Speed of Gravity is Wrong!

Physicists leveled heavy criticism Thursday on a report from last week that claimed the speed of gravity had been determined by observation and was equal to the speed of light. One physicist called the interpretation of the finding "nonsense".

Full Story: www.space.com...

So, there was a "mathematical mistake" eh? What was it? I doubt they have an abundance of idiots reading articles like these, so they might as well tell us what the "mistake" was. Some mathematical errors barely change the results, regardless. So what?... if someone found a mistake. Well, if he just corrected it and plugged the right values back in the experimental values, the right answer should yield itself.

I would assume the most difficult part would be finding the mistake, but apparently they already found that... so why don't they cut the crap and tell us the new results... unless the guy who claims there is a mistake is just a mistake-of-a-scientist himself.

Oh well.

The critics are contending that the first results mistakingly measured the speed of light, not the speed of gravity.

www.newscientist.com...

How can gravity have a speed?

It is different from planet to planet, does that mean on each planet the speed of light is different too? I think gravity is relative to electrons, the more, the higher the gravity.

They have a charge and pull things toward them, why couldn't they be the cause of gravity?

Al Snyder pointed out another inconcruency in the Newtonian gravitation formula. He did this by comparing two sets of magnets, one set 10 times more power than the first. Using the Newtonian formula, he showed that for the first set of magnets of power 1,

F = m * M / R^2

1 = 1 * 1 / 1^2

But for the second set of magnets 10 times more powerful than the first,

100 = 10 * 10 / 1^2

Newtonians would maintain that the second set of magnets are 100 times more powerful than the first set, instead of the actual 10 times more powerful that we KNOW they are. Therefore, Snyder concluded that in the Newtonian gravitation formula, F is actually squared,

F^2 = m * M / R^2

For the second set of magnets 10 times more powerful,

10^2 = 10 * 10 / 1^2

F = 10

Could this mean that the force we attribute to gravity is exerted by a much less quantity of matter than previously thought to be the case? And could this much less quantity of matter in a hollow earth exert the gravity force we observe the earth to have? Newtonians have presumed a much more massive and dense earth than a hollow planet would seem to have.

However, even if we assume that the Newtonian mass and density for the earth are correct, this does not preclude the earth being hollow. It could still be hollow even with a density of 5.5 gm/cc. Let's review how the mass and density of the earth are determined.

Newtonians assume, by Newton's Second Law, that the momentum of a small mass accelerating towards the earth near its surface is equal to the earth's gravitational force acting on that small mass:

F = m * a

The Momentum Formula (Newton's Second Law)

F = GmM/R^2

The Newtonian Gravitation Formula

m * a = GmM/R^2

Solving for a, the mass m's cancel out,

a = GM/R^2

We can now solve for M, the mass of earth,

M = a * R^2 /G

using the Newtonian Gravitational Constant,

980.665 * 4.0678884 x 10^17 / 6.67259 x 10^-8 = 5.978541732 x 10^27 gms

The Newtonian mass of the Earth

From the Density formula

D = M/V

we obtain the Newtonian density of the earth.

From the volume of a sphere formula,

V = PiD^3/6

The volume of the earth is 1.082 * 10^27 cc.

The Newtonian density of the earth then is:

5.978541732 x 10^27 gms / 1.082 * 10^27 cc = 5.525 gm/cc

Since surface rocks have a density of 2.7 on average, the interior of the earth would have to be at least as dense as steel (about 8 times more dense than water, water = 1) to arrive at the Newtonian average earth density of 5.5 (8.3 + 2.7 / 2 = 5.5).

Now let's ask ourselves some questions. For example, how dense would a hollow earth be? Would it necessarily be less massive than Newtonians claim? How would gravity theory need to be revised to allow for a hollow planet? And if the gravitation formula and gravitation constant need to be revised, what would they be?

These are questions that need answering if hollow planets are a reality. For an ongoing review of gravity and how it may affect the hollow earth, see my study The Origin, Cause and Control of Gravity -- Found!

For now, let's visit the idea of whether an earth density of 5.525 gm/cc could be hollow.

Assuming the thickness of earth's shell at 800 mi or 1,287.48 km,

Diameter of Earth's hollow: Thickness of Earth's shell x 2 - Diameter of Earth

800 mi x 2 - 8000 = 6400 mi

Or

1,287.48 km x 2 - 12,756 = 10,181 km Or 1.018104445 x 10^9 cm

Volume of Hollow:

3.14159265 x (1.018104445 x10^9)^3/6 = 5.525551394 x 10^26 cc Volume of Earth - Volume of Hollow = Volume of Shell: 1.086781293 x 10^27 cc - 5.525551394 x 10^26 cc = 5.342261531 x 10^26

Density of Shell = Mass of Earth/Volume of Shell:

5.978541732 x 10^27 gms/5.342261531 x 10^26 cc = 11.19 gm/cc

This assumes that most of the earth's mass is located in its shell. As you can see, Newtonian physics would require an average shell density almost as dense as lead (11.3). And since surface rocks are 2.7, then the interior of the shell would have to be greater than the average density.

The interior density using the Newtonian mass of the earth requires than the interior of the shell would have a density of 2 * 11.19 - 2.7 = 19.68, which is denser than gold (19.3). Platinum is 21.4, so an inner shell density of 19.68 is not beyond the realm of possibility. In fact, if the earth is hollow as we maintain, the inner shell would necessarily need to be of a greater density to give the hollow planet enough strength to keep its hollow shape.

So we can say that a shell density of 11.19 gm/cc could be in the realm of possibility. After all, the earth DOES ring like a bell after a rather large earthquake. A bell is hollow and is made of metal, just as a hollow earth may be.

We might ask how much of the earth's mass would be contained by the interior sun? Actually, an interior sun of the estimated diameter of 600 miles would contain very little of the mass of the earth.

Assuming the interior sun has a density of glass which I claim all stars are actually crystals instead of burning gas, it's mass would be only .01% of the mass of the Newtonian mass of the earth.

V = pi D^3 / 6

pi * (600 mi * 1.60934722 km * 100,000 cm) ^3 / 6 = 4.714130881 x 10^23 cc

Volume of inner sun

Let's assume that the inner sun is also hollow and has a shell 10% of it's diameter, or 60 miles. This would give the sun's hollow a volume of 2.413635011 x 10^23 cc. So the volume of it's shell would be 2.30049587 x 10^23 cc mutiplied by 2.6, the density of glass gives,

Mass = Volume * Density

= 5.981289262 x 10^23 gms, Mass of inner sun

divided by mass of earth of 5.978541732 x 10^27 gms

= .000100046 * 100 = .01%

If the interior sun is composed of gas as orthodox science maintains stars consist of, then that percentage would be much less. By far, most of a hollow earth's mass would be located in its shell.

Another possibility, you may say, is that the earth's shell is thicker than 800 miles which would give it a lower average shell density. This also, could be a possibility. Some method of determining the shell's thickness needs to be devised. This could easily be determined by entering the hollow of the earth through a polar opening and bouncing radar waves off the opposite side of the hollow interior.

In all, actually, I see nothing in the Newtonian mass and density of the earth that would completely exclude the earth from being hollow. Earthquake waves have been noticed to bend as they descend into the earth causing them to curve back up to the surface before hitting the discontinuity inside the earth that scientists claim is the outer core. This indicates the earth does increase in density with depth which is consistent with a hollow shell using the Newtonian mass of the earth. In fact, if the earth is hollow and the Newtonian mass of the earth requiring an increased density with depth is correct, then that in itself would exclude their claim to a molten interior. That discontinuity inside the earth could be the inner surface

Ouch, too advanced.
Good information though. Provokes some interesting questions, just not from me.

Note that the articles are still in the peer-review process, and results, if accepted will probably be challenged. Anything goes here...

The gravity is the weakest force from all 4 forces.The stongest is the strong nuclear force ,then the em and then the weak nuclear ...Light travels with 3*10^8m/s,but it can create matter accrding to g+g=e+e where g is the photon and e is the electron and the positron respectively .The range of the nuclear forces is about 10^-17m but the gravity has a considerable amount of range for example the distance between sun and earth is one AU,huge !!!!
So gravity can act in a long range in the macroscopic world ,but the attraction is happening instantly!!!