- Thank you received: 0
lightspeed comm
20 years 6 months ago #9841
by Guarionex
Replied by Guarionex on topic Reply from David Vazquez
<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">The bottom line is that the propagation speed of gravitational force can be no less than 20 billion c. <hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">
Let me just say, at least for now that the astonishing speed of gravity is questionable to me. It almost looks like: Limit as V(g) --> infinity = action at a distance = curved space-time = field theory. Could everyone be saying the same thing, each in his own way?
guarionex
Let me just say, at least for now that the astonishing speed of gravity is questionable to me. It almost looks like: Limit as V(g) --> infinity = action at a distance = curved space-time = field theory. Could everyone be saying the same thing, each in his own way?
guarionex
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.
20 years 6 months ago #9884
by Guarionex
Replied by Guarionex on topic Reply from David Vazquez
<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">That would leave us with no explanation why light and gravity from the Sun do not arrive from parallel directions, <hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">
See my previous comment: Limit as V(g) --> infinity.
guarionex
See my previous comment: Limit as V(g) --> infinity.
guarionex
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.
20 years 6 months ago #9930
by Guarionex
Replied by Guarionex on topic Reply from David Vazquez
[<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Light's momentum is contained within its frequency, not its speed. <hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">
This result can only bring me to one conclusion: That the wave properties of light are instead the properties of the medium in which it travels. After all, light is nothing but energy. Speed of transmission is dictated by such medium. This also clearly shows me why the Michelson-Morley experiment failed.
Just imagine this experiment is done inside a glass container filled with water with the scientists doing the measurements also inside it. While they measure the velocity of light as .75c to and fro, we see the container go by us with velocity v and the light inside it going at .75c-v as it approaches the back mirror and .75c+v as it is reflected from it. In other words, light is being dragged by the medium. Forget about LR, SR... just simple NM (Newtonian mechanics).
guarionex
This result can only bring me to one conclusion: That the wave properties of light are instead the properties of the medium in which it travels. After all, light is nothing but energy. Speed of transmission is dictated by such medium. This also clearly shows me why the Michelson-Morley experiment failed.
Just imagine this experiment is done inside a glass container filled with water with the scientists doing the measurements also inside it. While they measure the velocity of light as .75c to and fro, we see the container go by us with velocity v and the light inside it going at .75c-v as it approaches the back mirror and .75c+v as it is reflected from it. In other words, light is being dragged by the medium. Forget about LR, SR... just simple NM (Newtonian mechanics).
guarionex
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.
20 years 6 months ago #9842
by Guarionex
Replied by Guarionex on topic Reply from David Vazquez
<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Your comparisons are not being made across space at a common time, but across space and time<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">
Not relevant! Respect to the spaceships or rockets Lets attach two equal rods between them, front and back before they even take off. This ensures they are parallel to each other. Since the antenna idea wasn't welcome, we will install two lasers (with zero divergence beams) and a pair of sensors in each rocket to detect each laser beam. Again, the lasers and sensors will be orthogonal to the axis of either rocket. At T0 they will be orthogonal to the direction of travel. Also before they even move, lets synchronize the clocks as we usually do here on earth. Then lets wait a long time to ensure sync. Then we can sloowly start moving be applying a small constant force. Notice that for other than an infinitesimal error, we are talking about Newtonian mechanics and Euclidean geometry. So as far as we are concern we do have orthogonal axes (90 deg. angles) and simultaneity, that is, the clocks are keeping time at the same rate. Neither of these is important in this test anyway.
As the rocket gains speed, there can only be two outcomes: the laser beams keep hitting their targets or they do not. There is no need to make this anymore complicated. Frames of reference, time dilation... they make people sound profound but they are irrelevant in this case.
If the beams never miss their targets, the effect is the same as when having zero velocity and I see no reason to use some complicated equations when simple ones will do. But this means that the momentum of the sources (the ships in motion) was somehow transferred to the light beams, whether by coordinate bending, time dilation or however way we may want to define it. According to Einstein's elevator example, they eventually should start missing their target because of accelerated motion (apparent bending of light). BTW, when I initially posed this question I wasn't sure of the outcome. Now I'm inclined to believe that the beams will eventually start missing their targets. So there you have it: an accelerometer up to light speeds!
If you don't like the rocket idea, use Einstein's elevator instead. Just install the electronics in similar fashion. We will stand inside it observing this event. I wish I had though of his elevator before I used the rocket example.
guarionex
Not relevant! Respect to the spaceships or rockets Lets attach two equal rods between them, front and back before they even take off. This ensures they are parallel to each other. Since the antenna idea wasn't welcome, we will install two lasers (with zero divergence beams) and a pair of sensors in each rocket to detect each laser beam. Again, the lasers and sensors will be orthogonal to the axis of either rocket. At T0 they will be orthogonal to the direction of travel. Also before they even move, lets synchronize the clocks as we usually do here on earth. Then lets wait a long time to ensure sync. Then we can sloowly start moving be applying a small constant force. Notice that for other than an infinitesimal error, we are talking about Newtonian mechanics and Euclidean geometry. So as far as we are concern we do have orthogonal axes (90 deg. angles) and simultaneity, that is, the clocks are keeping time at the same rate. Neither of these is important in this test anyway.
As the rocket gains speed, there can only be two outcomes: the laser beams keep hitting their targets or they do not. There is no need to make this anymore complicated. Frames of reference, time dilation... they make people sound profound but they are irrelevant in this case.
If the beams never miss their targets, the effect is the same as when having zero velocity and I see no reason to use some complicated equations when simple ones will do. But this means that the momentum of the sources (the ships in motion) was somehow transferred to the light beams, whether by coordinate bending, time dilation or however way we may want to define it. According to Einstein's elevator example, they eventually should start missing their target because of accelerated motion (apparent bending of light). BTW, when I initially posed this question I wasn't sure of the outcome. Now I'm inclined to believe that the beams will eventually start missing their targets. So there you have it: an accelerometer up to light speeds!
If you don't like the rocket idea, use Einstein's elevator instead. Just install the electronics in similar fashion. We will stand inside it observing this event. I wish I had though of his elevator before I used the rocket example.
guarionex
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.
20 years 6 months ago #10055
by Guarionex
Replied by Guarionex on topic Reply from David Vazquez
<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">I recommend my article "What GPS tells us about thet twins' paradox"<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">
I read your article. You state in it, not to quote you exactly, that the ship in orbit will see the Earth go back and forth in time as the spaceship was coming and going around its orbit. Whether perceived or real, this is forbidden in SR. Hence it leads me to conclude that you made a horrible computational error. Einstein himself would have had for sure made certain that his equations didn't lead to such an event.
Consider this, as you orbit the planet (at less than c speed), information about Earth is coming at you at c speed (sorry but audio just won't do it). Lets call this info time waves. If you just got info from the first second of 2008 earth time, the next info is going to be after the first second of 2008, earth time. To catch earlier info, you would have to travel faster than light in the direction of the wave-front. SR states that this is impossible.
guarionex
I read your article. You state in it, not to quote you exactly, that the ship in orbit will see the Earth go back and forth in time as the spaceship was coming and going around its orbit. Whether perceived or real, this is forbidden in SR. Hence it leads me to conclude that you made a horrible computational error. Einstein himself would have had for sure made certain that his equations didn't lead to such an event.
Consider this, as you orbit the planet (at less than c speed), information about Earth is coming at you at c speed (sorry but audio just won't do it). Lets call this info time waves. If you just got info from the first second of 2008 earth time, the next info is going to be after the first second of 2008, earth time. To catch earlier info, you would have to travel faster than light in the direction of the wave-front. SR states that this is impossible.
guarionex
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.
- tvanflandern
- Topic Author
- Offline
- Platinum Member
Less
More
- Thank you received: 0
20 years 6 months ago #10896
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"><i>Originally posted by PheoniX_VII</i>
<br />Some time back I read in a science magazine that the speed of gravity had been measured to about 1c. gravity having about the same speed as light and so enforcing Einstains theory. Is this result not valid or is there something else that interfears?<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">That was the Kopeikin experiment. He was roundly criticized for that interpretation by all physicists who chose to comment, and his paper was rejected by the journals. He subsequently changed the conclusion from saying anything about the speed of gravity to claiming the first measurement of light-bending by a planet. See my short summary of all this and citations to the opinions of all others who commented at metaresearch.org/media%20and%20links/press/SOG-Kopeikin.asp See also my discussion with Kopeikin before the experiment, warning him that his experiment was not testing the speed of gravity before any data was taken: metaresearch.org/home/viewpoint/Kopeikin.asp -|Tom|-
<br />Some time back I read in a science magazine that the speed of gravity had been measured to about 1c. gravity having about the same speed as light and so enforcing Einstains theory. Is this result not valid or is there something else that interfears?<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">That was the Kopeikin experiment. He was roundly criticized for that interpretation by all physicists who chose to comment, and his paper was rejected by the journals. He subsequently changed the conclusion from saying anything about the speed of gravity to claiming the first measurement of light-bending by a planet. See my short summary of all this and citations to the opinions of all others who commented at metaresearch.org/media%20and%20links/press/SOG-Kopeikin.asp See also my discussion with Kopeikin before the experiment, warning him that his experiment was not testing the speed of gravity before any data was taken: metaresearch.org/home/viewpoint/Kopeikin.asp -|Tom|-
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.
Time to create page: 0.231 seconds