[Gerald]

Originally Posted by Stripe

If I was more cordial perhaps we could conduct more civil discussions. Want to try?

Attempting to carry on a civil discussion with you is a lost cause; all you ever do is get into a snit when multiple people point out that you are mistaken about how the universe operates.

There's nothing left to do but subject you to unrelenting mockery and derision.

[noguru]

Come to think of it, where is my cell phone?

[Stripe]

Originally Posted by noguru

Favour? I don't favour either. These are models that are meant to represent reality. The article from the link is much more detailed than the video. It does not contradict the video.

Did you read your link?

The model of gravity that I have in my head sees the speed of gravity as somewhere between instantaneous and the speed of light.

That's the contradiction.

[Stripe]

Originally Posted by fool

Alright, so on the video i have a couple questions;
When the Sun disappeared in the Einstien version we saw the big wave but it really didn't rebound like we see on the surface of a pond, when we see a drop hit a pond there's a huge rebound spike and even little droplets that get thrown off what what would be the analogy for that? In other words what is the surface tension of space time?

Or put another way lets leave the pond and use the bowling ball on the trampoline model, a trampoline would rebound much the same as a pond without the surface tension tearing away droplets problem.

So should we think of it as two trampolines one face up and one face down so when the bowling ball disappeares the two smack back together and cancel out the rebound wave so there is none?

In other words the video showed a rebound wave hit the Earth but it showed the Earth leave it's orbit in the old Newtonian way without illustating that there was a huge rebound wave that hit it form the side wich should have caused a change in vector.

According to noguru's link this is not a good way to consider the propagation of gravity.

[noguru]

Originally Posted by Stripe

Did you read your link?

The paper is an attempt to revive the LR model of gravity to explain some quantum phenomena.

Originally Posted by Stripe

That's the contradiction.

Is light particles or waves?

[noguru]

Originally Posted by Stripe

According to noguru's link this is not a good way to consider the propagation of gravity.

The article uses the Lorentzian model to help explain quantum phenomena.

[Stripe]

Originally Posted by noguru

Is light particles or waves?

I don't know.

The link you gave and the video pozzo gave contradict each other. Which explanation do you favour?

[noguru]

Originally Posted by Stripe

I don't know.

The link you gave and the video pozzo gave contradict each other. Which explanation do you favour?

I don't know.

The link I gave is a more thorough treatment for a greater scope of subject matter - its main purpose is to reconcile some of the quantum phenomena.

To claim that light is both a wave and a particle is contradictory, which do you favour?

Actually this whole tangent that fool started about gravity is irrelevant to the question in my OP. I don't mind discussing it here, but if gravity is instantaneous then it does not travel at all. It is either in the universe or it isn't. Gravity is the effect mass has on other mass. It is the effect that mass has, not a thing in and of itself.

Just like anything else though, I think more research would be helpful.

Here is another link:

http://www.csa.com/discoveryguides/gravity/overview.php

And here is the Wikipedia entry on Tom Van Flandern, the author of the fist link I posted:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tom_Van_Flandern

Here is another article by Flandern:

http://ldolphin.org/vanFlandern/

[Stripe]

Originally Posted by noguru

To claim that light is both a wave and a particle is contradictory, which do you favour?

It might well be something entirely new.

Actually this whole tangent that fool started about gravity is irrelevant to the question in my OP. I don't mind discussing it here, but if gravity is instantaneous then it does not travel at all. It is either in the universe or it isn't. Gravity is the effect mass has on other mass. It is the effect that mass has, not a thing in and of itself.

Well, it's not a "not a thing in and of itself" in the way that time and space are not things in and of themselves. Perhaps if people weren't so insistent that space and time were somehow real things we could make some progress with gravity.

[Stripe]

These links you keep posting undermine the pre-eminence of relativity. I don't understand why you have such a hard time with my ideas if you're going to keep promoting other ideas that buck the establishment.

[noguru]

Originally Posted by Stripe

These links you keep posting undermine the pre-eminence of relativity. I don't understand why you have such a hard time with my ideas if you're going to keep promoting other ideas that buck the establishment.

I don't have a hard time with your ideas. I realize that there are people who doubt the claims of relativity. I am asking for the evidence that Einstien was wrong.

If you noticed the first link was the only one with solid evidence for the speed of gravity, and it supported Einstien's claim.

[noguru]

Originally Posted by Stripe

Well, it's not a "not a thing in and of itself" in the way that time and space are not things in and of themselves. Perhaps if people weren't so insistent that space and time were somehow real things we could make some progress with gravity.

Mass and energy exist in time and space and one of the effects of mass on time and space is gravity.

[Stripe]

Originally Posted by noguru

I don't have a hard time with your ideas. I realize that there are people who doubt the claims of relativity.

Oh.

I am asking for the evidence that Einstien was wrong.

Read your links:

"The argument that gravity must travel faster than light goes like this. If its speed limit is that of light, there must be an appreciable delay in its action. By the time the Sun's "pull" reaches us, the Earth will have "moved on" for another 8.3 minutes (the time of light travel). But by then the Sun's pull on the Earth will not be in the same straight line as the Earth's pull on the Sun. The effect of these misaligned forces "would be to double the Earth's distance from the Sun in 1200 years." Obviously, this is not happening. The stability of planetary orbits tells us that gravity must propagate much faster than light. Accepting this reasoning, Isaac Newton assumed that the force of gravity must be instantaneous.

Astronomical data support this conclusion. We know, for example, that the Earth accelerates toward a point 20 arc-seconds in front of the visible Sun--that is, toward the true, instantaneous direction of the Sun. Its light comes to us from one direction, its "pull" from a slightly different direction. This implies different propagation speeds for light and gravity."

If you noticed the first link was the only one with solid evidence for the speed of gravity, and it supported Einstien's claim.

That experiment made little sense. How does one measure the speed of gravity by looking for shifts in radio waves?

There was also the evidence from your other link where the alignment of the moon and the sun in a solar eclipse produced different arrival times for the light and the gravity.

Originally Posted by noguru

Mass and energy exist in time and space and one of the effects of mass on time and space is gravity.

• Mass is a real thing. It is well understood and there is little disagreement on this fact.
• Space is the distance between objects. It is not a real thing even though it is defined by real things.
• Energy is a real thing. It is well understood and there is little disagreement on this fact.
• Time is the distance between events. It is not a real thing even though it is defined by real things.
• Gravity is a real thing, but it is poorly understood.

If we could agree on this hierarchy then our problems with gravity might progress much more quickly.

[Stripe]

Originally Posted by noguru

the first link was the only one with solid evidence for the speed of gravity, and it supported Einstien's claim.

From the link:

The assumed speed of gravity remained untested and unchallenged for so long because most physicists thought that gravity shows its speed only in the propagation of gravitational waves through space, and since no one has even detected gravitational waves, measuring how fast they travel was not possible.

This is wrong. If one mass acts upon another then the speed of gravity is easily tested by observing the masses in different configurations. No need to detect 'gravity waves'

Sir Isaac Newton thought that the speed of gravity was instantaneous, and Einstein assumed it traveled at the speed of light. Although scientists believe that Einstein was right, for nearly a century no one had been able to directly measure gravity's speed. However, on September 8, 2002, an international team of scientists did just that, using an experiment conceived by Sergei Kopeikin, professor of physics and astronomy at the University of Missouri-Columbia.

Let's hear how they did this.

Professor Kopeikin realized that Einstein's theory could be reformulated in a way that made gravity analogous to electromagnetic radiation.

In order to test between Newton and Einstein they assume the veracity of Einstein?!

To find the speed of gravity, all we need is an occasion where Jupiter moves in front of a good strong light source, lensing the rays on their way to Earth.

How might this show the speed of gravity?

The lensing effect that they planned to measure would cause the apparent position of the quasar J0842+1835 to shift slightly. The best available measurement method for this is to observe the quasar using an array of radio telescopes spaced as far apart as possible, due to the fact that radio waves travel at the speed of light. Therefore from the time it takes the distant body's radio signals to reach each telescope one could work out its position in the sky. Put simply, if one telescope receives a signal before the other, the quasar must be closer to the telescope at which the signal arrives first.

This makes utterly no sense and seems to be testing radio waves!

...to be able to tell whether Jupiter's gravity reaches Earth instantaneously, traveling at infinite speed, or takes a finite amount of time for the journey.

This is what they are testing, yet:

They compared the position of J0842+1835 ... with its average position on the off-Jupiter days. Plugging this into Kopeikin's formula for the gravitational field of the moving Jupiter gave them the answer they were looking for.

The article gives no indication of how they came to their conclusions. It looks like they were looking for the difference in apparent movement caused by the gravity of Jupiter. Presumably the shift would be earlier if gravity were faster than light. But the article says they are trying to determine how long it takes Jupiter's gravity to reach Earth.

It's either a really badly written article or the experiment was an attempt to settle the issue with an inappropriate experiment.

[noguru]

Originally Posted by Stripe

Read your links:

"The argument that gravity must travel faster than light goes like this. If its speed limit is that of light, there must be an appreciable delay in its action. By the time the Sun's "pull" reaches us, the Earth will have "moved on" for another 8.3 minutes (the time of light travel). But by then the Sun's pull on the Earth will not be in the same straight line as the Earth's pull on the Sun. The effect of these misaligned forces "would be to double the Earth's distance from the Sun in 1200 years." Obviously, this is not happening. The stability of planetary orbits tells us that gravity must propagate much faster than light. Accepting this reasoning, Isaac Newton assumed that the force of gravity must be instantaneous.

Yeah, I read that. I also read how Flandern could not overlook the seeming contradiction between relativity and what he had learned in his class in college about gravity. I understand that Flandern is outside the mainstream on his ideas about gravity. If these ideas are really more accurate than Einstien's, then we will eventually see them become the mainstream ideas.

Originally Posted by Stripe

Astronomical data support this conclusion. We know, for example, that the Earth accelerates toward a point 20 arc-seconds in front of the visible Sun--that is, toward the true, instantaneous direction of the Sun. Its light comes to us from one direction, its "pull" from a slightly different direction. This implies different propagation speeds for light and gravity."

How do they measure the pull from the Sun?

Originally Posted by Stripe

That experiment made little sense. How does one measure the speed of gravity by looking for shifts in radio waves?

I am not sure. But I suspect it has something to do with the specific timing of the shifting due to the lense effect. Do you think these cosmologists are trying to deceive us?

Originally Posted by Stripe

There was also the evidence from your other link where the alignment of the moon and the sun in a solar eclipse produced different arrival times for the light and the gravity.

Again, as you have seen from all the links the only experiment that was designed to measure the speed of the propagation waves of gravity, was the electromagnetic waves of the quasar passing through Jupiter's gravitational lense.

Originally Posted by Stripe

Mass is a real thing. It is well understood and there is little disagreement on this fact.

I agree.

Originally Posted by Stripe

Space is the distance between objects. It is not a real thing even though it is defined by real things.

I agree with the first sentence. The second sentence can also be applied to gravity.

Originally Posted by Stripe

Energy is a real thing. It is well understood and there is little disagreement on this fact.

I agree.

Originally Posted by Stripe

Time is the distance between events. It is not a real thing even though it is defined by real things.

If time didn't exist, everything would happen at once.

Originally Posted by Stripe

Gravity is a real thing, but it is poorly understood.[/list]

I think gravity is the effect that mass has on space and time. I think your definition is not descriptive. I do agree that it is poorly understood.