07-09-2002 11:39									#61
	Remove this text

Ethelred and Frogger, Perhaps we are not talking about the same article. The one I read was posted by Slowhand. The article's author is a Tom van Flander, Meta Research, Univ. of Maryland, Army Research Lab.

Here is the link.

The Speed of Gravity - What the Experiments Say

One of the very first topics discussed is that Gravity has no abberation. What the author is talking about is that light travelling from the sun to earth does have abberation due to a time delay, but that gravity does not indicating no or virtual no time delay. The experimental evidence is given in connection with a solar eclipse. There is apparently an observed time delay between the height of eclipse from an light point of view vs. from a gravity point of view.

If gravity is a propagating wave, its speed is much faster than the speed of light.

	07-09-2002 12:05									#62
	Inflate your Upload Space

I know what article you're talking about. It's full of crap. As to its link with Creationist "science", I make no claims.

I have already debunked the claim that the relative stability of gravitationally-bound two-body systems is inconsistent with a speed of propagation of gravitation of c. See my above post.

	07-09-2002 12:22									#63
	Increase Your PM Length

This same argument explains the article's point 2

quote: 2. Gravity and light do not act in parallel directions

point 3

quote: 3. The solar eclipse test

and "myth" 1

quote: 1. Myth: Gravity from an accelerating source experiences light-time delay

Overall, the source displays an astonishing ignorance of GR, Newtonian gravitation, and the difference between the two.

"Myth" 2 is a load of verbose crap. He's basically saying that we haven't proved that the quadrupole moment grav. radiation (which he just spent 3 points and one "myth" in complete ignorance of!!!!!) hasn't been proved to be made of the same stuff as the force carrier for grav. This is absolutely true. So what? We've never even directly observed speed of prop. of grav. yet. Give us a chance.

Point 1 in space-time curvature doesn't mean squat. A load of semantics.

Point 2. in same section is just plain stupid. Just because Newt. grav. with infinite-speed prop.. is better approx. than Newt. grav. with c prop. doesn't mean that GR and Newt grav. with c prop can't both reduce to the same thing.

The rest of the article descends into incoherent rambling.

	07-09-2002 12:27									#64
	Support Apolyton, buy Call to Power 2

Ned, do you ever manage to discuss anything without sounding like a buffoon?

I mean, you failed to sneak security (15 Sept. 11 hijackers came through Canada ) and economics (negative interest rates ) past me.

What makes you think you'll manage to do it in physics, something I've actually received a degree in?

	07-09-2002 13:47									#65
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization 2

quote: Originally posted by Ned Ethelred and Frogger, Perhaps we are not talking about the same article. The one I read was posted by Slowhand. The article's author is a Tom van Flander, Meta Research, Univ. of Maryland, Army Research Lab.

Its the same thing. Take a look at the URL, its part of Lambert Dolphin's site. He has stuff on it that he didn't write as well as his own. He isn't a stupid person he just bases his thinking on the Bible and not on the physical evidence.

Here is the link.

quote: One of the very first topics discussed is that Gravity has no abberation. What the author is talking about is that light travelling from the sun to earth does have abberation due to a time delay, but that gravity does not indicating no or virtual no time delay.

That is for the simple reason the the gravity field isn't changing to any perciptable degree. The mass of the Sun is warping space we move through the warped space. The warp isn't changing relative to us. The experiment with Jupiter is quite different. Jupiter and the warp in space that moves with it IS moving relative to the light from the quasar.

There may be more to it than that but Frogger has the math and I only have the images of models in my head to work with.

quote: The experimental evidence is given in connection with a solar eclipse. There is apparently an observed time delay between the height of eclipse from an light point of view vs. from a gravity point of view. If gravity is a propagating wave, its speed is much faster than the speed of light.

So how come HE is the only one claiming this. People have been looking at eclipses and testing General Relativity that way since the end of WWI. So far no one has found any indication that gravity does not propagate at the speed of light. What is likely going on is that he deliberatly avoiding the use of the Relativity equations because he doesn't like them.

I have noticed that Fundamentalists have a definate distaste for relativity. I had one arguement with an engineer that insisted that Einstein's theories HAD to conform to Newton's Laws of motion AND all the rest of Newton's physics. Despite the fact that the no one has found any errors in Einstein and the fact the Einstein's gravity makes successefull predictions that Newton's cannot. He simply refused to accept the facts of the matter. It was a purely belief based thing with him as far as I could tell. He was unable to justify his claims.

	07-09-2002 13:57									#66
	Browse Apolyton AD-FREE

http://www.livingreviews.org/Articl...ill/node17.html

For those with 1337 tensor skillz

Demonstrates the beginner aspects of quadrupole formalism...

	07-09-2002 14:15									#67
	Support Apolyton, buy Alpha Centauri

Here are some links to other articles on Lambert's site. The same site Ned was linking to.


Reports of the Death of Speed of Light Decay are Premature

http://www.ldolphin.org/bowden/centj.html


Entropy in the Old Creation
http://www.ldolphin.org/thermod.html

Has the Garden of Eden been located at last?
http://www.ldolphin.org/eden/index.html

IS CREATIONISM IN ITS PRESENT FORM
SCIENTIFICALLY DEFENSIBLE?"
http://www.ldolphin.org/genages.html

How I Approach the Book of Genesis
http://www.ldolphin.org/approach.html

Anything that Lambert can find that could possibly be construed as helping Creationism or hindering anything in science that he doesn't like either goes on the site or is linked to. In this case the article Ned posted a link to is attacking General and Special Relativity both of which help give a strong understanding that the Universe is vastly older than Lambert wishes it to be.

	07-09-2002 14:25									#68
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

quote: Originally posted by Frogger http://www.livingreviews.org/Articl...ill/node17.html For those with 1337 tensor skillz Demonstrates the beginner aspects of quadrupole formalism...

Beginner? That stuff is from the Max Planc Institute. Next you will be calling the Princeton Advanced Studies Institute a place for the moderatly inteligent.

I was going to copy part of it and replace all but the most comprehensible parts with BLAH BLAH Einstein BLAH but half of it refused to even show when I pasted it into the reply box. Even Apolyton was to stunned by the equations to allow them.

Do you understand that stuff Frogger? I thought that kind of stuff was post-graduate.

I don't have a clue what tensors are except for being a part of mathematics that Einstein adapted for his use and they have "``effective'' stress-energy pseudotensor" .

PSEUDOTENSORS?

	07-09-2002 14:26									#69
	Inflate your Upload Space

quote: Originally posted by Frogger I know what article you're talking about. It's full of crap. As to its link with Creationist "science", I make no claims.

First of all, it's science, not "science." There is nothing unscientific about creationist science, it just happens to have a book guidlines, which we believe to be infalliable. However, we both digress. This is about gravity, not religion.

I think gravitons move at the speed of light. Not that I have any degree, or any education beyond gr. 10 science and some free-time reading (Brief hist, Univ. in a nutshell, the birth of time).

Actually, I have my own theory, which I have never tested and doubt could work, and I'm pretty sure has been defeated already: time is constant, c is not. There's just something about the [very slight] time travel availavle with relativity that troubles me.....this conondrum of time is my only real setback, really......perhaps my mind is too weak for physics?

	07-09-2002 14:44									#70
	Lose 30 kilos (of popups)

In all the quantum theories of gravity with which I am familiar (none of which work yet by the way), the graviton is massless, implying gravity propagates at the speed of light.

In Supergravity (the best theory of quantum gravity we have) the graviton is a consequence of local supersymmetry breaking. Whenever one breaks a (local) symmetry of the universe one creates a massless 'Goldstone boson' assiciated with the symmetry breaking.

The photon for example is the Goldstone boson associated with breaking a local U(1) symmetry (just the phase invariance of wavefunctions in Quantum Mechanics). (This is not entirely true: the photon is actually a combination of the U(1) Goldstone boson and one of the SU(2) Goldstone bosons, but I am trying to keep things simple.) Similarly breaking local supersymmetry leads to a massless Graviton.

Now there could be some other effect which gives such particles mass (like the Higgs boson does for the other SU(2) Goldstone bosons), but giving a mass to the graviton would destroy its long range nature. Since gravity is most definitely long range, the graviton had better be massless (or very very very close to massless).

Funnily enough, I have just this moment finished writing a paper which includes the most general graviton couplings to the SU(2) bosons....

	07-09-2002 14:46									#71
	Increase Your PM Length

quote: Originally posted by SwitchMoO First of all, it's science, not "science."

Its neither, its purest nonsense.

quote: There is nothing unscientific about creationist science, it just happens to have a book guidlines, which we believe to be infalliable.

Except that your premise is false. At least if you take Bible as Creationist do anyway because it is very clear the Earth is vastly older than Creationism allows for. There is no science is Creationism except perhaps for the science of obfuscation. They are exceeding good at that.

quote: I think gravitons move at the speed of light. Not that I have any degree, or any education beyond gr. 10 science and some free-time reading (Brief hist, Univ. in a nutshell, the birth of time).

The catch is that gravitons at the moment are purely hypothetical. If the hypothesis (pretty much any one of dozens) are correct than they really should move at the speed of light. Thats what masseless particles do.

quote: Actually, I have my own theory, which I have never tested and doubt could work, and I'm pretty sure has been defeated already: time is constant, c is not. There's just something about the [very slight] time travel availavle with relativity that troubles me.....this conondrum of time is my only real setback, really......perhaps my mind is too weak for physics?

Time varies with speed and gravity. I know that speed has been very well tested both in accelerators and with atomic clocks in orbit and on planes. I am not sure if we have any tests for gravity effects yet.

As for C that is still open to question. Untill recently it looked completely constant. There are now some things that MAY indicate that it has changed a bit since the early universe. Then again the data could be have other causes. Like not haveing a sufficient understanding of the attributes of super nova that are giving these indications.

	07-09-2002 14:51									#72
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations: Deluxe Edition

quote: Originally posted by Rogan Josh Funnily enough, I have just this moment finished writing a paper which includes the most general graviton couplings to the SU(2) bosons....

Is there any possibility of testing supersymetry in the forseable future Rogan?

	07-09-2002 14:57									#73
	Lose 30 kilos (of popups)

quote: Except that your premise is false. At least if you take Bible as Creationist do anyway because it is very clear the Earth is vastly older than Creationism allows for. There is no science is Creationism except perhaps for the science of obfuscation. They are exceeding good at that.

OK, I admit, regarding the actual event of creation, it isn't science. But then again, neither is the big-bacg theory, nor evolution.

code:

Science
study of the physical world:  the study of the physical world and its manifestations, especially by using systematic observation and experiment (often used before a noun)

If you can't see it happening, it ain't science, and can actually never be proven. WE can look at the facts and derive a throey based upon them, but there is unfortunately no proof, nor will there ever be

Too bad, I'd so love to prove creation, but all I can really do is give the facts and let you decide.


Well, about the time thing, Ok, you got me there. I forgot about that test.

However, when I mentioned 'c' differing, I meant that the speed of light was as much of a constant as the speed of time (? would that be 1 sec/sec? if time accelerated, it would be 1 sec/sec/sec, or 1 sec cubed )

	07-09-2002 15:11									#74
	Tired of ads?

Why are there so many links to that nut, Tom van Flandern?

Also: Why are GUTs 'necessary'? What problems do they solve?

Why can't Einsteins 'geometric' description of gravity just stay seperate? Why do we need to connect gravity to the other forces? Maybe it isn't really a 'force' in the same sense and we're really dealing with a problem of definitions?

Of course, it would (possibly) be nice if there was a good theory of 'electro-gravity' for all sci-fi enthusiasts....

	07-09-2002 15:14									#75
	Full PM-box? Change here!

quote: Originally posted by Ethelred Is there any possibility of testing supersymetry in the forseable future Rogan?

Sort of.

Supersymmetry is a required ingredient of almost all 'theories of everything' anyone has ever tried. (I say 'almost' because I can only think of one theory that doesn't need it - large extra dimensions.) You need it for string theories, supergravity theories, M-theory, etc. So I am fairly (98%) sure that it exists on some level.

One thing is sure. If supersymmetry exists, it must be broken. Exact supersymmetry predicts that all the known particles have 'superpartner' particles of the same mass. We know that this isn't true because we would have seen them. By breaking supersymmetry the masses of these particles are raised proportionaly to how 'badly' supersymmetry is broken. (Incidentaly the breaking of such symmetries is not a problem - indeed in most scenarios it is inevitable.)

If supersymmetry is very broken, then the superpartners could have masses almost at the Planck scale (ie. very very heavy). This would still allow theories like M-theory to work (because they only require the superpartners to be light compared to the Planck scale), but we would not be able to find these superpartner particle in the forseeable future, because they would take far too much energy to produce. Our current colliders would have to boost their energies by a factor of roughly roughly 10^16....

On the other hand, there are arguments of why supersymmetry should be weakly broken (or more technically 'softly' broken) called the 'hierarchy' problem. Basically, without the softly broken supersymmetry, the Higgs boson would naturaly have a mass around the Planck scale, making it so heavy that it would not interact strongly with the particles we know and love, thereby making them massless. Since everyone expects that we will find the Higgs boson, it looks likely that supersymmetry is only softly broken.

In that case, supersymmetry should be just around the corner. The superpartners should have masses which are light enough to produce them at the Large Hadron Collider, which is currently being built at CERN. Its first physics run will be in 2007. If the LHC does not see them then softly broken supersymmetry is dead.

There are also plans (though no funding yet) to build an e+e- collider in Hamburg (called TESLA) which would give precise measurements of the supersymmertic partner particle's propeties when they are found. (I was one of the authors of the Technical Design Report submitted to the German government.)

	07-09-2002 15:22									#76
	Increase the size of your Attachments

quote: Originally posted by SwitchMoO OK, I admit, regarding the actual event of creation, it isn't science. But then again, neither is the big-bacg theory, nor evolution.

Both are very scientific. Lots of evidence to support both. Megatons for evolution. Maybe gigatons as ALL life on Earth shows evolution in action.

That definition you quoted clearly does NOT fit Creationism which is the study of a book and the denial of any physical manifestions that show the errors in Creationism. Science is not about pounding gigantic round pegs into the tiny squares of Creationist religious beliefs. There simply is no physical reason for Creationist claims about evolution or the age of the Earth. Its ALL based on the Bible and the rest is a just a big sledgehammer trying to pound reality out of shape.

quote: If you can't see it happening, it ain't science, and can actually never be proven. WE can look at the facts and derive a throey based upon them, but there is unfortunately no proof, nor will there ever be

I can't see an electron yet we have science covering the things. We CAN see evolution both in the fossil record and in the lab. Its a standard lie by Creationist organizations that there is no repeatable evidence of evolution. When confronted with lab experiments of course they go back on their own demands for repeatable evidence and claim it was just done in a lab so it has no meaning.

quote: Too bad, I'd so love to prove creation, but all I can really do is give the facts and let you decide.

The facts are clear. Creationism is a belief that is in denial of reality. I have seen the Creationist stuff. It preposterous in many cases and in some recent more sophisticated stuff they have simply borrowed some real science used it at the start of their articles and then slide back to the preposterous stuff and pretend the two are related.

quote: Well, about the time thing, Ok, you got me there. I forgot about that test. However, when I mentioned 'c' differing, I meant that the speed of light was as much of a constant as the speed of time (? would that be 1 sec/sec? if time accelerated, it would be 1 sec/sec/sec, or 1 sec cubed )

The speed of light is the same no matter what speed you are going. If you were moving at 90 per cent of the the speed of light you would still measure it at about 300,000 KPS same as on Earth. The only question is whether the speed of light is the same now as it was in the distant past. We can see that for billions of years in the past its the same to limits of our ability to observe. There is a possibility that even farther back in time the speed may have been different.

	07-09-2002 15:26									#77
	Help yourself to an AD-FREE life

quote: Originally posted by Seeker Also: Why are GUTs 'necessary'? What problems do they solve?

In some sense they aren't necessary. We could live in a world where the forces all had different explanations and had no link to each other. However, past experience show that this is not the case. Lots of experimental data point towards all the forces being different manifestations of the one force. Just like electricity an magnetism are different manifestatins of electromagnetism.

quote: Why can't Einsteins 'geometric' description of gravity just stay seperate? Why do we need to connect gravity to the other forces? Maybe it isn't really a 'force' in the same sense and we're really dealing with a problem of definitions?

We know that the particles of nature obey the laws of quantum physics, but Einstein's gravity applied to quantum particles just doesn't work. It gives the wrong answers. Therefore we need a quantum theory of gravity to explain why and how these quantum particles feel the effects of gravity (and they clearly do). If Einstein's gravity were 100% right then out quantum theories would have to be wrong.

	07-09-2002 15:36									#78
	Avatar Enlargement: We've got the solution

Thanks Rogan.

quote: Originally posted by Rogan Josh On the other hand, there are arguments of why supersymmetry should be weakly broken (or more technically 'softly' broken) called the 'hierarchy' problem. Basically, without the softly broken supersymmetry, the Higgs boson would naturaly have a mass around the Planck scale, making it so heavy that it would not interact strongly with the particles we know and love, thereby making them massless. Since everyone expects that we will find the Higgs boson, it looks likely that supersymmetry is only softly broken.

Everyone (well a lot of people anyway) expected to show that Universe is EXACTLY on the cusp of being closed at one point which now looks wrong. I will keep that in mind regarding the Higgs boson.

quote: There are also plans (though no funding yet) to build an e+e- collider in Hamburg (called TESLA) which would give precise measurements of the supersymmertic partner particle's propeties when they are found. (I was one of the authors of the Technical Design Report submitted to the German government.)

Good luck with the funding. That sort of is just slightly expensive.

Whats the advantage of that type of collider over a proton-antiproton colider where there isn't as much of a loss of energy to synchrotron radiation?

	07-09-2002 16:06									#79
	Inflate your Upload Space

quote: Originally posted by Ethelred Whats the advantage of that type of collider over a proton-antiproton colider where there isn't as much of a loss of energy to synchrotron radiation?

You are right about the synchrotron radiation. So much so, that an e+e- circular collider is infeasilbe for really high energies - you just lose too much energy to the synchrotron radiation. TESLA is to be a linear accelerator (like the one at SLAC), which accelerates the electrons and positrons all in one go up to the required energy (although it would have a synchrotron injector).

Hardron colliders like the LHC (which will be a proton-proton collider incidentally) are just too imprecise. The problem is that protons are not fundamental particles. The energies we want to probe are now high enough that we are really colliding the quarks (or rather for the LHC the gluons) inside the proton. But since we only know the energy of the proton and not the energies of the quarks and gluons inside the proton, it is very hard to do experimental tests with any accuracy. Basically we don't know the details of the initial collision we are investigating.

You are also right though that it is still much easier to obtain high energies with a hadron collider, so the LHC will probe much higher energies that TESLA (about 20 times higher). If one is not so interested in the details then hadron colliders are perfect because there is enough energy to create very massive particles. But if you want to precisely measure the properties of these particles you need a really clean collider like an e+e- machine.

For this reason, the LHC is sometimes called a 'discovery' collider, while TESLA is a 'precision' collider.

Incidentally, there is research being done on muon colliders. Muons are like electrons but much heavier, so they could be accelerated in a synchrotron to give a very high energy, but very precise collider (since they are fundamental particles). This is still 20 years away though.

As for the funding of TESLA, the main problem is that it is really too big for one country to build on its own - we really need a collaboration encompasing the entire world. While we are now reasonably united in areas (Europe, America and Asia), getting these areas together (funding wise) is difficult. We nearly had a deal sorted out last summer where the European technology (which is more advanced) would be used to build a collider in the US (so that not all the important colliders would be in Europe). But then September 11 hit and the funding disappeared...

	07-09-2002 17:03									#80
	Lose 30 kilos (of popups)

quote: Originally posted by Rogan Josh You are right about the synchrotron radiation. So much so, that an e+e- circular collider is infeasilbe for really high energies - you just lose too much energy to the synchrotron radiation. TESLA is to be a linear accelerator (like the one at SLAC), which accelerates the electrons and positrons all in one go up to the required energy (although it would have a synchrotron injector).

OK that makes sense. SLAC is or originly was two miles long. I have vague memories of it when it was new and it was built to avoid synchrotron radiation that was becoming a real problem in the cyclotrons.

quote: Hardron colliders like the LHC (which will be a proton-proton collider incidentally) are just too imprecise. The problem is that protons are not fundamental particles. The energies we want to probe are now high enough that we are really colliding the quarks (or rather for the LHC the gluons) inside the proton. But since we only know the energy of the proton and not the energies of the quarks and gluons inside the proton, it is very hard to do experimental tests with any accuracy. Basically we don't know the details of the initial collision we are investigating.

OK that makes sense also. The collisions will be a lot less messy with leptons.

quote: Incidentally, there is research being done on muon colliders. Muons are like electrons but much heavier, so they could be accelerated in a synchrotron to give a very high energy, but very precise collider (since they are fundamental particles). This is still 20 years away though.

Muons are the second lepton aren't they the one in the middle on weight and lifespan or is that the Meson? Someone at the University of Utah (actually one of the guys on the fringe of the cold fusion hooplah) did experiments with heavy leptons for fusion. He was trying to make a hydrogen atoms with a Meson? Muon? instead of an electron so the atoms would be smaller and he would get a denser plasma.

Ahh found a page on leptons. I can never get names straight. I was thinking about Muons with that low temperature fusion experiment. Low not cold.

I see that the Russians are experimenting with that.

http://www.inr.ac.ru/INR/MMF.html

I see now that I was mixing up apples and oranges. Or rather Mesons and Leptons.

http://www.herts.ac.uk/astro_ub/a10_ub.html

Mesons seem a bit strange, even if they get down---

and of course anti-down. At the same very short time.

quote: As for the funding of TESLA, the main problem is that it is really too big for one country to build on its own - we really need a collaboration encompasing the entire world. While we are now reasonably united in areas (Europe, America and Asia), getting these areas together (funding wise) is difficult. We nearly had a deal sorted out last summer where the European technology (which is more advanced) would be used to build a collider in the US (so that not all the important colliders would be in Europe). But then September 11 hit and the funding disappeared...

Well the funding for the Super Conducting Super Collider disapeared after the Feds bought the land and dug at least part of the tunnel. Don't expect much out the US for that kind of funding while Bush is in office. After all, things must be done by the private sector if they are really worth doing they should be able to make a profit. Especially in Texas. I don't think September 11 had a heck of lot to do with any reasearch funding costs. Team Texas prefers to give Federal money to Enron and other 'profit' producers.

	07-09-2002 18:17									#81
	Tired of ads?

Would you expect to get a high enough flux of muon - anti muons in order to perform these experiments? I assume the plan would be to run experiments for several months/years in order to get statistically significant sample size.

	07-09-2002 19:17									#82
	Support Apolyton

Yes, muons are from the second generation of leptons - so basically just heavy electrons. Mesons are not fundamental particles, but are quark-antiquark bound states. The confusion springs from the first experiment which saw the muon in Rome in '45 (I think). They thought it was a meson, so they called it the mu meson. Unfortunately some people still call it that even although it isn't a meson.

The problem with the muon collider is, as IoT pointed out, it is difficult to get good luminosity, due to 2 effects. Firstly, they are difficult to make and secondly (and more importantly) and the muon has a very short lifetime. Fortunately, relativistic time dilation means that they live longer the faster they are moving. Hopefully they will then be good for very very high energies, as long as we can pump enough energy into them quickly enough.....

...I wouldn't hold my breath though.

If you are interested in TESLA take a look here. The most interesting part of the TDR for non experts is part I - the executive summary.

	07-09-2002 22:59									#83
	Re: Ned the Physicisisisisist Support Apolyton

quote: Originally posted by Frogger I'm going to assume that you are talking about the apparently obvious conclusion that the time of propagation of graivty from source to object would cause an aberration in the force exerted on the object, giving it a transverse acceleration dependent on v/c. Nothing could be farther from the truth. The author simply "forgot" that Newtonian gravitation is wrong, and hand-inserting a time-delay doesn't make it any more right. If you know GR, I can show that the leading-order term v/c disappears (and so do all other terms up to (v/c)^5). This makes the grav. radiation effect a quadrupole term. In other words, not very important. This is one of the fundamental topics covered in any intro GR course.

Neglible? OK.

Then, if you could, explain how does gravity traverses an event horizon?

	08-09-2002 00:56									#84
	Enter the AD-FREE zone

The mass is still there. From what I have read any NEW mass that a Black Hole gathers in never actually enters the Black Hole due to gravitational time dialation. It piles up at the Event Horizon. This may apply to much of the mass that goes into forming the Black Hole initialy as well because most of it starts on the outside of the Event Horizon.

The question you ask doesn't apply to General Relativty as in that theory gravity is the warping of space itself. Its an interesting questing for Quantum Gravity.

The guys question about how matter falls in a gravity field from a stopped position shows the lack of understanding on his part. The question can only arise with a point mass. Any real mass has volume (except a naked singularity should there be any) and therefor is subject to a gravity GRADIENT. The mass being dropped is subjected to more warping in the volume closer to the larger mass than the opposite side of the object. Similar to a lighter than air balloon. Those don't rise simply because they are lighter. They rise because there is a pressure differential between the top and bottom of the balloon that is greater than the the weight of the balloon. Same for boats.

	08-09-2002 03:42									#85
	Tired of ads?

Ethelred, Then, as I understand what you are saying, in GR, gravity has no speed - it is not a wave that propagates.

	08-09-2002 03:42									#86
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization: The Boardgame

quote: Originally posted by Seeker Why can't Einsteins 'geometric' description of gravity just stay seperate? Why do we need to connect gravity to the other forces? Maybe it isn't really a 'force' in the same sense and we're really dealing with a problem of definitions?

Maybe. That's my pet theory. However, QFT and GR aren't compatible...

	08-09-2002 03:46									#87
	Support Apolyton or Terrorists Win

quote: Originally posted by Ethelred Beginner? That stuff is from the Max Planc Institute. Next you will be calling the Princeton Advanced Studies Institute a place for the moderatly inteligent. I was going to copy part of it and replace all but the most comprehensible parts with BLAH BLAH Einstein BLAH but half of it refused to even show when I pasted it into the reply box. Even Apolyton was to stunned by the equations to allow them. Do you understand that stuff Frogger? I thought that kind of stuff was post-graduate. I don't have a clue what tensors are except for being a part of mathematics that Einstein adapted for his use and they have "``effective'' stress-energy pseudotensor" . PSEUDOTENSORS?

That stuff was being covered in the last 2 weeks of my intro to GR class. It didn't seem that bad. Then again, I already had a differential geometry and 2 Geo/Top courses behind me...

Pseudotensors. Looks like a tensor, fails to transform as one?

	08-09-2002 03:50									#88
	Re: Re: Ned the Physicisisisisist Get a bigger avatar today!

quote: Originally posted by Ned Neglible? OK. Then, if you could, explain how does gravity traverses an event horizon?

?

1) GR doesn't care about the event horizon. You can show it's there and you can perform energy calculations that show its effects on photons etc. using GR, though...

2) That has nothing to do with quadrupole radiation

	08-09-2002 03:53									#89
	Support Apolyton, pre-order Civilization IV

quote: Originally posted by Ned Ethelred, Then, as I understand what you are saying, in GR, gravity has no speed - it is not a wave that propagates.

Yes it is, depending on how you want to look at it. It affects all points in space at a time such that the dot product of their 4-vector displacement from source is 0. In other words, in a 3-D with fixed time view, it propagates at the speed of light.

	08-09-2002 03:54									#90
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations: Deluxe Edition

Ned, are you going to admit that an argument based on hand-inserting a time-delay into a thory we know is wrong in unlikely to give the correct answer?