Author 
Message 
Reason
Interested
Joined: Tue Mar 08, 2011 1:55 am Posts: 12

Speed of Gravity
Hello all,
I haven't noticed this topic anywhere in these forums so I wanted to start a discussion to get everyone's thoughts. I apologize if this topic already exists, and if it does, please point me to it!
What is the speed of gravity? Newton assumed it to be infinite, relativity claims that it is equal to the speed of light.
Some facts:
1. Gravity does not exhibit aberration. The force of gravity always acts toward the true center of objects. For example, light from the sun takes a little over 8 minutes to reach Earth. Because of this, we see the sun at a position where it was 8 minutes ago. Gravity always acts toward the true center, such that the force of gravity from the sun and the light from the sun are not parallel in their direction as seen from Earth.
2. Gravity waves result from changes in a gravitational field (i.e. mass distribution changes) and do propagate at c. This should not be confused with the gravity field itself, and the speed of its force.
3. The geometrical interpretation (I believe this is from GR?) explains gravity in terms of curved space, and thus means that gravity is not a force at all. Objects passing through a gravity 'field' simply follow the curvature of space and deviate from a straight line. This is the classic rubber sheet description. However, this interpretation has causality violation problems and even Einstein was uncomfortable with it. It does however, get around the propagation speed issue by eliminating a force and thereby eliminating the need for propagation.
Questions:
1. So what is the speed of gravity?
2. How can GR reduce to Newton gravity under certain conditions if they differ in propagation speed?
3. Is there a need for a unified theory (i.e. quantum gravity) under the geometrical interpretation of gravity? There is no force, so there is nothing to unify. Is this why so many have struggled, including Einstein, yet not been able to unify the forces?
4. If the speed of gravity is c, how can the lack of aberration be explained? Are there some other, as yet unknown, aspects of gravity that neatly 'make up for' the aberration and result in its apparent lack?
5. What about gravitational shielding?
6. What about antigravity?
7. If the geometrical interpretation can be proved false, as it seems to be due to causality violation, and the speed of gravity can be shown to be much greater than c, as it seems to be, what does this mean for relativity?
Please feel free to add more facts and/or questions!

Tue Apr 05, 2011 12:51 am 


CANGAS
Consumed by Physics
Joined: Thu Feb 12, 2009 11:03 pm Posts: 2604

Re: Speed of Gravity
Back in the day, Newton discovered that his Universal Gravitation would not produce stable planetary movements with any finite speed of propagation of gravitational force and therefore concluded that he must write his Theory in terms of instantaneous speed of gravity.
In General Relativity the speed of propagation of gravitational force, and also the speed of quadrapole gravitational waves, and also the speed of light, is explained as being determined by the local spacetime metric and may be less than, equal to, and faster than 186,282 miles per second.
An excellent reference book is Gravitation, a book about as big as a Chicago Metro phone book and worth a couple of big ones if you want to walk out of the book store carrying it legally.

Tue Apr 05, 2011 1:29 am 


Reason
Interested
Joined: Tue Mar 08, 2011 1:55 am Posts: 12

Re: Speed of Gravity
Thanks for the reference. I will try to pick this book up eventually, but you weren't kidding about the price wow!
Perhaps you could enlighten me until I can get my hands on this book. I am confused as to why there would need to be a quantum theory of gravity if it is simply a geometrical property of space (and thus not a 'force' per se).
If the gravity we experience is the result of curved space, then there is no force to explain. No force, no field, no need for a gauge particle to propagate the force.
I admit that I may be (and probably am) missing something here. I am open to learn!

Tue Apr 05, 2011 9:01 pm 


CANGAS
Consumed by Physics
Joined: Thu Feb 12, 2009 11:03 pm Posts: 2604

Re: Speed of Gravity
Reason wrote: Thanks for the reference. I will try to pick this book up eventually, but you weren't kidding about the price wow!
Perhaps you could enlighten me until I can get my hands on this book. I am confused as to why there would need to be a quantum theory of gravity if it is simply a geometrical property of space (and thus not a 'force' per se).
If the gravity we experience is the result of curved space, then there is no force to explain. No force, no field, no need for a gauge particle to propagate the force.
I admit that I may be (and probably am) missing something here. I am open to learn! Probably the most prevalent reason a quantum gravity theory is sought is that the large herd of academicians who are striving to concoct a Theory Of Everything unavoidably run into a perceived need to explain some theory feature in terms of both GR and QP. Since the two Theories are intrinsically incompatible, the theorists run into dead ends. The same is true if some theorist were working on a tame little Unified Field Theory, like Einstein tried to. Electromagnetic events are explained well by QP whereas gravity is explained well (in the humble opinions of Relativity believers) by GR. QP uses quanta for time, space, energy, and matter while GR is based on continuums. For years some physicists have tried to explain gravity as quanta named gravitons, analogous to photons. But the maths for quanta and the maths for continuums don't match up at all, except as approximations in some forced cases. The maths in a serious Theory must be impeccable and exact, and cannot be approximations. The patches that have been used for many decades to permit use of Relativity in Quantum Physics analysis of various phenomena are all approximations. All physicists who do such work readily admit that their QP/GR combos are all math tricks and not rigorous mathematical science.

Tue Apr 05, 2011 10:40 pm 


Reason
Interested
Joined: Tue Mar 08, 2011 1:55 am Posts: 12

Re: Speed of Gravity
OK that makes sense, at least about trying to combine the math. It just seems wrong that they try to impose a quantum of gravity, i.e. a force/gauge particle, when gravity has been explained away as not a force but a property of space. My understanding is that gravity has to be curved space in order to avoid the problem of faster than light/infinite propagation speed. It as though physicists use whatever interpretation that suits them at any given moment.
Perhaps this is one major stumbling block of trying to incorporate gravity into quantum theory. They try to force it to be something it isn't (a gauge boson). Does science really understand the true fundamental nature of gravity? It seems not....
Can't wait to get that book!

Wed Apr 06, 2011 8:25 pm 


CANGAS
Consumed by Physics
Joined: Thu Feb 12, 2009 11:03 pm Posts: 2604

Re: Speed of Gravity
I do not know what your level of physics understanding is, and apologize in advance if I explain some subject that you are already familiar with. It is never my intention to be condescending, just as I am always hopeful that someone with much greater wisdom than myself will be gentle to me.
Quantum Physics is not simply a novel model of reality that has caught the fancy of some people. A century ago a number of experiments and calculations based on classical physics continuums gave results that were obviously wrong, and wrong by a mile. QP was developed out of necessity because classical physics was not working anywhere near to being correct. Quantization of space, time, and energy gave accurate predictions and gave accurate explanations for puzzling experiments. QP has provided so many correct results that it has become considered (by many physicists, though certainly not all) a perfectly accurate model for the structure of the universe at small scale. Of course, it stands to reason that if space and time are accurately modeled as quantized at small scale, it should be therefore be consistently modeled as quantized at large scale. How and why would space and time be subdivided at one scale but be continuums at another scale? How could it be? Confidence in the correct modeling method of QP led to the desire to explain the universe at large scale in the same way. So for many decades theoretical physicists have wanted to and tried to rewrite classical physics GR in terms of quantized time, space, and energy.
Modeling of gravity may be the chief stumbling block. In QP, QED in particular, electrodynamic force is a force. It is action and reaction in a very real physical way. The model is that virtual photons are exchanged between charged particles and produce electric attraction and repulsion by brute force of exchange of momentum. It is important to notice that the exchange of momentum is in terms of quanta of momentum. That is, each time a photon is absorbed by the charged particle, a certain amount of momentum is concomitantly absorbed. Then everything is peaceful and uneventful until the next incoming photon strikes. The transfer of momentum is not continuous. Electric force is not a continuum. The description of electric force by Quantum Electrodynamics is enormously successful. QED has a very high confidence level among physicists.
Gravity. GR explains it as a result of distortions in the continuums of space and time. In GR gravity force is perfectly continuous in even the smallest region of space or time. If gravity force is modeled as an exchange of quanta of momentum by gravitons analogous to QED photons, the force is not continuous. There would be a graviton strike, a peaceful interlude, then another graviton strike.......
You are entirely correct about scientists choosing whichever theorem suits them to get the "right" answer that they expect, or are told to expect. Richard Feynman once said; ".....we just learn how to pick out the right formula to get the right answer."
I strongly suggest that you read QED by Richard Feynman and study for yourself the theory of exchange of virtual photons by charged particles when they are having a tug of war. After studying it, you may then be prepared to visualize a gravity tug of war with gravitons as currency. QED is in paperback, probably about $10 US, probably in every public library.

Wed Apr 06, 2011 9:58 pm 


Reason
Interested
Joined: Tue Mar 08, 2011 1:55 am Posts: 12

Re: Speed of Gravity
Understood. I will get this book too and do some much needed research. Thanks for the info and for bearing with me!

Wed Apr 06, 2011 10:23 pm 


CANGAS
Consumed by Physics
Joined: Thu Feb 12, 2009 11:03 pm Posts: 2604

Re: Speed of Gravity
Reason wrote: Hello all,
I haven't noticed this topic anywhere in these forums so I wanted to start a discussion to get everyone's thoughts. I apologize if this topic already exists, and if it does, please point me to it!
What is the speed of gravity? Newton assumed it to be infinite, relativity claims that it is equal to the speed of light.
Some facts:
1. Gravity does not exhibit aberration. The force of gravity always acts toward the true center of objects. For example, light from the sun takes a little over 8 minutes to reach Earth. Because of this, we see the sun at a position where it was 8 minutes ago. Gravity always acts toward the true center, such that the force of gravity from the sun and the light from the sun are not parallel in their direction as seen from Earth.
2. Gravity waves result from changes in a gravitational field (i.e. mass distribution changes) and do propagate at c. This should not be confused with the gravity field itself, and the speed of its force.
3. The geometrical interpretation (I believe this is from GR?) explains gravity in terms of curved space, and thus means that gravity is not a force at all. Objects passing through a gravity 'field' simply follow the curvature of space and deviate from a straight line. This is the classic rubber sheet description. However, this interpretation has causality violation problems and even Einstein was uncomfortable with it. It does however, get around the propagation speed issue by eliminating a force and thereby eliminating the need for propagation.
Questions:
1. So what is the speed of gravity?
2. How can GR reduce to Newton gravity under certain conditions if they differ in propagation speed?
3. Is there a need for a unified theory (i.e. quantum gravity) under the geometrical interpretation of gravity? There is no force, so there is nothing to unify. Is this why so many have struggled, including Einstein, yet not been able to unify the forces?
4. If the speed of gravity is c, how can the lack of aberration be explained? Are there some other, as yet unknown, aspects of gravity that neatly 'make up for' the aberration and result in its apparent lack?
5. What about gravitational shielding?
6. What about antigravity?
7. If the geometrical interpretation can be proved false, as it seems to be due to causality violation, and the speed of gravity can be shown to be much greater than c, as it seems to be, what does this mean for relativity?
Please feel free to add more facts and/or questions! 1.(top of post)....I feel like a simpleton because you probably have an obvious basis for your comments re gravity aberration, but I'm just not getting the message. Could you provide a little more information? Has there been an experiment to examine it? 2.(top of post)....My conclusion has been that Einstein painted himself into a corner in SR and realized it, and ad hoc postulated that c was the speed limit for everything. I have never read a reason for gravity speed to be the same as light. Light goes at c due to permittivity and permeability as explained by Maxwell Wave Equation. Gravity goes at c due to Einstein sez so. 3. (top of post)....I explored this in my post prior to this post of mine. 1....NASA uses Newton instantaneous speed of gravity. GR uses c just because. 2....There is discussion of this in Gravitation. I did not feel that I understand the argument well enough to personally say it is a flawed or coherent argument. I personally believe that gravity speed is instantaneous. It is a well known fact, extensively explored by Maxwell, and proven in actual practice, that electromagnetic radiation phase velocity can be faster than c in plasma and in wave guides. By c I specifically mean 186,282 MPS. Phase velocity can be instantaneous, infinite velocity. So both gravity and light have a substantial basis for a claim of infinite velocity. 3.... I have somewhat addressed this in my prior post. 4....I'm thinking. 5....A few people have claimed to have observed this. There is one report of such during an eclipse involving the period of a pendulum. Were did I read it? 6....Well, there was that Russian a few years ago with his superconducting magnet...Einstein's Cosmological Constant is antigravity. In recent years astronomers have published that the universe is expanding at an increasing rate; that sounds like antigravity. I am expecting that a Unified Field Theory will be successfully written, equating electric force and gravity force. When that is done, there probably will be a way to manipulate gravity by manipulating electricity. 7....I am an opponent to Relativity on a number of other grounds already. My strong conclusion has become that the logical, or, philosophical basis of SR is totally wrong. Therefore its offspring GR has the same genetic flaw. Your conjecture would be just another nail in the Relativity coffin lid.

Wed Apr 06, 2011 11:04 pm 


Reason
Interested
Joined: Tue Mar 08, 2011 1:55 am Posts: 12

Re: Speed of Gravity
To clarify on 'fact' 1), there seems to be a long standing debate on the speed of gravity (though I believe relativity predicts c or less) and the usual point of argument on the 'greaterthanc' side is the lack of aberration of the gravitational force. In other words, massive objects in motion always appear to exhibit a force toward their true instantaneous centers of mass regardless of their velocity or distance from another object in their gravitational field. This would seem to indicate that the speed of gravity is either much greater than c or perhaps even infinite/instantaneous.
The main current debaters (that I'm aware of) on this subject are Carlip and Van Flandern. They both seem to make very convincing arguments, though I really don't understand the 'c or less' side very well. So I honestly don't know what to believe. Hence my bringing up the subject here. I'm interested in what others think about this.
I really expected more backlash from this particular 'fact' and was surprised no one refuted it. Most others that I've seen discuss this are very 'devout' in their points of view on the speed of gravity issue.

Thu Apr 07, 2011 8:23 pm 


CCC
Site Admin
Joined: Sat Jul 16, 2005 3:58 am Posts: 4328

Re: Speed of Gravity
Reason wrote: 1. Gravity does not exhibit aberration. The force of gravity always acts toward the true center of objects. For example, light from the sun takes a little over 8 minutes to reach Earth. Because of this, we see the sun at a position where it was 8 minutes ago. Gravity always acts toward the true center, such that the force of gravity from the sun and the light from the sun are not parallel in their direction as seen from Earth. I find this immensely surprising. Do you have a link to back it up? Reason wrote: 2. Gravity waves result from changes in a gravitational field (i.e. mass distribution changes) and do propagate at c. This should not be confused with the gravity field itself, and the speed of its force. I would have thought a change in the position of the gravitating body would be a change in the gravitational field, and thus should propagate at c. Yet this contradicts your first point. Can you resolve this apparent contradiction? Reason wrote: 3. The geometrical interpretation (I believe this is from GR?) explains gravity in terms of curved space, and thus means that gravity is not a force at all. Objects passing through a gravity 'field' simply follow the curvature of space and deviate from a straight line. This is the classic rubber sheet description. As I understand it, yes. (And then any change in the shape of the field propagates outwards at c). Reason wrote: However, this interpretation has causality violation problems and even Einstein was uncomfortable with it. Only if gravity propagates at a speed greater than c. If it is limited to a speed of c, then you should find no causality violations. Reason wrote: It does however, get around the propagation speed issue by eliminating a force and thereby eliminating the need for propagation.
Questions:
1. So what is the speed of gravity? I think it's c, by GR. Reason wrote: 2. How can GR reduce to Newton gravity under certain conditions if they differ in propagation speed? Pick a frame wherein the greatest source of gravity in the vicinity is moving at a constant velocity of 0, and has been doing so for a significant amount of time prior to the experiment. If you work out the difference between the GR result and the Newtonian result (at low velocity, i.e. v<<c) then the difference should be very hard to measure. Reason wrote: 3. Is there a need for a unified theory (i.e. quantum gravity) under the geometrical interpretation of gravity? There is no force, so there is nothing to unify. Is this why so many have struggled, including Einstein, yet not been able to unify the forces? As CANGAS has indicated, quantum mechanics and relativity both work very well where they work well (in the realm of the very small for QM and in the realm of the very fast for GR) but don't quite agree on how to handle the very small if it moves very fast. That slight disagreement has to be resolved at some point. (This may be why physicists are so interested in large hadron colliders and so forth; making very small objects move very fast and then seeing which is more accurate). Reason wrote: 4. If the speed of gravity is c, how can the lack of aberration be explained? Are there some other, as yet unknown, aspects of gravity that neatly 'make up for' the aberration and result in its apparent lack? I'd still like a reference on that 'lack of aberration'. I think the only way you'll get a lack of aberration is if you assume a reference frame wherein the gravitating body is stationary. Reason wrote: 5. What about gravitational shielding? I don't think that's actually possible. How would it work? Reason wrote: 6. What about antigravity? May be possible, if a way can be found to manipulate the shape of the universe without actually using mass directly. Would probably be kind of heavy on energy. Reason wrote: 7. If the geometrical interpretation can be proved false, as it seems to be due to causality violation, and the speed of gravity can be shown to be much greater than c, as it seems to be, what does this mean for relativity? The causality violation itself would be a pretty severe problem. It would mean that an alternative theory would need to be sought (that, or gravitybased transmissions backwards through time are possible).

Mon Apr 11, 2011 1:54 am 


CANGAS
Consumed by Physics
Joined: Thu Feb 12, 2009 11:03 pm Posts: 2604

Re: Speed of Gravity
CANGAS wrote: Reason wrote: Hello all,
I haven't noticed this topic anywhere in these forums so I wanted to start a discussion to get everyone's thoughts. I apologize if this topic already exists, and if it does, please point me to it!
What is the speed of gravity? Newton assumed it to be infinite, relativity claims that it is equal to the speed of light.
Some facts:
1. Gravity does not exhibit aberration. The force of gravity always acts toward the true center of objects. For example, light from the sun takes a little over 8 minutes to reach Earth. Because of this, we see the sun at a position where it was 8 minutes ago. Gravity always acts toward the true center, such that the force of gravity from the sun and the light from the sun are not parallel in their direction as seen from Earth.
2. Gravity waves result from changes in a gravitational field (i.e. mass distribution changes) and do propagate at c. This should not be confused with the gravity field itself, and the speed of its force.
3. The geometrical interpretation (I believe this is from GR?) explains gravity in terms of curved space, and thus means that gravity is not a force at all. Objects passing through a gravity 'field' simply follow the curvature of space and deviate from a straight line. This is the classic rubber sheet description. However, this interpretation has causality violation problems and even Einstein was uncomfortable with it. It does however, get around the propagation speed issue by eliminating a force and thereby eliminating the need for propagation.
Questions:
1. So what is the speed of gravity?
2. How can GR reduce to Newton gravity under certain conditions if they differ in propagation speed?
3. Is there a need for a unified theory (i.e. quantum gravity) under the geometrical interpretation of gravity? There is no force, so there is nothing to unify. Is this why so many have struggled, including Einstein, yet not been able to unify the forces?
4. If the speed of gravity is c, how can the lack of aberration be explained? Are there some other, as yet unknown, aspects of gravity that neatly 'make up for' the aberration and result in its apparent lack?
5. What about gravitational shielding?
6. What about antigravity?
7. If the geometrical interpretation can be proved false, as it seems to be due to causality violation, and the speed of gravity can be shown to be much greater than c, as it seems to be, what does this mean for relativity?
Please feel free to add more facts and/or questions! 1.(top of post)....I feel like a simpleton because you probably have an obvious basis for your comments re gravity aberration, but I'm just not getting the message. Could you provide a little more information? Has there been an experiment to examine it? 2.(top of post)....My conclusion has been that Einstein painted himself into a corner in SR and realized it, and ad hoc postulated that c was the speed limit for everything. I have never read a reason for gravity speed to be the same as light. Light goes at c due to permittivity and permeability as explained by Maxwell Wave Equation. Gravity goes at c due to Einstein sez so. 3. (top of post)....I explored this in my post prior to this post of mine. 1....NASA uses Newton instantaneous speed of gravity. GR uses c just because. 2....There is discussion of this in Gravitation. I did not feel that I understand the argument well enough to personally say it is a flawed or coherent argument. I personally believe that gravity speed is instantaneous. It is a well known fact, extensively explored by Maxwell, and proven in actual practice, that electromagnetic radiation phase velocity can be faster than c in plasma and in wave guides. By c I specifically mean 186,282 MPS. Phase velocity can be instantaneous, infinite velocity. So both gravity and light have a substantial basis for a claim of infinite velocity. 3.... I have somewhat addressed this in my prior post. 4....I'm thinking. 5....A few people have claimed to have observed this. There is one report of such during an eclipse involving the period of a pendulum. Were did I read it? 6....Well, there was that Russian a few years ago with his superconducting magnet...Einstein's Cosmological Constant is antigravity. In recent years astronomers have published that the universe is expanding at an increasing rate; that sounds like antigravity. I am expecting that a Unified Field Theory will be successfully written, equating electric force and gravity force. When that is done, there probably will be a way to manipulate gravity by manipulating electricity. 7....I am an opponent to Relativity on a number of other grounds already. My strong conclusion has become that the logical, or, philosophical basis of SR is totally wrong. Therefore its offspring GR has the same genetic flaw. Your conjecture would be just another nail in the Relativity coffin lid. "5....A few people have claimed to have observed this. There is one report of such during an eclipse involving the period of a pendulum. Were did I read it?" CANGAS wins the Silly Goose Prize again! The article was not about gravity shielding, it was about another aspect of gravity and its speed. It was read in 21st Century Science & Technology, Summer 2001. Article name:"The "Allais Effect Is Real!". Page 70. CANGAS interpreted it in a different way than the author. His full name is Prof. Maurice Allais. I have not yet executed an internet search.

Mon Apr 11, 2011 9:18 pm 


CANGAS
Consumed by Physics
Joined: Thu Feb 12, 2009 11:03 pm Posts: 2604

Re: Speed of Gravity
CANGAS has performed a Google search of a page or two of matches. Anyone who is interested in the subject of gravity force speed and gravity method of propagation will find interesting surprises if they Google Maurice Allais.
Prof. Allais turns out to be a Nobel winner. His ideas are NOT the babbling of wild and crazy guy.

Thu Apr 14, 2011 12:35 am 


McMac
Obsessed With the Question
Joined: Sun Mar 12, 2017 4:00 pm Posts: 573

Re: Speed of Gravity
CANGAS wrote: CANGAS has performed a Google search of a page or two of matches. Anyone who is interested in the subject of gravity force speed and gravity method of propagation will find interesting surprises if they Google Maurice Allais. Prof. Allais turns out to be a Nobel winner. His ideas are NOT the babbling of wild and crazy guy. There is no Nobel Prize in Krappynomix.
Last edited by McMac on Fri Mar 17, 2017 5:09 am, edited 1 time in total.

Fri Mar 17, 2017 4:39 am 


McMac
Obsessed With the Question
Joined: Sun Mar 12, 2017 4:00 pm Posts: 573

Re: Speed of Gravity
Reason wrote: What is the speed of gravity? Newton assumed it to be infinite, relativity claims that it is equal to the speed of light. Answer. Van Flandern says that the speed is at least 20 billion c. I reckon at least 40 Billion c. Reason wrote: Some facts:1. Gravity does not exhibit aberration. The force of gravity always acts toward the true center of objects. For example, light from the sun takes a little over 8 minutes to reach Earth. Because of this, we see the sun at a position where it was 8 minutes ago. Gravity always acts toward the true center, such that the force of gravity from the sun and the light from the sun are not parallel in their direction as seen from Earth. Comment. Yes i agree. Reason wrote: 2. Gravity waves result from changes in a gravitational field (i.e. mass distribution changes) and do propagate at c. This should not be confused with the gravity field itself, and the speed of its force. Comment. There is no such thing as Gravitational Waves. What we have is Gravitational Pulses, that travel at more than 40 Billion c. Reason wrote: 3. The geometrical interpretation (I believe this is from GR?) explains gravity in terms of curved space, and thus means that gravity is not a force at all. Objects passing through a gravity 'field' simply follow the curvature of space and deviate from a straight line. This is the classic rubber sheet description. However, this interpretation has causality violation problems and even Einstein was uncomfortable with it. It does however, get around the propagation speed issue by eliminating a force and thereby eliminating the need for propagation. Comment. GR etc is nonsense. And, eliminating a force does not solve propagation. Reason wrote: Questions: 1. So what is the speed of gravity? Answer. At least 40 Billion c, for all causes, eg change in position, change in mass, etc etc. Reason wrote: 2. How can GR reduce to Newton gravity under certain conditions if they differ in propagation speed? Answer. GR mainlypartly agrees with Newton, they both consider that the main aspect of gravity is instantaneous. Reason wrote: 3. Is there a need for a unified theory (i.e. quantum gravity) under the geometrical interpretation of gravity? There is no force, so there is nothing to unify. Is this why so many have struggled, including Einstein, yet not been able to unify the forces? Answer. There is a need for good theory. Check out Ranzan's DSSU website for a good theory. Reason wrote: 4. If the speed of gravity is c, how can the lack of aberration be explained? Are there some other, as yet unknown, aspects of gravity that neatly 'make up for' the aberration and result in its apparent lack? Answer. GR claims that the speed of gravity is infinite, & claims that changes in gravity propagate at c. Both are nonsense. Reason wrote: 5. What about gravitational shielding? Answer. There is no such thing as shielding. However, i reckon that a spinning disc etc can affect apparent gravity nearby. Reason wrote: 6. What about antigravity? Answer. There is no such thing. But i reckon that a spinning disc etc can have an effect nearby. Reason wrote: 7. If the geometrical interpretation can be proved false, as it seems to be due to causality violation, and the speed of gravity can be shown to be much greater than c, as it seems to be, what does this mean for relativity? Answer. SR & GR are nonsense. Spacetime is nonsense. Einsteinians arguments re their gravity being instantaneous are nonsense. But this is no problem for Einsteinians, they own the arena & the seating & the umpires & the scorers, the universities, the Professors, the Nobels, & the money. They simply keep repeating their dogma that gravity is instantaneous. Reason wrote: Please feel free to add more facts and/or questions!

Fri Mar 17, 2017 5:03 am 


McMac
Obsessed With the Question
Joined: Sun Mar 12, 2017 4:00 pm Posts: 573

Re: Speed of Gravity
Re the speed of gravity, i add my following ideas. Gravity is not a thing  it doesn't reach u & there it is, job done  even Van Flandern makes this mistake. Aether has no mass, thusly aether cannot pull or push  it acts as a messenger tween masses  for gravity & for inertia. It transmits a force from one body to another  then back  then forth again, etc etc  a reverberation effect. Thusly only nearby bodies have full effect  farther bodies have less effect.
I said that Van Flandern's "at least 20 billion c" should be at least 40 billion c  but as i say, it aint that simple. The initial gravitational force might travel at 20 billion c, but a substantial effect might need say 100 verberations  & it is the substantial amount that affects aberration of orbit. Thusly Van Flandern should have said say 100 times 20 billion c.
Here on Earth we will feel the effects of local masses (eg Sun), & The Milky Way, & our local cosmos, & more distant cosmoses. Each producing a reverberation, with different strengths & delays. Shnoll identifies i think 4 major types of reverberation, giving rise to The Shnoll Effects.
Re gravitational waves, i add my following ideas. STR & GTR have no physics, no mechanics, no micro explanations  they are just math models, based on geometry. So, Einsteinians have no problem saying that quadrupole orbital & spin effects produce gravitational waves, & drain energy. But this is nonsense. Their silly waves are not made by bodies, they are made by each & every basic little bit of matter  adding to make their silly wave. So, the question arises  how does a little elementary bit of basic matter (eg electron) know whether it is a part of a quadrupole ????, or is a part of a nonquadrupole???? Well, it doesn't know. Thusly every elementary particle suffering centrifugal acceleration must produce a silly gravitational wave, all the time. Thusly every such particle drains energy, all the time (which we know doesn't happen  orbits would have disc brakes).
And, their silly waves cannot be waves, they must be (silly) pulses (& a speed of c is nonsense also).

Tue Mar 28, 2017 4:41 pm 



Who is online 
Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot] and 1 guest 

You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot post attachments in this forum

