Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
algore

How fast is gravity?

Recommended Posts

This is going a little of topic so maybe I should have started a new thread for this, but since this is where it all started I will keep on posting here. (If the Moderators decides to create a new thread for it, it is okay by me.)

 

Theory of Light and Gravity Alignment

 

I will begin with Four cornerstones of assumptions:

(If anyone of them falls my theory will go down also.)

 

1. The alignment of photons and gravity from the Sun is different here on Earth.

 

2. Wheter gravity has a speed or is instant, it behaves in such a way that the angle of the force is pointing towards the center of any stable orbit, if the the system is moving with Zero or constant speed.

 

3. The Sun and Earth shares a constant speed and Earths orbit is well known and stable. The present center of the Sun is the same as the present center of Earths orbit. Of course the planets gravity are pulling the Sun a little offcenter but that is problably neglibe or can be calculated if necessarily.

 

4. The light has a known speed which is constant in all directions for all observers. Usin the angle of photons makes it possible to backtrack the path of light in time towards the past from where they was emitted.

 

Here follows Four props standing on the cornerstones:

(Again, if anyone of them falls...)

 

A. It is possible to calculate the Suns present location relative Earths present location by using the angle of gravity and the known distance to the center of Earts orbit.

 

B. It is possible to calculate the Suns past location relative Earths present location by using the angle of the photons, the speed of light and the distance to the center of Earths orbit.

 

C. Thus it is possible to calculate the distanse between the Suns present and past location.

 

D. Thus it is possible to calculate the time spent by the Sun during the traverse.

 

Finally my theory to break or support:

 

I think when we measures the difference of gravity and photons alignment, we are not measuring the speed of gravity, instead we measures the speed of the Sun relative the matrix of space.

Since space is made in three dimensions, (except time), more than one measurement is needed to calculate the complete speed in all directions.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

i haven't even finished reading your post, but i can tell you right now that number3 is wrong. the earth and sun orbit a point between the two bodies.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
i haven't even finished reading your post, but i can tell you right now that number3 is wrong. the earth and sun orbit a point between the two bodies.
Of course the planets gravity are pulling the Sun a little offcenter but that is problably neglibe or can be calculated if necessarily.

The point is problably inside the Sun and very close to it's center.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I think there is no difference. As I said before the linear motion (or linear to first approximation) of the sun should be irrelevant.

swansont, I would like to continue the discussion or at least have a comment from You.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
swansont, I would like to continue the discussion or at least have a comment from You.

 

I haven't seen anything I can really comment on, and you haven't answered my previous objection. Does the relative aberration of light vs gravity change with the position of the earth?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I haven't seen anything I can really comment on, and you haven't answered my previous objection. Does the relative aberration of light vs gravity change with the position of the earth?

Have You read my post No 126 in this thread ?

 

I am not sure what the word "aberration" means, but depending on the angle of the Suns path, (direction of Suns speed), relative the plane of Earths orbit, the difference between the angles of light and gravity will change with the position of the Earth.

Also if the Earth passes in the direction the Sun is moving, both in front or behind, the alignments will coincide during the crossing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Have You read my post No 126 in this thread ?

 

I am not sure what the word "aberration" means' date=' but depending on the angle of the Suns path, (direction of Suns speed), relative the plane of Earths orbit, the difference between the angles of light and gravity will change with the position of the Earth.

Also if the Earth passes in the direction the Sun is moving, both in front or behind, the alignments will coincide during the crossing.[/quote']

 

Yes, I read # 126. It is mostly a statement of facts, with one item already having been corrected.

 

Now all have to do is provide data that back up what you claim.

 

From van Flandern's site (I believe he proposes that gravity is instantaneous, based on the gravity/photon misalignment)

 

By direct calculation from geometric ephemerides fitted to such observations, such as those published by the U.S. Naval Observatory or the Development Ephemerides of the Jet Propulsion Laboratory, the Earth accelerates toward a point 20 arc seconds in front of the visible Sun, where the Sun will appear to be in 8.3 minutes. In other words, the acceleration now is toward the true, instantaneous direction of the Sun now, and is not parallel to the direction of the arriving solar photons now.

 

So he points toward data that indicates that the gravity is always towards the sun. IOW, it always acts like the sun is at rest. This contradicts your claim.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Yes, I read # 126. It is mostly a statement of facts, with one item already having been corrected.
Which item has already been corrected ? (yourdadonapogos didn't read it to the end, and I have not changed anything in that post.)

 

And Yes it's mostly facts, but since You disagre with that the differents in alignment would disappear if the Sun was not moving, You must also disagre with some of the facts or props. Which and why ?

 

Now all have to do is provide data that back up what you claim.
Well I can't do that, I don't think I even could make the math since it's in GR...

(And I am not interested in that either, I am here to learn.)

 

So he points toward data that indicates that the gravity is always towards the sun. IOW, it always acts like the sun is at rest. This contradicts your claim.
I rather think it supports my claim, I though we already had agreed that the gravity must act like the Sun is always at rest, as long as the speed is constant. You managed to convince me about that several posts ago.

 

What I am trying to say is: If gravity act that way and light don't then thats why the photons and gravity don't align, but if the Sun should be at rest then the angle of light would change to align with gravity. And if that is correct then we could use the differents in angles to measure the constant speed of the Sun and Earth.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If you can't provide data, then it's all meaningless. At some point a hypothesis has to be compared to experiment.

 

You claimed the gravity vecto and the photon vector should cross - i.e. the angle would change. The link I gave said it's always a constant angle.

 

If you agree that the system behaves like the sun is at rest, then you can't also claim to be able to measure how fast it's moving. You'll always get zero.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
If you can't provide data, then it's all meaningless. At some point a hypothesis has to be compared to experiment.
I is not meaningless to read, discuss and learn !

Of course a hypothesis has to be proven with experiments, but I am not in that business.

 

You claimed the gravity vecto and the photon vector should cross - i.e. the angle would change. The link I gave said it's always a constant angle.
Sorry, but I can't find that part, I am problably blind, can You paste it ?

 

If you agree that the system behaves like the sun is at rest, then you can't also claim to be able to measure how fast it's moving. You'll always get zero.
I agree that the system behaves like the Sun is at rest when considering the gravity, but not when considering the angle of photons.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sorry' date=' but I can't find that part, I am problably blind, can You paste it ?

 

I agree that the system behaves like the Sun is at rest when considering the gravity, but not when considering the angle of photons.[/quote']

 

Post 132. I quoted the relevant section.

 

The photons have an angle because the earth is moving tangentially relative to the sun. The sun's motion with repect to anything else is irrelevant.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Post 132. I quoted the relevant section.
[i']By direct calculation from geometric ephemerides fitted to such observations' date=' such as those published by the U.S. Naval Observatory or the Development Ephemerides of the Jet Propulsion Laboratory, the Earth accelerates toward a point 20 arc seconds in front of the visible Sun, where the Sun will appear to be in 8.3 minutes. In other words, the acceleration now is toward the true, instantaneous direction of the Sun now, and is not parallel to the direction of the arriving solar photons now.[/i']
So he points toward data that indicates that the gravity is always towards the sun. IOW, it always acts like the sun is at rest. This contradicts your claim.
If the gravity always points towards the present position of the Sun it supports my claim.

 

The link I gave said it's always a constant angle.
Where does it say there it's always a constant angle in that text ?

I think it says: the gravity angle is always pointing towards the present location of the Sun and the angle of photons is always pointing toward the Suns past location. Which supports my claim.

Nothing about if the differences betwen the Two angles changes, relative the Suns angle of direction against Earths position, or not.

 

The photons have an angle because the earth is moving tangentially relative to the sun. The sun's motion with repect to anything else is irrelevant.
Well here we seem to have the main cause to our disagrement, I think the photons angle is because the Sun is moving and the Earths orbital speed is irrelevant.

(and so does also van Flandern since he claims the photon angle to point towards the Suns past location relative the Suns movement not the Earths.)

 

I will try to make Two simple examples to prove my point:

1. If I stand in a streetcorner and fire a gun towards a passing car, then the angle of the bullets direction when it hits the car will not have nothing to do with the speed of the car. But if You know the exact moment when the bullet hits the car, You can use the angle to calculate from where the bullet was fired.

2. If the car circles me on an open field, with a known circle, it still wouln't matter what speed the car has, the only information You get from the angle is from where inside the circle the bullet was fired from.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Well here we seem to have the main cause to our disagrement' date=' I think the photons angle is because the Sun is moving and the Earths orbital speed is irrelevant.

(and so does also van Flandern since he claims the photon angle to point towards the Suns past location relative the Suns movement not the Earths.)

[/quote']

 

Well, that's a problem, because the equation that predicts the angle of aberration depends explicitly on the orbital speed of the earth. Tan(theta) = v/c

 

The angle is a constant 20 arcseconds.

 

If it was due to the motion of the sun, and it was 20 arseconds now, it should be zero in three months, because the earth would lie along the sun's velocity vector. Three months later, it would again be 20 arcseconds, but in the opposite direction.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Well, that's a problem, because the equation that predicts the angle of aberration depends explicitly on the orbital speed of the earth. Tan(theta) = v/c
swansont, You nailed me for sure with that post ! :D

 

You are totally correct about the angle of aberration and I admitt it was a big fault of me, not knowing what it meant. :embarass:

 

The angle of aberration is not the same as the incoming angle of photons, it is also higly dependent of a passing through angle.

In my example with the circling car, it would therefore include the path of the bullet between entering hole and exit hole, which of course can be used to calculate the speed of the car.

 

Since the angle of aberration matches the orbital speed of the Earth, it means if removing Earths orbital speed, the angle of photons will align with gravity.

 

If the solar system moves with a constant speed, both light and gravity will share this speed, totally independent of their own speed relative the system = the system can be viewed as at rest, just like You said.

 

Well it was fun and educational to discuss with You, I hope You at least shared the fun part, (on my expence). ;)

 

Thanks ! :):):)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.