speed of gravity

[upriver]

I watched the video. Wal Thornhill declares that gravity must travel at 20 billion times the speed of light. But both he and Bishop Nicholas Sykes assume that gravity is something that is being constantly emitted, by the Sun, for instance. It is not. The Sun's gravitational field is static. It has been there as long as the Sun's mass has, i.e. as the Sun itself. The question of a speed of propagation simply does not arise. So what is all this bla-bla about? (Good question, it seems!)

As long as work is done energy flows. The gravitational field transfers kinetic energy to the object under its influence. When this kinetic energy is used it has to be replaced continuously...

[jeremyfiennes]

But there is no energy flow. The Earth's mass and its orbital speed remain constant. And so therefore does its kinetic energy (1/2)mv2.

[Solar]

As long as work is done energy flows. The gravitational field transfers kinetic energy to the object under its influence. When this kinetic energy is used it has to be replaced continuously...

That is true. Upriver, your post may have caused me realize something a bit more succinctly. What do you think of the following:

The fluctuations of these mean averages (aka the so called “constants; but they’re not really constant) might speak to energy being constantly replenished. In the assessments little words and phrases such as "averages", "approximately", "is about", "almost" and the like get looked over - constantly. Haha.. I just had to do that.

The earth’s orbital speed is not constant at all: Planetary Science Institute #3

Neither is its rotation: Google – whether solar day and/or Sidereal Day

The “constants” are just averages that form a set of working tools. The "constants" would probably be better served by calling to them ‘mean averages’ because that’s what they actually are. See: Are the constants really constant?

Therefore, it might be possible that variations of the so called “constants” speak to increases and decreases of the various forms of kinetic energy because the subtle dynamic might exemplify the quality of energy to ebb and flow, or wax and wane in terms of it's constant replenishment. No wonder the little quantum harmonic oscillators are oscillating optimally. They constantly comport the ‘capture’ of “field energy” to their resonant internal intrinsic energy in order to replenish same - even in terms of those activities that contribute to the conserved qualities of the “rest state”.

Averaging fluctuations into constants and related formulas inadvertently 'hides' fluctuations. The actual fluctuations themselves are Cosmic adjustments in the constant replenishment of energy.

[The Great Dog]

The Great Dog thinks that Jeremy has hit it in one sense. Along with "static", "constant" is also appropriate. Within the continuum of the Sun's electromagnetic field, Earth feels that field all the time. There is no so-called "frame dragging" and no need to factor in time delays. Objects don't radiate gravity, they exist with an electromagnetically induced gravity field, as Wallace Thornhill says. Gravity is a property of matter rather then being "generated" by matter. Objects don't generate length, for example.

The same holds true for the Milky Way -- the Sun isn't being pulled or pushed as it travels along its orbit. The Sun is "one with" the electromagnetic gravity field of the galaxy, so it feels the forces in a spatial continuum, as well as in a temporal continuum.

Since Earth at any given moment remains within the spatial-temporal continuum of the Sun, it is in a constant state of gravity that varies with electrical input from the galaxy.

[jeremyfiennes]

Thanks Great Dog (whom there are no other dogs but). I agree that "constant" would be better. The gravitational field the Earth moves in is static with respect to the Sun, but not with respect to the galaxy. But it is time-constant in all reference frames.

[LunarSabbathTruth]

I watched the video. Wal Thornhill declares that gravity must travel at 20 billion times the speed of light. But both he and Bishop Nicholas Sykes assume that gravity is something that is being constantly emitted, by the Sun, for instance. It is not. The Sun's gravitational field is static. It has been there as long as the Sun's mass has, i.e. as the Sun itself. The question of a speed of propagation simply does not arise. So what is all this bla-bla about? (Good question, it seems!)

"... [they] assume that gravity is something that is being constantly emitted ... "

That assumption is because the standard physics believes that everything is communicated by particles. They think, for example, that a light bulb emits photons, etc.

To have a field would require an Aether, which to them is a big no-no. Even Thornhill attributes action and influence to particles. (as far as I remember, he said neutrinos).

- joe

[upriver]

But there is no energy flow. The Earth's mass and its orbital speed remain constant. And so therefore does its kinetic energy (1/2)mv2.

Ok. So what you use is a rocket instead of gravity.
You have to have a constant burn to keep an object in a curved orbit.
The moment you stop your motor, the object moves in a straight line.
The constant thrust is a flow of energy.

Do think that the moment you switch to gravity, that somehow the mechanism(usage of kinetic energy) changes?
And actually the whole system changes from moment to moment as all the planets and the sun move around the barycenter?

[upriver]

As long as work is done energy flows. The gravitational field transfers kinetic energy to the object under its influence. When this kinetic energy is used it has to be replaced continuously...

That is true. Upriver, your post may have caused me realize something a bit more succinctly. What do you think of the following:

The fluctuations of these mean averages (aka the so called “constants; but they’re not really constant) might speak to energy being constantly replenished. In the assessments little words and phrases such as "averages", "approximately", "is about", "almost" and the like get looked over - constantly. Haha.. I just had to do that.

The earth’s orbital speed is not constant at all: Planetary Science Institute #3

Neither is its rotation: Google – whether solar day and/or Sidereal Day

The “constants” are just averages that form a set of working tools. The "constants" would probably be better served by calling to them ‘mean averages’ because that’s what they actually are. See: Are the constants really constant?

Therefore, it might be possible that variations of the so called “constants” speak to increases and decreases of the various forms of kinetic energy because the subtle dynamic might exemplify the quality of energy to ebb and flow, or wax and wane in terms of it's constant replenishment. No wonder the little quantum harmonic oscillators are oscillating optimally. They constantly comport the ‘capture’ of “field energy” to their resonant internal intrinsic energy in order to replenish same - even in terms of those activities that contribute to the conserved qualities of the “rest state”.

Averaging fluctuations into constants and related formulas inadvertently 'hides' fluctuations. The actual fluctuations themselves are Cosmic adjustments in the constant replenishment of energy.

Yep!
Even the smallest bits of the aether lattice are probably quantized... Nothing is constant. In between the quantums(moment of work, the impulse) you have moments of no work. So even at the smallest level you have fluctuations in energy requiring updating..

[jeremyfiennes]

LunarSabbathTruth wrote
"... [they] assume that gravity is something that is being constantly emitted ... "

That assumption is because the standard physics believes that everything is communicated by particles. They think, for example, that a light bulb emits photons, etc.

To have a field would require an Aether, which to them is a big no-no. Even Thornhill attributes action and influence to particles.

Thanks. Now I finally understand where this "speed of gravity" thing comes from. Till now I had found it like asking the speed of a stationary car.
That the Earth in practice stays nicely in its orbit, on the "particle exchange" model requires an infinite speed for gravity (gravitons). This would seem a perfect reductio ad absurdum refutation of that model. But as we see from Special Relativity, just because something is absurd doesn't mean it won't be promulgated as Official Scientific Truth.
With respect to the aether, in Special Relativity Einstein famously abolished it. But in General Relativity he brought it back again:

"Recapitulating, we may say that according to the General Theory of Relativity space is endowed with physical qualities. In this sense there exists an aether. Space without aether is unthinkable. Not only would there be no propagation of light, but also no standards of space and time."

One can hardly be more definitive than that! But again, as you say, Mainstream Science rejects it. In this case, just because Einstein said so does not necessarily mean it will be accepted. Light according to Mainstream Physics is "nothing-waves". Omaigodd!!

[keithnellie]

I was following along and then you guys lost me again.

There is /isn't communication between the sun and planets that has to be faster than the speed of light?

All the planets orbit at a certain distance from the sun based on some sort of electrical association between them?

If I twirl a bucket of water with a rope connected to the handle I have a range of speeds that I can do so and not get wet. The only way I eject the bucket or rock from the sling is to lose my connection to either the bucket or the rock, i.e. letting go. Is this the communication that is being referred to as the speed of gravity?

I'm going to try my magnet on the drill experiment again without rolling the BB to it on the plastic. I am going to stick it to the equator of the magnetic sphere and start it spinning. I will use a drill press this time with "on the fly" speed adjustment. I will vary the speeds while moving the chuck up and down. I want to see what happens to the BB. Will it stay at the equator of the magnet? I already know I can fling it off depending on the speed of the drill but that is over coming a force not a loss of communication,correct?

I may be trying to make it too simplistic but that's what I want the EU to be, simplistic. No imaginary numbers. no invisible matter or energy and no black holes that nothing can escape from until it can.

I am appreciating the discussion.Thank you

[Zyxzevn]

I have found many different models for force-transfer:

1) force is transferred by particles (photons /Einstein)
2) force is transferred by bending of space/time (Einstein's gravity)
3) force is transferred by a field (QFT / Zyzevn)
4) force is transferred by an aether (static aether=space / dynamic aether moves with gravity).
5) force is transferred with rope-like connections (bgaede).
6) force is a side-effect. gravity comes from quantum-like effects. (math)

1-> The mainstream really likes the force-particles (bosons), and see them as fundamental for physics.
But as we look deeper into the particle-model, we can see that it fails in many ways:
a) Particles can not model a continuous force.
b) Particles can not transfer static forces.
c) This is unrelated to the observation that energy is transferred in quanta.
d) The unquantum website lists some experiments that show that energy is not
transferred by photon-particles at all.

Thornhill also talks about particles that transfer gravity, but I do not think that he is correct in that sense.

2-> This seems to solve the problem that the gravity is related to mass.
But it gives many new problems, like singularities.
In tests it appears that there is no bending of light in space, since there are other
simple explanations possible.

3-> we do not know what a field is. Can fields influence each other?
Quantum Field Theory seems to be an improvement over normal quantum mechanics,
but it makes it also very complex. Fields can also be much simpler if we consider
unquantum's threshold model.
It needs more investigation.

4-> According to several experiments, static aether does not seem correct.
According to wikipedia some versions of Dynamic aether have been tested false.
But I do not think wikipedia understands the possibilities of aether completely.
If we add other dimensions, we can even create an aether space/time that works like Einstein's gravity.
I find it even possible that each force is caused by shifts of other dimensions.
The mainstream quark-gluon plasma is very much like an aether, but that one still uses particles.

5-> In the gravity videos Thornhill showed a rope-model of force a few times.
Thornhill also talks about particles that go much faster than light, but he also
uses rope-like models. The ropes transfers the force and energy between two objects.
This model simply works, but it is highly abstract.
Can such ropes be influenced in any way? It might be interesting to find out.
While it seems crazy, the model has more validity than one might think.
In superconductivity electrons can form cooper-pairs where they are connected in some way.
In Feynman diagrams we also see lines that connect "things" through space/time.

6-> See video
"Deriving Newton's gravity law from Heisenberg's uncertainty principle."
Due to the wave-form of matter, the positions and momenta of two bodies are mixed and
this causes a force.
This means that the wave-nature of matter causes instant gravity directly.
Now we have solved it, do we need to look any further?

[jeremyfiennes]

Zyxzevn wrote:
I have found many different models for force-transfer:

1) force is transferred by particles (photons /Einstein)
2) force is transferred by bending of space/time (Einstein's gravity)
3) force is transferred by a field (QFT / Zyzevn)
4) force is transferred by an aether (static aether=space / dynamic aether moves with gravity).
5) force is transferred with rope-like connections (bgaede).
6) force is a side-effect. gravity comes from quantum-like effects. (math)

I don't see why an explanation for force is needed at all. The fundamental units, in terms of which all other properties can be defined, are mass, length (space), time and electric charge. These represent fundamental "data" (in Latin: "given") of the universe. Force is defined in terms of them as mass x acceleration. Masses exert forces on each other across space. As do also electric charges. These are data, fundamental properties of the universe. Explanations should explain less fundamental properties in terms of more fundamental ones, and not vice versa. Questions like "Why is there mass?" are meaningless. If there wasn't mass, we wouldn't be here discussing it. As far as we are concerned, mass simply is, fullstop.

[Solar]

I was following along and then you guys lost me again.

There is /isn't communication between the sun and planets that has to be faster than the speed of light?

All the planets orbit at a certain distance from the sun based on some sort of electrical association between them?

Maybe it would be helpful if you break this up and deal with one thing at a time. Start with the light issue first. I have to wonder if this idea, as put forth via the physics and laid upon the universe, is even appropriate.

There actually is a realm of what can be referred to as “faster than light”. When the physics says that this realm "carries no information”. What does that mean? All it means is that this realm does not carry a man made modulated electrodynamic “signal”. The “signal” is like an electrodynamic ‘packet’. That is what that means. This is explained on the earlier reference that was provided as follows:

The phase velocity of light can be higher than c, e.g. for X-rays or near optical resonances of atoms. Even a simple mechanical model (e.g. a sequence of coupled pendulums) can exhibit a phase velocity above c. However, it is not possible to attach a real signal to such a phase front; signal transmission requires some kind of modulation.

(...)

Group velocities larger than c then appear to lead to superluminal transmission and can occur …

(...)

… it can be proven that the earliest time at which that switching event can be observed is limited exactly by propagation with the vacuum velocity c – Superluminal Transmission

All they are saying is that yes, there are portions of the propagating signal that can travel faster than light (a phase front). However, in order for those portions to be useful for electro-dynamically inserting and receiving a modulated signal – that’s the actual “information” part – so far only those propagations that travel at c are "the earliest time at which that switching event can be observed".

The other realm, the part of the propagating wave that actually *DOES* travel “faster than light”, are detected and noted in the experiments (the references at the bottom of that page); then neglected. It doesn't mean that the “faster than light” realm doesn't exist. It simply means that the physics doesn't purposefully make equipment and signals that utilizes the “faster than light” realm. Not because it’s impossible, more so because physics doesn't want to contend with putting relativity theory in the special bucket in which it belongs.

So, when you see the physics talking about “carries no information” they are talking about the inability of “attaching” MANMADE electrodynamic signals to the faster than light “phase front” of a propagating wave. As usual the physics extends these findings to the Cosmos and all of a sudden the capabilities of The Universe becomes likewise pigeonholed in their eyes. "Information Theory" (Claude Shannon) has been tied to the 'transmission' (transfer) of forces and fields in BB Cosmology to give "insight into the history, geometry and composition of the Univserse".

I think this adds more confusion to an already bad situation for theoretical astrophysics. It seems to speak to the eccentric nature of today's astrophysics to ponder what would happen if gravity stopped working due to a lack of "information" that needs to travel faster than the speed of light. If you want to know what happens in The Universe read The Vedas.

Imho none of this is needed in Natural Philosophy. The Longitudinal Forces of The Aether work just fine to convey E-N-E-R-G-Y faster than light. Yes, energy can propagate faster than its manifestation called Light. That is what the referenced experiments are showing and yes; that can occur between the planets and the Sun in the solar system as well.

[nick c]

The inspiration for the original post of this thread was a Space News video, but I did not see a link anywhere. If I missed it, here it is again:
What is the speed of gravity?

[kell1990]

Gravity. like the electrical force, exists throughout the entire universe. It is a field that exists, period. I do not know the origin of the field or the extent of the field, only that it exists to the maximum extent that we can presently measure.

Gravity, like the electrical force, extends throughout the ether. The ether is created by particles, some as widely spaced as 1 particle per cubic meter, but with a field around it. There is no such thing as a vacuum. Every bit of the universe is either a particle or a field.

In these lightly populated areas, the field makes up most of the ether. In other areas, where the particles are more dense, then naturally, the particles, or the more congregated masses, like the asteroids, or the planets, or other celestial bodies make up the majority of the mass.

But in the end, it's either the mass or the field, or a combination of the two, that makes up the physical universe.