On Apr 16, 8:00*am, Prime Mover wrote:
As Tom Van Flander has said, gravitational potential and gravitational
force are
two distinct concepts and as such their speeds does not have to be the
same.

Where in the world did you get that force or potential must have a
speed?

There is nothing in Newton's laws (to which TVF adhers to) that
assigns a speed to force. In NM, force and acceleration are considered
instantenuous cause-effect relationship - or to be more precise, it is
a streched causality.

Only crackpots believe force is a real thing that has a speed, so much
for potential.

As many published experiments have demonstrated, gravitational forces
can not possibly
propagate at c. I consider this as a scientific fact, indeed.

There is no propagation of gravitational forces in NM. The effect is
instantenuous,it's called action_at_a_distance. Where in the world and
from which crackpot did you hear that? Central forces in NM must apply
instantenuously and induce a centripetal acceleration to a body
instantenuously. There is no such thing as "speed of gravity" in
Newtonian mechanics.

In GR, there is also no such thing as "speed of gravity" because in GR
there is no gravity. Gravitational effects - something not equivalent
to gravity in the usual sense - are caused by spacetime curvature,
i.e. GR is a purely geometrical theory of gravitational effects -- and
dynamical motion in general.



It is also true that geometric GR is concerned with gravitational
potential only and that
disturbances in the gravitational potential propagates with speed
equal to c.

Yes, but in 4-D spacetime. Try to understand the difference:
Propagating at c in 4-D spacetime is NOT the same as propagatine at c
in 3-D spacetime. Actually, propagating at c in 4-D spacetime is
equivalent to propagating at infinite speed in 3-D spacetime if the
two theories must produce the same results at the limit. I do not know
the reasosn for that, neither concern me.



In fact, these are such a clear statements and concepts that I am
impressed that there
is any room for discussion on this issue.

The fact is that you do not understand anything you talk about to any
level at all.

Mike

Tom Van Flandern wrote:

[...]
[Carlip]: There is a rigorous proof, using the full Einstein field
equations (and not just a low-order approximation that can hide the
underlying structure), that gravitational influence propagates at the
speed of light

Playing with the definitions of words does no one trying to follow this
discussion any good. You avoid defining "gravitational influences" and just
cite a reference. However, no one is disputing that changes in gravitational
potential (the subject of the field equations) propagate at the speed of
light, c. I am always careful to state that "the speed of gravity" measured
by the six available experiments always means the 3-space propagation speed
of gravitational force, and has nothing to do with changes in gravitational
potential.

That's garbage, Tom.

I used the term "gravitational influence" simply to avoid getting into a
pointless debate about whether gravity in GR is "really" or force or not.
If you would go and read Low's paper, you would see that he is clearly
contradicting your claim.

What Low shows is the following:

Let R be an arbitrary region in space (at a fixed time, say t=0) containing
some sources of gravitation. Let p be a point outside R, at a distance d
from R -- that is, for which the closest point in R is a distance d away.

At time t=0, change conditions in R any way you want -- move the masses
around, add more masses, take some away, anything at all, as long as you
don't change anything outside R. What happens at p? Low shows that it
is a clear, unequivocal, unambiguous prediction of GR that nothing
whatsoever changes at p until a time d/c has passed.

To repeat: change the source of gravity in R any way you want. According
to GR, nothing at all happens at a point p outside R until the time for a
light signal to reach p from R has passed. By any sensible definition of
"speed" I can imagine, that means that gravity propagates at the speed
of light.

If you accept this, then we are merely arguing over semantics (although I
would add that your definition of "speed of gravity" must be truly bizarre).
If you don't accept this, then you don't accept "the mathematics of GR."
Period.

Then in Ref. [3], Vigier and I carefully showed exactly where in GR the
switch is made from the speed of changes in gravitational potential (c) to
the propagation speed of gravitational force (infinity).

No, you don't. You just demonstrate that you don't understand the math,
and that you don't know the difference between speed and direction.

[...]
[Carlip]: If you really "agree[d] with GR as a mathematical theory," the
argument would be over.

Apparently, it would not, because I do agree with GR as a mathematical
theory, but have taken great pains to show (as others before me have done)
that the mathematical theory has more than one physical interpretation; and
that one of those interpretations (the "geometric") has now been falsified
in favor of another (the "field" interpretation). In short, GR as Einstein
taught it is just fine; but much of the post-Einstein evolution of GR has
been unproductive or outright wrong.

The issue has nothing to do with interpretation. Go *read* Low's paper
(better yet -- read it and try to actually understand it). The GR prediction
is unequivocal.

Steve Carlip

On Apr 18, 8:18*am, Mike wrote:

[snip]

GR makes plenty of quantitative predictions. Try opening a textbook or
doing a basic literature search.

On 18 abr, 13:47, Mike wrote:
There is nothing in Newton's laws (to which TVF adhers to) that
assigns a speed to force. In NM, force and acceleration are considered
instantenuous cause-effect relationship - or to be more precise, it is
a streched causality.

Well, instantaneous cause-effect can't exist in reality. It doesn't
matter whether this is a part of a theory or not. Theories often are
just oversimplifications of reality.

Only crackpots believe force is a real thing that has a speed, so much
for potential.

If a "force" is used to explain gravitational interactions, then it
must represent a real thing.


As many published experiments have demonstrated, gravitational forces
can not possibly
propagate at c. I consider this as a scientific fact, indeed.

There is no propagation of gravitational forces in NM. The effect is
instantenuous,it's called action_at_a_distance. Where in the world and
from which crackpot did you hear that? Central forces in NM must apply
instantenuously and induce a centripetal acceleration to a body
instantenuously. There is no such thing as "speed of gravity" in
Newtonian mechanics.


Theories does not describe reality perfectly. While the mathematical
theory considers this to be instantaneuous, it does not mean that this
happens in reality.

In GR, there is also no such thing as "speed of gravity" because in GR
there is no gravity. Gravitational effects - something not equivalent
to gravity in the usual sense - are caused by spacetime curvature,
i.e. GR is a purely geometrical theory of gravitational effects -- and
dynamical motion in general.


This seems to be your interpreation of GR. By the way, you first say
that "there is no gravity" in GR and then, you finish saying that GR
is a theory of "gravitational effects". How can there exist
gravitational effects without gravity?

--
This message is brought to you by Androcles
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/

"Prime Mover" wrote in message
...
| On 18 abr, 13:47, Mike wrote:
| There is nothing in Newton's laws (to which TVF adhers to) that
| assigns a speed to force. In NM, force and acceleration are considered
| instantenuous cause-effect relationship - or to be more precise, it is
| a streched causality.
|
| Well, instantaneous cause-effect can't exist in reality.

You'll just disagree for the sake of it, even if you can't back that up.
You are a right ****head, aren't you?
Don't answer, I know you disagree.
*plonk*

On Apr 18, 4:09 pm, wrote:
Tom Van Flandern wrote:

Playing with the definitions of words does no one trying to follow this
discussion any good. You avoid defining "gravitational influences" and just
cite a reference. However, no one is disputing that changes in gravitational
potential (the subject of the field equations) propagate at the speed of
light, c. I am always careful to state that "the speed of gravity" measured
by the six available experiments always means the 3-space propagation speed
of gravitational force, and has nothing to do with changes in gravitational
potential.

That's garbage, Tom.

I used the term "gravitational influence" simply to avoid getting into a
pointless debate about whether gravity in GR is "really" or force or not.
If you would go and read Low's paper, you would see that he is clearly
contradicting your claim.

Low’s paper is full of handwaving. Your proposal to nullify the speed
of gravity through aberration is even more faulty. As a scientist,
how can you live with that? Where is your ethics?

What Low shows is the following:

Let R be an arbitrary region in space (at a fixed time, say t=0) containing
some sources of gravitation. Let p be a point outside R, at a distance d
from R -- that is, for which the closest point in R is a distance d away.

At time t=0, change conditions in R any way you want -- move the masses
around, add more masses, take some away, anything at all, as long as you
don't change anything outside R. What happens at p? Low shows that it
is a clear, unequivocal, unambiguous prediction of GR that nothing
whatsoever changes at p until a time d/c has passed.

To repeat: change the source of gravity in R any way you want. According
to GR, nothing at all happens at a point p outside R until the time for a
light signal to reach p from R has passed. By any sensible definition of
"speed" I can imagine, that means that gravity propagates at the speed
of light.

What you are saying is equally valid for anything including Newton’s
law of gravity. It is an extension to the theory of non-causality.
shrug

If you accept this, then we are merely arguing over semantics (although I
would add that your definition of "speed of gravity" must be truly bizarre).
If you don't accept this, then you don't accept "the mathematics of GR."
Period.

If you accept there is no paradox in causality or in anything, a well
thought-out experiment would have no problem measuring the propagation
speed of gravitational effect. As Dr. Van Flandern has pointed out,
all indicate this speed to be magnitudes higher. If aberration does
not work for you, you must accept the experimental results which would
falsify GR in doing so. If not, you have no right to claim yourself a
physicist. shrug

You are guilty of

** MYSTICISM IS WIDSOM
** FAITH IS THEORY

--
This message is brought to you by Androcles
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/

"Koobee Wublee" wrote in message
...
On Apr 18, 4:09 pm, wrote:
Tom Van Flandern wrote:

Playing with the definitions of words does no one trying to follow
this
discussion any good. You avoid defining "gravitational influences" and
just
cite a reference. However, no one is disputing that changes in
gravitational
potential (the subject of the field equations) propagate at the speed of
light, c.


Yes I do dispute it. Prove it.

On Apr 18, 7:09*pm, wrote:
Tom Van Flandern wrote:

[...]

[Carlip]: There is a rigorous proof, using the full Einstein field
equations (and not just a low-order approximation that can hide the
underlying structure), that gravitational influence propagates at the
speed of light
* * Playing with the definitions of words does no one trying to follow this
discussion any good. You avoid defining "gravitational influences" and just
cite a reference. *However, no one is disputing that changes in gravitational
potential (the subject of the field equations) propagate at the speed of
light, c. I am always careful to state that "the speed of gravity" measured
by the six available experiments always means the 3-space propagation speed
of gravitational force, and has nothing to do with changes in gravitational
potential.

That's garbage, Tom.

I used the term "gravitational influence" simply to avoid getting into a
pointless debate about whether gravity in GR is "really" or force or not.

Gravity in GR in a form of "action", like in NM, does not exist.
Gravity in 3-D space + time, according to GR, is a perceived
phenomenon due to spacetime curvature. Notice the choice and ordering
of words. Gravity exists only in 3-D space and time. In GR, all there
is, is motion. Some of that motion, observers in 3-D space attribute
(right or wrongly) to grabitational forces.


If you would go and read Low's paper, you would see that he is clearly
contradicting your claim.

What Low shows is the following:

Let R be an arbitrary region in space (at a fixed time, say t=0) containing
some sources of gravitation. *Let p be a point outside R, at a distance d
from R -- that is, for which the closest point in R is a distance d away. *

At time t=0, change conditions in R any way you want -- move the masses
around, add more masses, take some away, anything at all, as long as you
don't change anything outside R. *What happens at p? *Low shows that it
is a clear, unequivocal, unambiguous prediction of GR that nothing
whatsoever changes at p until a time d/c has passed.

Correct. But you are talking in 4-D spacetime and the TFV team is
talking in 3-D space and time. You have no common ground. In the
former, it is d/c in the latter it is infinite.



To repeat: change the source of gravity in R any way you want. *According
to GR, nothing at all happens at a point p outside R until the time for a
light signal to reach p from R has passed. *By any sensible definition of
"speed" I can imagine, that means that gravity propagates at the speed
of light.

No, now you show how confused you are also. Now, you used the word
"gravity" TVF and his team have the right to come back and attack you,
and you deserve it because you are as confused as you claim they are.
In GR, that is, it is not even wrong to say "gravity propagates". It
is so stupid, I can't even describe it. Say, information about the
change propagates at the speed of light.

If you say "gravity propagates", then TVF and his team are correct to
strike back anf say: "wait yo, gravity propagates at almost infinite
speeds"

Do you get it? How many years will pass before you get it?


If you accept this, then we are merely arguing over semantics (although I
would add that your definition of "speed of gravity" must be truly bizarre).
If you don't accept this, then you don't accept "the mathematics of GR."
Period.

Bizzare it is, because in NM there is no such thing as "speed of
gravity". Actions are instantenuous, there is nothing in Newton's law
that says force has a speed.

But you sound as bizzare, even more often. There is no speed of
gravity in GR because in that theory there is no gravity. GR is a
theory of dynamical motion in arbitrarily curved spacetimes. Mass-
energy curves 4-D sapcetime and in turn this curvature of spacetime
results in 4-D dyynamical motion. If we consider 3-D plus time, then
we can model gravity as mutual interaction as Newton argued.


* * Then in Ref. [3], Vigier and I carefully showed exactly where in GR the
switch is made from the speed of changes in gravitational potential (c) to
the propagation speed of gravitational force (infinity).

No, you don't. *You just demonstrate that you don't understand the math,
and that you don't know the difference between speed and direction.

[...]

Tha's a serious allegation.




[Carlip]: If you really "agree[d] with GR as a mathematical theory," the
argument would be over.
* * Apparently, it would not, because I do agree with GR as a mathematical
theory, but have taken great pains to show (as others before me have done)
that the mathematical theory has more than one physical interpretation; and
that one of those interpretations (the "geometric") has now been falsified
in favor of another (the "field" interpretation). In short, GR as Einstein
taught it is just fine; but much of the post-Einstein evolution of GR has
been unproductive or outright wrong.

The issue has nothing to do with interpretation. *Go *read* Low's paper
(better yet -- read it and try to actually understand it). *The GR prediction
is unequivocal.

It has to do with interpretation as long it is demonstrated by your
posts that your interpretations are also wrong.

Mike



Steve Carlip

Mike
aka Bill Smith
aka Undeniable
wrote in message

On Apr 18, 7:09 pm, wrote:
Tom Van Flandern wrote:

[...]

[Carlip]: There is a rigorous proof, using the full Einstein field
equations (and not just a low-order approximation that can hide the
underlying structure), that gravitational influence propagates at the
speed of light
Playing with the definitions of words does no one trying to follow this
discussion any good. You avoid defining "gravitational influences" and just
cite a reference. However, no one is disputing that changes in gravitational
potential (the subject of the field equations) propagate at the speed of
light, c. I am always careful to state that "the speed of gravity" measured
by the six available experiments always means the 3-space propagation speed
of gravitational force, and has nothing to do with changes in gravitational
potential.

That's garbage, Tom.

I used the term "gravitational influence" simply to avoid getting into a
pointless debate about whether gravity in GR is "really" or force or not.

Gravity in GR in a form of "action", like in NM, does not exist.
Gravity in 3-D space + time, according to GR, is a perceived
phenomenon due to spacetime curvature. Notice the choice and ordering
of words. Gravity exists only in 3-D space and time. In GR, all there
is, is motion. Some of that motion, observers in 3-D space attribute
(right or wrongly) to grabitational forces.


If you would go and read Low's paper, you would see that he is clearly
contradicting your claim.

What Low shows is the following:

Let R be an arbitrary region in space (at a fixed time, say t=0) containing
some sources of gravitation. Let p be a point outside R, at a distance d
from R -- that is, for which the closest point in R is a distance d away.

At time t=0, change conditions in R any way you want -- move the masses
around, add more masses, take some away, anything at all, as long as you
don't change anything outside R. What happens at p? Low shows that it
is a clear, unequivocal, unambiguous prediction of GR that nothing
whatsoever changes at p until a time d/c has passed.

Correct. But you are talking in 4-D spacetime and the TFV team is
talking in 3-D space and time. You have no common ground. In the
former, it is d/c in the latter it is infinite.

Mike, aka Eleatis aka Bill Smith aka Undeniable, were you born an idiot?
http://users.telenet.be/vdmoortel/di...udyReason.html
http://users.telenet.be/vdmoortel/di...clesTeach.html
http://users.telenet.be/vdmoortel/di...101quater.html
http://users.telenet.be/vdmoortel/di...ics101ter.html
http://users.telenet.be/vdmoortel/di...ics101bis.html
http://users.telenet.be/vdmoortel/di...hysics101.html
http://users.telenet.be/vdmoortel/di...Sociology.html
http://users.telenet.be/vdmoortel/di...rainHoles.html
http://users.telenet.be/vdmoortel/di...Androcles.html
http://users.telenet.be/vdmoortel/di...enFingure.html
http://users.telenet.be/vdmoortel/di...ockWithIt.html
http://users.telenet.be/vdmoortel/di...atisStyle.html
http://users.telenet.be/vdmoortel/di...urseBozzo.html
http://users.telenet.be/vdmoortel/di.../Bourbaki.html
http://users.telenet.be/vdmoortel/di...Psychotic.html
http://users.telenet.be/vdmoortel/di...s/Learned.html
http://users.telenet.be/vdmoortel/di...layground.html
http://users.telenet.be/vdmoortel/di...bles/Dirt.html
http://users.telenet.be/vdmoortel/di.../Imbecile.html
http://users.telenet.be/vdmoortel/di.../HiPsycho.html
http://users.telenet.be/vdmoortel/di.../DinkDonk.html
http://users.telenet.be/vdmoortel/di...lTroubles.html

Dirk Vdm

On Apr 19, 2:56*am, Koobee Wublee wrote:
On Apr 18, 4:09 pm, wrote:





Tom Van Flandern wrote:
* * Playing with the definitions of words does no one trying to follow this
discussion any good. You avoid defining "gravitational influences" and just
cite a reference. *However, no one is disputing that changes in gravitational
potential (the subject of the field equations) propagate at the speed of
light, c. I am always careful to state that "the speed of gravity" measured
by the six available experiments always means the 3-space propagation speed
of gravitational force, and has nothing to do with changes in gravitational
potential.

That's garbage, Tom.

I used the term "gravitational influence" simply to avoid getting into a
pointless debate about whether gravity in GR is "really" or force or not..
If you would go and read Low's paper, you would see that he is clearly
contradicting your claim.

Low’s paper is full of handwaving. *Your proposal to nullify the speed
of gravity through aberration is even more faulty. *As a scientist,
how can you live with that? *Where is your ethics?





What Low shows is the following:

Let R be an arbitrary region in space (at a fixed time, say t=0) containing
some sources of gravitation. *Let p be a point outside R, at a distance d
from R -- that is, for which the closest point in R is a distance d away..

At time t=0, change conditions in R any way you want -- move the masses
around, add more masses, take some away, anything at all, as long as you
don't change anything outside R. *What happens at p? *Low shows that it
is a clear, unequivocal, unambiguous prediction of GR that nothing
whatsoever changes at p until a time d/c has passed.

To repeat: change the source of gravity in R any way you want. *According
to GR, nothing at all happens at a point p outside R until the time for a
light signal to reach p from R has passed. *By any sensible definition of
"speed" I can imagine, that means that gravity propagates at the speed
of light.

What you are saying is equally valid for anything including Newton’s
law of gravity. *It is an extension to the theory of non-causality.
shrug


What in the world (to avoid a different expression) is "non-causality"
and what does it have to do with physics?



If you accept this, then we are merely arguing over semantics (although I
would add that your definition of "speed of gravity" must be truly bizarre).
If you don't accept this, then you don't accept "the mathematics of GR."
Period.

If you accept there is no paradox in causality or in anything, a well
thought-out experiment would have no problem measuring the propagation
speed of gravitational effect. *As Dr. Van Flandern has pointed out,
all indicate this speed to be magnitudes higher. *If aberration does
not work for you, you must accept the experimental results which would
falsify GR in doing so. *If not, you have no right to claim yourself a
physicist. *shrug

There are no "gravitational" effects in GR. Those are only present in
3-D space + time. In GR all there is, is dynamical motion.

Newton faked your brains forever.

Mike




You are guilty of

** *MYSTICISM IS WIDSOM
** *FAITH IS THEORY- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -