Action at a Distance = Fiction

[Goldminer]

The Sun's gravity field is continuous around it's sphere, as is the Earth's. The acceleration diminishes with the square of the distance from the surface of either, i.e. their line of attraction is always centered upon each object's center, respectively. So, moving at a given radius, as they orbit the barycenter, both objects sense the same mutual acceleration. Consequently, no matter the "speed of gravity," gravitation's acceleration is already in place, even in elliptical motion, making it appear to act instantaneously. MJV's arguments indicate that he thinks gravity gets left behind as matter "moves" through the aether. It does not. That makes his statements irrelevant.

Well Goldminer, what about "mascons?" Mascons have been in place for how long? Long enough for the difference in acceleration to advance far out past objects we place around the Earth or Moon. The mascon increase in acceleration is already in place, and rotates with the Earth or Moon, like a search light beam of additional acceleration directly over the mascon site.

If one wants to measure the "speed of gravity" one needs a short pulse of it. Then, knowing when and where it was released, and the distance to the detector, one can calculate the speed, just the same way a light pulse's speed can be measured.

[Sparky]

If one wants to measure the "speed of gravity" one needs a short pulse of it.

How would we do that?

[sjw40364]

It has already been done. The math is a vector towards the center (it's true position not its retarded position). Since the speed of c would make such a true position vector impossible, one must use instantaneous velocity in the math for the relatively small distances within our solar system. Now could we measure gravitational influences galaxy to galaxy we might start to see abberation come into play, but in the small distances in our solar system such measurements would be indistinguishable from instantaneous and are.

[Michael V]

Goldminer,

MJV's arguments indicate that he thinks gravity gets left behind as matter "moves" through the aether. It does not.

My suggestion is that mass and thereby the gravitational effect is centred on each and every electron and proton. That this "indicates" to you that: "gravity gets left behind as matter "moves" through the aether", indicates to me that you have not really understood. I have repeatedly described an aethereal field whose particle population have completely random and continuous motion. Perhaps you envision an aethereal field of waves and ripples and so forth, which has caused you to get a little bit mixed up.

The Sun's gravity field is continuous around it's sphere, as is the Earth's. The acceleration diminishes with the square of the distance from the surface of either, i.e. their line of attraction is always centered upon each object's center, respectively. So, moving at a given radius, as they orbit the barycenter, both objects sense the same mutual acceleration.

Thinking in terms of "acceleration" will lead you astray if you're not careful. It should be "force". You can then get to acceleration F=ma.

"...both objects sense the same mutual acceleration." - No they don't, they experience the same force, and then their acceleration is proportional to their own mass.

Consequently, no matter the "speed of gravity," gravitation's acceleration is already in place, even in elliptical motion, making it appear to act instantaneously.

Well, it shows that it acts continuously, the "appears to act instantaneously" comes from interpretation through theory, i.e. assumption.

...like a search light beam of additional acceleration directly over the mascon site.

No more like a fuzzy diminishing cone. The gravitational influence spreads spherically from every electron and proton within the Earth. A satellite passing low enough may detect the gravitational anomaly, but there will be a slow transition in and out. Also, as you pointed out, the force variation is already in place, so how is this useful?


Michael

[Sparky]

How do you pulse gravity?

[Michael V]

sjw,

It has already been done. The math is a vector towards the center (it's true position not its retarded position). Since the speed of c would make such a true position vector impossible, one must use instantaneous velocity in the math for the relatively small distances within our solar system.

What precisely do you mean by "It has already been done"?.

To calculate the instantaneous gravitational force between two objects, we use the equations at hand. These equations utilise a mass centre to mass centre distance. In what way, in your estimation, does physical reality relate to the maths?


Michael

[Michael V]

Sparky,

How do you pulse gravity?

Is this a question or a quiz?

Michael

[webolife]

I agree with SJW on this point.
And I see "aberration" to mean a shift in the vector effect due the indirect reception or detection of that effect, or due to extra agents affecting the normal measurement. Redshift is a form of aberration. Lens fringe is another form. "Gravitational lensing" arcs are another example. Vectors that are affecting a simple elliptically orbitting object so that it does not travel along the ellipse, represent a form of gravitational aberration. More simply, the gravitational vectors of a swinging pendulum, ie. representing the transformations between potential and kinetic energy, describe gravitational "aberration" in the system of the pendulum. We may comprehend these aberrations without being required to formulate or invoke a c-rate of light. Not only comprehend but also measure and physically describe. This applies also to AAAD. When understood and explained in terms of vectors, a complete physical description is possible. There are more vectors afoot in the universe than those of momentum alone.

Pulsing gravity is pretty easy actually, just roll a ball down a staircase...
And the gravitational maths are accomplished without any reference to c.

[Michael V]

webolife,

And I see "aberration" to mean a shift in the vector effect due the indirect reception or detection of that effect, or due to extra agents affecting the normal measurement.

So are you suggesting that all motion is aberration? If so, how does this help?

And the gravitational maths are accomplished without any reference to c.

The "gravitational" maths are accomplished without reference to velocity or time. The calculation is for the force at any given instant. The maths is therefore definitionally instantaneous.

However, physical objects separated by physical distance must interact by a physical process. The maths provides absolutely no insight into that process. You need to analyse the problem, not the equation: what are the objects?, what are the properties of the objects?, what is the process by which action and interaction is mediated between those objects?.

Doing as calculation, then doing another one a second later, etc, etc, does absolutely nothing in regard of solving the actual physical problem. The maths does not describe the problem and does not describe the solution. One is numbers on paper and the other in physical objects in motion. An instantaneous "net" vector is not a physical process between physical objects.

Not only comprehend but also measure and physically describe. This applies also to AAAD. When understood and explained in terms of vectors, a complete physical description is possible.

Poppycock. The "net" vectors of a physical process tell you nothing of the physical process. As such there is almost zero comprehension achieved and precious little description of the physical process from which they resulted.

There are more vectors afoot in the universe than those of momentum alone.

This requires further explanation please.


Michael

[sjw40364]

The one thing I strongly disagree on and agree with Webolife, is gravity is not a mass centered phenomenon. We have found with our measurements of it that it decreases from the mean surface in both directions up or down. One can not say the earth's gravitational mass is at its center, it is at its surface in a 360 degree sphere. From all observations one would have to conclude that the center of any object is gravitationally neutral. This also precludes the formation of Black Holes as the center or point of any mass is always gravitationally neutral, so point masses are illogical.

[Sparky]

goldminer:
If one wants to measure the "speed of gravity" one needs a short pulse of it.

How would we do that?

My question was in reference to goldminer's suggestion that we need a pulse of gravity. People claim to be able to measure gravity's velocity, so how do they do that?

[sjw40364]

goldminer:
If one wants to measure the "speed of gravity" one needs a short pulse of it.

How would we do that?

My question was in reference to goldminer's suggestion that we need a pulse of gravity. People claim to be able to measure gravity's velocity, so how do they do that?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speed_of_gravity

Of course we know that LIGO has detected no such thing as gravitational waves, even ones that would cause a micro sized wave. So the theory that bases gravities speed as that of c is basing it upon gravitational waves, which is NOT gravity. Gravitational waves are disturbances that radiate outwards (although still unproven). Also theory is based upon static fields, and I say that no such entity exists. Hence theorists misconception that magnetic fields can be frozen in. All based upon what someone believes would be the results in a perfect situation, i.e. "at rest", which also does not exist. Relativity is a set of corrections to previously incorrect equations. They are based upon transforms, from one "moving" frame to one "at rest". But as we know in reality all frames are in constant motion, which is why for every force but that of gravity, the math includes aberration delays. It is not my math, it is the "experts", and I personally think it is incorrect too and that gravity does have aberration, just orders of magnitude less than c.

This is why I believe the ether is a dielectric, as dielectrics govern the behavior of charge and all EM forces including light. Why I believe charge polarizes the ether as well as all forces traveling through it.

And as for my theory of charge generation in orbits through the magnetic fields, you can add this.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pyroelectric_effect
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermoelectricity

[webolife]

Whoa...a very large handful of questions here...
I say aberration is the effect of detecting a light vector at an angle off the central line to the source. The "angle off" is a result of the pressure field gradient that accompanies every light ray detected, thus is ellicited by lenses, pinhole or slit devices for our viewing. The pressure gradient is the spectral array produced by focussing the light ray through an optical point thus restricting the alignment of the vectors and revealing a very precise full color image of the source object. Now some "off angle" light vectors result from refraction about an object between the observer and source. There are sub-atomic sized reasons for this as well as supra-galaxy sized reasons for the refraction of a light vector. Ultimately refraction [or as some/most call the pressure gradient "diffraction"] results from the direct line of sight being out of sight or blocked by an intermediary object, yet the forces of the source field gradient are still detectable as a fringe. I don't find that I mentioned motion as being the cause of or even involved in aberration, although moving objects can be the agents of aberration by getting in the way of or reflecting light vectors. Michael V and others don't see how "effect" is possible across distance, because of the entrenched paradigm of elasticky collisions between objects, taken together with the belief that light is composed of objects being emitted from the source. But measurable and describable it is, in terms of vector geometry. I'm not at all averse to algebraic descriptions of physical process [I teach algebra, oh yes, also geometry, for a living], but geometric descriptions are often simpler and more directly correlated to what we truly observe. What we observe is by definition of observation AAAD. HOW that occurs is the rest of our ongoing discussion... it is neither non-physical, nor illogical, nor nonsensical, nor unscientific to describe it thus.

[Lloyd]

* Web, do you mean you don't believe in motion?

[webolife]

Whoa, of course not. I don't believe that LIGHT, nor GRAVITATION, nor VOLTAGE consist of moving particles or waves. I would say that moving things disturb a preexistent light field enabling us to observe them, and objects move under the influence of a gravitational or electric field... I am of the view that the field causes the motion, not motion causing the field. Or another thought: if a field pushes on an object but that object does not react [by moving] we would not be able to detect the object; but generally the field pressure does in fact cause motion which disturbs [or "releases"] the field causing/allowing us to observe that motion. Like the difference between pushing against a wall, or against a door. The disturbance in the field may be seen as an aberration, which I understand to be an observer matter, not an intrinsic matter. Perhaps others are thinking of a different sort of aberration?