Timeline for How fast does gravity propagate?
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
5 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Apr 8, 2020 at 11:04 | comment | added | lalala | Actually it seems like a paragraph is missing. The paragraph ending with 'Taylor expansion in tau' just gives a formula for the force pointing in the retarded direction. Next paragraph start with 'this cancellation'; to mee it seems you didint mention with what the abberation got canceled. | |
| Jul 19, 2017 at 18:11 | comment | added | Jens | Like x"= -k^2 x gives x=A sine(B+kt) as an 'exact' solution. Thus postulating an 'exact' non-relativistic gravitational equation of motion, which includes delays of propagation (light and gravity), one should be able to give an 'exact' solution (closed form or series expression) that demonstrates whether or not the attractive force is seen as 'exactly' directed towards the instantaneous position. If it is just a second order approximation it really does'nt say much about the basic question. What we need is proof that c-gravity is exactly cancelled by c-light in the solution! | |
| Jul 14, 2017 at 15:51 | comment | added | user154997 | I am not sure I understand your question. What do you mean by "exactly" between quotes? | |
| Jul 14, 2017 at 13:51 | comment | added | Jens | Reading this and Carlips paper it is interesting to note that the math does not say that the attractive force vector is directed 'exactly' towards the instantaneous (however defined) position of the source and not towards it's retarded position, so the speed of gravity cancels out almost 'exactly'. To get to exactly you seem to have to use laws of conservation of energy and momentum, but why can you not show directly (charged particle) from GR and Maxwell that this is true 'exactly' and not just approximately to some higher order of v/c or the like? | |
| Jun 6, 2017 at 20:51 | history | answered | user154997 | CC BY-SA 3.0 |