h.

Jan Panteltje wrote:

OK, there have been many FTL postings, some of these of cause not entirely
correct.

Communication faster than the speed of light is not possible

I personally think that Le Sage's particles originate form perhaps processes
in starts, just like we see light coming from some stars.
This would predict a few things:
The universe is pushing itself apart (seems to be accelerating).
There would be an extra force moving away from the sun (pioneer acceleration).

Pioneer anomalous acceleration is TOWARD the Sun

On the 'edges' of the universe gravity would be unidirectional and much lower.
This could cause spectral lines to be very different for the same element
there (redshift?).

There is no edge--everywhere is the center.

See: Ned Wright's Cosmology Tutorial (excellent)
http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/cosmolog.htm

On a sunny day (Tue, 08 Jul 2003 12:04:25 GMT) it happened Sam Wormley
wrote in :

h.

Jan Panteltje wrote:

OK, there have been many FTL postings, some of these of cause not entirely
correct.

Communication faster than the speed of light is not possible
I have read here (in this group) that faster then light particles can exists even for
the strong religious believers in Albert's formulae.
If you can hit something with a particle that is faster then light, then you have conveyed
at least a bit of info (like tapping on someones shoulder) FTL.

I personally think that Le Sage's particles originate form perhaps processes
in starts, just like we see light coming from some stars.
This would predict a few things:
The universe is pushing itself apart (seems to be accelerating).
There would be an extra force moving away from the sun (pioneer acceleration).

Pioneer anomalous acceleration is TOWARD the Sun
This may be true, then I misunderstood something I did read, still it does not kill 'the
particles originate perhaps in stars' theory, not all stars may emit these.


On the 'edges' of the universe gravity would be unidirectional and much lower.
This could cause spectral lines to be very different for the same element
there (redshift?).

There is no edge--everywhere is the center.
well, that is a definition question, of cause if you use 'the universe is everything'
definition you are right, but I sort of ment 'the observable'.
That is not 100% correct either, but given a big bang, then the outer bound of the expanding
sphere around it,
Or is this to primitive thinking and are you hinting at some relativistic something?

See: Ned Wright's Cosmology Tutorial (excellent)
http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/cosmolog.htm
OK

"Sam Wormley" writes:

Communication faster than the speed of light is not possible

This claim is no longer valid. See the "velocity of gravity"
thread in sci.physics.relativity. -|Tom|-


Tom Van Flandern - Washington, DC - see our web site on replacement
astronomy research at http://metaresearch.org

I just thought I'd mention that FTL particles are possible, but they'd
have to start off at that speed, and would require infinite energy to
slow down...
Oh, and FTL communication may be possible due to "Quantum
Entanglement," or as Einstein put it, "spooky action at a distance."
But that's still at the theoretical stage.

Sam Wormley wrote:
h.

Jan Panteltje wrote:

OK, there have been many FTL postings, some of these of cause not entirely
correct.

Communication faster than the speed of light is not possible

I personally think that Le Sage's particles originate form perhaps processes
in starts, just like we see light coming from some stars.
This would predict a few things:
The universe is pushing itself apart (seems to be accelerating).
There would be an extra force moving away from the sun (pioneer acceleration).

Pioneer anomalous acceleration is TOWARD the Sun

On the 'edges' of the universe gravity would be unidirectional and much lower.
This could cause spectral lines to be very different for the same element
there (redshift?).

There is no edge--everywhere is the center.

See: Ned Wright's Cosmology Tutorial (excellent)
http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/cosmolog.htm

Tom Van Flandern wrote:

"Sam Wormley" writes:

Communication faster than the speed of light is not possible

This claim is no longer valid. See the "velocity of gravity"
thread in sci.physics.relativity. -|Tom|-

Tom Van Flandern - Washington, DC - see our web site on replacement
astronomy research at http://metaresearch.org

Tom Van Flandern wrote:

"Bill Hobba" writes:

[bh]: From very general considerations involving fundamental ideas of
Special Relativity we know that the speed of light is the maximum speed
signals can propagate. Thus the maximum speed a gravitational field can
propagate is the speed of light.

That was thought to be true for a long time. However, we now
know that this conclusion does not follow from the premises. And for
different reasons, we also know the conclusion is not correct.

The original reasoning went something like this: In the
*theory* of special relativity (SR), nothing real can travel faster than
light (FTL) in forward time. Various aspects of SR are confirmed by
eleven independent experiments. Therefore, because we are confident SR
is correct, nothing real can travel FTL in forward time. (The
theoretical FTL "tachyons" allowed by SR have imaginary mass and travel
only backwards in time.)

That this reasoning is flawed can be readily seen from the
following considerations: Lorentzian relativity (LR) is another theory
based on the same math as SR (the Lorentz transformations), but
differing in its physical interpretation. In LR, there is no speed limit
to matter because speed slows clocks, but does nothing to time itself.
And LR is confirmed by the same eleven independent experiments.
Therefore, LR with no speed limit is just as viable a theory of reality
as SR with a speed limit. You will find this published in "Experimental
Repeal of the Speed Limit for Gravitational, Electrodynamic, and Quantum
Field Interactions", T. Van Flandern and J.P. Vigier, Found.Phys.
32(#7), 1031-1068 (2002).

The only kind of experiment that can distinguish between
these two theories of the relativity of motion is one that demonstrates
that a speed limit exists, or one that shows the speed limit being
exceeded. For years, physicists thought that cyclotron experiments
showed the speed limit exists because, regardless of how much energy is
added to particles, their speeds could not quite reach c, much less
exceed it. However, we now see those experiments as analogous to trying
to exceed the speed of sound in a plane by using only spinning
propellers with no assist from jets or gravity. If the force used to
accelerate particles propagates at speed c, as is the case in
cyclotrons, then it cannot make particles go faster than the propagation
speed of the driving force.

What broke the experimental stalemate was collecting
evidence from six different experiments showing direct and indirect
evidence that gravity propagates strongly FTL in forward time. See "The
speed of gravity - What the experiments say", Phys.Lett.A, v. 250, #1-3,
pp. 1-11 (1998/12/21); also available at
http://metaresearch.org/cosmology/speed_of_gravity.asp. This resolves
the matter in favor of LR, and means the universe has no known speed
limit.

Although these conclusions are not yet widely accepted, it
is undisputed by knowledgeable parties that FTL propagation of gravity
is a reasonable interpretation of the experimental evidence. More
importantly, it is undisputed that LR has never been falsified, and is
therefore an allowed alternative to SR that removes the necessity for a
universal speed limit in nature. -|Tom|-

Tom Van Flandern - Washington, DC - see our web site on replacement
astronomy research at http://metaresearch.org

But the universe has a speed limit as measured, Tom!

Speed of Gravity
Physics News Update - Number 620 #1, January 13, 2003
http://www.aip.org/enews/physnews/2003/split/620-1.html


PHYSICS NEWS UPDATE
The American Institute of Physics Bulletin of Physics News
Number 620 January 10, 2003 by Phillip F. Schewe, Ben Stein, and James
Riordon

CAN THE SPEED OF GRAVITY be measured directly through the observation of
gravitational lensing effects? Two scientists who monitored the deflection
of quasar light as it passed very near Jupiter argue that they have derived
an experimental value for the speed of gravity equal to 1.06 times the speed
of light (with an uncertainty of 20%). But two other scientists claim that
the lensing experiment only served as a crude measurement of the speed of
light itself.

Physicists have long taken for granted that the effect of gravitational
force, like the effect of electromagnetic force, is not instantaneous but
should travel at a finite velocity. A familiar example of this delay is the
fact that when we see the sun, we see it as it was 8 minutes ago. Many
believe that gravity also travels at the speed of light. The trouble is,
while it is relatively easy to gauge the strength of gravity (one can
measure gravity even near a black hole, where orbiting matter emits telltale
x rays), it is difficult to study the propagation of gravity.

Although not as heavy as a star, Jupiter still has considerable gravity,
and when on September 8, 2002, it swept very near the position of quasar
J0842 + 1835, the theory of general relativity suggests that the apparent
quasar position on the sky would execute a small loop over the course of
several days owing to the lensing of quasar light by the passing planet.
Sergei Kopeiken (University of Missouri) and Ed Fomolont (National Radio
Astronomy Observatory, or NRAO) have now seen just such a loop, as they
reported this week at the meeting of the American Astronomical Society (AAS)
in Seattle. For this purpose they employed the Very Long Baseline Array
(VLBA) of radio telescopes, a configuration of dish detectors providing an
angular resolution of 10 micro-arcseconds. Actually the observed lensing
loop was slightly displaced from what one would expect if gravity propagated
instantaneously. Kopeiken and Fomolont interpret this slight displacement
as providing an experimental handle on the speed of gravity itself, and
thereby calculate the value of 1.06 times c.

Other scientists disagree with this interpretation, and say that the radio
lensing data can do little more than provide a measurement of the speed of
light, not gravity. Two such opinions, by scientists who did not report at
the AAS meeting, are as follows: Clifford Will of Washington University in
the US (preprint at (www.arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0301145 ) and Hideki Asada
of Hirosaki University in Japan (www.arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0206266 )

This contains replies to N'vok and Sam Wormley.

"N'vok" writes:

[N]: I just thought I'd mention that FTL particles are possible, but
they'd have to start off at that speed, and would require infinite
energy to slow down... Oh, and FTL communication may be possible due to
"Quantum Entanglement," or as Einstein put it, "spooky action at a
distance." But that's still at the theoretical stage.

Your statements are applicable only to special relativity
(SR), but not to Lorentzian relativity (LR). Both theories of the
relativity of motion are currently considered viable because they pass
all eleven tests using light-speed-or-slower signals. But in LR, time
and space are unchanged by motion. Only clocks and meter sticks are
changed. So for ordinary matter to exceed the speed of light is no more
difficult in principle than exceeding the sound barrier was at one time.

And with non-locality now allowed, FTL action at a distance
is no longer "spooky".


and "Sam Wormley" writes:

[tvf]: Although these conclusions are not yet widely accepted, it is
undisputed by knowledgeable parties that FTL propagation of gravity is a
reasonable interpretation of the experimental evidence. More
importantly, it is undisputed that LR has never been falsified, and is
therefore an allowed alternative to SR that removes the necessity for a
universal speed limit in nature.

[sw]: But the universe has a speed limit as measured, Tom!
Speed of Gravity: Physics News Update - Number 620 #1, January 13, 2003
http://www.aip.org/enews/physnews/2003/split/620-1.html.

But Sam, that report was premature, was rejected by the
Astrophysical Journal, and turned out to be erroneous according to all
opinions advanced since it appeared. See:

** C.M. Will (2003), "Propagation speed of gravity and the relativistic
time delay", http://www.arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0301145.

** R.R. Britt (2003), "Speed of gravity results 'incorrect', physicist
says", http://www.space.com/scienceastronom...ed_030116.html.

** J.A. Faber (2003), "The speed of gravity has not been measured from
time delays", http://xxx.lanl.gov/abs/astro-ph/0303346.

** APS News Online (2003), "Physicist disputes speed of gravity claim",
http://www.aps.org/apsnews/current/060310.html.

** C.M. Will (2003), "Propagation speed of gravity and the relativistic
time delay", ApJ 590, 683-690.

** S. Samuel (2003), "On the speed of gravity and the v/c corrections to
the Shapiro time delay", http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0304006.

Moreover, Kopeikin did not address the six previous
experiments I cited, all of which gave strongly FTL speeds for the
propagation of gravitational force. So we have (1) these six experiments
showing FTL propagation of gravitational force; (2) the field equations
of GR showing that gravitational potential changes (gravitational waves)
propagate at the speed of light; and (3) people such as Kopeikin who get
confused by this distinction. Hopefully, thanks to forums such as
USENET, the word will get around, and fewer people will fall victims to
this confusion in the future. -|Tom|-


Tom Van Flandern - Washington, DC - see our web site on replacement
astronomy research at http://metaresearch.org