blike Posted July 16, 2002 Share Posted July 16, 2002 How fast is the "speed of gravity"? Is it the speed of light? Instantaneous? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fafalone Posted July 16, 2002 Share Posted July 16, 2002 That's a very interesting question. It was predicted by Einstein that gravitational waves travel at the speed of light. However, this did not hold up to observed data. Evidence supporting this was found by Joseph Taylor, who won the 1994 Nobel prize for his work. How can a black hole have gravity if the escape speed is greater than c? The typical answer for this is that the gravitational field is frozen; however this has been proven to be wrong as gravitational fields must be continually regenerated, not to mention the problems that arise with binary black holes. It also must be considered that gravitational waves show no abberation, and for this to happen gravitational propagation must greatly exceed light. Classical mechanics hold the speed of gravity to be infinite, but the indicates a static field, which has been refuted. In conclusion, Taylor's experiment with a binary pulsar system concluded that the speed of gravity is >= 2x10^10 times the speed of light. As it turns out, this is not a true violation of the theory of relativity; at least not any more than general relativity violates Newtonian gravity. It is also in accord with Lorentzian relativity, which has not been demonstrated to be wrong. All experiments conducted have all arrived at the conclusion that the propagation speed of gravity greatly exceeds c. Special relativity explains gravity as a function of a curvature in space-time; hence does not propagate in the same way things such as light does- but this is disproven by the binary black hole issue; how their fields could continually update with masses hidden by their event horizons, and this is only explained by gravity being a propagated force with a velocity exceeding c (the escape velocity of a black hole). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aman Posted July 16, 2002 Share Posted July 16, 2002 If you consider the idea of the big bang particle with all of its energy weaving the hologram of existance, visiting each point of space over and over to make the relative existance that appears to us. Then it must visit larger mass areas more often and empty space areas least. It decelerates and spins to make a virtual quark and accelerates and travels to make one on the other side of the universe. Criss crossing and by average time in any space the areas most visited would seem to have the most mass. The decelerations we perceive as gravity. The speeds could be near infinite. Inertia could be transformed into spin as the particle slows or back again to accelerate and if it could travel the universe over and over changing incrementally, we would perceive substance and gravity and the other forces around us. Because there might be some substance to sentience that lets us observe the the effect that makes us, I think this is an arguable idea. Just for thought. Just aman Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zarkov Posted July 17, 2002 Share Posted July 17, 2002 Newtonial and Relativity gravity concepts are fatally floored for many reasons. The speed of gravity is just one, and unless the speed is enourmous, calculation of the position of stellar is incorrect. Spin gravity overcomes all the objections to the above mentioned gravity theories > Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fafalone Posted July 17, 2002 Share Posted July 17, 2002 Originally posted by Zarkov The speed of gravity is just one, and unless the speed is enourmous, calculation of the position of stellar is incorrect. 2x10^10 * c is enourmous. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zarkov Posted July 17, 2002 Share Posted July 17, 2002 But Fafalone, this contradicts General Relativity, so what theory are you going to use to support your argument. Please show me evidence! > Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fafalone Posted July 17, 2002 Share Posted July 17, 2002 As aforementioned, this result is supported by Lorentzian Relativity, you will find extensive information on this. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fafalone Posted September 6, 2002 Share Posted September 6, 2002 They're supposedly going to be able to measure the speed of gravity this weekend. http://www.nature.com/nsu/020902/020902-13.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Radical Edward Posted September 15, 2002 Share Posted September 15, 2002 have they come up with an answer to this yet? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aman Posted September 15, 2002 Share Posted September 15, 2002 I read it was supposed to take at least a month to coordinate all the date and crunch it. Just aman Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blike Posted January 8, 2003 Author Share Posted January 8, 2003 However, this did not hold up to observed data. Evidence supporting this was found by Joseph Taylor, who won the 1994 Nobel prize for his work. Einstein wins again! http://www.newscientist.com/news/news.jsp?id=ns99993232 So what does all this mean for Taylor's work, etc? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fafalone Posted January 22, 2003 Share Posted January 22, 2003 In light of recent developments, bump. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
liljohnak Posted January 22, 2003 Share Posted January 22, 2003 i just thought id tell you all that you are very smart ppl to know all this stuff. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fafalone Posted January 22, 2003 Share Posted January 22, 2003 Thanks Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JaKiri Posted January 23, 2003 Share Posted January 23, 2003 Isn't this classical mechanics? In which case gravity travels instantaneously. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fafalone Posted January 23, 2003 Share Posted January 23, 2003 Does it now? Observations indicate otherwise. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JaKiri Posted January 24, 2003 Share Posted January 24, 2003 Originally posted by fafalone Does it now? Observations indicate otherwise. The same might be said, and indeed has, of classical mechanics. We're talking Newton, here people. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fafalone Posted January 24, 2003 Share Posted January 24, 2003 "classic" mechanics applies to macroscopic system. quantum mechanics is a whole other ballpark, and quantum gravity is some weird stuff. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JaKiri Posted January 24, 2003 Share Posted January 24, 2003 I tend to lump GR in with QM, for no apparant reason, despite the fact that they appear to be irreconcileable. To me, Classical will always mean Newton. I'm just odd like that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now