Gravity moves at speed of Light

[Kyrisch]

Ok man why are you mad?

You do know that less than a decade ago people tought gravity was instant? now people believe that it has the speed of light' date=' next time your gonna be told it has half the speed of light and your going to believe it? You repeating exactly what pther scientists research has told them???? What you should try and do is stop being a puppent and try thinking for yourself.[/quote']

 

What YOU should do is look at the evidence and instead of refuting it right away, consider that it is possible. Gravity being instantaneous violates Einstein's Theory of Relativity, and that theory has been standing for quite some time now. Do you have evidence that gravity is instantaneous (I mean, besides what you seem to be basing all your claims on; "common sense")? The scientists in the article have evidence that supports gravity moving at c. They haven't just made it up out of nowhere, like you seem to think.

[GeminiinimeG]

Man Your not smart are you. You seem to know what you speak of, but then again a guy with a photographic memory could too. Yours stating what you read. I can go into an old book and say thats the truth. A couple of years from now your gonna be told something else thats backed by proof and youl believe it. This are all theories man. Most science on such a large scale depends on the law of relaticity so breaking that law scares you? Einstein was a freaking genius. The Article I linked to at the beginning said that It was not exact. The was a 20 percent chance of error meaning gravity could be 20 percent slower or 20 percent faster than the speed of light. What will you feel when more research is done and you see gravity is in fact 20 percent faster? or maybe it is 20 percent slower??? Do you have another answer for that? Please dont get mad man, I am in search of knowledge as most scientists are.

[GeminiinimeG]

http://www.metaresearch.org/cosmology/speed_of_gravity.asp

 

Interesting stuff read it.

[Kyrisch]

We are not really getting anywhere, are we? I am still confused about why you started this thread in the first place. Do you want us to tell you that the scientists are wrong, or are you just enjoying the attention? Do you want us to tell you that gravity cannot possibly move at the speed of light, even though there is an appreciable amount of evidence supporting this? To agree with your baseless ideas that gravity is obviously instaneous because that's what common sense says even though there is not one single piece of evidence that supports this and it violates a theory postulated by one of the most intelligent people in history? I think you yourself are confused. You seem to contradict yourself in your posts. Let me give you an example:

Most science on such a large scale depends on the law of relaticity so breaking that law scares you? Einstein was a freaking genius.

First you seem to belittle the Theory of Relativity, then you praise Einstein for being a "freaking genius." So please clear up what the reason you started this thread is, and what exactly is it that you don't understand.

[GeminiinimeG]

Ok I have a question.

 

If the speed of light can be changed. Doesnt this mean that somehow it might be sped up and the relativity theory is not broken? This emans that gravity can travel faster than light with out breaking some of this laws. Also I read somewere that light is not affected by time. So doed this mean that gravity might still be instantaneous but to us it might seem like it is moving slower? This is some interesting stuff

 

And common dont get mad at me for sounding dumb sometime I am Quite new to this stuff so I might make mistakes sometimes

[Xyph]

You know that every action has an equal and opposite reaction, how would all the strings stuck to the sun be able to pull the earth when they need the sun to pull back on

Using the well known Rubber Sheet analogy, imagine the sun is a sphere on a stretched rubber sheet. It creates an indentation, which the Earth and the other planets roll around in orbit. If you suddenly whip the sun off the rubber sheet, the trampoline will not instantly return to utter flatness. If you recorded and slowed it down (although, really, you can tell it isn't instant just by looking at it) you could watch the indentation created by the sun rise gradually upwards, and, assuming it was slowed down enough, it would be clear that the sphere of the Earth did not instantly react to the change in the curvature of the sheet (this would be more obvious the bigger the rubber sheet).

 

if scientists stoped worrying about breakign the natural laws and started worrying more about breaking em somehow we humans would probably jump forward in technolocal advances pretty quickly.

It's not like scientists are actively "worrying" about breaking the laws of physics, you know. Scientists would like just as much as the rest of us some method of travelling faster than light, I'm sure. It's just that, well, an inconvenience of these laws is that they can't be broken. How would you like scientists to go about finding ways to break the laws of physics? You might as well tell someone you pass on the street to sprout wings and fly.

 

If the speed of light can be changed. Doesnt this mean that somehow it might be sped up and the relativity theory is not broken?

No, because there's never going to be a material which something can move through faster than vaccuum.

 

 

On the black hole issue - I don't see why you see a problem here. It's the same sort of thing as a marathon runner being stuck in quicksand. In this case, the quicksand definitely flows slower than the marathon runner can run, but, nonetheless, the marathon runner cannot get free. Speed isn't everything. The speed of gravity could be half the speed of light and black holes would still be possible, because the speed of the propagation of gravity is irrelevant to it's strength in any case. Gravity wells of (relatively) stationary objects are, roughly speaking, like holes in the ground. There's no speed to take into account here, because they're static distortions, and it doesn't matter whether something can move faster than the hole could form - they could still fall in.

[GeminiinimeG]

We are not really getting anywhere' date=' are we? I am still confused about why you started this thread in the first place. Do you want us to tell you that the scientists are wrong, or are you just enjoying the attention? Do you want us to tell you that gravity cannot possibly move at the speed of light, even though there is an appreciable amount of evidence supporting this? To agree with your baseless ideas that gravity is obviously instaneous because that's what common sense says even though there is not one single piece of evidence that supports this and it violates a theory postulated by one of the most intelligent people in history? I think you yourself are confused. You seem to contradict yourself in your posts. Let me give you an example:

 

First you seem to belittle the Theory of Relativity, then you praise Einstein for being a "freaking genius." So please clear up what the reason you started this thread is, and what exactly is it that you don't understand.[/quote']

 

I am not belitling his theories, to this day no one has been able to prove him wrong, what I am trying to say is that there are forces in this universe that are not yet known to us, again the speed of light can be changed so his theories are not broken this is just something beyong most people comprehension

 

http://in.tech.yahoo.com/030326/139/22n3a.html

[5614]

I am not belitling his theories' date=' to this day no one has been able to prove him wrong, what I am trying to say is that there are forces in this universe that are not yet known to us, again the speed of light can be changed so his theories are not broken this is just something beyong most people comprehension

 

http://in.tech.yahoo.com/030326/139/22n3a.html

that link is nothing knew. Did you know that they totaly stopped light in its tracks, literally, to a standstill, they did that a year or two back. And it doesnt change c break the laws of physics. But this slowing down or stopping of light doesn't change c. If c did change then a lot of things would be incorrect, e=mc^2 would be a famous equation which would be wrong if c wasn't what it is now or if it was variant.

[insane_alien]

no the whole point of relativity is that the speed of light is a constant.(that means it cannot be changed under anycircumstances

[Kyrisch]

Who says the speed of light can be changed? Are we talking about c or the apparent speed of light through glass, air, water, etc.?

 

C cannot be changed, but light slows down as it travels through denser mediums.

[GeminiinimeG]

On the black hole issue - I don't see why you see a problem here. It's the same sort of thing as a marathon runner being stuck in quicksand. In this case, the quicksand definitely flows slower than the marathon runner can run, but, nonetheless, the marathon runner cannot get free. Speed isn't everything. The speed of gravity could be half the speed of light and black holes would still be possible, because the speed of the propagation of gravity is irrelevant to it's strength in any case. Gravity wells of (relatively) stationary objects are, roughly speaking, like holes in the ground. There's no speed to take into account here, because they're static distortions, and it doesn't matter whether something can move faster than the hole could form - they could still fall in.

 

think about the quicksand this way. If you take out gravity from the whole thing you would not fall in the quicksand, what I mean by this is that were trying to compare light to gravitational speed, in your examples your bringing in a third force, wich is gravity. I know thats confusing but there should only be the runner and the quicksand, the quicksand is not moving you towards it gravity is.

[Kyrisch]

And your point is?

[Xyph]

OK, fine, remove the extra gravity, and turn the quicksand into a hole in solid ground. If the runner is adhering to the ground (as objects do to space), and he's running in a straight line, if the curvature of the surface becomes too great he will still reach a point where he can never escape the hole as long as he's running in a straight line.

[GeminiinimeG]

OK, fine, remove the extra gravity, and turn the quicksand into a hole in solid ground. If the runner is adhering to the ground (as objects do to space), and he's running in a straight line, if the curvature of the surface becomes too great he will still reach a point where he can never escape the hole as long as he's running in a straight line.

 

we dont adhere to space, space is just that space. what we adhere to is gravity aint it? So nothing can escape gravity because no matter were you are its allready there. You know how were travelling in time? Doesnt it mean that because gravity can bend space it can also bend time meaning it can be everywere instantaneously?

 

Can you point me to some recent information on this things please =D

[insane_alien]

i think he meant "in" space

[Xyph]

Yeah, from the perspective of our 3 dimensions we are in space, but if we reduced those dimensions to 2 for the sake of analogy, we would appear to adhere to it. Even in completely flat space you wouldn't just pop out of the universe.

 

Yeah, gravity does distort (slow down) time, but it's only near gravitational extremes (black holes) that such effects become especially noticable.

[GeminiinimeG]

take a look at this, it says gravities just a statement so eveything we know today migh change tomorrow

 

http://www.idyll.org/~t/articles.cgi/gravity-is-just-a-theory.html

[Xyph]

Did you even read the article? It's using an analogy between gravity and evolution to highlight the idiocy of Creationists, since most people would accept that challenging the idea of gravity is foolish, and it remains unchallenged because it has no imagined theological implications as of yet.

 

All science is theoretical. Everything could change tomorrow. Gravity is no different. That said, it makes no more sense to postulate endlessly with no evidence to back things up.

[GeminiinimeG]

Thats my point, I was trying to explain its simply impossible for light to be faster than gravity because gravity doesnt experience time and neither does light. So trying to say they have the same speed seems plausible now that I think of it, they do not experience time so how can it be measure I am gonna go research this subjects =D

[5614]

no the whole point of relativity is that the speed of light is a constant.(that means it cannot be changed under anycircumstances

Relativety says that c is constant, not the speed of light, indeed in nuclear reactors it is common for particles to go faster than light (cerenkov radiation) but this is not faster than c. Nothing is faster than c.

 

See here about stopping light:

http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn340

[5614]

gravity doesnt experience time and neither does light

What do you mean "doesnt experience" time???

[insane_alien]

i meant c but i used speed of light. i really gotta stop doing that. i know about cerenekov radiation.

[GeminiinimeG]

What do you mean "doesnt experience" time???

 

Ok basically the theory of relativity says anything travelling at the speed of light does not experience time. The reason is the slower your moving the faster time is going by, If you travel from point a to point b wich is 300 light years away at the speed of light you feel as if you got the in an instant. So if the photons travel at that speed then they dont experience time.

[Dave]

no the whole point of relativity is that the speed of light is a constant.(that means it cannot be changed under anycircumstances

 

You're not stating the entirety of the postulate. The speed of light is constant in all inertial reference frames - if you observe a photon when you're travelling at 5km/sec or just standing still, then it will appear to be travelling at c.

[swansont]

http://www.metaresearch.org/cosmology/speed_of_gravity.asp

 

Interesting stuff read it.

 

No, it's an exercise in not understanding relativity. The space is already curved, because of the interaction with the sun, when the earth gets to any given point. It is my understanding that you would only see retardation effects for gravity if the bodies were accelerating, and would be related to that acceleration. The center-of-mass of the solar system is not that far outside the sun, so we don't see large effects from this. You do see it, however, in binary stars, hence their orbit decays - if the speed of gravity were infinite, there could be no energy loss to let the decay happen.