Gravity is substantially faster than light.

xmo1 · Apr 9, 2005

Got wowed twice today: 1. http://www.ldolphin.org/vanFlandern/gravityspeed.html 2. Mass causes low pressure. Read that one here on sdc, but I'll throw in a URL for further info: http://www.johnkharms.com/ <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> DenniSys.com </div>

nexium · Apr 9, 2005

Main stream science rejects many of the ideas of vanFlandern. Apparently, no one has devised a method of measuring the speed of gravity that is acceptable to mainstream science. Neil

xmo1 · Apr 10, 2005

Thank you. Wouldn't it be great if we could make all the conjecture in textbooks disappear? That gravity propagates at light speed seems highly unlikely unless it were part of the electromagnetic spectrum, and why should it be. Could be that gravity propagates instantaneously. What if gravity does not exist, but rather what we observe is something else? Understanding gravity seems to me to be the most important undertaking in science, maybe even more important than particle physics, and I think the results of experiments with gravity are essential to the advancement of scientific knowledge. So maybe we should get it out of secret government facilities, and into mainstream experimentation, because the results could make significant contributions to a civilization that is crying for solutions to it's dependency on oil. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> DenniSys.com </div>

redwhitearcher · Apr 10, 2005

There was a test on Cassini probe (i think) that tested the speed of gravity propogation and it was found within a plausible error that it is propogating at the speed of light. End of story and speculations.

xmo1 · Apr 10, 2005

Thanks. Here is a link from SDC: http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/gravity_speed_030116.html A stink rises from exclusivity rotting on the vines of knowledge when the details of scientific experimentation are published in private journals. -me <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> DenniSys.com </div>

Saiph · Apr 10, 2005

From my understanding the idea that gravity travels at C is a consequence of general relativity (basically one of it's predictions), not just wild conjecture. The last major attempt to measure the speed of gravity (using jupiter IIRC) actually ended up measuring the speed of light (I chatted with a general relativity theorist this weekend in Wyoming), at least according to most. vanflandern is usually ignored, not out of spite, but because he usually screws up the math according to other relativity theorists who review his papers. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> --------------------SaiphMOD@gmail.com -------------------"This is my Timey Wimey Detector. Goes "bing" when there's stuff. It also fries eggs at 30 paces, wether you want it to or not actually. I've learned to stay away from hens: It's not pretty when they blow" -- The Tenth Doctor, "Blink" </div>

xmo1 · Apr 10, 2005

That was the idea I got from reading about the Jupiter experiment as well. If it is true that gravity waves travel at light speed then that would make it even more easy to design experiments to test the theory. My curiositymeter spiked. I am trying to figure out how to put the batteries in my flashgrav. When they get weak the waves start bending around the corners of buildings. Anyway, thanks for the reply Saiph, and have a great day. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> DenniSys.com </div>

i_think · Apr 10, 2005

Wouldn't it be great if we could make all the conjecture in textbooks disappear? <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" /> hehe, you mean we should question what is in a textbook? That would be like the faithful questioning the bible, which is frowned upon by mainstream Christianity. Want an answer, just read the good book, and there it is. Until we know everything we can't be 100% sure of anything. The science of cosmology in particular seems to be full of questions, but understandably so considering the subject of study.

i_think · Apr 11, 2005

I actually have much respect for the sciences and those involved in the sciences, including you. Yes, the scientific method yields credible and reliable information, but at the same time the history of science has shown that sometimes we need to revise what we previously thought was accurate. My comparison to the bible was meant to illustrate the risk of assuming that everything we have learned so far is true. Knowing your distaste for the bible and that which it represents, perhaps I was harsh, and for that I apologize, but my point stands. We know the Earth is round but we do not know its position or velocity in relation to the universe as a whole. I'm sure you will correct me if I'm wrong (and I would thank you for it), but I believe gravity is not completely understood, even in the scientific community. If it has been proven to travel at the speed of light as you insist, then I don't understand the recent attempts to measure it. Perhaps the mechanism of gravity propogates at the speed of light, but the effects travel faster. You probably already know that electricity does a similar thing, the electrons carrying the charge travel much slower than the speed of light, yet the signal itself does travel at the speed of light. So we have particles of mass effectively carrying a signal at the speed of light, imagine what massless gravitons (if they exist) could achieve. You have the right to decide that it is not worth your time or effort to question the speed of gravity. We must each focus our attention to that which we determine is most worthwhile. It is a personal decision that we each make on our own. However, simply quoting a textbook without any further explanation in response to those who have come to question what we know or don't know about gravity does not serve a useful purpose IMO.

siarad · Apr 11, 2005

<blockquote>In reply to:<hr />The velocity of the propagation of gravity is at the speed of light. That's a sort of textbook fact.<hr /></blockquote> Many years ago I questioned a textbook fact regarding 2 phase motors & it turned out they were all wrong & I think still are. Do you have a link to the measurement of gravity waves as to the best of my knowledge none has been measured.

Saiph · Apr 11, 2005

I_think: First, I'd like you to show me were you think science had it wrong, and while I can think of a few, most are merely incomplete investigations. Second, you're right, until we know everything we can't be 100% sure of anything. However, we don't need to be 100% sure in order to be right. I'm saying that 100% "sure" of something means in all the details and ramifications btw. We can be sure the sun is hydrogen, the earth is solid, etc. We don't have to know everything to understand that. But the devil is in the details. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> --------------------SaiphMOD@gmail.com -------------------"This is my Timey Wimey Detector. Goes "bing" when there's stuff. It also fries eggs at 30 paces, wether you want it to or not actually. I've learned to stay away from hens: It's not pretty when they blow" -- The Tenth Doctor, "Blink" </div>

siarad · Apr 11, 2005

Isn't there something in M theory suggesting gravity, being non EM, leaks in & out of other Universes which is why it appears so weak in ours. This could mean it travels much faster than EM as another Universe may not have the same speed of transmission as ours.

yevaud · Apr 11, 2005

Gravity, according to M-Theory, doesn't travel through "other dimensions." What they actually meant was virtually identical to the classic "crumpled piece of paper" analogy that's used to describe "folded space." What gravity is supposed to do is cross those folds, the same as how "wormholes" are described - as crossing a fold of the paper, and reattaching at some distant point. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> Differential Diagnosis: "I am both amused and annoyed that you think I should be less stubborn than you are." </div>

just_some_guy · Apr 11, 2005

Interestingly, experimentalists have found that light travels at different speeds in different mediums. For example, light travels through water at much slower speed than it does through a vacuum. So, there's an example where gravity travels faster than light. Or does gravity also slow down in water!!?

Saiph · Apr 11, 2005

gravity is not believed to slow down in water. But good question. A note on convention: It is usually understood (but rarely stated) that when one refers to the speed of light, one means the speed in a vacuum (the fastest speed basically). This is so often the case that whenever the speed through a medium is concerned, it is specifically mentioned. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> --------------------SaiphMOD@gmail.com -------------------"This is my Timey Wimey Detector. Goes "bing" when there's stuff. It also fries eggs at 30 paces, wether you want it to or not actually. I've learned to stay away from hens: It's not pretty when they blow" -- The Tenth Doctor, "Blink" </div>

kmarinas86 · Apr 11, 2005

We should be able to test the speed of gravity in a laboratory (at the cost of a lot of money). I think all we need is the following: A really heavy object that is traveling without friction (a 0.0000000000 friction maglev in a vacuum) and right beside it, have a weight that measures the gravitational force caused by this really large object as it moves by. The delay would have to be calculated very accurately. We would need nanotechnology to actually make this experiment work, but the end result I think would be the possibility of weighing an object based on the force it pulls on a smaller object which might have some really interesting applications.

jurgens · Apr 11, 2005

You wouldn't really need to measure any force acted on the objects, all you would have to do is measure a change in momentum, ie a change in velocity.

i_think · Apr 11, 2005

Saiph, Funny enough, I agree with everything you said. Yes, the devil is in the details, but I would argue that statement serves to strengthen my position. I said that science has found it necessary to revise that which is not accurate. My true sentiments would be equally expressed by saying that it has been necessary for science to revise the details. Having said that, with respect, if you do not agree this is important to remember, then why say the devil is in the details? Many of us are here due to our shared curiosity and interest in the nature of the universe. We want to learn and so we ask questions. You have been generous with many of your replies and I appreciate your contributions. Not all posters here are as generous as you, nor do I expect them to be, but on occasion some will dismiss questions with an air of arrogance that suggests we should not even question the devil in the details. In the case of gravity, my standard of proof is higher than that and I let it be known. I simply wanted more details. I am relieved to see that this thread has since turned into a very interesting discussion of gravity. Thanks to all of you.

kmarinas86 · Apr 11, 2005

that's true

siarad · Apr 12, 2005

So gravity may be like a tsunami, which moves at high speed but the wavlength is so long peaks arrive rarely.

i_think · Apr 13, 2005

"I put the two in separate categories." Point taken. That's a logical approach which I can easily understand. I've only encountered a small sampling of your posts, which unfortunately led to an incomplete understanding of your position.

paintwoik · Apr 14, 2005

Speed of light or instantanious. If one were to remove the sun by some miraculous means ... we could expect that the Earth would be released from it's orbital the instant the sun was removed. This is not to say that gravitational waves travel faster than light, but that gravitational waves eminating from the sun are in fact the sun, and to remove the sun is to remove the gravitational waves. The mistake here is to consider the sun and gravitational waves eminating from the sun as seperate entities. They are in fact the same. The miraculous act of removing the sun requires the removal of the waves also. The reaction velocity of gravity is almost instantaneous to direction, but not to distance. The distance from one object to another is known only to the extent of light speed propagation.

siarad · Apr 14, 2005

Thanks I've saved the papers hoping my ageing brain can get around them at its slow rate. The hidden variables may be the problem on my topic

siarad · May 14, 2005

There seems to be 2 or 3 gravities. One which acts instantaneously. Another distorts space-time giving us orbits etc. The last which is a change of gravity supposed to produce waves. The first, being fixed perhaps, appears to move instantaneously, as Newton thought, else we'd fly out of orbit. Secondly the distortion of space-time, whatever that is, beloved of Einstein to overcome this instantaneousness but what causes us to follow this curve? Thirdly a change of gravity said to produce waves. An experiment in a deep mine here in the UK has never detected a wave in over 40 years. I don't know whether it would measure speed. Why doesn't the moon produce gravity waves or any planetary alignment?

siarad · May 14, 2005

If gravity travelled, instead of being static, then at C it would hit the earth at the same angle as light thus pushing us out of orbit. If you have a spoked wheel bicycle you'll see that the spokes are offset by four in order to make the ride softer. If the hub is the sun then gravity travels along a spoke meeting the rim at an angle. So acts gravity due to the delay of 8 minutes from starting out and reaching the moved Earth. To hold earth in orbit gravity would need to be truly radial or be static.

Gravity is substantially faster than light.

xmo1

Guest

nexium

Guest

xmo1

Guest

redwhitearcher

Guest

xmo1

Guest

Saiph

Guest

xmo1

Guest

i_think

Guest

i_think

Guest

siarad

Guest

Saiph

Guest

siarad

Guest

yevaud

Guest

just_some_guy

Guest

Saiph

Guest

kmarinas86

Guest

jurgens

Guest

i_think

Guest

kmarinas86

Guest

siarad

Guest

i_think

Guest

paintwoik

Guest

siarad

Guest

siarad

Guest

siarad

Guest

Similar threads

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts

Share this page