Speed of Gravity?

If photons have zero mass how does a gravity field have an effect upon them? This is high school of course but, it is good to have the details down in print for guide lines.

There are two views here of how force is exchanged. Both views have merit(I think anway)so, would do any good to start a new thread on this detail? Can this be done so the center of gravity topic can be focused? The way force is moved is too distracting a topic since it is a very important detail.

<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 />If photons have zero mass how does a gravity field have an effect upon them?<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">"Photon" is a word that describes a wave packet. Waves do not have mass in the classical sense, although they do carry momentum, and the entities that comprise the wave must have substance (i.e., the must be physical and tangible).

In GR, lightwaves do not respond to gravitational forces. (They would gain speed when falling and lose speed when rising if they did.) Instead, their path is bent by refraction in the "spacetime" (elysium) medium. Einstein and Eddington already knew by 1920 that refraction gave the correct amount of bending, but did not at that time see how to get the other GR effects in a similar way. So they stayed with GR in its field interpretation (Einstein) or its geometric interpretation (Eddington). The <i>Pushing Gravity</i> book has since shown us how those other GR effects easily are recovered with equal simplicity.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">would it do any good to start a new thread?<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">Good suggestion. I will reply to Thomas's last message in a new "Gravity & Relativity" topic with the name "The nature of force". -|Tom|-

Hi Thomas,

I enjoyed briefly seeing your very comprehensive websites and when time permits will go back and study them. In reading your response to TVF, your ideas caused me to think about some of the questions that might lead to further answers regarding gravity. I will post some ideas after your comments:

"Are you suggesting that gravity is produced by a kind of wind?"

I can see how a Gravity Wind or Extreme Dimensional Pressure from Infinitely higher frequencies could create such a wind that would almost be another dimension and could result in many cascading energy fields including the Neucleonic Strong Force, Gravity Fields that link between Orbitals, and Core Heating effect from Electromagnetic Activity and Mass Compactification from bombardment of accretional particles.

"Shouldn't one then have a repulsive rather than an attractive gravitational force?"

Because of pressure differentials between higher dimensional relativities and our lower dimensional relativities the Gravitational Time Wave has forward momentum and is absorbed into the lower dimensional Matter Universe that we live in [manifesting universe no big bang]. Gravity is a Pushing Force and we may be just seeing all side effects and not even be able to perceive the actual forces which could be extreme and all around us in another dimension that operates at infinite propagation speeds. Even though Antimatter has a reverse higher dimensional Time Wave that operates as a pushing force directed towards all Antimatter, because Antimatter belongs in another Universe the energy released with in our Universe can create the opposite effects and forces that are normally associated with known Physics including repulsive gravity, non-entropic cold energy, and reverse Electromagnetic Gravitational Time Waves.

"The analogy with a wind is in fact inadequate here as the latter is not a fundamental physical force. It is a macroscopic force produced by the collision of atoms with an object. These atoms interact with the atoms of the object via their static Coulomb force field (which is the fundamental force at work here).

"It is obviously a circular argument to suggest that a fundamental force is mediated by particles as one would need a further fundamental force for the latter to interact and hence excert any force. For the sake of logical consistency, a fundamental force therefore has to be of the 'action at a distance' type , i.e. the field has to be thought of as being fixed to the particle and instantaneously moving with it if the latter moves. This does not at all violate causality as the field as such is not observable but only its effect on other particles (which obviously take a finite time to develop because of the mass and inertia of particles)."

I agree with your statement that causality is not problematic because all actions that we see are in effect the result of this much bigger picture that we do not really understand very well. It could be that gravity fields are created by the differential pressures between force fields from higher dimensions which travel at speeds that approach infinity towards lower pressure dimensions, and that this Graviton Field actually may be the fourth Dimensional Time Wave that defines our viewable Universe. This Gravatonic Wind or "field as such [that operates at speeds that approach infinity] is not observable" because the frequencies of this extremely large scale field are beyond scientific measurement at this time.

"It is irrelevant if the delay is 8min or a microsecond or whatever. In a closed system, the sum of the internal forces has to vanish at any instant and only a zero delay guarantees this." There will be no delay.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Nonetheless, we may be certain that delay is finite. As Newton said: "It is inconceivable that inanimate gross matter, without the mediation of something immaterial, might affect some other matter with no mutual contact, as it should happen if gravitation (in the sense proposed by Epicurus) were essential and inherent to matter. This is one of the reasons why I do not wish innate gravity to be attributed to me. For me it is totally absurd that gravitation should be innate, inherent and essential to matter, so that a body might act upon another body from a distance, through vacuum, without the mediation of something else, through which its action and force should be transported from one to the other; it is so absurd that I believe no man with philosophical questions in mind might believe it. Gravity must be caused by an agent constantly acting according to certain laws; but I should let my readers decide whether such agent is material or immaterial." (Newton Optics, edition of 1717, Foreword)<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">"It seems that Newton did himself not quite grasp the implications of his laws."

---

www.physicsmyths.org.uk
www.plasmaphysics.org.uk
[/quote]

John

Regarding the "Allais Effect", where by "experimental measurements show a change in g instantaneously during an eclipse," as cited in article found at www.economist.com/science/displayStory.cfm?story_id=3104321 , these findings defy the GR first principle of Mass warping space as cause of gravity and provides proof that all objects have an instantaneous gravitational relationship. If warped space was the cause of the change in g, the effect would not be instantaneous but would propagate at the speed of light.

Even more of a dramatic indication that an external force is at work creating the effects of Gravity are further discussed in the article: "This suggestion would fit in with another odd phenomenon: the fact that the Pioneer 10 and 11 space-probes, launched by NASA, America's space agency, in the early 1970s, are receding from the sun slightly more slowly than they should be."

Could the dimensional flow of a fourth Dimensional Time Wave create Bands or Coronal Regions around orbital bodies that are electrical fields of resonances which activate a pushing effect back towards the center of the solar system, and could the alignment of Masses in Solar System produce a noticeable pulling effect towards the combined Mass? If the effects of gravity actually create resonance regions because of the extreme bombardment of extra dimensional energies at speeds that approach infinity, then most likely GR would not be a generalized phenomenon but instead Relativity would be a localized phenomenon as a function of the combined dynamic energies of the resonant fields as created by the fourth dimensional Time Wave. Maybe these findings also spell problems for SR in showing that the speed of light is no longer the speed limit of the Universe because Gravity can now be shown to far exceed the speed of light in its effect on all objects.

In fact, the article ends with a similar speculation:

".....But the possibility also remains that General Relativity—Einstein's sacred child—is wrong......"

".....An even stranger suggestion, made in 2002 by Mikhail Gershteyn, then at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, is that the force of gravity is different in different directions. Most physicists do not like that one at all. It requires that the conceptual “frames of reference” against which movement, acceleration and so on are measured, are not uniform in all directions. But it was a similarly radical idea—that there is no absolute frame of reference in the universe, only local frames that can be measured relative to one another, which put the “relativity” into relativity theory in the first place..."

John