From: Damien Broderick (damienb@unimelb.edu.au)
Date: Sun Jun 08 2003 - 22:34:02 MDT
At 08:25 PM 6/8/03 -0700, Hal wrote:
>Then TvF argued... If the two stars are a light-day apart
>The simplest way to explain it is to consider a single, linearly moving
>star and to consider its gravitational field. The field surrounds the
>star and moves with it. Imagine the field as a physical object built of
>wood, a gigantic framework that surrounds the star. As the star moves,
>the framework moves too.
>
>As the star passes by an observer, the field points to the current
>position of the star. That's because the field is moving uniformly with
>the star. In the case of a wooden framework, the beams would point
>directly at where the star is right now, because that is how the frame is
>built.
Okay, since you say that empirically this gives good and surprising
predictions, I guess it must be so. But when I tried building one, my
timber framework started to bend at the far ends, and eventually snapped
off. I am making a serious objection here. Isn't your imaginary structure a
hypostasis, somewhat akin to waving a beam of light across the sky and
supposing that the far end is moving faster than light? You mentioned that
this model is also appropriate for extended EM fields, but since those can
be construed as exchange particle interactions you're still stuck with
light speed propagation lags, no?
Damien Broderick
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sun Jun 08 2003 - 22:42:02 MDT