The Speed Of Gravity - Why Einstein Was Wrong

reply to post by mnemeth1

Here's the bottom line: even if the speed of gravity is infinite, you'll never measure anything faster than c for the speed of gravity because we can't measure the speed of gravity directly, we can only measure changes in gravity.

And in order to change gravity, we have to change the mass, or move a mass, and we can't do that at any speed faster than c. So that's why even if the speed of gravity is truly infinite, c is the upper limit on what we can measure for the speed of gravity.

reply to post by mnemeth1


With all due respect, I disagree. There are equally good explanations for the other side. I'd love to believe the model you are proposing here, but there is nothing so far to make me prefer it from the current one. That's why I am asking for experiments.

Originally posted by masterp
reply to post by mnemeth1

 

With all due respect, I disagree. There are equally good explanations for the other side. I'd love to believe the model you are proposing here, but there is nothing so far to make me prefer it from the current one. That's why I am asking for experiments.

What are those "equally good" explanations?

GR can indeed explain the observations of the Earth's movement around the Sun, but in so doing, violates the speed limitations of SR.

They can't have it both ways.

The observed mechanics of Earth's orbit around the Sun is not open to interpretation. There is no ambiguity here. Gravity MUST propagate at a speed faster than light to correctly explain the orbits of planets.

I think there is more than electric and some so called ether effects
enforced for gravity.
The theory of stored momentum in the ether might work out for the
gravity of Newton being instantaneous.
The ether being thinner than air has been referred to as limiting
light to a limiting velocity as air limits the pressure wave of
sound. Noted radio scientists have given certain radio waves the
instantaneous label but does the liquid nature of the ether allow this
when driven by the electrical nature of the ether carriers.

reply to post by mnemeth1


The planets' orbits around the Sun can be explained by General Relativity, without violating Special Relativity. There are numerous web pages dedicated to that.

Your theory also seems valid.

That's why I am asking: does your theory propose a set of experiments that can be used to determine the validity of your theory?

There is a nice article on the subject of this thread, which explains that there is probably not a problem with gravity propagating at "c", according to data:

en.wikipedia.org...

Possible experimental measurements

The speed of gravity can be calculated from observations of the orbital decay rate of binary pulsars PSR 1913+16 and PSR B1534+12. The orbits of these binary pulsars are decaying due to loss of energy in the form of gravitational radiation. The rate of this energy loss ("gravitational damping") can be measured, and since it depends on the speed of gravity, comparing the measured values to theory shows that the speed of gravity is equal to the speed of light to within 1%. [14] (However, measuring the speed of gravity by comparing theoretical results with experimental results will depend on the theory; use of a theory other than that of general relativity could in principle show a different speed, although the existence of gravitational damping at all implies that the speed cannot be infinite.)

In September 2002, Sergei Kopeikin and Edward Fomalont announced that they had made an indirect measurement of the speed of gravity, using their data from VLBI measurement of the retarded position of Jupiter on its orbit during Jupiter's transit across the line-of-sight of the bright radio source quasar QSO J0842+1835. Kopeikin and Fomalont concluded that the speed of gravity is between 0.8 and 1.2 times the speed of light, which would be fully consistent with the theoretical prediction of general relativity that the speed of gravity is exactly the same as the speed of light.

[edit on 19-5-2010 by buddhasystem]

Originally posted by buddhasystem
There is a nice article on the subject of this thread, which explains that there is probably not a problem with gravity propagating at "c", according to data:

That sounds like the same paper where the mentor at physicsforums stated "Critical analysis later found errors in the methods, which invalidated the results. We remain without experimental verification of the theory."

www.physicsforums.com...

I’d thought this was all but accepted by scientists, until another member there posted this link to a paper rebutting Kopeikin's results: www.metaresearch.org...

And here's the reply by the mentor Integral:

www.physicsforums.com...

I do not think that there is a lot of controversy about the speed of gravity. It is pretty well accepted that it is c, we just need to find a way to measure it. There was some controversy around the paper you mention, due to the claims of finally having found a way to measure the speed of gravity. Critical analysis later found errors in the methods, which invalidated the results. We remain without experimental verification of the theory.

[edit on 19-5-2010 by Arbitrageur]

I take it you guys are just going to ignore the clear examples of gravity violating c mentioned by Flandern.

The Earth's orbit around the Sun seems to be a blatantly obvious one to me.

That's the most egregious example of gravity violating c.

How this fact can be ignored by physicists is beyond me.


[edit on 19-5-2010 by mnemeth1]

reply to post by mnemeth1

Well here's the issue. Kopeikin published a paper referenced by Buddhasystem showing results consistent with the mainstream belief that gravity travels at c. Then the paper was rebutted, more than once, and now the mainstream folks seem to dismiss the paper as flawed even though it supports their belief. So that shows me they are really looking for truth, and not to just accept any paper that reinforces their beliefs.

Now when they look at Van Flandern's work, it really doesn't seem to get much support. I actually find Van Flandern's claim intriguing, but I haven't been able to verify it. And usually the best ideas in physics at any given time can be verified. (Note I said usually, not always).

reply to post by Arbitrageur


I'm unsure what you mean "can not be verified"

This is a simple observation.

Orbital models that do not use a Newtonian speed of g fall apart when motion is applied to the central body.

I don't understand how something so simple can not be verified.

Are you telling me physicists haven't worked out how to calculate the orbit of the Earth?

Originally posted by Arbitrageur
reply to post by mnemeth1

 

Well here's the issue. Kopeikin published a paper referenced by Buddhasystem showing results consistent with the mainstream belief that gravity travels at c. Then the paper was rebutted, more than once, and now the mainstream folks seem to dismiss the paper as flawed even though it supports their belief. So that shows me they are really looking for truth, and not to just accept any paper that reinforces their beliefs.

This is quite true. It seemed to me that the jury was still out on Kopeikin's work, but in any case it just shows the kind of critical thinking that good science always employs. I find it fascinating how they come with ways to measure subtle effects using astronomical observations and no, it's not easy. It's a lot easier to kick back in a Lay-Z Boy sipping Kool-Aid and declare that Einstein was a moron.

Originally posted by mnemeth1
reply to post by Arbitrageur

 

I don't understand how something so simple can not be verified.

Are you telling me physicists haven't worked out how to calculate the orbit of the Earth?

No I'm saying that physicists don't seem to be buying Van Flandern's conclusions that the Earth's orbit demonstrates that gravity is not traveling at c.

I'd have to spend considerable time researching this to draw my own conclusion, and I haven't had the time to do that yet. But I suspect it's not as simple as you claim, just as Kopeikin's analysis of the speed of gravity turned out to not be so simple.

Originally posted by buddhasystem
This is quite true. It seemed to me that the jury was still out on Kopeikin's work, but in any case it just shows the kind of critical thinking that good science always employs.

Yes, saying the jury is still out may be a more accurate assessment.

I don't see why they are trying to find gravity waves. They are not detectable. They are going at infinite speeds so we won't even be able to see them. Then when they can't detect them they are going to blame it on Einstein.

[edit on 19-5-2010 by Gentill Abdulla]

Originally posted by Gentill Abdulla
I don't see why they are trying to find gravity waves. They are not detectable. They are going at infinite speeds so we won't even be able to see them. Then when they can't detect them they are going to blame t on Einstein.

What the heck is that supposed to mean? We don't know the speed of gravity, reliably, in the first place. If there are waves, then it is finite. Scientists are trying to find out.

reply to post by buddhasystem


I'm just saying if it is a ripple in spacetime it is most likely going to be too fast to calculate.Unless of course it is a really massive ripple.

reply to post by mnemeth1


You seem to FLAME Einstein ALL the time on here dont you the guy is not here to defend himself but lets say if he was still alive his theories would have been refined more and in a debate re this subject I would have loved to see what he would have done to you!

So when are your great papers on GRAVITY being published or do you just like to hang on the coat tails of anyone who goes against the scientific norm and post links to there work becuase thats how it looks.

Originally posted by Arbitrageur
No I'm saying that physicists don't seem to be buying Van Flandern's conclusions that the Earth's orbit demonstrates that gravity is not traveling at c.

Again, I don't understand.

This is not something that is outrageously difficult to answer here.

How do physicists calculate the orbit of the earth?

Do they use infinite speed G or not?

Yes or No?

This is a simple yes or no question.

If physicists know how to calculate the orbit of the Earth, then it surely stands to reason they have already determined at what speed gravity must propagate.

One can not calculate the orbit of the Earth without knowing this first.

Allow me to answer for you.

Cognitive dissonance is an uncomfortable feeling caused by holding two contradictory ideas simultaneously.

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/20fccbd2884a.jpg[/atsimg]

reply to post by mnemeth1


How would the orbit be different with different speeds of gravity? The involved forces would be the same, just delayed, so I don't see how it would matter.

Originally posted by -PLB-
reply to post by mnemeth1

 

How would the orbit be different with different speeds of gravity? The involved forces would be the same, just delayed, so I don't see how it would matter.

The Earth would go flying off into deep space within 1200 years if gravity did not propagate faster than light. This is because the Sun itself is moving.

Given that there is an 8 minute time delay between when light leaves the Sun and when it arrives at Earth, if gravity moved at the speed of light, the Earth's orbit would rapidly destabilize.



[edit on 20-5-2010 by mnemeth1]