fuhrerkeebs

Obviously it means that it cannot be instantaneous, but you specifically mention gravity traveling to earth in 8 minutes, but that is not what you demonstrated in your explanation.

Your "simple explanation" isn't an explanation...just because information cannot travel faster than the speed of light does not mean that gravity has to travel the speed of light.

I've looked at your dynamic tensegrity link...it's hogwash. If we conclude that something is true without experiment and, where needed (such as the case here), without math, then anything could be true. Go back to school, get an education, quite spreading self-conjectured already-falsified information on the net...

What kind of moron still believes in the aether? I thought the existance of the aether has been consistently shown false by experiment...

Yes, the technology to back/disprove a theory is always a bit behind the theory, but if we never published any of these theories, right or wrong, then we would not be motivation to develop the technology in the first place, so really, it is a win/win situation...

Although I don't personally drink (nor do I plan on it), I believe everyone has the right to...

Yeah, theories like the MWI are quite hard to prove (requires "creating" intelligent quantums computers), but I guess you could say I'm the gullible type

Yes, I recently learned about experimental evidence myself (a few months ago)

You're posting too fast for me, fuhrerkeebs! Above response was written without seeing your recent posts. Perhaps you see what I mean now. You can't set up GR equations for a vanishing sun because that's physically impossible (mass can't disappear without release of energy). That was the point of my "tricky" question. Unless I'm wrong about that .. ?

The energy from the vanishing sun is the same energy the gravitational waves use to propagate.

Oh no, no bother at all...I quite like it when things I know about pop up on message boards. It isn't a recent result though, as I originally learned it in one of my dad's old tensor calc. books by D.F. Lawden, copyright 1962.

Oh, and I don't get why you are saying not to use GR tensor equations...GR is not formulated in anything less abstract that tensors...it's not possible. But, I could show you with spinors, but that would just complicate things more (I'm assuming you want the proof without tensors because you don't know any tensor analysis).

The second part of my question is not just an afterthought - can the relevant GR equations be solved? (Full disclosure - this is a slightly tricky question).

I just showed you above

Perhaps you have some other way to show that it would be instant (not using GR tensor equations). Can you please mention what it is?

The only form of gravity that is instant is Newtonian gravity, and we know Newtonian gravity isn't as accurate as GR, nor is N-gravity applicable here, because there is no such thing as a gravitational wave in N-gravity.

If you set G_ij=(1/2)h_ij,kk, where G_ij is the Einstein tensor and following the summation convention, you can derive an alternate form of Einsteins equations of gravity, which, when in an empty vacuum, look like grad²(h_ij)-(1/c²)(d²/dt²)h_ij=0, which is just a wave equation, showing the gravitational waves travel at the speed of light. Experimentally, of course, the speed of gravity has been shown to have an upper bound of 1.06c, although that is within experimental error.

Forgive me for excercising my beliefs as a Christian, but I sincerely believe that the THEORY of monkeys turning into humans sounds pretty much more far-fetched as the belief of creationists.

I don't see what is so far fetched about it. The have pretty much the same organs and bodily functions as humans, we share an approximate 98% of our DNA (the only real difference comes from the extra chromosome chimps have), and chimps are pretty smart for non-human animals.

also, I would like to say that while there is no physical proof of Creationism, Darwin's and all other THEORIES of evolution have severe loopholes.

The term used today is neo-Darwinism. Darwin didn't know several things we know today, such as genetic drift. But, you mention all other theories of evolution, so tell me, what is one of these "severe loopholes" of neo-Darwinism?

Organic material (the stuff we are formed of) can, and has, formed naturally from carbon compounds found on asteroids...so all life could have been caused by a comet coming into contact by the earth (which is rather ironic, considering alot of people think that is how it will end...)

Give me some examples of mathematics in biology.

Hahahahaha, I actually just finished reading a book called "Introduction to Mathematical Biology" by S. I. Rubinow. It's 277 pages full of mathematics in biology. Some examples are population growth and diffusion. And I don't know how you could overlook the mathematics they use in evolution, such as the changes in allele frequency, estimates of the number of people in a population with a certain allele after n generations, and the list can go on and on...

No, gravity is a scientific law (Law of Universal Gravitation), whereas evolution is still just a scientific theory.

Just because gravity is a law and evolution is a theory doesn't mean that they aren't equally well-founded. And as for gravity being a law, I suggest you pick up a copy of "Critique of Pure Reason". And you must also remember that the Law of Universal Gravitation is just a name, I can easily change it to the Theory of Gravity and it would be the same thing, just as I can change the name of the theory of evolution to the Law of Biological Evolution. It's the same thing. Your confusing notions and notations.

Oh, and as to the original question...(I don't know if this has been said yet or not) but what about the fact that chimps 98 to 99.4 percent of their DNA common with humans.

What if the ground fell up to meet you?

What if it did? Doesn't change anything...in fact, SR says that for a none accelerating observer, no one can really claim that the ground was falling up to meet you.

When a car accelerates towards the positive side with 3m/s^2.

We have many different ways to state it.

Therefore' date=' I think positive number is equal to negative number if we change the "side".[/quote']

 

No, because your car could still be moving forward yet have a negative acceleration.

Negative numbers and positive numbers are not the same. Think about it for a second. A positive plus a positive is always greater than or equal to zero, yet a positive plus a negative can take on the value of any positive or negative value. Therefore, + does not equal -.

Of course they "exist". If you are in debt, you have a negative amount of money. Simple as that. And, as for imaginary numbers, if they don't "exist", I feel sorry for everyone who's been relying on QM this whole time, seeing as QM relies quite a bit on imaginary numbers.

"Gravity (Ho hum)' date=' Electricity (Yawn) & Magnetism (Twiddle)

are the 4th (Sheesh), 5th (Burp) & 6th (Flatulent) dimensions."[/quote']

 

According to relativity, gravity takes place as the curvature of the "first" (if you can say such a thing) three dimensions and the time dimension. Kaluza-Klein says that the curvature of the fourth spatial dimension causes electromagnetism...although I don't think anyone actually believes in Kaluza-Klein anymore...

 

And what is the "ho hum", "burp", and "fart" crap?

Your problem comes from the fact that you ASSUME a fixed axis...but really we could allow our axis to evolve in time, thus making it so that there is no negative direction.

For example, say I am always at the center of my axis...when I take a step forwards I move in the positive direction, yet if I reorientate myself, and step back to where I was, I would still be moving in the positive direction, because my axis evolves along with me.

Why would those opposites represent time?

And there is only three dimensions because both the positive and negative directions are contained within the one dimension...

And if the opposites represenedt time...because that would either imply 3 spatial dimensions and a time dimension or three seperate directions of time...and since it is obvious that there is not three seperate directions for time, we can rule that out...and that leaves us still with 3 spatial dimensions and one time dimension....