speed of gravity

Plasma and electricity in space. Failure of gravity-only cosmology. Exposing the myths of dark matter, dark energy, black holes, neutron stars, and other mathematical constructs. The electric model of stars. Predictions and confirmations of the electric comet.

Moderators: MGmirkin, bboyer

keithnellie
Posts: 23
Joined: Sun Mar 03, 2013 7:12 pm

speed of gravity

Unread post by keithnellie » Thu Nov 17, 2016 7:08 am

Just watched the latest Thunderbolts video on the speed of gravity and I can't quite wrap my head around it.

I know this issue has been thought about by people a lot more knowledgeable than me so it is easier for them to understand BUT my problem is the effect that the sun's gravity has on our planet may take a matter of minutes to manifest itself but the effect is not in pulses but continuous. I don't see it as a constant correction of course but more of an initial grab then hold. The video indicates there is some sort of linear communication between the sun and earth like a string tether which I realize is not a real thing but a way to symbolize a line of force but this keeps throwing me off too.

The way I like to think about the suns gravitational influence on earth is a large spinning magnetic ball with a smaller ball stuck to the outer diameter. I've used this model to show my nieces and nephews how the sun could attract and capture bodies. I take the large ball magnet affixed to a drill and spin it in a hole in a sheet of plastic. I then roll small BBs toward it. When the BBs get close enough the spinning magnet pulls them in until they touch and then the BB attaches itself and spins with the magnet.

I know my model is flawed because it does not explain what makes the earth stop at this particular orbit and not continue all the way to the sun. It is easier for me to think the earth is stuck to the outside of a gravity "shell" than having constant course corrections. I will continue to try an educate myself here and hopefully it will sink in but one of the reasons I gravitate toward the EU theory is its simplicity over the standard model and this issue isn't so simple.

Webbman
Posts: 533
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2014 10:49 am

Re: speed of gravity

Unread post by Webbman » Thu Nov 17, 2016 1:51 pm

I think the earth is in one of the suns electromagnetic rings and doesn't require gravity AT ALL to explain its orbit.
its all lies.

TalonThorn
Posts: 50
Joined: Mon Oct 27, 2008 11:19 am
Location: Manhattan, KS

Re: speed of gravity

Unread post by TalonThorn » Thu Nov 17, 2016 2:07 pm

Here's my take on gravity, the Earth's orbit, etc.

First, we know that the Earth seems to respond to the actual location of where the Sun is now. Second, we've not found any particle or energy that carries a "gravity" force. Third, we're learning that all things in the universe are electrical.

Using some basic logic, if the Earth responds instantaneously to where the Sun is located, then it must not actually be responding to a distant force, but rather to the local forces immediately surrounding it. If this is the case, then we are looking in the wrong location (looking for a graviton or some particle/energy that has a speed).

Since the Earth simply responds to its surroundings (based on this logic -- humor me), it is no longer a mystery why the Earth responds instantaneously to it's surroundings. After all, the immediate surroundings of the Earth are not very distant, so even a relatively "slow" speed of interaction will do.

In fact, the whole concept of a near "instantaneous" force arises only because we assume that the observations mean that the Sun is the source of the "gravitational" force, and since it is so distant, we thus are forced to assume a mechanism that will make it work (just like scientists assume that comets are made of dirty ice, because their assumptions lead them to this as the only way to explain the observations).

Now, assuming that the Earth is just responding to it's local surroundings to determine its path, then we can conclude that the local surroundings are in turn affected by their local surroundings, and on and on so forth until there is a connection between the Sun and the Earth. That connection is simply an electrical charge in the plasma surrounding the Sun and the Earth, and the Earth follows it's path not because the Sun is DIRECTLY pulling on the Earth, but rather the Earth, a charged body, is following the ideal charge balance-point path that exists right at the general distance between the Sun and Earth. There is thus no need for measuring a "speed" of some particle or energy. It is just a consequence of the Earth staying in electrical balance with the Sun.

Think of it like a ball on a circular track around some center. I have a cat toy like this where the cat can sit and push the ball and it will forever run along the track around the center of the disk. The ball goes on this path not because some mystical force in the center acts upon it, instantaneously, from a "spooky action at a distance," but because the path the ball is to take has already been carved into the material in which it is in. The ball thus responds to it's local surroundings, which in turn respond to their local surroundings, and on and on so forth until we can establish a link between the ball and the center of it's "orbit." This center and its link to the ball is purely a human observation and need not be an actual source of a force (in this case, but that could be different for the Sun.) If we move the ball and its containing disk, no one would be surprised that the ball maintains its distance from the center. The ball is still just responding to its local surroundings, which in turn maintain a rotation around the same center.

With the Sun, unlike the cat toy, there is the addition of an electrical phenomenon which can conceivably create a field of charged particles (plasma) around it, and the Earth in turn, being that it is a charged object, responds to this charged field in the space by following the path which is the charge-balance distance from the Sun.

Now, I'm not saying that this is what gravity is, but rather this is what makes the planets work the way they work. "Gravity" here on the Earth which affects us could be something entirely different, or, maybe not so different, but either way we don't need to limit ourselves to bias on how things work on Earth (an entirely different environment) to explain how they might work in space.

kasim
Posts: 10
Joined: Tue Nov 01, 2016 8:20 am

Re: speed of gravity

Unread post by kasim » Thu Nov 17, 2016 4:39 pm

I thought that at the Electric Universe everything is electrical. Because moving electricity produces magnetism, we should be talking about electromagnetism really. I know this is what the mainstream are talking about, but let's go with a liar to the door. People who use false theories eventually hang themselves with it.

I thought that gravity is an electromagnetic phenomenon as in dipole gravity that Wal Thornhill explained I think in EU2015. If this is so, then gravity would travel at the speed of light because electromagnetic waves travel at the speed of light. Hence the sun's gravity would reach earth at the same time as its image which is carried by its light. Hence we would perceive the earth reacting to the image of the sun where we see it now not where it actually is.

I've seen a video in which a Bishop said that if the gravity of the sun reaches the earth 8.3 minutes later, it will not be a centripetal force and would throw the earth out of its orbit. I don't think that's right. Take for example, sound going round corners, it gives the illusion that it's coming from somewhere else.

But the main thing is: if gravity is to be an electromagnetic phenomenon, then it must travel at the speed of electromagnetism which is the speed of light. After all, Wal Thornhill uses Maxwell's description to prove Einstein wrong and it was Maxwell who calculated the speed of light to be a constant. Remember that Einstein uses other people's findings: Maxwell - the constancy of the speed of light; Lorentz - length contraction and time dilation; Minkowski - spacetime; Hilbert - helped Einstein with tensor mathematics. Have I missed anybody?

In 1964 while developing the mainstream Standard Model, they found that its equations fail if its particles had mass, which they do. So they assumed them to be massless and invented the Higgs field and boson to give them mass and everything worked again. Now this Higgs field/boson is a fix to an anomaly of a failed theory just like Ptolemy's epicycle was a fix to an anomaly in Aristotle's geocentric universe.

If you consider the Big Bang at the stage when the early universe was full of energy. The central question is how did that energy turn into matter. They tell us that it turned into quarks, gluons, electrons, and their antimatter equivalents. Experiments show that energy turns into equal numbers of electrons and positron not quarks; but they insist that energy does split into quark-antiquark pairs. I said yes they're called mesons which decay into electrons, positrons, or photons depending on their charge.

Whereas you can separate electrons and positrons, you can't separate quarks and antiquarks. At the time in the early universe, it was so hot that the quarks and antiquarks had a separate and independent existence. OK. But they were created in equal numbers. Where's the matter-antimatter asymmetry you keep talking about? No answer. No wonder the Standard Model equations failed, they were based on particles and forces that don't exist. Assuming they were massless is the same as them not being there.

I wrote a book about it and you can dowload a free copy at https://www.smashwords.com/books/view/682488

jeremyfiennes
Posts: 12
Joined: Sun Nov 13, 2016 10:28 pm

Re: speed of gravity

Unread post by jeremyfiennes » Thu Nov 17, 2016 6:32 pm

I've never gotten this speed of gravity thing. The Sun's gravitational field has been there as long as the Sun has. It's not being constantly created or emitted. And the Earth has been moving in it that long, like a ball whirled around on the end of a piece of string (gravity). The same goes for gravity waves. Even when two black holes collide, seen from a distance their total energy/mass remains constant. So why should it emit waves. Gravity waves would be emitted if some energy/mass was suddenly created or destroyed. But the law of conservation does not permit this. Maybe I'm just stupid. Can someone explain?

User avatar
Zyxzevn
Posts: 1002
Joined: Wed Dec 11, 2013 4:48 pm
Contact:

Re: speed of gravity

Unread post by Zyxzevn » Thu Nov 17, 2016 9:23 pm

There are different ideas mixed in this thread.

Mainstream Gravity (General Relativity): Gravity moves with the speed of light.
With a normal force this gives a problem (as described in the video) that the delayed force of sun's gravity
arrives from a different direction than the actual position of the sun.
This would eject earth from its orbit.

Electromagnetism has a similar problem. An electron orbiting a nucleus, moves very fast in an electric field.
If electromagnetic forces move in lightspeed, the electron would escape the nucleus in
a just a few orbits.

Special relativity has a correction in that the time and length of the earth is changed, due to its speed.
This would make it appear as if the force, arriving later, would still arrive from the same direction.
This works for linear movements, but I don't know if it works for circular movements.

General relativity says that gravity is no force, but a bending of space/time, causing an acceleration.
This would mean that the space and time on earth, are both changed by the speed of the earth and the
gravity of the sun. And the speed of the sun moving in the milky-way.
In general relativity, space and time become abstract measures resulting from complicated Tensor equations.
So space and time have no real meaning any more, so the problem is avoided.
Yet, we can clearly observe space and time, so is this a solution or just a way to avoid the problem
in a way nobody really understands?

Newton Gravity: Gravity is instant.

This is a lot easier, we do not have the problem of earth being ejected from orbit anymore.
The orbits are very stable, very very stable.
So this gives another problem, of why the orbits of the planets are all in one plane,
and are not circling around the sun in different planes.
Even General relativity does not solve that either. There is no direction in which the planets should move.

If we add some electromagnetism to gravity, just 0.000001% of electromagnetic force to the planets,
we CAN see that these might evolve stable orbits and form a single plane.

But how can electromagnetism and gravity be instant if light, which is electromagnetic waves, can
only move with the speed of light.
This is because the light transfers the CHANGES of the electromagnetic field,
but not the field itself.
So a static electric field, which produces NO photons, can still produce a force,
as we can clearly observe. The same is true with a static magnetic field.
In mainstream physics, we have to resort to non-existent virtual photons.

So without photons, without electromagnetic waves, we can still experience a force.
In the video this is illustrated as a cable, that can produce a direct instant force, and transfer waves.

The newton gravity version is clearly simpler.
There is no need for excessive calculations and the static field is self-explaining.
So using Occam's razor, we can state that the instant gravity with a little pinch of electromagnetism,
is a better solution for the orbits of the moons and planets.
More ** from zyxzevn at: Paradigm change and C@

beekeeper
Posts: 141
Joined: Mon Feb 22, 2010 8:53 pm

Re: speed of gravity

Unread post by beekeeper » Thu Nov 17, 2016 11:12 pm

Greetings fellow pilgrims, it appears to me that in this thread the speed of light is wrong, and the speed of gravity is somewhat tied to magnetism and the speed of magnetism which is the speed of light. From my perspective the speed of light cannot be constant. When emanating from a body like the sun or earth that together already move at a tremendous speed in and with the galaxy, light would need to adjust it's speed to conform to the above mentioned constant in relation to a stationary observer. From this perspective the speed of light is no constant and so is e=mc2. I believe we are betting on the wrong constant IMHO regards Beekeeper
If nothing can travel faster than light, how can darkness escape it

jeremyfiennes
Posts: 12
Joined: Sun Nov 13, 2016 10:28 pm

Re: speed of gravity

Unread post by jeremyfiennes » Fri Nov 18, 2016 5:25 am

Hi Zyxzevn (I hope I have spelt your name right!). Thanks for your interesting reply. I agree that a number of issues are mixed up here. Let's start with the simplest. When I switch on a lamp, electromagnetic waves / photons emanate out from it at the speed of light. And continue doing so as long as the lamp is switched on. But gravity is not like that. Energy/mass, the source of gravity, cannot be switched on and off. And on a simple Newtonian model (which as you point out is the one that works in practice), gravity does not emanate like photons. It is a force acting across space and is there. Just as the force between two electrostatic charges acts across space and is there. Or the force between two magnets. (I realize that later theories have distorted this to fit in with their own concepts. But many of these I regard as highly suspect. "Warped space-time", for instance. Space-time is by definition a function of time, i.e. a mathematical abstraction. And how can a mathematical abstraction have a property of a concrete object, such as being warped?) thanks.

keithnellie
Posts: 23
Joined: Sun Mar 03, 2013 7:12 pm

Re: speed of gravity

Unread post by keithnellie » Fri Nov 18, 2016 3:43 pm

I feel better now knowing I am not the only one who is confused by this topic.

My biggest issue is still not getting how the earth can be ejected from its orbit if its course isn't constantly corrected by instantaneous gravity. I realize that the sun is moving through the universe and taking the planets along with it but my feeble mind still pictures the earth stuck to the magnetic/gravity shell of the sun. I guess until i cleanse my mind of that image then I won't be able to grasp anything new. Working on it.

User avatar
Zyxzevn
Posts: 1002
Joined: Wed Dec 11, 2013 4:48 pm
Contact:

Re: speed of gravity

Unread post by Zyxzevn » Fri Nov 18, 2016 5:55 pm

keithnellie wrote: My biggest issue is still not getting how the earth can be ejected from its orbit if its course isn't constantly corrected by instantaneous gravity.
The sling-effect.

If you rotate a stone in a sling around you, your hand gives a force to the stone through the cord.
Image

If you move your hand faster, the force in the cord moves the stone faster, but delayed.
While accelerating, your hand will move in front of the stone, in phase.
If you move your hand in constant speed, your hand will be more in phase with the stone.
(There is still some air-resistance that causes your hand to be forward in phase a bit).
If you slow down with your hand, the stone will move forward in phase.
And after the stone has moved forward in phase, the force in the cord can slow the stone down.

So we see that the stone accelerates when the hand moves before the stone in phase.
This same idea is applied to gravity.

But as you understand, gravity is much more complicated.
It is a field, not a rope. So things work differently. :roll:
The delayed gravity field from the sun would give a certain effect to the earth.
If the sun would be exactly still, there will be no delay difference, and no problem.
So you are partially right.

But the sun moves through the galaxy with quite some speed.
See video
Any delay will cause the field would not come from the place the sun is now, but from the place
the sun was some time ago.
This will cause earth to move away from the sun towards the delayed direction.
The planets would no longer be in a single plane and probably move away.

To correct this, we can assume a field, that moves together with the sun,
and that is not dependent on space. This gravity will always point towards the sun,
if the sun moved in a linear way.
And if we apply the relativity maths-tricks, we get a similar result by changing time and space.
I doubt that this works in non-linear cases.

But the sun does not move in a linear fashion, so this would still cause changes in the orbits
of the planets. Every 35 million years the sun moves through the plane of the galaxy,
potentially changing the orbits completely. But the earth's orbit seems pretty stable.

A direct force does not have these problems at all, and is mathematically much simpler.
Nor does it need virtual non-existing particles.

To research it properly, I would not look into the direction of gravity, but instead look into laboratory research
on electromagnetic fields with fast moving particles.
Like electromagnetic plasma. :mrgreen:
More ** from zyxzevn at: Paradigm change and C@

User avatar
Solar
Posts: 1372
Joined: Mon Mar 17, 2008 3:05 am

Re: speed of gravity

Unread post by Solar » Sat Nov 19, 2016 7:05 am

keithnellie wrote:I feel better now knowing I am not the only one who is confused by this topic.

My biggest issue is still not getting how the earth can be ejected from its orbit if its course isn't constantly corrected by instantaneous gravity. I realize that the sun is moving through the universe and taking the planets along with it but my feeble mind still pictures the earth stuck to the magnetic/gravity shell of the sun. I guess until i cleanse my mind of that image then I won't be able to grasp anything new. Working on it.
That is actually a more appropriate concept that you might want to keep working with. Get rid of the magnetized ball and drill. Get rid of the string and ball. What you've said in the above post speaks to the idea of heliosphere, and all that is within it, as an electrodynamic formation that has a ‘boundary’ known as the heliosheath/heliopause as its “shell”.

Although particles can seep in and out of that ‘boundary’ so that the internal environment can still interact with the external environment (IBEX Ribbon/Cassini Belt) there is a ‘boundary’ nonetheless. This is because of the ability of plasma to ‘cellularize’ itself – it ‘self-organizes’ into different regions based on the nature of the particles, charge etc.

As a result of that natural feature within the confines of the ‘porous shell’ the occupants can have their very own unique dynamics. Let's come back to your "shell" concept in a moment; first - the supposed “speed of light”:
Zyxzevn wrote:But how can electromagnetism and gravity be instant if light, which is electromagnetic waves, can
only move with the speed of light.
This is because the light transfers the CHANGES of the electromagnetic field,
but not the field itself.

So a static electric field, which produces NO photons, can still produce a force,
as we can clearly observe. The same is true with a static magnetic field.
In mainstream physics, we have to resort to non-existent virtual photons.
This ^ is more like it.

There are implications to the above that need to be recognized and conceptually dealt with. When “light transfers the CHANGES of the electromagnetic field, but not the field itself” it implies that the emission of “light” is the result of a stimulus. The dynamic activities of the propagating “field” is a part of that stimulus. Before light is emitted more intensely the “particles”, aka “charge carriers”, have to be stimulated (excited). This increased activity is usually most evident when the particles are bathed in a propagating electrodynamic "field".

When you say that the motions have to be "constantly corrected" that is correct. So the planets sometimes speed up, and then they slow down. Why? Because that is what happens when the "corrections" occur. This infers that objects are 'periodically accelerated' almost like pushing someone on a swing-set. Once the rhythm becomes 'resonant' you don't have to push as much. The planets are similarly accelerated - all of these various forms of Motion require periodic accelerations and have their respective stimulus to keep them going. So does the emission of Light.
Or Is It...?
Then again, a funny thing happened on the way to eternity: Superluminal Transmission
the photon is a theoretical construction which does not have any straightforward connection either with an entity of physical reality or with anything simple which we can imagine. Some people are so much disturbed by this problem that they even consider the notion of photons and the corresponding scientific theories as totally flawed. Others adhere to more or less mechanistic models of photons and feel free to equip those with some details which actually do not occur in any of the common scientific theories. – RP Photonics Encyclopedia
Is it not humorous that the “photon” is a theoretical construction and yet there is another theory that posits the theoretic construction called “virtual photons” atop an existing theoretical construction? Just thought this should be pointed out; don't shoot the messenger.

Anyways: If those interested would follow some of the references from the Superluminal Transmission page above its easy to see that “Optical Precursors” probably do not consist of photonic light. The concept alone infers this. I’ve yet to understand why propagations (wave fronts) exceeding Einstein’s assumption of a constant speed are so difficult to conceive when apparently some of the advances in optics have moved beyond it.

To summarize: there is experimental evidence that so called “fields” can propagate faster than the photons induced in their wake. That is what the above references are conveying, imho. The reader gets to decided.
Inside The Heliospheric ‘Shell’
Concept: Inside the 'Shell boundary' each planet is situated within the confines of its very own resonantly stable moving vortice. For the techies, here is one of my all-time, top notch, can’t live without favorite websites to have some comparisons with the concept. In this comparison, the boundary of the cylinder holding the plasma serves as the heliosphere "Shell":

Nonneutral Plasmas

Specifically have a look at the docs under Item #7: Vortex Dynamics in Background Vorticity, Turbulent Self-Organization to “Vortex Crystals”. Planets and their “orbits” *seem* more analogous to the formation of “Vortex Crystals” situated in a disk. In this case the solar disk. Here is a video of the simulated model: Relaxation of point vortex model to vortex crystal state.

Similarly, in conjunction with the concept, is the idea of a “vortex-holding disk” where a “knot”, “clump”, or “crystal” forms in “holes”. These form in the medium due to various rotations. The different rotation activities can induce an “inward spiral” within which the “crystal” (a planet in this analogy) may form, or 'percipitate'. “The vortices act to level the local background vorticity gradient.” That means that one has more than one rotational motion, of more than one substance at hand; more than one substance moving and rotating within the "Shell". In this comparison the "background" could be the solar wind on one hand - on the other hand - it could serve to represent the Sun's populations of "halo electrons". Take your pick. The point is that different substances are moving within the "Shell". In similar fashion the formation of "crystals", "knots", "clumps" serve as the planets. See?
Gravity
Now: Why on earth would someone posit a "speed" when, in this comparative situation, *ALL* of the constituents inside of the "Shell" are 'connected'. The situation is just as member Keithnellie is intuitively 'sensing'. All of the members of the solar system function as a whole inside the "magnetic/gravity shell". Why? Because they all share the same periodically accelerated "reference frame" centered on the Sun. Gravity, Magnetism, Electric fields etc all 'act' to keep the constituents of the accelerated "reference frame" of the solar system in a stable state AS A WHOLE SYSTEM. Not by a ball and string line joining the constituents but by way of "gravity" as a to-and-fro 'emission' from Sun-to-planets and planets-to-Sun throughout the whole of the system forming individual vortices which entrain said constituents.

When looking over the whole of the system in comparing the Vortex Crystals these are not centrifugal relationships.
"Our laws of force tend to be applied in the Newtonian sense in that for every action there is an equal reaction, and yet, in the real world, where many-body gravitational effects or electrodynamic actions prevail, we do not have every action paired with an equal reaction." — Harold Aspden

jeremyfiennes
Posts: 12
Joined: Sun Nov 13, 2016 10:28 pm

Re: speed of gravity

Unread post by jeremyfiennes » Sat Nov 19, 2016 8:25 am

Hi to those involved.
Firstly, the fewer the concepts involved, the less ambiguous the discussion becomes. In spite of Einstein loving them, a field is not a fundamental quantity. The only way to determine whether there is a gravitational field at a point is to put a mass there and see if there is a force on it. Gravity conceived as a force between masses represents reality without the concept of a field.
The same goes for electrostatic and magnetic forces, which act across space and propagate through it at 300k km/s. The concept of an electromagnetic field is redundant. The only way to determine whether there is an electrostatic field at a point, is to place an electric charge there and see if there is a force on it. One can simply think in terms of propagating forces.
I agree that in the whirling ball-on-a-string example a change in the string force initiated by the whirler would propagate down the string at a certain speed. But in terms of the Sun's gravity, this would require a change in its energy/mass, which Conservation does not allow. And even though the Solar system is moving through space, its movement is inertial. A whirling ball-on-a-string on Earth is unaffected by the solar system's velocity through space.
So the question remains: how does the speed of gravity come into it, when speeds are speeds of propagation of changes, and conservation does not allow the mass, and hence gravity, of bodies to change?

JouniJokela
Posts: 98
Joined: Mon Mar 28, 2016 6:34 pm
Location: Swiss

Re: speed of gravity

Unread post by JouniJokela » Sat Nov 19, 2016 9:52 am

I think I have a very simple answer.

The speed of Gravity is "instant". The reason is that it's Not a thing. It's a lack of a "thing" (photons/particles going in certain direction.)

If something is in a shade behind an object and doesn't receive light
"How long would it take that shade to arrive from the source of light?"

The whole question is obviously crazy. The shade is there, with or without light.

The interesting thing in this "latest video" is in ~4:20
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=73mZMcV ... u.be&t=260

Let's stop thinking for a while what the Newton's law really tells us?
When one body exerts a force on a second body, the second body simultaneously exerts a force equal in magnitude and opposite in direction on the first body.
It says that the sum of any forces is Zero. This must apply also to Gravity. The Gravitational Force which Sun is pulling the Earth is equal to the Gravitational Force of Earth Pulling the Sun!

Now; "How can these force's be same, and be caused by Theis Masses, as these masses are so differnent?

The Answer is, that there is no Mass. it's just a Pseudo-thing similar to Centripedal-force.
All physics becomes correct, when the Mass is removed. Here's my contributions;
https://www.researchgate.net/project/QE ... everything

User avatar
Solar
Posts: 1372
Joined: Mon Mar 17, 2008 3:05 am

Re: speed of gravity

Unread post by Solar » Sat Nov 19, 2016 10:43 am

JouniJokela wrote:I
When one body exerts a force on a second body, the second body simultaneously exerts a force equal in magnitude and opposite in direction on the first body.
Newton's assumption was wrong. The physics of pulsed plasmas has been grappling with the appearance of "anomalous" unbalanced cathode reaction forces in cold discharges for quite some time. Harold Aspden understood the implications of this in no uncertain terms:
"Our laws of force tend to be applied in the Newtonian sense in that for every action there is an equal reaction, and yet, in the real world, where many-body gravitational effects or electrodynamic actions prevail, we do not have every action paired with an equal reaction." — Harold Aspden
"Our laws of force tend to be applied in the Newtonian sense in that for every action there is an equal reaction, and yet, in the real world, where many-body gravitational effects or electrodynamic actions prevail, we do not have every action paired with an equal reaction." — Harold Aspden

jeremyfiennes
Posts: 12
Joined: Sun Nov 13, 2016 10:28 pm

Re: speed of gravity

Unread post by jeremyfiennes » Sat Nov 19, 2016 11:41 am

I watched the video. Wal Thornhill declares that gravity must travel at 20 billion times the speed of light. But both he and Bishop Nicholas Sykes assume that gravity is something that is being constantly emitted, by the Sun, for instance. It is not. The Sun's gravitational field is static. It has been there as long as the Sun's mass has, i.e. as the Sun itself. The question of a speed of propagation simply does not arise. So what is all this bla-bla about? (Good question, it seems!)

Locked

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 8 guests