Gravity: Einstein vs Newton

Use this forum to discuss the philosophy of science. Philosophy of science deals with the assumptions, foundations, and implications of science.
Post Reply
User avatar
Jonathan A Bain
New Trial Member
Posts: 14
Joined: August 27th, 2019, 7:13 pm

Gravity: Einstein vs Newton

Post by Jonathan A Bain » September 29th, 2019, 3:24 pm

Briefly Einstein claimed that gravity moves no faster than light
as is evidenced on pg 94 of Hawking' 'Brief History of Time',
as well as pg 74-75.

"General Relativity predicts that heavy objects that are moving
will cause the emission of gravitational waves, ripples in the
curvature of space that travel at the speed of light". (pg 94)

"Real gravitons make up what classical physicists would call
gravitational waves..." (pg 74)

Newtonian calculations take it that gravity traverses across
space instantly. So as an example, we use the Alpha Centauri
binary pair which has a roughly 5 hour delay between them
for anything moving at the speed of light.

My calculations show that this pair would spiral outwards
at more than 1.4 million km per orbit if gravity moved
at the speed of light, giving all such binaries
less than a million year life span.

Thus either gravity is instant, or it traverses space
millions of times faster than the speed of light.

I will provide links to algorithms later that demonstrate this.

User avatar
h_k_s
Posts: 1098
Joined: November 25th, 2018, 12:09 pm
Favorite Philosopher: Aristotle
Location: Rocky Mountains

Re: Gravity: Einstein vs Newton

Post by h_k_s » September 30th, 2019, 2:27 pm

Jonathan A Bain wrote:
September 29th, 2019, 3:24 pm
Briefly Einstein claimed that gravity moves no faster than light
as is evidenced on pg 94 of Hawking' 'Brief History of Time',
as well as pg 74-75.

"General Relativity predicts that heavy objects that are moving
will cause the emission of gravitational waves, ripples in the
curvature of space that travel at the speed of light". (pg 94)

"Real gravitons make up what classical physicists would call
gravitational waves..." (pg 74)

Newtonian calculations take it that gravity traverses across
space instantly. So as an example, we use the Alpha Centauri
binary pair which has a roughly 5 hour delay between them
for anything moving at the speed of light.

My calculations show that this pair would spiral outwards
at more than 1.4 million km per orbit if gravity moved
at the speed of light, giving all such binaries
less than a million year life span.

Thus either gravity is instant, or it traverses space
millions of times faster than the speed of light.

I will provide links to algorithms later that demonstrate this.
We/Scientists/Science do/does not know exactly what Gravity really is.

You must always bear in mind your limitations.

Per Clint Eastwood, in Magnum Force (the movie).

What a great philosopher he is.

This notion of knowing ones own limitations is akin to "moderation in all things" by Hesiod (even though Aristotle took credit), and "Cogito Ergo Sum" by Descartes.

User avatar
Halc
Posts: 341
Joined: March 17th, 2018, 9:47 pm

Re: Gravity: Einstein vs Newton

Post by Halc » September 30th, 2019, 10:58 pm

Jonathan A Bain wrote:
September 29th, 2019, 3:24 pm
Briefly Einstein claimed that gravity moves no faster than light
Einstein claimed no such thing. Quote Einstein if you assert otherwise.
as is evidenced on pg 94 of Hawking' 'Brief History of Time',
as well as pg 74-75.

"General Relativity predicts that heavy objects that are moving will cause the emission of gravitational waves, ripples in the curvature of space that travel at the speed of light". (pg 94)
This is true. But gravity waves (gravitons) are not gravity. Gravity waves convey information, and information is confined to light speed.

[/quote]"Real gravitons make up what classical physicists would call gravitational waves..." (pg 74)[/quote]
Again accurate.
My calculations show that this pair would spiral outwards at more than 1.4 million km per orbit if gravity moved at the speed of light, giving all such binaries less than a million year life span.
Again true, as Einstein and everybody knew. This is not news. Gravity is a field and doesn't travel at all.
Thus either gravity is instant, or it traverses space millions of times faster than the speed of light.
It has never been proven to be instant, but measured (by methods similar to yours) to be within I think at least 20 digits of it.

User avatar
Halc
Posts: 341
Joined: March 17th, 2018, 9:47 pm

Re: Gravity: Einstein vs Newton

Post by Halc » September 30th, 2019, 11:03 pm

Actually, any deviation from 'instant' would be a violation of conservation of energy, angular momentum, and probably other things. Demonstrating a finite speed to it would collapse any physics built on the laws of thermodynamics. So that does constitute a proof of it given a postulate of the 2nd law of thermodynamics.

User avatar
detail
Posts: 90
Joined: June 1st, 2019, 1:39 pm

Re: Gravity: Einstein vs Newton

Post by detail » October 1st, 2019, 11:47 am

Gravitational waves could already exist in 3 dimensional newtons theory , due to the fact that the gravitational force is dependent on the laplacian of the gravitational potential and a body moves inside this setting in a prescribed way according to propelling drive. If excited via a driving force this can then result in a timely periodic behaviour of the gravitational potential. You would laugh the ecliptic path of our planets is periodic, so the solution
of the gravitational potential then results in the gravitational force which is then periodic. A heavy rocket passing their orbits , could then emit even in a classical form a weak wavelike effect in the gravitational potential. But the efffect is with heavy black holes by far stronger after the einstein equations.

User avatar
Halc
Posts: 341
Joined: March 17th, 2018, 9:47 pm

Re: Gravity: Einstein vs Newton

Post by Halc » November 3rd, 2019, 10:50 am

Jonathan A Bain wrote:
September 29th, 2019, 3:24 pm
My calculations show that this pair would spiral outwards at more than 1.4 million km per orbit if gravity moved at the speed of light
So lets simplify to a non-relativity classic case and consider a pair of modest masses twirling about each other connected by a spring under tension. The force of attraction between the objects is transmitted through the spring, which admittedly has a different force curve than does gravity. The tension grows stronger with distance in the case of the spring, but we can largely discount that since we're considering a system in equilibrium.

So force travels at the speed of sound through the spring, and any perturbation of one of the masses will not affect the other until the change wave (equivalent to gravitons) propagates the length of the spring, let's say in 1 second.

So do the same calculations for this system. Why is each mass accelerated exactly towards the other and not towards where the other mass was a second ago? The reason this system is stable seems to be the same reason the gravity system is stable despite a finite speed to convey the change to the gravitational field due to the moving of the source of the field.

gater
Posts: 267
Joined: September 6th, 2019, 12:02 am

Re: Gravity: Einstein vs Newton

Post by gater » March 4th, 2020, 9:14 pm

They're both wrong. Gravity is the collective force of mass. Stars have the most gravity, they are large, and their matter is aligned, with the heaviest matter at the core, and the lightest at the surface. They are the Universe's largest and most powerful magnets, pulling everything towards it's core. Gravity does not have a speed, it has a strength, that can be measured.

Scott Mayers
Posts: 52
Joined: February 21st, 2020, 6:50 pm

Re: Gravity: Einstein vs Newton

Post by Scott Mayers » March 5th, 2020, 7:01 pm

Jonathan A Bain wrote:
September 29th, 2019, 3:24 pm
Briefly Einstein claimed that gravity moves no faster than light
as is evidenced on pg 94 of Hawking' 'Brief History of Time',
as well as pg 74-75.

"General Relativity predicts that heavy objects that are moving
will cause the emission of gravitational waves, ripples in the
curvature of space that travel at the speed of light". (pg 94)

"Real gravitons make up what classical physicists would call
gravitational waves..." (pg 74)[/quote]
Personally, I would not rely on Hawking's works to provide clarity and don't approve of his style of explanation because too many more questions are raised about scientific discovery than is answered. I loathe the term 'gravitons', for instance, to be raised for beginning inquirers because it implies some literal thing when gravity is just a action comparing how two or more things are pulled together. I can't argue for its formal use as a term but even mentioning it is relatively 'speculative' to present when one is selling science to the public for beginners.
Newtonian calculations take it that gravity traverses across
space instantly. So as an example, we use the Alpha Centauri
binary pair which has a roughly 5 hour delay between them
for anything moving at the speed of light.

My calculations show that this pair would spiral outwards
at more than 1.4 million km per orbit if gravity moved
at the speed of light, giving all such binaries
less than a million year life span.

Thus either gravity is instant, or it traverses space
millions of times faster than the speed of light.

I will provide links to algorithms later that demonstrate this.
I don't understand your logic. Newton's theory alone does not assert gravity traverses space instantaneously. Any extraneous speculation by Newton where it exists is not intended to be a part of his laws. Relativity only adds more completeness to Newton's laws only due to thinking on how a maximum speed of anything cannot be achieved. Newton lacked sufficient knowledge about light and was just in the devoloping stages of Calculus he played a role in founding.

Objects in space in any present position have not instantly popped there and THEN had gravity affect it. So regardless, there is no instantaneous action at a distance that can be observed. If you are wanting to discuss this, you might be thinking of Quantum Mechanics theories of entanglement and the Copenhagen interpretation?

Scott Mayers
Posts: 52
Joined: February 21st, 2020, 6:50 pm

Re: Gravity: Einstein vs Newton

Post by Scott Mayers » March 5th, 2020, 7:06 pm

Here is my corrected post for the last one. If I cannot edit, I am forced to repeat the whole thing with the corrections. Here is what it should read:
Jonathan A Bain wrote:
September 29th, 2019, 3:24 pm
Briefly Einstein claimed that gravity moves no faster than light
as is evidenced on pg 94 of Hawking' 'Brief History of Time',
as well as pg 74-75.


"General Relativity predicts that heavy objects that are moving
will cause the emission of gravitational waves, ripples in the
curvature of space that travel at the speed of light". (pg 94)

"Real gravitons make up what classical physicists would call
gravitational waves..." (pg 74)
Personally, I would not rely on Hawking's works to provide clarity and don't approve of his style of explanation because too many more questions are raised about scientific discovery than is answered. I loathe the term 'gravitons', for instance, to be raised for beginning inquirers because it implies some literal thing when gravity is just a action comparing how two or more things are pulled together. I can't argue for its formal use as a term but even mentioning it is relatively 'speculative' to present when one is selling science to the public for beginners.
Newtonian calculations take it that gravity traverses across
space instantly. So as an example, we use the Alpha Centauri
binary pair which has a roughly 5 hour delay between them
for anything moving at the speed of light.

My calculations show that this pair would spiral outwards
at more than 1.4 million km per orbit if gravity moved
at the speed of light, giving all such binaries
less than a million year life span.

Thus either gravity is instant, or it traverses space
millions of times faster than the speed of light.

I will provide links to algorithms later that demonstrate this.
I don't understand your logic. Newton's theory alone does not assert gravity traverses space instantaneously. Any extraneous speculation by Newton where it exists is not intended to be a part of his laws. Relativity only adds more completeness to Newton's laws only due to thinking on how a maximum speed of anything cannot be achieved. Newton lacked sufficient knowledge about light and was just in the devoloping stages of Calculus he played a role in founding.

Objects in space in any present position have not instantly popped there and THEN had gravity affect it. So regardless, there is no instantaneous action at a distance that can be observed. If you are wanting to discuss this, you might be thinking of Quantum Mechanics theories of entanglement and the Copenhagen interpretation?

User avatar
Steve3007
Posts: 7321
Joined: June 15th, 2011, 5:53 pm
Favorite Philosopher: Eratosthenes
Location: UK

Re: Gravity: Einstein vs Newton

Post by Steve3007 » March 6th, 2020, 11:41 am

Scott Mayers wrote:Personally, I would not rely on Hawking's works to provide clarity and don't approve of his style of explanation because too many more questions are raised about scientific discovery than is answered.
I agree with this, but wouldn't confine it just to popular science books written by Stephen Hawking. His book just happens to be more well known than most. It's a problem that occurs with any lay account of the advanced level of any subject which attempts to provide explanations which don't rely on having studied the subject from the ground up. It's a very difficult, if not impossible, thing to do without causing confusion and provoking some readers to scepticism about the subject as a whole.

Scott Mayers
Posts: 52
Joined: February 21st, 2020, 6:50 pm

Re: Gravity: Einstein vs Newton

Post by Scott Mayers » March 6th, 2020, 12:01 pm

Steve3007 wrote:
March 6th, 2020, 11:41 am
Scott Mayers wrote:Personally, I would not rely on Hawking's works to provide clarity and don't approve of his style of explanation because too many more questions are raised about scientific discovery than is answered.
I agree with this, but wouldn't confine it just to popular science books written by Stephen Hawking. His book just happens to be more well known than most. It's a problem that occurs with any lay account of the advanced level of any subject which attempts to provide explanations which don't rely on having studied the subject from the ground up. It's a very difficult, if not impossible, thing to do without causing confusion and provoking some readers to scepticism about the subject as a whole.
What I don't like is how many treat those who DO question things by their own 'self-interest' and skepticism as 'nutcases' when regardless of their potential errors, they are treated as though they SHOULD be presuming authority as valid prior to their own right to determine this 'scientifically'. That discourages those who cannot have the privilege of access to formal educational institutes and places a burden upon them to CONFORM in order to pre-qualify, regardless of any potential validity to their arguments.

I also agree with you that Hawkings is not the only one. I like someone like Brian Greene who demonstrates alternatives, even those he would personally not select, so as to entice the viewer to recognize the philosophical debates in the history of science and participatively THINK on their own.

I think the paradigm shifted also in education from foundational learning to rote learning UP FRONT with teasers of logic that beg people to trust the authorities by experiencing 'samples'. But the focus on eduction turned to favor OUTCOME in actual jobs and so formal education mainly reverses the prior foundational approach to one that focuses on CLERICAL practice up front. For instance, early University education 'papers' are to focus on student's capacity to REFERENCE others. Only in post graduate levels are they then permitted to participate in the open-ended foundational thinking. This biases favor to the 'labor' of scientific fields rather than the 'theorizing'. While I can understand the political realities of doing this, many today do not intellectually reflect upon this. And this is due to the very fact that the vast majority of those educated will always be more familiar with the significance of the practical education that got them their careers through the present system. It is hard to resist valuing the significant investments you had placed into something that got you to where you are at the end of one's education. This feedback behavior enhances 'authoritative' faith in the system and thus increases a counterfaith in those who approach learning foundationally.

Post Reply