Gravity and Thoughts

[sneezer1]

Gravity is faster than the speed of light! It acts instantly.<br />Our thoughts are faster than the speed of light too!

 

[fingle]

Re: thoughts are faster than the speed of light too!<br /><br />Hah, you have never spent time talking to my boss.<br /><br /><img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" /> <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" /><br /><br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[nacnud]

Thoughs actualy only travle about a few hundred mph. All that messing about with nurotransmittors in the synapses slows things down alot.

 

[pocket_rocket]

When it comes to thoughts, speed is not nearly as important as accuracy.<br /><br />

 

[nexium]

A few (otherwise main stream) experts think gravity is instantaineous. A few others think FTL = faster than light. I have not heard of any who thought 0.9 c or thereabouts, but that would be consistant, if gravity is propagated by a particle called the graviton. Experiments have been done, which allegedly established the speed of gravity, but peer review and the number have been mixed.<br />The speed of telepathy has simular experimental problems, plus most main stream experts think telepathy is impossible. Neil

 

[aorton27]

There is proof that gravity is quicker than light - A blackhole.<br /><br />The strength of gravity increases to the point where it pulls/pushes things in quicker than the speed of light. I would also say gravity is instantaneous but it is the power of gravity that determines the speed which things get sucked in. Gravity itself doesn't have a speed value.<br /><br />Just like a light bulb. The light is turned on at the same speed regardless of the wattaged put into it. Although the more watts the brighter the light.

 

[bonzelite]

already a thread on this: <br />http://uplink.space.com/showflat.php?Cat=&Board=sciastro&Number=411239&page=10&view=collapsed&sb=5&o=0&fpart=

 

[nova_explored]

"There is proof that gravity is quicker than light - A blackhole."<br /><br />that isn't a matter of gravity being faster than light, only stronger. It curves space to such a degree that even a light beam, or a photons path is skewed so grossly it curves back in on itself. simply that. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[nova_explored]

the event horizon therefore is only that point at which the curvature of space is created by which the light curves back, the greater the black hole, the smaller the horizon and so forth. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[nova_explored]

i wonder if gravity acutally is a particle in qm. wouldn't that spell trouble for wormholes since space would no longer be a plain warped by gravity. so much for getting to distant stars... <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[aorton27]

"space would no longer be a plain warped by gravity."<br /><br />Or is it a plain warped by mass and the side effect of the warping into the 4th dimension is gravity.

 

[aorton27]

"that isn't a matter of gravity being faster than light, only stronger. It curves space to such a degree that even a light beam, or a photons path is skewed so grossly it curves back in on itself. simply that. "<br /><br />Can you find a similar result in nature? Nature constantly repeats things in different ways since it is bound to the same laws of physics.

 

[nova_explored]

sorry, meant mass. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[nova_explored]

find a similar result in nature? (this is not condescending in reply...) but, like observations of light being beant by stars?<br /><br />i'm unclear as to the question. but does that answer it. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[aorton27]

"a similar result in nature? (this is not condescending in reply...) but, like observations of light being beant by stars? <br /><br />i'm unclear as to the question. but does that answer it."<br /><br />Not really. An example of nature repeating things. I see a similarity to a drop of water from a damp object to a black hole or how time space warps.<br /><br />The drop grows when mass is built and it sags. When it sags it draws in more mass and sags more. When this sag breaks the surface tension of the water it will seperate.<br /><br />Mass sags the fabric of time/space as well. Because of the sag it creates a force(ie gravity). The black hole is in the process of dropping as it broke the surface tension and over time it will seperate from our universe and at that time the black hole will disapear.<br /><br />The water drop process may take a second but the process of the black hole takes much longer. It would be like watching the water drop with a super high speed camera and then replaying it back in super super slow motion.

 

[nova_explored]

okay. but how does this fit in with light being faster than gravity post?<br /><br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[aorton27]

I am sure a mathematician/physicist could calculate the limits of the fabric of space/time. Space time is much like fluid or water as it has a surface tension and buoyancy qualities.<br /><br />They could take the masses of planets and compare it to thier size and the amound of time warp around the planets. Then you have neutron stars and calculate the warp, mass,ect. Then look at black holes and compare the warp there.<br /><br />I am sure they could sit there and calculate what it would take to break through that fabric of time. How much mass compared to the space it takes up before the fabric of time can no longer hold it up. <br /><br /> A huge amount of mass(100 tonnes) from such a small object (1 picometer) will create gravity and will also bend the fabric of space. The gravity is produces may be strong but only very locally(ie. 100-200 feet diameter)<br /><br />Just how much do you have to put in a picometer to produce a black hole and sink the object through the fabric of time. The bigger the object the more mass it will take to sink it as there will be more fabric holding it up.<br /><br />How small does an object have to be to fall through the seams of fabric of time? The object is so small that it doesn't deplace enough space so its mass is too much to hold up.

 

[nova_explored]

hey aorton, your way off the subject of the post.<br />but valid questions. <br /><br />i wouldn't know how to answer personally. except this...conflicting views of black holes have one thing in common, there is a critical mass to them, and once reached, they 'jettison' particles in a stream, or a 'jet' that runs through a north and south pole. it is hard to find any evidence for breaking the fabric of space-time. however they can, before reaching the critical mass, bend space-time to such degrees that the plain of space-time folds over on itself- wormholes that would otherwise be space some billions of light years apart.<br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[nova_explored]

what you're referring to is similar to the singularity that is the culmination of all the mass of the universe. <br /><br />it too could have been subject to the same physics as a black hole with 'jet streams' and something disrupted it and caused it to 'bang', big time.<br /><br />but that is only one theory.<br /><br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[dragon04]

I hope that this question doesn't seem too naieve or obtuse, but based on the statement that all matter present in today's universe was present at the time of the big bang, then at the very first instant, matter began to expand.<br /><br />At the very start of expansion, with all matter only the tiniest distance apart, gravity was at work. As the new universe cooled, elementary particles started to form atoms, blah, blah, blah...<br /><br />Using this as a premise, gravity has always been there. Its effects have been here since "bang +1" so to speak. So how can we even measure the propogation of gravity to any degree of surety?<br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <em>"2012.. Year of the Dragon!! Get on the Dragon Wagon!".</em> </div>

 

[nova_explored]

when you say propagation of gravity do you mean in the classical sense, as is it conforms to the inverse square law?<br /><br />it sounds like you are using it in terms of qm and gravity as a particle - to propagate. if gravity is a particle then, very good question.<br /><br />if gravity is merely a result of mass, as the strong force is a result of opposite charges and their strength, there should be no propagation and gravity is measurable under classical physics. now i am just talking in circles so i'll stop. <br /><br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[nova_explored]

we can't measure it...on the QM level. and that is a problem that is keeping physics from formulating a unified theory.<br /><br />black holes are the best measure to gravity at the QM level. so you see the problem there... <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>