Another question for erudite members of the forum.

According to current thinking can anything happen instantaneously?

If a body such as the sun should be moved 1 million ks away from a body such as the earth how quickly would earth's position change or start to change?

It DOES take time for the gravitational field here at this distance to be affected if thats what u are asking. (approx 8 minutes without knowing what went on :eek: )

John C.,

It DOES take time for the gravitational field here at this distance to be affected if thats what u are asking. (approx 8 minutes without knowing what went on )

Just not sure you can make this statement. There are two basic thoughts and mathematical presentations of this. Both seem to be correct. The other is that such delay in gravity would cause orbit instabilities. I just think it is to early to conclude which view is correct.

Another question for erudite members of the forum.

According to current thinking can anything happen instantaneously?

according to curent thinking, no. Locality is the name for the principle that explicitly forbids what you are describing, and it one of the foundations of our modern physical theories.

John C.,

The other is that such delay in gravity would cause orbit instabilities. I just think it is to early to conclude which view is correct.

Well, thats what the other theory says about the theory proposed above. But what is the other theory exactly?

This is what you are looking for:

http://physics.about.com/cs/gravity/a/speedofgravity_2.htm

Do you feel that gravity may be in some way elastic in that it can be stretched?

If a person is jogging in London and another is jogging in New York.
Can they be said to be jogging simlutaneously? (with out the need to "see" them)

I think in a way I am refering to what you would call "Absolute time" that was dropped in favour of Relativity.

The thinking behind all this is that if one takes away the need to communicate position by means such as light and gravity etc......do things move simultaneously.

If a star moves 3 miles on the other side of the universe and a star on this side does the same, regardless of communicated evidence do they move simultaneously. ( or do they in any way have an instantaneous relationship regardless of emissions etc)

John C. & Ellimist,

Now admittedly TVF does not have the highest standing in mainstream science but he is the most prolific on the alternate concept and offers several test results and mathematics to argue his position. I'll link him but keep in mind there have been numerous physicists that have opposed the claimed test where Jupiter was involved in the SOG = c finding and that also argue in favor of ultra-fast, superluminal (if not instantaneous) SOG.

The counter arguement is that they merely measured the speed of light and not the SOG..

http://www.ldolphin.org/vanFlandern/gravityspeed.html

MacM thanks for the link.....you know...I reckon the problem is that both the instantaneous and that which requires time are not able to co-exist in theory.

From what I have read and what I have explored there seems to be a need to find that "no-time" and "Time" need to be founded in the same theory.

It's a bit like the notion that distance is an illusion when in fact it is what we percieve.

That the distance to a star is both long and none.

To my way of thinking gravity has to be instantaneous. It may stretch it may scew but at all times it is instantaneous. Yet because of our need to determine according to "c" the instantaneous is relegated to the impossible even though evidence may suggest otherwise.

Somehow both "c" and "No-time" have to be accomodated in the one theory.....just my thoughts........

QQ,

I believe you have the correct attitude. I believe that infact v = c is a limit but that the limit, also has execeptions. That is it is a limit on a particular phase or set of conditions which we normally interact with or percieve but that underlying all this physical, observable, universe there is more at work which builds the part we interpret as physical and that portion has different laws than we have developed for our observed portion of creation.

It's a bit like the notion that distance is an illusion when in fact it is what we percieve.

I particularily like this comment since I personally believe that distance is a variable as a function of the mass of the observer and observed but that is another story.

When you click on the attachments if you see nothing then look very carefully to the upper left corner. You should see a speck. Even if you can't see it move your mouse about x,y = 1 inch from the upper left corner. You should see an orange square appear at the lower area of your screen. click on it to enlarge and make the attachments readable.



http://www.sciforums.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=2696
http://www.sciforums.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=2697

Thanks for the links MacM I am trying to digest the idea.....however I tend to go a little more simpler.......and work back to the more complex.....


I just thought of Something that might help a little with this difficulty of time and no-time.......bear with me.....

You take a substance (A) and you look at it with a microscope......you keep increasing the magnification until the smallest possible is seen.......then you go a little further and you see nothing, so small are you looking at that you start to see nothing...........

20 feet away you do the same thing to another substance (B) and again you start to see nothing, the magnification being so great........
Now the question is really very simple...How far away is the nothing of substance "A" and the nothing of substance "B"?

If the universe is finite then beyond the finite is nothing......if size is finite then beyond the ultra small is nothing.......if you catch my drift.

So If you agree that substance "A" and "B" share the same nothing then the distance between them is Zero in fact, substances "A" and "B" share the same space. So therefore whilst the universe appears as 4 dimensional it also has zero dimensionality simultaneously.

Quantum Quack,

I actually tend to agree with you in general. As bizzar as it seems if you understand that "Nothingness" means no time-space and then start to think of the universe as being the contents of a Klien Bottle where every planck ordinate point is in contact with the edge of its origin at the Big Bang then particle entanglement and other sub-atomic events such as electron orbit jumping, etc start to make sense.

Virtual Particles are popping in and out of the vacuum foam but each ordinate point in what we call 3D space is actually connected to the same singularity (or sub-planck volume) from which the Big Bang originated, so to disappear from one location and "Instantly" reappear a 100 million ly away one only needs to be absorbed into and be re-generated from the vacuum. You will have traveled no distance and consumed no time.

Think tunneling, etc.

As bizzar as it seems if you underrstand that "Nothingness" means no time-space and then start to think of the universe as being the contents of a Klien Bottle where every planck ordinate point is in contact with the edge of its origin at the Big Bang then particle entanglement and other sub-atomic events such as electron orbit jumping, etc start to make sense.

But this is direct contradiction with your stance on QM isn't it Mac.

Ryans,

But this is direct contradiction with your stance on QM isn't it Mac.

I am afraid I don't understand your comment. What contridiction is that?

Quantum Quack,

So If you agree that substance "A" and "B" share the same nothing then the distance between them is Zero in fact, substances "A" and "B" share the same space.

My only real objection to your post was the blue highlited segment. Nothingness as the absence of time-space is inconsistant with nothingness "A" and nothingness "B" sharing space. My view is they share the same singularity.

fair point...I originally typed in that "A" and "B" where in fact the same substance....but thought it to abstract so I decided on the word space instead and still not happy with that either......

I think some times I confuse volumetric dimensions as in area type dimensions with none area type dimensions.......

Sort of like nothing sharing the same volume of space but saying this contradicts the notion of "nothing"

You conception of a shared singularity I think conforms more with conventional thinking however by default the word singularity implies the existance of a duality which really isn't all that wrong either...

I think for the sake of description that nothing could be considered to be infinitely bigger than the entire universe and exists as a dimension with in that universe.....and the universe existing with in that "nothingness"


The interesting thing to consider is how can this dimension of nothingness be employed to allow distance to be come a non-issue....to travel the stars without the need to take time to do so.......

Just a little diagram attached that I know is far from original but helps to clarify the concept.......
The diagram could be inverted as well describing the universe on th outer rather than on the inner......also both could be shown together etc etc

I have a feeling that the future will show that if gravity is utilised properly distance becomes irrelevant. The gravity of the destination being the medium of travel.......