Any Mathematicians In Pattaya?

[Spalpeen]

A little knowledge is a dangerous thing. This kind of topic always stirs up the Wiki experts.

.

Ref. the OP, good luck with teaching Thai students where Neptune is. Personally, I'd be less ambitious and try to get them to find Thailand on a map of the world.

[Naam]

Here is some educational easy reading for you

no thanks! i stopped all educational easy reading after i got my D.Sc. in physics 40 years ago

p.s. at that time we had to dig through four decades of contradictions and during the four decades later nothing has changed. whatever the clowns who are en vogue are publishing, it always boiled down that "they agree to disagree" or the latest pseudo-scientific rubbish (which didn't last long) originating from CERN, Geneva "neutrinos travel faster than light"

[jombom]

Here is some educational easy reading for you

no thanks! i stopped all educational easy reading after i got my D.Sc. in physics 40 years ago

p.s. at that time we had to dig through four decades of contradictions and during the four decades later nothing has changed. whatever the clowns who are en vogue are publishing, it always boiled down that "they agree to disagree" or the latest pseudo-scientific rubbish (which didn't last long) originating from CERN, Geneva "neutrinos travel faster than light"

Well done Naam --- another excellent post.

+ 1

When I hear stuff like gravity is a wave, it starts to bring on a big yawn.

[gk10002000]

The best thing to do is to be sure you are not mixing apples and oranges. Don't want to confuse what somebody weighs on the earth with what they weigh on Neptune (A 100 pound person on Earth would weigh about 119 pounds on Neptune, depending on what data for Neptune you use).

You want to know how relatively strong the sun's graviational pull is on the SAME body at the Earth's distance from the Sun as it is at Neptune's distance from the sun.

Earth Sun Person Earth Distance Neptune Distance Mass 6E+24 1.99E+30 45 150000000 4.50E+09

1 Kilogram = 9.8 Newtons

1 Kilgram = 2.2 Pounds

So let's take the same mass and calculate the graviational pull at the Earth's distance. 100 pounds (45 Kilos)

F=G(m1)(m2)/r^2

=6.7x10^-11 (100)(1.99x10^30)/(1.5x10^8)^2

= 592577 Newtons or 60467 Kilograms

Then take the same mass and calculate the gravitational pull at Neptune's distance.

F=G(m1)(m2)/r^2

=6.7x10^-11 (100)(1.99x10^30)/(4.5x109)^2

= 657 Newtons or 67 Kilograms

I attach a fine link that I think will give you the best and most easily understood numerical values and answers.

Greg K

[Naam]

Here is some educational easy reading for you

no thanks! i stopped all educational easy reading after i got my D.Sc. in physics 40 years ago

p.s. at that time we had to dig through four decades of contradictions and during the four decades later nothing has changed. whatever the clowns who are en vogue are publishing, it always boiled down that "they agree to disagree" or the latest pseudo-scientific rubbish (which didn't last long) originating from CERN, Geneva "neutrinos travel faster than light"

Well done Naam --- another excellent post.

+ 1

When I hear stuff like gravity is a wave, it starts to bring on a big yawn.

an alternative would be to locate the old surfboard in the garage or attic

[Starbooks]

The best thing to do is to be sure you are not mixing apples and oranges. Don't want to confuse what somebody weighs on the earth with what they weigh on Neptune (A 100 pound person on Earth would weigh about 119 pounds on Neptune, depending on what data for Neptune you use).

You want to know how relatively strong the sun's graviational pull is on the SAME body at the Earth's distance from the Sun as it is at Neptune's distance from the sun.

Earth Sun Person Earth Distance Neptune Distance Mass 6E+24 1.99E+30 45 150000000 4.50E+09

1 Kilogram = 9.8 Newtons

1 Kilgram = 2.2 Pounds

So let's take the same mass and calculate the graviational pull at the Earth's distance. 100 pounds (45 Kilos)

F=G(m1)(m2)/r^2

=6.7x10^-11 (100)(1.99x10^30)/(1.5x10^8)^2

= 592577 Newtons or 60467 Kilograms

Then take the same mass and calculate the gravitational pull at Neptune's distance.

F=G(m1)(m2)/r^2

=6.7x10^-11 (100)(1.99x10^30)/(4.5x109)^2

= 657 Newtons or 67 Kilograms

I attach a fine link that I think will give you the best and most easily understood numerical values and answers.

Greg K

Now that does show quite a difference......

Edited April 5, 2012 by Starbooks

[Spalpeen]

The best thing to do is to be sure you are not mixing apples and oranges. Don't want to confuse what somebody weighs on the earth with what they weigh on Neptune (A 100 pound person on Earth would weigh about 119 pounds on Neptune, depending on what data for Neptune you use).

You want to know how relatively strong the sun's graviational pull is on the SAME body at the Earth's distance from the Sun as it is at Neptune's distance from the sun.

Earth Sun Person Earth Distance Neptune Distance Mass 6E+24 1.99E+30 45 150000000 4.50E+09

1 Kilogram = 9.8 Newtons

1 Kilgram = 2.2 Pounds

So let's take the same mass and calculate the graviational pull at the Earth's distance. 100 pounds (45 Kilos)

F=G(m1)(m2)/r^2

=6.7x10^-11 (100)(1.99x10^30)/(1.5x10^8)^2

= 592577 Newtons or 60467 Kilograms

Then take the same mass and calculate the gravitational pull at Neptune's distance.

F=G(m1)(m2)/r^2

=6.7x10^-11 (100)(1.99x10^30)/(4.5x109)^2

= 657 Newtons or 67 Kilograms

I attach a fine link that I think will give you the best and most easily understood numerical values and answers.

Greg K

Now that does show quite a difference......

592,577 Newtons vs 657 Newtons, differing by a factor of roughly 900, as I said. Worth noting that a kilogram of mass only exerts 9.8 Newtons of force on the surface of the earth, where the acceleration due to gravity is 9.8 m/s/s.

[poanoi]

the mass of the arse is equal to the angle of the dangle.

I believe the formula should be mass of the arse is inverse proportional to the angle of the dangle

m(arse) = C*1/๔(dangle)

where C possibly is constant of gravitation 6.67*10 ^-11

ps: english isnt my 1st language so i'm working under the assumption that

dangle = how much the jeans hang from the crotch

๔= alpha

Edited April 5, 2012 by poanoi

[poanoi]

Force between the two objects or Force between Earth & the two objects ?

very tiny force unless mass is extremely high

[Payboy]

the mass of the arse is equal to the angle of the dangle.

I believe the formula should be mass of the arse is inverse proportional to the angle of the dangle

m(arse) = C*1/๔(dangle)

where C possibly is constant of gravitation 6.67*10 ^-11

ps: english isnt my 1st language so i'm working under the assumption that

dangle = how much the jeans hang from the crotch

๔= alpha

Umm okay, but dont forget to factor in the heat of the meat.

x (angle of the dangle) = y (mass of arse) / k (heat of meat)

k is constant.

[ExpatOilWorker]

Someone mentioned that gravity travels at the speed of light. In fact gravity (as opposed to gravitational waves, which are a different thing) appears to propagate at a speed that is effectively infinite.

Wrong - No Way Norway: Gravity travels at the speed of light.

See wikipedia, speed of gravity.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speed_of_gravity

Wrong. What Wiki describes as travelling at the speed of light is gravitational waves. These are a phenomenon predicted by relativity which have yet to be detected and may not exist at all. Wiki describes gravity in terms of a static field phenomenon where masses within the field have an instantaneous effect on each other without anything actually travelling between them.

The orbital mechanics of the solar system only works if gravity is instantaneous. If it wanders around at a leisurely C then you get an effect called coupling between planets and everything would end in a huge mess.

The Universe is a huge mess. That is how Chaos Theory got started:

An early proponent of chaos theory was Henri Poincaré. In the 1880s, while studying the three-body problem, he found that there can be orbits which are nonperiodic, and yet not forever increasing nor approaching a fixed point.^[37][38] In 1898 Jacques Hadamard published an influential study of the chaotic motion of a free particle gliding frictionlessly on a surface of constant negative curvature.^[39] In the system studied, "Hadamard's billiards", Hadamard was able to show that all trajectories are unstable in that all particle trajectories diverge exponentially from one another, with a positive Lyapunov exponent.

Much of the earlier theory was developed almost entirely by mathematicians, under the name of ergodic theory. Later studies, also on the topic of nonlinear differential equations, were carried out by G.D. Birkhoff,^[40] A. N. Kolmogorov,^[41][42][43] M.L. Cartwright and J.E. Littlewood,^[44] and Stephen Smale.^[45] Except for Smale, these studies were all directly inspired by physics: the three-body problem in the case of Birkhoff, turbulence and astronomical problems in the case of Kolmogorov, and radio engineering in the case of Cartwright and Littlewood.^{[citation needed]} Although chaotic planetary motion had not been observed, experimentalists had encountered turbulence in fluid motion and nonperiodic oscillation in radio circuits without the benefit of a theory to explain what they were seeing.

(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chaos_theory)

[ExpatOilWorker]

Anyway, thanks for the input everyone, glad there is still some grey matter functioning in Pattaya..

I (wrongly) presumed that the gravitational pull from the sun would greatly reduce over a distnce of 4.5 billion km

and could only imagine that the sun's grip on neptune must be quite weak, but it obviously isn't... so I won't mention it on the poster...

any other solar system facts for adults will be welcome........

Oh, by the way, anyone got a grasp on this holographic theory? the thoery that suggests our reallity is just holographic projections of information from deep space?!?

http://en.wikipedia....aphic_principle

I always liked escape velocities, maybe a good idea to include that.

Location with respect to V_e^[2] Location with respect to V_e^[2] on the Sun, the Sun's gravity: 617.5 km/s on Mercury, Mercury's gravity: 4.3 km/s at Mercury, the Sun's gravity: 67.7 km/s on Venus, Venus' gravity: 10.3 km/s at Venus, the Sun's gravity: 49.5 km/s on Earth, the Earth's gravity: 11.2 km/s at the Earth/Moon, the Sun's gravity: 42.1 km/s on the Moon, the Moon's gravity: 2.4 km/s at the Moon, the Earth's gravity: 1.4 km/s on Mars, Mars' gravity: 5.0 km/s at Mars, the Sun's gravity: 34.1 km/s on Jupiter, Jupiter's gravity: 59.5 km/s at Jupiter, the Sun's gravity: 18.5 km/s on Saturn, Saturn's gravity: 35.6 km/s at Saturn, the Sun's gravity: 13.6 km/s on Uranus, Uranus' gravity: 21.2 km/s at Uranus, the Sun's gravity: 9.6 km/s on Neptune, Neptune's gravity: 23.6 km/s at Neptune, the Sun's gravity: 7.7 km/s on Pluto, Pluto's gravity: 1.229 km/s in the Solar System, the Milky Way's gravity: ≥ 525 km/s ^[3] on the event horizon, a black hole's gravity: = 299,792 km/s

[poanoi]

the mass of the arse is equal to the angle of the dangle.

I believe the formula should be mass of the arse is inverse proportional to the angle of the dangle

m(arse) = C*1/๔(dangle)

where C possibly is constant of gravitation 6.67*10 ^-11

ps: english isnt my 1st language so i'm working under the assumption that

dangle = how much the jeans hang from the crotch

๔= alpha

Umm okay, but dont forget to factor in the heat of the meat.

x (angle of the dangle) = y (mass of arse) / k (heat of meat)

k is constant.

I see the problem, you're referring to water (sweat) absorbed by the jeans / other material.

I havn't seen this extra mass quantified, but it nevertheless exists, and logically there will be different absorption for different materials, and so there will be different konstant for different materials,

i.e the konstant isn't konstant

[tombkk]

Here is some educational easy reading for you

no thanks! i stopped all educational easy reading after i got my D.Sc. in physics 40 years ago

p.s. at that time we had to dig through four decades of contradictions and during the four decades later nothing has changed. whatever the clowns who are en vogue are publishing, it always boiled down that "they agree to disagree" or the latest pseudo-scientific rubbish (which didn't last long) originating from CERN, Geneva "neutrinos travel faster than light"

Well done Naam --- another excellent post.

+ 1

When I hear stuff like gravity is a wave, it starts to bring on a big yawn.

It's not a wave, it's a rave! Com'on, where's the party?

In fact, gravity is one of these things that are both a particle and a wave. Light is another one of those. Forgot the term, I studied nuclear physics too long ago and never worked in the field. Apparently, there was agreement about this at the time, which is less than 40 years ago.

I believe in life-long learning, and I still do educational reading. I think I would stagnate (and be dieing) if I didn't. The world is so full of surprises, of knowledge we couldn't have had "10 years ago" (at any given decade). I find life and nature too exiting to just drop learning.

[tombkk]

A little knowledge is a dangerous thing. This kind of topic always stirs up the Wiki experts.

.

Ref. the OP, good luck with teaching Thai students where Neptune is. Personally, I'd be less ambitious and try to get them to find Thailand on a map of the world.

I teach international business and drop names of countries, ports, or cities on my students. The surprise quiz question then is: Where is this place?

I can confirm that the Thai educational system is weak in regards of geography.

Side remark: As there is no significant business with Neptune yet, I never asked my students where that place might be.

[poanoi]

In fact, gravity is one of these things that are both a particle and a wave. Light is another one of those.

No, unlike light, gravity or 'gravitons' have never shown either behavior,

it could well be a matter of dimensions

[jombom]

The best thing to do is to be sure you are not mixing apples and oranges. Don't want to confuse what somebody weighs on the earth with what they weigh on Neptune (A 100 pound person on Earth would weigh about 119 pounds on Neptune, depending on what data for Neptune you use).

You want to know how relatively strong the sun's graviational pull is on the SAME body at the Earth's distance from the Sun as it is at Neptune's distance from the sun.

Earth Sun Person Earth Distance Neptune Distance Mass 6E+24 1.99E+30 45 150000000 4.50E+09

1 Kilogram = 9.8 Newtons

1 Kilgram = 2.2 Pounds

So let's take the same mass and calculate the graviational pull at the Earth's distance. 100 pounds (45 Kilos)

F=G(m1)(m2)/r^2

=6.7x10^-11 (100)(1.99x10^30)/(1.5x10^8)^2

= 592577 Newtons or 60467 Kilograms

Then take the same mass and calculate the gravitational pull at Neptune's distance.

F=G(m1)(m2)/r^2

=6.7x10^-11 (100)(1.99x10^30)/(4.5x109)^2

= 657 Newtons or 67 Kilograms

I attach a fine link that I think will give you the best and most easily understood numerical values and answers.

Greg K

Truly wonderful maths.

1 -- Your first paragragh, mentions Neptune at 1.2 g of earth, which is widely available on Google.

2 -- You prove that something that weighs 45 kg on Earth weighs 67 kg on Neptune

3 -- When I was going to school 20% of 45 was 9, making the weight on Neptune 54 kg (i.e + 20%)

This is the most glaring error. There are a number of others. You seem to forget, that the OP did not ask that question anyway.

[gk10002000]

A little knowledge is a dangerous thing. This kind of topic always stirs up the Wiki experts.

.

Ref. the OP, good luck with teaching Thai students where Neptune is. Personally, I'd be less ambitious and try to get them to find Thailand on a map of the world.

I highly recommend showing them Thailand on a Map, and on a GLOBE! Start getting them or try to get to understand the concept of size and scale. Show them a large map of the Solar System. Let their young minds try to grasp what is out there. You never know. You might stir that spark of curiosity inone or two of them and they will go on and become scientists or engineers or at least they might start using their minds more. Of course, using one's mind can be dangerous if in a repressed or overly controlled or few opportunities society. I would like to believe that Buddhists are willing to learn and explore, despite what local politics or influences or life style limitations might be. I personally know that seeing my older sister's photo montages of the solar system and images of the sun and the planets piqued my curiosity and I ended up with a couple of degrees and some very rewarding aerospace engineering jobs and a decent career in the Air Force.

Best wishes on the study project.

[gk10002000]

The best thing to do is to be sure you are not mixing apples and oranges. Don't want to confuse what somebody weighs on the earth with what they weigh on Neptune (A 100 pound person on Earth would weigh about 119 pounds on Neptune, depending on what data for Neptune you use).

You want to know how relatively strong the sun's graviational pull is on the SAME body at the Earth's distance from the Sun as it is at Neptune's distance from the sun.

Earth Sun Person Earth Distance Neptune Distance Mass 6E+24 1.99E+30 45 150000000 4.50E+09

1 Kilogram = 9.8 Newtons

1 Kilgram = 2.2 Pounds

So let's take the same mass and calculate the graviational pull at the Earth's distance. 100 pounds (45 Kilos)

F=G(m1)(m2)/r^2

=6.7x10^-11 (100)(1.99x10^30)/(1.5x10^8)^2

= 592577 Newtons or 60467 Kilograms

Then take the same mass and calculate the gravitational pull at Neptune's distance.

F=G(m1)(m2)/r^2

=6.7x10^-11 (100)(1.99x10^30)/(4.5x109)^2

= 657 Newtons or 67 Kilograms

I attach a fine link that I think will give you the best and most easily understood numerical values and answers.

Greg K

Truly wonderful maths.

1 -- Your first paragragh, mentions Neptune at 1.2 g of earth, which is widely available on Google.

2 -- You prove that something that weighs 45 kg on Earth weighs 67 kg on Neptune

3 -- When I was going to school 20% of 45 was 9, making the weight on Neptune 54 kg (i.e + 20%)

This is the most glaring error. There are a number of others. You seem to forget, that the OP did not ask that question anyway.

I did not forget that the OP did not ask that question about the weight on each planet. I was just pointing out to make sure the students don't get confused on exactly what forces were being compared. As for the 20%, well, in my example, 119 pounds is about 20% larger than 100 pounds. You are mixing up the weight comparison on each planet with the force at each planet's orbital distance from the sun. You are mixing things up and clearly don't understand what you are doing. Run along and troll elsewhere please.

Edited April 5, 2012 by gk10002000

[tombkk]

In fact, gravity is one of these things that are both a particle and a wave. Light is another one of those.

No, unlike light, gravity or 'gravitons' have never shown either behavior,

it could well be a matter of dimensions

They still haven't? Elusive things these gravitons. They were mathematically proven but not yet practically found, both the graviton and the anti-graviton, when I was still in that field. I was (and still am) looking forward to the anti-graviton, I want my car hovering above the street...

But you are right, the OP is about another dimensional size. Let's not hijack his topic.

[raro]

isn't that when pasta and anti-pasta come together you get a huge explosion?

...this thread reminds me more and more of a thread we had years ago when someone confused watt and volt (I think it was) and we ended up discussing Goedel's theorem...

[Starbooks]

Here is some educational easy reading for you

no thanks! i stopped all educational easy reading after i got my D.Sc. in physics 40 years ago

p.s. at that time we had to dig through four decades of contradictions and during the four decades later nothing has changed. whatever the clowns who are en vogue are publishing, it always boiled down that "they agree to disagree" or the latest pseudo-scientific rubbish (which didn't last long) originating from CERN, Geneva "neutrinos travel faster than light"

The neutrinos misscalculation was down to a faulty wire at CERN apparently.... they don't have proof that they travel faster than light BUT I read recently about the 1986 Supernova explosion that was seen in daylight by a Canadian Astronomer and neutrino capture tanks in Japan and America picked up neutrinos from the explosion arriving on Earth 3 hours before the light got here. It did happen 120,000 years ago but still 3 hours over that time is something. I think that scientist believed the neutrinos were released earlier in the explosion than the light. Maybe, but 3 hours???

Anyway, seeing as my sponsor status will end soon... We have a great book on Neutrinos by Frank close in the bookshop at the moment!

Edited April 6, 2012 by Starbooks

[morrobay]

And for a point of interest for the kids : Gravitational Force moves at the speed of light.

that gravitational force is not static/existing but "moves" is an assumption. even Kopeikin could only present circumstantial but no hard evidence about a decade ago to prove "ol' Albert" was right.

Here is some educational easy reading for you:

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

Or just google : does gravity travel at speed of light. baez/physics

By the way someone above was correct that the mass of a planet is not involved in planetary motion.( because it is so small compared to suns mass.

Keplars Law of Planetary Motion : T² = 4 Pi² r³ / G (mass sun )

T = period of revolution . For earth = 365 days

I wish ya all would take a look at this link by Baez/physics. Because it addresses the very logical problem about the speed of gravity at c , that a few here have noted.

That is , if there is a signal propagation delay , it would have the solar system in disarray .

What one point of the paper is, That unlike Newton gravity that is a static field pointing directly at the other object. In relativity the gravitational force is pointing ahead of the moving planet . Just like bird shooting where you lead the bird with the shotgun.in order to hit it.

Actually I would like to reset my post # 14 to this reply.

Edited April 6, 2012 by morrobay

[tombkk]

I wish ya all would take a look at this link by Baez/physics. Because it addresses the very logical problem about the speed of gravity at c , that a few here have noted.

That is , if there is a signal propagation delay , it would have the solar system in disarray .

What one point of the paper is, That unlike Newton gravity that is a static field pointing directly at the other object. In relativity the gravitational force is pointing ahead of the moving planet . Just like bird shooting where you lead the bird with the shotgun.in order to hit it.

Actually I would like to reset my post # 14 to this reply.

Please post the link to Baez/physics again. I know I saw it. I just tried to find that post again, but the thread has become too long.

In post #14, you quote Wikipedia, which is not an acceptable source in academia. I don't like to shoot birds either, not sure whether this was meant as an analogy...

[tombkk]

Here is some educational easy reading for you

no thanks! i stopped all educational easy reading after i got my D.Sc. in physics 40 years ago

p.s. at that time we had to dig through four decades of contradictions and during the four decades later nothing has changed. whatever the clowns who are en vogue are publishing, it always boiled down that "they agree to disagree" or the latest pseudo-scientific rubbish (which didn't last long) originating from CERN, Geneva "neutrinos travel faster than light"

The neutrinos misscalculation was down to a faulty wire at CERN apparently.... they don't have proof that they travel faster than light BUT I read recently about the 1986 Supernova explosion that was seen in daylight by a Canadian Astronomer and neutrino capture tanks in Japan and America picked up neutrinos from the explosion arriving on Earth 3 hours before the light got here. It did happen 120,000 years ago but still 3 hours over that time is something. I think that scientist believed the neutrinos were released earlier in the explosion than the light. Maybe, but 3 hours???

Anyway, seeing as my sponsor status will end soon... We have a great book on Neutrinos by Frank close in the bookshop at the moment!

Three hours is huge, even over this distance. I don't know enough about Supernova explosions to speculate whether neutrinos may be released three hours before light, though.

[BugJackBaron]

Here is some educational easy reading for you

no thanks! i stopped all educational easy reading after i got my D.Sc. in physics 40 years ago

p.s. at that time we had to dig through four decades of contradictions and during the four decades later nothing has changed. whatever the clowns who are en vogue are publishing, it always boiled down that "they agree to disagree" or the latest pseudo-scientific rubbish (which didn't last long) originating from CERN, Geneva "neutrinos travel faster than light"

The neutrinos misscalculation was down to a faulty wire at CERN apparently.... they don't have proof that they travel faster than light BUT I read recently about the 1986 Supernova explosion that was seen in daylight by a Canadian Astronomer and neutrino capture tanks in Japan and America picked up neutrinos from the explosion arriving on Earth 3 hours before the light got here. It did happen 120,000 years ago but still 3 hours over that time is something. I think that scientist believed the neutrinos were released earlier in the explosion than the light. Maybe, but 3 hours???

Anyway, seeing as my sponsor status will end soon... We have a great book on Neutrinos by Frank close in the bookshop at the moment!

The nuetrino calculation still has not been explained well. A recalculation of the wire even showed that the speed was much greater than c.

All that is known really is that one lab was unable to reproduce the results. And please not that CERN made no claim about nuetrinos travelling faster than c. All that was stated was that there was an anomolous result they could not explain after a year of trying.

This is how good science works.

[Starbooks]

Here's the story on neutrinos... seems they equal the speed of light.

http://www.bbc.co.uk...onment-17560379

Edited April 7, 2012 by Starbooks

[MrPlumbs]

I wish ya all would take a look at this link by Baez/physics. Because it addresses the very logical problem about the speed of gravity at c , that a few here have noted.

That is , if there is a signal propagation delay , it would have the solar system in disarray .

What one point of the paper is, That unlike Newton gravity that is a static field pointing directly at the other object. In relativity the gravitational force is pointing ahead of the moving planet . Just like bird shooting where you lead the bird with the shotgun.in order to hit it.

Actually I would like to reset my post # 14 to this reply.

Please post the link to Baez/physics again. I know I saw it. I just tried to find that post again, but the thread has become too long.

In post #14, you quote Wikipedia, which is not an acceptable source in academia. I don't like to shoot birds either, not sure whether this was meant as an analogy...

Edited April 7, 2012 by MrPlumbs

[MrPlumbs]

Here is some educational easy reading for you:

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

Or just google : does gravity travel at speed of light. baez/physics

[tombkk]

Here is some educational easy reading for you:

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

Or just google : does gravity travel at speed of light. baez/physics

Thank you.

So, if the effect of gravitation is not retarded, how can the graviton move merely at a c speed?