Science & Space :  The Official GrahamHancock.com forums
For all that is Scientifically related to Cosmology and Space. (NB: Please take discussions about UFOs, possible Alien contact, Crop-Circles, Alien Abductions, Planet-X and Niburu to the ‘Paranormal and Supernatural’ Message Board). 
Welcome! Log InRegister
JonnyMcA Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> 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]

Quote
Tom 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

Options: ReplyQuote


Subject Views Written By Posted
gravity waves "detected" 1451 laughin 11-Feb-16 16:34
Re: gravity waves "detected" 487 Susan Doris 11-Feb-16 17:44
Re: gravity waves "detected" 380 Sirius7237 11-Feb-16 18:30
Re: gravity waves "detected" 477 laughin 11-Feb-16 21:20
Re: gravity waves "detected" 396 JonnyMcA 12-Feb-16 14:23
Re: gravity waves "detected" 424 laughin 12-Feb-16 15:51
Re: gravity waves "detected" 280 JonnyMcA 12-Feb-16 16:31
Re: gravity waves "detected" 382 laughin 13-Feb-16 18:26
Re: gravity waves "detected" 434 JonnyMcA 13-Feb-16 18:41
Re: gravity waves "detected" 487 Me 15-Feb-16 15:57
Re: gravity waves "detected" 356 laughin 15-Feb-16 20:17
Re: gravity waves "detected" 395 carolb 13-Feb-16 21:53
Re: gravity waves "detected" 295 D-Archer 14-Feb-16 11:16
Re: gravity waves "detected" 318 carolb 14-Feb-16 14:54
Re: gravity waves "detected" 304 Sirius7237 14-Feb-16 20:08
Re: gravity waves "detected" 413 carolb 14-Feb-16 22:31
Re: gravity waves "detected" 423 Aine 15-Feb-16 16:20
Re: gravity waves "detected" 349 D-Archer 15-Feb-16 09:59
Re: gravity waves "detected" 321 JonnyMcA 12-Feb-16 14:31
Re: gravity waves "detected" 365 carolb 13-Feb-16 21:29
Re: gravity waves "detected" 287 laughin 14-Feb-16 15:19
Re: gravity waves "detected" 214 skakos 15-Feb-16 14:07
Re: gravity waves "detected" 312 Pete Vanderzwet 11-Feb-16 21:06
Re: gravity waves "detected" 425 JonnyMcA 12-Feb-16 14:38
Onto Dark Energy waves! 376 Eddie Larry 11-Feb-16 21:34
It took 100 years to discover what Einstein already knew 228 David L 12-Feb-16 12:50
Re: It took 100 years to discover what Einstein already knew 312 Spiros 12-Feb-16 17:09
Re: It took 100 years to discover what Einstein already knew 377 D-Archer 15-Feb-16 12:47
Re: It took 100 years to discover what Einstein already knew 385 Aine 15-Feb-16 16:15
Re: It took 100 years to discover what Einstein already knew 337 D-Archer 15-Feb-16 18:53
Re: It took 100 years to discover what Einstein already knew 358 laughin 15-Feb-16 20:39
Re: It took 100 years to discover what Einstein already knew 299 Aine 16-Feb-16 01:48
Re: gravity waves "detected" 423 dong 12-Feb-16 18:36
Re: gravity waves "detected" 400 laughin 13-Feb-16 03:26
Re: gravity waves "detected" 337 dong 16-Feb-16 07:41
Liego 341 laughin 15-Feb-16 04:17
Gravity Waves of Propaganda the Sequel 318 D-Archer 15-Feb-16 09:48
Re: gravity waves "detected" 419 skakos 15-Feb-16 12:58
Re: gravity waves "detected" 376 Aine 15-Feb-16 22:31
Re: gravity waves "detected" 235 carolb 16-Feb-16 00:57
Re: gravity waves "detected" 323 D-Archer 16-Feb-16 11:47
Re: gravity waves "detected" 436 carolb 16-Feb-16 12:32
Re: gravity waves "detected" 281 D-Archer 16-Feb-16 14:13
Re: gravity waves "detected" 291 carolb 16-Feb-16 14:42
Re: gravity waves "detected" 271 D-Archer 16-Feb-16 15:17
Re: gravity waves "detected" 373 carolb 16-Feb-16 16:27
Re: gravity waves "detected" 401 D-Archer 17-Feb-16 14:08
Really? 291 Sirfiroth 17-Feb-16 15:11
Re: Really? 392 JonnyMcA 17-Feb-16 15:32
Re: Really? 376 D-Archer 17-Feb-16 15:42
Re: gravity waves "detected" 402 carolb 17-Feb-16 18:05
mods! 340 D-Archer 18-Feb-16 11:13
Re: mods! 427 carolb 18-Feb-16 14:14
Re: mods! 402 D-Archer 18-Feb-16 16:02
Re: gravity waves "detected" 517 Sirfiroth 17-Feb-16 01:06
Re: gravity waves "detected" 337 Aine 17-Feb-16 14:48
Re: gravity waves "detected" 372 JonnyMcA 17-Feb-16 15:19
Re: gravity waves "detected" 262 Sirfiroth 17-Feb-16 15:39
Re: gravity waves "detected" 322 JonnyMcA 17-Feb-16 17:37
Re: gravity waves "detected" 414 Aine 17-Feb-16 18:49
Re: gravity waves "detected" 366 laughin 16-Feb-16 20:24
Re: gravity waves "detected" 213 D-Archer 17-Feb-16 16:23
Gravy Waves 523 D-Archer 20-Feb-16 11:39
Playing devil’s advocate on the discovery of gravitational waves 467 laughin 02-Mar-16 18:23
Scientists: we're 100% convinced 301 laughin 07-Mar-16 17:13
Black holes and big bangs can't co-exist 410 laughin 13-Mar-16 04:52
Re: gravity waves "detected" 328 brett z 20-Apr-16 23:42
Re: gravity waves "detected" 342 laughin 21-Apr-16 14:02
Re: gravity waves "detected" 256 OCaptain 10-May-16 12:45
Re: gravity waves "detected" 208 laughin 10-May-16 13:16
Re: gravity waves "detected" 270 OCaptain 10-May-16 13:21
Re: gravity waves "detected" 326 laughin 10-May-16 19:25
Re: gravity waves "detected" 451 OCaptain 10-May-16 22:56
Re: gravity waves "detected" 328 laughin 11-May-16 15:32
Re: gravity waves "detected" 410 JonnyMcA 11-May-16 16:53
Re: gravity waves "detected" 431 laughin 12-May-16 16:26
pompousness "detected" 368 laughin 18-May-16 15:25
bump- 2 weeks 469 laughin 27-May-16 15:02
Re: bump- 3 weeks 405 laughin 02-Jun-16 23:20
Re: bump- 4 weeks and why isn't Carolb patrolling the threads 420 laughin 10-Jun-16 15:42
Gravitational Waves from Black Hole Megamergers Are Weaker Than Predicted 379 laughin 04-May-16 13:15
Re: Gravitational Waves from Black Hole Megamergers Are Weaker Than Predicted 413 D-Archer 09-May-16 19:05
Re: Gravitational Waves from Black Hole Megamergers Are Weaker Than Predicted 214 OCaptain 10-May-16 12:46
Re: Gravitational Waves from Black Hole Megamergers Are Weaker Than Predicted 432 laughin 10-May-16 13:27
Re: Gravitational Waves from Black Hole Megamergers Are Weaker Than Predicted 277 OCaptain 10-May-16 16:39
Re: Gravitational Waves from Black Hole Megamergers Are Weaker Than Predicted 334 laughin 10-May-16 19:10
how many times can you change the rules and still get a black hole 315 laughin 08-Jun-16 14:00
LIGO press conf, June 15 343 brett z 15-Jun-16 11:53
Re: LIGO press conf, June 15 345 D-Archer 15-Jun-16 14:48


Sorry, only registered users may post in this forum.