View Single Post
cesiumfrog
cesiumfrog is offline
#25
May12-10, 06:53 PM
P: 2,050
Quote Quote by 1bobwhite View Post
[..]what I am trying do is engineer and construct an apparatus for the purpose of detecting and earth time frame referencing the gravity pull of the sun.
[..]
And cesiumfrog, since you dont understand what a "crackpot" web site is saying then how about this one: http://iopscience.iop.org/0004-637X/590/2/683/fulltext

Be sure to read this one carefully as it has all the math you can stand and answers most of the questions that are being asked in this thread.

Before you make any more of your statements, consider what you have read as there may be a quiz afterward.
ABSTRACT

We calculate the delay in the propagation of a light signal past a massive body that moves with speed v, under the assumption that the speed of propagation of the gravitational interaction cg differs from that of light. Using the post-Newtonian approximation, we consider an expansion in powers of v/c beyond the leading "Shapiro" time-delay effect, while working to first order only in Gm/c2, and show that the altered propagation speed of the gravitational signal has no effect whatsoever on the time delay to first order in v/c beyond leading term, although it will have an effect to second and higher order. We show that the only other possible effects of an altered speed cg at this order arise from a modification of the parameterized post-Newtonian coefficient α1 of the metric from the value 0 predicted by general relativity. Current solar-system measurements already provide tight bounds on such a modification. We conclude that recent measurements of the propagation of radio signals past Jupiter are sensitive to α1 but are not directly sensitive to the speed of propagation of gravity.
I'm not exactly what part of the article you're saying is relevant? They assume, rather than find, a different speed. (In fact they seem to be saying evidence is already stacking against the speed actually being different.) It seems nowhere to describe the angle that you're directly interested in? And they're referring to the speed at which changes in the gravitational field radiate, whereas you are interested in a field that is static. (Nothing wrong with the idea of explicitly measuring the speed of gravitational radiation, but you shouldn't ignore what the experts have found about the ways of doing so.)