The Speed Of Gravity - Why Einstein Was Wrong

reply to post by mnemeth1


What do you think of Tesla's Dynamic Gravity Theory? The paper was never published, but enough was mentioned about it to get a decent idea of what it's about.

link

Originally posted by sirnex
reply to post by mnemeth1

 

What do you think of Tesla's Dynamic Gravity Theory? The paper was never published, but enough was mentioned about it to get a decent idea of what it's about.

link

Tesla was a God of rational logic.

I just read his opening statement and, as usual, found it to be a masterpiece of reason and sanity.

I'll look it over and let you know what I think.


[edit on 20-5-2010 by mnemeth1]

I've never read Tesla's take on gravity before, but I find it remarkable that he and I have such similar views.

Here come into play the "tubes of force" (Faraday, Lord Kelvin, Maxwell, J.J. Thomson) that - due to independent charge ratio depending on density and electrical content - are absorbed by bodies and impart a downward momentum (thus "gravity" is a downward push, not a pull) creating the sensation of a "gravity field". It is the interaction between the electrical content of every "dynamic" body with aether carriers (comprising tubes of force) that results in momentum being imparted to a body (an electromagnetic to mechanical interconversion). It is an endless "circuit loop" that continuously keeps everything in motion in our universe (Tesla's "Wheelwork of Nature") which if understood can give the ability to achieve "any desired result".

Tubes of force sounds much like my torsion wave statement.




[edit on 20-5-2010 by mnemeth1]

reply to post by mnemeth1


Could very well be, it just sucks he didn't have modern terminology to describe his theory better. I love his take on gravity as it makes more sense than rubber sheets and bowling balls.

Originally posted by sirnex
reply to post by mnemeth1

 

Could very well be, it just sucks he didn't have modern terminology to describe his theory better. I love his take on gravity as it makes more sense than rubber sheets and bowling balls.

Yeah, its a great piece of work.

We are reading it second hand as well, which sucks.

Its unfortunate he didn't publish an official work on it for us to read.

reply to post by mnemeth1


What's really unfortunate is that the US government has it and isn't allowing it to be published. Tesla has also made mention of flying machines, perhaps this is where the UFO craze has come from. If Tesla was right, and I have no reason to doubt the worlds greatest genius, then it stands to reason that it would be in the best interest of our government to hide his theory and technologies to gain the upper hand against other nations.

Sorry to go off topic there. His theory just makes me wonder about a lot of things considering his papers are classified still.

This question re gravity DOES gravity actually HAVE any speed to start with

Does it need to travel in the first place, if its true that space is bent due to the gravity of an object then does gravity actually move

Originally posted by wmd_2008


This question re gravity DOES gravity actually HAVE any speed to start with

Does it need to travel in the first place, if its true that space is bent due to the gravity of an object then does gravity actually move

According to Einstein, it should. If it should, then it should be detectable. Out of the many many attempts, it's never been seen. Einstein may have been a bright man, but so was the guy who mathematically proved heavier than air flight was impossible.

Math as a means of describing reality is a faulty conclusion when observation defies the math. Thus far, observation has continuously disproved Einstein and modern science's approach to that problem was to invent numerous invisible unfalsifiable explanations to dismiss the observations and to hang onto an archaic model of physics.

Defending it is no different than me arguing with you that heavier than air flight is impossible because it was mathematically proven.

Kind of silly wouldn't you agree? Clearly observation proved it possible.

Originally posted by sirnex

Originally posted by wmd_2008


This question re gravity DOES gravity actually HAVE any speed to start with

Does it need to travel in the first place, if its true that space is bent due to the gravity of an object then does gravity actually move

According to Einstein, it should. If it should, then it should be detectable. Out of the many many attempts, it's never been seen. Einstein may have been a bright man, but so was the guy who mathematically proved heavier than air flight was impossible.

There is a distinct difference in complexity of experiments that show that air flight is possible (a boomerang would do) and those who attempt to measure distortions of metrics on sub-atomic scale. Seriously. Detection of gravitational waves is contingent on a lot of factors and yes, it has built-in model dependency on the source.

Math as a means of describing reality is a faulty conclusion when observation defies the math. Thus far, observation has continuously disproved Einstein and modern science's approach to that problem was to invent numerous invisible unfalsifiable explanations to dismiss the observations and to hang onto an archaic model of physics.

In my view, you jump to conclusions, for whatever reason. There is a host of phenomena which Einstein's theory explains well. As I said, there are some difficult measurements to be made, before we are certain that we found a definitive flaw in it.

The way I see it there are faster than light enigmas just nothing physical, but I agree that gravity is not one them. One question to ask is if the sun instantly doubled in mass would the earths feel it instantly or would it take 7 or so minutes to affect earth?

Also if gravity was instantaneous would we not then have the situation that it would never reduce its affect on an object no matter the distance? So we could have objects orbiting the sun millions of light years away. This would kind of screw up the universe…….


[edit on 21-5-2010 by Xtrozero]

reply to post by sirnex


Thanks for the reply BUT you didn't really answer the way I thought someone would.

DOES gravity need to travel I will try and explain my thoughts

If a massive object (or indeed any) bends the space around it and that causes gravity then gravity doesn't need to travel .
If the suns mass bends space enough that it causes the planets to orbit, then if the sun moves around the galaxy because of the mass of the galaxy bends the space to effect the sun then we just get dragged along can you see what I am trying to say.

Unlike light going from a to b gravity has distorted space from a to b and doesn't travel

reply to post by wmd_2008


It needs to travel because of "information" issues.

Two bodies must talk to each other over distance in order for them to orbit each other.

This entails communication between those objects.

We need a mechanism to explain how this information is received and how it is acted upon. Gravity necessarily must "talk" across these distances and must explain the physical process of how they orbit each other.




[edit on 21-5-2010 by mnemeth1]

Originally posted by wmd_2008
reply to post by sirnex

 

Thanks for the reply BUT you didn't really answer the way I thought someone would.

DOES gravity need to travel I will try and explain my thoughts

If a massive object (or indeed any) bends the space around it and that causes gravity then gravity doesn't need to travel .
If the suns mass bends space enough that it causes the planets to orbit, then if the sun moves around the galaxy because of the mass of the galaxy bends the space to effect the sun then we just get dragged along can you see what I am trying to say.

Unlike light going from a to b gravity has distorted space from a to b and doesn't travel

I agree that gravity doesn't travel. Every object in the universe has gravity and so it is a constant state around all objects. If two objects combined than so would their gravity at the same speed. So as example as the earth formed each future little partial of it already had a gravitational field since the existence of the universe and so by combining all those little partials it just concentrated the gravity that was already there in a smaller space.

Originally posted by wmd_2008
reply to post by sirnex

 

Thanks for the reply BUT you didn't really answer the way I thought someone would.

DOES gravity need to travel I will try and explain my thoughts

If a massive object (or indeed any) bends the space around it and that causes gravity then gravity doesn't need to travel .
If the suns mass bends space enough that it causes the planets to orbit, then if the sun moves around the galaxy because of the mass of the galaxy bends the space to effect the sun then we just get dragged along can you see what I am trying to say.

Unlike light going from a to b gravity has distorted space from a to b and doesn't travel

I can't give a proper answer as I don't have a proper answer. All I know is that the many many attempts to prove the Einsteinian model of gravity have failed. I personally take this as an indication that mass doesn't bend space at all, but that gravity is something else instead.

Scientists are always talking about mass bending space, but they can't tell us what space itself is or the full mechanism of interaction on how it bends or why it should. I find it hard to swallow "just because" answers.

Originally posted by mnemeth1
reply to post by wmd_2008

 

It needs to travel because of "information" issues.

Two bodies must talk to each other over distance in order for them to orbit each other.

This entails communication between those objects.

We need a mechanism to explain how this information is received and how it is acted upon. Gravity necessarily must "talk" across these distances and must explain the physical process of how they orbit each other.

[edit on 21-5-2010 by mnemeth1]

The “talking” is a constant nonmoving state. If you are in the gravity field then you are under constant influence. It would be like jumping into a pool of water where the water has constant influence on you without FTL involvement to cause the influence.

Originally posted by wmd_2008
This question re gravity DOES gravity actually HAVE any speed to start with

Does it need to travel in the first place, if its true that space is bent due to the gravity of an object then does gravity actually move

This is an excellent question. There's a difference between measuring the speed of gravity and the speed at which gravitational changes are propagated.

This is why I say that even IF the speed of gravity is faster than the speed of light, the fact that gravitational changes can only be introduced at the speed of light or less means that we still will never measure a speed of a gravitational change faster than c. So asking what the speed of gravity is, is a hypothetical question that really doesn't seem to have a practical answer in that so far at least, we've never figured out how to measure it.

Changes in gravity, on the other hand, can result in a speed of propagation which can be measured. And the reason I'm sure the results will always be c or less, is because that's the limit on how fast the gravitational changes can be introduced. However that may or may not be the speed of gravity, the speed of gravity could be greater than c for all I know. But we won't measure a speed of gravitational changes propagating faster than c.

Or to put it in other words from a poster on physicsforums:

www.physicsforums.com...

Originally Posted by Les Sleeth If so, can you answer my question of how long it would take for Earth to feel the gravitational effects of the Sun suddenly disappearing. Is it the time it takes for light to travel from the Sun to Earth?

I have to agree that I have doubts that this is a meaningful question.
1. In GR gravity is a function of mass-energy density.
2. Mass-energy is conserved.
3. Therefore, the only way the a gravitation field from a particular localized clump of mass-energy, say, the sun, can change over time is for the displacement of the mass-energy to change.
4. The mass-energy itself is subject to limiting its changes in displacement to something less than c as a result of SR.

Thus, this places some hard limits on the extent to which gravitational energy can change.

[edit on 21-5-2010 by Arbitrageur]

reply to post by Arbitrageur


While that statement is true for a laboratory experiment that attempts to change the gravitational mass of an object, its not true for observations of interacting systems.

Flandern writes:

"Why do total eclipses of the Sun by the Moon reach maximum eclipse about 40 seconds before the Sun and Moon’s gravitational forces align?"

----------

"Yet another manifestation of the difference between the propagation speeds of gravity and light can be seen in the case of solar eclipses (Van Flandern, 1993, pp. 49-50). The Moon, being relatively nearby and sharing the Earth’s 30 km/s orbital motion around the Sun, has relatively little aberration (0.7 arc seconds, due to the Moon’s 1 km/s orbital speed around Earth). The Sun, as mentioned earlier, has an aberration of just over 20 arc seconds. It takes the Moon about 38 seconds of time to move 20 arc seconds on the sky relative to the Sun. Since the observed times of eclipses of the Sun by the Moon agree with predicted times to within a couple of seconds, we can use the orbits of the Sun and the Moon near times of maximum solar eclipse to compare the time of predicted gravitational maximum with the time of visible maximum eclipse.

In practice, the maximum gravitational perturbation by the Sun on the orbit of the Moon near eclipses may be taken as the time when the lunar and solar longitudes are equal. Details of the procedure are provided in the reference cited. We find that maximum eclipse occurs roughly 38±1.9 seconds of time, on average, before the time of gravity maximum. If gravity is a propagating force, this 3-body (Sun-Moon-Earth) test implies that gravity propagates at least 20 times faster than light."

reply to post by mnemeth1


I just checked out the videos and other stuff you linked... I must say its intriguing. Do I agree with the electric universe theory? Not totally, just as I do not TOTALLY agree with any theory put out.

I feel that the truth will be different to our present ideas, because as we learn new things we must then adjust theory, or create new theory to explain the new information.

I also just can't get over the feeling that many of our assumptions will be proven wrong.

I will say that an electric field that stretches throughout space could make travel easier.

One big question though... there was mention of an electric theory of gravity... perhaps I missed it but was there an explanation of how that might work?

reply to post by FileZero


Right now even the mainstream can't give a full accounting of gravity.

GR explains gravity as if its only function is a bending of space, however this view of gravity has not been unified with special relativity.

The "unification" problem remains unsolved, and will remain unsolved forever.

There have been several theories put forth by steady state theorists to explain gravity. All of which are far more cogent than Einstein's 'bending space' nonsense.

But ultimately, a fully proven model to explain gravity has not been achieved by anyone.

At best, we can continue to falsify existing models based on what we observe.

So I take it you do not think dark matter exists?