From: John Larkin on
On Wed, 24 Feb 2010 04:24:33 -0800 (PST), fitz <zeusrdx(a)yahoo.com>
wrote:

>Not Quite Everything for a Theory of Everything
>
>(click link)
>
>http://www.amperefitz.com/not.quite.everything.for.a.theory.of.everything.htm
>
>Enjoy,
>
>Fitz
>
>
>

The speed of gravity has been experimentally shown to be close to c.

John

From: Michael A. Terrell on

John Larkin wrote:
>
> On Wed, 24 Feb 2010 04:24:33 -0800 (PST), fitz <zeusrdx(a)yahoo.com>
> wrote:
>
> >Not Quite Everything for a Theory of Everything
> >
> >(click link)
> >
> >http://www.amperefitz.com/not.quite.everything.for.a.theory.of.everything.htm
> >
> >Enjoy,
> >
> >Fitz
> >
> >
> >
>
> The speed of gravity has been experimentally shown to be close to c.


While the speed of stupidity is near infinity! ;-)


--
Greed is the root of all eBay.
From: John Larkin on
On Wed, 24 Feb 2010 11:15:45 -0500, "Michael A. Terrell"
<mike.terrell(a)earthlink.net> wrote:

>
>John Larkin wrote:
>>
>> On Wed, 24 Feb 2010 04:24:33 -0800 (PST), fitz <zeusrdx(a)yahoo.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >Not Quite Everything for a Theory of Everything
>> >
>> >(click link)
>> >
>> >http://www.amperefitz.com/not.quite.everything.for.a.theory.of.everything.htm
>> >
>> >Enjoy,
>> >
>> >Fitz
>> >
>> >
>> >
>>
>> The speed of gravity has been experimentally shown to be close to c.
>
>
> While the speed of stupidity is near infinity! ;-)

The speed of gravity has been pointed out to this guy before. He's
like Brett, won't let reality influence his theories.

John

From: George Herold on
On Feb 24, 10:13 am, John Larkin
<jjlar...(a)highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:
> On Wed, 24 Feb 2010 04:24:33 -0800 (PST), fitz <zeus...(a)yahoo.com>
> wrote:
>
> >Not Quite Everything for a Theory of Everything
>
> >(click link)
>
> >http://www.amperefitz.com/not.quite.everything.for.a.theory.of.everyt...
>
> >Enjoy,
>
> >Fitz
>
> The speed of gravity has been experimentally shown to be close to c.
>
> John

John, do you have a reference for that? or an experiement name? I
remember talking with a LIGO guy several years ago and I asked, "What
if gravity doesn't travel at c?" He said, "of course it does" but
didn't mention any experimental proof.

George H.
From: Paul E. Schoen on

"fitz" <zeusrdx(a)yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:e7c3ace2-2a81-4a0a-8304-e2bba1caeff5(a)l19g2000yqb.googlegroups.com...
> Not Quite Everything for a Theory of Everything
>
> (click link)
>
> http://www.amperefitz.com/not.quite.everything.for.a.theory.of.everything.htm
>
> Enjoy,

Does this theory also include the existence of gravitons? Does gravity have
dual properties of particles and waves?

If gravity is a distortion of space-time caused by mass and observed as an
acceleration, and if it does not itself have mass, then it would not be
limited by the speed of light. But also would it not be unable to send
information faster than c? Perhaps the fact that we can observe the effects
of gravity from objects that are so far away that they are from the
beginning of time hints that gravity moves faster than light, but perhaps
this is just because the initial space-time distortion is just changing in
a predictable way.

As objects with mass were created they made their own distortions of
space-time which were gravitational effects. ISTM that the pattern of
distortion and gravity would simply follow the distribution of massive
objects, and the only changes in gravity would occur when there is a
conversion of mass from/to energy.

I'm not sure what point, if any, I'm making with these statements. Just
some things to think about.

Paul