Kopeikin and "the speed of gravity"

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote><font size=2 face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>[mark]: 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?<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size=2 id=quote>

The rebuttal press release (see link at end) summarized several of the experiments that show clearly that the speed of gravity is >> c.

The technical proof of our argument about potentials and forces, discussion of the six experiments with citations, and a complete addressing of all questions and issues raised by opponents over the last decade, is contained in “Experimental Repeal of the Speed Limit for Gravitational, Electrodynamic, and Quantum Field Interactions”, T. Van Flandern and J.P. Vigier, Found.Phys. 32(#7), 1031-1068 (2002). An abbreviated discussion may be found on the net at: [url] metaresearch.org/cosmology/gravity/speed_limit.asp [/url].

If you were fed any more meat, you might choke. <img src=icon_smile_shock.gif border=0 align=middle>

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote><font size=2 face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>[Rudolf]: 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.<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size=2 id=quote>

That is described in the rebuttal press release: [url] metaresearch.org/media%20and%20links/press.asp [/url]. If the point is not clear, feel free to ask questions. But understanding the argument in depth requires looking up Kopeikin's equations in the reference cited, and being able to follow Kopeikin's argument. Those who can't follow the original argument will have difficulty following the rebuttal, except by analogy, as I did in a previous message (the apple). -|Tom|-

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote><font size=2 face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>[mark]Can you think of an experiment to validate your point? where is the meat? where is the meat? anybody home?<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size=2 id=quote>I can. The idea is quite straightforward. Use the same Walker-Dual scheme as described here - www.arxiv.org/PS_cache/gr-qc/pdf/9706/9706082.pdf but with some technological modifications/improvements; instead of using two dipoles of macroscopic masses oscillating at a rather low frequency, better use two big quartz crystals of identical resonance frequencies and of very high Q-factor. Put the "transmitter" crystal into active oscillation, then use the other one as a receiver. The Q-factor of 10^11 must be quite realistic for a crystal of a size of about one inch at longitudinal resonance mode, so sensitivity for a non-modulated signal must be very high, thus phase velocity measurements are no problem at all. (In fact, the bigger old-time x-tals really do show very strong parasitic coupling of non-EM and non-acoustic nature.)
To get the group speed we'd need to use some sort of modulation. I'd propose a mechanical or electrical delta-pulse excitation of the transmitter superimposed upon native resonance oscillation, it should produce a phase spike in the receiver crystal output by exciting higher harmonics. The best case for phase-amplitude detector inertiality is about 1/8 of the period of the main resonance, that would be about 10ns inertiality at the detector side; the Q-factor won't be helpful in this case, so it could be better to directly record the burst of higher harmonics in the receiver. If gravity pulse propagates at the same group velocity as light does, then 10ns means 3m. So the sensitivity of the system needs to be sufficient till 1m distance at least for the measured delay to be of the same order as the systematic inertiality, which is quite realistic for big xtals.

So, anyone who's got access to some very old quartz xtals might well try it as a desktop experiment.

Dr. VanFlandern, I recently found your site here while reading about the "speed of gravity" and let me tell you; Your work is absolutely fascinating!

Excuse me if I sound dumb but I was curious by something you said earlier:
"For example, velocity in SR has limits, but acceleration does not."

I'm just learning and I was wondering if you would be so kind as to explain this.


Thanks!
Magoo

Just learning!
Magoo

The latest news on the Kopeikin fiasco:

Respected relativist Clifford Will has just joined those insisting that Kopeikin has not measured the "speed of gravity" at all, but only the speed of light. See his preprint "Propagation speed of gravity and the relativistic time delay", [url] www.arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0301145 [/url]. -|Tom|-

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote><font size=2 face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>[Magoo]: I'm just learning and I was wondering if you would be so kind as to explain this.<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size=2 id=quote>

I'd be happy to. In special relativity (SR), the velocity of ordinary matter can never exceed the speed of light. According to the theory, if it passed that speed, time would run backwords, creating possible paradoxes such as being able to kill your own grandfather when he was a child. So the speed of light is a universal speed limit.

By contrast, the acceleration of bodies has no limits, and can approach infinity under suitable circumstances. -|Tom|-

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote><font size=2 face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>[TVF]The latest news on the Kopeikin fiasco: ...<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size=2 id=quote>Great news, Tom. Not only is Kopeikin wrong but his style is totally disgusting...