Gravity is substantially faster than light.

Saiph · May 17, 2005

the energy liberated by the two objects being closer is radiated outwards, to affect other things, in the form of gravitational waves...that's the idea anyway. <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>

clpc · May 20, 2005

If a black hole has such a high gravity that not even light can escape then in order to stop light escaping doesn't it require gravity to be pulling light in at a speed in excess of the speed of light?

Saiph · May 20, 2005

not really, gravity affects light by bending spacetime, and by preventing light from escaping really means that the spacetime has been bent back on itself, so no path leads out of the black hole. Sorta like how you can't drive off the surface of the earth. <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>

serak_the_preparer · May 29, 2005

Like so many who come here, I remain intrigued by the notion of faster-than-light drives, space-warps, worm-holes and - once upon a time - the notion that gravity might propagate faster than light. I reluctantly parted with that concept years ago. Though there is clearly plenty of room for continued research, here is a rather famous case strongly suggesting gravity does, in fact, move at c: Gravitational Radiation and the Validity of General Relativity by Clifford M. Will 'The binary pulsar PSR 1913+16, discovered by Russell Hulse and Joseph Taylor in 1974, provided important new tests of general relativity, especially of gravitational radiation and of strong-field gravity. Through precise timing of the pulsar "clock," the important orbital parameters of the system were measured with extraordinary precision. These include parameters normally associated with a non-relativistic "Keplerian" two-body orbit, such as the eccentricity e and the orbital period P, as well as relativistic parameters, such as the rate of advance of the periastron (the binary- system analogue of the perihelion), the combined effects of time-dilation and gravitational redshift on the observed rate of the pulsar, and the rate of decrease of the orbital period. The last effect is a result of gravitational radiation damping (apart from a small correction due to the effect of the galaxy's rotation on the distance to the pulsar; other possible sources of orbital damping such as tidal friction have been shown to be negligible). If we assume that general relativity is provisionally correct and make the reasonable assumption that both objects are neutron stars, then all three relativistic effects depend on e and P, which are measured directly, and on the two stellar masses which are not, and on nothing else. By combining the observations with the GR predictions, we obtain simultaneously a measu

silylene old · May 29, 2005

their claims have a high degree of bogusity to them. Interesting Steve... I always have used the word bogacity/b> when I discuss hard-to-believe results at work. bogacity = degree of bogusness of a claim, data or analysis. The coefficient of bogusness. It's a term rather like the fudge factor chemical terms 'fugacity' and 'activity'. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature" align="center">- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - </div><div class="Discussion_UserSignature" align="center">I really, really, really miss the "first unread post" function. </div> </div>

xmo1 · Jun 20, 2005

Thinking back to the discovery of electromagnetic radiation, and forward to quantum physics, I am left to think that our physics is not all wrong, nor is it all right. There are serious parts missing, like a unicycle. It is perfectly functional, but it is not the whole story in cycling. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> DenniSys.com </div>

xmo1 · Jun 20, 2005

It is not incessent questioning that changes history, rather it is the one right question that when asked changes everything. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> DenniSys.com </div>

serak_the_preparer · Jun 20, 2005

I am only reporting empirical data which corroborates a speed of gravity consistent with that of light. Though I agree quantum mechanics only describes a part of the picture, it also describes it very well. It is far better and more thoroughly tested, for instance, than relativity. More on the speed of gravity: Double pulsar puts Einstein to the test (PhysOrg) June 01, 2005 Astronomers have been closely tracking this exciting duo with CSIRO's 64m Parkes telescope in central New South Wales, Australia; the US National Science Foundation's 100m Robert C. Byrd Green Bank Telescope in West Virginia, USA and the 76m Lovell telescope at Jodrell Bank Observatory in England. Because the pulsars orbit each other so quickly - once every 2.4 hours - several general relativity effects are predicted to be large. Four effects were measured within a few months of the pulsars' discovery. Now the astronomers have measured another significant phenomenon: the stars' orbit is shrinking because the pulsar system is losing energy by emitting gravity waves. At present the shrinkage is tiny - just 7mm a day - but the loss will accelerate in future. And that means the pulsars will collide in 85 million years, the scientists say. The decay of the orbit is exactly what general relativity predicts.... Links: Details of the pulsar system, called J0737-3039, can be found at http://www.atnf.csiro.au/news/press/double_pulsar/

nexium · Jul 22, 2005

Hi Steve: I agree that the Earth is (all but surely) round and there is considerable evidence that the sun shines by fusion and the reactions of chemical elements are consistant thoughout our solar system. Carbon seems to lack consitancy everywhere as graphite is significantly different from CNT and diamond. Red phosphorous is very inert compaired to yellow phosphorous, so we can't rule out rare exceptions to consistant properties. Some science facts are at the 95% confidence level, even for those of us who want proof beyond unreasonable doubt. Other "facts" have high acceptance because of the prestige of a single scientist, so evidence to the contrary is debunked and nobody spends the millions of dollars necessary to do a high confidence double blind test. Many of the sacred cows of science were gored in the 20th century. My guess is more will fail in the 21st century. We should remain open minded and think of most of the facts of science as working hypothesis rather than written in stone. Neil

Saiph · Jul 22, 2005

which facts are at a high confidence due to the prestige of a single scientist? I know of none that have not been rigorously tested. <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 · Jul 24, 2005

Why is the speed of light 186,282.4mps, rather than some other speed? I caught that C is not a measured speed, but a definition. Still there is some accuracy to the measurements that exist, so I think the question is valid. Time travels at the speed of light. Now gravity is assigned this value, and supposedly this is not just wishful thinking. What makes this speed special? I think it might be that the velocity as a sinusoidal magnitude causes interference that attempts to disrupt bonding wherein entropy as a falling apart would occur. In other words, everything becomes unstable then cannot be observed. The electromagnetic bonds are strong however, so they act to limit the magnitude of the velocity in defiance of entropy so as to remain in a steady state, and what is left is 186,282.4mps. Or else why not 187.000mps or any other random speed? How valid is my supposition? <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> DenniSys.com </div>

yevaud · Jul 24, 2005

Just a personal suspicion, Steve...I think most of the weird theories we hear are due to the following: Physics isn't like learning spelling or life-drawing. It's quite difficult. Most people nowadays have this odd and superficial belief that they should be able to understand *everything* - in fact are convinced of it. So when they discover that they can't really understand the deeper ramifications of Physics based on a superficial study, they morph over to some bizarre theory that they believe in with the fervor of a religious fundamentalist. It's almost equivalent to "flipping the guilt," when you are, in fact, guilty yourself. They're trying to reverse the argument and say, "oh no. *I* understand the *real* reason why *etc* occurs. *You* are the uninformed one." IMO. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> Differential Diagnosis: "I am both amused and annoyed that you think I should be less stubborn than you are." </div>

MBA_UIU · Jul 25, 2005

If you really want to get loss read this...I believe this is what Einstein meant that people might lose perception when working with E=mc^2 http://www.tardyon.de/emc2.htm <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <img id="268587ce-7170-4b41-a87b-8cd443f9351a" src="http://sitelife.space.com/ver1.0/Content/images/store/6/8/268587ce-7170-4b41-a87b-8cd443f9351a.Large.jpg" alt="blog post photo" /> </div>

le3119 · Jul 25, 2005

Gravity and light travel at the same speed C, not because they occupy the same spectrum, but because they travel through the same vacuum!

Saiph · Jul 25, 2005

Actually C is a calculated, measured, and defined speed. It happened in roughly that order. people had an idea of how fast light was. Maxwell calculated a propagating electromagnetic wave to be C. It was close to that of light (which is what he thought a propagating electromagnetic wave was, thus the calculation). This close corroboration implied these waves were light. This was a little hard to swallow at the time, due to the particle nature of light being the big thing then. People suspected the wave nature, but were trying to work around it. The speed of light was further measured to very high accuracy...it is one of the BEST known fundamental values, heck, any value, in physics today. As such it's speed was turned into a definition (for the purpose of significant figure calculations for determining error and uncertainty), and the second and the meter were defined off of specific light frequencies. Basically, we can measure light's speed, wavelength, and duration much better than we can make a mechanical clock, or measure a physical rod (used as the standard for the meter), and so it became the ultimate basis for those measurements. Time does not travel at the speed of light...it may not travel...it may not exist. It isn't a force afterall. <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>

Saiph · Jul 25, 2005

The reason the speed of light is that odd number, is that is what it corresponds to using the standard of a meter and a second (used then, and the current ones, as we decided to keep those units unaltered). The reason the speed of light was not rounded off to a nice round value, was that if we wished to use it's very high accuracy for the standard of the meter, and the second, we needed to keep it as it was. If we rounded it off, then used it as a standard, the size of a meter and a second would be altered enough that a lot of minor tweaks, would need to be recaculated. Especially as the meter and the second are in almost every other unit of physics (energy, power, acceleration, etc...). The extreme inconvenience of revaluing all these units, in everything published, and wherever the were used...was just to much to consider. As such the speed of light was kept at it's odd number, even if it isn't as pleasing as a pure 3x10^8 m/s. <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 · Jul 26, 2005

Gravity and light travel at the same speed C, not because they occupy the same spectrum, but because they travel through the same vacuum! That answers a question. I wondered about the randomness of it. What generates the velocity? Is it an instantaneous speed, or does the photon accelerate to it? Why does light travel at that particular speed rather than a faster or slower velocity? I would think that whatever creates the propagation would vary in some situations, but it does not. What limits the acceleration? So I have a question about sound. Setup: 1. It is said that sound cannot travel in a vacuum. 2. Sound waves are said to be mechanical waves, whereas light is an electromagnetic wave. 3. Both light and sound occur on the electromagnetic spectrum. then A. The vibrations caused by the collisions of matter do travel through a vacuum. B. Sound can be directional, the same as light. C. Radio transmissions from space ride on a carrier wave. Let's cut the carrier wave. Suppose a beam of sound, like a tuning fork, were directed from space toward earth using a hyperbolic surface or some other mechanical device. Would it not be detected because sound cannot travel through a vacuum in the first place? Has anyone done such an experiment? I thought sound was a less energetic form of energy on the spectrum. Would that not mean that sound is also a photon of a longer wavelength? If not then would there be a correlate wave/particle? What do I not understand here? <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> DenniSys.com </div>

MBA_UIU · Jul 26, 2005

Sound waves are created through the compression of matter. There has to be some kind of physical contact between the source and the receiver in order for the receiver to hear sound. The more condense the matter is the faster that sound can travel through it. This explains why sound travels faster through water then air. For a more thorough explanation see: http://www.school-for-champions.com/science/sound_speed_gas.htm <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <img id="268587ce-7170-4b41-a87b-8cd443f9351a" src="http://sitelife.space.com/ver1.0/Content/images/store/6/8/268587ce-7170-4b41-a87b-8cd443f9351a.Large.jpg" alt="blog post photo" /> </div>

Saiph · Jul 26, 2005

1) Sound can't travel through space, because it's a disturbance in the distribution of matter. It's like someone pushing the person in front of them in line. That pushed person bumps the next, then catches themself. However, the third person (the bumped one) does the same... and so the push travels downt the line. However, if there are no people, the disturbance stops. 2) Correct. 3) Wrong, sound and light do not bot occure on the electromagnetic spectrum. A) Sound doesn't travel through a vacuum, that's an observation. b) Correct. C) Actually the use of a carrier wave is a human technology, and is not required for natural phenomena. The use of a carrier wave allows us to create minor shifts in power, but still be detectable as an entirely seperate signal, than one very similar to it. Without a carrier wave we'd have to shift the power up and down drastically, and have problems "locking on" to a specific signal. <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 · Jul 26, 2005

Thanks a bunch Saiph. I put up a post as a result. [Shaking my head]It's nice to have memories reinforced.[/Shaking my head] It is better yet to try harder to answer my own questions, which I will do from now on. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> DenniSys.com </div>

siarad · Jul 27, 2005

<blockquote>In reply to:<hr />C. Radio transmissions from space ride on a carrier wave. Let's cut the carrier wave. <hr /></blockquote> Indeed this is done as the CW is a great waste of power & resources aiding not the propagation. Both double side band, DSB & even better single sideband, SSB, transmission is used. The problem arises on reception as it is incoherent & a simple diode doesn't produce coherence as with a CW. Such diode wastefully throws away the carrier & one sideband so again why send it. Thus it's necessary to reintroduce a CW in order to produce the original sense. This is far from easy making it little used. Small CW are sometimes sent to aid this reintroduction & in SSB a vestigial 'missing' SB too. In any event it's much more complex than sending the CW & sidebands

nexium · Jul 27, 2005

Perhaps sound does not travel though space, but shock waves travel millions of lightyears though space. Do these shock waves have a lower frequency (longer wave length) than the 30 hertz that typically defines the lowest frequency of sound? Neil

Saiph · Jul 28, 2005

I do believe they do. And as they are pressure waves in matter, you can consider them "sound" Another thing to note is that space isn't completely empty, so sound does travel. It just attenuates rapidly, and travels very slowly. <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>

nexium · Jul 28, 2005

Your last post seems completely reasonable. Is it possible that gravity waves have a wave length in lightyears and a frequency of picohertz and gravity is electromagnetic radiation, which would make gravitons a special type of photons? Neil

Saiph · Jul 28, 2005

It is not possible that gravity is electromagnetic radiation. It shows none of the same characteristics of that force, other than it's strength to, varies with the inverse square of distance. <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>

Gravity is substantially faster than light.

Saiph

Guest

clpc

Guest

Saiph

Guest

serak_the_preparer

Guest

silylene old

Guest

xmo1

Guest

xmo1

Guest

serak_the_preparer

Guest

nexium

Guest

Saiph

Guest

xmo1

Guest

yevaud

Guest

MBA_UIU

Guest

le3119

Guest

Saiph

Guest

Saiph

Guest

xmo1

Guest

MBA_UIU

Guest

Saiph

Guest

xmo1

Guest

siarad

Guest

nexium

Guest

Saiph

Guest

nexium

Guest

Saiph

Guest

Similar threads

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts

Moderators online

Share this page