Speed of gravity and the solar system

How does Relativity account for the stability of the planetary orbits
if the speed of gravity is not inifinite, as in Newtonian Dynamics?

Ari wrote:
How does Relativity account for the stability of the planetary orbits
if the speed of gravity is not inifinite, as in Newtonian Dynamics?

If our esteemed moderators will permite the self-promotion, I answered
a somewhat similar question in this newsgroup about 4.5 years ago, and
that answer is in the s.p.r. archives at
http://www.lns.cornell.edu/spr/2000-09/msg0028127.html

ciao,

--
-- "Jonathan Thornburg -- remove -animal to reply"
Max-Planck-Institut fuer Gravitationsphysik (Albert-Einstein-Institut),
Golm, Germany, "Old Europe" http://www.aei.mpg.de/~jthorn/home.html
"Washing one's hands of the conflict between the powerful and the
powerless means to side with the powerful, not to be neutral."
-- quote by Freire / poster by Oxfam

On Mon, 07 Mar 05 10:06:14 GMT, "Ari" wrote:

How does Relativity account for the stability of the planetary orbits
if the speed of gravity is not inifinite, as in Newtonian Dynamics?

In the very long term, planetary orbits are not necessarily stable.
Furthermore, the relativistic effects on orbits other than Mercury and
Uranus proves to be negligible.

Dan, ad nauseam

"Daniel R. Reitman" schrieb im Newsbeitrag
...
On Mon, 07 Mar 05 10:06:14 GMT, "Ari" wrote:

How does Relativity account for the stability of the planetary orbits
if the speed of gravity is not inifinite, as in Newtonian Dynamics?

Indeed the gravity field is a "static thing", in general relativity also.
Therefore it interacts instantan. Like in the Dirac equation the electric
potential is proportional to
1 / r. The Schwarzschild - Metrik also is just dependant on r. So the common
meaning that gravity interacts with lightspeed id wrong.
How should the gravity field come out a black hole if it would move at c ?


In the very long term, planetary orbits are not necessarily stable.
Furthermore, the relativistic effects on orbits other than Mercury and
Uranus proves to be negligible.

But for the electric potential there is the same question, or ? And in the
exact quantummechanic equations it acts instantan with the true position
(not with the position at t2 = t - r/c !!!! So electrostatic movements have
the same question as quoted above. And there the answer is clear or do you
disagree ?
Atom theory would not exist for you if you doubt that !!!!


Dan, ad nauseam

On Wed, 16 Mar 05 12:05:38 GMT, "Josef Matz"
wrote:

. . . .

But for the electric potential there is the same question, or ? And in the
exact quantummechanic equations it acts instantan with the true position
(not with the position at t2 = t - r/c !!!! So electrostatic movements have
the same question as quoted above. And there the answer is clear or do you
disagree ?
Atom theory would not exist for you if you doubt that !!!!

I can't even figure out what the question is here.

Dan, ad nauseam