Kopeikin and "the speed of gravity"

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote><font size=2 face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>[JUU]: These are all vector quantities derived from velocity, which has speed AND direction. When you (tvf) speak of the 'speed' of acceleration, momentum, and force, are you referring to the directionless scalar of 'speed', which is a component of those properties?<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size=2 id=quote>

Yes. But more generally, I mean to refer to the velocity because momentum, force, and acceleration are all vectors. So no, I am not putting any emphasis on the "directionless" property.

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote><font size=2 face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>I ask because I haven't heard the terms combined that way before.<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size=2 id=quote>

It is common in dynamics to speak of the propagatioon speed of forces, expecially the force of gravity, even though that is a misnomer. (It is dimensionally inconsistent.) What we mean by the "speed of the force of gravity" is the speed of the momentum carriers from cause to effect. Force is just the sum of lots of individual (or continuous) momentum changes in a target body, so there is no ambiguity in speaking of the speed of the force when one really means the speed of the momentum carriers (i.e., v in p = mv).

I agree that speaking of the "speed of acceleration" is unconventional. But it is at least well-defined. For example, it is the Sun-Earth distance divided by the time interval from when the Sun first accelerates in some new direction until the Earth notices and changes its acceleration accordingly.

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote><font size=2 face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>Also, I was wondering if (in theory) gravitons would have any appreciable acceleration component when they are generated or are involved in a collision, or like photons, would they just have basically an instantaneous velocity?<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size=2 id=quote>

In the Meta Model, light is a pure wave, which always has a characteristic speed given by the medium it propagates in. Gravitons are particles, so they can do everything particles can do, such as accelerate and decelerate. -|Tom|-

What is the application of SR to accelerations of graviton particles?

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote><font size=2 face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>
Whether gravity is pulling or pushing you cannot get away from an "infinite speed of gravity" and inventing all that non sense Physics will not help you gain peer respect. You will have to keep increasing your estimates of graviton speeds to hide the theory's flaws, from your old estimate of 20 x c to your current estimate of 20 billion c , what is next? 20 trillion c?

Kopeikin won. Good thing graviton theory was only valued at a nickel. lol
<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size=2 id=quote>

So your argument basically amounts to gravitation propagating at INFINITE velocity and mysteriously having INSTANTANEOUS effect at any distance we can imagine. Hmmm, we can set up FTL communication just using gravity because according to you its effect will be known instantaneously. But GR doesn't allow FTL so consequently gravity can't propagate faster than light. But this contradicts your assertion that it acts instantly and it also contradicts orbital observations. I find it odd that you think infinite velocity makes more sense than a finite one.