently in... but the need to invent mystical substances
> reminds me too much of "There be Dragons Here...".
>
> David A. Smith
GR is the trial and error theory of a gravitation, GR is not capable to
describe an actual World.
Best regards,
Aleksandr
============================================================
============================================================
Aleksandr Timofeev
[snip]
> In general, <Traveler> it is right about experiments that
> contradict mainstream thinking being ignored. If people thought these
> experiments were erroneous, someone should have tried to replicate them.
> But rarely can experimenters obtain funding to attempt replication of an
> experiment that goes against mainstream thinking. It's a lose-lose
> scenario for the experimenter. If he shows the original experiment was
> in error, "everyone knew that", so he is accused of wasting research
> funds. If he confirms the original experiment, that can be career
> suicide. So these important experiments languish in obscurity.
[snip]
============================================================
From: Aleksandr Timofeev (a_n_ti...@my-deja.com)
Subject: Re: Speed of Gravity Controversy
View: Complete Thread (116 articles)
Original Format
Newsgroups: sci.physics, sci.astro, sci.physics.relativity
Date: 2003-04-10 02:11:14 PST
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=3B368678%40MailAndNews.com
GR is the trial METAPHYSICAL and error theory of a gravitation,
GR is not capable to describe an actual World AT ALL.
============================================================
> Tom Van Flandern - Washington, DC - see our web site on replacement
> astronomy research at http://metaresearch.org
Aleksandr Timofeev