-------------------------------------------------------

> Hi Duane

>

> You are professing again that gravity is faster

> than light. It is not faster than light.

> Gravitational interactions between bodies is at

> the speed of light, and it doesn't matter how many

> times you assert it, it will not change the

> predictions of General relativity, which as we

> have seen has passed every test so far.

[grahamhancock.com]

QuoteTom Van Flandern

Introduction

The most amazing thing I was taught as a graduate student of celestial mechanics at Yale in the 1960s was that all gravitational interactions between bodies in all dynamical systems had to be taken as instantaneous. This seemed unacceptable on two counts. In the first place, it seemed to be a form of “action at a distance”. Perhaps no one has so elegantly expressed the objection to such a concept better than Sir Isaac Newton: “That one body may act upon another at a distance through a vacuum, without the mediation of any thing else, by and through which their action and force may be conveyed from one to the other, is to me so great an absurdity, that I believe no man who has in philosophical matters a competent faculty of thinking, can ever fall into it.” (See Hoffman, 1983.) But mediation requires propagation, and finite bodies should be incapable of propagation at infinite speeds since that would require infinite energy. So instantaneous gravity seemed to have an element of magic to it.

Quote

The second objection was that we had all been taught that Einstein’s special relativity (SR), an experimentally well-established theory, proved that nothing could propagate in forward time at a speed greater than that of light in a vacuum. Indeed, as astronomers we were taught to calculate orbits using instantaneous forces; then extract the position of some body along its orbit at a time of interest, and calculate where that position would appear as seen from Earth by allowing for the finite propagation speed of light from there to here. It seemed incongruous to allow for the finite speed of light from the body to the Earth, but to take the effect of Earth’s gravity on that same body as propagating from here to there instantaneously. Yet that was the required procedure to get the correct answers.

These objections were certainly not new when I raised them. They have been raised and answered thousands of times in dozens of different ways over the years since general relativity (GR) was set forth in 1916. Even today in discussions of gravity in USENET newsgroups on the Internet, the most frequently asked question and debated topic is “What is the speed of gravity?” It is only heard less often in the classroom because many teachers and most textbooks head off the question by hastily assuring students that gravitational waves propagate at the speed of light, leaving the firm impression, whether intended or not, that the question of gravity’s propagation speed has already been answered.

Text Box: Figure 1. Orbits are unstable if forces propagate with finite speed.Yet, anyone with a computer and orbit computation or numerical integration software can verify the consequences of introducing a delay into gravitational interactions. The effect on computed orbits is usually disastrous because conservation of angular momentum is destroyed. Expressed less technically by Sir Arthur Eddington, this means: “If the Sun attracts Jupiter towards its present position S, and Jupiter attracts the Sun towards its present position J, the two forces are in the same line and balance. But if the Sun attracts Jupiter toward its previous position S’, and Jupiter attracts the Sun towards its previous position J’, when the force of attraction started out to cross the gulf, then the two forces give a couple. This couple will tend to increase the angular momentum of the system, and, acting cumulatively, will soon cause an appreciable change of period, disagreeing with observations if the speed is at all comparable with that of light.” (Eddington, 1920, p. 94) See Figure 1.

>

> You are again looking at it far too simply and

> expecting a simple truth to emerge, when the

> reality is a bit more complicated to try to

> picture or explain. As far as I understand it,

> the gravitational waves from black hole mergers do

> not originate from within the event horizons, but

> from the region of space outside it.

let's not get gravitation and gravitational waves mixed here

they are claiming that gravitation "energy" is being released

and this is somehow causing (mechanism?) the "rippling of space".

so the LIGO isn't measuring

the gravitation "force" of the black holes, but the indirect disturbance

of space caused by it.

Indeed, if

> the physics is the same with regards light, then

> any wave emitted, be it light or gravitational,

> from the event horizon or below, will be Doppler

> shifted to an infinitely large wavelength by the

> time it leaves the event horizon. And as any 1st

> year physics student will tell you, a "wave" with

> infinite wavelength is not waving, and so cannot

> propagate. If it cannot propagate, it does not

> travel through space. This is how light, which

> has no mass, cannot escape the event horizon of a

> black hole.

I have stated that it is "different" from light

and you even stated that it didn't have to be EM

radiation.

Indeed if the physics is the same,

have they calculated the distortion

caused by "dark energy" stretching

that same space-time fabric/geometry between the black holes and Earth

1,000,000,000 light years apart?

>

> So how does gravity from inside the event horizon

> communicate with objects outside. Well, it is

> because the concentration of mass-energy inside

> the the event horizon curves space-time - BUT the

> event horizon marks the point where the curvature

> of space-time is infinite. Hence it is actually

> form the point just above the event horizon that

> communicates the gravitational field, not what is

> below. That is how gravity seemingly can escape a

> black hole. In General relativity, it is not

> escaping, but rather the mass is affecting

> space-time outside the event horizon which is what

> other bodies then react to.

"Infinities" should cause one to recheck their math

Once inside the "event horizon", mass, gravity and light

and their effects should disappear. so they shouldn't be

attracting anything or distorting space

so saying a black hole has "the mass of x thousands of suns"

is bogus because that mass is gone from our realm and shouldn't

have any affect on us.

How does the "mass" inside the black hole

"affect" space-time outside the event horizon?

by what mechanism?

another way to ask:

does mass warp space directly?

so is what we see as "gravity" is just the warping of space?

Or does mass give off a gravitational field

consisting of "gravitons" which interacts with

other bodies and space.

some things to think about in a non-confrontational way :)

remember how you felt when the "Santa Claus story" start to fall

apart due to the inconsistencies?

>

> Jonny