On Jun 12, 3:38*am, John Ritson wrote:
In message
, Brad
Guth writes









On Jun 11, 5:53*pm, John Vreeland wrote:
On Thu, 2 Jun 2011 15:49:06 -0700 (PDT), Brad Guth

wrote:
On Jun 2, 2:53*pm, John Smith wrote:
On 6/2/2011 10:17 AM, Warhol wrote:

...
our ancient TV Tubes work with a bended electrical arc Beam in
vacuum...
...

You are going to have to look to Einstein to even get a "sense" and a
"feel" about the slippery stuff, ether.

It is not like any matter we know, it is completely alien to us. *We do
not possess senses to detect it, and there are no instruments, yet,
which will.

One very un-intuitive quality of ether? *It passes through your vacuum
tubes like the glass envelopes don't even exist, and all other parts of
the tube, for that matter ... but then, I doubt you have a mind which
can even begin to fathom speculation on ether -- so you are pretty much
stuck where you are!

Regards,
JS

If something/anything is moving FTL, such as gravity, then we can't
possibly detect it even though it is still there. *Perhaps the matrix
or flow of ether is simply FTL.

Gravity is not FTL. *It moves at the speed of light. *This is why we
can speak of gravity waves. *If you could observe two black holes
orbiting close to one another from within the plane of their orbit you
would feel the gravitational field change as each one flew by you.
That changing field radiates outward in a spiral shape aligned with
the plane of their orbit.

If the ether exists it is undetectable. *If it exists it must be
relativistic so that you cannot measure your movement through it.
--
My years on the mudpit that is Usnenet have taught me one important
thing: three Creation Scientists can have a serious conversation, if
two of them are sock puppets.

When was this speed of gravity objectively verified as c?

September 8, 2002
Kopeikin measured it as c times 1.06 (but with an error range of plus or
minus 0.21) by observing the gravitational lensing effect of Jupiter.

--
John Ritson

Thanks, I'll look into that, because it seems mainstream physics and
whatever science hasn't picked up on this force velocity or
propagation of gravity as being any done deal.

"Several physicists, including Clifford M. Will and Steve Carlip, have
criticized these claims on the grounds that they have allegedly
misinterpreted the results of their measurements. Notably, prior to
the actual transit, Hideki Asada in a paper to the Astrophysical
Journal Letters theorized that the proposed experiment was essentially
a roundabout confirmation of the speed of light instead of the speed
of gravity."

I suppose that more than a few others of sufficient expertise have
interpreted this gravity force velocity in ways that haven't been
accepted or otherwise peer replicated.

How could the speed of light even exist unless gravity wasn't worth at
least twice as fast?

http://translate.google.com/#
Brad Guth, Brad_Guth, Brad.Guth, BradGuth, BG / “Guth Usenet”

In message
, Brad
Guth writes
On Jun 12, 3:38Â*am, John Ritson wrote:
In message
, Brad
Guth writes









On Jun 11, 5:53Â*pm, John Vreeland wrote:
On Thu, 2 Jun 2011 15:49:06 -0700 (PDT), Brad Guth

wrote:
On Jun 2, 2:53Â*pm, John Smith wrote:
On 6/2/2011 10:17 AM, Warhol wrote:

...
our ancient TV Tubes work with a bended electrical arc Beam in
vacuum...
...

You are going to have to look to Einstein to even get a "sense" and a
"feel" about the slippery stuff, ether.

It is not like any matter we know, it is completely alien to us. Â*We do
not possess senses to detect it, and there are no instruments, yet,
which will.

One very un-intuitive quality of ether? Â*It passes through your vacuum
tubes like the glass envelopes don't even exist, and all other parts of
the tube, for that matter ... but then, I doubt you have a mind which
can even begin to fathom speculation on ether -- so you are pretty much
stuck where you are!

Regards,
JS

If something/anything is moving FTL, such as gravity, then we can't
possibly detect it even though it is still there. Â*Perhaps the matrix
or flow of ether is simply FTL.

Gravity is not FTL. Â*It moves at the speed of light. Â*This is why we
can speak of gravity waves. Â*If you could observe two black holes
orbiting close to one another from within the plane of their orbit you
would feel the gravitational field change as each one flew by you.
That changing field radiates outward in a spiral shape aligned with
the plane of their orbit.

If the ether exists it is undetectable. Â*If it exists it must be
relativistic so that you cannot measure your movement through it.
--
My years on the mudpit that is Usnenet have taught me one important
thing: three Creation Scientists can have a serious conversation, if
two of them are sock puppets.

When was this speed of gravity objectively verified as c?

September 8, 2002
Kopeikin measured it as c times 1.06 (but with an error range of plus or
minus 0.21) by observing the gravitational lensing effect of Jupiter.

--
John Ritson

Thanks, I'll look into that, because it seems mainstream physics and
whatever science hasn't picked up on this force velocity or
propagation of gravity as being any done deal.

"Several physicists, including Clifford M. Will and Steve Carlip, have
criticized these claims on the grounds that they have allegedly
misinterpreted the results of their measurements. Notably, prior to
the actual transit, Hideki Asada in a paper to the Astrophysical
Journal Letters theorized that the proposed experiment was essentially
a roundabout confirmation of the speed of light instead of the speed
of gravity."

I suppose that more than a few others of sufficient expertise have
interpreted this gravity force velocity in ways that haven't been
accepted or otherwise peer replicated.

How could the speed of light even exist unless gravity wasn't worth at
least twice as fast?

http://translate.google.com/#
Brad Guth, Brad_Guth, Brad.Guth, BradGuth, BG / “Guth Usenet�

There is also the fact that sending probes into the outer solar system,
repeatedly slingshotting around planets involves precise calculations
which take into account the speed of gravity equalling c. If the speed
were to be significantly different, the probes would not end up where
they were supposed to be.

--
John Ritson

On Jun 12, 10:47*am, John Ritson wrote:
In message
, Brad
Guth writes









On Jun 12, 3:38*am, John Ritson wrote:
In message
, Brad
Guth writes

On Jun 11, 5:53*pm, John Vreeland wrote:
On Thu, 2 Jun 2011 15:49:06 -0700 (PDT), Brad Guth

wrote:
On Jun 2, 2:53*pm, John Smith wrote:
On 6/2/2011 10:17 AM, Warhol wrote:

...
our ancient TV Tubes work with a bended electrical arc Beam in
vacuum...
...

You are going to have to look to Einstein to even get a "sense" and a
"feel" about the slippery stuff, ether.

It is not like any matter we know, it is completely alien to us. *We do
not possess senses to detect it, and there are no instruments, yet,
which will.

One very un-intuitive quality of ether? *It passes through your vacuum
tubes like the glass envelopes don't even exist, and all other parts of
the tube, for that matter ... but then, I doubt you have a mind which
can even begin to fathom speculation on ether -- so you are pretty much
stuck where you are!

Regards,
JS

If something/anything is moving FTL, such as gravity, then we can't
possibly detect it even though it is still there. *Perhaps the matrix
or flow of ether is simply FTL.

Gravity is not FTL. *It moves at the speed of light. *This is why we
can speak of gravity waves. *If you could observe two black holes
orbiting close to one another from within the plane of their orbit you
would feel the gravitational field change as each one flew by you.
That changing field radiates outward in a spiral shape aligned with
the plane of their orbit.

If the ether exists it is undetectable. *If it exists it must be
relativistic so that you cannot measure your movement through it.
--
My years on the mudpit that is Usnenet have taught me one important
thing: three Creation Scientists can have a serious conversation, if
two of them are sock puppets.

When was this speed of gravity objectively verified as c?

September 8, 2002
Kopeikin measured it as c times 1.06 (but with an error range of plus or
minus 0.21) by observing the gravitational lensing effect of Jupiter.

--
John Ritson

Thanks, I'll look into that, because it seems mainstream physics and
whatever science hasn't picked up on this force velocity or
propagation of gravity as being any done deal.

"Several physicists, including Clifford M. Will and Steve Carlip, have
criticized these claims on the grounds that they have allegedly
misinterpreted the results of their measurements. Notably, prior to
the actual transit, Hideki Asada in a paper to the Astrophysical
Journal Letters theorized that the proposed experiment was essentially
a roundabout confirmation of the speed of light instead of the speed
of gravity."

I suppose that more than a few others of sufficient expertise have
interpreted this gravity force velocity in ways that haven't been
accepted or otherwise peer replicated.

How could the speed of light even exist unless gravity wasn't worth at
least twice as fast?

http://translate.google.com/#
Brad Guth, Brad_Guth, Brad.Guth, BradGuth, BG / “Guth Usenet”

There is also the fact that sending probes into the outer solar system,
repeatedly slingshotting around planets involves precise calculations
which take into account the speed of gravity equalling c. If the speed
were to be significantly different, the probes would not end up where
they were supposed to be.

--
John Ritson

You are confusing the force of gravity with the velocity of gravity.

That’s like confusing the brightness or intensity of a given light
bulb with the speed of light that’s always a variable because the in
between medium is always a variable and/or distorted by the quicker
velocity and/or propagation of gravity.

If a constant magnet force is moving away a 0.1%c; is its force at
any given distance going to be stronger or weaker than a stationary
magnet? (same question applies to gravity)

This science of physics proof pertaining to the velocity of a given
force such as gravity should be accomplished within a physics lab, and
thereby easily peer replicated.

http://www.wanttoknow.info/
http://translate.google.com/#
Brad Guth, Brad_Guth, Brad.Guth, BradGuth, BG / “Guth Usenet”

In message
,
Brad Guth writes
On Jun 12, 10:47Â*am, John Ritson wrote:
In message
, Brad
Guth writes









On Jun 12, 3:38Â*am, John Ritson wrote:
In message
, Brad
Guth writes

On Jun 11, 5:53Â*pm, John Vreeland wrote:
On Thu, 2 Jun 2011 15:49:06 -0700 (PDT), Brad Guth

wrote:
On Jun 2, 2:53Â*pm, John Smith wrote:
On 6/2/2011 10:17 AM, Warhol wrote:

...
our ancient TV Tubes work with a bended electrical arc Beam in
vacuum...
...

You are going to have to look to Einstein to even get a
"sense" and a
"feel" about the slippery stuff, ether.

It is not like any matter we know, it is completely alien to
Â*We do
not possess senses to detect it, and there are no instruments, yet,
which will.

One very un-intuitive quality of ether? Â*It passes through
vacuum
tubes like the glass envelopes don't even exist, and all
parts of
the tube, for that matter ... but then, I doubt you have a
which
can even begin to fathom speculation on ether -- so you are
pretty much
stuck where you are!

Regards,
JS

If something/anything is moving FTL, such as gravity, then we can't
possibly detect it even though it is still there. Â*Perhaps the matrix
or flow of ether is simply FTL.

Gravity is not FTL. Â*It moves at the speed of light. Â*This is why we
can speak of gravity waves. Â*If you could observe two black holes
orbiting close to one another from within the plane of their orbit you
would feel the gravitational field change as each one flew by you.
That changing field radiates outward in a spiral shape aligned with
the plane of their orbit.

If the ether exists it is undetectable. Â*If it exists it must be
relativistic so that you cannot measure your movement through it.
--
My years on the mudpit that is Usnenet have taught me one important
thing: three Creation Scientists can have a serious conversation, if
two of them are sock puppets.

When was this speed of gravity objectively verified as c?

September 8, 2002
Kopeikin measured it as c times 1.06 (but with an error range of plus or
minus 0.21) by observing the gravitational lensing effect of Jupiter.

--
John Ritson

Thanks, I'll look into that, because it seems mainstream physics and
whatever science hasn't picked up on this force velocity or
propagation of gravity as being any done deal.

"Several physicists, including Clifford M. Will and Steve Carlip, have
criticized these claims on the grounds that they have allegedly
misinterpreted the results of their measurements. Notably, prior to
the actual transit, Hideki Asada in a paper to the Astrophysical
Journal Letters theorized that the proposed experiment was essentially
a roundabout confirmation of the speed of light instead of the speed
of gravity."

I suppose that more than a few others of sufficient expertise have
interpreted this gravity force velocity in ways that haven't been
accepted or otherwise peer replicated.

How could the speed of light even exist unless gravity wasn't worth at
least twice as fast?

http://translate.google.com/#
Brad Guth, Brad_Guth, Brad.Guth, BradGuth, BG / “Guth Usenet�

There is also the fact that sending probes into the outer solar system,
repeatedly slingshotting around planets involves precise calculations
which take into account the speed of gravity equalling c. If the speed
were to be significantly different, the probes would not end up where
they were supposed to be.

--
John Ritson

You are confusing the force of gravity with the velocity of gravity.

That’s like confusing the brightness or intensity of a given light
bulb with the speed of light that’s always a variable because the in
between medium is always a variable and/or distorted by the quicker
velocity and/or propagation of gravity.

If a constant magnet force is moving away a 0.1%c; is its force at
any given distance going to be stronger or weaker than a stationary
magnet? (same question applies to gravity)

This science of physics proof pertaining to the velocity of a given
force such as gravity should be accomplished within a physics lab, and
thereby easily peer replicated.

http://www.wanttoknow.info/
http://translate.google.com/#
Brad Guth, Brad_Guth, Brad.Guth, BradGuth, BG / “Guth Usenet�


The speed of gravity is the speed at which gravitational force
propagates.
Is an object pulled in the direction where a mass is currently seen to
be (in which case the 'speed of gravity' is the speed of light) or is it
pulled in the direction where it currently 'is' (in which case the
'speed of gravity' is infinite)?
The observed answer to the above question is that the speed of gravity
is c.

If objects are travelling at speeds at which relativistic effects become
significant, then the effective mass changes and thus the gravitational
effects change, but this has nothing to do with the 'speed of gravity'.

--
John Ritson