If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. 


Thread Tools  Display Modes 
#1




Gravity and the speed of light.
I recently replied to an old post from 14417 on
sci.physics.research, under the subject heading; Does gravity travel at the speed of light? My reply was in response to a reply from Tom Roberts. My post hasn't been acknowledged in any way. I don't know what the problem is so I'll get the ball rolling with this first paragraph of my reply which refers to Tom's claim that the instant 'now' is not well defined in GR, except at a single point.  That's not unique to GR. It would be the case for any theory. i.e. Consider that you are made up of an enormous number of point sized particles. Every one of them will exist in the same NOW, but the instant at which you perceive NOW will be equal in size to the physical size of your perception capability divided by the speed of light. The only time NOW would be in the same place for every part of you is when you are traveling at the speed of light. The remainder of my reply will take more than a page. Newtonian gravity requires an instantaneous connection between every gravitating mass in the universe, which could perhaps provide the means for humanity to expand into the far reaches of the universe and become a viable force. But it doesn't work that way. The instantaneous link is best identified in a two body system. From the Zero Origin Concept, a fundamental consequence of the zero origin is that every individual component of the universe is the focal point of its very own universe. The speed of light is uniform in all directions in the immediate vicinity. The combined input from everything in a common inertial frame will set the general base of dimension for that frame, locally. In the Sun\Earth system the Sun is by far the most significant dimension base. The Sun is the orbit focal point regardless of where the barycenter may be. To a distant observer the Sun will appear to wobble around relative to the background universe as it revolves around the Sun\Earth barycenter, but the Sun is exactly where it appears to be from a viewpoint on the Earth. The location of the barycenter is of no relevance in the closed system. According to GR the problem is resolved by means of a gravity induced static spacetime curvature. GR also explains the perihelion advance of Mercury by plotting a path according to the same static spacetime curvature. But it's doubtful that it can succeed for all scenarios because the advance is presumed to be proportional to orbit eccentricity. But according to the Zero Origin Concept (if I now understand it correctly), orbit eccentricity has very little to do with the advance. The Sun\Mercury barycenter is 9618 meters from the Sun's center of mass. The apparent orbit radii for the two entities are (5.8e109618) and 9618 respectively. This is a complex orbit structure where Mercury is orbiting the Sun's true position while both the Sun and Mercury are orbiting a point in space at the system center of mass, which is not possible unless something gives. Dimension is clearly distorted by this action. Based on evidence from the Sun\Mercury system the perihelion\aphelion line is shifting position in the two planes of dimension of the orbit plane at the rate of; barycenter radius from the Sun times pi. Half the Sun's apparent orbit circumference from the barycenter is added to the normal Sun\Mercury orbit circumference over every orbit cycle. Total orbit length is (2*pi*5.8e10)+(9618*pi) meters. From the above, an advance rate for each of the solar system planets can easily be determined. And the results will be VASTLY different to those generated by GR. For the Sun\Mercury system, the orbit frame orientation has been carried forward by 30216 meters into the plane of dimension at 90 degrees to the original plane over the course of one extended orbit cycle. 88.16976204878304 days orbit cycle time (normal) 47838.27 m/s M2 orbital speed relative to fixed M1 58000000000 actual orbit radius 9618.089 meters from center of major mass to barycenter 57999990381.91113 apparent orbit radius of M2 (from barycenter) 9618.089 * pi = 30216.19 meters added to extended orbit circumference every 88.18771434509067 days 2.984924131196121e05 degree advance per orbit ..0123874351444639 degrees per century 44.59476652007005 arcsec Venus: 4.405014499801206e04 degree advance per orbit Earth: 5.40541090047356e04 Mars: 5.805224320740717e05 Jupiter: .1716050948271618 Saturn: 5.140742277062327e02 Uranus: 7.854531972498519e03 Neptune: 9.270879242415193e03 Pluto: 1.085427165205045e06 Earth\Moon: 2.19001171875 degree advance per orbit Equal Sun masses separated by 5.8e10 meters: = 90 degrees advance per orbit The orbit frame orientation has been carried forward by half the apparent orbit circumference, which is added to the true orbit circumference around either one as the orbit focal point, in this case. The orbit frame has shifted from one plane of dimension to another, which is the advance limit. The same applies for equal masses of any value, separated by any radius. The advance is exactly m/(M+m)*r*pi meters.  The Earth\Moon scenario would be the most obvious test. Can it be properly tested or not?  Max Keon 
Ads 
#2




Gravity and the speed of light.
On Monday, April 30, 2018 at 9:07:18 AM UTC+10, I wrote:
I recently replied to an old post from 14417 on sci.physics.research, under the subject heading; Does gravity travel at the speed of light? My reply was in response to a reply from Tom Roberts. My post hasn't been acknowledged in any way. I've had a belated email response from sci.physics.research, which arrived a day or so before my original post was sent to this newsgroup. I don't keep up with my emails. My post was rejected for the following reasons. [excessively speculative] The nuclear atom. Analysis of double slit experiments. Spooky action at a distance. That's what I call speculative. [controversial statements] There was nothing speculative or controversial in anything I wrote. I've simply stated obvious consequences of the zero origin. A theory of the universe will always be considered speculative until proven otherwise. This is just one stepping stone in that process. [observation or theory without showing that they have a rigorous scientific basis] Isn't demonstrating that the theory has a scientific basis what I'm trying to do here? I'm not pointing the finger at newsgroup moderators. They operate within the guidelines set out by the physics establishment and I think they do a remarkable job. But close minded physics will lead us nowhere.  Max Keon 
Thread Tools  
Display Modes  


Similar Threads  
Thread  Thread Starter  Forum  Replies  Last Post 
VARIABLE SPEED OF LIGHT IN GRAVITY  Pentcho Valev  Astronomy Misc  3  January 16th 14 11:42 AM 
SPEED OF LIGHT IN GRAVITY : NEWTON, NOT EINSTEIN  Pentcho Valev  Astronomy Misc  1  October 23rd 13 06:58 PM 
SPEED OF LIGHT AFFECTED BY GRAVITY  Pentcho Valev  Astronomy Misc  3  January 3rd 11 09:32 AM 
speed of light asymptotic in higher gravity?  David Dalton  Research  0  November 17th 03 10:07 AM 
Electrostatic Gravity&Light Speed  ralph sansbury  Astronomy Misc  15  September 16th 03 06:06 PM 