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: 7
18
<< 4  5  6    8  9 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 4 2010 @ 09:14 PM
link   



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?


I base it on the big bang model. You see as spacetime is the fabric of our universe it doesn't follow our own laws. But it can be warped by mass.

So those rules don't matter. But only the warping can occur.




posted on Jun, 4 2010 @ 10:48 PM
link   
Since I first read Einstein's theories I have had problems with them.

Part of me looks at his work as the pinnacle of 19th century physics: the absolute end of a train of thought that started with Newton. 20th century physics began with Einstein (or more correctly, AFTER) because he was the transitional figure; His ideas made people think differently.

On the other hand I have had 'issues' with his work since the beginning. I used to think that he was wrong, but now I'm not so sure.

The more I have learned about the electrical revolution of the early 20th Century, the more I believe that Einstien's theories may have been misrepresented or editted. More and more I see the solutions to some of the impossibilites Einstein defined actually being solved by his work, you just have to look at it from the right perspective.

I think it is possible that his work was published before anyone realized what he was doing. When they did finally figure it out they had to spin what he had done.

With government oversight, he was allowed to conduct his research but no one was allowed to follow. Einstein's theories were then used as a stick to beat people with. Decades passed where people just didn't do research on some ideas; Big Al said it was impossible and to argue was professional suicide

Like Tesla and Royal Rife (and others), his true discoveries were kept secret because some people were more concerned with what they stood to lose than what humanity had to gain.

Just my thoughts.



[edit on 4-6-2010 by [davinci]]



posted on Jun, 5 2010 @ 01:42 AM
link   
One of Van Flanderns best points was to ask, "what is the force holding us to this curved space time?" Einsteinian relativists have no answer to this question. We follow the curve of space time just "because"... It is all quite medieval really.

Spacetime is a very simplistic concept. It is invisible and has no internal structure or mechanisms of action. Accepting such an idea at face value is to make a massive leap of faith. Again, medieval.



posted on Jun, 5 2010 @ 03:29 AM
link   

Originally posted by mrwiffler
Spacetime is a very simplistic concept. It is invisible and has no internal structure or mechanisms of action. Accepting such an idea at face value is to make a massive leap of faith. Again, medieval.


I wouldn't call it simplistic; it's actually quite ingenius. Minkowski really went way outside the box to devise a space-time in which a pair of straight lines can cross one another repeatedly, and in which the internal angles of a triangle don't necessarily add up to 180°. The simplistic idea is that warped space time is the one true model, and that it invalidates Euclidean space.

Actually, warped space-time is one alternative way of quantifying the physical universe. Another alternative is Euclidean space with force fields. Both alternatives are valid, yet imperfect, mathematical analogs of the physical universe. Both have their advantages and disadvantages.

Einstein's formulas, based on warped space-time, are terribly efficient computational tools. They can solve a problem in seconds which would take years by any other method. The fact that the two methods might yield different numbers doesn't mean that one or the other is wrong. It simply means that each result is expressed in its own language. Arguments result because both languages use the same words with slightly different meanings.

Euclidean space is probably more helpful for discovering what is wrong with our current understanding of the universe. Forces are not caused by the warp of space-time; it's the other way around. Believing that the warp is the cause precludes any possibility of discovering the true cause.



posted on Jun, 5 2010 @ 03:44 AM
link   
Fascinating reading

After reading the first few posts on gravity and from thoughts I have had over the years, I have always thought that gravity in the universe was operating in a higher way than linear space time, or operating at a quantum level where gravity being disturbed on say-one side of a galaxy would be felt instantly on the other side, or everywhere else would be instantly aware of the disturbance at the same time... perhaps anywhere in the universe... since everything filters down from the largest system to the smallest..and not at all like linear space time effects like how a photon would travel through space in a "normal" way...
Is this right at all?

Great post! This is the stuff I love the most about ATS Thank you all for posting



posted on Jun, 5 2010 @ 07:08 AM
link   

Originally posted by Gentill Abdulla

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.




The speed of darkness is the speed of light, actually. It's very easy to understand this, isn't it? suppose you have a completely dark area of size 1 light year and you shine a light onto it: the light will reach the end of this area in 1 light year. If you switch off the light, the darkness will reach the end of this area in 1 light year. Therefore, the speed of darkness is the speed of light.



posted on Jun, 5 2010 @ 08:09 AM
link   

Originally posted by Phractal Phil

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.


Here is an example that clearly proves FTL communication is impossible:

www.brool.com...

It's a very simple example with a bomb going off as a result of a superluminal signal raised on a specific event. The paradox is that in one case the bomb succeeds and in the other it fails, because of the different order of events between the two observers.



posted on Jun, 5 2010 @ 11:52 AM
link   
reply to post by masterp
 


You are still confusing darkness with an actual thing. Darkness is not the opposite of light it is the ABSENCE of light.

Light still has to travel darkness does not.

Your analogy shows that when you turn off the light you still have to wait for the light to be absent. This is because of the speed of light not the speed of darkness.

Again darkness doesn't have a speed it is just the absence of light.



posted on Jun, 5 2010 @ 02:58 PM
link   
reply to post by masterp
 


Did you read Anwar Shiekh's reply to that "paradox" at the link you gave? He said very succinctly exactly what I am saying. Instantaneous communication in the barn's reference frame is not instantaneous in the pole vaulter's reference frame. If instantaneous communication is possible, it can only be instantaneous in the reference frame which is stationary with resect to the ether.


Whoever wrote this version of the barn paradox took length contraction and clock slowing into account, but he did not take into account that, in the pole vaulter's reference frame, clocks attached to the front and back of the barn do not show the same time. Let us suppose the barn is stationary relative to the ether. So the signal is simultaneous according to barn clocks but not simultaneous according to clocks moving with the pole vaulter.

According to clocks moving with the pole vaulter, the signal arrives at the back of the barn before it is sent from the front of the barn. If the polevaulter is sending the signal, he is sending it at negative speed, meaning it arrives before he sends it. This is not paradoxical because it does not permit him to send a signal to himself in his own past. To reach him in his own past, it would have to have negative speed in both direction. But an instantaneous signal from the back of the barn to the front of the barn would have a speed equal and opposite to the negative speed of the forward moving signal.

I realize all this is terribly confusing without diagrams. That is why I am working on an illustrated explanation at my own website.

[edit on 2010/6/5 by Phractal Phil]



posted on Jun, 5 2010 @ 04:49 PM
link   
reply to post by Gentill Abdulla
 


Darkness may be the absence of light, but when light is turned off, the last emitted photon stills travels at C speed, and therefore darkness is introduced gradually.



posted on Jun, 5 2010 @ 05:35 PM
link   
reply to post by masterp
 


Are you suggesting that gravity is darkness? If the speed of gravity is not the speed of light, then it isn't the speed of darkness either.



posted on Jun, 5 2010 @ 05:48 PM
link   


Let us suppose the barn is stationary relative to the ether.


Ok. How do we know the ether is not moving? Is the ether stationary relative to something else or not?

We can't talk about what you say if we don't clear up that important question.



posted on Jun, 5 2010 @ 06:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by masterp
reply to post by Gentill Abdulla
 


Darkness may be the absence of light, but when light is turned off, the last emitted photon stills travels at C speed, and therefore darkness is introduced gradually.


Darkness is not "introduced" darkness occurs because of the absence. It is not introduced gradually it is immediately there when the last photon goes away.



posted on Jun, 5 2010 @ 06:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by masterp

Originally posted by Gentill Abdulla

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.




The speed of darkness is the speed of light, actually. It's very easy to understand this, isn't it? suppose you have a completely dark area of size 1 light year and you shine a light onto it: the light will reach the end of this area in 1 light year. If you switch off the light, the darkness will reach the end of this area in 1 light year. Therefore, the speed of darkness is the speed of light.



LMFAO, that's a good one!


OK, we know light is propagated as an electromagnetic wave. What propagates 'darkness'? The other member is correct in this case, "darkness" is an absence of light, not something that is propagated or has any discernible speed. Just like you don't say the velocity of a vacuum is 0mph compared to a fan blowing air at 10mph. It's rather very simple common sense that most children can grasp.

I appreciate the joke though, and I do hope it was meant as a joke.



posted on Jun, 5 2010 @ 06:49 PM
link   
reply to post by sirnex
 


I recommend that you immediately edit out the texting abbreviation, drop the F and substitute H for A (if the A represents what I think it does). I'm new here, but I get the impression that the monitors are prudes with no sense of humor.

[edit on 2010/6/5 by Phractal Phil]



posted on Jun, 5 2010 @ 07:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by masterp
Ok. How do we know the ether is not moving? Is the ether stationary relative to something else or not?


Everything is moving relative to something. The establishment view is that there is no ether, and nothing faster than light; consequently, no prefered reference frame. The existence of an ether doesn't imply a preferred reference frame unless there is a way to detect motion relative to the ether. If FTL communication is possible, or if the speed of gravity is FTL, then we should be able to detect motion relative to the ether. In that case, the ether is a preferred reference frame. Then, it would make sense to say that stillness relative to the ether is absolute stillness, and velocity relative the ether is absolute velocity.

To date, as far as I know, our best clue about motion relative to the ether is the cosmic microwave background radiation. Our solar system seems to be moving toward Virgo at about 627 km/s relative to the CMB, as evidenced by the blue shift in that direction. (I have read various other numbers; they're all approximate.)

Assuming that 627 km/s is correct, that translates to a relativistic gamma of 1.0000022. If the speed of gravity > 20 billion c (as TVF said) in all directions relative to the ether, then it is easily fast enough to outrun clocks that are synchronized to light pulses in Earth's reference frame. So a speed-of-gravity signal from Earth toward Virgo would arrive before it is sent (according to Earth frame clocks). Six or seven digits accuracy in timing the signal should be adequate to prove that it is received before it is sent.



posted on Jun, 6 2010 @ 12:48 AM
link   
Good post OP. Its good 2 get ppl thinking like this. Your post has raised a brow so to speak.

You've made several examples for you point and 1 stuck out the most, which has really challenged my thinking.

If one guy is on earth holding a really really long bar that reaches the sun, and at the other end is another guy and he twists the bar.....the guy on earth should "feel" and "see" the bar twist at the exact same instance.


Someone point it out if I am wrong-But (in a nut shell)Einstein Basically says that the guy would "feel" the bar turn but would not (If he could see the guy at the other end) "see" it till 8 seconds later. wouldn't that be the jist of it?

I know its a rude hypothetical...but what am I missing here?


[edit on 6-6-2010 by Software_Pyrate]



posted on Jun, 6 2010 @ 02:06 AM
link   

Originally posted by Software_Pyrate
If one guy is on earth holding a really really long bar that reaches the sun, and at the other end is another guy and he twists the bar.....the guy on earth should "feel" and "see" the bar twist at the exact same instance.

Someone point it out if I am wrong-But (in a nut shell)Einstein Basically says that the guy would "feel" the bar turn but would not (If he could see the guy at the other end) "see" it till 8 seconds later. wouldn't that be the jist of it?

I know its a rude hypothetical...but what am I missing here?


Light takes 8 minutes to reach us from the sun, not 8 seconds. But what you're really missing is that the bar is made of a solid piece of matter with a certain density and a shear modulus. Together the density and shear modulus determing a shear waves speed, which is somewhat less than the speed of sound in the material. The speed of sound in the material is determine by the density and Young's modulus, which is somewhat greater than the shear modulus.

If the you were to jerk on one end of a Kevlar rope, someone at the other end would fell the jerk after a speed of sound delay at the rate of about 8 km/s. In a rod made of diamond, its about 12 km/s. Light propagates at 300,000 km/s.

The ether is not made of matter (at least not the matter of this universe). In my own model, both light and gravity are transmitted via the ether. Light, being a shear wave, propagates at the speed of shear waves. Gravity (like all the other forces), propagates via ethereal pressure waves. The ether is a solid; both shear waves and pressure waves propagate thru the ether in much the same manner as acoustic waves in ordinary solids. The inertial density of the ether is possibly a googol times greater that of a neutron star, and its shear modulus and Young's modulus are commensurately greater than those of anything made of atoms. Particles are pairs or groups of shear waves orbiting one another because of forces that result from exchange of momentum between shear waves and presure waves.

Already, I am diverging too far from the topic of this thread. I ought not to turn it into a discussion of my own model. I am the new kid on the block. Once I start to feel at home here, I'll start my own thread to discuss my model.



posted on Jun, 6 2010 @ 05:21 AM
link   
reply to post by Gentill Abdulla
 


Exactly. Therefore, darkness' speed is light's speed.



posted on Jun, 6 2010 @ 05:25 AM
link   
reply to post by sirnex
 


I did not say that darkness is an autonomous entity or a wave. It is an event though, and therefore it has a rate relative to other events.



new topics

top topics



 
18
<< 4  5  6    8  9 >>

log in

join