Bob McElrath <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
To: Henry Spencer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
CC: ERPS <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: [ERPS] Perhaps OT: Speed of gravity
Date: Wed, 18 Dec 2002 19:57:54 -0600

Henry Spencer [[EMAIL PROTECTED]] wrote:
> On Wed, 18 Dec 2002 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > Article arguing that the speed of gravity may be infinite...
>
> It has long been understood that orbits would not be stable if gravity
> showed any detectable aberration (change in apparent direction with motion
> of the observer), implying that either gravity's velocity is inordinately
> high or else it does not propagate at all.
>
> Orthodox general relativity says that gravity is a matter of the shape of
> space -- it's not a form of radiation at all. There is no exchange of
> radiation between Earth and Sun to keep Earth in its orbit; Earth is
> moving through space curved by the influence of the Sun, and Earth
> naturally follows a curved path as a result. (I oversimplify a bit.)
>
> Gravity waves, aka gravitational radiation, carry *changes* in the
> curvature of space. Relativity predicts that they move at the speed of
> light, a prediction which has not yet been verified (although there is
> some indirect evidence, like measurement of the energy loss of binary
> pulsars, which agrees quite closely with relativity's predictions here).
>
> If the name "metaresearch.org" hadn't made your bogometer twitch, by the
> way, the name "Tom Van Flandern" at the top should. He's a frequent
> advocate of, to put it politely, far-out theories. It's possible that
> he will eventually be verifiably right about something, but that is not
> the way to bet. Don't sell your relativity textbooks yet.

Kook or no, I think he's right.

I think essentially it boils down to Einstein's equation:
8 pi G = T
where G is the Einstein tensor (geometry) and T is the stress-energy
tensor (matter). General relativity follows from the equality, and is
well tested. Changes in the matter distribution are reflected
*instantaneously* in the geometry. So it should be no surprise that
this is, effectively, an action-at-a-distance theory.
True, but macro changes are not instantaneous. They are generally smooth transitions through an existing field (as someone earlier commented on electromagnetic fields).


Tony Fredericks "Mind that bus!"
Amateur Rocket Scientist "What Bus?"
E.R.P.S. Member SPLAT!! - Arnold Rimmer






_________________________________________________________________
STOP MORE SPAM with the new MSN 8 and get 2 months FREE* http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail

_______________________________________________
ERPS-list mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://lists.erps.org/mailman/listinfo/erps-list


Reply via email to