[guest39538]

if you travel left and I travel right, the linearity remains the same of the observation, there is no displacement of the linear observation,

I suspect you have not learned Simultaneity of Relativity yet. Let me give you an example.

Two trains side by side moving parallel with a metal bar between the two front engines. At rest as much as possible in the universe there are windows with mirrors to view your own image. Now we move the trains physically up to relativistic speeds. The trains are moving to fast to observe light image right across from you. You are moving forward to catch the angle light was reflecting in the forward direction from the parallel train. So each passenger watches the other train fall behind. The first passenger will actually view the front of the others train. The metal bar between trains will appear bent backwards. This will be the visual affect of SoR. Each train moves into the angle of view different than at relative rest.

What?  sorry after your first sentence it gets rather gibberish and I have no idea what you are trying to say.  Windows , mirrors in the universe is starting to sound harry potter.

[GoC]

if you travel left and I travel right, the linearity remains the same of the observation, there is no displacement of the linear observation,

I suspect you have not learned Simultaneity of Relativity yet. Let me give you an example.

Two trains side by side moving parallel with a metal bar between the two front engines. At rest as much as possible in the universe there are windows with mirrors to view your own image. Now we move the trains physically up to relativistic speeds. The trains are moving to fast to observe light image right across from you. You are moving forward to catch the angle light was reflecting in the forward direction from the parallel train. So each passenger watches the other train fall behind. The first passenger will actually view the front of the others train. The metal bar between trains will appear bent backwards. This will be the visual affect of SoR. Each train moves into the angle of view different than at relative rest.

What?  sorry after your first sentence it gets rather gibberish and I have no idea what you are trying to say.  Windows , mirrors in the universe is starting to sound harry potter.

I understand your dilemma. You are in a catch 22. You cannot follow what I am saying until you understand SoR and you cannot understand SoR until you can follow what I said. This is a major hurdle to understanding relativity. You have to work this out by thought. The speed of light is finite not infinite. Your current thought about images is infinite from how I read what you are saying. if the two trains were going the speed of light there would be no image of the other.

Light is independent of the source. The perpendicular image moves across but your moving so fast the perpendicular image hits behind your position while you move into a forward image of the other train from a past position of that train. You can go so fast that the image you connect with is the front of the other train in the very past distance position.

These are the consequences of Simultaneity of Relativity's finite speed of light. Most have trouble understanding like your Harry Potter reference its beyond normal experience.

[Phractality (OP)]

GoC,

Again I suggest that you watch some videos which explain special relativity. There are plenty of good ones on YouTube. Watch out, though; some people are good at making videos about stuff they don't understand.

Lecture 3 Simultaneity and Causality explains it pretty clearly. If you still don't get it, watch another video and another....

[GoC]

GoC,

Again I suggest that you watch some videos which explain special relativity. There are plenty of good ones on YouTube. Watch out, though; some people are good at making videos about stuff they don't understand.

Lecture 3 Simultaneity and Causality explains it pretty clearly. If you still don't get it, watch another video and another....

I looked at that site and find everything he said to be what I understand. The equations were simple and accurate. I suspect my communication was not in a form you were used to following. Let me try to make it a little clearer with the two trains.

The trains are going so fast the image between the trains are of the scenery behind the trains and not the trains themselves. This is true unless you do not believe in the postulates of relativity. Are you one of the ones that believe perpendicular view at relativistic speeds is possible. If you are than you do not believe in the second postulate: Light being independent of the source.

The light event on a moving object creates a light sphere from the point of the event. Where you intercept determines the angle of view.  You can never observe the actual physical position in space of an object at relativistic speeds.

[mad aetherist]

I COPYD THIS OVER FROM THE THREAD RE BEST THEORYS FOR 2018
https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=75755.msg563477#msg563477

This might not be a new theory but it should win a 2018 award for
THREAD MOST LIKELY TO MAKE YOUR HEAD EXPLODE.
It looks innocuous, then it becomes apparent that it aint as simple as it looks, & then your head explodes.
Physical contortions can injure your neck, & attempting 3-D mental contortions can injure your brain.
Phractality -- Do we see the Sun where it was 8.3 minutes ago -- more complex than it looks.
https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=65308.0

I don't see why. It's easy to understand why we see the Sun as it was 8.3 minutes ago and relativity isn't even needed to explain it.

I found it difficult to visualize the moving (orbiting) plus spinning stuff.  Plus i took it to the next level. I will post on that thread to explain.

[mad aetherist]

if you travel left and I travel right, the linearity remains the same of the observation, there is no displacement of the linear observation,

I suspect you have not learned Simultaneity of Relativity yet. Let me give you an example.
Two trains side by side moving parallel with a metal bar between the two front engines. At rest as much as possible in the universe there are windows with mirrors to view your own image. Now we move the trains physically up to relativistic speeds. The trains are moving to fast to observe light image right across from you. You are moving forward to catch the angle light was reflecting in the forward direction from the parallel train. So each passenger watches the other train fall behind. The first passenger will actually view the front of the others train. The metal bar between trains will appear bent backwards. This will be the visual affect of SoR. Each train moves into the angle of view different than at relative rest.

I am an aetherist not an Einsteinist, but my understanding of SR is that if both trains are co-moving along parallel tracks then their speed relative to the tracks is irrelevant. If the windows are semi-mirrors then anyone looking out will see their mirror image directly across no matter what the speed. And the other train will appear to be at rest, & its shape will appear natural.

Aetherists will say that if the trains are travelling east at c/2 relative to the rails, & if the rails are at rest in the aether, then the trains have an aetheric headwind of  c/2.  Photons travel at c in aether.  Therefore the train opposite will appear to be trailing by an angle of artan(1/2).  But Igor will see his mirror image directly across from him (if there is a mirror there).  However that image will not be front-on, Igor will appear to have his head turned, as if facing at artan(1/2) behind.

[mad aetherist]

Photoreceptors in the eye detect waves of a certain frequency range. How waves are transferred through space through is unknown but mass is required to create the waves. If mass is energy than photon virtual particles with a tail. If energy (dark mass energy) is the source of the transfer than it is a wave range of particles where the particles stay but continue the ripple through space. Both would be energy transfer.
Either way light cannot be created without mass. Even virtual photons would lose mass from the proton which we do not measure so which is more likely?

The creation of photons might be off topic. We dont know whether the reflection of a photon involves absorption (& emission of a new photon).  We dont know what happens to a photon  if absorbed. We dont know whether a photon lives for ever. 
Ranzan says that aether is constantly created from "nothing" near the center of every cosmic cell. And that the excitation of this new aether creates photons.  And a free photon forms a loop to become a confined photon (an elementary particle).  And that aether is annihilated in mass (& if so then photons might be annihilated)(photons are an excitation of the aether).  And mass is annihilated in blackholes (& if mass is annihilated then photons are definitely annihilated).

[mad aetherist]

We only live in the present. All of us no matter your clock speed. The present is where we live and when you view an image it was from the past. No one lives in the future since life is always in the present. Time is motion and motion is always the present.

Yes that is the Aetheristic idea.  There is no such thing as time, or, there is, it is the present instant, which is universal.  Time & time dilation are a silly Einsteinian idea, what we actually have is ticking & ticking dilation.

[mad aetherist]

I'm sure you've all had this experience: You hear a high-flying jet overhead; you look up in the direction from which the sound is coming. You don't see the jet there; instead, you see it maybe 30° to 45° ahead of where the sound is coming from.
If the jet is flying in a circle with you at its center, you still hear it coming from its "retarded position", 30° to 45° behind where you see it. I'm not sure if that's exactly the case. Can that be proven? Try simplifying the problem by assuming the speed of sound is the same everywhere, regardless of altitude, and there is no wind.
Let's say that jet passes 10 km directly above us; the sound takes 30 seconds to reach us. To simplify the problem, let's say the speed of light is infinite, so we see the jet exactly where it is now, as opposed to where it was when the sound we hear was emitted. (This is analogous to the assumption that the speed of gravity is infinite, compared to the speed of light.)

A though experiment:
[In round numbers] Your ultra-quiet maglev train is eastbound in a straight line at 33 m/s; sound travels 1 km in 3 sec. Kids at ground zero, one km north of the track, are setting off M80 fireworks at one second intervals. Do you hear the bangs coming from the direction where you now see ground zero, from the direction where ground zero is, or some other direction?

If Igor is sitting on top of the train & facing the kids at all times then all of the bangs will be heard as coming from the direction of the kids. If Igor is facing north at all times then when approaching the kids the bangs will be heard as coming from a little west of the kids, & when Igor is past the kids the bangs will be heard as coming from a little west of the kids.  If Igor happens to be directly south of the kids then the bang (if any) will be heard to come from the kids exactly.
Igor ignores the speed of light here, to keep things simpler.

Now, let's switch tracks; the new track is circular, centered on ground zero, with a radius of 1 km. I think the sound would seem to come from approximately (or exactly) the direction where we see ground zero. What say you? Anyone bold enough to present a proof?

If Igor is facing the kids at all times then all of the bangs will be heard to come from the kids.  And if Igor is facing in some other direction then all of the bangs will be heard to come from the kids.  Except if facing away from the kids then Igor probly wont know whether the bangs are coming from in front or behind (i aint sure here).

What makes sunlight behave different rules? Or does it?
A bit of philosophizing: The question of where the Sun IS NOW is an existential question. Can we really know where something has gone to since it emitted the signal that we are now perceiving? "IS NOW" is merely a snapshot of a model that we have conceived to make sense of what we perceive.

The short answer is that nothing is ever exactly where it appears.  For it to be exactly where it appears then the aetherwind would have to be zero kmps, ie both the Sun & Igor would have to be at rest in the aether.  The background aetherwind blows throo Earth at say 500 kmps south to north at say 20 deg off Earth's spin-axis at say RA 5hrs. Plus u have the effect of Earth's 30 kmps orbit, plus the 0.4 kmps spin.
Here we ignore that light is bent near mass, & light is slowed near mass, & Igor's eyes suffer Lorentzian length contraction in the aetherwind (& so does the Sun), & we have atmospheric refraction (near the Sun & near Earth), & we have Fresnel-Fizeau dragging of light in the atmospheres (changing the speed & direction).

With the kids with their crackers we ignored the possibility of any wind blowing the sound. Thats ok.  But near Earth & everywhere not near Earth we cant ignore the aetherwind blowing the light.

[mad aetherist]

Not possible. What you see is light that emanated from the sun about 8 minutes ago, so by the time you see it, the earth  will have revolved about 2 degrees from where it was when the light left the sun. So when the sun appears to be overhead London, it is actually overhead Gloucester.

Not possible, or a sniper would always miss the target.

I am thinking that if a cannon is fixed to shoot at 90 deg out of the side of a plane, & if the plane circles anti-clockwise around a target on the ground say 2km away, then if the cannon points at  the target (& suitably above the target) the cannonball will land a long way left of the target.  The aim needs to be well right of the target probly just as far right as if the plane were going straight. But this will depend on the length of the barrel.  For example if the barrel were 2 km long & the plane were circling then the needed aim to the right would be zero deg.

[mad aetherist]

This subject is covered in
Travelling at the Speed of Thought: Einstein and the Quest for Gravitational Waves, Kennefick 2006, with reference to a 1909 paper by Einstein and Ritz. The illustrations are on pp 162, 163.  Last I checked, that link was a free PDF download of the 500-page book. It looks to me like they are saying the spherical shells of light remain centered on the source in all inertial reference frames, even if the relative motion follows a straight line, rather an a circular orbit.

I had a look at Fig7a.  It shows Body1 & Body2 moving left to right on parallel paths 47.6 mm apart (my measure off my print).  After five seconds Body2 sees light rays emanating from Body1's retarded position five seconds earlier, the rays having a path angled at 32.06 deg (my measure) to Body2's motion. The wording says............
Arrows indicate path of light rays observed by a body moving parallel to Body 1 at intervals of 1 second............ If light does not partake of its source's motion then the expanding wavefront of light remains always centered on the position at which it was emitted and observing bodies perceive the light as originating from that retarded (past) position.

This doesnt make sense.  I reckon that SR says that Body2 will see Body1 exactly where it is, & not moving. The light rays will simply go straight across (ignoring minor GR bendings & accelerations of light etc).  That Body1 & Body2 might be moving across some other frame of reference is irrelevant in SR (it is only relevant to an observer in that other frame). Or have i wasted 3 years reading SR & GR?

And according to Fig7a the angled light ray path from retarded Body1 to advanced Body2 is 89.7 mm long (my measure) while the horizontal distance from retarded Body2 to advanced Body2 is 76.0 mm (my measure), which means that Body2 has a motion of  0.85c (if the light ray moves at c along that diagonal).  I am ok with that.
 
But i aint ok with that there 32.06 deg path. According to SR the visible observed seen apparent perceived angle is 90.00 deg. But lets forget that silly SR universe, & lets enter Ritz's semi-silly universe.  Ritz reckons that photons move along that 32.06 deg path.  But Body2 is moving at  0.85c, & the photons are moving at 0.85c measured in the horizontal, in which case Body2 & Body1 & the photons have the same horizontal speed, therefore Body2 will see photons approaching at  90.00 deg, ie Body2 will perceive the photons as originating from the advanced Body1. 

But i aint ok with that kind of semi-silly Ritz analysis.  Here is a sensible Aetherist analysis. Aetherists follow the photon. Einsteinists love waves & wavefronts because skoolkids cant see what is really going on & Einsteinists can feed them krapp (another bead of deceit on their Rosary).  If photons are moving at c along that 32.06 deg diagonal & Body2 is moving at 0.85c horizontally then Body2 will perceive the photon as having a path of 17.39 deg. Its a simple vector addition. If Body2 squints along a pipe then to see thems photons that pipe will have to angle at  17.39 deg. In other words the perceived position of Body1 will be ten seconds back, not five seconds.

Correcting for Lorentzian length contraction. If that there 0.85c is the speed throo the aether, ie if the aetherwind blowing throo Body2 is 0.85c, then the LLC gamma is 0.5308, & Body2's vertical circle for measuring the angle of the pipe is contracted by 0.5308 in the horizontal, thusly the circle is truly an ellipse, & the ellipse will give a reading of 9.44 deg when the true angle is 17.39 deg.  Body2 & Body 1 will also suffer LLC, & hencely Body2 will perceive the vertical circle as being a circle (an optical illusion), but nonetheless the reading will be  9.44 deg not the true angle of 17.39 deg.

If Body1 is Earth with the southpole facing Body2, then Aetherists say that Body2 will be looking directly at latitude 17.39 deg (not latitude 90 deg).  According to Fig7b on page 163 Ritz's silly theory is that action at a distance means that "If light partakes of system's motion, as in an emission theory, then the center of the expanding wavefront moves along with the motion of body 1" -- which means that Body2 will see latitude 90 deg as being the closest part of Earth, & Body2 sees Body1 (Earth) at its current (advanced) angle (ie at 90 deg opposite).  Einstein i think would predict the same result as for Ritz but for silly SR reasons, not silly Ritz reasons.

I said that Ritz reckons that Body2 sees Body1 (Earth) at its current (advanced) angle (ie at 90 deg opposite). I was careful not to say at its current (advanced) position, because that might be ambiguous. If all of the ice & snow at the south pole melted in the 5 sec tween the retarded position & the current (advanced) position then Ritz would i think say that Body2 would see ice & snow on Earth at the advanced position even tho it had all already melted (Ritz is an idiot but he aint stupid).

This stuff makes your brain hurt. But it might be easier to understand if u realize that LLC acts on bodies, it doesnt affect the size or shape of empty space, & LLC doesnt affect the true size or true shape or true speed of photons (which of course propagate at c in the aether).  But it will affect the perceived size shape speed, because LLC deforms the observer's eyes & instruments.
 
Interestingly Einsteinists reckon that Einsteinian LC affects both solids & space.  Einsteinists like to call their ELC by the name of LLC, but ELC has zero to do with LLC, the equations look alike but they aint, the V means different things.  Einsteinists call it LLC to help give their silly SR some credibility, but then they quietly stick their own (cuckoo) V in it & hope that nobody notices & that everyone feeds it lots of dollars (hey everybody, look over there, its a blackhole).  Another (cuckoo) bead of deceit on their Rosary.

[mad aetherist]

For years, I've accepted Tom Van Flandern's proof, and others like it, that gravity is billions of times faster than light. That proof is based  on the claim that we see the sun where it was, not where it is. I am now having second thoughts.

I reckon that there are lots of ways of seeing the Sun where it is.   We need to be wary of perceived (& true) angle  distance  velocity  tilt  spin  shape  density  mass  & center of mass.  If we see these nine variables accurately where the Sun is, then the speed of gravity need not be very fast, bearing in mind that what we see is based on  c (ie slow).  And if we don’t see some of the nine accurately where is then that might not matter much to the argument (eg tilt & spin).  And we cant see density or mass, density probly changes due to LCC (ie change of shape) but density is unlikely to affect the center of mass (likewise shape is unlikely to affect center of mass), & the total mass is probly constant (except for radical scenarios).   So our main worries are angle distance velocity.   

Our main problem is that we have at least two sets of answers, ie Einsteinian & Aetherian.  Aetherian answers are simple, we never see the true angle nor distance, nor tilt nor spin nor shape.  Einsteinian answers are i suspect all over the place, probly leaning towards IAAAD because there is no absolute reference frame in SR & GR.

The main logic is  That proof is based  on the claim that we see the sun where it was, not where it is. This boils down to saying that if we have IAAAD for light then we might have IAAAD for gravity.  This means that gravity might be IAAAD or that it has a speed of over 20 billion c (so why look for a slow speed for gravity (eg c)).

Gravity Waves.    I think that none of the Einsteinian theories re IAAAD can cater for IAAAD for changes in mass etc, hencely Einsteinists are forced to insist on a non-IAAAD speed for such changes (which they call gravity waves). 

The elephant in the room is that Einsteinists don’t have a micro-theory for gravity.  All they have is the bending of (the fabric of) spacetime.  Aetherists say that gravity is due to the acceleration of aether inflow into mass where aether is annihilated.
 
Hulse-Taylor & LIGO do not disprove that gravity propagates at over 20 billion c, they merely show that GWs propagate at  c.  However if GWs propagate at c then that indirectly disproves the Aetheristic speed of over  20 billion c because the Aetheristic theory doesnt allow any sort of slow speed for any aspect of gravity. However my own centrifuging of aether theory gives quasi-gravity which does include a light-house kind of effect (a gravity beam) for binary stars, & as these beams sweep across space they can give pseudo speeds of as low as c or even lower.

[Kryptid]

they merely show that GWs propagate at  c.

I thought you didn't believe in gravitational waves?

[mad aetherist]

they merely show that GWs propagate at  c.

I thought you didn't believe in gravitational waves?

In my earlier posting above i was giving Hulse-Taylor & LIGO the status of being good experiments (however i think they are mistaken). But the real point was that even if their GW theory & numbers are true & correct then all they have proven is that there are GW's that travel at c, & the real point being that GWs that travel at c do not directly falsify IAAAD or a speed of light of over 20 billion c. 
Re the existence of QGWs, in a posting on another thread a few days ago i explained that yes i do believe that a binary must produce weak periodic quadrupolar changes (ie a QGW) in the nett simple Newtonian gravity field (moreso at short range), (i) much too weak at Earth, & (ii) this QGW must get weaker as frequency increases, & (iii) this QGW must get weaker if mass is lost, & (iv) this QGW doesnt have a transverse component at long range (only in the near field)(ie when very close). Nothing like the (silly) Einsteinian-LIGO QGW. 
And Einstein didnt believe in QGWs at binaries, & even if such QGWs existed he reckoned that they would not dampen the energy of a binary.

[mad aetherist]

Of course the Sun is where it was 8 minutes ago, in Solar coordinates. I'm referring to the direction relative to the stars, which goes thru 360° degrees in a year. In 8.3 minutes, the direction of the Sun from Earth changes by .0057°. So do we see the light coming from .0057° east of its current location? If we were moving in a straight line past the Sun, I believe that would be the case.

This is what Igor the Aetherist thinks.  If the aetherwind blows at say 500 kmps (c/600) south to north throo the Sun, then from Earth the Sun will appear at its true elevation but the appearance of the Sun will be as if seen from an angle of arsine (c/600/c) or arsine(1/600) or 0.0955 deg from below (ie a sunspot on a point on the Sun level with Earth, ie central, will appear to be a little above center).  So Igor sees some tilt (an optical illusion).  Also, photons from that sunspot will take longer to reach Earth, because to go horizontally to get to Earth they have to propagate down into the aetherwind a little, ie they have to propagate along the diagonal (even tho going horizontally), so they have to travel further (& instead of taking 500 sec they take say 500.000,695 sec), hencely the Sun must appear smaller than true (the angular size is smaller) -- hencely the Sun is not where it appears, the angle is correct (horizontal here) but the true distance is closer than the perceived distance.  These two illusions (tilt & distance) must affect every measurement ever made.  If the aetherwind is blowing south to north then the Sun & Earth will be contracted along that axis & both will be ellipsoids (due to Lorentzian LC), therefore the distance tween Igor & sunspot is reduced (the distance center to center of Sun & Earth is not changed because space does not suffer LLC).  Therefore the aforementioned reduction in perceived angular size & the increase in perceived distance are both partly offset by the changes due to LLC ( haven’t worked out the exact nett changes).

We can now look at Phractality's question. If Earth is going past the Sun linearly at  30 kmps (c/10,000) then Igor (standing on Earth with Sun directly overhead) has a 30 kmps west to east aetherwind due to orbit plus a 500 kmps south to north background aetherwind.  Igor of course feels the combined effect, but we can probly just consider the 30 kmps (ie the horizontal plane of the orbit) in isolation. 
The naïve answer is that (when directly opposite the true Sun)(90 deg) Igor sees photons coming from artan(1/10000) ahead (ie 0.005,729,577,932 deg).  This is because the photons hitting Igor's eyes are propagating at 90 deg at  c whilst Igor is going at 00 deg at  c/10,000, & the simple vector addition gives the vector of the photons in Igor's eyes (u might also realise that the photon will be going at more than c relative to Igor).  Lorentzian LC of Igor's horizontal circular protractor makes the protractor an ellipse, & Igor's measure of the angle would read a little more than 0.005,729,577,932 deg.  LLC of Earth makes the Earth an ellipsoid, & hencely Igor will be closer to the Sun.  LLC doesn’t affect the shape of the Sun in the horizontal, but because LLC makes Igor's eyes ellipsoids say then the spherical Sun will appear to be an ellipsoid (it will appear to have a larger horiz dia than vert dia).
If Earth were static in the aether & Sun going past, Igor would see the Sun as trailing by arsine(1/10000)(ie  0.005,729,577,961 deg behind).  This is because the Sun emits the photons when at that earlier position & the light propagates to Igor's eyes from that position.  And the Sun would be an ellipsoid, & would look like an ellipsoid (vert dia bigger than horiz dia). 

An Einsteinist considers the Earth to be static & the Sun going past & when directly opposite he sees the Sun as trailing at arsine(1/10000)(ie  0.005,729,577,961 deg behind).  This is because the Sun emits the light when at that earlier position & the light propagates to his eyes from that position.  Not sure re this. 
I don’t understand emission theory, but i think that it says that the spherical waves move with the Sun, hencely the Sun is always where seen.  I don’t know whether or how LLC might play a role.

I have read that a term in general relativity almost exactly cancels the direction change of the light, as if the centers of successive light pulses follow the source.   The direction where we see an expanding spherical shell of light is perpendicular to the surface of the shell as it passes us. If we were in a circular orbit, I think the change in our direction, relative to the stars, would put the Sun's image back where the Sun is. I wonder if this analogy corresponds to the mysterious term in GR.

The GR field equations are ad hoc salad.  The idea of orbiting along a spherical shell wavefront is interesting.  A photonic viewpoint says that the perceived photon angle is artan(v/c) 'ahead' of the Sun (& the photon is faster than c).  Einsteinists like to use waves & wavefronts because it keeps skoolkids from asking obvious questions.  Skoolkids get confused when they picture a pipe angled at artan(v/c) so that the entering bit of wave doesn’t hit a wall, but when the wavelette gets to the end of the pipe the wave will still have its original angle, so, what angle do we see?  Imagining a photon is much simpler.  But at the end of the pipe when it hits your eye the photon will be crabbing (sidling) & the question arises whether when it enters a surface whether the crabbing affects Snell's law of refraction.  No such problem when the crabbing photon hits the receptor on your retina, here its fairly obvious that the photon's aim-direction-heading makes no difference to what your brain thinks.

Our orbit is elliptical, and if I'm right, the angle between where we see the Sun and where it is ought to go thru an annual cycle. Concentric light spheres spreading from the Sun are always tangent to a circular orbit, but only tangent to an elliptical orbit at aphelion and perihelion.

Treating light as photons eliminates most of this complication.

If I now discard the idea that gravity is billions of times faster than light, there will need to be some changes in my model. I still think gravity is faster than light, but I'll have to look for a different proof and a different estimate of cg/cl.

If IAAAD exists for light then the same considerations must apply to gravity. But IAAAD doesn’t exist, & therefore it cant exist for gravity.  But re the speed of gravity & a possible estimate & proof, i don’t think that we can tell.  If light from the Sun takes 500 sec to reach Earth then Gravity changes arising at the Sun take say less than 1/20 billionth of that 500 sec (ie 500/20,000,000,000)(ie 2.5 by 10^-8 sec).  But i reckon that gravity is a reverberation effect travelling to & fro tween masses, & the speed of a single pulse is much faster than 20 billion c.
If the drift speed of an electron is 1mmps & c is 300,000,000,000,000 mmps then the ratio is 1 in 3.0 by 10^14.
If the drift speed of an aetheon is  c/600 (this is a typical aetherwind near Earth)(500 kmps) then the speed of gravity when using the above ratio is 500 billion c, which is 25 times faster than Van Flandern's min of 20 billion c.  U heard it here first.

[guest4091]

After the discovery of a finite light speed in the 1600's, all observations became historical. [Romer]



GoC ;

Two trains side by side moving parallel with a metal bar between the two front engines.

Then there is no relative speed of one to the other. The 1st postulate states the physics for the two frames will be equivalent to that which occurs when they are static.


What you are describing is the appearance/perception of two observers with a significant relative speed. The effect results from a changing difference in light transit time for different locations on an object.



 49;

I am thinking that if a cannon is fixed to shoot at 90 deg out of the side of a plane, & if the plane circles anti-clockwise around a target on the ground say 2km away, then if the cannon points at  the target (& suitably above the target) the cannonball will land a long way left of the target.

If the plane has a velocity tangent to the circle, so does the cannonball!

[mad aetherist]

After the discovery of a finite light speed in the 1600's, all observations became historical. [Romer]

I dont understand Romer, surely all observations are a part of history.

So, we found that light doesnt have an infinite speed. Therefore there is no such thing as IAAAD, but that doesnt rule out pseudo-IAAAD (eg Catt's pseudo-IAAAD found when an electrical switch is turned on, & the switch is a long way from the battery).  So, what we have is Einsteinians claiming that their pseudo-IAAAD for a lightwavefront means that we must have pseudo-IAAAD for gravity, but at the same time they say that there is no pseudo-IAAAD for a gravitywavefront, no, they claim that a gravitywavefront has a speed of c.  Not much good logic here folks.

And its worse than that. Let me add a saying by mad aetherist referring to the work of Einstein .......
After Einstein's discovery of a constant light speed in the 1900's, all observations became hysterical.
Einsteinists have made a mess of three speeds, the speed of light (constant they say), the speed of gravity (infinite they say), & the speed of GWs (c they say).
The speed of light is indeed constant, it is c in the aether. But Einstein "discovered" a null result in the non-null MMX, & Einstein said that the SOL is not constant it is constant in the sense that it appears constant (for all observers).
In other words Einstein said that there is no such thing as an intrinsic SOL, but u dont see Einsteinians putting it that way, it would look too silly even by their standards.

In a way Einstein was correct, we do nearnuff see the SOL as being isotropic.  This is because everything we see is an illusion. This is because everything contracts in one direction (dimension) due to the aetherwind as per the Lorentzian equation for gamma (ie due to LLC). And because all ticking is affected by LLC.  Our eyes & metre-rods & clocks are also affected hencely the perceived SOL etc is nearnuff constant (but not exactly),& the contracted shape of objects is nearnuff not visible, due to an optical illusion.

This is the essence of the Einsteinian mistake. Einstein waves away the real optical illusion by introducing an ad hoc (what he calls) postulate re the constancy of the SOL.

But the constancy of the SOL cannot be a postulate, a postulate is a simple little fundamental thing that is easy to swallow.  That there postulate of his is in fact a big fat principal or law even. Calling it a postulate is just a tricky way of giving it a status that it doesnt deserve, & its another Einsteinian trick (another false bead on the Einsteinian Rosary). If Einstein called it a Law (which is what it is) it would look ridiculous, ie introducing a brand new Law to derive a Principle, so he called it a Postulate & then derived his silly looking Principle, much better.

So in 2016 u have fellows like Phractality making threads re IAAAD & the speed of gravity & attempting to use logic based on SR & GR.  Phractality doesnt realise that everything is an illusion all the time.  Phractality starts off by assuming that what u see is true (if relative speed is zero) because Einstein said so, hencely Phractality has no hope of arriving at the correct answer (he will arrive at an Einsteinian answer).  These are the Einsteinian Dark Ages, but times they are a'changin.

#49.
I am thinking that if a cannon is fixed to shoot at 90 deg out of the side of a plane, & if the plane circles anti-clockwise around a target on the ground say 2km away, then if the cannon points at  the target (& suitably above the target) the cannonball will land a long way left of the target.

If the plane has a velocity tangent to the circle, so does the cannonball!

This is an interesting question. If the cannon is swinging to keep aim then when the trigger is pressed the aim will be true & when the ball gets to the end of the barrel the aim will be true, & as u say the ball will miss. But nonetheless i was correct when i said that the length of the barrel made a difference because if the end of the barrel was say halfway to the target then the size of the miss would be say a half (talking bout the plane circling here).

[mad aetherist]

Einsteinists have made a mess of three speeds, the speed of light (constant they say), the speed of gravity (infinite they say), & the speed of GWs (c they say).
The speed of light is indeed constant, it is c in the aether. But Einstein "discovered" a null result in the non-null MMX, & Einstein said that the SOL is not constant it is constant in the sense that it appears constant (for all observers).
In other words Einstein said that there is no such thing as an intrinsic SOL, but u dont see Einsteinians putting it that way, it would look too silly even by their standards.
In a way Einstein was correct, we do nearnuff see the SOL as being isotropic.  This is because everything we see is an illusion. This is because everything contracts in one direction (dimension) due to the aetherwind as per the Lorentzian equation for gamma (ie due to LLC). And because all ticking is affected by LLC.  Our eyes & metre-rods & clocks are also affected hencely the perceived SOL etc is nearnuff constant (but not exactly),& the contracted shape of objects is nearnuff not visible, due to an optical illusion.

That the SOL is a constant c in the aether is the standard Aetheristic theory. But i forgot to mention that my own theory is that Einstein was correct when he said that light is slowed near mass, alltho he was correct for the wrong reasons (he said due to gravity potential).  Having the correct answer for the wrong reasons is called equivalence. My idea is that slowing is due to photaeno-drag (which i explained in its own thread).
Anyhow i reckon that Einstein deserves credit for introducing this completely novel concept.
 
If light is slowed near mass then this means that the Lorentz equation for gamma for length contraction & ticking dilation is wrong.  For some reason or other Einstein steered clear of the obvious.  If light is slowed due to nearness of mass then this must affect electrostatic & electrodynamic forces tween atomic & subatomic particles, & indeed within elementary particles & photons themselves, & this slowing & its effect must be additional to the slowing & effect due to the Lorentzian considerations.  The Lorentzian gamma is based on the speed of the aetherwind blowing throo an object, this gives rise to c+v & c-v for the SOL.  The Einsteinian slowing of light near mass is the slowing of light in the aether, ie c becomes c'.  So what we have is c'+v & c'-v.   And the equation should use the term  vv/c'c'  not  vv/cc.  And  c' should be equated with the nearness of mass.

Einstein must have known this, so why did he not mention it.  He was happy to imitate a cuckoo & lay his SR egg in Lorentz's gamma (which i mentioned in an earlier posting), but it would have been a sensation if he had taken this here extra step of introducing a new term c'.  I think i know why he didnt mention it, it is because it would have detracted from his beautiful pure postulate re the constancy of the SOL.  He would have had to add this little extra effect, & this little extra effect is purely an LLC effect which arises from absolute speed, whereas the ELC effect arises from relative speed, & whereas Einstein could bully his way throo the process of heaving LLC out of the nest (leaving just ELC) he knew that people would not so easily swallow this murder if he left a combination of LLC & ELC in the nest (ie LELC).  It would be a sensation to introduce LELC, but it would taint his beautiful pure postulate, it would get people thinking more deeply, & thinking is ever dangerous to SR & GR.  No, best ignore c'.  And scientists ever since did not have the wit to see it, or they ignored this mammoth in the room.  Pity.  And dont forget, LELC affects ticking too.
Einstein would not have thort of the slowing as being a Lorentzian absolute speed thing (or at least he would not have admitted it), he would have thort of slowing of the SOL as being a GR thing, but even so his say train thort-X would be harder to swallow if he added that the carriages & observers & embankment & station had to have zero mass.

So, LELC adds one more facet to the Law that nothing is ever what or where it appears.  And if there is a term in Einstein's field equations that cancels aberration & somehow gives a pseudo-IAAAD, then that whole reasoning must now be seen as flawed, in which case we have one more reason why GR (& SR) are krapp (& this stuff helps to answer one of Phractality's questions in his original posting).

[EJsKn]

I think it might be the sun rune is extra picky. Many times the sun is thought to be arrogant above all things and the center of the galaxy. So, maybe the Sun rune thinks it is too good for most people and only perhaps royality or someone very strong and important can bear it?