The Speed Of Gravity – Why Einstein Was Wrong

Physicist Tom Van Flandern lays down the law… Newton’s law ;)

The Speed of Gravity What the Experiments Say

Van Flandern T. ,Physics Letters A, Vol. 250:1-11 (1998)

www.metaresearch.org…
Abstract.

Standard experimental techniques exist to determine the propagation speed of forces. When we apply these techniques to gravity, they all yield propagation speeds too great to measure, substantially faster than lightspeed. This is because gravity, in contrast to light, has no detectable aberration or propagation delay for its action, even for cases (such as binary pulsars) where sources of gravity accelerate significantly during the light time from source to target. By contrast, the finite propagation speed of light causes radiation pressure forces to have a non-radial component causing orbits to decay (the “Poynting-Robertson effect”); but gravity has no counterpart force proportional to to first order. General relativity (GR) explains these features by suggesting that gravitation (unlike electromagnetic forces) is a pure geometric effect of curved space-time, not a force of nature that propagates. Gravitational radiation, which surely does propagate at lightspeed but is a fifth order effect in , is too small to play a role in explaining this difference in behavior between gravity and ordinary forces of nature. Problems with the causality principle also exist for GR in this connection, such as explaining how the external fields between binary black holes manage to continually update without benefit of communication with the masses hidden behind event horizons. These causality problems would be solved without any change to the mathematical formalism of GR, but only to its interpretation, if gravity is once again taken to be a propagating force of nature in flat space-time with the propagation speed indicated by observational evidence and experiments: not less than 2×1010 c. Such a change of perspective requires no change in the assumed character of gravitational radiation or its lightspeed propagation. Although faster-than-light force propagation speeds do violate Einstein special relativity (SR), they are in accord with Lorentzian relativity, which has never been experimentally distinguished from SR—at least, not in favor of SR. Indeed, far from upsetting much of current physics, the main changes induced by this new perspective are beneficial to areas where physics has been struggling, such as explaining experimental evidence for non-locality in quantum physics, the dark matter issue in cosmology, and the possible unification of forces. Recognition of a faster-than-lightspeed propagation of gravity, as indicated by all existing experimental evidence, may be the key to taking conventional physics to the next plateau.

Numerous experiments have shown that the force of gravity MUST propagate faster than the speed of light. Such speeds violate the theory of special relativity, which explicitly states that nothing may travel faster than the speed of light.

If SR is wrong, so too must GR be wrong.

Einstein was wrong.

Newton’s gravity propagates at INFINITE speed, this is universally accepted as the basis for his theory, and it’s also the gravitational theory we used to calculate orbits and trajectories for the Apollo moon missions.

Van Flandern raises some questions:

Why do photons from the Sun travel in directions that are not parallel to the direction of Earth’s gravitational acceleration toward the Sun?

Why do total eclipses of the Sun by the Moon reach maximum eclipse about 40 seconds before the Sun and Moon’s gravitational forces align?

How do binary pulsars anticipate each other’s future position, velocity, and acceleration faster than the light time between them would allow?

How can black holes have gravity when nothing can get out because escape speed is greater than the speed of light?

For example, take the simple observation of the Earth in orbit around the Sun. If gravity was delayed to the speed of light, the Earth would fly off its orbit after a mere 1200 years.

As viewed from the Earth’s frame, light from the Sun has aberration. Light requires about 8.3 minutes to arrive from the Sun, during which time the Sun seems to move through an angle of 20 arc seconds. The arriving sunlight shows us where the Sun was 8.3 minutes ago. The true, instantaneous position of the Sun is about 20 arc seconds east of its visible position, and we will see the Sun in its true present position about 8.3 minutes into the future. In the same way, star positions are displaced from their yearly average position by up to 20 arc seconds, depending on the relative direction of the Earth’s motion around the Sun. This well-known phenomenon is classical aberration, and was discovered by the astronomer Bradley in 1728.

If gravity were a simple force that propagated outward from the Sun at the speed of light, as radiation pressure does, its mostly radial effect would also have a small transverse component because of the motion of the target. … the net effect of such a force would be to double the Earth’s distance from the Sun in 1200 years. There can be no doubt from astronomical observations that no such force is acting. The computation using the instantaneous positions of Sun and Earth is the correct one. The computation using retarded positions is in conflict with observations.

There can be no doubt that gravity does indeed propagate at a speed faster than that of light.

This blatant violation of Einstein’s theories is so clear even a 10 year old can grasp it.

Einstein’s theories must be rejected.

It’s time for new cosmologies that can actually explain what we see in space without the need for black holes, dark matter, dark energy, wimps, machos, multiple dimensions, worm holes, pulsars that spin around 67 thousand times per minute, and all other make believe fairy dust concocted by physicists.

Plasma (electric) cosmology is one such cosmology.

Read more about it here.

  • Brian

    Gravity propogates as a wave.
    Group wave velocity can exceed the speed of light.

  • Brian

    Gravity propogates as a wave.
    Group wave velocity can exceed the speed of light.

  • Brian

    Gravity propogates as a wave.
    Group wave velocity can exceed the speed of light.

  • Brian

    Gravity propogates as a wave.
    Group wave velocity can exceed the speed of light.

  • Brian

    Gravity propogates as a wave.
    Group wave velocity can exceed the speed of light.

  • Brian

    Gravity propogates as a wave.
    Group wave velocity can exceed the speed of light.

  • Brian

    Gravity propogates as a wave.
    Group wave velocity can exceed the speed of light.

  • Brandon

    If gravity propagates as a wave, why have no gravity waves been detected?

  • Brandon

    If gravity propagates as a wave, why have no gravity waves been detected?

  • Brandon

    If gravity propagates as a wave, why have no gravity waves been detected?

  • Brandon

    If gravity propagates as a wave, why have no gravity waves been detected?

  • Brandon

    If gravity propagates as a wave, why have no gravity waves been detected?

  • Brandon

    If gravity propagates as a wave, why have no gravity waves been detected?

  • Brandon

    If gravity propagates as a wave, why have no gravity waves been detected?

  • Brian

    Because our current technology cannot build detectors that are sensitive enough.
    Gravity is an extremely weak force. it is the accumalitive effect that makes it strong.

  • Brian

    Because our current technology cannot build detectors that are sensitive enough.
    Gravity is an extremely weak force. it is the accumalitive effect that makes it strong.

  • Brian

    Because our current technology cannot build detectors that are sensitive enough.
    Gravity is an extremely weak force. it is the accumalitive effect that makes it strong.

  • Brian

    Because our current technology cannot build detectors that are sensitive enough.
    Gravity is an extremely weak force. it is the accumalitive effect that makes it strong.

  • Brian

    Because our current technology cannot build detectors that are sensitive enough.
    Gravity is an extremely weak force. it is the accumalitive effect that makes it strong.

  • Brian

    Because our current technology cannot build detectors that are sensitive enough.
    Gravity is an extremely weak force. it is the accumalitive effect that makes it strong.

  • Brian

    Because our current technology cannot build detectors that are sensitive enough.
    Gravity is an extremely weak force. it is the accumalitive effect that makes it strong.

  • Edwin

    Gravity does not propagate. Gravity just *is*. Gravity is part of the fabric of the universe. If you use the analogy of a piece of elastic fabric with a weight in the middle, then when you reduce or remove that weight the affect is felt instantly in the entire area of the fabric. The tension (gravity) in the fabric does not start lessening in the middle and move out from their; the entire structure of the fabric relaxes at the same time.

  • Edwin

    Gravity does not propagate. Gravity just *is*. Gravity is part of the fabric of the universe. If you use the analogy of a piece of elastic fabric with a weight in the middle, then when you reduce or remove that weight the affect is felt instantly in the entire area of the fabric. The tension (gravity) in the fabric does not start lessening in the middle and move out from their; the entire structure of the fabric relaxes at the same time.

  • Edwin

    Gravity does not propagate. Gravity just *is*. Gravity is part of the fabric of the universe. If you use the analogy of a piece of elastic fabric with a weight in the middle, then when you reduce or remove that weight the affect is felt instantly in the entire area of the fabric. The tension (gravity) in the fabric does not start lessening in the middle and move out from their; the entire structure of the fabric relaxes at the same time.

  • Edwin

    Gravity does not propagate. Gravity just *is*. Gravity is part of the fabric of the universe. If you use the analogy of a piece of elastic fabric with a weight in the middle, then when you reduce or remove that weight the affect is felt instantly in the entire area of the fabric. The tension (gravity) in the fabric does not start lessening in the middle and move out from their; the entire structure of the fabric relaxes at the same time.

  • Edwin

    Gravity does not propagate. Gravity just *is*. Gravity is part of the fabric of the universe. If you use the analogy of a piece of elastic fabric with a weight in the middle, then when you reduce or remove that weight the affect is felt instantly in the entire area of the fabric. The tension (gravity) in the fabric does not start lessening in the middle and move out from their; the entire structure of the fabric relaxes at the same time.

  • Edwin

    Gravity does not propagate. Gravity just *is*. Gravity is part of the fabric of the universe. If you use the analogy of a piece of elastic fabric with a weight in the middle, then when you reduce or remove that weight the affect is felt instantly in the entire area of the fabric. The tension (gravity) in the fabric does not start lessening in the middle and move out from their; the entire structure of the fabric relaxes at the same time.

  • Edwin

    Gravity does not propagate. Gravity just *is*. Gravity is part of the fabric of the universe. If you use the analogy of a piece of elastic fabric with a weight in the middle, then when you reduce or remove that weight the affect is felt instantly in the entire area of the fabric. The tension (gravity) in the fabric does not start lessening in the middle and move out from their; the entire structure of the fabric relaxes at the same time.

  • Alfredo

    I’m a professional from a very different area. I’m just starting in
    Cosmological physics because i’ve always loved it. But short in the road
    I came with this same questions that I’m glad others share.

    I’ve no new insights on the answers. But I think this is the correct place to ask other people about their experience on finding answers.

    I’ve been astonished by the harsh defence most physicist have shown against any question on GR or SR. And how obsessed they are with Einstein’s person. For example, it’s just unacceptable how often they play the “antisemitism” card as an argument to any controversy. Have you read wikipedia? It’s incredible biased, and not only towards SR or GR but to Einstein it self. What is the need to add an SR or GR defence in every challenging article? What kind of encyclopaedia does that?

    I’m a Chemmical Pharmacist and I’ve reading papers for years and years
    and i’ve never found an analogy of this einsteinmanía, nor in Medicine nor
    in Chemistry or Biology.

    How do you feel about it?

  • Alfredo

    I’m a professional from a very different area. I’m just starting in
    Cosmological physics because i’ve always loved it. But short in the road
    I came with this same questions that I’m glad others share.

    I’ve no new insights on the answers. But I think this is the correct place to ask other people about their experience on finding answers.

    I’ve been astonished by the harsh defence most physicist have shown against any question on GR or SR. And how obsessed they are with Einstein’s person. For example, it’s just unacceptable how often they play the “antisemitism” card as an argument to any controversy. Have you read wikipedia? It’s incredible biased, and not only towards SR or GR but to Einstein it self. What is the need to add an SR or GR defence in every challenging article? What kind of encyclopaedia does that?

    I’m a Chemmical Pharmacist and I’ve reading papers for years and years
    and i’ve never found an analogy of this einsteinmanía, nor in Medicine nor
    in Chemistry or Biology.

    How do you feel about it?

  • Alfredo

    I’m a professional from a very different area. I’m just starting in
    Cosmological physics because i’ve always loved it. But short in the road
    I came with this same questions that I’m glad others share.

    I’ve no new insights on the answers. But I think this is the correct place to ask other people about their experience on finding answers.

    I’ve been astonished by the harsh defence most physicist have shown against any question on GR or SR. And how obsessed they are with Einstein’s person. For example, it’s just unacceptable how often they play the “antisemitism” card as an argument to any controversy. Have you read wikipedia? It’s incredible biased, and not only towards SR or GR but to Einstein it self. What is the need to add an SR or GR defence in every challenging article? What kind of encyclopaedia does that?

    I’m a Chemmical Pharmacist and I’ve reading papers for years and years
    and i’ve never found an analogy of this einsteinmanía, nor in Medicine nor
    in Chemistry or Biology.

    How do you feel about it?

  • Alfredo

    I’m a professional from a very different area. I’m just starting in
    Cosmological physics because i’ve always loved it. But short in the road
    I came with this same questions that I’m glad others share.

    I’ve no new insights on the answers. But I think this is the correct place to ask other people about their experience on finding answers.

    I’ve been astonished by the harsh defence most physicist have shown against any question on GR or SR. And how obsessed they are with Einstein’s person. For example, it’s just unacceptable how often they play the “antisemitism” card as an argument to any controversy. Have you read wikipedia? It’s incredible biased, and not only towards SR or GR but to Einstein it self. What is the need to add an SR or GR defence in every challenging article? What kind of encyclopaedia does that?

    I’m a Chemmical Pharmacist and I’ve reading papers for years and years
    and i’ve never found an analogy of this einsteinmanía, nor in Medicine nor
    in Chemistry or Biology.

    How do you feel about it?

  • Alfredo

    I’m a professional from a very different area. I’m just starting in
    Cosmological physics because i’ve always loved it. But short in the road
    I came with this same questions that I’m glad others share.

    I’ve no new insights on the answers. But I think this is the correct place to ask other people about their experience on finding answers.

    I’ve been astonished by the harsh defence most physicist have shown against any question on GR or SR. And how obsessed they are with Einstein’s person. For example, it’s just unacceptable how often they play the “antisemitism” card as an argument to any controversy. Have you read wikipedia? It’s incredible biased, and not only towards SR or GR but to Einstein it self. What is the need to add an SR or GR defence in every challenging article? What kind of encyclopaedia does that?

    I’m a Chemmical Pharmacist and I’ve reading papers for years and years
    and i’ve never found an analogy of this einsteinmanía, nor in Medicine nor
    in Chemistry or Biology.

    How do you feel about it?

  • Alfredo

    I’m a professional from a very different area. I’m just starting in
    Cosmological physics because i’ve always loved it. But short in the road
    I came with this same questions that I’m glad others share.

    I’ve no new insights on the answers. But I think this is the correct place to ask other people about their experience on finding answers.

    I’ve been astonished by the harsh defence most physicist have shown against any question on GR or SR. And how obsessed they are with Einstein’s person. For example, it’s just unacceptable how often they play the “antisemitism” card as an argument to any controversy. Have you read wikipedia? It’s incredible biased, and not only towards SR or GR but to Einstein it self. What is the need to add an SR or GR defence in every challenging article? What kind of encyclopaedia does that?

    I’m a Chemmical Pharmacist and I’ve reading papers for years and years
    and i’ve never found an analogy of this einsteinmanía, nor in Medicine nor
    in Chemistry or Biology.

    How do you feel about it?

  • Alfredo

    I’m a professional from a very different area. I’m just starting in
    Cosmological physics because i’ve always loved it. But short in the road
    I came with this same questions that I’m glad others share.

    I’ve no new insights on the answers. But I think this is the correct place to ask other people about their experience on finding answers.

    I’ve been astonished by the harsh defence most physicist have shown against any question on GR or SR. And how obsessed they are with Einstein’s person. For example, it’s just unacceptable how often they play the “antisemitism” card as an argument to any controversy. Have you read wikipedia? It’s incredible biased, and not only towards SR or GR but to Einstein it self. What is the need to add an SR or GR defence in every challenging article? What kind of encyclopaedia does that?

    I’m a Chemmical Pharmacist and I’ve reading papers for years and years
    and i’ve never found an analogy of this einsteinmanía, nor in Medicine nor
    in Chemistry or Biology.

    How do you feel about it?

  • Michael Suede

    Wiki is controlled by a very small handful of activists. Any dissent against Einstein is furiously defended against all reason and logic.

    Bauer did a nice write up on this:
    http://www.thunderbolts.info/thunderblogs/guest1.htm

    You are absolutely correct that it is ridiculous for each and every article to have a defense of relativity in it. People should be allowed to judge on their own which theory is better or worse.

  • Michael Suede

    Wiki is controlled by a very small handful of activists. Any dissent against Einstein is furiously defended against all reason and logic.

    Bauer did a nice write up on this:
    http://www.thunderbolts.info/thunderblogs/guest1.htm

    You are absolutely correct that it is ridiculous for each and every article to have a defense of relativity in it. People should be allowed to judge on their own which theory is better or worse.

  • Michael Suede

    Wiki is controlled by a very small handful of activists. Any dissent against Einstein is furiously defended against all reason and logic.

    Bauer did a nice write up on this:
    http://www.thunderbolts.info/thunderblogs/guest1.htm

    You are absolutely correct that it is ridiculous for each and every article to have a defense of relativity in it. People should be allowed to judge on their own which theory is better or worse.

  • Michael Suede

    Wiki is controlled by a very small handful of activists. Any dissent against Einstein is furiously defended against all reason and logic.

    Bauer did a nice write up on this:
    http://www.thunderbolts.info/thunderblogs/guest1.htm

    You are absolutely correct that it is ridiculous for each and every article to have a defense of relativity in it. People should be allowed to judge on their own which theory is better or worse.

  • Michael Suede

    Wiki is controlled by a very small handful of activists. Any dissent against Einstein is furiously defended against all reason and logic.

    Bauer did a nice write up on this:
    http://www.thunderbolts.info/thunderblogs/guest1.htm

    You are absolutely correct that it is ridiculous for each and every article to have a defense of relativity in it. People should be allowed to judge on their own which theory is better or worse.

  • Michael Suede

    Wiki is controlled by a very small handful of activists. Any dissent against Einstein is furiously defended against all reason and logic.

    Bauer did a nice write up on this:
    http://www.thunderbolts.info/thunderblogs/guest1.htm

    You are absolutely correct that it is ridiculous for each and every article to have a defense of relativity in it. People should be allowed to judge on their own which theory is better or worse.

  • Michael Suede

    Wiki is controlled by a very small handful of activists. Any dissent against Einstein is furiously defended against all reason and logic.

    Bauer did a nice write up on this:
    http://www.thunderbolts.info/thunderblogs/guest1.htm

    You are absolutely correct that it is ridiculous for each and every article to have a defense of relativity in it. People should be allowed to judge on their own which theory is better or worse.

  • TGolz

    Gravity does not “propagate” at all, it is a uniformly distributed scalar motion, not a force, and hence looks instantanious.

    • http://fascistsoup.com/ Michael Suede

      I see.Gravity really isn’t a force, it’s a motion.Well praise Mao and may NASA expropriate your wallet to fund some more failed experiments.

  • TGolz

    Gravity does not “propagate” at all, it is a uniformly distributed scalar motion, not a force, and hence looks instantanious.

    • http://fascistsoup.com/ Michael Suede

      I see.Gravity really isn’t a force, it’s a motion.Well praise Mao and may NASA expropriate your wallet to fund some more failed experiments.

  • TGolz

    Gravity does not “propagate” at all, it is a uniformly distributed scalar motion, not a force, and hence looks instantanious.

    • http://fascistsoup.com/ Michael Suede

      I see.Gravity really isn’t a force, it’s a motion.Well praise Mao and may NASA expropriate your wallet to fund some more failed experiments.

  • TGolz

    Gravity does not “propagate” at all, it is a uniformly distributed scalar motion, not a force, and hence looks instantanious.

    • http://fascistsoup.com/ Michael Suede

      I see.Gravity really isn’t a force, it’s a motion.Well praise Mao and may NASA expropriate your wallet to fund some more failed experiments.

  • TGolz

    Gravity does not “propagate” at all, it is a uniformly distributed scalar motion, not a force, and hence looks instantanious.

    • http://fascistsoup.com/ Michael Suede

      I see.Gravity really isn’t a force, it’s a motion.Well praise Mao and may NASA expropriate your wallet to fund some more failed experiments.

  • TGolz

    Gravity does not “propagate” at all, it is a uniformly distributed scalar motion, not a force, and hence looks instantanious.

    • http://fascistsoup.com/ Michael Suede

      I see.Gravity really isn’t a force, it’s a motion.Well praise Mao and may NASA expropriate your wallet to fund some more failed experiments.

  • TGolz

    Gravity does not “propagate” at all, it is a uniformly distributed scalar motion, not a force, and hence looks instantanious.

    • http://fascistsoup.com/ Michael Suede

      I see.Gravity really isn’t a force, it’s a motion.Well praise Mao and may NASA expropriate your wallet to fund some more failed experiments.

  • TGolz

    Gravity does not “propagate” at all, it is a uniformly distributed scalar motion, not a force, and hence looks instantanious.

    • http://fascistsoup.com/ Michael Suede

      I see.Gravity really isn’t a force, it’s a motion.Well praise Mao and may NASA expropriate your wallet to fund some more failed experiments.

  • TGolz

    Gravity does not “propagate” at all, it is a uniformly distributed scalar motion, not a force, and hence looks instantanious.

    • http://fascistsoup.com/ Michael Suede

      I see.Gravity really isn’t a force, it’s a motion.Well praise Mao and may NASA expropriate your wallet to fund some more failed experiments.

  • TGolz

    Gravity does not “propagate” at all, it is a uniformly distributed scalar motion, not a force, and hence looks instantanious.

    • http://fascistsoup.com/ Michael Suede

      I see.Gravity really isn’t a force, it’s a motion.Well praise Mao and may NASA expropriate your wallet to fund some more failed experiments.

  • TGolz

    Gravity does not “propagate” at all, it is a uniformly distributed scalar motion, not a force, and hence looks instantanious.

    • http://fascistsoup.com/ Michael Suede

      I see.Gravity really isn’t a force, it’s a motion.Well praise Mao and may NASA expropriate your wallet to fund some more failed experiments.

  • Anirudh Kumar Satsangi

    Radhasoami Faith View of Modus Operandi of Creation of Universe

    Part – I

    There is cosmological evidence for God and the Universe existed before Big Bang please.
    Stephen Hawking writes in The Grand Design, “It is not necessary to invoke God to light the blue touch paper and set the Universe going.” Hawking said the Big Bang was merely the consequence of the law of gravity. In A Brief History of Time, Hawking had suggested that the idea of God or a divine being was not necessarily incompatible with a scientific understanding of the Universe.
    Although Hawking is very close to Truth yet he is not perfect in his views while discarding the role of divine being. I consider the role of eternal gravity uppermost but I strongly differ with Hawking on the role of divine being. I consider Divine Ordainment is the cause of Creation of Universe.
    Now I give Radhasoami Faith view of Creation Theory. In Sar Bachan (Poetry) composed by His Holiness Soamiji Maharaj the August Founder of Radhasoami Faith the details of creation and dissolution has been described very scientifically. It is written in Jeth Mahina (name of Hindi moth) in this Holy Book: Only He Himself (Supreme Father)and none else was there. There issued forth a great current of spirituality, love and grace (In scientific terminology we may call this current as gravitational wave). This is called His Mauj (Divine Ordainment). This was the first manifestation of Supreme Being. This Divine Ordainment brought into being three regions, viz., Agam, Alakh, and Satnam of eternal bliss. Then a current emerged with a powerful sound (this was the first Big Bang). It brought forth the creation of seven Surats or currents of various shades and colours (in scientific terminology we may call it electromagnetic waves). Here the true Jaman or coagulant was given (in scientific terminology this coagulant may be called as weak nuclear force and strong nuclear force). Surats, among themselves, brought the creation into being.
    These currents descended down further and brought the whole universe/multi verse into being i.e. black holes, galaxies etc. were born.
    I would like to add further that sound energy and gravitational force current are non polar entity and electromagnetic force is bi-polar. Hence spiritual polarization, if occurred, is occurred in the region of Sat Lok and region below to it only.
    Infinite expanse of gravitational force field is the region of dark energy.

    In Bible it is written that in the beginning was the Word; the Word was with God; and the Word was God.
    According to Radhasoami Faith “Shabd (Word) is the beginning and end of all. The three loks (worlds) and the fourth Lok, all have been created by Shabd.” (Sar Bachan Poetry)

    Part-II

    Here the true Jaman (coagulant) was given. The spirituality coagulated as it were, and Surats (spirit entities), among themselves, brought the creation into being. Thereafter, another Jaman (coagulant) was given. Regions from Agam Lok (Inaccessible Region) to Sat Lok (True Region) were created during the first creational process. That creation is true. That region is eternal. There is no trace of evil and suffering. This was the creation for many Yugas and ages. Then there appeared a dark coloured current
    That current appeared like a dark coloured stone set in a white one and was absorbed in the Darshan of True Being. Then there appeared two Kalas i.e. currents (viz. Niranjan and Jyoti) and they together evolved the creation of five Tattwas (elements) four Khans (species, categories of life) and three Gunas (qualities). The three Gunas (qualities) brought about the expansion and proliferation . They created Rishis and Munis (sages and holy men), gods and godly human beings and demons. Egotism then increased much. Niranjan separated himself from the rest, putting the burden of looking after the creation on them. Nobody could know of Niranjan. Even the Vedas referred to Him as Neti Neti (Not this, Not this). They did not get Darshan (Vision) of Niranjan. They made conjectures. Then how can anybody have knowledge of Sat Purush (True Being), Source of Niranjan and all that exists.
    Scientifically here Jyoti represent three Fundamental Forces of Quantum Mechanics i.e. electromagnetic force, weak nuclear force and strong nuclear force. NIRANJAN is the fourth Fundamental Force i.e. Gravitation Force. Scientific explanation follows in support of my views.

    Part-III

    Einstein struggled and failed to formulate this theory, but it has already been shown that at high enough energies electromagnetism and the weak force are the same force known as the electroweak force. It is theorized that if energies are increased even further and neutrinos acquire mass, which has now been fully documented, all the known forces will reduce to the same force thus providing the basis for the Grand Unified Theory. This high energy level existed only during the very early expansion of the Universe known as the Planck Epoch which existed up to 10 to the negative 43rd seconds after the Big Bang where the four fundamental forces – electromagnetism, weak nuclear force, strong nuclear force and gravitation – all had the same strength. After that point the energy level decreased and gravity separated from the other 3 fundamental forces and with condensation of elementary particles (quarks, leptons, and gauge bosons) into matter formed the so-called Standard Model of today’s Universe. (Source: Comments by William H. Depperman posted at blog http://factoidz.com/scientific-laws-that-explain-the-origins-of-the-universe)

    Anirudh Kumar Satsangi

  • Anirudh Kumar Satsangi

    Van Fladern has raised highly significant questions. I am also trying to emphasize for long in my various comments that the speed of gravitational force is infinitely higher as compared to the speed of light on black holes that’s why light can not escape black holes. In fact black holes are the infinitely condensed ball of gravitational force field .

  • Steve Harris

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speed_of_gravity

    Sorry, but all static fields, not only gravity but electric fields as well, do not “propagate” and therefore do not show light-time delay. Thus, they all point exactly at their sources, so long as the source is in uniform motion, and is not accelerated (if it were accelerated it would radiatve EM or gravity waves, and these DO travel at c, and have a delay). So a particle moving past you with uniform motion has its static electric field and static gravity field pointing right at its instantaneous position, but light and gravity WAVES come from its “retarded” position.   See the  Liénard–Wiechert potential theory of fields from a moving charge to see this in EM. Lorentz invarience guarantees that any uniformly moving charge can be seen in a frame where it is NOT moving, and in that case, it’s static field (no matter how far extended) stops with it. That’s just as true for any static field, so there’s nothing special about gravity.

    The Sun is not accelerating enough from the view of the Earth to not look like a uniformly moving gravitational “charge” going past us. Its static gravity and electric fields point right “at” its true position, and there is no aberration for them, or light time delay. However, gravity waves and light will show an aberration, since they are waves, not static fields. So yes indeed, the Earth orbits the point where the Sun IS, not the point where its light originates. Thankfully.

    [email protected] 

  • Alfonso Guillen
  • Physics Expert

    Steve, Your answer is a contradiction. Didn’t you notice. The author claimed that he speed of gravity is infinite. Then you presented an argument that was in agreement with that conclusion. In a static gravity field the velocity of gravity is infinite. What you said was exactly that. So why did you say he is wrong? You must be confused. Or, perhaps physics is totally confused on this point.