# Is the gravitational center of the solar-system relative to planetary position?

My main-question all along has been about whether gravity (The effect of gravity. The influence that gravity has) is limited by speed-C or instant
This has been answered, many times, by many people.

My main-question all along has been about whether gravity (The effect of gravity. The influence that gravity has) is limited by speed-C or instant (But of course I am also interested in the derived considerations, the consequences or 'problems/possibilities', the 2 different options present)

Gravity as a topic has been an interest of mine for a long time, but I have not been giving it much thought for a while so I had become 'rusty' regarding the whole process of it all (Including how to pose questions in the most relatable way)

It was the 2 'twin-quakes' in Turkey that spurred my curiosity in this again, and so the question was asked before I had really thought the whole thing through too deeply, and so was perhaps formulated too chaotically compared to if I had waited a bit to 'collect my thoughts' and think about how I could best present a meaningful question.

Being too hasty is rarely conducive to productive outcomes, as some of the confusion in this thread was obviously a result from.
OK so can you answer the 2 questions I posed in post 35, then? These were:

Do you understand now what we mean by a gravitational field that is static relative to the mass giving rise to it?

Why did you say you cannot understand how anything created by mass can be static?

This has been answered, many times, by many people.

In my very first post I mentioned that Google had not worked for me.

I have, however, as a result of this thread, had more success with Google now that I was able to use some of the other posters info as search-terms (And generally been refreshed a bit on the whole topic again)

Do you understand now what we mean by a gravitational field that is static relative to the mass giving rise to it?

Why did you say you cannot understand how anything created by mass can be static?

No, I don't think I understand that part fully yet (I'm not sure)

I understand its use as a map, such as the temperature-field James described.

But a map does not 'do' anything, so I still fail to understand why it should be of any relevance to the physical actions that happen.

A map does not guide what happens, like some invisible hand.
It may tell us what to expect will happen, when given certain limited circumstances, but not why it will happen.

Anyway, this thread equipped me with better 'google-foo' (And thanks to everybody in it for that), so I managed to find some info that brought me further.

This thread explains (With a hand-drawn illustration no less) the relativity of orbiting masses and how they end up orbiting their real locations rather than their delayed locations:
https://physics.stackexchange.com/q...be-separated-because-of-the-spe/263244#263244

It originally dawned upon me, when James said; "The theory of relativity tells us that all motion is relative.", but seeing this hand-drawn illustration made it click fully

The orbiting attraction behaves a bit like a Coriolis-effect:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coriolis_force#/media/File:Corioliskraftanimation.gif

A seemingly straight-line, but at the same time a curved (Or angled in this case) line bent by the orbital motion itself.

It's glaringly obvious now, of course

An orbit is both a straight path and a circular path at the same time (And if you look at NASA's orbital-maps for the ISS, you see they can be even waveform-shaped when drawn on a 2D-map. Always there staring me right in the face, the frame-of-reference relativity, but I just missed the connection until now Sometimes it really IS little things that make all the difference)

This page (Both deep and light at the same time) also made things easier to understand and grasp:
https://www.science.org.au/curious/space-time/gravity

So I have my question answered now, and this thread was the kick-starter I needed to find what I was looking for.

So once again; thank you to everybody who participated.
(Hopefully I wasn't the only one who came out of this a tad richer on understanding the space we live in )

Last edited:
It has been answered, many times, by many people HERE ON SCIFO in this thread.

In my very first post I mentioned that Google had not worked for me.

I have, however, as a result of this thread, had more success with Google now that I was able to use some of the other posters info as search-terms (And generally been refreshed a bit on the whole topic again)

No, I don't think I understand that part fully yet (I'm not sure)

I understand its use as a map, such as the temperature-field James described.

But a map does not 'do' anything, so I still fail to understand why it should be of any relevance to the physical actions that happen.

A map does not guide what happens, like some invisible hand.
It may tell us what to expect will happen, when given certain limited circumstances, but not why it will happen.

Anyway, this thread equipped me with better 'google-foo' (And thanks to everybody in it for that), so I managed to find some info that brought me further.

This thread explains (With a hand-drawn illustration no less) the relativity of orbiting masses and how they end up orbiting their real locations rather than their delayed locations:
https://physics.stackexchange.com/q...be-separated-because-of-the-spe/263244#263244

It originally dawned upon me, when James said; "The theory of relativity tells us that all motion is relative.", but seeing this hand-drawn illustration made it click fully

The orbiting attraction behaves a bit like a Coriolis-effect:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coriolis_force#/media/File:Corioliskraftanimation.gif

A seemingly straight-line, but at the same time a curved (Or angled in this case) line bent by the orbital motion itself.

It's glaringly obvious now, of course

An orbit is both a straight path and a circular path at the same time (And if you look at NASA's orbital-maps for the ISS, you see they can be even waveform-shaped when drawn on a 2D-map. Always there staring me right in the face, the frame-of-reference relativity, but I just missed the connection until now Sometimes it really IS little things that make all the difference)

This page (Both deep and light at the same time) also made things easier to understand and grasp:
https://www.science.org.au/curious/space-time/gravity

So I have my question answered now, and this thread was the kick-starter I needed to find what I was looking for.

So once again; thank you to everybody who participated.
(Hopefully I wasn't the only one who came out of this a tad richer on understanding the space we live in )
The only enrichment I have got out of this encounter with you is reconfirmation that there are some people who, while not actually stupid in the conventional sense, are effectively so due to a total inability to discipline their thoughts, see the point and stick to it. I'll try to keep this in mid if you ever post here again.

I apologize for not being on your level of intelligence. You 2 are obviously super-intelligent geniuses.

If you are any indication of the level of teaching-ability in schools, I can understand why science fails so miserably in US-education.

May I suggest you take a good long look at your own arrogance, to see if perhaps some adjustments could be of benefit?

May I suggest you take a good long look at your own arrogance, to see if perhaps some adjustments could be of benefit?
We started off being very patient, I'd say.
I don't know why it seems to have fallen on deaf ears so many times. What you are experiencing is not arrogance; it is exasperation.

It does seem that the amount you want to know is beyond the scope of a mere thread, so yes, perhaps you'll be more fulfilled by a physics course.

We started off being very patient, I'd say.
I don't know why it seems to have fallen on deaf ears so many times. What you are experiencing is not arrogance; it is exasperation.

It does seem that the amount you want to know is beyond the scope of a mere thread, so yes, perhaps you'll be more fulfilled by a physics course.
Quite. What is a bit galling is the patronising suggestion that we may be "richer" for this fruitless exchange.

I apologize for not being on your level of intelligence. You 2 are obviously super-intelligent geniuses.
Which two? Who are you responding to?
If you are any indication of the level of teaching-ability in schools, I can understand why science fails so miserably in US-education.
Which person in the US are you responding to?

I don't wanna derail this thread
so
I'll start another
the great attractor

Well, I at least gained some knowledge this weak, and petty forum-fights on the internet are never really worthwhile, so no further comments.

(Unsubscribed thread)

Last edited:
JEL:

I don't have any issues with the questions you asked. They are perfectly valid, and these concepts aren't easy. I would not like to see you discouraged from asking questions.

There's a lot more than can be said about the finite transmission speed of changes in gravity. The specific solution, in the context of general relativity, to some of the issued raised is certainly above my pay grade. So, I wouldn't want to you to get the impression that I think I've given you a complete, water-tight answer here.