Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > sci.physics > #590116 > unrolled thread
| Started by | "reber g=emc^2" <herbertglazier0@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2016-07-20 12:16 -0700 |
| Last post | 2016-08-15 11:38 -0700 |
| Articles | 13 on this page of 93 — 11 participants |
Back to article view | Back to sci.physics
Gravity Force Has No Speed "reber g=emc^2" <herbertglazier0@gmail.com> - 2016-07-20 12:16 -0700
Re: Gravity Force Has No Speed mapou001@gmail.com - 2016-07-20 13:52 -0700
Re: Gravity Force Has No Speed Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-07-20 16:47 -0500
Re: Gravity Force Has No Speed HVAC <mr.hvac@gmail.com> - 2016-07-20 15:08 -0700
Re: Gravity Force Has No Speed benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2016-07-20 20:34 -0400
Re: Gravity Force Has No Speed HVAC <mr.hvac@gmail.com> - 2016-07-21 05:58 -0700
Re: Gravity Force Has No Speed mapou001@gmail.com - 2016-07-20 17:57 -0700
Re: Re: Gravity Force Has No Speed Michael J. Strickland <michael06582@comcast.net> - 2016-07-21 02:52 -0400
Re: Re: Gravity Force Has No Speed mapou001@gmail.com - 2016-07-21 09:04 -0700
Re: Gravity Force Has No Speed Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-07-21 11:34 -0500
Re: Gravity Force Has No Speed mapou001@gmail.com - 2016-07-21 10:00 -0700
Re: Gravity Force Has No Speed Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-07-21 12:09 -0500
Re: Re: Re: Gravity Force Has No Speed Michael J. Strickland <michael06582@comcast.net> - 2016-07-22 02:05 -0400
Re: Re: Re: Gravity Force Has No Speed mapou001@gmail.com - 2016-07-22 07:50 -0700
Re: Gravity Force Has No Speed Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-07-22 10:03 -0500
Re: Gravity Force Has No Speed mapou001@gmail.com - 2016-07-22 08:07 -0700
Re: Gravity Force Has No Speed Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-07-22 10:53 -0500
Re: Gravity Force Has No Speed mapou001@gmail.com - 2016-07-22 09:03 -0700
Re: Re: Re: Re: Gravity Force Has No Speed Michael J. Strickland <michael06582@comcast.net> - 2016-07-23 04:52 -0400
Re: Re: Re: Re: Gravity Force Has No Speed mapou001@gmail.com - 2016-07-23 14:48 -0700
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Gravity Force Has No Speed Michael J. Strickland <michael06582@comcast.net> - 2016-08-08 15:43 -0400
Re: Re: Gravity Force Has No Speed Michael J. Strickland <michael06582@comcast.net> - 2016-07-21 02:56 -0400
Re: Re: Gravity Force Has No Speed mapou001@gmail.com - 2016-07-21 09:19 -0700
Re: Gravity Force Has No Speed Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-07-21 11:37 -0500
Re: Gravity Force Has No Speed mapou001@gmail.com - 2016-07-21 10:01 -0700
Re: Gravity Force Has No Speed Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-07-21 12:11 -0500
Re: Gravity Force Has No Speed mapou001@gmail.com - 2016-07-21 11:33 -0700
Re: Re: Re: Gravity Force Has No Speed Michael J. Strickland <michael06582@comcast.net> - 2016-07-22 01:55 -0400
Re: Re: Re: Gravity Force Has No Speed mapou001@gmail.com - 2016-07-22 09:01 -0700
Re: Re: Re: Gravity Force Has No Speed john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2016-07-22 09:15 -0700
Re: Re: Re: Gravity Force Has No Speed mapou001@gmail.com - 2016-07-22 09:37 -0700
Re: Gravity Force Has No Speed Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-07-22 12:18 -0500
Re: Gravity Force Has No Speed mapou001@gmail.com - 2016-07-22 10:50 -0700
Re: Gravity Force Has No Speed Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-07-22 13:42 -0500
Re: Gravity Force Has No Speed mapou001@gmail.com - 2016-07-22 11:44 -0700
Re: Gravity Force Has No Speed Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-07-22 13:52 -0500
Re: Gravity Force Has No Speed mapou001@gmail.com - 2016-07-22 11:57 -0700
Re: Gravity Force Has No Speed Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-07-22 14:14 -0500
Re: Gravity Force Has No Speed Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-07-22 14:32 -0500
Re: Gravity Force Has No Speed mapou001@gmail.com - 2016-07-22 13:00 -0700
Re: Gravity Force Has No Speed Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-07-22 17:02 -0500
Re: Gravity Force Has No Speed mapou001@gmail.com - 2016-07-22 15:30 -0700
Re: Gravity Force Has No Speed Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-07-23 10:49 -0500
Re: Gravity Force Has No Speed mapou001@gmail.com - 2016-07-23 09:31 -0700
Re: Gravity Force Has No Speed Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-07-23 11:39 -0500
Re: Gravity Force Has No Speed mapou001@gmail.com - 2016-07-23 16:53 -0700
Re: Gravity Force Has No Speed Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-07-24 15:13 -0500
Re: Gravity Force Has No Speed mapou001@gmail.com - 2016-07-24 14:19 -0700
Re: Gravity Force Has No Speed Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-07-25 07:58 -0500
Re: Gravity Force Has No Speed mapou001@gmail.com - 2016-07-25 13:08 -0700
Re: Gravity Force Has No Speed Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-07-25 15:56 -0500
Re: Gravity Force Has No Speed mapou001@gmail.com - 2016-07-25 14:14 -0700
Re: Gravity Force Has No Speed benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2016-07-22 17:01 -0400
Re: Gravity Force Has No Speed Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-07-22 12:15 -0500
Re: Gravity Force Has No Speed mapou001@gmail.com - 2016-07-22 10:48 -0700
Re: Gravity Force Has No Speed Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-07-22 13:36 -0500
Re: Gravity Force Has No Speed mapou001@gmail.com - 2016-07-22 11:37 -0700
Re: Gravity Force Has No Speed Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-07-22 13:51 -0500
Re: Re: Re: Re: Gravity Force Has No Speed Michael J. Strickland <michael06582@comcast.net> - 2016-07-23 05:09 -0400
Electric field (was: Re: Re: Gravity Force Has No Speed) Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2016-07-25 07:43 +0200
Re: Electric field (was: Re: Re: Gravity Force Has No Speed) mapou001@gmail.com - 2016-07-24 23:12 -0700
Re: Electric field Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-07-25 08:26 -0500
Re: Electric field mapou001@gmail.com - 2016-07-25 13:08 -0700
Re: Electric field Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2016-07-25 18:43 +0200
Re: Electric field mapou001@gmail.com - 2016-07-25 12:16 -0700
Re: Electric field Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2016-07-25 22:27 +0200
Re: Electric field mapou001@gmail.com - 2016-07-25 18:02 -0700
Re: Electric field Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2016-07-26 07:14 +0200
Re: Electric field Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-07-25 15:51 -0500
Re: Gravity Force Has No Speed "reber g=emc^2" <herbertglazier0@gmail.com> - 2016-07-21 09:36 -0700
Re: Gravity Force Has No Speed "reber g=emc^2" <herbertglazier0@gmail.com> - 2016-07-22 17:59 -0700
Re: Gravity Force Has No Speed benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2016-07-23 17:37 -0400
Re: Gravity Force Has No Speed "reber g=emc^2" <herbertglazier0@gmail.com> - 2016-07-27 10:44 -0700
Re: Gravity Force Has No Speed "reber g=emc^2" <herbertglazier0@gmail.com> - 2016-08-10 12:57 -0700
Re: Gravity Force Has No Speed "hanson" <hanson@quick.net> - 2016-08-10 16:38 -0700
Re: Re: Gravity Force Has No Speed Michael J. Strickland <michael06582@comcast.net> - 2016-08-11 04:30 -0400
Re: Gravity Force Has No Speed bartekltg <bartekltg@gmail.com> - 2016-08-11 15:03 +0200
Re: Re: Gravity Force Has No Speed Michael J. Strickland <michael06582@comcast.net> - 2016-08-12 05:48 -0400
Re: Gravity Force Has No Speed bartekltg <bartekltg@gmail.com> - 2016-08-12 14:01 +0200
Re: Gravity Force Has No Speed LIGO Fraud Investigator <mapou001@gmail.com> - 2016-08-12 09:16 -0700
Re: Gravity Force Has No Speed bartekltg <bartekltg@gmail.com> - 2016-08-13 12:40 +0200
Re: Gravity Force Has No Speed LIGO Fraud Investigator <mapou001@gmail.com> - 2016-08-14 12:30 -0700
Re: Gravity Force Has No Speed bartekltg <bartekltg@gmail.com> - 2016-08-10 23:11 +0200
Re: Gravity Force Has No Speed LIGO Fraud Investigator <mapou001@gmail.com> - 2016-08-10 15:47 -0700
Re: Gravity Force Has No Speed bartekltg <bartekltg@gmail.com> - 2016-08-11 15:28 +0200
Re: Gravity Force Has No Speed LIGO Fraud Investigator <mapou001@gmail.com> - 2016-08-14 12:23 -0700
Re: Gravity Force Has No Speed Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-08-15 08:27 -0500
Re: Gravity Force Has No Speed Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-08-11 09:17 -0500
Re: Gravity Force Has No Speed LIGO Fraud Investigator <mapou001@gmail.com> - 2016-08-12 12:53 -0700
Re: Gravity Force Has No Speed bartekltg <bartekltg@gmail.com> - 2016-08-13 11:23 +0200
Re: Gravity Force Has No Speed LIGO Fraud Investigator <mapou001@gmail.com> - 2016-08-14 12:24 -0700
Re: Gravity Force Has No Speed Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-08-15 08:28 -0500
Re: Gravity Force Has No Speed LIGO Fraud Investigator <mapou001@gmail.com> - 2016-08-15 11:38 -0700
Page 5 of 5 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 4 [5]
| From | bartekltg <bartekltg@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-08-13 12:40 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <nomtfr$qtg$1@node2.news.atman.pl> |
| In reply to | #592918 |
On 12.08.2016 18:16, LIGO Fraud Investigator wrote: > On Friday, August 12, 2016 at 5:01:40 AM UTC-7, bartekltg wrote: >> On 12.08.2016 11:48, Michael J. Strickland wrote: >>> On Thu, 11 Aug 2016 15:03:40 +0200, bartekltg >>> <bartekltg@gmail.com> wrote: >>> >>>> On 11.08.2016 10:30, Michael J. Strickland wrote: >>>>> On Wed, 10 Aug 2016 12:57:53 -0700 (PDT), "reber g=emc^2" >>>>> <herbertglazier0@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> On Wednesday, July 27, 2016 at 10:44:07 AM UTC-7, reber >>>>>> g=emc^2 wrote: >>>>>>> On Wednesday, July 20, 2016 at 12:16:49 PM UTC-7, reber >>>>>>> g=emc^2 wrote: >>>>>>>> No lab is trying to measure the speed of gravity for >>>>>>>> that reason.Einstein said it was at c.He had no reason >>>>>>>> to think that.I have a reason to think its force is >>>>>>>> always there,and I have two good reasons as I type this >>>>>>>> for this thinking.Might think of more ways to back up >>>>>>>> this claim too.Treb I know will help. TreBert >>>>> >>>>> I've thought of an experiment to test the speed of gravity. >>>>> When Venus transits the sun, we can assume the sun is a fixed >>>>> background and the light travel time from Venus is about 140 >>>>> seconds so the reduced gravitational force at the earth's >>>>> surface from Venus should occur about 140 seconds before we >>>>> observe the actual alignment if gravity is instantaneous but >>>>> in sync with the apparent alignment if it propagates at the >>>>> speed of light. >>>>> >>>>> Venus (in perfect alignment) should reduce earth's measured >>>>> surface gravity (at noon) by -1.841e-7 Newtons (or 0.184 >>>>> micro Newtons). I >>>> >>>> Why? >>> >>> Why is the earth's gravity reduced when Venus is aligned with >>> us? >> >> Yes. More precisely, why you expect a big difference between the >> two situation: gravity is instant and gravity propagate as light. >> >> >>> Venus's gravity pulling us off the surface of the earth reaches >>> its maximum when it is most nearly overhead at its zenith >>> (highpoint in the sky). This gravity reduces the amount of the >>> downward pull of earth's gravity on us. >> >> Agree. >> >>> This is the reason ocean (and land) tidal bulges are maximum when >>> the moon is most nearly aligned with us at its zenith. We could >>> use the moon but it only gives us a 1.28 second delta between the >>> time it reaches its zenith and its gravitational effect on us >>> maximizes. >> >>> I just did the math (again) last night and the numbers may be off >>> but the effect, while miniscule, should be measurable these >>> days. >> >> OK. I was afraid you have in mind "shielding" or some other >> undetected effects. >> >> You want to observe gravitational acceleration during Venus >> transit and check, if the extreme of the force is shifted relative >> to the centre of transit (when Sun and Venus are pulling >> together)? Is sound quite difficult (other celestial bodies effect >> us too, during two minutes Earth will rotate, so Zenith is not the >> best reference point), but on the first look doable... >> >> But on the closer look I see three major problems with this:/ >> >> - "trigonometry". We do not have to compare "there is >> gravitational Influenfe from Venus" to "there is not" but "Venus is >> Here" to "Venus is where is should be in 140s". Sun's angular >> diameter is ~32arc minutes, transit took 6.5hours, so 140seconds >> give us displacement of 0.19 arc minutes or 5.6 *10^-5 radians. >> >> Venus do not "appear". Is slightly moves. >> >> The whole Venus influence is >> http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=grawitation+constant+*+Venus++mass++%2F+(AU-Venus+orbital+radius+)%5E2 >> >> 1.9 *10^-7 N/kg (you have wrote 1.841e-7, so it is the same) >> >> And chenge in the force is: 1.9 *10^-7 = 1.9 *10^-7 N/kg we get >> only 1 *10 ^ -11 N/kg (or m/s^2) I not sure we can measure this. >> >> But this is perpendicular (to the line Earth-Sun) force. If you >> want to measure drop in the force in zenith direction, it drop like >> cos(alpha) ~= 1- alpha^2/2 >> >> 3 *10^-16 Newtons/kg. It will do not work. >> >> >> Still, we can try to attack the 'perpendicular' part of the change >> in force, and do some tricks to get rid of influence of other >> bodies. Then there is the second problem: >> >> -"free-falling". Earth is not fixed in spaces. It flies like >> gravity tells it. The same gravity we want to measure. >> >> If you are on very small planet, or (better) a spaceship, and you >> flight on low Earth orbit, gravitational force acting on you and >> your ship is still almost like on earth 8.95 m/s^2 on 300km orbit. >> But you and your instruments do not detect anything. Earth >> gravitation is compensated by inertial forces. (this is the whole >> idea of space stations;-)) (I do not try to say hare that >> acceleration and gravitation is the same. Only that we can detect >> the difference:) >> >> The same works with Earth when it travel in other bodies' >> gravitation. In the centre of Earth (luckily to our example it is >> both geometric centre and centre of mass) you will not detect >> influence of other bodies. Sun acts 0.00593m/s^2 on you, but also >> on the Earth as a whole, and Earth is accelerating 0.00593m/s^2, so >> in your room in Earth core there is no effect. Accelerometers >> displays 0. >> >> >> >> Tides are "second order" effects. On an ocean closer to the Moon(or >> Sun), Moon acts with stronger force. The difference between this >> force and mean acceleration of whole planet is a net force that >> cause tides. >> >> So our detectors do not feel G * Venus mass / distance^2 = 1.9 >> *10^-7 N/kg >> >> If feels G * Venus mass / (distance-earth radius)^2 - G * Venus >> mass / distance^2 = 2 (G Venus mass) earth radius / distance^3 + O >> (lesser terms) >> >> http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=gravitation+constant+*+Venus++mass++%2F+(AU-Venus+orbital+radius+)%5E3+*+2+earth+radius >> >> >> 5.8 *10^-11. >> 3250 times less. From every results from the first "problem" we >> have to cut three and a half of digits. >> >> It will do not work:( We do not have means to measure that weak >> changes in forces. >> >> - The last problem is more theoretical. We want compare two >> hipotesis, graviti is instant and it is slow (like c). But we do >> not compare it to every possible theory with slow gravity. We do >> not even compare it to the better ones! >> >> We construct something like 'fuid gravity' Laplace considered... >> and proved it have to be instant:) >> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speed_of_gravity#Laplace >> >> But this mean nothing. We know that slow gravitation do not work >> like Laplace assumed. We should take for example general relativity >> and use it as a model of 'slow gravity' case. >> >> Ant there >> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Einstein%E2%80%93Infeld%E2%80%93Hoffmann_equations >> >> all but one parts of the force act in tke lines between >> _current_ positions of the bodies. So like in the instant gravity. >> The last term describe force acting in the line of acceleration of >> the second body, not the velocity. >> >> So even if you can perform that experiment, and get results, still >> instant gravitiation and GR give us almost the same predictions. >> >> >> WOW, it was long. TLDR: >> >> -Venus do not appears suddenly. Is only slightly moves. The force >> change during the 140s period is not 1.9 *10^-7 but this number >> multiply by (in the best scenerio) sinus of quite small angle. >> >> -Earth is not fixed in space. If something attract us (an >> accelerometer) it attract whole Earth (and base of the >> accelerometer is fixed to it). Accelerometer (and water in tides) >> on the surface do not feel GM/r^2 (relatively to Earth) it feels >> 2GM earth_radius /r^3 (r=distance, M = Venus mass. ) That is 5.8 >> *10^-11 (and this have to be multiply by sinus of mentioned before >> small angle) >> >> -To get prediction of how delayed gravity works you have used very >> simple toy theory. Theory that we know do not works. If we get >> better one (General Relativity) this sort of differences between >> both models disappear. This kind of experiment can't distinct >> between GR and instant Newtonian gravity. > > This is complete unmitigated BS. Relativists have to do a complete > neutron dance in order to get their chicken shit "theory" to agree > with the Newtonian results. No. It is quite easy. Maybe not "first years undergrad student easy", but still, you can found _exact_ solution of movement of small body in Schwarzschild metric described as movement in effective potential (for example in Bernard Schutz - easy textbook for GR) and derivation of Einstein–Infeld–Hoffmann equations (Lagrangian/equations of many body system, approximated to terms O(c^-2)) in Landau&Lifshitz, (harder, but still elementary physic course). Both have a form of GMm/r^2 + something small. In the EIH eq. it is a series os terms O(c^-2), in the exact solution for a small body the effective potential is multiplied by (1+O(c^-1)). So GR reproduce Newtonian results quite easily. > Newtonian gravity is not a "toy" theory, Read carefully! I haven't said Newtonian gravity is a toy theory. I have said inserting retardation is such way as in this thread was done, is a toy theory. > They posit that every massive body magically transmits > information about its position and velocity out into space and that > receiving bodies magically use this information to extrapolate the > actual position and velocity of the source mass. What a stupid idea. Nothing happens magically. Solve equation, look at the results. If you have to get some "explanations", think that way: See the force as series in c^-1. The first term, O(c^0) is Newtonian potential GMm/r. The retardation is the the term in the first order O(c^-1). But this is not the only term of that order! If you count all, they not only cancel the retardation, but all O(c^-1) terms. This is nothing new. The same is happening in electromagnetic interaction between charged balls/particles. If you only took electrostatic and insert a retardation, you will get quite different results than is you use whole electromagnetism and do it properly. You can use electromagnetism to better understand the effect, because E-M is much easier, but the nature of the effect is the same. (You can always use the "gravitomagnetism/gravitoelectromagnetism aproximation" :) > No mechanism is > offered as to how this magic occurs. It is. You just didn't know it. Until now:) Go for L&L and good electromagnetic books and learn it. > The problem with this crap is that a moving body cannot possibly know > its velocity relative to any other body unless it has instantaneous > access to the other body's position and velocity relative to itself. I think I see where you made mistake in your thinking and why it annoys you. When we have two body, A and B, and now we want to check the force acting on B, we do not need a communication between A and B. A do not have to know how fast B is traveling. If A is moving (was moving retarded time ago) it creates different field as if A wasn't moving. The field is "denser" before the particle, or, as in e-m case (or approximation), there is some magnetic (or "magnetic":) field. So, when we looks at B, it do not know where A is, but it feels the field (emitted T=distance/c time ago), and in this field there is an information about A's movement. Study the electromagnetic interaction between particles. There is no magical (or even instant) transfer of information about position. But information about movement (velocity and acceleration, but velocity is important here) is contained in the field (electromagnetic or gravitational) and propagates with it. And now, equation are build it that way, that force act in the direction where article _should_ be in time time 0, not where it was in time -T=distance/c. The difference between approximated from field positin and the real position (the particle have arbitrary movement) is in O(^-2) or lesser terms. Quite easy? bartekltg
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | LIGO Fraud Investigator <mapou001@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-08-14 12:30 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <05c5a74b-45cd-4172-9e0c-f55d0204d412@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #593003 |
On Saturday, August 13, 2016 at 3:41:03 AM UTC-7, bartekltg wrote: >[crap deleted] Fuck you, asshole. ahahahaha...AHAHAHAHA...ahahahaha...
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | bartekltg <bartekltg@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-08-10 23:11 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <nog59r$g4b$1@node1.news.atman.pl> |
| In reply to | #590116 |
On 20.07.2016 21:16, reber g=emc^2 wrote: > No lab is trying to measure the speed of gravity for that > reason.Einstein said it was at c. I'm quite sure LIGO just have proven that speed of gravity is finite and gave us the upper limit. And I do not talk about the estimated upper limit of graviton, based on a dispersion of the signal (you propably "don't belive" is some of post 1890 science:) but about the delay between the signal in both of LIGO detectors. 7ms, detectors ~3000km apart. You can get these results with gravitational wave travelling faster than 1.4c. When VIRGO and KAGRA start, the results give us the whole velocity, not only projection on one direction. Also, other people who tried to menasure the speed of light https://arxiv.org/pdf/gr-qc/0103036v1.pdf [not direct] https://arxiv.org/pdf/astro-ph/0302294v2.pdf [controversial methodology] Both are shitty attempt, but they exist. Some labs are trying to measure speed of gravity. bartekltg
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | LIGO Fraud Investigator <mapou001@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-08-10 15:47 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <64c1b6c3-f461-43b4-8cac-b6a31635aec3@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #592692 |
On Wednesday, August 10, 2016 at 2:11:26 PM UTC-7, bartekltg wrote: > On 20.07.2016 21:16, reber g=emc^2 wrote: > > No lab is trying to measure the speed of gravity for that > > reason.Einstein said it was at c. > > > I'm quite sure LIGO just have proven that speed of > gravity is finite and gave us the upper limit. Your personal assurance means nothing. I, on the other hand, am quite sure that LIGO is a fraud. Gravity has no speed. It is a nonlocal or instantaneous phenomenon, otherwise the inverse square law would not hold and Newtonian gravity would be way off. Laplace proved long ago that the speed of gravity would have to be orders of magnitude faster than c in order for the planets and the moon to remain in orbit. ahahahaha...AHAHAHAHA...ahahahaha...
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | bartekltg <bartekltg@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-08-11 15:28 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <nohuhk$9s4$1@node1.news.atman.pl> |
| In reply to | #592702 |
On 11.08.2016 00:47, LIGO Fraud Investigator wrote: > On Wednesday, August 10, 2016 at 2:11:26 PM UTC-7, bartekltg wrote: >> On 20.07.2016 21:16, reber g=emc^2 wrote: >>> No lab is trying to measure the speed of gravity for that >>> reason.Einstein said it was at c. >> >> >> I'm quite sure LIGO just have proven that speed of >> gravity is finite and gave us the upper limit. > > Your personal assurance means nothing. This is not a personal assurance, only a figure of speech. One of LIGO detectors detect the wave 7ms earlier that the second one. This is a fact and it give us an upper limit on the speed of gravity (changes in gravitational field). > I, on the other hand, am quite sure that LIGO is a fraud. "Your personal beliefs means nothing." ;-) > Gravity has no speed. It is a nonlocal or instantaneous phenomenon, > otherwise the inverse square law would not hold and Newtonian gravity > would be way off. Not true. Do you mean that if gravitational interaction is retarded, two body system would gain more and more energy? This is a common mistake. If you consider one of O(v/c) correction (retardation), you should consider all corrections of that order of amplitude. The same "trap" is in electrostatic/electromagnetism. The electric field from a charged particle is E = k Q r/|r|^3. ( |E| ~ 1/r^2) and changes in electric (and magnetic) field travel with light speed. Still, two charged balls will not gain energy. If you try to derive precise equations on the forces, the forces still woudl be central. Similary in gravitation. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Einstein%E2%80%93Infeld%E2%80%93Hoffmann_equations This equation contain all v/c (cancelled out!) and (v/c)^2 correction. > Laplace proved long ago that the speed of gravity would have to be orders of magnitude Laplace use some strange fluid model, not GR. Even wiki know that: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speed_of_gravity#Laplace bartekltg
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | LIGO Fraud Investigator <mapou001@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-08-14 12:23 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <afd5b829-ca73-45fa-a44b-a0159441e970@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #592759 |
On Thursday, August 11, 2016 at 6:28:23 AM UTC-7, bartekltg wrote: > On 11.08.2016 00:47, LIGO Fraud Investigator wrote: >[...] > > Gravity has no speed. It is a nonlocal or instantaneous phenomenon, > > otherwise the inverse square law would not hold and Newtonian gravity > > would be way off. > > Not true. Fuck you, asshole. It is true. > Do you mean that if gravitational interaction is retarded, two body > system would gain more and more energy? No. I mean that, if gravity propagated at a finite speed, the gravitational field around a moving body would not be symmetrical and Newtonian physics would be fully falsified, i.e., planets and moons would not remain in stable orbits. > This is a common mistake. If you consider one of O(v/c) correction > (retardation), you should consider all corrections of that order of > amplitude. It's no fucking mistake. It is you who are either lying or deluded. > The same "trap" is in electrostatic/electromagnetism. > The electric field from a charged particle is > E = k Q r/|r|^3. > ( |E| ~ 1/r^2) > > and changes in electric (and magnetic) field travel with light speed. > Still, two charged balls will not gain energy. If you try to > derive precise equations on the forces, the forces still woudl be central. > > Similary in gravitation. It is similar to gravitation because, contrary to the teachings of the clueless and gutless physics community, the electric field is also instantaneous, just like gravity. A moving electron cannot possibly broadcast its relative position and velocity to other particles because it has no access to this information unless one assumes that there is instantaneous communication between the electron and the other particles. Get a clue, moron. And stop kissing ass like a gutless worm. > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Einstein%E2%80%93Infeld%E2%80%93Hoffmann_equations > > This equation contain all v/c (cancelled out!) and (v/c)^2 > correction. > > > Laplace proved long ago that the speed of gravity would have to be orders of magnitude > > Laplace use some strange fluid model, not GR. > > Even wiki know that: > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speed_of_gravity#Laplace > > bartekltg You need to grow two pairs: a pair of balls and a pair of neurons between your ears. IOW, fuck you, you gutless mental midget. Don't bother replying. I will ignore your worthless crap from now on. ahahahaha...AHAHAHAHA...ahahahaha...
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-08-15 08:27 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <nosfvg$4rb$2@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #593133 |
On 8/14/2016 2:23 PM, LIGO Fraud Investigator wrote: > On Thursday, August 11, 2016 at 6:28:23 AM UTC-7, bartekltg wrote: >> On 11.08.2016 00:47, LIGO Fraud Investigator wrote: >> [...] >>> Gravity has no speed. It is a nonlocal or instantaneous phenomenon, >>> otherwise the inverse square law would not hold and Newtonian gravity >>> would be way off. >> >> Not true. > > Fuck you, asshole. It is true. > >> Do you mean that if gravitational interaction is retarded, two body >> system would gain more and more energy? > > No. I mean that, if gravity propagated at a finite speed, the gravitational > field around a moving body would not be symmetrical and Newtonian physics would > be fully falsified, i.e., planets and moons would not remain in stable orbits. Prove it. > >> This is a common mistake. If you consider one of O(v/c) correction >> (retardation), you should consider all corrections of that order of >> amplitude. > > It's no fucking mistake. It is you who are either lying or deluded. Then prove your contention. > >> The same "trap" is in electrostatic/electromagnetism. >> The electric field from a charged particle is >> E = k Q r/|r|^3. >> ( |E| ~ 1/r^2) >> >> and changes in electric (and magnetic) field travel with light speed. >> Still, two charged balls will not gain energy. If you try to >> derive precise equations on the forces, the forces still woudl be central. >> >> Similary in gravitation. > > It is similar to gravitation because, contrary to the teachings of the > clueless and gutless physics community, the electric field is also instantaneous, Not true for a moving charge. > just like gravity. A moving electron cannot possibly broadcast its relative > position and velocity to other particles because it has no access to this > information unless one assumes that there is instantaneous communication > between the electron and the other particles. Get a clue, moron. And stop > kissing ass like a gutless worm. > >> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Einstein%E2%80%93Infeld%E2%80%93Hoffmann_equations >> >> This equation contain all v/c (cancelled out!) and (v/c)^2 >> correction. >> >>> Laplace proved long ago that the speed of gravity would have to be orders of magnitude >> >> Laplace use some strange fluid model, not GR. >> >> Even wiki know that: >> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speed_of_gravity#Laplace >> >> bartekltg > > You need to grow two pairs: a pair of balls and a pair of neurons between your ears. > IOW, fuck you, you gutless mental midget. Don't bother replying. I will ignore your > worthless crap from now on. In other words, anytime anyone points out a problem with your thinking, you say "fuck you" and ignore any more posts along that line. I see. > > ahahahaha...AHAHAHAHA...ahahahaha... > -- Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-08-11 09:17 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <noi1d9$1mc6$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #592702 |
On 8/10/2016 5:47 PM, LIGO Fraud Investigator wrote: > On Wednesday, August 10, 2016 at 2:11:26 PM UTC-7, bartekltg wrote: >> On 20.07.2016 21:16, reber g=emc^2 wrote: >>> No lab is trying to measure the speed of gravity for that >>> reason.Einstein said it was at c. >> >> >> I'm quite sure LIGO just have proven that speed of >> gravity is finite and gave us the upper limit. > > Your personal assurance means nothing. I, on the other hand, am quite sure > that LIGO is a fraud. Gravity has no speed. It is a nonlocal or instantaneous > phenomenon, otherwise the inverse square law would not hold and Newtonian > gravity would be way off. Laplace proved long ago that the speed of gravity > would have to be orders of magnitude faster than c in order for the planets > and the moon to remain in orbit. Care to recount that proof? > > ahahahaha...AHAHAHAHA...ahahahaha... > -- Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | LIGO Fraud Investigator <mapou001@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-08-12 12:53 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <e5cb084f-c791-44f7-8987-6e1d5edc0b4e@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #592692 |
On Wednesday, August 10, 2016 at 2:11:26 PM UTC-7, bartekltg wrote: > On 20.07.2016 21:16, reber g=emc^2 wrote: > > No lab is trying to measure the speed of gravity for that > > reason.Einstein said it was at c. > > > I'm quite sure LIGO just have proven that speed of > gravity is finite and gave us the upper limit. And we are to accept the word of a bunch of notorious liars for it? LIGO proved nothing because it is a fraud. And the fraudsters deserve to go to jail. But it's still time for them to repent and admit that they have defrauded the taxpayers. What we need is a brave whistleblower in that pseudoscientific nest of thieves to contact WikiLeaks. ahahahaha...AHAHAHAHA...ahahahaha...
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | bartekltg <bartekltg@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-08-13 11:23 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <nomou1$mge$1@node2.news.atman.pl> |
| In reply to | #592956 |
On 12.08.2016 21:53, LIGO Fraud Investigator wrote: >> > I'm quite sure LIGO just have proven that speed of >> > gravity is finite and gave us the upper limit. > And we are to accept the word of a bunch of notorious liars for it? > LIGO proved nothing because it is a fraud. Sure. And you know that because you have very strong feeling about that. :-) bartekltg
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | LIGO Fraud Investigator <mapou001@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-08-14 12:24 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <60bcb33c-9d4d-410e-ae4f-136689242de1@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #593002 |
On Saturday, August 13, 2016 at 2:23:16 AM UTC-7, bartekltg wrote: > On 12.08.2016 21:53, LIGO Fraud Investigator wrote: > >> > I'm quite sure LIGO just have proven that speed of > >> > gravity is finite and gave us the upper limit. > > > And we are to accept the word of a bunch of notorious liars for it? > > LIGO proved nothing because it is a fraud. > > Sure. > And you know that because you have very strong feeling about that. > :-) > > bartekltg I know it because I got more balls and brains than you do, jackass. ahahaha...AHAHAHAHA...ahahahaha...
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-08-15 08:28 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <nosg1j$4rb$3@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #593134 |
On 8/14/2016 2:24 PM, LIGO Fraud Investigator wrote: > On Saturday, August 13, 2016 at 2:23:16 AM UTC-7, bartekltg wrote: >> On 12.08.2016 21:53, LIGO Fraud Investigator wrote: >>>>> I'm quite sure LIGO just have proven that speed of >>>>> gravity is finite and gave us the upper limit. >> >>> And we are to accept the word of a bunch of notorious liars for it? >>> LIGO proved nothing because it is a fraud. >> >> Sure. >> And you know that because you have very strong feeling about that. >> :-) >> >> bartekltg > > I know it because I got more balls and brains than you do, jackass. You have neither brains (because you do not and cannot read references) nor balls (because you will not stand by your claims with a wager). What you have is delusions of grandeur. -- Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | LIGO Fraud Investigator <mapou001@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-08-15 11:38 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <9b1e7c3d-8b54-44e3-9d45-e0171c79549d@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #593213 |
On Monday, August 15, 2016 at 6:28:23 AM UTC-7, Odd Bodkin wrote: >[crap] What does Stephen Hawking's ass smell like today, mental midget? ahahahaha...AHAHAHAHA...ahahahaha...
[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]
Page 5 of 5 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 4 [5]
Back to top | Article view | sci.physics
csiph-web