On Mar 9, 12:05 pm, Albertito wrote:
On 9 mar, 20:16, Eric Gisse wrote:



On Mar 9, 11:49 am, Albertito wrote:

On 7 mar, 13:56, Eric Gisse wrote:

On Mar 7, 2:16 am, Albertito wrote:

On 6 mar, 23:02, Eric Gisse wrote:

On Mar 6, 11:41 am, Albertito wrote:

There are evidences showing that in Solar system,
the speed of gravity is many orders of magnitude higher
than the speed of light.

No, there is not. Just because you say so doesn't mean it is true.

But, what must we understand
by speed of gravity?. Aetherists often claim that gravity
are longitudinal waves, whereas light are transverse
waves through the aether.

Why even mention this? Ether has been ruled out as a viable concept
EVERY SINGLE TIME for the last hundred and thirty years. Nobody but
cranks in the fringe take ether seriously anymore.

What is spacetime but a kind of ether?

Spacetime in no way resembles ether. Learn what both the concepts
represent.

We know that in any medium
longitudinal waves travel faster than transverse waves.

Only if the medium is anisotropic. Where are the calculations in which
you actually derive the things you write?

Wrong. Anisotropy is not a requirement for the speed of longitudinal
waves were higher than the speed of transverse ones. In isotropic
and homogenous medium that difference in speed holds too.

Show me the derivation.

[snip spew]

You are not listening. You write down a bunch of equations but you
don't justify or derive any of them.

Look at these equations,
c_L^2 = (2G/d_0)(1-v)/(1-2v)
c_S^2 = G/d_0

You are, once again, missing the point. I want a derivation of these
equations from first principles.

c_L is longitudinal speed
c_S is transverse speed,
d_0 is mass density,
G is G is shear modulus, and
v is Poison's ratio

For an isotropic medium, the Poison's ratio is the same
in any direction. Therefore, c_L = c_S only in the case
v = 0. This case can only occurs for a medium
which were perfectly compressible. So, it is clear
that the factor (1-v)/(1-2v) can only be greater or
equal to 1, yieding always c_L = c_S.

From first principles? You're asking too much!

Only if your skill set isn't up to the task, which it appears to be.
What I ask of you would be one problem out of a larger classical
mechanics problem set. You don't have to go through it all, just write
down the important parts.

Even Einstein would be unable to derive the
speed of light from first principles!

I'm asking you to derive or show references for your primary working
equations because I believe they can not be simultaneously true in an
isotropic medium, much less be a part of your larger agenda of
disproving SR.

Plus, Einstein would be able to do what you say he couldn't. Deriving
the speed of propagation for a medium is a homework exercise in both
classical E&M and mechanics.


You are kidding, aren't you? No, you do not want that.
You only want harassing. Although in this thread I realize
you are clueless, as usual. You are who is missing
the point here.

I'm making some old Pentium 3 systems into cluster compute nodes. They
can't PXE, so I have to boot off a CD and do it the slow way. I'm
going to be here for a few hours while this churns, so I have nothing
better to do.

Your whole point is that - somehow, though you can't explain how - a
medium which not only supports transverse and longitudinal waves
manages to have speeds of propagation that are different despite being
isotropic. Then somehow - I have no idea how you do - you make the
assertion that this not only applies to the speed of gravity, which
you haven't justified, but that it applies to the speed of light as
well.

Even if your assertions about speeds of propagation were true [they
aren't], you have in no way substantiated the links you are making.
Science isn't about increasingly bold assertions - no matter how
absurd it looks to an outsider.