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.

 

Gravitation's propagation speed.

page: 2
5
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 15 2011 @ 12:24 AM
link   
gravity only exists in your reality, what type of energy do you wish to use, there is fast, instant and faster than instant, even the aliens that cruise about us don't use instant speeds.




posted on Feb, 15 2011 @ 12:33 AM
link   
reply to post by CIGGSofWAR
 


You mean "gravity only exists as a mechanism" to tie all the other theories together. It is very much more loosely connected than that. The further you scale down-ward or up-ward is where the energy trade-offs begin. One small magnet and a set of car keys can prove that even the gravitation of the Earth or Sun is less than the magnet.

So it does involve scales and the speed of light; but what happens when you EXCEED it? Or don't exceed it? Is this truly a question of "To Be or Not To Be?"



posted on Feb, 15 2011 @ 12:33 AM
link   

Originally posted by trekwebmaster
What struck me as odd, is that the moon never truly orbits the Earth, and why we only see one side at all times. It never revolves around the Earth, hence only one side is able to be seen. almost like a EKG with one beat per month, but instead of the beat moving in a linear line, perspective shifts and moves as the beat.

Is this non sequitor?


The reason why we only see one side of the moon is has been well understood for a long time. Because the moon is much smaller than Earth, it's core has cooled from a liquid to a solid long ago, while the Earth still has a molten interior. Gravity from Earth 'gravitationally locked' the moon's orbit to its rotation. Due to gravity, the center of mass of the moon is not centered, but is more towards the side of the moon we are familiar with. This causes the moon to have the same rotational and orbital period. Sorry if this is confusing, but I promise there's no confusion among modern science.

-Balboa



posted on Feb, 15 2011 @ 12:34 AM
link   
reply to post by CIGGSofWAR
 

A brilliant, scientific thread, and someone has to complain about the number of threads posted. By the way, do be careful, this one really likes to report even the slightest infractions.

Thinking about your question, is mass not a function of time? Does logic suggest that when we talk about the local spacetime, which is a function of mass, does not gravity manifest itself proportionally with increase in mass?

Now we're back to mass being a function of time as any observation is an "average" of a constantly fluctuating exchange of positive and negative particles, and so then is time not also a function of gravity? (Just like time is a function of energy?)



posted on Feb, 15 2011 @ 12:40 AM
link   
reply to post by FarArcher
 


The problem lies in quantizing gravity. To believe that gravity needs to be quantized is to say that gravity is fundamental, and therefore requires a quantum description. But, as far as we can measure, gravity is too weak to need to be considered as contributing to such small-scale, quantum processes. So, I'm not sure why the majority of science is so keen on making such a description. So far, no one has succeeded at proving definitively that action-at-a-distance, i.e. entanglement, exists.

-Balboa



posted on Feb, 15 2011 @ 12:43 AM
link   
To all good math people :
---------------------------------------------->>> I pose the following:
Current Solar Flare confirmed trajectory Earth
Object Comet Temple 1 current trajectory known
Variable : Solar Flare Direct Hit on Trajectory Impact if Any.
edit on 15-2-2011 by BobAthome because: dumb in math



posted on Feb, 15 2011 @ 12:51 AM
link   
reply to post by Balboa
 

Im sorry but Mass does indeed affect Gravity. Has to do with a imbalance of Charge ie electrical so at a quatum level is there mass affect if think is what he meant.



posted on Feb, 15 2011 @ 12:52 AM
link   

Originally posted by Balboa

Originally posted by trekwebmaster
What struck me as odd, is that the moon never truly orbits the Earth, and why we only see one side at all times. It never revolves around the Earth, hence only one side is able to be seen. almost like a EKG with one beat per month, but instead of the beat moving in a linear line, perspective shifts and moves as the beat.

Is this non sequitor?


The reason why we only see one side of the moon is has been well understood for a long time. Because the moon is much smaller than Earth, it's core has cooled from a liquid to a solid long ago, while the Earth still has a molten interior. Gravity from Earth 'gravitationally locked' the moon's orbit to its rotation. Due to gravity, the center of mass of the moon is not centered, but is more towards the side of the moon we are familiar with. This causes the moon to have the same rotational and orbital period. Sorry if this is confusing, but I promise there's no confusion among modern science.

-Balboa


If this is true, then perhaps why is the moon moving 1cm or more AWAY from the earth each year? There will be no moon thousands of years from now. Earth's wobble is not constant, neither is the moon's orbit.

Check this YouTube from another ATS thread...very interesting information:



Here's the ATS thread...about the Hammer Axis some great stuff there

www.abovetopsecret.com...



posted on Feb, 15 2011 @ 12:52 AM
link   

Originally posted by BobAthome
To all good math people :
---------------------------------------------->>> I pose the following:
Current Solar Flare confirmed trajectory Earth
Object Comet Temple 1 current trajectory known
Variable : Solar Flare Direct Hit on Trajectory Impact if Any.
edit on 15-2-2011 by BobAthome because: dumb in math


I'm not sure what math has to do with this, but I wouldn't worry about such things... As far as I know, there's no good way to predict space weather, we just observe the light, which arrives about 8 minutes before the solar wind, which is just enough time to shut off the grid in case of intense flux, except I don't believe we have any protocol in place to stop damage to the grid... So if you are worried about widespread power outages after an intense solar storm, it could happen, and there's no good way to prepare except for the usual ways for preparing for blackouts...

-Balboa



posted on Feb, 15 2011 @ 12:53 AM
link   
reply to post by FarArcher
 


Of course time has its Energy but is that it's function?



posted on Feb, 15 2011 @ 12:54 AM
link   
reply to post by trekwebmaster
 


Tidal forces that the moon exerts on Earth results in a small increase in the moon's orbital radius over time. The energy put into the tides has to come from somewhere, and in this case it's the moon's gravitational potential energy with Earth...

-Balboa



posted on Feb, 15 2011 @ 12:55 AM
link   

Originally posted by Balboa

Originally posted by BobAthome
To all good math people :
---------------------------------------------->>> I pose the following:
Current Solar Flare confirmed trajectory Earth
Object Comet Temple 1 current trajectory known
Variable : Solar Flare Direct Hit on Trajectory Impact if Any.
edit on 15-2-2011 by BobAthome because: dumb in math


I'm not sure what math has to do with this, but I wouldn't worry about such things... As far as I know, there's no good way to predict space weather, we just observe the light, which arrives about 8 minutes before the solar wind, which is just enough time to shut off the grid in case of intense flux, except I don't believe we have any protocol in place to stop damage to the grid... So if you are worried about widespread power outages after an intense solar storm, it could happen, and there's no good way to prepare except for the usual ways for preparing for blackouts...

-Balboa

I'm sorry u misunderstood me it is a math question, if Train leaves station at A etc,,, math.
edit on 15-2-2011 by BobAthome because: why would i not worry about math?????



posted on Feb, 15 2011 @ 12:57 AM
link   

Originally posted by FarArcher
reply to post by CIGGSofWAR
 

A brilliant, scientific thread, and someone has to complain about the number of threads posted. By the way, do be careful, this one really likes to report even the slightest infractions.

Thinking about your question, is mass not a function of time? Does logic suggest that when we talk about the local spacetime, which is a function of mass, does not gravity manifest itself proportionally with increase in mass?

Now we're back to mass being a function of time as any observation is an "average" of a constantly fluctuating exchange of positive and negative particles, and so then is time not also a function of gravity? (Just like time is a function of energy?)




Only "at-scale"...proportion to scale....Micro = faster than light and Macro = at or close to speed of light....hence, light and dark, good and evil...movement of space-time and time-space. everything has a set of rules where each operates and the ironic thing is that they are called the same thing but have different functions depending on "at-scale" perspective. It's plain to see that the "golden-ratio" is present everywhere...and science is like a broken mosaic with most of the pieces missing...just imagine



posted on Feb, 15 2011 @ 12:58 AM
link   

Originally posted by BobAthome
I'm sorry u misunderstood me it is a math question, if Train leaves station at A etc,,, math.
edit on 15-2-2011 by BobAthome because: why would i not worry about math?????


Please elaborate. Please, by all means worry about math. Just don't worry about space weather.

-Balboa



posted on Feb, 15 2011 @ 01:08 AM
link   
reply to post by chr0naut
 


Would you not notice a doppler shift? I don't think that video is accurate because it assumes that light is not affected traveling at a constant speed. What satellite can there be if we don't know the furthest one?

Say Uranus. It takes light a certain amount of time to reach it right? If a singularity ripped the sun from the solar system there would some sort of doppler shifting. But assuming if the Black Hole is at light speed and occupies the entire known universe then time would stop, so the amount of time it would take to reach a far satellite would be exponentially infinite? right?

Are you inferring that the universe is one huge singularity? at light speed? IF so , then what does it matter? lol

Yin and Yang paradox.
edit on 15-2-2011 by trekwebmaster because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 15 2011 @ 01:12 AM
link   

Originally posted by trekwebmaster
reply to post by chr0naut
 


Would you not notice a doppler shift? I don't think that video is accurate because it assumes that light is not affected traveling at a constant speed. What satellite can there be if we don't know the furthest one?

Say Uranus. It takes light a certain amount of time to reach it right? If a singularity ripped the sun from the solar system there would some sort of doppler shifting. But assuming if the Black Hole is at light speed and occupies the entire known universe then time would stop, so the amount of time it would take to reach a far satellite would be exponentially infinite? right?


It would take a time equaling the distance divided by the speed of light.



posted on Feb, 15 2011 @ 01:17 AM
link   
When you create a standing wave, using highly conductive masses, that standing wave has a half-life of weeks and alters the local spacetime, which degrades with the half-life of the standing wave.

Inside that altered spacetime, matter is altered, and time slows drastically, but only within the local spacetime.

Left alone, over time, the local spacetime correspondingly with the standing wave will slowly degrade, and altered matter will more or less return to its original characteristics.

And that's with low power.

When you use high power with ultra high voltages, things change. Some elements within that standing wave/altered local spacetime are changed and appear to act as a dielectric to gravity - or they appear to "block" gravity from the greater mass.

Yet within the altered spacetime, things appear normal while all physical characteristics appear altered from without.

The "speed" of gravity thus may be considered dependent on whether one is within or without the altered spacetime, and in one instance, may be considered infinite.

Electrons are not the particles we see represented in physics books. Electrons are nothing more than vortices, and that will help one understand many of the "dual properties" attributed to the same.



posted on Feb, 15 2011 @ 01:17 AM
link   

Originally posted by goatfish
I think this is a really good question and something I have pondered a bit recently so I'll throw my thoughts out there. I'm not a scientist and I don't know the math so I can only conjecture about what what I've been told is true from sources I consider credible and my own theories.

I've heard that when scientist do calculations to determine the path of travel for bodies in space, gravity is treated as acting instantaneously and that if it is limited to the speed of light the calculations do not come out correctly. Also I've wondered since a black hole can pull in photons and not let them escape then it seems the force of gravity must be travelling faster than the photons.
edit on 14-2-2011 by goatfish because: (no reason given)


From everything Ive heard this seems to be correct, and may be the best clue to understanding what gravity is . Instantaneously , that's very interesting and seems to dispute that it is either a wave, or a partial. ~Edit to add ~ unless you take into consideration what FarArcher just said hehehe Good point Sir)
edit on 15-2-2011 by bluemooone2 because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 15 2011 @ 01:27 AM
link   

Originally posted by FarArcher
When you create a standing wave, using highly conductive masses, that standing wave has a half-life of weeks and alters the local spacetime, which degrades with the half-life of the standing wave.

Inside that altered spacetime, matter is altered, and time slows drastically, but only within the local spacetime.

Left alone, over time, the local spacetime correspondingly with the standing wave will slowly degrade, and altered matter will more or less return to its original characteristics.



conductive with respective to electricity or gravity? I'd like to know what you are drawing this info from.




And that's with low power.

When you use high power with ultra high voltages, things change. Some elements within that standing wave/altered local spacetime are changed and appear to act as a dielectric to gravity - or they appear to "block" gravity from the greater mass.

Yet within the altered spacetime, things appear normal while all physical characteristics appear altered from without.

The "speed" of gravity thus may be considered dependent on whether one is within or without the altered spacetime, and in one instance, may be considered infinite.

Electrons are not the particles we see represented in physics books. Electrons are nothing more than vortices, and that will help one understand many of the "dual properties" attributed to the same.


This is a radical view compared to conventional physics. I'm curious, and want to know your sources for this info. I wouldn't be here on this site if I thought conventional physics was the end-all, but I need at least some derivations to analyze...



posted on Feb, 15 2011 @ 01:56 AM
link   
reply to post by Balboa
 





So far, no one has succeeded at proving definitively that action-at-a-distance, i.e. entanglement, exists.


I agree that relating gravitation into the quantum realm is an excercise in frustration due to the infinitessimaly small forces being beyond (beneath) our instrumentation, however I disagree that 'entanglement' per se has not been proven. What has not been proven is the often quoted instantaneous action at a distance.

If the Higgs particle mediates mass and therefore gravitation, I would reason that the speed with which gravitational changes propogate is sub-lightspeed.

If gravitation is a function of EM, then it is lightspeed.

If gravitation is an illusion created by the curvature of timespace then it could propogate at light speed but could also go faster, depending upon HOW it is a function of timespace.

Beyond that there are several theories that could have an instant or supralightspeed rate but present physical theory backed with observation is then out of the question, except that the sums we do with orbits & such don't usually take the passage of time into consideration and produce slightly 'off' results if we try,

What the says to me is that we still don't have a rigourous enough theoretical framework.



new topics

top topics



 
5
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join