Big Bang + Black Holes = $1.1B

[malform11]

if you could have a high enough degree of sensitivity, to  determine the distribution of the mass and not just it's center of gravity.  You could possibly change the distribution from spherical to disc shaped and back to form a sort of binary code.

IMHO the center of gravity of this disc/sphere from a great distance would be immeasurable, discernible above other nearby motion, appear unchanged.

 

IMHO One would have to be so close than matter movement to each side would be create a detectable deficit in front of the detector, or reside within the expansion, for some of the material to be behind them instead of in front of them. Is there much need for any instant communication  that would save only a few minutes or hours of normal light travel?

 

[Maine farmer]

I didn't "come up with" instantaneous gravity.

 

 

Gravimeters measure gravity. Scientists take those to places where eclipses occur. The force of gravity changes as the alignment actually occurs, not seven minutes later. The force of gravity actually dips slightly  during alignment, demonstrating "masking' which only supports instantaneuos newtonian gravity.

 

 

I have a specific question here that hasn't been answered.  

 

 

 

Did the gravimeters actually record the eclipse before it could be seen?

If so, then that would be evidence that gravity is at least faster than light, if not instantaneous.   If the gravimeter reading is simultaneous with visual observation, than it would not be instantaneous.

[malform11]

Would you believe what i said, would someone else argue? It's probably better here if you do your own research on that one.

 

Try to remember that most of the web/posts will be biased, and try to give you the conclusion.

 

Many times they will resound the wrong conclusion, authoritatively, as if there is no dispute.

 

You may have to visit ten sites, attempting to extrapolate "just the facts, Ma'am."

 

Do your own thinking.

 

[Maine farmer]

I didn't "come up with" instantaneous gravity.

 

Hundreds of people have jobs which require them to predict future positions of asteroids, planets, moons, celestial bodies..all of them use instantaneous gravity in their equations. That is the only way to get the correct answer.

 

 

 

If you are looking at asteroids, planets, moons, and celestial bodies, and you use a telescope to determine their positions, you are determining a past position, and not instantaneous position.  The only way the equations could work, then, would be if gravity traveled at the same speed as light.

 

Gravity can not be imitated in any way I know.

 

Perfume atomizers work on the same principle, also old carburetors. The rapid, directional flow of gas above the perfume draws vapor into the stream. In a carburetor, the venturi is like an hourglass, where it is thin, the flow of air is moving quickly in one direction, drawing gasoline vapor into the stream.

 

These streams are not less dense, they are actually more dense. They have less pressure.

 

Mechanical science, I think. More orderly flow means an increase in dynamic pressure, which decreases static pressure.

 

The same thing happens on a much smaller scale within the dark matter media.

 

 

Even this explanation does not indicate instantaneous gravity. Pressure systems take time to transmit forces.

[Maine farmer]

 

 Is there much need for any instant communication  that would save only a few minutes or hours of normal light travel?

 

Who knows what need may arise in a future that may involve interstellar travel.  Besides that, contemplating the subject provides mental activity as I perform my manual labor.

 

Would you believe what i said, would someone else argue? It's probably better here if you do your own research on that one.

 

 

 

Do your own thinking.

Would it really be that difficult or time consuming to post a link or cite a reference.  I am fully capable of understanding data, if there is any.

 

I think for myself every day.

[exchemist]

I believe anything that physically happens can be filmed, or depicted in a video. Any theory which can't be depicted in a video is not true, and doesn't happen.

 

 

What grounds do you have for this belief?

 

Or is it purely a matter of personal faith - or a matter of personal discomfort with mathematics?

Edited May 2, 2017 by exchemist

[exchemist]

I didn't "come up with" instantaneous gravity.

 

Hundreds of people have jobs which require them to predict future positions of asteroids, planets, moons, celestial bodies..all of them use instantaneous gravity in their equations. That is the only way to get the correct answer.

 

Surely no one denies simple physics. Objects of a given mass moving at given speeds in relation to other objects, affected by given forces. Video games emulate "physics" to simulate realistic motion of objects.

 

Suppose you wanted to predict the future position of any planet or star, or wanted to know if an asteroid is headed toward Earth. You need to know the mass of the object, speed and direction of travel, and the forces acting upon it.

 

If the mass or speed or direction is wrong, the prediction will be incorrect.

If you use any value other than instantaneuos to describe the gravity forces, the prediction will be incorrect.

 

This is observational proof.

 

I support the newtonian explanation of gravity. I explain the methodology of gravity in my book, which only applies proven science. I provide the mathematical formalization.

 

There is other empiricle evidence.

 

Gravimeters measure gravity. Scientists take those to places where eclipses occur. The force of gravity changes as the alignment actually occurs, not seven minutes later. The force of gravity actually dips slightly  during alignment, demonstrating "masking' which only supports instantaneuos newtonian gravity.

 

Big bang predicted that graviton particles form between every two particles in the universe, tethering them together. Later they went for the equally unscientific but more colorful space-time gravity theory.

Surely you don't think that lensing of light around galaxies can only suggest, and indeed prooves, that gravity is "space-time folding in on itself"?

I think I would challenge this assertion.

 

Surely the gravity field due to celestial bodies is steady, i.e. constant, is it not? If so, it makes no difference whether a change would be transmitted instantly or just at the speed of light, so far as calculation of trajectories and interaction are concerned. 

 

My understanding is that what is alleged to travel only at the speed of light is the propagation through space of a change in gravitational field, by analogy with the change in an electrical field that gives rise to EM radiation, for example. 

 

P.S. I looked up your book by the way. Author Michael Lindsey, self-published by Page Publishing. 

Edited May 2, 2017 by exchemist

[malform11]

 

 you are determining a past position, and not instantaneous position.

I am not determining anything.

The people who do this aren't retarded. They know the difference between where a celestial object is, and where it appears to be.

 

 

I believe anything that physically happens can be filmed, or depicted in a video. Any theory which can't be depicted in a video is not true, and doesn't happen.

 

 

What grounds do you have for this belief?

 

Or is it purely a matter of personal faith - or a matter of personal discomfort with mathematics?

I have a brain, logic, the ability to think,. I understand the physical universe as real, anything real has a shape, motion. If you understood the universe in a real physical way you would be used to dismissing that which is illogical and impossible. You depend on colorful fiction, ideas that are so nonsensical that they can't be proved or disproved. believing nonsense, you are contradicting yourself, logic, proven science, and observations.

 

I embrace mathematics, you deny their conclusions.

How about this?

No statement has two constants and a variable.

2 =6/x

The variable is solvable, therefore a constant. it can only be 3.

Speed of light = distance/time

Speed of light is a constant [for the density of media it propagates], distance is a constant by definition.

Therefore time must be a constant. if it changed, the speed of light would change.

 

Do you like math now?

 

The pressure of baryonic matter is not directly relatable to "pressure' of dark matter.  There is no inertia, or compression waves. this is the elementary media.

Sound,  travels faster in denser [baryonic] media,

Light travels slower in denser [dark matter] media.

Is it feasible that the reduction of pressure has no delay, if all pressure in all directions affects matter without the delay typical of baryonic matter.

 

We observe gravity to propagate instantly. If we can't understand why, that is our problem. the universe will not change to make us comfortable in our ideas.

Edited May 2, 2017 by malform11

[exchemist]

I am not determining anything.

The people who do this aren't retarded. They know the difference between where a celestial object is, and where it appears to be.

 

I have a brain, logic, the ability to think,. I understand the physical universe as real, anything real has a shape, motion. If you understood the universe in a real physical way you would be used to dismissing that which is illogical and impossible. You depend on colorful fiction, ideas that are so nonsensical that they can't be proved or disproved. believing nonsense, you are contradicting yourself, logic, proven science, and observations.

 

I embrace mathematics, you deny their conclusions.

How about this?

No statement has two constants and a variable.

2 =6/x

The variable is solvable, therefore a constant. it can only be 3.

Speed of light = distance/time

Speed of light is a constant [for the density of media it propagates], distance is a constant by definition.

Therefore time must be a constant. if it changed, the speed of light would change.

 

Do you like math now?

 

The pressure of baryonic matter is not directly relatable to "pressure' of dark matter.  There is no inertia, or compression waves. this is the elementary media.

Sound,  travels faster in denser [baryonic] media,

Light travels slower in denser [dark matter] media.

Is it feasible that the reduction of pressure has no delay, if all pressure in all directions affects matter without the delay typical of baryonic matter.

 

We observe gravity to propagate instantly. If we can't understand why, that is our problem. the universe will not change to make us comfortable in our ideas.

This seems a very rambling response. I can see why you might have got a hard time on more rigorous science forums. If I were a mod on one of those, I'd probably kick you out. But they are more tolerant here, so I'll just wait and see if anyone can get something out of you that I can understand.

 

But again I would challenge the assertion that "anything real has shape, motion". Why must this be true?  For example, do you think electrostatic force is real?  

[spartan45]

I have a specific question here that hasn't been answered.  

 

If so, then that would be evidence that gravity is at least faster than light, if not instantaneous.   If the gravimeter reading is simultaneous with visual observation, than it would not be instantaneous.

Any change in a gravity field must propagate at the speed of light, but once a gravity field is established, (as in the case of the entire visible universe), the effect of this field on an orbiting object is instant wherever it is, following Newtonian law of gravitational force that gravity is directed along the line joining the instantaneous positions of objects, like the Earth and the Sun. Einstein improved Newtonian law of gravitational force with his theory of relativity showing, amongst other things, that even electromagnetic radiation (e.g. light) despite having no mass, is affected by gravity because spacetime is warped by gravity. Objects in free fall follow geodesic paths in spacetime and general relativity also takes into account the extremely small effect caused by an objects velocity. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geodesics_in_general_relativity

The lunar eclipse of 28^th Sep 2015 would have been a good opportunity to use a gravimeter to show the direction of largest gravitational force occurring when the actual position of Sun, Earth and Moon were in a straight line, so that after about 8 minutes 23 seconds when the light retarded position of the Sun, Earth and Moon were in a straight line the gravimeter would be expected to have shifted 5.7x10^-3 degrees east of the visible Sun’s position as it still points towards the actual position of the Sun and total gravitational force weakened slightly. The 5.7x10^-3 deg. figure was calculated using Earth’s orbital velocity of 29.78 km/s multiplied by 503 seconds giving 15,000km (rounded) divided by the Earth/Sun distance of 149,600,000 km to give Tan 1.00267x10^-4 which is the 5.7x10^-3 degree gravimeter easterly shift that should be expected if this experiment was performed.

Interesting observation on this topic: One excellent science forum went into a tail spin when this question was asked: What speed of gravity is used in space probe trajectory calculations? Actually the post was blocked and ridiculed. Another science forum which had been running since 2008 allowed the question to be discussed and was top result on Google. Google has now removed this forum from its searches, but the link to the search engine duckduckgo shows it as top result although blocked. The red screen is safe, but don’t carry on!  This has fueled my fascination of this question, because I cannot understand why it seems so troublesome.  

https://duckduckgo.com/?q=what+speed+of+gravity+is+used+in+space+probe+trajectory+calculations&t=h_&ia=web

[billvon]

 

We observe gravity to propagate instantly. If we can't understand why, that is our problem. the universe will not change to make us comfortable in our ideas.

No, we don't.  We simply observe gravity is there, just as we observe the light from Sun is there - even though that light takes 8 minutes to get here.

[malform11]

Any change in a gravity field must propagate at the speed of light, but once a gravity field is established, (as in the case of the entire visible universe), the effect of this field on an orbiting object is instant wherever it is,

 

WOW. Excellent. Also note, changes in gravity fields is not a common or prevailing  phenomenon in the cosmos.