Gravity speed depends on reference frame!

PhilJ, I need to tell you not everyone on this site agrees with the assumption about gravity speed. In my world gravity is a force-not energy or matter. Force does not move so speed is not an issue relating to gravity.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by Jim</i>
<br />PhilJ, I need to tell you not everyone on this site agrees with the assumption about gravity speed. In my world gravity is a force-not energy or matter. Force does not move so speed is not an issue relating to gravity.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">Even so, events at different locations which are simultaneous in one inertial reference frame are not necessarily simultaneous in another inertial reference frame. Gravity exerts equal and opposite pulls on a pair of objects M1 & M2. Lets suppose there is an inertial reference frame A, in which the gravity tug of M1 always points to M2 and vice versa, regardless of where M1 & M2 are located and regardless of any relative motion between M1 & M2. Also in frame A, the strength of the attraction is proportional to the inverse square of the instantaneous distance between M1 & M2. In any other inertial reference frame, the direction of the force and/or the distance which determines the strength of the force will be influenced by a lead time or lag time factor. This results directly from the transformation formulas of special relativity.

Im trying to describe a specific example in which the relative motion between reference frames is perpendicular to relative motion between two masses. It looks like it may take several days to produce an intelligible explanation.


Fractal Foam Model of Universes: Creator

Phil,

You can't mix and match features from different theories. Time reversal at speeds above c is a "feature" of theories based on Special Relativity. The most notable theory that inherits this speed of light boogy man is General Relativty.

Note also that this time slow down under the postualtes of SR (and therefore GR) is for a distant <u>moving</u> object, not for the observer. Time for the observer never slows down.

Thus all of the paradoxes that spring from SR. An observer on the distant moving object will not detect a slow down in his time, but will detect a slow down in the original observer's time. This is called "frame reciprocity", and is the one critical part of SR that has not been tested. The GPS satellites could not be Einstein Synchronized if it were true, according to our best thinking at this time. But they never tried to Einstein Sync them. They just made a simple tick-rate adjustment to them on the ground to compensate for speed (not velocity) and for gravitational potential relative to a special frame of reference known as the Earth Centered Inertial (ECI) frame. Once on orbit, this adjustment for the effects of <u>ordinary</u> relativity worked perfectly.

Deep Reality Physics, the source of the prediction of faster than light propagation of gravitational force, does not rely on SR (which means you can't use an SR feature to object to it). It is based on a similar theory known as Lorentzian Relativity. (I prefer to call this theory Ordinary Relativity, or Euclidean Relativity. Tom preferred LR. With his passing it is now my responsibility to choose. Can't make my mind up.) LR (ER) is able to describe all observed physical phenomena just like SR does, and make equally accurate predictions, but without the speed of light limit. Under OR time at a distant <u>moving</u> object is the same as the observer's time.

But CLOCKS do slow down or speed up. No paradoxes. And no time travel.

LB

<b>[PhilJ] "Im trying to describe a specific example in which the relative motion between reference frames is perpendicular to relative motion between two masses. It looks like it may take several days to produce an intelligible explanation."</b>

This (producing an intelligible - IOW believable - explanation) has been the problem that all intrepid explorers of the universe have faced since the advent of SR. I wish you luck in your quest.

On the other hand, it is fairly trivial to produce an explanation that is "internally consistent". Internal consistency requres that you begin with the postulates (assumptions) of the theory at hand (and avoid mixing in the postulates of any other theory), apply the tools of math, logic, prose and art, and let them lead you where ever they lead. In particular the tools of math and logic are critical to this effort.

When you do this with SR you get a set of equations that are wonderful at <u>describing</u> what happened and predicting what will happen under a given set of circumstances. The accuracy of these descriptions and predictions are phenominal.

But you do not get a <u>physical explanation</u> of how things happened or will happen, and why, that makes any sense. It is not believable. Because of this many researchers in the mainstream of science have abandonded the idea that physics should be in the business of asking the hard questions (why?, and how?). They take the position that once you have an equation that can describe and predict, physics is done. Quantum Mechanics (in particular the Copenhagen Interpretation of the expermental and observational data we have accumulated to date) is a fairly good example of this mind set. The primary conclusion of this school of thought is that there is no "deep reality" to the universe.

[TANGENT]
Tom had a real flash of inspiration when he realized that his Meta Model cosmology was growing in such a way that it offered an intelligible alternative to this meme. It led him to coin the phrase "deep reality" physics. And from there it was a minor step to turn that phrase into the new name for his brainchild - Deep Reality Physics.
[/TANGENT]

Back to your quest for an intelligible explanation of (certain observed phenomena) from the SR perspective. The biggest hurdle is to remember that time on a distant and moving object, or frame of reference, is not a function of velocity relative to the observer. It is a function of velocity <u>and distance</u> relative to the observer. Look closely at the SR version of the Lorentz transformation for time.

It is this dependence on distance that causes most of the grief for people trying to believe SR (and therefore for people trying to explain it). The alleged "lack of remote simultaneity" arises (primarily) from this dependence on distance, not (just) from the dependence on velocity.

Famous SR paradoxes such as the "Pole In The Barn" arise because the distance from the observer to the front end of the pole is not the same as the distance from the observer to the back end of the pole. A 30 meter pole fits inside a 20 meter barn with both doors shut <u>if it is moving fast enough</u> because the front end and the back end of the pole <u>do not exist at the same time</u> from the observer's point of view.

===

As long as time[1] itself, not just clocks, is actually a function of velocity and distace as SR postulates (assumes) we are stuck with this pile of cr*p.

But Ordinary Relativity offers us a way to both describe the universe mathematically and to explain it physically. Time[2] stops being a physical thing that can be altered by other physical things. It is a conceptual thing. Clocks, on the other hand, actually are physical things and actually can be altered by other physical things. Depending on what kind of clock you have it can be sensitive to speed, acceleration, gravitational force, gravitational potential, temperature, humidity, etc.

For example a pendulum clock that is cooled speeds up (because the length of the pendulum arm shortens). But of course almost no one believes this means time itself is running faster.

Regards,
LB

[1] actually the time component of space-time, since under SR 3D space and time are merged into a single 4 dimensional thingamajig
[2] not the time component of space-time, because under OR time is separate from and independent of 3D space and 4D space-time does not exist

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Larry Buford, Posted - 06 Mar 2010 : 23:25:37
You can't mix and match features from different theories.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">Actually, you can; but you must be very careful how you do it. Most disagreements stem from interpreting one systems result in the other system's language. Since all the systems use the same words (distance, time, mass, etc.) but with different definitions, it's no wonder that we get into heated arguments. It's the same way in religion, where people have different definitions of words like I, soul, spirit, God, etc.

How can you mix and match words without mixing and matching meanings? Perhaps it would be better to abandon the old words and invent new ones. However, that would likely be misinterpreted as occult, mystic and esoteric. The uninitiated wouldn't have the foggiest idea what you're talking about.

My favorite example is confusion over the difference between Minkowski space-time and Euclidian space & time. The fundamental difference is that light follows a curved path thru a gravity field in Euclidean space & time, but in Minkowski space-time, the path of light defines what a straight 4D line is. Straightening the path of light results in the warping of space-time. Consequently, a result obtained by general relativity must somehow be transformed to Euclidean space & time to demonstrate that it is, in fact, the same result as what might be obtained thru numerical analysis in Euclidean space & time. I believe both systems can be valid, even though they yield different numbers.

I admit that I am not well versed in Lorentzian relativity. I agree that there is a preferred reference frame, namely that which is stationary relative to the ether. I suspect that the reference frame of our solar system is moving relative to the ether at about 627 km/s in the direction of Vega (based on the blue shift of the CMB in that direction). 627 km/s is about .0021 c, with a relativistic gamma of 1.000002161. This can easily be overlooked, but it may be significant to experiments in FTL communication. If there is a speed-of-gravity aberration in orbital dynamics, it should be very slightly different in different directions.

If and when it comes down to measuring the speed of gravity based communications, the experimenters are probably going synchronize their imaginary clocks according to SR. In which case, they should be prepared to observe different speeds in different directions, including negative velocities when the communication is sent forward (in the direction of their reference frame's motion relative to the ether). Negative velocity, in this context, means backwards-in-time communication. According to clocks synchronized according to SR, the signal may be received before it is sent. If experimenters are not prepared for that, with an understanding of why it does not violate causality, they will see it as an anomaly and disbelieve their own observations.

I shall try to respond to the rest of your statements, Larry. I do appreciate your input.

Fractal Foam Model of Universes: Creator