[Southack]

"This argument applies to the light from the sun, but does not apply to its gravitational field. If the driver passes a telephone pole and the observers are asked to point in the direction of the telephone pole, both will point straight upwards. Van Flandern will conclude from this that the telephone pole is falling infinitely fast, and Southack will chime in in agreement, but everyone else will agree that that doesn't make much sense."

Fair enough. For the little sense that it *does* make to Southack and perhaps Van Flandern, Southack would say that it would be due to the *concept* that perhaps Gravity and Light travel at, gasp, different speeds that would explain why the argument above applied to Light but not to Gravity.

[Physicist]

For the little sense that it *does* make to Southack and perhaps Van Flandern, Southack would say that it would be due to the *concept* that perhaps Gravity and Light travel at, gasp, different speeds that would explain why the argument above applied to Light but not to Gravity.

Light is a wave; gravity is a field. Waves--changes in fields--propagate. Fields don't have to; they are already there, like the telephone pole. You don't seem to be as worried about "the speed of electromagnetism" as you are about "the speed of gravity". Why is that? Why focus so much attention on gravity? You accept without question that light travels at c; will you not accept that gravitational waves--the appropriate analogue to light--also travel at c? Why not? In your pseudo-Newtonian view, what makes gravity geometrically different from electromagnetism?