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: 3
5
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 15 2011 @ 07:38 AM
link   
Only "at-scale"...proportion to scale....Micro = faster than light and Macro = at or close to speed of light
depending on "at-scale" perspective
"golden-ratio" is present everywhere...and science is like a broken mosaic with most of the pieces missing...just imagine

physical theory backed with observation, theoretical framework.

Thinking outside the box, I not talking about what is current relative to your trained working models in buildng "a" better box so you can join the broken mosaic by going forwards in thinking The answer was only as good as the question in seeing the observed tool that will measure, everything has to relative to your reality of observed.

Now I take all of you on my space craft for a joy ride we travel at various speeds, than we travel at instant speeds
what do you observe and what do you measure. the only thing you observe is distance which is realtive to light.
I pull the map out and we travel at faster than instant and further than you could ever imagined completly unknow, We arrive what do you observe and what do you measure. "at-scale"...proportion to scale during the flight what will be the "golden-ratio" During flight time is observed and is relative to distance yet light was not oberserved outside the craft only in deaccerating or accelrating. Now I drop you all back off at home.
What will be your thinking thoughts now? How will you fill in the broken mosaic pieces, what question will you ask from your tools to being observed

Very much like quirks and quarks yet both are relative and equal, perhaps the quark is the quirk being that there not observed differently, but locations quirk point a and quark point b.




posted on Feb, 15 2011 @ 07:58 AM
link   
reply to post by chr0naut
 


Here is an interesting web page that has an alternative view.

www.gravitywarpdrive.com...



posted on Feb, 15 2011 @ 10:21 AM
link   

Originally posted by chr0naut
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.


It's true that entanglement and action-at-a-distance are not synonymous; you can have entanglement without action-at-a-distance, but so far the only way in theory to show action-at-a-distance is using entanglement.

It's definitely true that we don't have a complete theory. Gravity seems to be especially lacking, with dark matter and dark energy defying any acceptable explanation. It's reminiscent of the time when Ptolemy invented epicyles to explain the motion of the planets with a geocentric solar system. It took Galileo and later Kepler to give us the correct explanation. We are sort of in a Ptolemaic time right now, and I'm sure our kids will laugh about how we scratched our heads thinking about dark matter and dark energy....

-Balboa



posted on Feb, 15 2011 @ 11:09 AM
link   
Changes in the gravity field (caused by acceleration of the source mass) move at the speed of light, and only gravity field itself as a distortion in space time acts on the other objects. But we must not forget that all motion is relative since Einstein, and inertial motion is not accelerated. Wikipedia has very good article on the subject. Also this one explains it pretty well.



edit on 15/2/11 by Maslo because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 15 2011 @ 11:36 AM
link   
reply to post by Clavicula
 


Thanks for that link. I have bookmarked it because I don't have time to read it fully just now. The bit I did read was really good.



posted on Feb, 15 2011 @ 12:27 PM
link   
Particle relationships are only speculated in terms of gravitons or some other gravity transferring particle. Gravity appears to a "field" rather than a particle. Any physicist knows that fields can move faster than light because they have no mass, they are the "symptom" rather than the cause, an expression of the effect rather than the source.

So, to measure "gravity waves" you would have to look at secondary or tertiary displacement techniques for sensor systems. A laser based interferometer has a very low probability of working, since it is expected gravity waves would be on the order of multiple parsecs in size. Therefore inherent light speed limited propagation delays would play hell with the measurement methodology.

A secondary effect of a gravity well in motion or gravity wave would be time dilation, which with advanced technology one could measure time dilation effects, which of course would measure gravity waves by proxy. It is improbable that the undulating effects on space-time of gravity waves can be measured using physical instruments as the measuring devices are wholly effected by gravity waves (along with the surrounding space-time), since the measuring devices are operating inside the gravity perturbations and therefore change proportionally with the gravity waves.

Before Michio Kaku became a shill/sold-out to the PTB (in my opinion and don't get me wrong, the guy is brilliant at times), he had an idea based on past ideas that all space is connected and there is an underlying layer of "Hyperspace." Hyperspace because of its "connectivity" appears not to be effected by anything, including gravity. Every particle has some kind of "gateway" down in the Plank length region that connects all particles together. When information travels through this "gateway" the orientation is orthogonal, meaning inverted in 3 dimensions. The transfer mechanism has been proven under Bell's Theorem and many photon experiments have also proven exactly the same thing. One particle, split into two identical particles with one of the identical particles experiencing deflection, will effect the other identical particle orthogonally.

So, what does this mean to measuring gravity waves? It means that if you can make a pathway outside of normal space where time dilation effects do not occur, you can measure gravity waves expressed as differences in the time measured in normal space and in the time measure through Hyperspace.

Now, here's the rub, in order to move a clock signal through Hyperspace in quantum reality, you would need an almost infinite amount of energy. There is a way around this through the emulation of quantum states by using monopoles to emulate quantum functions within classical reality. The research is going on right now, but you don't hear about it since it involves Faster Than Light signal transmission and teleportation. It is not Faster Than Light however, as the speed of transmission through the portal gateway cannot exceed the speed of light, it is rather Space Compression through non-local connection via ER/EPR type tunneling. Of course with the teleportation we also have the orthogonal transmission issue, which is fine for "signals" as they can be reoriented on the way out, but matter is a big problem.

Anyway, that's some of what I know on gravity research from being directly involved.

Cheers - Dave

edit on 2/15.2011 by bobs_uruncle because: of missing a word



posted on Feb, 15 2011 @ 01:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by FarArcher
reply to post by CIGGSofWAR
 



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?)




What?No mass,no time?
No observer,no event?
Schrödingers blasted cat,AGAIN?

Anyone mentioned Quantum Entanglement yet?Not that I'm going to say anything...I'm far too dense for this stuff.

(After checking the last few posts,it appears,yes,thoroughly pipped to the post.Balboa....you've done my nut completely in.Thankyou.)
edit on 15-2-2011 by Ericthedoubter because: To add:After checking etc.



posted on Feb, 15 2011 @ 02:51 PM
link   
reply to post by Maslo
 


I think that the Wikipedia entry was the most informative for me. In summary, they are saying that gravitational changes propogate at the speed of light, but once the field of gravity has propogated, it appears static, like a standing wave that moves around with the gravitational source making it appear the the centre of attraction moves with the objects true "instantaneous" position.

However, if an EM or sound or any other wave propogating field is moved around, it produces a doppler shift and the shape of the field is not perfectly spherical but ovoid. From a distance, the point source of the field appears to lag behind the actual source.

To say gravitation is similar to these other fields but produces a spherical propogation pattern that makes it only appear that the field centre doesn't lag, and so gravitation falsely appears to have instant propogation, is contrary to both logic and observation.



posted on Feb, 15 2011 @ 09:47 PM
link   
reply to post by bobs_uruncle
 


Very cool post! If you don't mind posting some references that we could check out, I'd very much like that.

If you don't mind me asking here: How are you involved in gravity research? (just self learned internet research or something else?)

-Balboa



posted on Feb, 16 2011 @ 09:26 PM
link   
"...As viewed from the Earth’s frame, light from the Sun has aberration. Light requires about 8.3 minutes to arrive from the Sun, during which time the Sun seems to move through an angle of 20 arc seconds. The arriving sunlight shows us where the Sun was 8.3 minutes ago. The true, instantaneous position of the Sun is about 20 arc seconds east of its visible position, and we will see the Sun in its true present position about 8.3 minutes into the future. In the same way, star positions are displaced from their yearly average position by up to 20 arc seconds, depending on the relative direction of the Earth’s motion around the Sun. This well-known phenomenon is classical aberration, and was discovered by the astronomer Bradley in 1728..."

and

" ...If gravity were a simple force that propagated outward from the Sun at the speed of light, as radiation pressure does, its mostly radial effect would also have a small transverse component because of the motion of the target. Analogous to the Poynting-Robertson effect, the magnitude of that tangential force acting on the Earth would be 0.0001 of the Sun’s radial force, which is the ratio of the Earth’s orbital speed (30 km/s) to the speed of this hypothetical force of gravity moving at light-speed (300,000 km/s). It would act continuously, but would tend to speed the Earth up rather than slow it down because gravity is attractive and radiation pressure is repulsive. Nonetheless, the net effect of such a force would be to double the Earth’s distance from the Sun in 1200 years. There can be no doubt from astronomical observations that no such force is acting... From the absence of such an effect, Laplace set a lower limit to the speed of propagation of classical gravity of about 108 c, where c is the speed of light...."

also

"..We conclude that gravitational fields, even “static” ones, continually regenerate through entities that must propagate at some very high speed, . We call this the speed of gravity. Equation [1] then tells us how orbits will expand in response to this large but finite propagation speed, since the field itself, and not merely changes in the field, will transfer momentum to orbiting target bodies. Rewriting equation [1] in a form suitable for comparisons with observations, we derive:[sic]



For the Earth’s orbit, = 1 year, = 10-4, and we take as an upper limit to the value 2.4x10-12/year (derived from ½ ) in solutions using radar ranging and spacecraft data (Pitjeva, 1993). Substituting these values, we get from Earth-orbit data that (the speed of gravity is no less than) 109 c.



Using the same equation with binary pulsar PSR1534+12 and the parameters in Table I, we can place the most stringent limit yet from the observed uncertainty in : ³ 2x10^10 c.



A direct experimental verification in the laboratory that gravity propagates faster than light may now be possible. The protocol and preliminary results were reported in (Walker, 1997).



It might be tempting to conclude that the speed of gravity is infinite. But these limits on are still a long way from infinite velocity, and Newton’s statement, quoted at the beginning of this paper, still seems applicable. Infinite speeds, too, are acausal...Conclusion: The Speed of Gravity is 2x10^10 c..."


-Van Flandern,
found here: www.metaresearch.org...


edit on 16-2-2011 by Silverlok because: always one more bite to take



posted on Jun, 23 2011 @ 11:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by Balboa
reply to post by bobs_uruncle
 


Very cool post! If you don't mind posting some references that we could check out, I'd very much like that.

If you don't mind me asking here: How are you involved in gravity research? (just self learned internet research or something else?)

-Balboa


I did a lot of work with the National Research Council, Universities and the military ;-) You can find links on Bell's Theorem, Orthogonal Particle Interaction Experiments, Adiabatic Reactors, Monopole Principles and numerous photon experiments involving BEC's on the internet. A good place to start looking is at adiabatic reactions and EPR solutions, since that was my starting point. Quantum gateways can me emulated in classical reality by producing a standing wave within the null space of a monopole.

Cheers - Dave



posted on Jun, 23 2011 @ 11:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by Silverlok
" ...If gravity were a simple force that propagated outward from the Sun at the speed of light, as radiation pressure does, its mostly radial effect would also have a small transverse component because of the motion of the target. ... the net effect of such a force would be to double the Earth’s distance from the Sun in 1200 years... From the absence of such an effect, Laplace set a lower limit to the speed of propagation of classical gravity of about 108 c, where c is the speed of light...."


Yep, I was going to post this exact thing but you posted it first. It's also true for binary star systems I believe; they couldn't be stable if gravitational effects traveled only at c.

So here's the next logical step, which hasn't been posted AFAIK. The sun acts on Earth with FTL gravitational force, constantly changing Earth's direction and direction of translational kinetic energy. i.e., keeping it in orbit. This, then, is proof of energy travelling FTL. And since E = mc^2, there also seems to be no problem, from this one standpoint, that mass could not also travel FTL, as long as it also somehow obeyed or got around general relativity.


Similarly, if I designed a "gravitational dipole", say something like a really large spinning pair of masses, and then designed an extremely sensitive receiver, in theory this could be the basis of FTL intergalactic communication. In case anyone is unfamiliar with the concept of a dipole, it's a pair of charged objects which can be used as an antenna. The paired charges act in a specific way which can be detected even at long distances through lots of interference. The problem, here, is that a dipole is supposed to be a pair of OPPOSITE charges. So presumably for a gravitational dipole antenna to work, you'd need something with negative mass. This isn't necessarily impossible, though, based on what we know about virtual particles.

It's also possible someone could design a gravitational transmitter & receiver which wouldn't need a negative mass. And in fact, what we (or, say, SETI) should really do is simply assume someone out there already has these gravitational transmitters in operation, and just build the receiver.

edit on 23-6-2011 by Observer99 because: correction



posted on Jun, 24 2011 @ 12:44 AM
link   
I don't think about gravity that much, but I know it is an unresolved topic in physics.

We know that gravity acts just like various other point-source fields when it comes to measuring its effects. In other words, the magnitude of the field is inversely proportional to the square of the distance from the origin point of the field. This is in a steady-state system.

I suppose for this and other reasons gravity was assigned a "vector" particle. The photon is the best-known vector particle.

However, an electromagnetic field, propagated by the photon, is relatively easy to change at its emanation point. So all you need to do to measure the speed of propagation of the field is to have synchronized clocks at the source and receipt point, know the total distance, and measure the time it takes for the signal (change in the field) to travel from source to receipt point. This has been done many times for electromagnetic radiation.

But the strength of the gravitational field seems to be proportional to the mass of its source. How do you "turn on and off" mass? So it is difficult to create a gravity signal (change in the field) big enough to be detected easily at a substantial distance away.

This gives us a least 2 problems with gravity, without even getting into quantum mechanics or relativity:
1) It acts like a field, but we have very minimal technology to create a signal in the field. The obvious method would involve quickly creating then un-creating a very large mass. But how do you do that?
2) As mentioned in 1) we don't really know how to manipulate gravity. And that is another way of saying that we have no idea what causes it. In other words, we don't know how to create mass, especially in large amounts.

We have developed all sorts of ways to take a piece of matter and get a bunch of photons to come out of it. We even have an equation for converting mass to energy. But I don't think we have figured out how to convert energy back into mass.

I would suspect that it is in that process that our lack of understanding about gravity lies.

I have read various non-science data on the subject of gravity and the creation of mass. Unlike some, I am willing to take this data seriously. But what this data says, in most general terms, is that mass is created through a process of conscious intention. In addition, our whole perception of time, which could also be called persistence, is totally wrapped up with this. You can't separate time from mass. In at least one teaching, mass is essentially a form of memory, and all perception of time relies on it. That is, the only reason we perceive time is because we see masses changing their shapes or positions, while at the time persisting. This gives us a picture of a universe that changes and persists essentially because its living inhabitants are also its continuous creators. By this teaching, if every single living being in the whole universe agreed to stop continuously creating it, then its entire mass would vanish. Though this seems bizarre to some, if you accept it then you also must accept the idea that so many living beings exist in this universe that are actively contributing to its continuous creation (most if not all having completely forgotten that they ever made such a decision) that it would be virtually impossible to get even a simple majority to agree to stop creating it, and thus its continuation is relatively certain.



posted on Jun, 24 2011 @ 01:21 AM
link   
(deleted because my question is slightly off-topic, sorry)
edit on 24-6-2011 by coquine because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 24 2011 @ 01:47 AM
link   

Originally posted by l_e_cox
How do you "turn on and off" mass? So it is difficult to create a gravity signal (change in the field) big enough to be detected easily at a substantial distance away.


Gravitational Radiation from Oscillating Gravitational Dipole
arxiv.org...


Just as electromagnetic waves (EM), gravitational waves (GW) too carry energy and momentum from their sources. Unlike EM waves, however, there is no dipole radiation in Einstein's theory of gravity. The dominant channel of emission is quadrupolar. But the recent experimental discovery of negative gravitational mass suggest the possibility of dipole radiation.


Possibility of Control of the Gravitational Mass by means of Extreme-Low Frequencies Radiation
arxiv.org...


In a recent paper we have shown that the gravitational mass and the inertial mass are correlated by an adimensional factor, which depends on the incident radiation upon the particle. It was shown that only in the absence of electromagnetic radiation this factor becomes equal to 1 and that, in specific electromagnetic conditions, it can be reduced, nullified or made negative. This means that there is the possibility of control of the gravitational mass by means of the incident radiation.


These Brazilian physicists claim it's possible, unless those documents are hoaxed. A similar thing was reported by the creator of Coral Castle, Edward Leedskalnin.

Yep, seems pretty insane, but I'd love to try the experiments anyway. Personally, I'm much more interested in antigravity for it's own sake than for use in a transmitter/receiver.



posted on Jun, 24 2011 @ 06:14 AM
link   
chr0naut, you might be interested in this Relativity 4 Engineers e-book. Poke around the internet pages offered, or download the whole book, I think its free, though I haven't tried. Anyway, some interesting reading. You may find what you are looking for as it does expand to examine binary pulsar's gravitational forces.



new topics

top topics



 
5
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join