lightspeed comm

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">
I am suggesting that the speed of gravity is finite and greater than c but due to some unavoidable consequences of measurement using light we measure the speed of gravity to be infinity. These circumstances appear consistent with your requirements, do they not?
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

It is impossible to measure the speed of gravity to be "infinity", because infinity is not a real number, it merely reflects the property of unboundedness.

It sure would be possible to measure infinity. If the measurements showed that the effects of gravity are instantaneous, then we would assume the propogation velocity is infinity.

Again, I'm not saying that gravity occurs instantanuoslly or moves infinitly fast, only that measurements derived from light-based observations will suggest that.

If this is true there should be room for a new principle of nature or we should be able to prove this using HUP.

mhelland@techmocracy.net

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by mhelland</i>
<br />I am suggesting that the speed of gravity is finite and greater than c but due to some unavoidable consequences of measurement using light we measure the speed of gravity to be infinity. These circumstances appear consistent with your requirements, do they not?<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">I agree with Jan's point. What we actually measure is nothing at all like a speed of infinity. We measure a <i>lower limit</i> to the speed of gravity of 20 billion c. And it is fortunate for the Le Sage gravity model that the measured speed is at least that high because if it were appreciably slower, some of the constraints on the model we derive from various observations or experiments would be contradictory, falsifying the model. In particular, very high graviton speed allows the gravitational constant (proportional to speed squared) to remain as large as it is without depositing too much heat into masses (proportional to speed).

So the speed of gravity must really be greater than 20 billion c, but still finite. However, all things considered, that is still a pretty pokey speed in an infinite universe, especially one infinite in scale too. -|Tom|-

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by mhelland</i>
<br />It sure would be possible to measure infinity. If the measurements showed that the effects of gravity are instantaneous, then we would assume the propogation velocity is infinity.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">But it is impossible to measure something as truly "instantaneous". All measurements have a measurement error associated with them. The error represents a range of acceptable values, all consistent with the measurement. So finite propagation delays implying finite speeds can never be excluded. -|Tom|-

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">That can never happen. Time on Earth is inferred to be 2008. But it will be a long time before that info reaches you. That is what "outside the observer's light cone" means. You cannot transmit information faster than light in this way under and circumstances. <hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

Tom,

Let me quote your article directly: <blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">"So before commencing a journey back to Earth, let's suppose the traveler orbits AC several times. Then each time the traveler heads away from Earth in that orbit, Earth time drops back to 2000; and each time the traveler heads toward Earth, inferred Earth time becomes 2008. The Earth-year is intermediate for intermediate orbital positions. Now the significance of repeating this situation several times is that, as Earth time goes to 2008, many people will have died and others will be born. And on each occasion that Earth time reverts to 2000, some of the dead will be resurrected and some living young children in 2008 will cease to exist in 2000."<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

This could never happen, not under any theory but yours. Once a person experiences any event in year 2000, that event is gone to the end of the universe at the speed of light. You could delay (seen) it as little or as much as you want but that won't change this fact.

The light cone you mention has nothing to do with your statement or my previous remarks. It is used in SR to distinguish a time-like event from a space-like event. See "Special Relativity by A. P. French: The MIT Introductory Physics Series. It is explained simply enough there, Otherwise I may not have understood it either.

I do believe that there is something wrong with SR. Before we can figure it out, "we need to have our ducks in a row" as people say.

PS: Only if space was curved could you see that event again... about 80 billion years later (2*pi*r)!!



guarionex

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"> v_g &gt; 20 billion c makes no sense in a Big Bang cosmology, but might make sense in an infinite universe unbounded in scale as well as time and space.... So no, everyone is not saying the same thing.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

First sensible statement from you so far. That's what I'm looking for!


guarionex