Spyman

swansont and Meir Achuz seems to belive differently, or am I just misinterpreting their posts ?

swansont, I would like to continue the discussion or at least have a comment from You.

swansont and Meir Achuz, I belive You are correct, I am not questioning GR or Lorentz transformations. I know the example is wrong because it contradicts itself, but I am trying to get at grip on GR so I made the example up to learn exactly where it flaws, how and why. So please have patience with a novice and follow me through the experiment once more, I will take it step by step this time and waiting for You to confirm or deny with an explanation, before next step. STEP1: I am the only observer standing inside the middle tower where the light switch is. When I toggle the light switch the Two photons starts from the same point at the same time, or at least so close it's neglibe. Very soon after, they passes the sensors, inside the middle tower, at the same time, or at least so close it's neglibe, at time 0 milliseconds. Confirm or Deny with explanation...

The point is problably inside the Sun and very close to it's center.

This is going a little of topic so maybe I should have started a new thread for this, but since this is where it all started I will keep on posting here. (If the Moderators decides to create a new thread for it, it is okay by me.) Theory of Light and Gravity Alignment I will begin with Four cornerstones of assumptions: (If anyone of them falls my theory will go down also.) 1. The alignment of photons and gravity from the Sun is different here on Earth. 2. Wheter gravity has a speed or is instant, it behaves in such a way that the angle of the force is pointing towards the center of any stable orbit, if the the system is moving with Zero or constant speed. 3. The Sun and Earth shares a constant speed and Earths orbit is well known and stable. The present center of the Sun is the same as the present center of Earths orbit. Of course the planets gravity are pulling the Sun a little offcenter but that is problably neglibe or can be calculated if necessarily. 4. The light has a known speed which is constant in all directions for all observers. Usin the angle of photons makes it possible to backtrack the path of light in time towards the past from where they was emitted. Here follows Four props standing on the cornerstones: (Again, if anyone of them falls...) A. It is possible to calculate the Suns present location relative Earths present location by using the angle of gravity and the known distance to the center of Earts orbit. B. It is possible to calculate the Suns past location relative Earths present location by using the angle of the photons, the speed of light and the distance to the center of Earths orbit. C. Thus it is possible to calculate the distanse between the Suns present and past location. D. Thus it is possible to calculate the time spent by the Sun during the traverse. Finally my theory to break or support: I think when we measures the difference of gravity and photons alignment, we are not measuring the speed of gravity, instead we measures the speed of the Sun relative the matrix of space. Since space is made in three dimensions, (except time), more than one measurement is needed to calculate the complete speed in all directions.

swansont are You teasing me ? Please just answere my question what You think would happen to the differents in alignment if the Sun was not moving ? Later on we can continue the discussion with what both our hypothesis implies...

Will you please enlighten me with some details why and how it is wrong. The reason for starting this thread was to learn from the answers...

Thats right, but thats not what I ment, maybe it's a translation problem... What would happen to the differents in alignment if the Sun was not moving ? I think the differents would disappear, and thus it is important if the Sun is moving or not. The differents gives us a clue about how gravity behave.

Maybe you should read my post once more... If I am not misstaken, then that is exactly what I tried to prove with my example ! (Relative to standstill = not moving.) The wagon moves on the ground which is at standstill.

Like I said, "I don't understand quantum mechanics", but I though like you before I found an simple article explaining this. (Sadly I don't remember where... ) Anyway somehow the particles are borrowing energy from space to be created and when they annihilate they return the energy. If the Black Hole takes one of the particles, the energy still has to be returned, so the Black Hole has to pay for the energy. According to Hawking it pays by loosing the same amount of mass.

I agree that it's most likely that gravity and light behaves differently. However speed is still speed = time taken to travel a distance. Thus if a moving object emits anything with a speed it will arrive from a past location. It's most likely that gravity already exists everywhere there is space-time. But the force and direction of gravity must change in the place where Earth has yet to reach if the Sun is moving. (I am assuming that the correct gravity is not sent there beforehand and reaches the same time as Earth.) It certainly is a problem, I would really, really enjoy turning it off ! You must have written something like this, "to generate gravity waves you have to accelerate the object", at least Three times now and I still don't get it, huh ? Well maybe finally I got your point ? I will give an example to try it out: Imagine you are standing inside a cargo wagon, there are no windows and it is silent outside. You have an small object tied to a rope, which you swing around you. Lets say the wagon is the frame of our solar system, your hand is the Sun, the object is Earth and the rope is gravity. Then there is no way to measure if the wagon is at standstill or moving with constant speed, by measuring the forces on the rope ! If the wagon suddenly "bumps" on the road then we would get a stretching force, vibration, moving along the rope, a gravity wave. The problem arrives when the rope is removed - the gravity must be sent there beforehand and reach the same time as Earth. (Of course the Sun can't calculate where the Earth is going and target that place with gravity beforehand.) Thus gravity from several of the Suns past locations must somehow "add up" to the correct force here on Earth. (And everywhere else inside the Suns frame as long as the Suns speed is constant.) Since we can't, yet, observe from where the gravity comes, only where it is directed, it differs from the light. (The direction is just not the same as the source.)

The main idea of Hawking is that a rotating black hole with it's powerfully gravitionally rotating space-time somehow creates this "-" and "+" stuff and if they not destroys eatch other, eg: if one falls back into the black hole and one escapes, then the black hole loses the amount of energy used to create the particles. So it doesn't matter if it's "-" stuff or "+" stuff that falls back, both have mass, and the one escaping is the one taking it's mass away from the black hole. How this quantum mechanics makes it possible to transform matter inside the black hole to energy, which then escapes the event horizon and transforms back to matter outside the black hole is more than I can understand, it's way over my head.

For me it seems to work that way if the total eclipses of the Sun by the Moon reach maximum eclipse about 40 seconds before the Sun and Moon's gravitational forces align. Is not the speed of gravity how long time it takes for the space curve to travel from object to object, eg: the Sun to Earth ? (Either it is instant or takes time = speed) The Sun is moving, and very fast to ! Photons from the Sun travels in directions that are not parallel to the direction of Earth's gravitational acceleration toward the Sun. (Without more massive partner(s) in orbit) Kopeikin's experiment ended up just measuring the speed of light ! (And guess what, the speed of light was equal to c.) Didn't the binary pulsar experiment measure the speed of waves, (riplets), travelling on the gravity, not the speed of gravity itself ? Or maybe it is the same thing ???

I think with flat they mean that all the planes are flat - all three dimensions ! Otherwise they could be bent someway in another dimension yet unknown. Imagine space as a box - if bent in a another dimension, which we can't detect, then Two sides of the box could touch eatch other, even opposites. Now place Two objects in the box - gravity should pull them togheter - but if they are much separated, close to the sides that touch, (or are close to eatch other), then gravity could pull them to those sides, (if working through this dimension), thus for us faking a repelling force stronger than gravity. Depending how the universe is bent, (like the box), it will end in different ways, (if gravity works outside our three normal dimensions). In other words if space is flat then a box is a box with flat surfaces, - if not the box could be twisted in many ways and shapes, but we still only see it as a box.

I am proposing Two ways of measuring the speed of gravity. Are they possible in theory and practice ? 1. Very precise equipment for measuring weight, calibrated to zero with a heavy weight. The equipment is placed so the Moon, Earth and weight will center in a line. The gravity from the Moon will "pull" on the weight when it passes over. If the "pull" is strongest when light from the Moon centers -> Gravity speed is c. If the peak is before light then gravity speed is higher - after then slower. 2. The orbits of the planets should be affected differently depending of the speed of gravity. If speed of gravity = light speed then the gravity from the Sun is "pulling" Earth in the direction where the Sun was Eight minutes ago. Further out the effect of this increases and since the Sun is rushing through space at high speed, measuring the orbit of Neptune with high precision should at least put some limits of the speed. (Neptune is a heavy gas giant a long way out so the effects should be largest there.) If the speed of gravity was so low that it took a Year to reach Earth from the Sun then Earth wouldn't orbit around the Sun, Earth would follow an 'S' -pattern behind like a tail.

Your answer is much alike Saint's: Which sounds OK... But: What I mean is: If that is correct then what is the maximum speed from an infinite number of observers with an infinite number of experiments ? Or in another way: Is the maximum speedlimit c relative to the "spacetime-web" ? (or ether) (So maximum is c of their own and from another observer maximum is 2c but not higher.)

Then We are back to the Moment 22 catch and You have still not explained why and how...

But if there is another observer and the origin is already travelling with .999c from that observer ? Repeat and repeat... You will finally end up in infinite speed !

Why have not the photons from the third party observers point exceeded the lightspeed in relative to eath other ? They start at the same time, travels at lightspeed in opposite directions, and arrives at the target in the same time. What if the experiment used some other particle with almost the speed of light ?