A Space & astronomy forum. SpaceBanter.com

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.

Go Back   Home » SpaceBanter.com forum » Astronomy and Astrophysics » Astronomy Misc
Site Map Home Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Gravity and the speed of light.

Thread Tools Display Modes
Old April 30th 18, 12:07 AM posted to sci.astro
[email protected]
external usenet poster
Posts: 22
Default Gravity and the speed of light.

I recently replied to an old post from 14-4-17 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

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

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

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
(5.8e10-9618) 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
2.984924131196121e-05 degree advance per orbit
..0123874351444639 degrees per century
44.59476652007005 arcsec

Venus: 4.405014499801206e-04 degree advance per orbit
Earth: 5.40541090047356e-04
Mars: 5.805224320740717e-05
Jupiter: .1716050948271618
Saturn: 5.140742277062327e-02
Uranus: 7.854531972498519e-03
Neptune: 9.270879242415193e-03
Pluto: 1.085427165205045e-06
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

Old May 2nd 18, 01:08 AM posted to sci.astro
[email protected]
external usenet poster
Posts: 22
Default 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 14-4-17 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

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

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

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

All times are GMT +1. The time now is 06:31 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright 2004-2018 SpaceBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.