# does gravity travel faster than light ?

Discussion in 'Physics & Math' started by RainbowSingularity, May 28, 2019.

1. ### phytiRegistered Senior Member

Messages:
625
Tony;

Cassini and Romer discovered hints of a finite light speed in their astronomical observations of Jupiter's moons over a decade from 1660 to 1670.
Newton died in 1727, thus his theory was still the standard, with gravity an 'action at a distance', and instantaneous light speed.
An 'infinite speed' is a meaningless statement. There is no value for x/0. If light could move any distance in zero time, then light could move anywhere and everywhere in zero time. The universe would be a sphere of chaotic radiation. Nothing would persist, without states of equilibrium.

From 'Ether and Relativity', A. Einstein, 1920:"But inertial resistance opposed to relative acceleration of distant masses presupposes action at a distance; and as the modern physicist does not believe that he may accept this action at a distance, he comes back once more, if he follows Mach, to the ether, which has to serve as medium for the effects of inertia. ...Mach's ether not only conditions the behaviour of inert masses, but is also conditioned in its state by them."...The ether of the general theory of relativity is a medium which is itself devoid of all mechanical and kinematical qualities, but helps to determine mechanical (and electromagnetic) events."In summary, em fields are independent fundamental entities and gravitational fields are formations in the ether determined by the distribution of matter.If a mass M is placed in a volume of space, some of its energy must be distributed within that space (a g-field), since a test object m accelerates toward M as it approaches M without contact. The force carriers are defined to transfer energy at speed c, and there is no reason for gravity to be different. With a g-field established, it moves in space with its source.If the source is massive and changes position in a cyclical manner with a short period, it would generate waves, which would move at c, the speed of energy transfer. Measurement only verifies differences/variations.The earth orbiting the sun varies in distance by 3% of its radius per year. It would not qualify as a source of detectable gravitational waves.Typical g-waves detected by LIGO type experiments involve binary masses on the order of 10 solar masses and short cycles.

Some observations: If object m has sufficient translational velocity to escape from M, the kinetic energy acquired from the g-field is removed from M.If m is accelerated so as to join M, the KE is returned.If m orbits M, a stable 2-body system is formed.Since there is no official explanation for gravity, we can speculate.If the gravitational constant G is universal, the structure of space/ether would have a fixed capacity to store energy. This relates to the question; If the space surrounding M is saturated with g-energy, is the radiation returned or does it continue beyond the existing volume? Given the extent of the universe, the 2nd seems to
imply M disappearing via radiation over a long period of time.

3. ### exchemistValued Senior Member

Messages:
11,207
Not only that, Einstein even got his Nobel prize for it!

5. ### TonyYuanGravitational Fields and Gravitational WavesRegistered Senior Member

Messages:
652
Forward:
Einstein's attempt at a general theory is not valid, because he approached the project believing that general relativity would just be a simple generalisation of special relativity's physics.

And it's not. A general theory is based on fundamentally different assumptions to the special theory.

• Under a general theory, all observer-masses must have associated curvature, and any relative motion of observers must then physically alter the shape of spacetime (=shape of the light-metric), due to gravitomagnetic effects.
• Under special relativity, we assume perfectly empty space, and we assume that the introduction of observers does not affect the status of that space as perfectly empty. All observers can move how they like without affecting the shape of spacetime.
So SR observers have zero curvature and zero effect on the metric, while GR observers must have curvature and their motion must affect the metric, otherwise the general principle doesn't work.

"SR" and "GR" observers are mutually incompatible, and GR observers cannot obey the physics derived for SR observers. GR observer-masses cannot obey SR equations of motion. These are different geometries.

Consequently, Einstein's general theory is riddled with logical faultlines and inconsistencies, that we are only able to deal with by avoiding exact solutions (which would expose the mismatches) and embracing approximations, or by arguing that certain irresolvable problems will have to wait until a theory of quantum gravity comes along.

Currently, Einstein;s general theory doesn't even work properly for the simplest possible idealised mass (a spherically-symmetrical mass whose specific details are hidden behind a curvature horizon), moving inertially, in a straight line at constant speed, against an arbitrarily-flat background, arbitrarily-distant from any other disturbing matter.
Preprint Gravitomagnetic horizons and the comprehensive failure of Ei...

If a gravity-well has any motion at all with respect to a distant observer then ... pooft ... Einstein's general theory self-destructs.

7. ### Q-reeusBannedValued Senior Member

Messages:
4,695
Tony, apart from yourself and maybe your wife, how many other (qualified physicist) people support your theory? If as I suspect the answer is zero, shouldn't that be a strong hint it's time to move on?

8. ### TonyYuanGravitational Fields and Gravitational WavesRegistered Senior Member

Messages:
652
Officially, the support of several physics professors from the United States and Europe has given me a lot of confidence. Of course, the main reason is that my theory is correct.

9. ### Q-reeusBannedValued Senior Member

Messages:
4,695
But I'm guessing you would consider it a breach of confidence to disclose the names and institutional affiliations of said supporters? Is that the case? If not then....

10. ### TonyYuanGravitational Fields and Gravitational WavesRegistered Senior Member

Messages:
652
This is a letter from one of the scholars. If you can pay attention to my post, you should be able to see the email address of the American physics professor I am contacting. You can go to verify it. One part of my thesis was written by this professor. He gave me a lot of help, but he didn't give direct positive support, but he also didn't raise any objection.

Any theory to explain reality must explain the motion of real objects in empty 3-space. So you are along the right lines in my view. Neither so called curved space, nor gravity travelling at the speed of light can explain gravitational orbits. the late Tom Van Flandern proved this - that the earth would become de-orbited so to speak (if I coin a word). At the same time instantaneous connections make no sense either (in both QM and if hypothesized in Einsteinian relativity). The cause must be physical /mechanical as Newton had stated, but he did not know how. We can answer this now. Actually physicality is the only way cause and effect can operate. I have a book coming out soon which I will send you. We first need to get a sensible understanding of logic, history of sciuence (what has gone wring in the West) that everyone in the East is blindly copying, slavishly). But you are on the right tracks and have made a great c ontribution so far in that direction. I've tried to explain how this is happening physically but that also goes back to what is the universe really made of and what are the rules of interaction of what it is made of. Once you realize this you only add two more 'laws' to Newon's three laws and you unify the whole of physics. Newton said that the truth must be simple. Modern day GR, SR and QM (the way it is interprested in mainstram) are like epicyclic theories; there is a crisis in fundamental physics hwich I blieve my colleague and I have put to rest, though it is unknown to most people so (the concept of the microbit, out of which everything is made (in groupings, in 3 space).

I hope that the Chinese researchers will pusue the mechanical angle because in the 19th century they failed as they had no proper concepts of particles. We now do and it is simply a matter of completing ones thought and not beggining the question. The path is hard but the struggle for truth in any area is worth it.

11. ### Q-reeusBannedValued Senior Member

Messages:
4,695
No email address there I can divine. Not to worry. His endorsing the late Tom Van Flandern says enough.

12. ### TonyYuanGravitational Fields and Gravitational WavesRegistered Senior Member

Messages:
652
I'm going to do a job to calculate all the orbital precession of each planet accurately, and then compare it with astronomical observations. If the difference between the two is consistent with the precession deviation caused by the influence of gravitational wave, then my theory can be proved to be correct.
At present, the data of planetary precession calculated by Newton gravity is not accurate enough, just an approximate data, so no one knows the true precession deviation of Venus up to now.

13. ### TonyYuanGravitational Fields and Gravitational WavesRegistered Senior Member

Messages:
652
Why Morley Experiment Could Not Observe the Movement of Interference fringe.pdf

This is an article about Morey experiment that I wrote last year. There may be some wrong views, but I didn't revise it later. This paper analyzes that the speed of light is constant from the point of view that light is affected by gravitational field.
I will make a detailed analysis in several parts:
 Impact of water on vehicle speed
 Impact of air on light propagation
 The influence of the gravitational field on the propagation of light
 Eddington observed the solar eclipse to verify general relativity
 Mass energy equation
 Fiber optic gyroscope
 Explanation of Sagnac effect
 Ask questions to special relativity

Gocho Sharlanov he wrote a similar paper：
Michelson-Morley experiment -the factual analysis

Last edited: Jun 20, 2021
14. ### TonyYuanGravitational Fields and Gravitational WavesRegistered Senior Member

Messages:
652
The following is from a physicist:
Form of the Interference Field is Non-Linear https://vixra.org/abs/1411.0531 The main differences between incompetent Einstein's theory[1] and the latest knowledge[2]are: 1.Form of Intensity of the Moving Charge Electric Field is asymmetrical, 2. Form of the interference field is non-linear, 3. Kinetic energy of a charge moving at the velocity of v has two different values: Kinetic energy of electron , (proton) Tkin id =mc2 [ln |1-v/c|+ (v/c) / (1-v/c) ] in direction of motion of electron, (proton) where v is velocity of electron, (proton). Kinetic energy of electron , (proton) Tkin ad = mc2 [ln |1+v/c|- (v/c) / (1+v/c) ] against direction of motion of electron, (proton) where v is velocity of electron, (proton). These are the main differences between incompetent Einstein's theory and the latest knowledge. Comments: 13 Pages. Kinetic energy of a charge moving at the velocity of v has two different values. Download: PDF https://vixra.org/pdf/1411.0531v1.pdf

We respect Einstein, but we can't follow him blindly.

15. ### exchemistValued Senior Member

Messages:
11,207
Any "physicist" publishing on vixra has got to be suspect.

And, sure enough, Lubomir Vlcek seems to be a crank. Just look at this:https://tuke.academia.edu/LubomirVlcek

Messages:
652
17. ### QuarkHeadRemedial Math StudentValued Senior Member

Messages:
1,728
It's small wonder that Tony thinks vixra is a good place - any moron or crank can upload whatever garbage they like without it being subject to peer review.

exchemist likes this.
18. ### phytiRegistered Senior Member

Messages:
625
Tony;

From "Why the MMX could not detect interference"

The g-wave alters the length of an arm, which changes the interference from the default complete cancellation to a different value. The light speed remains constant.

In E=mc^2 section:
If acceleration a is constant, the speed v=at. Distance d=.5(at^2)

In Eddington section:
I agree with your 'changing direction' interpretation, but unsure if you are referring to vertical acceleration for mass vs none for light on the 2nd line.

In the lab frame(left) the speed of light in the ring is c. Placing a mirror m in the ring serving as a fixed target relative to p who moves with the ring, provides a 2-way light path equivalent to an inertial observer measuring the distance pi*r, as shown on the right. The pattern is the same as for clock synchronization.
The terms c±v are not light speeds but closing speeds, that result when there are two moving objects, I.e. the rate of decreasing or increasing spatial separations. The simple chase scene, where the car moving at 60 overtakes the car moving at 50 with a 1 mile lead. The gap closes at 10 mph, but there is nothing moving at that speed.

In SR example, L=distance OA:
The graphic shows a different answer. The coordinate transforms would have given you the correct answer.

But it didn't. The issue was spatial distance which is solved with length contraction.

19. ### BeaconatorValued Senior Member

Messages:
1,257
The speed of gravity can’t be more than twice the speed of light. Otherwise explosion.

20. ### BeaconatorValued Senior Member

Messages:
1,257
Everything you said is wrong. Doesn’t equate to anything

Messages:
652
22. ### BeaconatorValued Senior Member

Messages:
1,257
Not if the universe was based on explosions. Which it is. That is called entropy.

your talking to a dolt here who has no time to read papers. Just notices incorrect paraphrases.

It has turned from improper zenith to improper gravitational speed, to many more improper adjectives. Possibly proper velocity.

which means true or false depending on your space shift

Last edited: Jun 23, 2021
23. ### billvonValued Senior Member

Messages:
20,615
Nope. Just like EM radiation, the definitions of static fields (both magnetic and electric) differ greatly from the definitions of dynamic fields (i.e. EM propagation) - but the underlying concept is exactly the same. And both travel at the speed of light (when in a vacuum, at least.)