| |
 |
|
|
Science Forum Index » Physics - Relativity Forum » The speed of gravity revisited
Page 12 of 13 Goto page Previous 1, 2, 3 ... , 11, 12, 13 Next
|
| Author |
Message |
| Dirk Van de moortel |
 Posted: Mon Apr 21, 2008 1:27 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| Traveler |
| Posted: Mon Apr 21, 2008 2:31 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Mon, 21 Apr 2008 20:27:15 +0200, "Dirk Van de moortel"
<dirkvandemoortel@ThankS-NO-SperM.hotmail.com> wrote:
Hey, Van de merde. I see you're still suppressing your homosexual
tendencies. ahahaha... Just tell the man you love him. AHAHAHA...
Louis Savain
Rebel Science News:
http://rebelscience.blogspot.com/ |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| Koobee Wublee |
| Posted: Mon Apr 21, 2008 8:42 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Apr 21, 11:17 am, "Tom Van Flandern" wrote:
Quote: "Koobee Wublee" writes:
[Wublee]: As you have correctly pointed out, LR does not manifest the
twin's paradox. However, it manifests the time dilation.
You have not understood Lorentzian relativity (LR). See Ref. [1] below..
The effect of velocity on clocks represented by the Lorentz transformations
is extremely well-verified by GPS, among many other modern experiments. But
in LR, the transformations operate in only one direction, from the local
gravitational potential field to the moving frame. They do not work in
reverse.
It is very clear from the following that LR manifests time dilation.
** dt’ = dt / sqrt(1 – v^2 / c^2)
I don’t know how you can argue otherwise.
Quote: The significance of that difference is that velocity affects only the
rates of *clocks* moving relative to the local gravitational potential
field. Motion has no effect on *time* (the dimension for measuring change)..
So LR has no time dilation and no paradoxes. Motion simply makes atomic
clocks slow down, the way increasing temperature makes pendulum clocks slow
down.
In your LR equations, there is no mention of gravitational potential.
Thus, what you believe in does not really apply to the equations of LR
which you have published. <shrug>
Quote: That said, LR agrees with all 11 independent experiments that tested
special relativity (SR) [see Ref. 6 for list], and can also accept gravity
propagating faster than light, which SR cannot do.
Because of the twin’s paradox, SR does not agree with anything. It is
utterly absurd of a conjecture. LR is very much so. LR does not even
degenerate to the Galilean transform at low speeds. Please allow me
to be more blunt with you. LR is a total nonsense. Any hypothesis
must degenerate to the Galilean transform. <shrug> Do you think the
Galilean transform is false at low speeds? LR does not even allow the
flat spacetime first published by Minkowski. Do you think the
equation of Minkowski spacetime is wrong? LR and (ds^2 = c^2 dt2 –
dx^2 – dy^2 – dz^2) cannot coexist. <shrug>
Quote: You also seem to object to general relativity (GR), another
well-verified theory. But once you realize that the math has more than one
interpretation, and that the "field interpretation" requires no "curved
space-time" or other forms of magic, you will find GR much more acceptable..
It does not matter how you want to interpret GR. The end of the day
is determined by the mathematics involved. This is the case because
math cannot lie. However, there are a few gross abuses in
interpretation of the geodesic motions. The geodesics actually have
nothing to do with the field equations and thus GR. Mercury’s orbital
anomaly is based on the geodesic model where any event takes place
following the path with the least amount of accumulated spacetime.
The photon deflection deal is modeled after the geodesics with the
least amount of accumulated time. It is different for photons because
the accumulated spacetime for a photon is always zero. This is an
example where GR seems to agree with the believed experimental through
internal inconsistencies. There are more such internal
inconsistencies in GR and SR.
Quote: Most of what is important about GR can be understood in the context of a
light-carrying medium. (Any wave phenomenon requires a medium.) That medium
is like an atmosphere filling space. Naturally, the gravity of large masses
makes the medium denser as one gets closer, just as it would for an
atmosphere comprised of gases. Then as light tries to propagate through a
medium with a density gradient, it bends, slows, and redshifts by ordinary,
classical refraction in the exact amount the GR equations predict.
Yes, the Aether model of GR does seem to explain a great deal.
However, in this model, you will find the deflected angle of a photon
follows Snell’s law. Thus, it is only the Newtonian result not what
you are expecting of GR result of twice the Newtonian. What you have
described does not work for the curvature in spacetime. This is why
it was quickly abandoned by the founding fathers of GR which does not
include Einstein. Einstein was a nobody. He was a nitwit, a
plagiarist, and a liar.
Quote: Moreover, this interpretation has been known for a long time, back to at
least Eddington's 1920 book. See Ref. [2]. A review of the "refraction in an
optical medium" model as a simple replacement for Riemann curvature of
spacetime, together with citations to many previous authors who knew about
this, may be found in Ref. [3].
From what I have gathered, Eddington was also a nitwit. <shrug> The
whole mess of GR was engineered from the ground up by the greatest
mathematician known to man --- David Hilbert. In 1915, he had been
working with the curvature in spactime for at least 7 years and had
not gotten anywhere. Deriving the field equations was his last
resort. Most physicists do not know how the field equations are
derived. I suppose you do not know either. <shrug> |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| Eric Gisse |
| Posted: Mon Apr 21, 2008 8:55 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Apr 21, 10:42 pm, Koobee Wublee <koobee.wub...@gmail.com> wrote:
[snip arrogant stupidity]
You and TvF make a great couple - neither of you know what you are
talking about, yet are willing to argue about it endlessly. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| Juan R." González-Álvarez |
| Posted: Tue Apr 22, 2008 4:16 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
Tom Van Flandern wrote on Mon, 21 Apr 2008 11:17:28 -0700:
Quote: and "Tom Roberts" writes:
[Prime Mover]: As many published experiments have demonstrated,
gravitational forces cannot possibly propagate at c.
[Roberts]: True, _IF_AND_ONLY_IF_ one assumes that they propagate at
all.
With the standard classical physics definition of "force" = the time
rate of change of (3-space) momentum, it instantly follows that orbiting
bodies are experiencing a force by definition.
In this same thread i asked Tom to write the expression for the force. He
was unable.
I asked and asked and asked and asked and asked. He never was able to
write not even a first PN approximation to the total force.
Since he insist on criticizing gravitational forces, I am obligated to
conclude that Tom likes to criticize topics without studying first. That
seem to imply Tom is not interested in scientific debate but just on
promoting his own view about nature. The often uses a pejorative term
defines his behavior perfectly.
Quote: [Roberts]: That is a measurement of the acceleration, not the force.
You are ignoring definitions again. "Force" in this discussion is the
time
rate of change of (3-space) momentum. "Momentum" is mass times velocity.
For constant mass, the time rate of change of momentum is mass times
acceleration, a.k.a. Newton's second law of motion. That is a perfectly
valid way of measuring "force" by its standard definition. Only when you
change the definition, as in geometric GR, is the force concept
suppressed and we would have no means of measuring a true force.
Tom did not even understand difference between F and f.
Quote: and Steve Carlip writes:
[Carlip, summarizing Low's paper]: change the source of gravity in R
any way you want. According to GR, nothing at all happens at a point p
outside R until the time for a light signal to reach p from R has
passed. By any sensible definition of "speed" I can imagine, that means
that gravity propagates at the speed of light.
I agree completely with Low's mathematical reasoning that you
summarize
here, and have never claimed anything different from that. I must also
agree that your imagination is limited just as you describe. Indeed,
what you describe is nothing more than a wordy description of the
retarded potential field in GR, similar to the Lienard-Wiechert
potentials.
As was proven in this newsgroup and in sci.physics.research Carlip
confounds the Newtonian potential PHI = PHI(R(t)) with the non-
relativistic limit of the LW potentials PHI = PHI(x,t) and then makes
completely wrong statements about the Newtonian potential and the speed
of gravity issue.
He is also unaware of recent theoretical and experimental advances in the
field.
--
http://canonicalscience.org/en/miscellaneouszone/guidelines.txt |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| Guest |
| Posted: Tue Apr 22, 2008 2:10 pm |
|
|
|
|
Tom Van Flandern <tomvf@metaresearch.org> wrote:
[...]
Quote: and Steve Carlip writes:
[Tom VF]: no one is disputing that changes in gravitational potential
(the subject of the field equations) propagate at the speed of light, c.
I am always careful to state that "the speed of gravity" measured by the
six available experiments always means the 3-space propagation speed of
gravitational force, and has nothing to do with changes in gravitational
potential.
[Carlip, summarizing Low's paper]: change the source of gravity in R any
way you want. According to GR, nothing at all happens at a point p outside
R until the time for a light signal to reach p from R has passed. By any
sensible definition of "speed" I can imagine, that means that gravity
propagates at the speed of light.
I agree completely with Low's mathematical reasoning that you summarize
here, and have never claimed anything different from that.
If you really agree, then we are arguing over semantics. But lets see...
Let R contain a single mass M moving at a constant velocity. Let's suppose
it has been moving at this velocity for a long time -- much longer than the
light travel time to p. Then both GR and Newtonian gravity agree that a
test mass at p will experience an acceleration toward the "instantaneous"
position of M. In particular, the direction of that acceleration will track
the motion of M.
Now, at time t=0, make the following change in R: stop the motion of M.
You apparently agree that this change will have no affect at p until the
time for a light signal to reach p from R. In particular, if you really believe
this, you now accept that the acceleration of a test mass at p will continue
to "track" the previous motion of M, even though M is no longer moving,
until a time t=d/c, where d is the distance to p.
If you really "agree completely with Low's mathematical reasoning," then
you accept this direct consequence of that reasoning. But we can go
further. Write down the exact solution of the Einstein field equations for
a mass M that initially moves at a constant velocity and then abruptly
stops. (This is not too hard -- you can take the Kinnersley solution, which
I wrote down in my Phys. Lett. A paper, gr-qc/9909087, for a mass with an
arbitrary motion, and put in this special case.) Now just compute the
acceleration at p. (Again, not too hard -- you can use equation (2.2) of
my paper for the Christoffel connection.) You will find exactly the behavior
that I described above, as implied by Low's theorem.
Are you now ready to accept this? If so, I'll believe that you accept the
mathematics of GR. If not, then you don't, period. This is not a question
of an "interpretation" -- it is a direct, unambiguous mathematical
prediction. If you don't accept it, fine. But then stop hiding your beliefs
and pretending that you really accept GR, and are just arguing about an
interpretation of the math.
[...]
Quote: Now, consider the 2-body problem with one source mass and one (nearly)
massless target body. By construction, the source mass represents Low's R,
a collection of smaller masses that are the source of a gravitational
potential field. We all agree that changes in the potential field propagate
or update at speed c. So there is no issue there. Now let's look at the
gravitational force generated outside R, assuming R is a single, fixed
mass - the simplest case. Even with nothing changing at the field source, we
still have a problem about the force applied to the target body.
The one and only mathematical question of importance here to the speed
of gravity issue is this: For a target body with a transverse motion
relative to the source mass, should we use the retarded gradient or the
instantaneous gradient to get the force?
There is no such thing as a "retarded gradient." The gradient of a function
is the vector of its spatial derivatives. Time doesn't come into it.
It is also an elementary mathematical fact, of course, that if a function at
x at time t is determined by the behavior of some source at an earlier
time t', then the gradient of the function of x at time t is also determined
by the behavior of some source at time t'.
Quote: If this force, or "gravitational influences" (your term), propagates
from source mass to target body at speed c, then we must use the retarded
gradient, which leads to wrong answers (outward spiraling orbits).
You are managing to thoroughly confuse yourself about some fairly
elementary mathematics. Apparently you find the use of potentials
-- which are just auxiliary functions used to simplify computations --
confusing. You can, in fact, do all of the calculations without ever using
a potential. For electromagnetism, for instance, you can directly solve
Maxwell's equtions for the electric and magnetic fields, without ever
using potentials; you again find that the fields are completely determined
by the retarded behavior of the sources (in this case, the current and
its first derivative). For GR, things are harded, since the equations are
nonlinear, but you can again derive wave equations for the full curvature
tensor.
Steve Carlip |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| Juan R." González-Álvarez |
| Posted: Wed Apr 23, 2008 8:20 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
Ken S. Tucker wrote on Wed, 23 Apr 2008 05:50:23 -0700:
Quote: Hi Juan
On Apr 23, 4:35 am, "Juan R." González-Ãlvarez
juan...@VEcanonicalscience.com> wrote:
carlip-nospam wrote on Wed, 23 Apr 2008 00:10:12 +0000:
sniped the same misunderstandings.
Using a deeper analysis, employing a Unified Field Theory class solution
briefed here,
http://physics.trak4.com/GR_Charge_Couple.pdf
we are able to merge the effects of electricity and gravitation via GR
in an inseparable way, as magnetism was unified with electricity via SR.
That further verifies my previous analysis above (using diagram's) that
variations of material structures propagate that change visually and
gravitationally at the speed of light "c".
It is wrong.
--
http://canonicalscience.org/en/miscellaneouszone/guidelines.txt |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| Ken S. Tucker |
| Posted: Wed Apr 23, 2008 9:40 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Apr 23, 11:20 am, "Juan R." González-Álvarez
<juan...@VEcanonicalscience.com> wrote:
Quote: Ken S. Tucker wrote on Wed, 23 Apr 2008 05:50:23 -0700:
Hi Juan
On Apr 23, 4:35 am, "Juan R." González-Álvarez
juan...@VEcanonicalscience.com> wrote:
carlip-nospam wrote on Wed, 23 Apr 2008 00:10:12 +0000:
sniped the same misunderstandings.
Using a deeper analysis, employing a Unified Field Theory class solution
briefed here,
http://physics.trak4.com/GR_Charge_Couple.pdf
we are able to merge the effects of electricity and gravitation via GR
in an inseparable way, as magnetism was unified with electricity via SR.
That further verifies my previous analysis above (using diagram's) that
variations of material structures propagate that change visually and
gravitationally at the speed of light "c".
It is wrong.
Prove it. Wrong is different than being
not right. Not right permits plausible.
All you need to do Juan, is prove GR is
implausible.
The burden of proof falls upon you to
show why GR is implausible, that is what
you cannot do yet.
Do you know what plausible means?
Regards
Ken S. Tucker |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| Juan R." González-Álvarez |
| Posted: Thu Apr 24, 2008 12:33 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
Ken S. Tucker wrote on Wed, 23 Apr 2008 12:40:42 -0700:
Quote: That further verifies my previous analysis above (using diagram's)
that variations of material structures propagate that change visually
and gravitationally at the speed of light "c".
It is wrong.
Prove it.
It has already proven by different authors that the 'speed' of
electromagnetic interactions is not *and cannot be* c. We already know
what is wrong with your 'proof'. But you do not heard us.
Take a look to the Physical Review E paper and to International Journal
of Modern Physics papers *I cited* in my 19 Apr.
That rigorous mathematical and physical analysis has been confirmed using
a Liouville space extension of mechanics, and also extended to gravity.
One obtain basically the same conclusions: the speed of gravity is not c.
I already explained what are the physical and mathematical problems with
Low/Carlip analysis of gravitational interactions and how a more
*general* and *rigorous* model do *not* support their claims about speed
of gravity.
The geometrical extension of EM dualism have the extra credit of proving
the limitations of a *geometric* approach to gravity. The own concept of
spacetime arises as an approximated description from a more general and
fundamental theory.
Quote: All you need to do Juan, is prove GR is implausible.
I did not said that GR is implausible. You *misread* me.
Quote: The burden of proof falls upon you to show why GR is implausible, that
is what you cannot do yet.
You continue *misreading* me. You would read i really wrote. Start from
my message of day 19.
--
http://canonicalscience.org/en/miscellaneouszone/guidelines.txt |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| Juan R." González-Álvarez |
| Posted: Thu Apr 24, 2008 12:37 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
"Juan R." González-Ãlvarez wrote on Thu, 24 Apr 2008 12:33:54 +0200:
There several typos in my message. E.g.
Quote: It has already proven by different authors that the 'speed' of
may be
It has already been proved by different authors that the 'speed' of
--
http://canonicalscience.org/en/miscellaneouszone/guidelines.txt |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| Juan R." González-Álvarez |
| Posted: Thu Apr 24, 2008 12:41 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
"Juan R." González-Ãlvarez wrote on Thu, 24 Apr 2008 12:33:54 +0200:
Quote: The geometrical extension of EM dualism have the extra credit of proving
the limitations of a *geometric* approach to gravity. The own concept of
spacetime arises as an approximated description from a more general and
fundamental theory.
Sorry, it is
The *gravitational* extension of EM dualism have the extra credit of
proving the limitations of a *geometric* approach to gravity. The own
concept of spacetime arises as an approximated description from a more
general and fundamental theory.
--
http://canonicalscience.org/en/miscellaneouszone/guidelines.txt |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| Ken S. Tucker |
| Posted: Thu Apr 24, 2008 1:33 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Apr 24, 3:33 am, "Juan R." González-Álvarez
<juan...@VEcanonicalscience.com> wrote:
Quote: Ken S. Tucker wrote on Wed, 23 Apr 2008 12:40:42 -0700:
That further verifies my previous analysis above (using diagram's)
that variations of material structures propagate that change visually
and gravitationally at the speed of light "c".
It is wrong.
Prove it.
It has already proven by different authors that the 'speed' of
electromagnetic interactions is not *and cannot be* c. We already know
what is wrong with your 'proof'. But you do not heard us.
Take a look to the Physical Review E paper and to International Journal
of Modern Physics papers *I cited* in my 19 Apr.
That rigorous mathematical and physical analysis has been confirmed using
a Liouville space extension of mechanics, and also extended to gravity.
One obtain basically the same conclusions: the speed of gravity is not c.
Needs evidence.
Quote: I already explained what are the physical and mathematical problems with
Low/Carlip analysis of gravitational interactions and how a more
*general* and *rigorous* model do *not* support their claims about speed
of gravity.
My own independent calculations support
Low/Carlip's conclusions.
In addition to 99.999999% of experiments.
Quote: The geometrical extension of EM dualism have the extra credit of proving
the limitations of a *geometric* approach to gravity. The own concept of
spacetime arises as an approximated description from a more general and
fundamental theory.
That's fine.
Quote: All you need to do Juan, is prove GR is implausible.
I did not said that GR is implausible. You *misread* me.
OK, good. then we're all in agreement.
Regards
Ken S. Tucker |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| Juan R." González-Álvarez |
| Posted: Thu Apr 24, 2008 3:30 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
Ken S. Tucker wrote on Thu, 24 Apr 2008 04:33:53 -0700:
Quote: That rigorous mathematical and physical analysis has been confirmed
using a Liouville space extension of mechanics, and also extended to
gravity. One obtain basically the same conclusions: the speed of
gravity is not c.
Needs evidence.
You are not reading.
Quote: I already explained what are the physical and mathematical problems
with Low/Carlip analysis of gravitational interactions and how a more
*general* and *rigorous* model do *not* support their claims about
speed of gravity.
My own independent calculations support Low/Carlip's conclusions.
In addition to 99.999999% of experiments.
But you are not reading.
Quote: I did not said that GR is implausible. You *misread* me.
OK, good. then we're all in agreement. Regards
At least you read that part.
--
http://canonicalscience.org/en/miscellaneouszone/guidelines.txt |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| Ken S. Tucker |
| Posted: Thu Apr 24, 2008 10:12 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Apr 24, 6:30 am, "Juan R." González-Álvarez
<juan...@VEcanonicalscience.com> wrote:
Quote: Ken S. Tucker wrote on Thu, 24 Apr 2008 04:33:53 -0700:
That rigorous mathematical and physical analysis has been confirmed
using a Liouville space extension of mechanics, and also extended to
gravity. One obtain basically the same conclusions: the speed of
gravity is not c.
Needs evidence.
You are not reading.
I already explained what are the physical and mathematical problems
with Low/Carlip analysis of gravitational interactions and how a more
*general* and *rigorous* model do *not* support their claims about
speed of gravity.
My own independent calculations support Low/Carlip's conclusions.
In addition to 99.999999% of experiments.
But you are not reading.
Oh I have read. At this time, I find a significant
FTL physical transmission effect to be theortically
and experimentally implausible, I'm NOT saying you
are wrong though. I'd be on your and TVF's ban-wagon
if I could see any "plausible" reason.
Quote: I did not said that GR is implausible. You *misread* me.
OK, good. then we're all in agreement. Regards
At least you read that part.
Juan, it's rather judgemental to decide what I've
read. I've been engaged in scientific study for
nearly 50 years now. Nearly every day, I see a
new thing or a different way of seeing an old
thing.
Regards
Ken S. Tucker |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| Ken S. Tucker |
| Posted: Thu Apr 24, 2008 12:25 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Apr 24, 1:16 pm, "Dirk Van de moortel" <dirkvandemoor...@ThankS-NO-
SperM.hotmail.com> wrote:
Quote: Ken S. Tucker <dynam...@vianet.on.ca> wrote in message
b84fe84c-f5ba-47f4-adfe-7deb88030...@h1g2000prh.googlegroups.com
On Apr 24, 6:30 am, "Juan R." González-Álvarez
juan...@VEcanonicalscience.com> wrote:
Ken S. Tucker wrote on Thu, 24 Apr 2008 04:33:53 -0700:
That rigorous mathematical and physical analysis has been confirmed
using a Liouville space extension of mechanics, and also extended to
gravity. One obtain basically the same conclusions: the speed of
gravity is not c.
Needs evidence.
You are not reading.
I already explained what are the physical and mathematical problems
with Low/Carlip analysis of gravitational interactions and how a more
*general* and *rigorous* model do *not* support their claims about
speed of gravity.
My own independent calculations support Low/Carlip's conclusions.
In addition to 99.999999% of experiments.
But you are not reading.
Oh I have read. At this time, I find a significant
FTL physical transmission effect to be theortically
and experimentally implausible, I'm NOT saying you
are wrong though. I'd be on your and TVF's ban-wagon
if I could see any "plausible" reason.
I did not said that GR is implausible. You *misread* me.
OK, good. then we're all in agreement. Regards
At least you read that part.
Juan, it's rather judgemental to decide what I've
read. I've been engaged in scientific study for
nearly 50 years now.
So you must be a 70 years old liar then:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/dynamics/297774461/
Dirk Vdm
I'm young for my age. I build buildings to
stay in shape and keep a foot in reality.
As a brat,
Luckily I was stimulately by Sputnik, and
railroads, that was when steam locomotives
were still running, wow, choo-choo!
So in kindergarten I paint a picture.
The teacher comes over and tell's me
*my ladders are crooked*.
Do you know how difficult it is for a 5 yo to
describe to a chick who can't even read a map
what a railroad yard looks like if you're on
Sputnik taking a picture.
My advice, don't even try!
Anyway, my point is, in the pix, my scafolding
and *my ladder is straight*, so I suppose the
chick was right .... part of the time.
Regards
Ken |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| |
Page 12 of 13 Goto page Previous 1, 2, 3 ... , 11, 12, 13 Next
All times are GMT - 5 Hours
The time now is Thu Jul 24, 2008 5:27 pm
|
|
