View Single Post
  #100  
Old 21-05-2008, 06:15 PM
skwinty's Avatar
skwinty (Steve)
E pur si muove

skwinty is offline
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Cape Town
Posts: 494
Quote:
Originally Posted by Karls48 View Post
Again I have to point out that this tread started with link to the article that presents good arguments for speed of gravity being faster then speed of light. So far no one presented any reasonable argument as why it cannot be. The only answer seems to be that nothing can travel faster then light – why? Because Einstein say so.
Hi Karl
Herewith a post by Hans de Vries with regard to this issue.
Also remember, as I have said before, Einsteins postulates have been tested and verified many times over and until they can be disproved or some other theory has the same credentials then Einsteins postulates remain valid and relevant. It seems as though you have some doubt regarding Einstein.

Tom Van Flandern also claims that mars was inhabited by humans or human like beings....

Maybe you understand why your link (to his website) was removed. As far as the 1998
paper concerns, it is wrong. It has been discussed here multiple times as well as on
sci.physics.research (with Steve Carlip and John Baez)


Where does Tom Van Flandern go wrong?

He assumes that the direction of the force, gravitational or electric, is always pointing
to the place where the source was at the moment that the force field was emitted.

This assumption, as we now know more than a century (!), is wrong. The Electric Field
of a moving charge points to the place where the charge will be if it continuous
moving in the same direction during the time the force field needs to propagate.

The same is true for gravitation. In practice this means for the dynamics of the solar
system that the force is towards the location where the planet or sun is at that moment.

This can be measured and Van Flandern erroneously concluded that this means that
gravity must be instantaneous. Because the force is directed to the location where
the object is and not to where it was. His conclusion is a beginners error which
unfortunately made it into a peer reviewed journal.


For the math in case of the electric field, see for instance the links to my book in the
post I made on this thread here.
Reply With Quote