What is the speed of gravity?

[WalterTrull]

Well, Frasier's paper, written in 2015, does predate the establishment of gravitational waves in 2017, in which it was discovered that "gravity moves at 299,792,458 metres per second, a rate we can just call c." So there's no reason to pay any attention to his paper. It's outdated and his conclusion worthless..

Gadzooks! Time moves so fast. Er, I mean gravity. Er, I mean...

 

[David T]

These are advanced physics for a reason. Its not difficult, but it requires a lot of learning to get to the point where one can understand.

Physics in electrodynamics is easy to understand, its statistics. quantum mechanics has the identical meaning as a Stanley tape measure, absolutely none, its just statistics of probabilities and nothing more. We don't go "look the board is Exactly x what does that mean".

Math actually is a meaningless, we do in application to a whole bunch of different things. But In and of itself it has zero meaning.

Now doing the math itself is entirely different that isn't easy and we might find that whole process meaningful. Some of us might and and do religiously "believe" beyond reality it is intrinsically meaningful its absolutely not. I would say those who "believe" science has proved reality is meaningless I say math is meaningless not reality , you are confused.

 

[WalterTrull]

The paper is complete rubbish.

Cool! Sock it to'im Say.

Any thoughts about Feynman? I'm just starting to view his YouTube stuff.

 

[sayak83]

Cool! Sock it to'im Say.

Any thoughts about Feynman? I'm just starting to view his YouTube stuff.

I have read his lectures. What about Feynmann?
Since the speed of gravity waves has already been measured by LIGO, its no longer something about which there is an iota with of doubt.

 

[Polymath257]

The paper is complete rubbish.

Don't insult rubbish like that!

 

[Polymath257]

Cool! Sock it to'im Say.

Any thoughts about Feynman? I'm just starting to view his YouTube stuff.

Feynman was one of the greats. He died a while ago, so some of his stuff will be out of date (and his lectures show some age), but his overall picture is phenomenal.

Added: and you won't get to the material that is out of date until you get to symmetries in quantum mechanics. And even there, it is correct, just supplemented by much better results.

 

[WalterTrull]

I have read his lectures. What about Feynmann?
Since the speed of gravity waves has already been measured by LIGO, its no longer something about which there is an iota with of doubt.

Oh, I'm just interested in what different scientists have to say. The variety of conclusions is fun. I'm guessing that in the next decade some scientist will prove the LIGO findings wrong, or at least incomplete. I'll ready the water balloons.

 

[Polymath257]

It's fascinating how different physicists and mathematicians, given the same numbers, have differing interpretations of their meanings. Kinda fun. Never-the-less, thanks for turning me on to the Feynman lectures. I've got a lot of watching to do. I wish he didn't pace so much.

Well, some have actually worked through the ideas (and formulas) in general relativity and others have not. It is clear from the paper you linked that the author did not. He made very basic errors that an expert simply would not.

 

[Polymath257]

Oh, I'm just interested in what different scientists have to say. The variety of conclusions is fun. I'm guessing that in the next decade some scientist will prove the LIGO findings wrong, or at least incomplete. I'll ready the water balloons.

It's probably better to look at what a Nobel prize winner (Feynman) says than someone that clearly hasn't taken the basic classes and has trouble with the math (Frasier).

A clear sign: he identified 1/c as energy. Energy does NOT have units of t/d.

 

[WalterTrull]

Well, some have actually worked through the ideas (and formulas) in general relativity and others have not. It is clear from the paper you linked that the author did not. He made very basic errors that an expert simply would not.

That's a relief. Now I don't need to spend much time trying to figure out his math.

 

[Axe Elf]

I find Polymath very humble for all his knowledge. If I knew that much, I would be strutting around lecturing people.

Yeah, that's usually the direction I take with it, but to each his own.

 

[Jonathan Ainsley Bain]

Yes, gravity travels at the speed of light, but in the expansion there is a 'correction term' that negates your whole viewpoint.

(from the other thrread)

Not this again. Your understanding of what GR says is faulty. The speed of gravity is the speed of light *and* the observed reaction allows for stable orbits, except for small changes in the direction of the parahelion.

The truth again? Lo! and behold!
You are brainwashed by corporate sophistry to such an extent that when pure logic presents itself you cannot even recognize it.
'correction term'
and what is that?
and what is your quoted source?
and can your reference how a delay in gravity effects orbits outside of your fabricated 'correction term'?

And can you give a source as to anyone else who has applied this geometry in actual algorithms?
Like here: Relativity and the orbits of Alpha Centauri

What aspect of relativity can compensate for an outwards drift of over 1.4million km?
or do you really think that typing the two words 'correction term' is sufficient?

 

[Jonathan Ainsley Bain]

Well... according to Brian Fraser in Beyond Einstein, gravity is much faster than light. I'm not sure I follow (actually I'm sure I don't follow) non-local math, but it's interesting.

Thanks I'll have to look that up.

As I apply gravity at the velocity of light to the Alpha Centauri system, the
result would be an outwards movement due to the delay.
The exact outwards movement is 1.4million km per orbit.
Here are the precise computations: Relativity and the orbits of Alpha Centauri

I outline the principle as to why gravity must be
either instant or many times the velocity of light quite clearly here: Instant Gravity Proof
Its quite easy to understand.

 

[Jonathan Ainsley Bain]

Everything polymath is saying is correct.

Wow, you sure put a lot of thought into that. Did you type it all by yourself?

 

[Jonathan Ainsley Bain]

This comes about because of relativistic effects.

What relativistic effects?
The science of the gaps perhaps?
Science of the gaps

 

[Jonathan Ainsley Bain]

The paper is complete rubbish.

The profound detail of your analysis!
The ease with which you sum up the formulae!
The originality in your proof!
ah
Albert would be proud.

 

[Twilight Hue]

Gravity isn't a speed, it doesn't have a speed?
Gravity is a force and is measured as an acceleration

Speed is measured in miles/hour or km/sec, etc.
Acceleration is the rate of change of speed with time and is measured in miles / hour*hour (That should be hours squared). the acceleration of gravity on the surface of the earth at sea level is 9.8 m/s2.

That's what I thought. Given its thought of as a pervasive (weak) force.

Seems it does have a "speed" when it was measured in 2003.

First speed of gravity measurement revealed

 

[Polymath257]

(from the other thrread)


The truth again? Lo! and behold!
You are brainwashed by corporate sophistry to such an extent that when pure logic presents itself you cannot even recognize it.
'correction term'
and what is that?
and what is your quoted source?
and can your reference how a delay in gravity effects orbits outside of your fabricated 'correction term'?

And can you give a source as to anyone else who has applied this geometry in actual algorithms?
Like here: Relativity and the orbits of Alpha Centauri

What aspect of relativity can compensate for an outwards drift of over 1.4million km?
or do you really think that typing the two words 'correction term' is sufficient?

Well, the first thing you should do is understand the correction term to the inverse square law for electromagnetism (it is an easier case). This is most readily seen in the Feynman lectures, equation 28.3 of the first volume, with surrounding discussion.

What you have neglected to do in your formalism is take into account the full integral that gives the 'force'. That integral does, in fact, use the previous location of the gravitating particle, but you have to integrate over all positions and that introduces the correction I am talking about. In particular, one of the aspects that is relevant here is the relative motion of the two sources and the time dilation produced by that motion. This also serves to counteract the issue you are discussing.

Since topics in general relativity are usually done by considering the metric for all space around the orbiting particles, and that isn't a trivial calculation (but it is a necessary one), your whole tactic is flawed deeply.

 

[Jonathan Ainsley Bain]

Not this again.

Moreover its not the same article anyways.
The algorithm has been finely tuned so that orbits are calculated to a matter of millimeters
with all the applied formulae of relativity in effect.

The orbit of Mercury to within 0.2m over 20 orbits is precision.
See here :Relativity and the orbit of Mercury

Whereas your comments are mere words typed in a forum.


Perhaps you better jump to the full article released a few days ago:
www.flight-light-and-spin.com/simulator/relativity-orbit-solar-system.htm

I am still waiting for your algorithm which you claimed to have written.
And that was more than a year ago.

 

[WalterTrull]

Well, the first thing you should do is understand the correction term to the inverse square law for electromagnetism (it is an easier case). This is most readily seen in the Feynman lectures, equation 28.3 of the first volume, with surrounding discussion.

What you have neglected to do in your formalism is take into account the full integral that gives the 'force'. That integral does, in fact, use the previous location of the gravitating particle, but you have to integrate over all positions and that introduces the correction I am talking about. In particular, one of the aspects that is relevant here is the relative motion of the two sources and the time dilation produced by that motion. This also serves to counteract the issue you are discussing.

Since topics in general relativity are usually done by considering the metric for all space around the orbiting particles, and that isn't a trivial calculation (but it is a necessary one), your whole tactic is flawed deeply.

I must have pushed the wrong button.

Love it. No idea what you're talking about. I guess that's the point.