These Message Boards Are Dead, or Terraform Forums

Reference is made to this dilemna in Dark Matter and I am curious if evidence was gathered from the Lageous satelite? This bears heavily on this conversation.

Mark Vitrone

Mark wrote:
Reference is made to this dilemna in Dark Matter and I am curious if evidence was gathered from the Lageous satelite? This bears heavily on this conversation.

I'm not clear as to how a dilemma is involved, Mark. Although Makis used the phrase, "where all gravity forces cancel out," --though this of course, is not strictly true. Not ALL gravitational forces are balanced out, since the balance here is relevant only with respect to interplanetary gravitational fields. The sun itself could not possibly be included, since its own field is ambient to all others.

Is this the context of the dilemma you refer to? ...in which the gravitational attraction of the sun is presumed null and void at LaGrange points, thus no solar gravitational force would be present at the very points apparently most suitable for its measure?

My apologies. I am probably misconstruing your reference; but if not, I don't believe this would truly be the case.The balance of ALL gravitational forces would also render all centrifigul forces meaningless, thus removing the very element of orbital stability that defines Lagrange points in the first place.

This subject is a favorite of TVF. He said somewhere the sun is 20 sec ahead of the where it seen and this shows that gravity travals faster than light. What is overlooked here is the fact Earth is in free fall into the sun's gravity field and so the effect of the sun's field seems to be faster than light. Weather or not this so is the question that should be explored if you want proof one way or the other about FTL.

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote><font size=2 face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>
the sun is 20 sec ahead of the where it seen
<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size=2 id=quote>

That should be 20 seconds "of arc", or 20 arc-seconds. It is a measure of angular displacement, not a measure of time. Each degree (of arc) is divided into 60 minutes of arc (arc-minutes) and each minute of arc is divided into 60 seconds of arc.

So a circle comprises 360 X 60 X 60 seconds of arc. 20 arc-seconds is a very small angle (1/180th of a degree) but well within our ability to measure.

In time measure we see the Sun where it was 500 seconds ago.

Regards,
LB

According to TVF, the sun is 20 arc-sec ahead of the viewed position. The sun is in freefall towards the sun, but this is due to its acceleration which changes direction FTL which I think is why it is used in the MM as a proof of FTL communication. The dilemna I refered to is just the problem in this strand being discussed. The satelite I mentioned should drift away from the sun if the Earth is in between the sun and satelite. FTL can be calculated and gravitational shielding can be supported as well.

The sun is 500 seconds ahead of where we see it which is 20 seconds of arc. Sorry for not being more exact with the two different seconds So, with that clear what about the redshift that is not observed in this matter? Since the Earth is in free fall into the gravity field of the sun the redshift is not observed. If a body was accelerating at .006ms2 and at rest(not in orbit) at 1AU the redshift would be seen and the sun would be seen where it really is.