[General] Velocity of gravitation

Wed Feb 13 04:42:08 PST 2019

Al,

You are close to the answer.

   1. In a circular, or even an elliptical orbit, planetary orbit, there is
   no distinct retarded potential. The attractive point does not change.
   2. In a binary system, there is possible retardation. The extreme
   example is that of positronium, which collapses.
   3. Does it do it by radiation? The orbits at and below the atomic ground
   state do not have enough angular momentum to form a photon!

Any orbits have established, bound fields (gravitational &/or EM). These
are standing waves. In standing waves, the energy pre-exists all along the
region. It changes the dielectric properties? Energy can be transmitted a
>c. Can the speed be infinite? A measurable example is that of a microwave
signal transmitted down a waveguide that is too small for resonant transfer
at the carrier frequency. I don't have the reference; however, the signal
in that case is super-luminal.

All bound EM fields, including photons (and even gravitational waves?), are
standing (evanescent?) waves. Is this not a basis for the double-slit
experiment results (and others, e.g., collapse of a wavefunction)?

Another example to consider is that of a light-pulse with an extremely fast
rise time. When going thru a plate glass at an angle, the very initial
portion of the pulse is not deflected (offset) by the glass. Is this
because its leading edge is represented by a frequency that has a
refractive index of one in the glass? Or, is it because there is a lag time
in setting up the dielectric properties of the light path that can slow the
pulse down and cause the observed refractive index for the remaining
frequency components of the pulse?

Food for thought.

Andrew
_ _ _

On Tue, Feb 12, 2019 at 11:28 AM <af.kracklauer at web.de> wrote:

> Chip:
> Can the pulsars be far enough apart, and the decay slow enough, that
> they'r circulating in each others previous cycle's field?   I myself cannot
> equiliberate with the notion of "instantanious" interaction.
>
> ---Al
>
>
> *Gesendet:* Dienstag, 12. Februar 2019 um 15:29 Uhr
> *Von:* "Chip Akins" <chipakins at gmail.com>
> *An:* "'Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion'" <
> general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org>
> *Betreff:* Re: [General] Velocity of gravitation
>
> Hi Al
>
>
>
> If we study the orbital decay of pulsars we can see two large massive
> objects with gravitational fields, co-orbiting.
>
>
>
> In this circumstance the gravitational field is not a stationary field.
>
> However, in this circumstance it is clear that the instantaneous force
> vector of gravity must point toward the instantaneous position of the
> masses or the orbits would decay MUCH faster than observed. So gravity
> cannot be a retarded force, the field itself must either have a distorted
> shape due to motion, or it must be instantaneous.
>
>
>
> I have run the requisite math to determine if a quantifiable rule could
> exist which causes field distortion which would create the appropriate
> force vectors. And there is no solution for distortion with motion which
> holds in all circumstances.
>
>
>
> Therefore my conclusion is that the gravitational field is updated
> practically instantaneously.
>
>
>
> Chip Akins
>
>
>
>
>
> *From:* General [mailto:general-bounces+chipakins=
> gmail.com at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org] *On Behalf Of *
> af.kracklauer at web.de
> *Sent:* Tuesday, February 12, 2019 8:03 AM
> *To:* general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org
> *Cc:* 'Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion' <
> general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org>; Wolfgang Baer <
> wolf at nascentinc.com>
> *Subject:* Re: [General] Velocity of gravitation
>
>
>
> Hi Albrecht:
>
>
>
> It helps some; but....
>
>
>
> For my part, it seems to me that for sufficiently symmetric conditions (a
> planet's essentially circular orbit about the sun, say) that a planet
> cannot distinguish between running into a gravitational field at a point, x
> say, where the gravitational field is at the moment of the planet's arrival
> at x that ommited 8 min earlier and sun-directed,  or one emmited
> instantainiously 0 min earlier.  They would appear to the planet to be the
> same.  Thus, I doubt the argument that delayed gravitational interaction
> would execute an orbit destroying torque, which in my mind matches up the
> wrong source and sink events and doesn't make geometric sense.
>
>
>
> What I suspect is that gravitation is a residue of the electromagnetic
> intereaction (via a delayed Coulomb's Law) ultimately caused by the
> discrepancy in the weights of the positive and negative charge carriers and
> thus their random motion and distribution about each other.   This would
> nicely explain why the speed of gravity is (should be) exactly the speed of
> light.  While I can't prove it, I imagine that if either speed were
> instantanious/infinite, that the universe would lock up so that there would
> be no motion at all.  That is, delay makes for dynamcis.  [for what it's
> worth, maybe nothing!]
>
>
>
> ciao,  Al
>
> *Gesendet:* Montag, 11. Februar 2019 um 21:18 Uhr
> *Von:* "Albrecht Giese" <phys at a-giese.de>
> *An:* "'Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion'" <
> general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org>, "Wolfgang Baer" <
> wolf at nascentinc.com>
> *Betreff:* [General] Velocity of gravitation
>
> Hi Wolf, hi All,
>
> some time ago we had a discussion here about gravity. In particular about
> the question whether the propagation speed of the gravitational field is
> *c* or infinite. The problem behind is the fact that a finite propagation
> speed of gravity should cause rotating pairs of stars to permanently
> increase their speed, because the other star appears at a retarded position
> and so the force between the stars should have a tangential component. Our
> discussion ended at that time with the result that the Liénard-Wiechert
> potential would solve the problem.
>
> This was not very satisfying because the Liénard-Wiechert formalism is
> only about the field at a retarded time, and this description by itself
> does not solve this problem. I found that the solution is a completely
> different phenomenon. It is the fact (and as such well known in the
> physical literature) that fields like the electric field and also the
> gravitational field (our case) never show aberration. This is – according
> to literature – a well-known fact which is also theoretically well
> understood. But most are not aware of it, like me.
>
> Experimentally it can in the case of the electrical field be proven in the
> laboratory. And the motion of stars show it for the gravitational case.
>
> Do you feel that this helps?
>
> Albrecht
>
>
>
>
>
>
> <https://www.avast.com/sig-email?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=emailclient>
>
> Virenfrei. www.avast.com
> <https://www.avast.com/sig-email?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=emailclient>
>
> _______________________________________________ If you no longer wish to
> receive communication from the Nature of Light and Particles General
> Discussion List at af.kracklauer at web.de Click here to unsubscribe
> <http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/af.kracklauer%40web.de?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1>
> _______________________________________________ If you no longer wish to
> receive communication from the Nature of Light and Particles General
> Discussion List at af.kracklauer at web.de Click here to unsubscribe
> <http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/af.kracklauer%40web.de?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1>
> _______________________________________________
> If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of Light
> and Particles General Discussion List at mules333 at gmail.com
> <a href="
> http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/mules333%40gmail.com?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1
> ">
> Click here to unsubscribe
> </a>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/pipermail/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/attachments/20190213/50987aaf/attachment.html>