Relativity Linear Thread

[Michael V]

Aardwolf,

The consequence of this, is that static fields (either electric or gravitational) always point directly to the actual position of the bodies that they are connected to, without any delay that is due to any "signal" traveling (or propagating) from the charge,

Utter unsubstantiated, unproven opinion. Not to mention completely incorrect.

Michael

[Aardwolf]

Aardwolf,

The consequence of this, is that static fields (either electric or gravitational) always point directly to the actual position of the bodies that they are connected to, without any delay that is due to any "signal" traveling (or propagating) from the charge,

Utter unsubstantiated, unproven opinion. Not to mention completely incorrect.

Michael

So planetary orbit calculations are based on opinion not observation then?

[Michael V]

Aardwolf,

So planetary orbit calculations are based on opinion not observation then?

So is your contention that the lack of a time variable in gravitational mathematics is proof, or at least a strong implication, that gravity acts (near enough) instantly?


The notion of forces acting at speeds above c would be nicely convenient and would ease many theoretical difficulties. However, other than theoretical convenience and wishful thinking, there is no clear indication or evidence of faster than c signalling. I am not philosophically opposed and I would welcome any proof or evidence should it arise, but at this time all evidence and logic points strongly in favour of a universal speed limit of c.

That said, and this is an unsubstantiated idea that I have been toying with, perhaps a bi-directional signal, such as the gravitational interaction between two objects, might by some, be deemed to qualify as a √2.c speed of interaction, although the signal speed is still c.


Michael

[Aardwolf]

I am not philosophically opposed and I would welcome any proof or evidence should it arise, but at this time all evidence and logic points strongly in favour of a universal speed limit of c.

The evidence of orbital mechanics quite clearly points towards near instantaneous propagation. To introduce c as a limit requires that an orbiting body is able to predict the future movement of its neigbouring orbiting bodies.

[Michael V]

Aardwolf,

To introduce c as a limit requires that an orbiting body is able to predict the future movement of its neigbouring orbiting bodies.

Would you kindly be more detailed.

Perhaps if we limit the complexity to two orbiting bodies: Earth and Jupiter

Exactly what are your objections?

Michael

[Aardwolf]

Aardwolf,

To introduce c as a limit requires that an orbiting body is able to predict the future movement of its neigbouring orbiting bodies.

Would you kindly be more detailed.

Perhaps if we limit the complexity to two orbiting bodies: Earth and Jupiter

orbits 1.jpg

Exactly what are your objections?

Michael

Uh. Are you seriously saying that you are unaware of the fact that for 300 years orbit calculations do not use retarded position data, that they use the instant positioning? Any calculation that uses retarded movement data (retarded by c) causes catastrophic orbit failure.

If your not aware of this I suggest you start with Newtons Principia and work your way forward.

[Michael V]

Aardwolf,

....for 300 years orbit calculations do not use retarded position data, that they use the instant positioning? Any calculation that uses retarded movement data....

You rely too heavily on calculations to the detriment of the physical process. Mathematics is to do with numbers and are only a representation of physical reality.

The Earth has no direct contact with the Sun, so it cannot react to the position of the Sun. It can only react to the forces placed directly upon it. Force is a process of direct physical collision. The forces must be conveyed by a randomly moving aethereal particle field, there is NO other possibility. The mass of an object results in a low outward momentum well of the aethereal field, equivalent to geometrically curved space. Earth moves through its immediate local space and not around the instantaneous position of the Sun.

Michael

[Aardwolf]

Aardwolf,

....for 300 years orbit calculations do not use retarded position data, that they use the instant positioning? Any calculation that uses retarded movement data....

You rely too heavily on calculations to the detriment of the physical process. Mathematics is to do with numbers and are only a representation of physical reality.

The Earth has no direct contact with the Sun, so it cannot react to the position of the Sun. It can only react to the forces placed directly upon it. Force is a process of direct physical collision. The forces must be conveyed by a randomly moving aethereal particle field, there is NO other possibility. The mass of an object results in a low outward momentum well of the aethereal field, equivalent to geometrically curved space. Earth moves through its immediate local space and not around the instantaneous position of the Sun.

Michael

But for orbits to be stable they must be informed of the instantaneous position of the Sun. So if the planet is not directly informed, then how exactly is the immediate local space updated with information about the instantaneous position of the Sun?

PS. Its not theoretical calculations that drive orbital calculations, we are just talking about formulas to describe what is actually observed; which I know that you are fully aware of despite your objections.

[Aardwolf]

Wal Thornhill's views on the subject (my bold);

‘Instantaneous’ gravity

A significant fact, usually overlooked, is that Newton’s law of gravity does not involve time. This raises problems for any conventional application of electromagnetic theory to the gravitational force between two bodies in space, since electromagnetic signals are restricted to the speed of light. Gravity must act instantly for the planets to orbit the Sun in a stable fashion. If the Earth were attracted to where the Sun appears in the sky, it would be orbiting a largely empty space because the Sun moves on in the 8.3 minutes it takes for sunlight to reach the Earth. If gravity operated at the speed of light all planets would experience a torque that would sling them out of the solar system in a few thousand years. Clearly, that doesn’t happen. This supports the view that the electric force operates at a near infinite speed on our cosmic scale, as it must inside the electron.[23] It is a significant simplification of all of the tortuous theorizing that has gone into the nature of gravity and mass. Einstein’s postulates are wrong.

Link here.

[Goldminer]

I did a search on "mascons under the ocean." Almost every article that came up has additional bits of information that need to be included in our understanding of gravity.

Here are a few. Do your own search:

Here is a phenomenon of "impact craters" (Conventional wisdom only knows two kinds of craters: impact and volcanic. Of course we know of a third: electrical forces.

Mass Anomalies

GRACE Continental Mass Anomaly Portal

Anyhow, I started this post with my understanding that the three static forces surrounding agglomerations of matter are spherical and diminish with distance. They are not energy per se. Knowledge of their existence necessitates additional matter to be introduced into said fields.

I agree with Aardwolf WRT force fields.

[Michael V]

Goldminer,

I am still pursuing a answer to the detailed nature of the propagation of light. I was hoping that you might be so kind as to further explain your point of view.

In this diagram a projectile (a dart/spear/arrow) is fired from the train. It has a velocity component from the firing mechanism and also has a velocity component from the motion of the train.

In the second diagram, a tiny "blip" of light is "fired". Previously you have suggested that the light will somehow receive a "direction" component from the motion of the train. I am assuming though that the total of its velocity components only ever sum to c.

It is my expectation that the laser light would travel straight from B to X and not from B to Y in the manner of a projectile. I am curious as to what theory or evidence convinces you of your assertion.

Michael V

[webolife]

The laser transmission vector is X to B in my view.
But if it is not a laser, there will be an effect at/from Y as well, and I would predict that the detection of that effect would be simultaneous with the detection at X. If however there is a significant difference of distance between X and Y, ie that YB is significantly longer than XB, then the intensity issue comes into play, and it is possible that the Y detector will respond more slowly to the less-intense signal. If Y and X are relatively close to each other and XB is the direct line of fire, another spectral delay may be possible at since it is placed away from the central light line, and its pressure gradient differential comes into play... if the detectors at X and Y are identically resonant to a particular pressure [ie color] then Y may respond more slowly than X, even if their distance differential is insignificant. The train's relative velocity vector does not come into play in these scenarios.

[Goldminer]

The laser transmission vector is X to B in my view.
But if it is not a laser, there will be an effect at/from Y as well, and I would predict that the detection of that effect would be simultaneous with the detection at X. If however there is a significant difference of distance between X and Y, ie that YB is significantly longer than XB, then the intensity issue comes into play, and it is possible that the Y detector will respond more slowly to the less-intense signal. If Y and X are relatively close to each other and XB is the direct line of fire, another spectral delay may be possible at since it is placed away from the central light line, and its pressure gradient differential comes into play... if the detectors at X and Y are identically resonant to a particular pressure [ie color] then Y may respond more slowly than X, even if their distance differential is insignificant. The train's relative velocity vector does not come into play in these scenarios.

Sorry Webo . . . I can't ride your horse; I can't lead your horse to water, let alone make him drink. I think he may already be drunk. I'm thinkin' alternate Universe.

[Goldminer]

Goldminer,
I am still pursuing a answer to the detailed nature of the propagation of light. I was hoping that you might be so kind as to further explain your point of view.

In this diagram a projectile (a dart/spear/arrow) is fired from the train. It has a velocity component from the firing mechanism and also has a velocity component from the motion of the train.

In the second diagram, a tiny "blip" of light is "fired". Previously you have suggested that the light will somehow receive a "direction" component from the motion of the train. I am assuming though that the total of its velocity components only ever sum to c.

It is my expectation that the laser light would travel straight from B to X and not from B to Y in the manner of a projectile. I am curious as to what theory or evidence convinces you of your assertion.
Michael V

Hummmm, that copy of your diagrams came out rather large, no? Anyway my response went right by you, aye?

My statement:

Your at rest with the tracks detectors will have to angle the face of their detectors towards where the source is at the time of detection, rather than where it was when the pulse was emitted.

is exactly opposite of what I meant. The aberration will cause the at rest with the tracks observers (which are effectively moving in the opposite direction to the train's motion) to angle the face of their detectors towards where where the train's source was when the pulse was emitted, rather than where the source is at the time of detection.

IMHO, your point X should be fixed with the train rather than the tracks. Now, whether it be a projectile or laser pulse that is aimed at X, it will hit X when fired perpendicularly from the train. The position which X will occupy along the tracks when the projectile/laser pulse reaches X depends upon the speed of the projectile/laser pulse. The slower the speed, the further down the tracks your point Y will be. The emitter will always be directly across from the target. At no time will the projectile/laser pulse travel at an angle other that 90 degrees to the target at X.

There is no question whether the projectile's shadow over the ground (diagonally in the track frame) effectively "has to" travel faster than the actual projectile speed from B to X.

Einstein introduced the silly idea that somehow an additional laser pulse following a similar "over the ground path" exists for any relative observer speed, and that diagonal path speed must equal the same speed of light as the pulse traveling from from B to X is measured.

No one has ever explained how such a strange occurrence could happen. Everyone just believes it happens.

[Michael V]

Goldminer,

Thanks for your responses so far, although I am still not entirely satisfied.

(Note: I've adjusted the diagrams slightly, so please don't refer to the older ones.)


Hopefully, we all pretty much agree that a projectile will behave as shown. It points perpendicular from the train, but travels diagonally along the line BY.

This diagram represents the Goldminer view of light's directional propagation (I hope, do correct me if I am mistaken). It is very similar to the projectile, except that light can only travel at c

Now then, this is where it gets interesting. What if we place a light bulb right next to the laser and "fire" them at the same time. Won't the light from the light-bulb travel away in all directions?. If so, I am having a hard time reconciling the spherical/circular propagation from the light-bulb with the inertial directionality of the laser light. Can you explain you point of view please.

I am not seeking argument, just seeking facts/opinions. Also, I am not really interested in the experience of observers relative to each other, I am seeking to understand the behaviour and experience of the photons.

Michael