Speed of gravity

[damocles]

Damocles; Speculations to various:

 

1. If gravitation is a particle wave phenomenon(boson transmitted binding force) then it is an experimentally observed propogating force with the suspected properties of;

 

a. range limitation,

b. bounded velocity limit,

c. density of interaction(gravitons per cubic volume of space proportional to the original mass particle pairs, triplets, quadruplets, etc.....).

d a dynamic tractor that proportionally directly delimits the rate and shape of spatial expansion caused by electromagnetism.

e. and paired with the action of light pressure determines the passage of information(time) through the static(volume) properties of space-time.

 

That refutes instantly the notion that the graviton is;

 

a. symmetric,

b, polarizable in the sense of possessing paired properties such as charge, spin, etc.

c. inhibitable by any screening effect.

d. or is its own anti-force(as you can find in electro-magnetism. in the form of symmetric ant-particles with opposite charge pairs.)

 

That means to me that gravity should indeed move through space as a force.

That there should be a retardation effect(angular momentum transfer) caused by its upper velocity bounding.

That gravity should distort space, itself, as its waves pass through space.

And that it is gravity and electromagnetism that defines the shape and density of mass on the macro scale as it is the strong and weak nuclear forces that define it on the microscale in spacetime..

That gravity and electromagnetism should be considered as operating as force pairs instead of in splendid isolation from each other when trying to cobble together GUT theories.

[CraigD]

If gravity travels at c, then the earth would travel a path perpendicular to the Sun's position as it was 8.3 minutes ago sending us gradually further and further into space.

 

http://www.ldolphin.org/vanFlandern/gravityspeed.html

I'm sorry, but vanFlandern hasn't the slightest idea what the hell he is trying to talk about. He is more interested in selling books than understanding science. Not only is his science faulty, but his math sucks.

I agree.

 

I’ve encountered the “orbits don’t work unless gravity is an instantaneous effect at a distance” argument, and several compelling disproofs of it, going back to about 1982. I suspect they were around before then.

 

VanFlandern’s presentation is less coherent than most of the ones I’ve seen before, but argues for the same claim. Even had I not read his gravity claims, I’d doubt his credibility based on his continued support of an artificial origin of the “Face on Mars”, long after additional images of the region in question have clearly discredited it.

[Southtown]

Not to doubt you guys or anything, but can ya point me to some articles discrediting instantaneous gravity transfer. I am incapable (so far) of plotting anything in spacetime.

[infamous]

Not to doubt you guys or anything, but can ya point me to some articles discrediting instantaneous gravity transfer. I am incapable (so far) of plotting anything in spacetime.

Try this link Southtown:

 

http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn3232

[Bobby]

damocles]Damocles; Speculations to various:

 

1. If gravitation is a particle wave phenomenon(boson transmitted binding force) then it is an experimentally observed propogating force with the suspected properties of;

 

a. range limitation,

b. bounded velocity limit,

c. density of interaction(gravitons per cubic volume of space proportional to the original mass particle pairs, triplets, quadruplets, etc.....).

d a dynamic tractor that proportionally directly delimits the rate and shape of spatial expansion caused by electromagnetism.

e. and paired with the action of light pressure determines the passage of information(time) through the static(volume) properties of space-time.

 

Could ( a ) through ( e ) be true even if gravitation is not a particle?

 

 

That refutes instantly the notion that the graviton is;

 

a. symmetric,

b, polarizable in the sense of possessing paired properties such as charge, spin, etc.

c. inhibitable by any screening effect.

d. or is its own anti-force(as you can find in electro-magnetism. in the form of symmetric ant-particles with opposite charge pairs.)

 

That means to me that gravity should indeed move through space as a force.

 

That there should be a retardation effect(angular momentum transfer) caused by its upper velocity bounding.

 

 

Could you expound on retardation effect and angualr momentum transfer?

 

That gravity should distort space, itself, as its waves pass through space.

And that it is gravity and electromagnetism that defines the shape and density of mass on the macro scale as it is the strong and weak nuclear forces that define it on the microscale in spacetime..

 

 

How do the strong and weak forces define spacetime on the microscale?

 

That gravity and electromagnetism should be considered as operating as force pairs instead of in splendid isolation from each other when trying to cobble together GUT theories.

 

I'm not sure I agree, but it is an interesting view.

[EWright]

I think I've asked this before somewhere... but how the heck does a particle or a wave go out, grab ahold of something to attract it, and then turn around and bring that thing back to the sorce of the gravitational attraction?

[alxian]

at some point someone will have to ask if the universe is physical beyond even string theory (complexity continuing to infinity, each new state of matter while having quantifiable dimensions and that maintain to some extent obeys the laws of physics within those dimensions and energy systems)

 

or is there a matter energy[information]-boundary at which point universal superconductivity is achieved, a state at which information can pass instantaneously throughout the universe?

 

and if energy can be just 'information' like when they say at the moment of the big bang everything was energy that cooled into matter can that state be likened to a perfect superconductive medium where every was uniform? electrons/photons is our measure of energy generally but these particles interact with the physical universe easily, but at the core of dark stars and other physical phenomena is there a only one uniform energy state?

[Bobby]

Not to doubt you guys or anything, but can ya point me to some articles discrediting instantaneous gravity transfer. I am incapable (so far) of plotting anything in spacetime.

 

 

I have often heard that the General Theory of Relativity puts the speed of gravity at the speed of light. I don't know where they get this information. I haven't seen it iin any of the math and I know there are serious scientists devising tests. There is a fellow named van something or other who claims the earth would slip away from the sun if the speed of gravity was not infinite. I think the guy's science and math is terrible. His argument goes somwthing like this. If it took eight minutes for sun's gravity to reach earth, then it would take eight more minutes for the earth's reaction (I.E. move in its orbit) to reach the sun and the sun would have moved 16 light seconds by then. Fact is, it doesn't work this way. The earth does not orbit the sun, rather the sun and the earth each orbit a common center of gravity. This center of gravity is continually moving in responce to the sun and earth's motion and although this moving center of gravity appears to have been about eight minutes ago, this spot is zero distance and zero time away from the earth and sun in spacetime, and the earth and sun move in spacetime, not some version of "real" time.

 

If you have had a little algebra, you should be able to graph these orbits in spacetime by using the Minkowski equation of X^2 + Y^2 + Z^2 = (CT)^2.

[infamous]

I have often heard that the General Theory of Relativity puts the speed of gravity at the speed of light. I don't know where they get this information.

I posted this link before. Click on to this link, it will explain the evidence.

 

http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn3232

[Bobby]

I think I've asked this before somewhere... but how the heck does a particle or a wave go out, grab ahold of something to attract it, and then turn around and bring that thing back to the sorce of the gravitational attraction?

 

 

It does seem sorta unlikely, doesn't it? There are several different ideas about gravity. One of these ideas is that there are particles (bosons?) that carry the gravitational force. I don't understand how this works, but these are smart people and I am not about to say they are wrong. Another idea is that gravity is simply a force just as electromagnetism is a force. These folks think gravity set up a gravitational field, and it is this field which attracts other objects. Apparently Einstein didn't like gravity as a force, so his idea is that mass warps, curves spacetime and an object simply follows the warped spacetimes.

 

I don't care much for any of these ideas. It amazes me that a fellow like Einstein can say that time is that thing measured by clocks and distance is that thing measure by rulers, and then turn around and use space and time as if they were THINGS rather than measurements. If time and distance are measurements, then how can they be warped? The gravitational field might be "warped", but time and distance aren't.

[Bobby]

I posted this link before. Click on to this link, it will explain the evidence.

 

http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn3232

 

 

I don't doubt the evidence. My question is where in general relativity does it say that the speed of gravity is the same as the speed of light?

[Erasmus00]

I have often heard that the General Theory of Relativity puts the speed of gravity at the speed of light. I don't know where they get this information. .

 

Any good introduction to GR should have a bit on this. If you take the weak field (but still relativistic) limit of GR, it sort of falls out. I'd type it out a bit, but there is no way I'm trying to figure out a coherent way to do indices on a web board.

-Will

[Erasmus00]

I don't care much for any of these ideas. It amazes me that a fellow like Einstein can say that time is that thing measured by clocks and distance is that thing measure by rulers, and then turn around and use space and time as if they were THINGS rather than measurements. If time and distance are measurements, then how can they be warped?

 

The clocks tick slower and the rulers shrink. There is a good bit in one of the Feynman lectures where he talks about an ant on a plate that is heated in the middle. As the ant gets closer to the edge and it gets colder, his ruler shrinks (as all objects do when they get cold). This causes his measurements to be non-Euclidean.

 

The gravitational field might be "warped", but time and distance aren't.

 

Why not? Euclidean geometry is one special case of all possible geometries, so why should the universe be Euclidean? I find it highly interesting that Gauss (who invented differential geometry among other astonishing mathematical accomplishments) tried to measure the curvature years before Einstein.

-Will

[infamous]

I don't doubt the evidence. My question is where in general relativity does it say that the speed of gravity is the same as the speed of light?

Try this link Bobby:

 

http://www.iop.org/EJ/abstract/0264-9381/21/13/010/

[Southtown]

I think I've asked this before somewhere... but how the heck does a particle or a wave go out, grab ahold of something to attract it, and then turn around and bring that thing back to the sorce of the gravitational attraction?

The graviton is said to bombard objects from all directions save for that toward which they gravitate toward, being "pushed" not "pulled," because the "source" of gravitation would sheild incoming gravitons from that direction.

[Erasmus00]

The graviton is said to bombard objects from all directions save for that toward which they gravitate toward, being "pushed" not "pulled," because the "source" of gravitation would sheild incoming gravitons from that direction.

 

Thats not necessarily true. In any quantum field theory, the force particles act as messenger particles. Consider that photon exchange between two charges can be attractive. There is no need to have gravitons constantly bombarding particles from all directions.

 

-Will

[alxian]

gravitons thus are like a very minimal form of radiation. [minimal~inert]