| Topic: |
Science > Physics |
| User: |
"special" |
| Date: |
29 Aug 2005 12:05:41 AM |
| Object: |
speed of gravity |
What is the speed of gravity? I'm not asking the speed of an object
being affected by gravity, but the speed of gravity itself.
.
|
|
| User: "Androcles Androcles@ MyPlace.org" |
|
| Title: Re: speed of gravity |
29 Aug 2005 03:03:47 AM |
|
|
"special" <an_old_star_trek_fan@youbetcha.com> wrote in message
news:431297A4.9021EA8B@youbetcha.com...
| What is the speed of gravity? I'm not asking the speed of an object
| being affected by gravity, but the speed of gravity itself.
Let's do a thought experiment and find out.
Nuclear explosion, lots of energy, all comes from somewhere.
Nuclear reactor, lots of electricity, all comes from somewhere.
Sun, heating the universe, lots of energy, all comes from somewhere.
Where does it come from?
E = mc^2.
Mass is converted to energy.
Gravity is a property of mass.
Use up all the mass, no gravity left.
Let's convert all the mass of the nearest star, Proxima Centauri,
to energy in one gigantic supernova so that there is no mass left
and there won't be any gravity left either.
Your question is now "How long will it take a negative-going pulse
from some gravity to no gravity to reach us across four light years
of void"?
To find that out, first measure how much gravity we can detect from
Proxima Centauri. Tie a big mass on a light spring and see how
much the spring is extended as Proxima Centauri pulls the mass
toward it, as you would with any weighing machine.
The moon will do as the mass, a hair spring from an old wrist
watch will be fine to weigh it with. So fix the hairspring to the
moon.
When you've done that, I'll explode the star for you and you can
time how long it takes for your spring to relax and know
the speed of gravity.
Androcles.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Brad Guth" |
|
| Title: Re: speed of gravity |
12 Sep 2005 08:04:40 PM |
|
|
Exploding the likes of Proxima Centauri should essentially remain as a
4 light year point-source of mass from our perspective.
Converting a star into whatever clouds of hot gas is still the exact
same amount of mass. Once mass always mass, just having been spread out
over vast distances, in so much as from our 4 some odd light year
look-see is essentially still there to behold, just not quite as nicely
focused as before. That is unless somehow converted into anti-matter,
thereby becoming surrounded by trillions upon trillion of those nearly
resting photons/m3, and otherwise gravity neutralized into looking very
black hole like.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "G=EMC^2 Glazier" |
|
| Title: Re: speed of gravity |
31 Aug 2005 06:36:02 PM |
|
|
Hi Special I have a gravity theory that agrees with Einstien,and
agrees with Newton. Einstien was both right(local),and wrong (over great
distances) Newton was more right. Feynman knew Newton was right and used
his "Some over Histories" Theory. Using QM with wave functions,and
fields gravity would have to move instantaneously over any distance.
Lots of tricky deep thinking needed.here Bert
.
|
|
|
| User: "Androcles Androcles@ MyPlace.org" |
|
| Title: Re: speed of gravity |
01 Sep 2005 02:43:26 AM |
|
|
"G=EMC^2 Glazier" <herbertglazier@webtv.net> wrote in message
news:17286-43163EE2-18@storefull-3334.bay.webtv.net...
| Hi Special I have a gravity theory that agrees with Einstien,and
| agrees with Newton. Einstien was both right(local),and wrong (over
great
| distances) Newton was more right. Feynman knew Newton was right and
used
| his "Some over Histories" Theory. Using QM with wave functions,and
| fields gravity would have to move instantaneously over any distance.
| Lots of tricky deep thinking needed.here Bert
|
Empirical idiot.
Androcles
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: speed of gravity |
12 Sep 2005 11:05:20 PM |
|
|
Empirical evidence is the only Reality.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Sam Wormley" |
|
| Title: Re: speed of gravity |
31 Aug 2005 07:11:27 PM |
|
|
G=EMC^2 Glazier wrote:
Hi Special I have a gravity theory that agrees with Einstien,and
agrees with Newton. Einstien was both right(local),and wrong (over great
distances) Newton was more right. Feynman knew Newton was right and used
his "Some over Histories" Theory. Using QM with wave functions,and
fields gravity would have to move instantaneously over any distance.
Lots of tricky deep thinking needed.here Bert
Bert and Herb are wrong again... Einstein has be right every time.
Still going strong after 90 years....
.
|
|
|
| User: "Robert J. Kolker" |
|
| Title: Re: speed of gravity |
31 Aug 2005 09:21:07 PM |
|
|
Sam Wormley wrote:
Bert and Herb are wrong again... Einstein has be right every time.
Still going strong after 90 years....
Newton went nearly two hundred years before the cracks really started to
show.
Bob Kolker
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Brad Guth" |
|
| Title: Re: speed of gravity |
12 Sep 2005 06:01:01 PM |
|
|
Since gravity is represented by something far less than any quantum
photon string, thus it's entirely possible that gravity is not limited
to c.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Robert J. Kolker" |
|
| Title: Re: speed of gravity |
31 Aug 2005 07:04:46 PM |
|
|
G=EMC^2 Glazier wrote:
Hi Special I have a gravity theory that agrees with Einstien,and
agrees with Newton. Einstien was both right(local),and wrong (over great
distances) Newton was more right. Feynman knew Newton was right and used
his "Some over Histories" Theory. Using QM with wave functions,and
fields gravity would have to move instantaneously over any distance.
Lots of tricky deep thinking needed.here Bert
So why does Newtonian gravitation incorrectly predict the precession of
the perihelion of Mercury.
Bob Kolker
.
|
|
|
| User: "Androcles Androcles@ MyPlace.org" |
|
| Title: Re: speed of gravity |
01 Sep 2005 02:46:03 AM |
|
|
"Robert J. Kolker" <nowhere@nowhere.com> wrote in message
news:3nmusvF2bnchU1@individual.net...
|
| So why does Newtonian gravitation incorrectly predict the precession
of
| the perihelion of Mercury.
|
| Bob Kolker
When did you last measure where the longitude of perihelion of Mercury
is, empirical idiot?
You have no idea what it means, you are running off at the mouth.
Fucking moron!
Androcles
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: speed of gravity |
19 Sep 2005 02:58:03 AM |
|
|
Androcles wrote:
When did you last measure where the longitude of perihelion of Mercury
is... You have no idea what it means, you are running off at the mouth.
and when did you? heck, would you please be so kind and enlight us,
where is it now?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Autymn D. C." |
|
| Title: Re: speed of gravity |
21 Sep 2005 12:23:26 PM |
|
|
enlighten
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Uncle Al" |
|
| Title: Re: speed of gravity |
29 Aug 2005 01:49:14 PM |
|
|
special wrote:
What is the speed of gravity? I'm not asking the speed of an object
being affected by gravity, but the speed of gravity itself.
Lightspeed. It cannot be more without destroying causality. It
cannot be less and have infinite range.
http://arXiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0212121
Sergei Kopeikin
http://arXiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0301145
Clifford Will
http://arXiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0302294
Kopeikin's results
http://arXiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0302462
Kopeikin's analysis of results
http://arXiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0303346
Faber's dissent re parameterized post-Newtonian (PPN) model
http://arXiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0304006
Stuart Samuel's invalid analysis of Kopeikin
http://arXiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0311063
More Kopeikin
http://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0403060
http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0412401
http://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0501001
More criticism of Kopeikin
--
Uncle Al
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/
(Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals)
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/qz.pdf
.
|
|
|
| User: "Traveler" |
|
| Title: Re: speed of gravity |
29 Aug 2005 02:14:24 PM |
|
|
On Mon, 29 Aug 2005 11:49:14 -0700, Uncle Al <UncleAl0@hate.spam.net>
wrote:
special wrote:
What is the speed of gravity? I'm not asking the speed of an object
being affected by gravity, but the speed of gravity itself.
Lightspeed. It cannot be more without destroying causality. It
cannot be less and have infinite range.
*****. Gravity is instantaneous, just like the electric field, a
million stinking relativists braying to the moon notwithstanding. This
is the reason that Newtonian gravity (which assumes instantaneous
gravity) is so damn accurate regardless of distance. Add clock slowing
to newtonian gravity and it is near unbeatable. Gravity is a non-local
phenomenon that has to do with energy conservation. Pack that up your
*****.
One more thing. What does John Baez's ***** smell like today, Uncle
*****? ahahaha.... AHAHAHA... ahahaha... AHAHAHA... ahahaha...
Louis Savain
Why Software Is Bad and What We Can Do to Fix It:
http://www.rebelscience.org/Cosas/Reliability.htm
.
|
|
|
| User: "Androcles Androcles@ MyPlace.org" |
|
| Title: Re: speed of gravity |
31 Aug 2005 03:02:59 PM |
|
|
"Traveler" <traveler@nospam.net> wrote in message
news:7bn6h1l3q7m2pichfej582jv1qoi45kjrc@4ax.com...
| On Mon, 29 Aug 2005 11:49:14 -0700, Uncle Al <UncleAl0@hate.spam.net>
| wrote:
|
| >special wrote:
| >>
| >> What is the speed of gravity? I'm not asking the speed of an
object
| >> being affected by gravity, but the speed of gravity itself.
| >
| >Lightspeed. It cannot be more without destroying causality. It
| >cannot be less and have infinite range.
|
| *****. Gravity is instantaneous, just like the electric field,
Hmm... Not a very good example. I turn on the current in a coil,
that produces a magnetic field. In an adjacent coil, a voltage is
induced by the magnetic field.
Across the terminals of the adjacent coil is a spark plug.
"Click" says my AM radio, 10 miles away.
Androcles.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: speed of gravity |
12 Sep 2005 05:18:24 PM |
|
|
Traveler wrote [with corrections]:
Lightspeed. It cannot be more without destroying causality. It
cannot be less and have infinite range.
[I'm full of] *****. [I know] Gravity is instantaneous, just
like the electric field [because when I speak, it's the word of God,
and nobody dares countervail my Decree; or I'll contrive some fake
strawman term like "relativist" or "einsteinian" to label them with
and call them a "nerd", confusing the computer screen for a mirror]
.
|
|
|
| User: "hanson" |
|
| Title: Re: speed of gravity |
12 Sep 2005 06:04:36 PM |
|
|
Mark Hopkins <markwh04@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1126563504.732284.158690@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
[Uncle Al?]
Lightspeed. It cannot be more without destroying causality.
It cannot be less and have infinite range.
Traveler wrote [with corrections]:
[I'm full of] *****. [I know] Gravity is instantaneous, just
like the electric field [because when I speak, it's the word of God,
and nobody dares countervail my Decree; or I'll contrive some fake
strawman term like "relativist" or "einsteinian" to label them with
and call them a "nerd", confusing the computer screen for a mirror]
[hanson]
ahahaha... AHAHAHA... now, now, Marki... ahahaha... why exactly
does that crank you so?... Even in your *corrections* you come across
as being ever so jealous of Savian's notions as he sees the world.
Listen, Mark: Let'em sing!... All of'em!... It's really a beautiful choir!
hahahaha... ahahanson
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: speed of gravity |
31 Aug 2005 03:23:56 PM |
|
|
What does John Baez's ***** smell like today?
I dont know about John's, butt Joan's smells like lilac.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "special" |
|
| Title: Re: speed of gravity |
30 Aug 2005 12:43:30 AM |
|
|
Thank you very much for the links. I did read a number of them. From
what I read, it seems that the actual speed of gravity is not exactly
known. In your opinion or analysis, do you think the speed of gravity is
independent of the mass by which it is acting upon? In addition, do you
think the speed of gravity varies by case from the origin of the reaction
which causes it?
Uncle Al wrote:
special wrote:
What is the speed of gravity? I'm not asking the speed of an object
being affected by gravity, but the speed of gravity itself.
Lightspeed. It cannot be more without destroying causality. It
cannot be less and have infinite range.
http://arXiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0212121
Sergei Kopeikin
http://arXiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0301145
Clifford Will
http://arXiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0302294
Kopeikin's results
http://arXiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0302462
Kopeikin's analysis of results
http://arXiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0303346
Faber's dissent re parameterized post-Newtonian (PPN) model
http://arXiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0304006
Stuart Samuel's invalid analysis of Kopeikin
http://arXiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0311063
More Kopeikin
http://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0403060
http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0412401
http://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0501001
More criticism of Kopeikin
--
Uncle Al
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/
(Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals)
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/qz.pdf
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Sam Wormley" |
|
| Title: Re: speed of gravity |
29 Aug 2005 12:21:16 AM |
|
|
special wrote:
What is the speed of gravity? I'm not asking the speed of an object
being affected by gravity, but the speed of gravity itself.
GTR says that gravitational waves propagate at c. The first attempt
at measuring it agrees, but there are disputes about wgat was being
measured. Someday correlation between gravity wave detection and
photons from the same event will confirm that gravitational waves
propagate at c.
.
|
|
|
| User: "the softrat" |
|
| Title: Re: speed of gravity |
29 Aug 2005 01:55:11 AM |
|
|
On Mon, 29 Aug 2005 05:21:16 GMT, Sam Wormley <swormley1@mchsi.com>
wrote:
special wrote:
What is the speed of gravity? I'm not asking the speed of an object
being affected by gravity, but the speed of gravity itself.
GTR says that gravitational waves propagate at c. The first attempt
at measuring it agrees, but there are disputes about wgat was being
measured. Someday correlation between gravity wave detection and
photons from the same event will confirm that gravitational waves
propagate at c.
Any change in a mass-energy density distribution will propagate no
faster than the speed of light in a vacuum.
the softrat
Sometimes I get so tired of the taste of my own toes.
mailto:softrat@pobox.com
--
'Tis an ill wind that blows no minds.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
