- Thank you received: 0
Kopeikin and "the speed of gravity"
21 years 11 months ago #4632
by n/a3
Replied by n/a3 on topic Reply from
<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote><font size=2 face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>
The reason that the two speeds (force and potential fields) are different, even though the fields are mathematically connected, is that gravitational acceleration is the gradient (a form of derivative) of the gravitational potential. In general, a function and its derivative do not have the same properties.
<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size=2 id=quote>
That's a profound one... what's a property? Speed isn't a property or a fundamental quantity in physics...only distance, time and mass are fundamental quantities...
func = kx
dfunc/dt = k(dx/dt)
the common property in func and its derivative is x. Time comes as an independent variable after taking the derivative. If you know dx/dt (+ t=0) you know x and vice versa...
So, if I may correct you and state
In general, a function and its derivative share some of the same physical quantities.
As far as properties, one must define them what they are <i>a priori</i> and start a new subject of debate...
Multiple choice question...
Kopeikin is
a. wrong because others are proven right
b. wrong because others are proven wrong
c. right because other are proven wrong
d. right because others are proven right
e. right because some say so
f. wrong because some say so
g. neither right not wrong
h. both right and wrong
i. absolutely right
j. absolutely wrong
k. none of the above
l. all of the above
I guess everyone has a choice here...lol
Save the experiments...lol
The reason that the two speeds (force and potential fields) are different, even though the fields are mathematically connected, is that gravitational acceleration is the gradient (a form of derivative) of the gravitational potential. In general, a function and its derivative do not have the same properties.
<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size=2 id=quote>
That's a profound one... what's a property? Speed isn't a property or a fundamental quantity in physics...only distance, time and mass are fundamental quantities...
func = kx
dfunc/dt = k(dx/dt)
the common property in func and its derivative is x. Time comes as an independent variable after taking the derivative. If you know dx/dt (+ t=0) you know x and vice versa...
So, if I may correct you and state
In general, a function and its derivative share some of the same physical quantities.
As far as properties, one must define them what they are <i>a priori</i> and start a new subject of debate...
Multiple choice question...
Kopeikin is
a. wrong because others are proven right
b. wrong because others are proven wrong
c. right because other are proven wrong
d. right because others are proven right
e. right because some say so
f. wrong because some say so
g. neither right not wrong
h. both right and wrong
i. absolutely right
j. absolutely wrong
k. none of the above
l. all of the above
I guess everyone has a choice here...lol
Save the experiments...lol
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.
21 years 11 months ago #4433
by Abhi
Replied by Abhi on topic Reply from Abhijit Patil
<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote><font size=2 face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>
Meta Research's rebuttal to the Kopeikin press release claiming that the speed of gravity is the speed of light may be viewed at [url] metaresearch.org/media%20and%20links/press.asp [/url]. -|Tom|-
<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size=2 id=quote>What I was fearing is now reality. Every GRian will give reference of Kopeikin experiment in support of relativity. If relativity had helped to understand our universe in better way, then I would not have any objection. But that is certainly not the case.
Frankly, whatever you do, Kopeikin experiment is now part of establishment. And Kopeikin claim can be falsified by some another experiment only. Not by logic or equations.
I hope some day some one will come up with better experimental idea. But for the time being how about the following idea?
Consider a horizontal spiral helix at height h from surface of planet. This helix is made of metal of mass m+m'. Total length of this helix is L and its center of mass is at the center of helix.
Now consider piece of metal of mass m' in the end of this spiral helix. At t = 0, this metal piece breaks off from rest of spiral helix. This information takes time interval L/c = t to propagate to center of mass of spiral helix.
If Dr. Kopeikin is correct, then at t = 0, if we measure weight of broken off metal piece on one weigh machine, it will be W' = m'g and as this information regarding change in mass reaches to center of mass after time interval t, the other weigh machine under center of mass will continue to show weight W = (m+m')g during this time interval t.
If the metal piece of mass m' is separated from helix, what was it, on which gravity of planet was acting during this time interval t ? How can two different weigh machines just separated by space (having absolutely no contact between them) measure weight of same body?
One body can not exist at same instantaneous moment at two points in space. When the body changes its position in space, this information must be communicated to center of gravity of planet instantaneously. If there is propagation delay, then this delay can be used to "create" excess energy and thus law of conservation of energy is violated.
It might seem crazy but we can use atomic clocks and sensitive electronic weigh machines to perform actual experiment. If the metal peice of mass m' is separated and still the weigh machine under centre of mass shows the weight of this metal piece during time interval t = L /c, then OK, I will agree with Kopeikin result.
I had sent email to Dr. Kopeikin on 12-13 sept. 2002 in which same idea in different situation was given. Dr. Kopeikin replied to me as follows:
__________________________________________________________________
Dear Abhi,
your paper is a kind of a descriptive experiment. In order to make predictions in physics we need to develop not only formal logic but solve equations. General Relativity predicts that gravity does not propagate instanteneously but with finite speed. This fact was indirectly confirmed in the binary pulsar experiment by Joe Taylor with collabolators. If you disagree with their conclusions you have to find (1) mathematical mistakes in math. solution of Einstein equations used in parametrization of the problem, and (2) find mistakes in the computer code used for processing data.
Best wishes,
Sergei
_________________________________________________________________
Now will somebody tell me, what equations I should use in my experiment?
Can somebody tell me how the information propagation in this helix and earth will take place through "Gravitational Waves"?
-Abhi.
Meta Research's rebuttal to the Kopeikin press release claiming that the speed of gravity is the speed of light may be viewed at [url] metaresearch.org/media%20and%20links/press.asp [/url]. -|Tom|-
<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size=2 id=quote>What I was fearing is now reality. Every GRian will give reference of Kopeikin experiment in support of relativity. If relativity had helped to understand our universe in better way, then I would not have any objection. But that is certainly not the case.
Frankly, whatever you do, Kopeikin experiment is now part of establishment. And Kopeikin claim can be falsified by some another experiment only. Not by logic or equations.
I hope some day some one will come up with better experimental idea. But for the time being how about the following idea?
Consider a horizontal spiral helix at height h from surface of planet. This helix is made of metal of mass m+m'. Total length of this helix is L and its center of mass is at the center of helix.
Now consider piece of metal of mass m' in the end of this spiral helix. At t = 0, this metal piece breaks off from rest of spiral helix. This information takes time interval L/c = t to propagate to center of mass of spiral helix.
If Dr. Kopeikin is correct, then at t = 0, if we measure weight of broken off metal piece on one weigh machine, it will be W' = m'g and as this information regarding change in mass reaches to center of mass after time interval t, the other weigh machine under center of mass will continue to show weight W = (m+m')g during this time interval t.
If the metal piece of mass m' is separated from helix, what was it, on which gravity of planet was acting during this time interval t ? How can two different weigh machines just separated by space (having absolutely no contact between them) measure weight of same body?
One body can not exist at same instantaneous moment at two points in space. When the body changes its position in space, this information must be communicated to center of gravity of planet instantaneously. If there is propagation delay, then this delay can be used to "create" excess energy and thus law of conservation of energy is violated.
It might seem crazy but we can use atomic clocks and sensitive electronic weigh machines to perform actual experiment. If the metal peice of mass m' is separated and still the weigh machine under centre of mass shows the weight of this metal piece during time interval t = L /c, then OK, I will agree with Kopeikin result.
I had sent email to Dr. Kopeikin on 12-13 sept. 2002 in which same idea in different situation was given. Dr. Kopeikin replied to me as follows:
__________________________________________________________________
Dear Abhi,
your paper is a kind of a descriptive experiment. In order to make predictions in physics we need to develop not only formal logic but solve equations. General Relativity predicts that gravity does not propagate instanteneously but with finite speed. This fact was indirectly confirmed in the binary pulsar experiment by Joe Taylor with collabolators. If you disagree with their conclusions you have to find (1) mathematical mistakes in math. solution of Einstein equations used in parametrization of the problem, and (2) find mistakes in the computer code used for processing data.
Best wishes,
Sergei
_________________________________________________________________
Now will somebody tell me, what equations I should use in my experiment?
Can somebody tell me how the information propagation in this helix and earth will take place through "Gravitational Waves"?
-Abhi.
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.
21 years 11 months ago #3323
by n/a3
Replied by n/a3 on topic Reply from
<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote><font size=2 face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>
Can somebody tell me how the information propagation in this helix and earth will take place through "Gravitational Waves"?
<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size=2 id=quote>
what makes you think in the first place information exchange must take place? if you take the "dark path" of information you'll be filled with "dark thoughts"...
<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote><font size=2 face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>
If there is propagation delay, then this delay can be used to "create" excess energy and thus law of conservation of energy is violated.
<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size=2 id=quote>
have you ever thought of the possibility that there is "something" else correcting for the delay, like a cosmological constant, a zero-point energy or a dark matter? why does it have to be your way?
Someone said once I don't remember who right now that behine and I-things is hidden a big fallacy...
cheers...
Can somebody tell me how the information propagation in this helix and earth will take place through "Gravitational Waves"?
<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size=2 id=quote>
what makes you think in the first place information exchange must take place? if you take the "dark path" of information you'll be filled with "dark thoughts"...
<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote><font size=2 face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>
If there is propagation delay, then this delay can be used to "create" excess energy and thus law of conservation of energy is violated.
<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size=2 id=quote>
have you ever thought of the possibility that there is "something" else correcting for the delay, like a cosmological constant, a zero-point energy or a dark matter? why does it have to be your way?
Someone said once I don't remember who right now that behine and I-things is hidden a big fallacy...
cheers...
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.
- tvanflandern
- Offline
- Platinum Member
Less
More
- Thank you received: 0
21 years 11 months ago #4770
by tvanflandern
Replied by tvanflandern on topic Reply from Tom Van Flandern
<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote><font size=2 face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>[mark]: That's a profound one... what's a property? Speed isn't a property or a fundamental quantity in physics...only distance, time and mass are fundamental quantities...<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size=2 id=quote>
Yes, but properties are not "fundamental quantities" (also called "dimensions"). Properties include speed, acceleration, density, energy, potential, and various constraints. They are of course *physical* properties, not mathematical ones. You went on about mathematical properties.
For example, velocity in SR has limits, but acceleration does not. The properties of the function and its derivative are different. There's no real surprise here -- the units are different, so the properties ought to be different.
As this applies to gravitation, there can be no default assumption that the propagation speed of changes in the potential and the propagation speed of force are the same. The two are function and derivative and have different units.
<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote><font size=2 face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>Multiple choice question...<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size=2 id=quote>
Kopeikin is wrong because he measured the speed of an apple falling from a tree (in his case, the speed of a quaasar radio signal falling past Jupiter toward the Sun) and called that the "speed of gravity". Anyone who wants to can read his paper and plainly see that.
Note that I'm not the only one to say so. Asada has said so in the Astrophysical Journal. Kopeikin's response was lame, except perhaps for those who can't read equations and understand their physical meanings. Kopeikin himself seems to fit that description. In his email exchanges with me [url] metaresearch.org/home/viewpoint/Kopeikin.asp [/url], he several times begged off discussing the physical implications and insisted he was only following the math. But you can't do physics with math alone. -|Tom|-
Yes, but properties are not "fundamental quantities" (also called "dimensions"). Properties include speed, acceleration, density, energy, potential, and various constraints. They are of course *physical* properties, not mathematical ones. You went on about mathematical properties.
For example, velocity in SR has limits, but acceleration does not. The properties of the function and its derivative are different. There's no real surprise here -- the units are different, so the properties ought to be different.
As this applies to gravitation, there can be no default assumption that the propagation speed of changes in the potential and the propagation speed of force are the same. The two are function and derivative and have different units.
<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote><font size=2 face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>Multiple choice question...<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size=2 id=quote>
Kopeikin is wrong because he measured the speed of an apple falling from a tree (in his case, the speed of a quaasar radio signal falling past Jupiter toward the Sun) and called that the "speed of gravity". Anyone who wants to can read his paper and plainly see that.
Note that I'm not the only one to say so. Asada has said so in the Astrophysical Journal. Kopeikin's response was lame, except perhaps for those who can't read equations and understand their physical meanings. Kopeikin himself seems to fit that description. In his email exchanges with me [url] metaresearch.org/home/viewpoint/Kopeikin.asp [/url], he several times begged off discussing the physical implications and insisted he was only following the math. But you can't do physics with math alone. -|Tom|-
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.
21 years 11 months ago #3994
by n/a3
Replied by n/a3 on topic Reply from
<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote><font size=2 face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>
For example, velocity in SR has limits, but acceleration does not. The properties of the function and its derivative are different. There's no real surprise here -- the units are different, so the properties ought to be different.
As this applies to gravitation, there can be no default assumption that the propagation speed of changes in the potential and the propagation speed of force are the same. The two are function and derivative and have different units.
<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size=2 id=quote>
that's a good point by analogy. but how the one can imply the other? because some function in SR has limits and its derivative or better to say relativistic momentum, has no limits does this imply in particular that the same should be happening in other functions and their derivatives?
You cannot base an argument on analogy alone. you must prove that experimentally...now someone says they've proved the converse...they might be wrong...but be carefull...just by being argumentative doesn't do any good...experimental proof can you provide?
Can you think of an experiment to validate your point? where is the meat? where is the meat? anybody home?
For example, velocity in SR has limits, but acceleration does not. The properties of the function and its derivative are different. There's no real surprise here -- the units are different, so the properties ought to be different.
As this applies to gravitation, there can be no default assumption that the propagation speed of changes in the potential and the propagation speed of force are the same. The two are function and derivative and have different units.
<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size=2 id=quote>
that's a good point by analogy. but how the one can imply the other? because some function in SR has limits and its derivative or better to say relativistic momentum, has no limits does this imply in particular that the same should be happening in other functions and their derivatives?
You cannot base an argument on analogy alone. you must prove that experimentally...now someone says they've proved the converse...they might be wrong...but be carefull...just by being argumentative doesn't do any good...experimental proof can you provide?
Can you think of an experiment to validate your point? where is the meat? where is the meat? anybody home?
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.
21 years 11 months ago #3997
by Rudolf
Replied by Rudolf on topic Reply from Rudolf Henning
I suppose for the average person a description must be as short a possible. They would want to know to the point what it was that he (Kopeikin) claimed falsely and short descriptions of the proofs of the contrary facts. In short the specifics.
I myself is a layman compare against a person like you but I do have a scientific background (up to 2nd year physics at the university of Potchefstroom in SA). Therefore I do have a bit more understanding than the guy on the street who has never or barely heard of relativity and 'aether' etc.
I hope this helps explaining it.
Rudolf
I myself is a layman compare against a person like you but I do have a scientific background (up to 2nd year physics at the university of Potchefstroom in SA). Therefore I do have a bit more understanding than the guy on the street who has never or barely heard of relativity and 'aether' etc.
I hope this helps explaining it.
Rudolf
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.
Time to create page: 0.466 seconds