PDA

View Full Version : The Speed of Gravity?

Ron Erickson
02-25-2006, 06:35 PM
those of you who follow physics and cosmology will recall the debate about
the speed of gravity a few years back. ed fomalont, an astronomer at the
national radio astronomy observatory (nrao) asserted that experiments
conducted with the national science foundation's very long baseline array
(vlba) had proved that the speed of gravity was close to (and perhaps even
equal to) the speed of light (see http://www.nrao.edu/pr/2003/gravity/).
there were all sorts of debates within the physics/astronomy community as to
the reliability of this conclusion
(http://metaresearch.org/cosmology/gravity/speed_limit.asp) and specifically
whether the vlbi technique is actually measuring the "speed of gravity".
some cosmologists (such as tom van flandern) argued that gravity is much
faster than light (2x10^10 c) - but apparently still assumes that gravity
exists as a causal force. as i looked into the various arguments, it seems
that any model that assumes gravity to be a force eventually leads into
logical paradoxes. force and work function calculations are valid in
restricted contexts (f=ma, w=fd) but become problematic when applied to
gravity and orbits involving 2 or more dimensions. for example, newton's
law of universal gravitation (f=gmm/r^2) (masses m and m, respectively, g as
the gravitational constant, r as orbit radius) implies a force (and work
function) > 0 for any two objects. the force of gravity apparently
approaches infinity if the two objects were to collide (r approaches 0).
astronomers claim that there is no work involved as long as the two objects
remain equally distant. of course, this violates newton's law of motion
that says that an object will continue moving in a given direction unless
another force is involved to change this direction. we now have the "force
of gravity" involved, but according to physicists, no energy is transferred,
and no work is performed - just because the direction of the gravitational
force is perpendicular to the direction of the orbit of (for example) a
planet moving in a circular orbit around a star. is there anyone who does
not think that this absurd?

__________________________________________________
do you yahoo!?
tired of spam? yahoo! mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com

Roger Anderton
02-26-2006, 10:53 AM
----- original message -----
from: ron erickson
to: asc2k@yahoogroups.com (/group/asc2k/post?postid=u0kdanxjwb_3szjud8iytauiug1fmnqotyn6yj vtobbmilfgdja64av9gz8od0wgkx0xmnfbe2jtwhb_sci)
sent: sunday, february 26, 2006 2:35 am
subject: [asc2k] the speed of gravity?

ron says: as i looked into the various arguments, it seems
that any model that assumes gravity to be a force eventually leads into

part of the problem is semantics (meaning of words); the effect of "gravity"
is to create a force (when dealing with a description based within newton's
theory) but "gravity" itself is not a force, force is an effect of "gravity";
but with the loose and carefree use of words of many people, they do mean force
when they use the word "gravity". when i made allowances for this condition of
the human mind (that what everyone uses for a word is not what everyone means by
that word) and many other pecularities of the human species, i found that the
unified field theory was discovered by an 18th cent. priest - father boscovich,
and that pauwels and bergier (book dawn of magic/morning of the magicians)
suspect him of being a time traveller.
roger

[non-text portions of this message have been removed]