Gravitation wave speed = G

G<C C - light in vacuum



Rocket -L- person >>>> constant acceleration
(P1)

Rocket was in past in Point 1.


p1 ........p2.....................p3 ....M---m >>>>


QUestion: how far from p1 mass m registered gravitation signal that mass M started in point 1

how far from p2 mass m registered gravitation signal that mass M started in point 2

Why I ask about distance ? why distance is important ?


Can we Recognize different between situation ( rocket is on planet ) and rocket is in space ( constant acceleration )



What about Galileo Law ( natural fall down law )

Please measure time of fall down mass m inside rocket
very important situation is when rocket will cross
G speed

Mass M and motion ...


M-----------> Vx
P1

...........M-----------> Vx
P1


Mas M was in past in point P1 and started in P1 gravitation signal




Can we recognize that rocket is on Planet ? ( please scroll down screen - below link )

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Introduction_to_general_relativity


Marosz - first person who asked about motion more faster than G speed



more problems and tests ( Poland 2012)
http://old-physics.blogspot.de/

You really should try reading more before showing how ignorant you are

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speed_of_gravity

Note the last two experimental results are at odds and different to c but the scientists are not claiming GR is wrong



Here is the paper but I doubt you will be able to understand it

http://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/1108/1108.3761.pdf


So why doesn't this break GR .. well because it's a very complicated thing .. here is a layman attempt to explain it

http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/GR/grav_speed.html

At the end of the link are technical reference material but it will be well beyond your ability, the take home bit for you is this



YOUR IMAGES SHOWS GRAVITY DIRECTLY RADIATING WHICH IS WRONG AT SCIENCE.

YOU DON'T HAVE THE SCIENCE KNOWLEDGE TO REMOTELY CHALLENGE IT GIVE UP LUNATIC.

I'd like to offer you some unsolicited advice. Please take it in the spirit it is intended discard if you don't think it fits your style; trying to argue with members like newton is a waste of time. You know him well enough to know that not only is he not able to follow the reasoning behind physics but that he doesn't seem to be able to construct any kind of logical argument but can merel string together unrelated nonsense. I recommend ignoring him and saving yourself the argrevation. I've dealt with the likes of him for some 15 years now and believe beyond all doubt that you just can't get through to some people and newton is just that sort of person.

Note: You wrote

That page was written by Steve Carlip, an expert on general relativity. He can't be referred to a layman by any sense of the word.

I know who and I even know why it was created

It is about the most no nontechnical reference you are going to get on the subject and as close to layman as you could possibly go.

Ok it's not of the drop kick stupid level of the usual science press quality but given this guy is rewriting the whole of physics one would hope it's within his level of understanding

I usually do ignore Newton now but I really really dislike when he totally misrepresents what you and I call actual science. I don't really care about his garbage but when he starts saying science thinks this ... at least get it right even the lunatics should be able to manage that.

The reason for my comment is the image he portraits is wrong and he now has at least a background start link for how wrong it is as does any poor soul stupid enough to read his posts.

I see. So you didn't mean it was written by a layman. You meant it was written for the layman?

You say that you know why it was created. Other than the obvious reason to explain what it does, what was the reason Carlip wrote that?

Sorry English is not my first language tense often gives me issues you will often see me use you instead of your as well because of the way it comes out when I translate what I want to say.

Carlip wrote that as teaching aid as part of his lecture duties if I recall. It became part of various discussions on the old sci.physics forum or was it sci.maths man that was a long time ago.

It looks like it got a facelift I am not sure why possibly part of the online coarse details that many universities are pushing these days.

If you are the pmb I think you are you date to way back in that era as well and the term "relativistic mass" would have special meaning to you

Thanks for explaining. That will make things clear to me in the future.


Yep. That's me. The FAQ on relativistic mass was wrong and very misleading for a very long time. It took a lot of work and providing the FAQ maintainer, Don Koks, with lots of information and proof in order to get him to correct it. Now it accurately portrays relativistic mass as its used today.

I myself spent a great deal of time researching the concept and put the results of that research into a paper which is now online at the Cornell archive at arxiv.org/abs/0709.0687

But I wouldn't exact say that it had special meaning to me. I spoke up for it because there was such a huge amount of misinformation being spread around by people who had no clue as to its proper use and how widely used it is in modern relativity textbooks, SR and GR both.

You have probably never been thanked for that task ... So can I offer a belated and sincere thankyou!!!

Try imagining what the relativity landscape was like for those where English wasn't our first language

GENTELMENS

after this link (You will be sure that famous rocket = famous Einstein countrexample !!!!! )

http://www.scienceagogo.com/forum/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=50672#Post50672

Wow! Thank you so much for that. It's so mice to be appreciated after doing so much work so that it would be properlu clarified!

I can only imagine, and then only poorly!