Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > sci.physics > #683295 > unrolled thread

What's the speed of Gravity?

Back to article view | Back to sci.physics

Contents

  What's the speed of Gravity? Jerry Kraus <jkraus1999@gmail.com> - 2018-05-02 05:56 -0700
    What's the speed of Gravity? john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2018-05-02 07:32 -0700
      Re: What's the speed of Gravity? Jerry Kraus <jkraus1999@gmail.com> - 2018-05-02 07:47 -0700
        Re: What's the speed of Gravity? john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2018-05-02 08:02 -0700
          Re: What's the speed of Gravity? Jerry Kraus <jkraus1999@gmail.com> - 2018-05-02 08:28 -0700
            Re: What's the speed of Gravity? moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2018-05-02 15:54 +0000
            Re: What's the speed of Gravity? john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2018-05-02 08:56 -0700
          Re: What's the speed of Gravity? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-05-02 19:17 +0000
            Re: What's the speed of Gravity? john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2018-05-02 12:50 -0700
              Re: What's the speed of Gravity? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-05-02 23:18 +0000
            Re: What's the speed of Gravity? john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2018-05-02 13:43 -0700
              Re: What's the speed of Gravity? poraty149@gmail.com - 2018-05-02 16:17 -0700
              Re: What's the speed of Gravity? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-05-02 23:21 +0000
                Re: What's the speed of Gravity? john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2018-05-03 11:08 -0700
                  Re: What's the speed of Gravity? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-05-03 18:56 +0000
                    Re: What's the speed of Gravity? Libor Striz <poutnik4REMOVEnntp@CAPITALSgmail.com> - 2018-05-04 07:16 +0200
                      Re: What's the speed of Gravity? john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2018-05-04 06:39 -0700
                        Re: What's the speed of Gravity? Libor Striz <poutnik4REMOVEnntp@CAPITALSgmail.com> - 2018-05-04 16:26 +0200
                          Re: What's the speed of Gravity? john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2018-05-04 07:41 -0700
                            Re: What's the speed of Gravity? Libor Striz <poutnik4REMOVEnntp@CAPITALSgmail.com> - 2018-05-04 16:46 +0200
                              Re: What's the speed of Gravity? john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2018-05-04 08:25 -0700
                                Re: What's the speed of Gravity? Libor Striz <poutnik4REMOVEnntp@CAPITALSgmail.com> - 2018-05-04 18:00 +0200
                            Re: What's the speed of Gravity? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-05-04 16:50 +0000
                              Re: What's the speed of Gravity? benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2018-05-04 15:18 -0400
                              Re: What's the speed of Gravity? poraty149@gmail.com - 2018-05-05 18:42 -0700
                        Re: What's the speed of Gravity? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-05-04 16:33 +0000
              Re: What's the speed of Gravity? moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2018-05-03 06:49 +0000
    Re: What's the speed of Gravity? "reber G=emc^2" <herbertglazier0@gmail.com> - 2018-05-02 14:05 -0700
      Re: What's the speed of Gravity? "hanson" <hanson@quick.net> - 2018-05-02 15:37 -0700
    Re: What's the speed of Gravity? Dan Riley <dan131riley@gmail.com> - 2018-05-03 10:35 -0400
      Re: What's the speed of Gravity? poraty149@gmail.com - 2018-05-04 00:41 -0700
    Re: What's the speed of Gravity? mitchrae3323@gmail.com - 2018-05-03 13:58 -0700

Page 1 of 2  [1] 2  Next page →

#683295 — What's the speed of Gravity?

Supposedly we've discovered "Gravity Waves" now, so, presumably it should be possible to try to calculate the speed of Gravity.    What is the speed of Gravity, exactly?     Is the speed of Gravity equal to the speed of light?   If the speed of Gravity is greater than the speed of light, where does that leave us, regarding Relativity?   Also, what are the gravitational mechanisms, operating at the speed of gravity.    Surely,   Isaac Newton's greatest mistake was simply leaving the force of Gravity as an instantaneous, black box effect.

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#683311

The waves observed simply prove that Space is a material. It is matter of the next gauge down and all those smaller. Reality is like a musical scale, and our Matter and its Fractals are one of the notes.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#683316

On Wednesday, May 2, 2018 at 9:32:47 AM UTC-5, john wrote:
> The waves observed simply prove that Space is a material. It is matter of the next gauge down and all those smaller. Reality is like a musical scale, and our Matter and its Fractals are one of the notes.

Sure, that's a way of looking at things, John.    But, is it a very useful way of looking at things?    Wouldn't a more mechanistic explanation, if possible, have rather more utility?

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#683319

Jerry
“Sure, that's a way of looking at things, John.    But, is it a very useful way of looking at things?    Wouldn't a more mechanistic explanation, if possible, have rather more utility? ”
Fractals explains space as being gradations of materials rather than material underpinned by wishes and beggars’ horses, like Odd and company believes. In those smaller gradations are necessarily the smaller forms of EMR, which DO travel faster than our EMR.
The NEXT SMALLER version of EMR- that which causes much of our gravity- travels at about 9 times Lightspeed.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#683328

On Wednesday, May 2, 2018 at 10:02:30 AM UTC-5, john wrote:
> Jerry
> “Sure, that's a way of looking at things, John.    But, is it a very useful way of looking at things?    Wouldn't a more mechanistic explanation, if possible, have rather more utility? ”
> Fractals explains space as being gradations of materials rather than material underpinned by wishes and beggars’ horses, like Odd and company believes. In those smaller gradations are necessarily the smaller forms of EMR, which DO travel faster than our EMR.
> The NEXT SMALLER version of EMR- that which causes much of our gravity- travels at about 9 times Lightspeed.

Why nine times lightspeed, exactly?    How is that rationalized, explained or proven?   Can you provide online hyperlinks, if possible?

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#683333

Jerry Kraus <jkraus1999@gmail.com> writes:

>On Wednesday, May 2, 2018 at 10:02:30 AM UTC-5, john wrote:
>> The NEXT SMALLER version of EMR- that which causes much of our gravity-
>travels at about 9 times Lightspeed.

>Why nine times lightspeed, exactly?    How is that rationalized, explained
>or proven?

There's no rationalization, explanation or proof. It Is True because John
Sefton Said So, and That's That.

>   Can you provide online hyperlinks, if possible?

Of course he can't. He can show you some animated gifs of spinny things,
however.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#683334

Jerry
“Why nine times lightspeed, exactly?    How is that rationalized, explained or proven?   Can you provide online hyperlinks, if possible? 
”
If you observe Fractal formation, the smaller stuff goes faster.
I read a lot of Halton ARP, and he observed at one point that quasars are ejected in pairs from AGNs. He measured the angles and redshirts of the ejected quasars and determined them to be going about a ninth of lightspeed against the galactic background. I then take this one-ninth and scale it to Lightspeed at atomic level and nine times Lightspeed at the subatomic^1 level, where the mini-neutrinos are constantly being given off by all electrons as they speed around the nucleus at relativistic speeds, and these emanations are absorbed by all protons to create gravity, and the electrons are recharged just like stars are recharged here:


 https://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/swift/bursts/shredded-star.html

So, it’s a never ending CYCLE, whereby electrons radiate and protons gravitate to replenish that radiation.

So- Halton Arp’s quasars compared to light would be light compared to gravity- about 9 times.
And then there must be a level of radiation below that, which must then travel at 81 times Lightspeed- is this perhaps Dark Energy?

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#683374

john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> wrote:
> Jerry
> “Sure, that's a way of looking at things, John.    But, is it a very
> useful way of looking at things?    Wouldn't a more mechanistic
> explanation, if possible, have rather more utility? ”
> Fractals 

First of all, it would be lovely if you would refrain from appropriating a
buzzword like “fractals” if you don’t know what it means. You have this
goofball notion that “turtles all the way down” should be equivalenced to
fractals. Hence this silly notion you invented of fractal layers. 

>explains space as being gradations of materials rather than material
> underpinned by wishes and beggars’ horses, like Odd and company believes. 

I see you’re one of those that can’t conceive of waves in anything other
than a material medium. That’s not what is required for waves to happen and
we’ve talked about this. 

Secondly isn’t it ironic that you say that these waves happen in the
material of a “smaller kind” of EMR when EMR isn’t material?

> In those smaller gradations are necessarily the smaller forms of EMR,
> which DO travel faster than our EMR.
> The NEXT SMALLER version of EMR- that which causes much of our gravity-
> travels at about 9 times Lightspeed.
> 



-- 
Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#683379

Odd
“Secondly isn’t it ironic that you say that these waves happen in the 
material of a “smaller kind” of EMR when EMR isn’t material? ”
Odd Bodkin 
Reading.
Comprehension.
= very low
Recommend  for woodwork class.

I said , “In those smaller gradations are necessarily the smaller forms of EMR, which DO travel faster than our EMR. “

In other words, smaller iterations of matter are accompanied by smaller iterations of EMR, the next one down of which causes gravity/inertia.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#683429

john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> wrote:
> Odd
> “Secondly isn’t it ironic that you say that these waves happen in the 
> material of a “smaller kind” of EMR when EMR isn’t material? ”
> Odd Bodkin 
> Reading.
> Comprehension.
> = very low
> Recommend  for woodwork class.
> 
> I said , “In those smaller gradations are necessarily the smaller forms
> of EMR, which DO travel faster than our EMR. “
> 
> In other words, smaller iterations of matter are accompanied by smaller
> iterations of EMR, the next one down of which causes gravity/inertia.
> 

So these waves that you say require matter, are they waves in the submatter
or waves in the subEMR?

And are you saying that there can’t be any waves in EMR because waves
require matter?

-- 
Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#683385

Odd

“I see you’re one of those...”
Do you know what kind of statement you’re making here?
I am not ‘one of ‘ anything. I think for myself.
And you continue,
“I see you’re one of those that can’t conceive of waves in anything other 
than a material medium. That’s not what is required for waves to happen and 
we’ve talked about this. ”
Okay, basically, Standard Model assumes there is some “smallest” thing that somehow makes all things. There is. It is a smaller atom. And there is a whole reality of smaller things at that level. And they are organized. And they can contain knowledge borne of experience. And knowledge is scale-invariant. But Standard Model doesn’t like this idea? They want Quantum Foam and that’s it? Why?

Medium- scientific definition:
&A substance that makes possible the transfer of energy from one location to another, especially through waves.&

So, which ‘non-material’ mediums can you identity, Odd?

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#683428

On Wednesday, May 2, 2018 at 11:43:39 PM UTC+3, john wrote:
> Odd
> 
> “I see you’re one of those...”
> Do you know what kind of statement you’re making here?
> I am not ‘one of ‘ anything. I think for myself.
> And you continue,
> “I see you’re one of those that can’t conceive of waves in anything other 
> than a material medium. That’s not what is required for waves to happen and 
> we’ve talked about this. ”
> Okay, basically, Standard Model assumes there is some “smallest” thing that somehow makes all things. There is. It is a smaller atom. And there is a whole reality of smaller things at that level. And they are organized. And they can contain knowledge borne of experience. And knowledge is scale-invariant. But Standard Model doesn’t like this idea? They want Quantum Foam and that’s it? Why?
> 
> Medium- scientific definition:
> &A substance that makes possible the transfer of energy from one location to another, especially through waves.&
> 
> So, which ‘non-material’ mediums can you identity, Odd?
=
==============================
see Google:
the 'y circlon mechanism' 
=
http://sites.google.com/site/theyporatmodel/an-abstract

at its appendix !!

in that case
velocity of  gravitation wave 
is about 3.14  c!!
how about ??
---------------
TIA
Y.Porat
=================

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#683431

john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> wrote:
> Odd
> 
> “I see you’re one of those...”
> Do you know what kind of statement you’re making here?
> I am not ‘one of ‘ anything. I think for myself.

But you, all by yourself, have aligned yourself with a small bunch of loons
who contend that waves require a material medium. 

> And you continue,
> “I see you’re one of those that can’t conceive of waves in anything other 
> than a material medium. That’s not what is required for waves to happen and 
> we’ve talked about this. ”
> Okay, basically, Standard Model assumes there is some “smallest” thing
> that somehow makes all things. 

No, John, that is not at all what the Standard Model says. 

How about before complaining about how nonsensical things the Standard
Model says, you learn what it actually does say, rather than complaining
about nonsense you invented about the Standard Model? 

> There is. It is a smaller atom. And there is a whole reality of smaller
> things at that level. And they are organized. And they can contain
> knowledge borne of experience. And knowledge is scale-invariant. But
> Standard Model doesn’t like this idea? They want Quantum Foam and that’s it? Why?
> 
> Medium- scientific definition:
> &A substance that makes possible the transfer of energy from one location
> to another, especially through waves.&

Yes, that’s the definition of a medium. Not the definition of what’s needed
for a wave. When there is a material medium, it is involved with the
transfer of energy via waves in the medium. However, when there is no
medium or mediating substance there is STILL a way for waves to appear and
for energy to be transported in them. 

You have a problem with logic, John. I can give you a definition of silver:
a precious metal that is often used in the minting of money. Now John: does
that definition tell you that money must be made of silver? 

Idiot. 

> 
> So, which ‘non-material’ mediums can you identity, Odd?
> 



-- 
Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#683520

Odd
“However, when there is no 
medium or mediating substance there is STILL a way for waves to appear and 
for energy to be transported in them. ”
Haha.
Where do you find a place where there is no substance?
La-La Land?

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#683525

john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> wrote:
> Odd
> “However, when there is no 
> medium or mediating substance there is STILL a way for waves to appear and 
> for energy to be transported in them. ”
> Haha.
> Where do you find a place where there is no substance?
> La-La Land?
> 

Ever seen a vacuum chamber? 

-- 
Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#683649

Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> Wrote in message:
> john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Odd
>> “However, when there is no 
>> medium or mediating substance there is STILL a way for waves to appear and 
>> for energy to be transported in them. ”
>> Haha.
>> Where do you find a place where there is no substance?
>> La-La Land?
>> 
> 
> Ever seen a vacuum chamber? 

Even between air molecules at normal pressure. 



-- 
Libor Striz aka Poutnik ( a pilgrim/wanderer/wayfarer)

"Humour is the only effective weapon against stupidity."
Miloš Forman


----Android NewsGroup Reader----
http://usenet.sinaapp.com/

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#683693

Lib
“>> Where do you find a place where there is no substance? 
>> La-La Land? 
>> 
> 
> Ever seen a vacuum chamber? 

Even between air molecules at normal pressure. 
”
And this is PRECISELY where your model fails.
There is substance everywhere.
Space is composed of smaller gradations of matter.
There are also everywhere the finer radiations whose frequencies match those smaller atoms.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#683695

john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> Wrote in message:

> 
>> Even between air molecules at normal pressure. 
> ”
> And this is PRECISELY where your model fails.

I have no model.. :-)

> There is substance everywhere.

Except where it is not.

> Space is composed of smaller gradations of matter.

Such a claim does not have experimental background.

-- 
Libor Striz aka Poutnik ( a pilgrim/wanderer/wayfarer)

"Humour is the only effective weapon against stupidity."
Miloš Forman


----Android NewsGroup Reader----
http://usenet.sinaapp.com/

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#683701

Lib
“Space is composed of smaller gradations of matter. 

Such a claim does not have experimental background. 
“
Such a claim can never be disproved.
On the other hand, the concept of ‘nothing’ is illogical.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#683702

john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> Wrote in message:
> Lib
> “Space is composed of smaller gradations of matter. 
> 
> Such a claim does not have experimental background. 
> “
> Such a claim can never be disproved.
> On the other hand, the concept of ‘nothing’ is illogical.

Claims that cannot be disproved  are out of scope of science.

Free of substance  is not nothing.


-- 
Libor Striz aka Poutnik ( a pilgrim/wanderer/wayfarer)

"Humour is the only effective weapon against stupidity."
Miloš Forman


----Android NewsGroup Reader----
http://usenet.sinaapp.com/

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

Page 1 of 2  [1] 2  Next page →

Back to top | Article view | sci.physics

csiph-web