Galaxies strung like necklace beads

Vengoropatubus wrote:

Could it be accurately stated that the gravitational field of an object doesn't travel at all, but the fluctuations of that field travel at the speed of light?

I nearly stated as much above. IF there is such a thing as a gravity WAVE, that would likely move at C. That's a hell of a big if however.

0 Replies

You still seem to doubt though, that gravity acts instantaneously.

0 Replies

Either instantaneously or so fast that we have no way to measure it. Very much faster than C, one way or other.

0 Replies

Then it seems that we're in agreement that the force of gravity acts instantaneously while the fluctuations of the field that creates that force move at the speed of light. I fail to see what disagreement we have, unless you think this violates relativity.

0 Replies

Can you get arrested for that?

Violations are usually arrestable offences.

0 Replies

Vengoropatubus wrote:

Then it seems that we're in agreement that the force of gravity acts instantaneously while the fluctuations of the field that creates that force move at the speed of light. I fail to see what disagreement we have, unless you think this violates relativity.

It's not clear to me that any or all of what Einstein had to say about gravity is necessary for relativity.

Problems for Einstein involving gravity include the fact that the force of gravity itself appears instantaneous, as well as the Podkletnov experiment and NASA/Boeing quasi-black GRASP project which Einstein's description of gravity would not allow for.

0 Replies

The basis of general relativity is 'equivalence.' That is the equivalence of mass and acceleration.

And Podkletnov's results have not been independently reproduced. Wiki on Podkletnov

Rap

0 Replies

gungasnake wrote:

Problems for Einstein involving gravity include the fact that the force of gravity itself appears instantaneous

I guess I don't see this as a problem. If we allow for the interpretation of gravity as an alteration in the geometry of space-time, it's fairly obvious that the gravity field created by some celestial body will be in a traveling object's path before the object arrives there. When it does arrive at that point, its motion through the field causes the force we call gravity.
Now, fluctuations in that field traveling faster than the speed of light aren't something I would expect, but I don't recall ever having read research that said those fluctuations did violate the light speed light. Perhaps I should've read some of your earlier links more closely?

0 Replies

Vengoropatubus wrote:

I guess I don't see this as a problem. If we allow for the interpretation of gravity as an alteration in the geometry of space-time....

It's far from obvious to me that the idea of space-time itself is rational much less that such a thing would have a geometry which could be altered by gravity.

The Podkletnov experiment and other new thrusts in the study of gravity indicate that gravity might be an electrostatic dipole effect of some sort and that we might be living in a very Newtonian universe, other than for the fact of needing to take electricity into account in writing physics books.

0 Replies

gungasnake wrote:

Vengoropatubus wrote:

I guess I don't see this as a problem. If we allow for the interpretation of gravity as an alteration in the geometry of space-time....

It's far from obvious to me that the idea of space-time itself is rational much less that such a thing would have a geometry which could be altered by gravity.

If you're going to attack physics for being irrational, you might've wanted to start with quantum mechanics, which, although seemingly as far from rationality as possible, still manages to make correct predictions about its subject matter, just like relativity.

In fact, relativity predicts the behavior of a binary pulsar system with a very high degree of accuracy. see this article.

0 Replies

Vengo wrote-

Quote:

In fact, relativity predicts the behavior of a binary pulsar system with a very high degree of accuracy.

Is that a fact? Since when has drivel been a fact?

Does talking about binary pulsar systems and very high degrees of accuracy make all the girls go weak at the knees where you are?

They want blood,sweat and tears here.

0 Replies

spendius wrote:

Vengo wrote-

Quote:
In fact, relativity predicts the behavior of a binary pulsar system with a very high degree of accuracy.

Is that a fact? Since when has drivel been a fact?

Does talking about binary pulsar systems and very high degrees of accuracy make all the girls go weak at the knees where you are?

They want blood,sweat and tears here.

Well I guess I wouldn't want to live where you are spendi. I'm not into BDSM.

0 Replies

Before you start telling people about all the correct predictions of relativity, you might want to do a few google searches on 'Dayton Miller'.....

0 Replies

Oh, you mean Dayton Miller whose results are generally regarded as statistically non-significant, and whose equipment was technologically too primitive by a factor of ten to be able to resolve an effect as tiny as he maintained he observed? That Dayton Miller? What is this affinity you have for cranks, gunga?

0 Replies

I did some looking around, and I've gotta agree that when faced with a decision between believing results obtained by early 20th century physicists on early 20th century equipment and results generated by 21st century physicists using 21st century equipment, I've gotta go with the guys with the higher tech equipment.

0 Replies

Vengoropatubus wrote:

I did some looking around, and I've gotta agree that when faced with a decision between believing results obtained by early 20th century physicists on early 20th century equipment and results generated by 21st century physicists using 21st century equipment, I've gotta go with the guys with the higher tech equipment.

I was not aware that anybody had ever gone back and redone the Michelson Morley experiment with equipment better than Miller's. I mean, let me know if you have any info like that. Miller's work indicated that when you ran the MM experiment with sufficiently good equipment and at sufficient altutide, it does not fail. That of course is fatal to Einstein's theories.

Relativity of course was based on thought experiments and not any sort of real evidence. The question is whether or not thought exsperiments are any sort of a reasonable basis for physics.

Again, far as I know, all of the various "confirmations" of relativity came AFTER the theory based on thought experiments had become generally accepted, i.e. after many yuppie careers had become intertwined with it.

There are of course things Einstein was right about. The idea of converting mass directly to energy according to the formula of E=MC^2 DID appear to work pretty verifiably.

0 Replies

gungasnake wrote:

Vengoropatubus wrote:
I did some looking around, and I've gotta agree that when faced with a decision between believing results obtained by early 20th century physicists on early 20th century equipment and results generated by 21st century physicists using 21st century equipment, I've gotta go with the guys with the higher tech equipment.

I was not aware that anybody had ever gone back and redone the Michelson Morley experiment with equipment better than Miller's. I mean, let me know if you have any info like that. Miller's work indicated that when you ran the MM experiment with sufficiently good equipment and at sufficient altutide, it does not fail. That of course is fatal to Einstein's theories.

Relativity of course was based on thought experiments and not any sort of real evidence. The question is whether or not thought exsperiments are any sort of a reasonable basis for physics.

Again, far as I know, all of the various "confirmations" of relativity came AFTER the theory based on thought experiments had become generally accepted, i.e. after many yuppie careers had become intertwined with it.

There are of course things Einstein was right about. The idea of converting mass directly to energy according to the formula of E=MC^2 DID appear to work pretty verifiably.

You're such an ignoramus. Cyclotrons, for instance, are designed using relativistic mechanics, and would fail it those calculations weren't correct. There have been hundreds of experimental verifications of Special Relitivity for a century. What are your qualifications to say anything whatsoever about physics?

0 Replies

Relativity basically was an attempt to explain the supposed failure of the MM experiment and the supposed refusal of light to obey the ordinary additive laws for velocities.

Einstein basically was saying something like

Quote:

"Hey, for the time being we're going to forget the question of what light IS, and talk about what has to happen for it to behave the way that it does..."

By ruling out different velocities for light according to source in certain kinds of thought experiments such as the mirror-clock experiment, he arrived at relativistic time as a default answer to what was happening.

There are however other and equally plausible explanations for the behavior of light and UNLESS somebody can demonstrate some fatal flaw in the Dayton Miller experiments, then something is badly wrong with the picture.

0 Replies

But that thought experiment was verified. Einstein made a guess at how light worked, just like previous scientists had, and like all other physicists, he used his guess to make predictions. Predictions like the famous clock experiment, where the plane flew around the world and it was found that its atomic clock was off from the atomic clock on the ground, even though they had started off at the same time. The results of this experiment were in line with Einstein's predictions.
More recently, you have devices, like cyclotrons, that as far as I know, only can work in a world governed by relativistic physics. Do you know of anyone who has alternate explanations for why cyclotrons and other particle accelerators exhibit the effects that they do?
Do you know of any other theories that can explain why rapidly decaying subatomic particles can make it down to the earth's surface, even though their half lives suggest they should almost all disappear in our atmosphere?
What explanation do you have for the supposed corruption of the peer-review system? What do you think has changed since Einstein's day that makes it so much harder for new ideas about the universe to be popularized?

0 Replies

gungasnake wrote:

Relativity basically was an attempt to explain the supposed failure of the MM experiment and the supposed refusal of light to obey the ordinary additive laws for velocities.

Einstein basically was saying something like

Quote:

"Hey, for the time being we're going to forget the question of what light IS, and talk about what has to happen for it to behave the way that it does..."

By ruling out different velocities for light according to source in certain kinds of thought experiments such as the mirror-clock experiment, he arrived at relativistic time as a default answer to what was happening.

There are however other and equally plausible explanations for the behavior of light and UNLESS somebody can demonstrate some fatal flaw in the Dayton Miller experiments, then something is badly wrong with the picture.

The only way another theory can be correct is if it makes exactly the same predictions as Special Relativity, because relativistic mechanics has been verified over and over for a century. By the way, Special Relativity really has nothing to do with light, except as an example of something that propagates at light speed.

0 Replies

Galaxies strung like necklace beads

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know