Nice in this age of conflicting information that some things turn out as previously supposed. Here's to you Prof. Einstein.

Thanks Claire -- I love a good debunking, and this one is a classic! Perhaps Einstein wasn't <i>always</i> correct.

Or maybe he was; sometimes the <a href="http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/RelWWW/wrong.html#speed">debunkers need debunking</a>.

I still like the first post of this thread. It's consice, to the point, and until something conclusive comes out, I will think Mr. Einstein was right. There!

What's being argued by this latest claim isn't really whether or not Einstein was right, but rather, what was proven...or more exactly, what was measured...if anything. Van Flandern would have us believe Kopeiken sereptitiously obfuscated the math...Dr. Carlip would have us believe that Van Flandern <strike>is sleeping with Fomalout's wife</strike> is an obstructionist and basically disingenuous in his scholarly pursuits. All of which basically goes to prove that whatever disagreements we have going on in these forums, we ain't got nothin' on gravitational physicists. EMIG, thanks for the link, I'm going to enjoy the reading this over the next couple of days

Must I remind you Coot, that there are only four degrees of freedom in choosing coordinates so only six metric components are really determinable!

Bah!! The use of overdetermined equations is explicitly allowed in....lemme find the reference. rofl I really do think that's how that shit starts with those boys :nut:

Coot is absolutly correct. What, indeed, was measured here? Isn't using light speed to measure "the speed of gravity" like using the speed of sound to measure the mass of a carrot? It just don't work. Besides, the vast majority of work on this question of graitational propogation is in enourmous conflict with gravity "speed" from light to infinity. Unitl we can resolve these math problems, there will be no answer. Godspeed to you all on this one.