It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

The Speed Of Gravity - Why Einstein Was Wrong

page: 6
18
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 21 2010 @ 04:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by Maddogkull
So I take it you do not think dark matter exists?


ahhaha no, no dark matter.

And the experiments back me up on this:
knol.google.com...




posted on May, 21 2010 @ 05:15 PM
link   
Star and Flag! Great thread!

i totally agree with your comment on all the fairydust science must go.. black holes and dark matter, big bang, gimme a break.

[edit on 5/21/2010 by above]



posted on May, 21 2010 @ 05:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by Maddogkull
So I take it you do not think dark matter exists?


You do know that dark matter was invented because the observed mass was less than what Einstein predicted?

Come one... since when do we invent things to fix an erroneous prediction and call it science?

Christ, I might as well say a giant anus eating bug created the universe for the sole purpose of eating our anus's and call that science.



posted on May, 21 2010 @ 05:32 PM
link   
reply to post by sirnex
 


don't you believe in the plasma universe theory or something?

.



posted on May, 21 2010 @ 05:42 PM
link   
reply to post by Maddogkull
 


I believe that it has more merit than rubber sheet and bowling balls. Space is permeated with plasma, we can't just dismiss the physics of plasma when space is filled with the stuff.

I personally think we need to bring back the aether too, which Tesla describes as a 'rarefied gas'. It gives more meaning to what space is and how matter interacts with it instead of having no explanation as to why matter should interact with a medium that we can't even physically describe.

I've never heard what space is, have you?



posted on May, 22 2010 @ 08:37 PM
link   
reply to post by wmd_2008
 

You said:
" 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 ."

My question would then be "How fast does the leading edge of the 'bend' travel?

Be well!



posted on May, 23 2010 @ 08:08 AM
link   
Wow, the more I read about Tesla's ideas on gravity, the more I like. It's probably no coincidence that he was working on this very thing at the time of his demise(and it's still classified and unavailable via FOIA).
"powerpedia" has an interesting article on Tesla's gravity theories: tinyurl.com/53fhr

"Tesla never referred to "space-time" directly, referring instead to the concept of the "primary substance". He also never used this relativistic "twin" term. He considered time as a mere man-made "measure" of the rate at which events occur such as a distance travelled (in miles or kms) in a certain period of time, for a frame of reference. He considered the "curving" of space to be absurd (putting it in gentle terms) saying that if a moving body curved space the "equal and opposite" reaction of space on the body would "straighten space back out".

What say you on curved space breaking the opposite and equal reaction laws of physics?

'"My second discovery was of a physical truth of the greatest importance. As I have searched the entire scientific records in more than a half dozen languages for a long time without finding the least anticipation, I consider myself the original discoverer of this truth, which can be expressed by the statement: There is no energy in matter other than that received from the environment." — Nikola Tesla '

I think that Tesla's theories have much more credibility because they are intertwined with real world experimentation. Theories formulated from direct observation and working experiments based upon theories seem to be on Tesla's side. Einstein, seems to have formed "his" theories based upon other people's work.
Einstein would probably still be getting his data and tweaking his failed theories through others' observations looking out to distant quasars, while Tesla is busy studying his own quasar up close in his own lab.

[edit on 23-5-2010 by PplVSNWO]

[edit on 23-5-2010 by PplVSNWO]

[edit on 23-5-2010 by PplVSNWO]



posted on May, 27 2010 @ 03:41 AM
link   

Originally posted by mnemeth1
My own personal thoughts on this subject, the following is my speculative take on what we have observed:

[Your post on 20-5-2010 @ 01:34 PM snipped for quote brevity, but recommended reading to all.]



Wow, really sweet summation. I agree with all of it, so I guess I would naturally like what you said, but you said it very well. I'm also a Van Flandern fan, and it's disappointing how badly he was treated for his brilliantly clear analysis of so many fundamental issues.

I watch the trolls spin and hit and run against you with everything from personal attacks to laughable imitations of physics arguments, and I admire your steadyness in the face of the deliberate insolence they use in place of legitimate arguments. Keep it up, you're doing great!



posted on May, 30 2010 @ 02:20 PM
link   
I liked reading this thread enough to respond and I don't do that much anymore. I actually believe that the truth is actually a combination of electric theory and relativity. I am an up and coming scientist who is currently a student.

Knowing that fusion is real and that mass will fuse into a more compact form of matter until singularity is reached by the combined weight of enough nutrons to collapse into a totally compacted configuration where the subatomic particles have 0.00 space between them and gravity becomes absolutely perfect, I believe that gravity actually brings all animation to space period and does curve space and distort time.

I also believe there is an opposing force to gravity that pushes out from the same center that gravity does. I believe that in this dimension of the Universe that gravity propigation is infinite but its pulling power is diminished by the weaker opposing force that pushes out. This opposing force is weaker in its manifestation in barionic matter but prominent in the so called dark matter.

The proposed dark matter could be real and merely the opposite of barionic matter in all its properties including its having its signature the antigravitational force. There would be a weaker gravitational field from the antibarionic dark matter than its infinite antigravitational field so it would generate a net pushing effect on matter and electromagmetic radiation respectively If this matter were real then it would transmit light around the outside of its field to the opposite side where it is ejected and create a circular lensing effect when observing galaxies in deep space telescopes.

If this dark matter surrounds a galaxy it is quite evident in telescopes pictures that show the distorted light from the galaxy behind the other galaxy, showing up as a circular lense of distorted galactic light in front of the observable galaxy.

I think this is good evidence of a form of matter that has opposing properites to barionic matter. I believe that as seperate materials these two forms of matter are unbalanced each according to its configuration and properties, but that the unbalance is countered by an equal unbalance in the opposing form of matter.

In the antibarionic matter situation, I think that this place is full of it and that barionic matter is being dropped into this Universe from a sort of hyperspace where there is infinite matter and energy all moving well beyond the speed of light.

I also think that entropy has been sucessfully applied to this protobarionic hyperspace and that it slows down the information and it then precipitates matter outward and in clumps into the infinite host of antibarionic dark matter that extends forever.

This injection of matter into this infinite sea of dark matter would naturally compress the dark matter between the current injection and the last one. This would cause the injected matter to compress and seperate from the previous injection of matter(newly forming galaxies).

If these forces were equal in this Universal plain then there would be no gravitational effect period. That is why I call it the unbalanced balance that makes all things possible.

Just think without gravities effects there would be no motion period for anything. I actually believe that we live in a Universe that has a positive and negative dimensional sides.

Gravity is the timeless father of all propigation and the origin of time itself. If there were no opposing force to weaken gravity enough for equalibrium to occur, then all creation would be infinitely compacted by gravity.

If the opposing force to gravity (antigravity push) were not weaker in barionic matter and rose to equality in all matter, then nothing could possibly ever happen because nothing could ever move.

This is the beginning of my theory of the way it is as I am a mere student but I am another scientist who does not really follow mainstream science completely. I find they have a lot of really close ideas to the truth but they all have descrepencies that prevent them from being unified into the theory of everything.

I also believe in balck holes and that within the event horizon that time is running in full reverse as the absolute matter falls backwards through time back to the time of Universal Singularity at the beginning before the Light escaped and formed creation as we know it.

I don't really buy into the Big Bang theory as I believe the forces and matter were seperated by design to enable a propigation of this Universal theater. Without unbalance nothing could occur and without an opposing and equal unbalance the Universe would become unstable and collapse.

Also I think that entropy in the hyperspace system is growing as the Universe ages and as such is precipitating new matter into infinite space faster and farther out from the origin. When the entropy in the hyperspace system surpasses the lightspeeed barier, there will be infinite matter dumped into the Cosmos at once which will cause all time to reverse and revert back into the singularity it started from.

I also believe that the cosmos is very electrical and acknowledge the absolute nature of electricity as a fundamental force of nature. I think that the universe will be destructed by electricity in the end and be turned into a burning ball of plasma with infinite gravity and mass in a Unified field.

I don't believe that the dark matter will recoil and contract with the barionic matter into the singularity but instead will remain infinitely spreading out. This configuration as I see it would eventually cause gravity to seperate from the singularity and let entropy effect the infinite singularity and precipitate a new Universe.

My theory requires a Creator to manipulate the seperation of the forces as entropy causes matter to cool enough to precipitate into barionic matter and behave according to the configuration of the natural forces that govern the Universal existence and propigation of all moments within that timeline, eg. the Laws of the Universe.

I believe that the Universal laws and forces can be changed by the Creator during the moment of birth when the entropy enters the singularity and and it explodes with copious precipitation of matter in the form of hydrogen from a central point. I believe that a Universe can have completely different laws of nature depending on the configuration of the forces that seperate from the Unified Field.

Angel One



posted on May, 30 2010 @ 02:57 PM
link   
removed

[edit on 30-5-2010 by sstark]



posted on May, 30 2010 @ 05:23 PM
link   
For me, it is quite simple: the speed of gravity is C, the Sun has warped the local space before Earth was born, and therefore it doesn't matter if Earth plays 'catchup' with the Sun's gravity.



posted on Jun, 3 2010 @ 12:34 AM
link   
New to ATS. I am glad to find an intelligent discussion of Van Flandern’s work. I’m afraid Tom’s website went way downhill, even before his death. I have only skimmed quickly over this discussion. So please forgive me if I seem to be ignoring or misunderstanding some of your posts.

While TVF had some pretty wacky ideas, I do believe he was basically correct about the speed of gravity. However, I am confused by his use of Laurentian relativity. Apparently, all of his clocks (moving or stationary) are synchronized to light pulses in the inertial reference frame which is stationary relative to the light carrying medium (which I call ether and TVF called elysium). This is in stark contrast to the way moving clocks are synchronized in Einstein’s SR. It means that light cannot have the same speed in all reference frames. It seems to me that TVF was mixing two forms of relativity, apparently without knowing it.

In Einstein’s SR, events that are simultaneous in one inertial reference frame are not simultaneous according to clocks that are synchronized in another inertial reference frame. Consequently, the speed of gravity cannot be both different from the speed of light and have the same speed in every direction —except in the preferred reference frame of the ether (elysium). Let’s call that preferred frame, “Red”.

[Refer to my “world diagrams” at
home.comcast.net...
I apologize for this page not yet being presentable. ]

Consider an inertial reference frame, Blue, that is moving in the +x direction at .866 c relative to the ether. To a stationary observer in Red, Blue clocks run half as fast as Red clocks, and Blue clocks toward the +x direction indicated earlier times. So, according to Blue clocks, a signal propagating in the +x direction at the speed of gravity in the Red reference frame would arrive before it is sent. In other words, in Blue, the speed of gravity is negative in the +x direction and positive in the –x direction. This does not imply a paradox because a similar signal sent in the –x direction would be delayed by the same amount of time. So, even if speed-of-gravity communication is possible, it does not allow you to send a message into your own past.

Correct me if I am wrong, but as far as I know, TVF never explicitly qualified his speed of gravity, vg, as having a particular value only in the preferred reference frame of the ether (elysium), nor did it ever mention that a speed-of-gravity signal might appear to arrive before it is sent. Perhaps he thought it was unnecessary because he never actually quantified vg, except to say it is at least 20 billion c. Besides, astronomical reference frames tend to be rather slow moving, relative to the ether. Our own solar system’s velocity relative to the CMB is roughly 627 km/s, or .002 c in the direction of Virgo. This gives us a gamma of 1.0000021871, which is easily sufficient to make a speed-of-gravity signal in the direction of Virgo arrive before it is sent (according to clocks synchronized in the traditional way).



posted on Jun, 3 2010 @ 08:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by buddhasystem

Originally posted by Gentill Abdulla
I don't see why they are trying to find gravity waves. They are not detectable. They are going at infinite speeds so we won't even be able to see them. Then when they can't detect them they are going to blame t on Einstein.


What the heck is that supposed to mean? We don't know the speed of gravity, reliably, in the first place. If there are waves, then it is finite. Scientists are trying to find out.


The waves are just an unbending of spacetime. If it is changed the the waves should propagate immediately due to spacetime unbending itself at the speed which it does. Infinity.



posted on Jun, 4 2010 @ 12:39 AM
link   

Originally posted by Gentill Abdulla

The waves are just an unbending of spacetime. If it is changed the the waves should propagate immediately due to spacetime unbending itself at the speed which it does. Infinity.


Even TVF recognized that Einstein was right about gravity waves propagating at the speed of light—if they exist, at all. He often asserted that the speed of gravity force is not the speed of gravity waves.

To understand the warp of space-time, you must understand it results not from the presence of mass, but from Minkowski's definition of a straight line. In Euclidean space, light has mass; it responds to the force of gravity in the vicinity of other masses, and they respond to an equal and opposite force of attraction to the light. Consequently, light changes direction when passing a star. This imparts equal and opposite momentum to each; otherwise momentum would not be conserved.

But Minkowski decided that the path of a photon should define what a straight line IS in his space-time. Straightening the path of light by definition resulted in a warped space-time in which light is massless. Consequently, all the other physical parameters (mass, energy, distance, etc.) no longer convey precisely the meaning they had before in Euclidean space—and still do have in Euclidean space, if you ask me. Many who are adept at using general relative (with all its tensor analysis) religiously believe that the invention of space-time invalidated the existence of Euclidean space (just as the discovery of spherical geometry invalidated the use of plane geometry in land measurement).

I say both systems are valid. GR is more useful for calculating trajectories because it computes so efficiently. Those same trajectories can be calculated (very slowly) by numerical analysis in Euclidean space (applying special relativity in small increments of time). Both results are valid, even though the numbers come out different. To demonstrate the equivalence of the results, however, involves somehow translating each result into the language of the other. I don't know if anyone has yet devised the formulas for doing so.

Force is not a valid concept in GR, but in Euclidean space, there is a force vector representing the equal and opposite tugs of gravity on a pair of masses (including photons). Consider a pair of objects separated by distance D and moving past one another with velocity V. If the speed of gravity is infinite (in the reference frame of the ether), then at time = T, the force vector in Euclidean space should point precisely from each object toward where the other object is located at time = T (according to clocks synchronized in the reference frame of the ether).

We know that photons arrive at one object on a velocity vector pointing to where the other object was at time = T - D/c. What TVF said is that the gravity force vector should point to where the other object was at time = T - D/vg, where vg is the speed of gravity force. He believed vg > 20 billion c. (He tacitly, and perhaps unconsciously, assumed that all the measurements were made in the reference frame of the ether (elysium), and all the clocks were synchronized to light pulses in that reference frame.)

Translating the above into the language of GR: "Gradient of gravitational potential is the GR equivalent of gravitational force. If vg is infinite, then space-time should unbend (as you put it) in such a way that the gradient of gravitational potential is a vector pointing precisely toward where the other object is at time = T (according to clocks synchronized in the reference frame of the ether, even though GR denies the existence of the ether).

While I am not fluent in the language of GR, my uneducated opinion is that Einstein somehow tacitly assumed an infinite speed of gravity and concealed it in his equations in such a way that us mere mortals (lacking an understanding of tensor analysis) can't see it.



posted on Jun, 4 2010 @ 05:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by Phractal Phil
While I am not fluent in the language of GR, my uneducated opinion is that Einstein somehow tacitly assumed an infinite speed of gravity and concealed it in his equations in such a way that us mere mortals can't see it.


I also believe that too.

But still if spacetime is bent by mass then mass (if it is somehow changed instantaneously) will also change instantaneously.

Think of it like this.

Lets say you have a net. If you put a bowling ball on the net it will make a big warp on it. Then if you put a moving golf ball close to the net it will"orbit" the bowling ball.(If you could keep it moving). Now let's say you instantaneously remove the bowling ball. It would cause the net to instantaneously move with the bowling ball.

It's because of mass and energy bending spacetime.

On a side note...

Let's think of the standard model for a moment.

I'm sure you know what the Higgs boson is. How about the Higgs boson being an actual piece of spacetime itself.

Since the Higgs boson gives an object it's mass then it should be more plausible that it is a piece of spacetime itself. I mean it would be spacetime bending spacetime. This would explain black holes and gravity.

Just why I think gravitons aren't real.



posted on Jun, 4 2010 @ 05:40 PM
link   
Gravity can't be instantaneous because state change can't be faster than light - otherwise information would travel back in time, causing paradoxes.



posted on Jun, 4 2010 @ 05:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by masterp
Gravity can't be instantaneous because state change can't be faster than light - otherwise information would travel back in time, causing paradoxes.



I also take it you didn't read what I said in the beginning of this thread, as I already explained it to the Op.



posted on Jun, 4 2010 @ 08:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by Gentill Abdulla
Now let's say you instantaneously remove the bowling ball. It would cause the net to instantaneously move with the bowling ball.


The analogy is useful, but imperfect. A real stretched fabric would not react instantaneously because it has non-zero inertia and finite tension. You assume that the fabric of space-time has infinite tension and/or zero inertia. On what do you base that assumption?

Imagine a perfectly resilient trampoline several kilometers across; its fabric is a millimeter thick with the density of lead and the bulk modulus of Kevlar. By “perfectly resilient”, I mean there is no energy loss due to stretching and relaxing it. Springs around the edge maintain a tension of a kiloNewton per square millimeter. Let’s place this trampoline on the moon, so we can ignore the effects of the atmosphere; we’re not concerned with radiated sound or fluid dampening of motion.

Suppose you pull down at a point near the middle of the trampoline to simulate your bowling ball. I’m not ambitious enough to do the math, right now, but let’s say you form a dent one meter deep. Now, you roll your golf ball on the trampoline so that it orbits the dent at a distance of a kilometer. What do you suppose will happen when you suddenly release the bottom of trampoline? How long will it take for the middle of the trampoline to become flat? Will its momentum take it past neutral? Will the shape of the dent a kilometer from its center begin to flatten the instant you release the bottom, or will there be a finite delay? Will the delay be determined by the speed of sound or by the tension and density of the material? How long will it take for the course of the marble to become a straight line?

I believe there are two speeds to consider in the above analogy. The golf ball will begin to notice a change after a speed of sound delay, and the ripples will spread at a speed determined by the density and tension. Perhaps these two speeds are analogous to the speed of gravity force and the speed of gravity waves.


Originally posted by Gentill Abdulla
I'm sure you know what the Higgs boson is. How about the Higgs boson being an actual piece of spacetime itself.

Since the Higgs boson gives an object it's mass then it should be more plausible that it is a piece of spacetime itself. I mean it would be spacetime bending spacetime. This would explain black holes and gravity.

Just why I think gravitons aren't real.


I don't believe anyone knows what the Higgs is; they only postulate the existence of something to give an object its mass because objects have mass, and it must have come from something. "Spacetime bending spacetime" sounds a lot like doubletalk to me.

If you haven’t boned up on my Fractal Foam Model of Universes, the following will make no sense to you.

In my model, a photon is a kind of ethereal shear wave, and a particle is two or more shear waves locked in orbit around one another. Each shear wave has energy, and putting them into orbit around one another converts that energy to the rest mass of the particle. So if the Higgs exists, it must act as a catalyst for putting shear waves into orbit around one another.

Also, the Higgs must somehow compress the shear waves into a much smaller space than their Compton wavelength. The Compton wavelength of an electron is perhaps a million times its diameter. So the shear waves inside the electron must have wavelengths far shorter than a photon of the same energy. And yet they continue to orbit at the speed of light, just like a photon.



posted on Jun, 4 2010 @ 08:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by masterp
Gravity can't be instantaneous because state change can't be faster than light - otherwise information would travel back in time, causing paradoxes.


The “proofs” that FTL communication is paradoxical are fallacious; at least all the “proofs” that I know of. Perhaps you can point me to a proof that is valid. What they actually prove is that two signals cannot have the same speed in different reference frames. Either the speed of gravity is constant in all reference frames or the speed of light is constant in all reference frames; but not both. So the “proofs” postulate a scenario in which signals are sent back and forth instantaneously in two reference frames, and naturally, they get paradoxical results.

I wrote more about this in my first ATS post, above.



posted on Jun, 4 2010 @ 08:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by Phractal Phil
While I am not fluent in the language of GR, my uneducated opinion is that Einstein somehow tacitly assumed an infinite speed of gravity and concealed it in his equations in such a way that us mere mortals (lacking an understanding of tensor analysis) can't see it.


Then, you would do perfectly well if you abstain from passing any judgment at all on this matter. Doing otherwise would seem pretty stupid indeed.



new topics

top topics



 
18
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join