The Speed of Gravity
A reader wants to know the speed of gravity in relation to the speed of light.
There are a number of theories on this. Some believe the speed of gravity is instantaneous across the universe but recent experiments indicate that Einstein was correct in that it is approximately the same speed as light.
The Chinese recently applied some tests that indicated the speed of gravity was “between 0.93 to 1.05 times the speed of light with a relative error of about 5 percent, providing the first set of strong evidence showing that gravity travels at the speed of light.”
This has not convinced some who see the effects of gravity not matching up with the speed of light.
It is interesting that the argument boils down to a disagreement between the two greatest scientific minds of all time, Einstein and Newton. Newton thought that gravity traveled instantaneously and Einstein theorized it traveled at the speed of light, which he believed to be the ultimate speed allowed in the universe.
After reading both sides I wonder if the effects of gravity may be dual as are subatomic particles. Scientists couldn’t figure out if an electron was a particle or a wave and now they think it is both. Maybe certain ingredients of gravity [perhaps waves] travel at the speed of light and other effects of the field much faster or instantaneous.
Tom Van Flandern, in the article noted, believes gravity acts something like an anchor pulling on a buoy. The effect of the pull of the anchor is instantaneous but the waves created by the movement of the buoy take time to travel.
I don’t have a revelation on this subject but it is interesting to contemplate. I have contemplated the limitation of the speed of light and feel there is something missing from Einstein’s thinking on this but have not yet pinpointed it. I think it is possible to go faster than light without reaching infinite mass.
(Note from 2026: Two years after this was written gravitational waves were discovered and measuring their speed confirmed that the speed of gravity and light are basically the same.)
Question: How does a medium or an initiate read the Akashic records? Does he see the original scenes, as if it were a video and also hearing everything?
Does he actually hear them speaking in Hebrew, Latin, etc, then the medium somehow “understands” what they are talking about and interprets in English?
JJ: When a medium who usually works on the astral level catches a glimpse of the Akashic records he or she does not read them in sequence but catches bits and pieces. When he or she puts them together in the mind they are like kaleidoscope of colored information which makes for interesting dialog but jumbled and not very accurate. This is why a medium will sometimes come up with some startling true information but then be way off the mark on other items.
It takes either a master or a dedicated initiate focusing on the records to transmit them accurately. I personally do not know of any mortal that can do this, though many claim this ability. Levi, who received the Aquarian Gospel, spent a lot of time in deep meditation to read the records, but today few disciples will dedicate the time necessary to do what he did.
If a person is accurately reading the records he could recall the original language but because he will be unfamiliar with it he will normally concentrate on the meaning that is being conveyed. He will then translate the impressions into his familiar language.
Concerning Free Speech
Concerning the principle of free speech, it is interesting that there is confusion over what it is. The general idea in most minds is that we are free to vocalize any opinions that we desire so long as we do not endanger lives, slander or cause financial loss.
In other words, I am supposed to be able to say or write whatever I want, even if it is offensive or hurts some feelings. No men in black will come to my door and take me away.
This seems pretty simple but there are many interpret this in a distorted light.
One example was Bill Maher on his show, which was called “Politically Incorrect.” After the terrorist attack of 2001 he stated that the hijackers were men or courage. This offended many people and in particular it offended some of his advertisers who withdrew from his program. This loss of revenue was a partial cause of his show being cancelled.
After the advertisers withdrew Maher complained many times that his free speech rights were violated, but were they?
Was he accused of breaking any law? No.
Was there anything in place to prevent him from telling anyone he came into contact with that the hijackers were courageous? No. Even though this opinion was offensive to many he could voice it all he wanted.
The only way to keep the advertisers on the program when they did not want to be there would be to force them to stay. And if they were forced to pay Bill Maher to speak then who’s freedom is really taken away?
Right. Not Maher’s freedom, but the advertisers.
Free speech does not mean that you can force others to pay for you to broadcast or print your words. You have to get that done though your own efforts for the guarantee of free speech does not guarantee anyone’s success.
A similar situation happened in 2003 when the Dixie Chicks said they were ashamed that President Bush was from their home state of Texas. Many fans were offended and stopped buying their records and some offended DJs stopped playing their tunes. Again, they complained about a violation of their free speech.
These people need to read the First Amendment which says, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech”
Did Congress pass a law that abridged the right of the Dixie Chicks to criticize President Bush or to prevent Bill Maher from praising the terrorists?
No, of course not. In both cases it was ordinary people, not Congress that were offended by their speech and refused to financially support it. Any individual can refuse to support any speech he deems undesirable.
In fact, political groups as well as business interests do this all the time. Many groups on the Left strongly disagree with Glenn Beck and Rush Limbaugh and have organized protests in attempts to get their advertisers to drop their support. This turned out to be fairly successful against Beck and he was dropped from his place on the Fox News channel. They were not as successful against Rush and other conservatives.
Now some consider this an unethical and unfair approach in dealing with political enemies but there is nothing in the First Amendment that prohibits even disgusting attempts to influence the media.
The key to understanding true free speech is the phrase, “Congress shall make no law” restricting it.
True free speech is threatened by law and powerful authorities, not opinions of the rank-and-file public.
If the stars should appear just one night in a thousand years, how would men believe and adore! – Ralph Waldo Emerson
March 16, 2013
Join JJ’s Facebook group HERE
JJ’s Amazon page HERE