Does the Earth orbit around where the Sun was 8.5 mins ago?

Are you smoking pot?

0 Replies

I am sorta putting myself out on a limb here. The assumption is that gravity 'travels' at the speed of light. However, that is only the uppermost limit for which we can MEASURE anything - something could travel faster than light, but we couldn't actually know that it does because we have to use light to measure the movement.

The issue MAY be one of 'referential frames'. All celestial objects are travelling at different speeds. This will mean that *relative to each other* there will be either a time lag or gain, depending on the velocity of one compared to another.

This planet is constantly falling into the gravity pit that the Sun has created in time/space. To remove that 'pit' would actually spread out the fabric of space to a more uniform (flatter) perspective - we would actually move away from the point that the Sun formerly 'occupied' - and INSTANTLY!

However, like the twin who has travelled to a distant star at the speed of light and returned we 'see' that things around are slowed down (relative to us - not the whole universe, just us!) and the effects are felt at a measurably slower rate.

0 Replies

You can only hear a shout of a friend when the sound waves have got into your ears. Before that the shout is nothing to you.

I believe that the speed of the gravity is not confirmed to be that of the light yet. If gravity traveled "instantaneously", the frame of thinking must be different.

0 Replies

I'm pretty sure they've determined that gravity propagates at lightspeed. They've even detected gravity waves???? Yes?

0 Replies

No. They're planning on detecting them soon I believe, with highly three highly accurate satellites that will measure bends in the beams' paths.

0 Replies

Re: Does the Earth orbit around where the Sun was 8.5 mins a

g__day wrote:

Interesting thought huh? Gravity like all e-m radiation radiates at lightspeed.

The force of gravity, to within our ability to measure it, is absolutely instantaneous; we orbit around where the sun is NOW, and not where it was eight minutes ago.

Gravity WAVES, if there are such a thing, would propagate at C. Gravity waves are not the same thing as the force of gravity and to my knowledge, nobody has ever demonstrated that they exist.

0 Replies

?

Gravity propogates at between 97% - 100% of lightspeed - whether you treat it as a Higgs field or a Higgs guage boson interacting with a Higgs field. Current theory calls for a light speed propogation in a relativistic framework.

The best determination of propogation speed was may using deflection in a known quasar by Jupiter

"On September 8, 2002, the planet Jupiter passed almost directly in front of the radio waves coming from a quasar, a star-like object in the center of a galaxy billions of light-years away. When this happened, Jupiter's gravity bent the quasar's radio waves, causing a slight delay in their arrival on Earth. Kopeikin believed the length of time that the radio waves would be delayed would depend upon the speed at which gravity propagates from Jupiter"

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

Although two scientists are still debating a technical point on this - mainstream accepts this view.

The advanced physics website confirmed my inital thinking too

http://www.advancedphysics.org/forum/showthread.php?t=3001

We orbit the Sun we see 8.5 minutes ago, not where the Sun actually is now.

If gravity propogated faster than light you could build a device to transmit data way faster than light - a simple no-no in all our scientific models.

Gravity waves detectors are not sensitive and filtered enough yet to detect predicted gravity waves yet. We have only just been able to build detectors like SWIFT that can spot fast Gamm Ray Bursters (think Neutron Star / Black hole collisions that could generate a discernible gravity wave).

0 Replies

g__day wrote:

?

Gravity propogates at between 97% - 100% of lightspeed - whether you treat it as a Higgs field or a Higgs guage boson interacting with a Higgs field. Current theory calls for a light speed propogation in a relativistic framework.

The best determination of propogation speed was may using deflection in a known quasar by Jupiter

"On September 8, 2002, the planet Jupiter passed almost directly in front of the radio waves coming from a quasar, a star-like object in the center of a galaxy billions of light-years away. When this happened, Jupiter's gravity bent the quasar's radio waves, causing a slight delay in their arrival on Earth. Kopeikin believed the length of time that the radio waves would be delayed would depend upon the speed at which gravity propagates from Jupiter"

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

Although two scientists are still debating a technical point on this - mainstream accepts this view.

The advanced physics website confirmed my inital thinking too

http://www.advancedphysics.org/forum/showthread.php?t=3001

We orbit the Sun we see 8.5 minutes ago, not where the Sun actually is now.

If gravity propogated faster than light you could build a device to transmit data way faster than light - a simple no-no in all our scientific models.

Gravity waves detectors are not sensitive and filtered enough yet to detect predicted gravity waves yet. We have only just been able to build detectors like SWIFT that can spot fast Gamm Ray Bursters (think Neutron Star / Black hole collisions that could generate a discernible gravity wave).

Hey G,

Where had u been these days?

0 Replies

g__day wrote:

?

Gravity propogates at between 97% - 100% of lightspeed -...

Educate yourself:

http://metaresearch.org/cosmology/speed_of_gravity.asp

http://metaresearch.org/home/Viewpoint/Kopeikin.asp

http://metaresearch.org/publications/CDs/GravityContents.asp

Quote:

2. Gravity and light do not act in parallel directions

There is no cause to doubt that photons arriving now from the Sun left 8.3 minutes ago, and arrive at Earth from the direction against the sky that the Sun occupied that long ago. But the analogous situation for gravity is less obvious, and we must always be careful not to mix in the consequences of light propagation delays. Another way (besides aberration) to represent what gravity is doing is to measure the acceleration vector for the Earth's motion, and ask if it is parallel to the direction of the arriving photons. If it is, that would argue that gravity propagated to Earth with the same speed as light; and conversely.

Such measurements of Earth's acceleration through space are now easy to make using precise timing data from stable pulsars in various directions on the sky. Any movement of the Earth in any direction is immediately reflected in a decreased delay in the time of arrival of pulses toward that direction, and an increased delay toward the opposite direction. In principle, Earth's orbit could be determined from pulsar timings alone. In practice, the orbit determined from planetary radar ranging data is checked with pulsar timing data and found consistent with it to very high precision.

How then does the direction of Earth's acceleration compare with the direction of the visible Sun? By direct calculation from geometric ephemerides fitted to such observations, such as those published by the U.S. Naval Observatory or the Development Ephemerides of the Jet Propulsion Laboratory, the Earth accelerates toward a point 20 arc seconds in front of the visible Sun, where the Sun will appear to be in 8.3 minutes. In other words, the acceleration now is toward the true, instantaneous direction of the Sun now, and is not parallel to the direction of the arriving solar photons now.

0 Replies

g-day

isn't gravity a quadrapole wave?

and if the speed of gravity is slightly slower than the speed of light, wouldn't the center of the earths orbit be slightly behing the light image (it's positon 8 and a half minutes ago)?

Rap

0 Replies

raprap wrote:

g-day

isn't gravity a quadrapole wave?

The short answer: no. Gravity is a force which acts instantaneously to within our ability to measure it. IF there is such a thing as gravity WAVES, then they will propagate at or near C.

Nonetheless the force of gravity and "gravity waves" are not the same thing. And, when you ask the question of whether we orbit the sun's present position or its position eight minutes ago, you are definitely talking about the force of gravity and not gravity waves, and the answer is unambiguous. We orbit the sun's immediate and real position and not the position it occupied eight and a half minutes ago. All experiments produce that result.

0 Replies

gungasnake,

I think you've been had.

I know your quoted articles are only 7 years old, and pre-date gravity being measured. Remember how I said there were two folks (a.k.a. crackpots) who doubted this?

Your author postulated very reasonable "sounding" arguments but didn't go deeply into the science of what he held true. In fact he has never fully stated his theory to defend it and there are some very big holes in it!

A good summary of Tom vs the establishment's views is here:

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

Quote:

I put Tom down as a psuedo scientist, far better than the IDers, but in the end he too defends his logic not with complete science but because he says its so and refuses to explain everything within an acceptable framework. He calls out things subject to ambiguity and argues hard his interpretation is correct, then ignores holes in his thinking - major ones at that.

It's hard when your idols come crashing down huh?

PS

JP Vigier is the other major nut job who spurs him on - watch out for these two - they're certainly colourful and grounded in science, but they've taken an awful flight of fancy they aren't prepared to defend against major scientists and alot of factual evidence that dispute and/or re-intreprets their claims.

PPS

Don't be fooled in future by jargon or claims of wild experients and partial imtrepretations, say i linked to:

http://www.physlink.com/Education/AskExperts/ae658.cfm

and say see he says this impressive thing so it must be true, if you didn't understand it or know how to validate it why accept it?

Quote:

Uniting these two different symmetries is highly nontrivial and leads us directly to supersymmetry and superstrings. Early attempts such as Kaluza-Klein theories tried to describe electromagnetism and gravity as a 5-dimensional generalisation of general relativity failed. It was much later that "no-go" theorems were discovered that blocked the way forward until supersymmetry was discovered.

There is however, a very interesting relation between gravity and Yang-Mills theory (generalisation of Electromagnetism) that arose from string theory. The Kawai-Lewellen-Tye (KLT) relations relate pertubativly the closed string vertex operators to two open string vertex operators.

This heuristically allows us to write

Gravity = (Gauge theory) x (Gauge theory).

The KLT relations were then used to calculate things in quantum gravity from gauge theory, more recently quantum gravity has been used to answer some questions about QCD.

About the speed of gravity. General Relativity, just like Special Relativity there is a maximum speed limit that anything cannot beat. This speed is c, which "happens" to be the speed of light in vaco. This already means that gravity could at best propagate at the speed of light. [I should point out that quantum effects such as vacuum polarisation in QED can allow photons to propagate faster than c on a curved space-time background!]

Gravity (quantum) is only consistent with observation if we have a massless gravitational field of spin-2 (spin-0 is not completely ruled out) . This was proved by Feynman and others. Since the quanta of gravity are massless, then via the usual arguments they must propagate at the speed of light c.

Now, gravitational waves are slightly different. These are essentially localised (classical) gravitational energy that propagates through some background space-time. As solutions of the field equations of general relativity they formally travel at the speed of light. Again, this is the fastest we could hope for. Gravitational waves are like "classical gravitons", but I wouldn't take the analogy too the extreme.

So far, all experimental tests (as far as I know) put bounds on the propagation speed near c.

So to recap, gravity is not part of the electromagnetic spectrum, but does propagate at the speed of light. Both theories have differences, but it is believed that the KLT relations point to a deeper fundamental relation between Yang-Mills theory and General Relativity.

0 Replies

The people doing wikipedia are a bunch of yuppies; Tom Van Flandern is a former director of the Naval Observatory and a recognized expert in astrophysics and matters related to relativity.

Easy choice.

As far as what Van Flandern is saying about experiments bearing on the propagation of the FORCE of gravity (not gravity waves), there is no opinion or theory in the picture whatsoever. All there are is facts as determined by precise experiments, and the facts all say that the propagation of gravity is instantaneous.

0 Replies

No - you're flat wrong there.

So now its 3 folk that think Tom has something?

Tom needs to add some framework to his ponderings before and serious scientist gives them any credit - and he needs to cover gaping holes in his own logic sorry.

0 Replies

I've mentioned this on at least one previous thread, but it bears repeating. There is a little club consisting of authors of dead theories from previous centuries, including Chuck Darwin, Chuck's a$$hole cousin Thomas Malthus, Marx, Engels, Freud, Rachel Carson, Paul Ehrlich, all the losers running around worrying about "global warming", and it seems highly likely to me that a membership is being reserved for Albert Einstein as well.

It seems very obvious to me that what Einstein had to say about gravity is simply wrong and there are several reasons for this. One is the instantaneous propagation of the force of gravity. Another is the ongoing USAF/Boeing GRASP project, which would be an obvious and flagrant waste of taxpayer dollars if Einstein were right about gravity, and another has to do with whether there might be historical evidence of a major sort of change in gravity close to our own planet. Many people believe that large dinosaurs could not function in our gravity. This seemed obvious to scientists 100 years ago and they assumed large dinosaurs lived in water to support their weight. Nonetheless the idea of sauropods living in water has been disproven by several lines of evidence and much larger dinosaurs than were known in 1900 have been found.

Einstein's thoughts on gravity appear to have been governed by a sort of a religious belief that nothing could move faster than light waves move, which we take as C. Nonetheless we know that light moves through cesium gas a good deal faster than that and there is reason to think that what Einstein had to say about light is not going to withstand much more of a test of time than it already has either.

Consider...

Sound waves of any sort including the sonic booms trailed behind bullets and jet aircraft travel at the speed of sound despite the fact that the things causing them might travel through the air considerably faster than that.

Now, consider the situation of a democrat or some other sort of primitive person who has never seen a bullet or a jet aircraft and is trying to figure out what exactly makes a machinegun work. He can't really see the bullets; he's sitting there listening to the sound of the machinegun and staring at a rectangular target set up about 600 yards from the gun and rolled out horizontally, and watching the row of bullet holes which appears.

Like I say, he can detect the sound waves but not the bullets. As far as he can tell the sound waves seem to be arriving at mach I and he seems to be observing properties of both waves (the sound) and particles (the holes in the paper).

I should also mention there are two basic components to the sound of gunfire, i.e. muzzle blast and the sonic crack of the bullets and that, at 600 yards, our democrat or cannibal is hearing the muzzle blast faintly if at all and the main thing he is hearing is the sonic crack of the bullets. Having never seen a bullet however, he assumes the sound he is hearing is coming from the gun itself which he can see.

In his normal experience he knows that when he sees both lion and elephant dung on the ground it means that both lions and elephants have been around (and not that some magical sort of animal with properties of both lions AND elephants has been around) but this experience sort of overwhelms him and he fails to make the analogy. He assumes that what is producing the holes in the target is some sort of a thing with properties of both waves and particles, which he gives the name "auton", and he assumes that these "autons" move at the highest speed which he can observe, which is mach I.

Now, a few days after the German army finishes testing their ordinary 308 caliber machinegun here in Baltimore or Detroit or wherever this little scene is transpiring, Emperor Ming (the Merciless) from Mongo sets up a base camp on Mars and begins testing a new hypervelocity 308 caliber machinegun on the same targets in the same area of Detroit or Baltimore, the bullets travelling through space to get there. He clearly figures to reduce his expenses for paper targets by using those of the Germans. The democrats/cannibals can now see bullet holes appearing and they can see the muzzle flash of Emperor Ming's gun with their telescopes, but they still can't see the bullets (too small and still too fast) and so they write a new chapter in their physics books describing the manner in which autons travel from Mars to Earth at Mach I and cause bullet holes to appear on paper targets.

Can anybody figure out what's wrong with the picture here? I mean, basically, there isn't really anything between Mars and Earth to carry a sound wave, is there?

At this point, hopefully some Christian missionary will step in and explain things to them...

Likewise there is nothing between ourselves and distant galaxies to carry any sort of a wave which might represent light, and the idea of any sort of a wave travelling through any sort of an electromagnetic field is basically ludicrous. What you have in real life is a pervasive neutrino soup of sorts which functions altogether as the sort of aether which was common in physics books from the 1800s, and little "machinegun bullets" which are almost unbelievably fast and tiny travelling through that neutrino aether and creating electromagnetic waves including light within it.

I should mention that there is a serious question as to whether the Michelson/Morley experiment actually failed:

http://www.orgonelab.org/miller.htm

and a serious likelihood that the announcement of the death of the aether idea was premature.

Ralph Sansbury describes those little machinegun bullets as sub-electron particles travelling at a computed necessary speed of something like 10^22 m/sec, which would get you to one of the near galaxies in a few seconds. His derivation of the need for such particles from electrostatic experiments makes perfect sense although I wouldn't recommend his idea of light as a pure force to anybody.

http://mysite.verizon.net/r9ns/book03.htm

There are two or three other similar descriptions of near-infinite-speed particles out there as necessary parts of explanations of the nature of light and gravity, e.g.

http://metaresearch.org/publications/books/PushingG.asp

Albert Einstein was trying to use deformable time to explain the fact that light refuses to obey normal additive laws for velocities. A better explanation is that scientists were assuming the sources of the light (distant galaxies) to be the cause of the light waves (like the democrats assuming the sonic crack of bullets to be caused by the gun itself) and that no motion of any light source adds any meaningful percentage difference to the motion of the particles which actually cause light waves.

0 Replies

Oh My God.............

Runs away screaming

Seriously, Dinosaurs bones, Ming from Mars bullets, Earth's Gravity changing over time, aether, GRASP - that is pure desperation talking there.

metaresearch is a Tom site, I mean its amusing but its hardly serious science for more fun and information try here:

http://pdg.lbl.gov/fireworks/intro_eng.swf

The fireworks of Hadrons - cute JAVA graphics showing how elementary particles interact.

And if you're going to plagurise - catch the whole text include the bit that says there wrong and loonies:

http://www.usenet.com/newsgroups/talk.origins/msg06260.html

Quote:

Ted Holden wrote:

A CNN article:

http://www.cnn.com/2003/TECH/09/05/wow.tech.black.world/index.html

notes that:

"GRASP," or Gravity Research for Advanced Space Propulsion, was only recently reported in Jane's Defence Weekly, but the U.S. military may have had the technology for years.

[ IF ] this should turn out to be the case, then Albert Einstein will have officially joined the little club of authors of dead and dying 18'th and 19'th century theories, along with Chuck Darwin, Thomas malthus, Karl Marx, Adam Smith, et. al. There is no way to reconcile Einstein's conception of gravity as an inherent property of mass and space with the idea of a working antigravity device.

Ted Holden
www.bearfabrique.org

I took out the bat icon, doesn't come across well - but how much flak did that dumb idea catch...

Quote:

Splifford the bat says: Always remember
>
> A mind is a terrible thing to waste; especially on an evolutionist.
> Just say no to narcotic drugs, alcohol abuse, and corrupt ideological
> doctrines.

Ted, you need to set your fantasy filter a little higher.

Anti-G research basically falls into two camps, with a fringe element. First camp takes situations where a possible anti-G effect may have been observed and tries to refine the observations enough to find an empirical law. There was some core drilling on the Greenland ice cap a couple of years ago that investigated anti-G, but were unable to validate the effect in their data. That's legit science.

The second camp takes the physics and math and tries to envision anti-gravity, zero-gravity, anti-mass particles, etc. and predict how we'd see their effects, either on earth or in astronomy. That's legit science too.

The fringe group builds big gizmos and tries to make them fly. It's a cottage industry. It's not science, although sometimes a heck of a lot of engineering goes into it.

The GRASP project is probably doing the second bit, although they may be designing experiments to test theories, and these require some of that black budget money. It's unlikely they're at the flying gizmo phase, which is what the article seems to report. Military research keeps better tabs on their mad scientists these days, and nobody's going to be building rockets until they can lift the paperclips off the desk. Despite the hopeful tone of the article, that hasn't happened. CNN is reporting this to get people to read the ads.

Also, despite the comparisons to the stealth fighter programs, This is an entirely different level of program. It's a sure bet there's no engine or fuel development going on, it's all at the basic research level still. We don't have an anti-G device yet,
so building models is basically a waste of balsa wood.

Tom Faller

PS

If someone tells you their science unravels relativity, not extends it or refines it but unravels it, and that Einstein was wrong, dial the number for men in white coats and to about 12 sigma you'll be right.

This is one of those times matey!

0 Replies

You can tell you're not doing a good enough job of following Jesus' advice (the thing about not casting pearls before swine) when all you hear from your opponents is ad-hominems....

0 Replies

If they're your pearls fella - start worrying big time...

0 Replies

ad-hominems like this?

gungasnake wrote:

I've mentioned this on at least one previous thread, but it bears repeating. There is a little club consisting of authors of dead theories from previous centuries, including Chuck Darwin, Chuck's a$$hole cousin Thomas Malthus, Marx, Engels, Freud, Rachel Carson, Paul Ehrlich, all the losers running around worrying about "global warming", and it seems highly likely to me that a membership is being reserved for Albert Einstein as well.

Rap

0 Replies

Does the Earth orbit around where the Sun was 8.5 mins ago?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know