Is gravity faster than light?

[link to www.metaresearch.org]

Yet, anyone with a computer and orbit computation or numerical integration software can verify the consequences of introducing a delay into gravitational interactions. The effect on computed orbits is usually disastrous because conservation of angular momentum is destroyed. Expressed less technically by Sir Arthur Eddington, this means: “If the Sun attracts Jupiter towards its present position S, and Jupiter attracts the Sun towards its present position J, the two forces are in the same line and balance. But if the Sun attracts Jupiter toward its previous position S’, and Jupiter attracts the Sun towards its previous position J’, when the force of attraction started out to cross the gulf, then the two forces give a couple. This couple will tend to increase the angular momentum of the system, and, acting cumulatively, will soon cause an appreciable change of period, disagreeing with observations if the speed is at all comparable with that of light.” (Eddington, 1920, p. 94) See Figure 1.

Ok, here goes. light is a particle and my theory is gravity is just the attraction between two substances. Something in everything that we see on earth is attracted to something on the earth. If it wasn't it would have thrown off by centrifugal force. even the atmosphere has particulars that fix themselves in a spot of the atmosphere that equals their attraction as compared to the centrifugal force that is exerted by the spinning of the earth. Look at the holes in the ozone. I don't believe they are really holes so to speak. I believe that there is just less centrifugal force so the elements get pulled down to the surface, slowly drift into an area of great centrifugal force and then eventually work their way up again.

Take the moon for example. Think of the force of centrifugal force it must be exerting. Yet it also has a very strong magnetic pull to the earth and it found the position necessary to maintain its place relative to us.

This also the case of binary stars. It would stand to reason in my mind that all stars have to be binary to maintain some semblance of order to support life on planets around it.

When I say magnetism, I am not talking about just attraction to metal. There is more to it than that. Therefore, the speed of light is just one a measurement of one particle that we can see. Perhaps when light is created it becomes repellent or like trying to put to ends of the same magnet together, therefore travels away from where it was created.

Maybe black holes are just the attractant for light particulars. Perhaps we are not seeing actual galaxies being swallowed by black holes, just the light from thos galaxies as it get s near it. Maybe each galaxy has a black hole to recycle light into something we are unaware of that is essential to the health of the galaxy.

I guess what I am saying is gravity, in my humble opinion cannot be measured by velocity, but by elemental attraction.

There is no such thing. Gravity does not propagate in a waveform, it is an electrostatic attraction as I explained concisely and succinctly earlier, an attraction between neutrons and charged particles in mass due to the difference in potential between them. This btw is the best and simplest explanation and it cannot be debunked, so remember Occams razor before you spout off some jew shit

"Propagate", not "propogate".

You'd learn that from a spelling book, typically called a "dictionary", but I know you're allergic to books.

Very good in regard to explaining why it can't be light speed. I do however disagree that this points out some problem for the geometric explanation....I don't think it does. I think it is something about the geometry that we don't understand that gives the appearance of it not being instantaneous/some multiple of light speed....sort of like the alleged faster than light early expansion.

Books are absolutely and 100% completely irrelevant when it comes to fact. The book doesn't propogate fact, the writer of the book does. Fucking idiot man, wow.

There is no such thing. Gravity does not propagate in a waveform, it is an electrostatic attraction as I explained concisely and succinctly earlier, an attraction between neutrons and charged particles in mass due to the difference in potential between them. This btw is the best and simplest explanation and it cannot be debunked, so remember Occams razor before you spout off some jew shit

Dear retard, I already gave you the answer. Here, let me post it V E R Y S L O W L Y for you again:
[link to www.astro.cardiff.ac.uk]

This is simple enough for probably even you to understand, although I would not bet on it.

BTW, that's gibberish.
I think you must have a "Jew" hitting you in the back of the head.

Saying it is gibberish is not a valid response and in no way debunks it, it only proves you can't rise to the task and have nothing but falsely contrived ridicule as a response and it is worn out tactic

This is but one of dozens of verified empirical observations that PROVES gravity propagates instantaneously

Electromagnetism

He isn't talking acceleration due to gravity.

He means the time it takes for gravitational forces from one object to start affecting another.

Eg, Would planets stop orbiting a star instantaneously if the star were to suddenly vanish?

VACUUM....vaaaaacccccuuuuuum.

(chicken pot, chicken pot, chicken pot pie)

It's not, he's full of shit.

Gravitation is easily observable on zero-mass particles as well.

..... I wonder . . if it is possible to get a 'sling shot' from a black hole ...? If it is not possible . . .

yes gravity is faster than light.

position TX and RX parts of following experiment 100m apart.

hit an aircore cadaceus coil with an impulse. all types work. i used 1inch radius 12inch length 6crossover nodes. with 32 wraps.

use a shielded plate capicatitor feeding a higain opamp to detect the graviton waves generated.

use aircoil feeding higain opamp to detect RF wave generated.

observe both incoming signals on 2 channel oscilloscope.

you will see gravitons coming in before rf which travels at light speed.

googlesearch "hodowanec scalar" for further reading.

attraction has been measured between 2 masses that are equipotential. Wouldn't call it electrostatic.

HORSE SHIT reference your comment.

And don't give me no "photonic" jewshit