|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#31
|
|||
|
|||
In message ,
Bill Sheppard writes Jonathan S. wrote, re. 'speed of gravity', I have no idea. Tom van Flandern thinks it's enormous, but he seems to have lost the reputation he once had. Yes, van Flandern finally concludes that the flowing-space explanation is the only rational model for the mechanism of gravity. That's probably why he's 'lost his reputation'. Under that model, there's nothing 'propagating' outbound from the source; therefore gravity's "action" is instantaneous at any distance. oc I may be maligning him, but IIRC he also went overboard for the Cydonia and "face on Mars" nonsense. He also supports the theory that the asteroids come from an exploded planet, despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary and the fact that the only evidence he proposed (moons of asteroids, and specifically a debris field around Eros - God know why) hasn't appeared Everyone's entitled to hold unconventional theories about physics, though. Gravity _has_ to appear to be instantaneous, an idea that goes back to Newton, but current theories hate real instantaneous effects. Slightly related topic; does anyone know how the discovery that the speed of light was finite influenced Newton's thinking? That was a revolution as big as any in science. -- "Forty millions of miles it was from us, more than forty millions of miles of void" Remove spam and invalid from address to reply. |
#32
|
|||
|
|||
To Jonathan S.-
I didn't know van Flandern had joined the Hoagland crowd with the 'face on Mars' bit and the asteroids being the remains of the exploded planet 'Maldek'. That would tend to discredit him for sure. oc Anti-spam address: oldcoot88atwebtv.net Change 'at' to@ |
#33
|
|||
|
|||
To Jonathan S.-
I didn't know van Flandern had joined the Hoagland crowd with the 'face on Mars' bit and the asteroids being the remains of the exploded planet 'Maldek'. That would tend to discredit him for sure. oc Anti-spam address: oldcoot88atwebtv.net Change 'at' to@ |
#34
|
|||
|
|||
wrote in message ... wrote in message ... "Bill Sheppard" wrote in message ... How about this Idea Matter, deuterium, can absorb Energy, photons at the speed of gravity, 53100km per second. Huh?? Here's a good, concise little read for you- http://astron.berkeley.edu/~mwhite/d...bndetails.html And how in the world did you deduce the "speed of gravity"? The figure you cite is less than a third the speed of light. The general belief is that gravity "propogates" at the speed of light. And that's under the void-space premise (but we won't go there `chuckle`). oc Sorry Typo 531000 km per second sqrt(C * C * pi) If at the Event Horizon time stops, the circumference of a circle would equal it's diameter. the Position between two objects is absolute, time over that distance is not. |
#35
|
|||
|
|||
wrote in message ... wrote in message ... "Bill Sheppard" wrote in message ... How about this Idea Matter, deuterium, can absorb Energy, photons at the speed of gravity, 53100km per second. Huh?? Here's a good, concise little read for you- http://astron.berkeley.edu/~mwhite/d...bndetails.html And how in the world did you deduce the "speed of gravity"? The figure you cite is less than a third the speed of light. The general belief is that gravity "propogates" at the speed of light. And that's under the void-space premise (but we won't go there `chuckle`). oc Sorry Typo 531000 km per second sqrt(C * C * pi) If at the Event Horizon time stops, the circumference of a circle would equal it's diameter. the Position between two objects is absolute, time over that distance is not. |
#36
|
|||
|
|||
wrote in message ... If at the Event Horizon time stops, the circumference of a circle would equal it's diameter. Time doesn't stop for a particle at the event horizon the Position between two objects is absolute, time over that distance is not. Spacetime doesn't allow you to separate space and time. I have always understood the reason for gravity and light to propagate at the same speed to be an inference from the principle that the laws of physics are universal in time and space. My argument would go thus:- Imagine a solar system comprising a binary star made up of one matter star and one anti-matter star. At a suitable distance orbits a planet. The definition of 'suitable' is such that the planet orbits in a normal orbit let us say 600 light seconds from the stars. Initially the planet orbits the common centre of gravity and is subject to a measurable acceleration. For an observer on the planet; at any time (and this is important) there is both a measurable acceleration and a cause for the acceleration. Imagine now that the matter and anti matter components coalesce perfectly, such that the entire mass is converted to gamma rays in a very short period of time (in a flash one might say). Now, the planet will have no knowledge of the conversion of the mass to radiation until 600 seconds later. It seems clear to me that the knowledge of the loss of acceleration can neither preceed this time (as it would if gravity propagated faster than c), nor can the loss of acceleration lag behind the light speed. In other words, gravity must propagate at exactly the same speed as light or one of two effects will be displayed - either an acceleration around stars that no longer exist - or a pair of stars that have no gravitational attraction for a measurable period of time I appreciate that this is not a proof, but any proposal that gravity propagates at a different speed than light will have to address the issues of simulaneity that this raises. Any argument about the impossibility of complete conversion of star like quantities of matter and anti-matter in an instance can be addressed by considering a neutron, an anti-neutron and some neutral lepton. |
#37
|
|||
|
|||
wrote in message ... If at the Event Horizon time stops, the circumference of a circle would equal it's diameter. Time doesn't stop for a particle at the event horizon the Position between two objects is absolute, time over that distance is not. Spacetime doesn't allow you to separate space and time. I have always understood the reason for gravity and light to propagate at the same speed to be an inference from the principle that the laws of physics are universal in time and space. My argument would go thus:- Imagine a solar system comprising a binary star made up of one matter star and one anti-matter star. At a suitable distance orbits a planet. The definition of 'suitable' is such that the planet orbits in a normal orbit let us say 600 light seconds from the stars. Initially the planet orbits the common centre of gravity and is subject to a measurable acceleration. For an observer on the planet; at any time (and this is important) there is both a measurable acceleration and a cause for the acceleration. Imagine now that the matter and anti matter components coalesce perfectly, such that the entire mass is converted to gamma rays in a very short period of time (in a flash one might say). Now, the planet will have no knowledge of the conversion of the mass to radiation until 600 seconds later. It seems clear to me that the knowledge of the loss of acceleration can neither preceed this time (as it would if gravity propagated faster than c), nor can the loss of acceleration lag behind the light speed. In other words, gravity must propagate at exactly the same speed as light or one of two effects will be displayed - either an acceleration around stars that no longer exist - or a pair of stars that have no gravitational attraction for a measurable period of time I appreciate that this is not a proof, but any proposal that gravity propagates at a different speed than light will have to address the issues of simulaneity that this raises. Any argument about the impossibility of complete conversion of star like quantities of matter and anti-matter in an instance can be addressed by considering a neutron, an anti-neutron and some neutral lepton. |
#38
|
|||
|
|||
"OG" wrote in message ... wrote in message ... If at the Event Horizon time stops, the circumference of a circle would equal it's diameter. Time doesn't stop for a particle at the event horizon the Position between two objects is absolute, time over that distance is not. Spacetime doesn't allow you to separate space and time. I have always understood the reason for gravity and light to propagate at the same speed to be an inference from the principle that the laws of physics are universal in time and space. My argument would go thus:- Imagine a solar system comprising a binary star made up of one matter star and one anti-matter star. At a suitable distance orbits a planet. The definition of 'suitable' is such that the planet orbits in a normal orbit let us say 600 light seconds from the stars. Initially the planet orbits the common centre of gravity and is subject to a measurable acceleration. For an observer on the planet; at any time (and this is important) there is both a measurable acceleration and a cause for the acceleration. Imagine now that the matter and anti matter components coalesce perfectly, such that the entire mass is converted to gamma rays in a very short period of time (in a flash one might say). Now, the planet will have no knowledge of the conversion of the mass to radiation until 600 seconds later. It seems clear to me that the knowledge of the loss of acceleration can neither preceed this time (as it would if gravity propagated faster than c), nor can the loss of acceleration lag behind the light speed. In other words, gravity must propagate at exactly the same speed as light or one of two effects will be displayed - either an acceleration around stars that no longer exist - or a pair of stars that have no gravitational attraction for a measurable period of time I appreciate that this is not a proof, but any proposal that gravity propagates at a different speed than light will have to address the issues of simulaneity that this raises. Any argument about the impossibility of complete conversion of star like quantities of matter and anti-matter in an instance can be addressed by considering a neutron, an anti-neutron and some neutral lepton. See that is the thing, I think it is time for a name change for particle physics... To ..(Little Tiny Event horzions with more even smaller event horizons inside).. physics I know it is a long name but it should be plainly clear by now to all involved that there are No particles..anywhere. and everybody needs to stop deluding themselves, it clouds your thinking. we are a walking, talking, thinking, farting clouds of swirling interacting event horizons. and so is the earth. |
#39
|
|||
|
|||
"OG" wrote in message ... wrote in message ... If at the Event Horizon time stops, the circumference of a circle would equal it's diameter. Time doesn't stop for a particle at the event horizon the Position between two objects is absolute, time over that distance is not. Spacetime doesn't allow you to separate space and time. I have always understood the reason for gravity and light to propagate at the same speed to be an inference from the principle that the laws of physics are universal in time and space. My argument would go thus:- Imagine a solar system comprising a binary star made up of one matter star and one anti-matter star. At a suitable distance orbits a planet. The definition of 'suitable' is such that the planet orbits in a normal orbit let us say 600 light seconds from the stars. Initially the planet orbits the common centre of gravity and is subject to a measurable acceleration. For an observer on the planet; at any time (and this is important) there is both a measurable acceleration and a cause for the acceleration. Imagine now that the matter and anti matter components coalesce perfectly, such that the entire mass is converted to gamma rays in a very short period of time (in a flash one might say). Now, the planet will have no knowledge of the conversion of the mass to radiation until 600 seconds later. It seems clear to me that the knowledge of the loss of acceleration can neither preceed this time (as it would if gravity propagated faster than c), nor can the loss of acceleration lag behind the light speed. In other words, gravity must propagate at exactly the same speed as light or one of two effects will be displayed - either an acceleration around stars that no longer exist - or a pair of stars that have no gravitational attraction for a measurable period of time I appreciate that this is not a proof, but any proposal that gravity propagates at a different speed than light will have to address the issues of simulaneity that this raises. Any argument about the impossibility of complete conversion of star like quantities of matter and anti-matter in an instance can be addressed by considering a neutron, an anti-neutron and some neutral lepton. See that is the thing, I think it is time for a name change for particle physics... To ..(Little Tiny Event horzions with more even smaller event horizons inside).. physics I know it is a long name but it should be plainly clear by now to all involved that there are No particles..anywhere. and everybody needs to stop deluding themselves, it clouds your thinking. we are a walking, talking, thinking, farting clouds of swirling interacting event horizons. and so is the earth. |
#40
|
|||
|
|||
wrote in message ... "Bill Sheppard" wrote in message ... Jonathan S. wrote, re. 'speed of gravity', I have no idea. Tom van Flandern thinks it's enormous, but he seems to have lost the reputation he once had. Yes, van Flandern finally concludes that the flowing-space explanation is the only rational model for the mechanism of gravity. That's probably why he's 'lost his reputation'. Under that model, there's nothing 'propagating' outbound from the source; therefore gravity's "action" is instantaneous at any distance. oc Just in case I guessed Right, the last eight digits of my cable modems mac address is DAA46260. And a Mr. David A Smith kind of knows more about what I am proposing. Hope he doesn't mind me dragging him into this. I would Put my self at the level of "Kook" right now. but mabye a kook that guessed right. http://www.lateralscience.co.uk/AtomicH/atomicH.html instead of using hydrogen use very cold deuterium gas in a vacuum chamber http://www.lns.cornell.edu/spr/2000-09/msg0027904.html |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|