An elegant formula describing the Universe

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote><font size=2 face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote> Does it? It turns out that considerable delay in the gravitational force propagation would cause planet orbits to be unstable. Tom van Flandern has comprehensive expositions about this topic here on Meta Research.
<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size=2 id=quote>

Tom's explaination on how limited gravitational force propagation speed would cause unstable planet orbit is really impressive. But he fails to explain why such instantaneous propagation of force would NOT lead to instantaneous propagation of information and hence cause causuality problem. Tom does acknowledge that information propagation is limited by light speed and he even says "no one disputes that". So I think his explanation using unstable planet orbit is still not convincing although it is hard to dispute.

On another hand, I think there is no absolutely frame of time and space. We determine the relative time and space location based on our observation of the physical world around us, including observing the forces acting between objects.

In another word, location of objects are determined by the forces between the objects and the rest of the universe, not the other way around. Forces are NOT determined by location. Rather, locations are determined from the forces we observe. So if we feel gravitational pull from the sun coming from a certain direction, we say the sun is in that direction at that specific moment. You may observe the sun to be at a different location based on your calculation but that is either a location based on a totally different observatory frame, or is totally meanless because it was not backed up by any observation.

So if the force is the cause and the location is the result, I do not see any controverse that leads to an unstable planet orbit.

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote><font size=2 face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>[AM]: he (tvf) fails to explain why such instantaneous propagation of force would NOT lead to instantaneous propagation of information and hence cause causuality problem.<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size=2 id=quote>

You must first understand what the conclusions of that published research are before you can understand their implications for physics.

Faster-than-light propagation of force <i>does</i> lead to FTL propagation of information.

(Side note: In physics, unlike math, it is physically impossible for a propagation to be "instantaneous" because that would require an infinite speed, and one of the principles of physics is that the finite cannot become infinite. Another is the causality principle. Both would be violated, which requires magic, which is forbidden as an explanation of physical phenomena.)

FTL propagation of gravity and information does not produce a causality problem because gravity propagates FTL in forward time, as required by Lorentzian relativity (LR). It does not propagate FTL in backwards time, as would be required by special relativity (SR), and as would produce causality problems. So the six experiments showing that gravity does propagate FTL in forward time have the effect of falsifying SR in favor of LR.

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote><font size=2 face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>Tom does acknowledge that information propagation is limited by light speed and he even says "no one disputes that". So I think his explanation using unstable planet orbit is still not convincing although it is hard to dispute.<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size=2 id=quote>

I said gravitational waves propagate at lightspeed and "no one disputes that". However, gravitational waves have never been directly detected, and they have nothing to do with gravitational force or changes in gravitational force.

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote><font size=2 face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>if we feel gravitational pull from the sun coming from a certain direction, we say the sun is in that direction at that specific moment.<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size=2 id=quote>

That is not the case. When we see the Sun in a certain direction, we say the Sun was in that direction when that arriving light left the Sun 8.3 minutes ago. When we feel gravitational pull from the Sun coming from a certain direction, we say the Sun was in that direction when that arriving gravity left the Sun some time interval ago. That time interval is 1 au divided by the speed of gravity. -|Tom|-

What do physicists mean by propagation of information? What is regarded as information?

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote><font size=2 face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>
What do physicists mean by propagation of information? What is regarded as information?
<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size=2 id=quote>

Roger Penrose's take on that works well... <sigh> And the I CHING.

But it seemingly reduces to such highly *reflectional* elements forever beyond our reach - - - that no one can ever pin down accurately - so it is a moot point (except to superficial technicians - who are too lazy to get a real job - or it's merely a great topic for mental masturbation puzzles to ward off Alzheimers!)

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote><font size=2 face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>[Jan]: What do physicists mean by propagation of information? What is regarded as information?<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size=2 id=quote>

As applied to relativity, "information" means any controlable, non-random signal, even as simple as "on-off" or "one/zero". Any such signal could be used to send a message in Morse code or binary. A single on-off could simply mean "go ahead", and is a form of information.

This is contrasted with the type of signal described in the Bell Inequality or the EPR paradox. For example, if an identical pair of polarized photons is created, one heading away and the other toward Earth, then the polarization property is allegedly not assigned by nature until one or the other photon is observed, which then "instantly" fixes the polarization for both photons, no matter how far apart. But this kind of signal contains no useful information because we cannot influence or control the outcome. -|Tom|-

Tom- your answer was *technically* accurate - but typically avoided the problematic truths.

((See, for two examples: PHYSICS AS METAPHOR, Roger Jones.
And THE WORLD IS SOUND: NADA BRAHMA MUSIC AND THE LANDSCAPE OF CONSCIOUSNESS; Jocachin-Ernst Berendt. Both out of print.))

Jan, Tom, Anthony, et al :

1) Current day physics avoids and dances materialistically around the basic findings of technological science. They throw out the baby with the bath water.

2) ELEGENT FORMULA DESCRIBING THE UNIVERSE??? Most all of the leading cosmologists totally ignore the absolutely most crucial information! Fractal fuzzy logic. Banach-Tarski transformation theorems. ETC.

I could weep. It is all such bullshit.

3) Think about light and vision for one minute.

All of the highpowered telescopes and microscopes share a REFLECTIONAL EARTH BASED WATER LIFE FORM OF SURVIVAL AND INFORMATIONAL PERCEPTIONAL APPARATUS. With (for example) dragonfly eyes and whaleminds.

4) Mirrors of light alive and shared. And reflected. Vision based alive here.
Go into your bathroom mirror, tv screen, car windshield, etc.

How can SCIENTISTS ever measure and figure ALL THOSE FACTUAL/VARIABLES INTO THEIR logical conclusions???

5) Glass is formally classified as a liquid in Physics.

I have never understood the FULL implications of that. Do you? Please explain!!

And GRAVITY has never been explained. ((There is an outstanding offer of bigtime money for anyone who can - some Institute in Mass., I forget right now...)) Win the prize... and talk to me in the mourning.