163 replies to this topic

[Infernity]

Alright, isn't it obvious that if black holes swallow light, something must be faster than light? [huh]


I speak as a non-scientist, so I don't know what is the faster thing, why or how, these are merely thoughts.

-Infernity

[Brainbox]

Hèhè, clever. I didn't come up with that one in my lifetime

I'm not a scientist either, but I asume that no light seems to escape black holes has something to do with bending of waves that causes light and electro-machnetic emisions in general not to travel in straight lines, due to high gravity fields?
Edit: I mean, gravity fields with high differentials or gradients wrt. location... (don't know the exact English term and no time to look it up either)

Edited by brainbox, 10 July 2006 - 06:24 PM.

[Live Forever]

There are theoretical objects called tachyons that move faster than light. There are some other things (like quantum entanglement) that appear to transmit information faster than light.

[Trias]

Alright]


I speak as a non-scientist, so I don't know what is the faster thing, why or how, these are merely thoughts.

-Infernity

where our theory stands, the speed of light is but a natural constant. It is a core axiom for Einstein's "Torat Ha'yacha'sut". Why is it 3x10^8 m/s ? - -for the same reason there is this unusual force we call "gravity" and all other natural phenomena and laws. how come all these laws and known phenomena are as they are? -because.

Nature has its hidden reasons, or no "reasons" at all all as we know and define em' ;-)

Where we stand, the fastest speed measured of travelling information is the speed of light... - so, until we find other empirical facts - this is where our scientific "knowledge" stands.

the tachyon theory is practically groundless in comparison to the research made in the field of relativity.

-D S

[Infernity]

Edit: I mean, gravity fields with high differentials or gradients wrt. location... (don't know the exact English term and no time to look it up either)

I have that all the time ^^
Well brainbox, I can't tell you right or wrong, I hardly understand what a black hole is, not long ago even Hawking have refuted his own theory.

There are theoretical objects called tachyons that move faster than light. There are some other things (like quantum entanglement) that appear to transmit information faster than light.

Heh the first t place I checked:

•  tachyon 

n.  hypothetical particle which is smaller than an atom and travels faster than the speed of light (Physics)

I always said that once we will move at light speed or more or whatever, it will be by transforming ourselves into information, and not by inventing something to take us as fast.

where our theory stands, the speed of light is but a natural constant. It is a core axiom for Einstein's "Torat Ha'yacha'sut". Why is it 3x10^8 m/s ? - -for the same reason there is this unusual force we call "gravity" and all other natural phenomena and laws. how come all these laws and known phenomena are as they are? -because.

Nature has its hidden reasons, or no "reasons" at all all as we know and define em' ;-)

Where we stand, the fastest speed measured of travelling information is the speed of light... - so, until we find other empirical facts - this is where our scientific "knowledge" stands.

the tachyon theory is practically groundless in comparison to the research made in the field of relativity.

-D S

And I was wondering where did our mate go. Nice to see you here again.
Anyways, well the theory of relativity is not complete either, it has the other theory rebutting it and vice versa.


-Infernity

[quadclops]

I'm no scientist either, but as I understand it, the reason light can't escape a blackhole is that the spacetime within the blackhole's event horizon is so extremely curved, that there simply isn't any way for the light to travel any other direction but straight "down" into the singularity.

In other words, no matter how fast the photons are, once they've entered the event horizon, all roads lead to the singularity, period!

[nihilist]

as far as i know, gravity is much faster than light.

i dont think that light has been the recognized fastest thing in a long time.

[quadclops]

Nihilist

as far as i know, gravity is much faster than light.

Speed of Gravity = Speed of Light.
http://www.csa.com/d...ty/overview.php

Nihilist

i dont think that light has been the recognized fastest thing in a long time.

Light apparently still fastest thing there is.
http://www.cnn.com/2...peed/index.html

[knite]

yeah Nihilist, gravity propogates at the speed of light, so if the sun disappeared, we wouldnt go flying off into the cosmos, nor notice any shift in the earths movement or anything until a few minutes later.

As to light being the fastest, has the quantum entanglement been refuted or something? last I understood it transmitted information faster than light, if not instantaneously.

[Lazarus Long]

SPEED OF GRAVITY RESULTS INCORRECT, SAY PHYSICISTS
Fri, August 4, 2006 - 4:51 PM
By Robert Roy Britt, Senior Science Writer
posted: 01:30 pm ET
16 January 2003
http://www.space.com...eed_030116.html


Physicists leveled heavy criticism Thursday on a report from last week that claimed the speed of gravity had been determined by observation and was equal to the speed of light.

One physicist called the interpretation of the finding "nonsense". Others were more diplomatic, suggesting that the experiment, involving observations of the bending of light from a distant galaxy as the light sped by the planet Jupiter, had instead measured other phenomena.

The brewing controversy, which illustrates the fits and spurts with which science sometimes grudgingly moves forward, appears to have ground to a stalemate for now as the two scientists who conducted the experiment categorically defended their work.

"The claim that they've measured the speed of gravity is simply incorrect," said Clifford Will, a physicist at Washington University in St Louis, Missouri, and an expert in the field.

Interestingly, Will is friends with one of the researchers whose work he knocks.

In a telephone interview this morning, Will hailed the intricate observations as possibly "a great achievement" but said the interpretation of the data "clouded what would otherwise have been a really cool result."

Defending the claim

Ed Fomalont of the National Radio Astronomy Observatory and Sergei Kopeikin from the University of Missouri in Columbia, performed the experiment. They watched light from a faraway galaxy bend as the planet Jupiter passed almost directly between the galaxy and Earth. Their theory stated that the bending would occur due to the gravitational influence of Jupiter.

By noting the extent of the bending, the researchers claimed to have measured whether gravity acted instantly or somewhat more slowly, at light-speed.

Proving that gravity works at the speed of light would add support to Einstein's General Theory of Relativity and place limits on fringe theories in cosmology. Most physicists are confident that this is the case, but no one has ever confirmed it by direct measurement.

Isaac Newton long ago argued that gravity instead propagates instantaneously. The suggestion has not died. If it were true, a big door would open to wild theories of how the universe might work on the grandest scales, including its possible interaction with other universes or other dimensions. Even a slight difference in the speeds of light and gravity would give theorists nifty wiggle room to craft bizarre ideas about the mechanics of the unseen universe.

Fomalont, an observational astronomer, calmly refuted the criticisms one-by-one this morning.

"We're really confident that we've measured the speed of gravity and that our interpretation of the results of our experiment are as stated," Fomalont told SPACE.com.

Behind the scenes

The finding, announced Jan. 7 at a meeting of the American Astronomical Society (AAS), was controversial well before it was reported to the general public. Two papers on the work had in prior weeks been submitted for peer review and possible publication in the Astrophysical Journal Letters. One describes the technique, another details the results. Both are still being reviewed.

Will, the Washington University physicist and a self-proclaimed longtime colleague and friend of Kopeikin, was asked to review the theoretical paper for the journal. Will recommended it not be published. The paper has since been sent to another referee.

Will explained his reasoning: A moving body, like Jupiter, produces additional gravitational effects that Kopeikin did not take into account in his theoretical calculations. Will was surprised that the findings were announced last week, before the papers had been accepted for publication.

It is not uncommon for discoveries to be presented to reporters at AAS meetings prior to having been through peer review. Numerous other findings, by NASA scientists and others, are announced in press releases every year prior to any formal peer review. Scientists are sometimes critical of this so-called "science by press release" process. Others see it as a natural and inevitable flow of information into scientific and public hands.

Ultimately, Will said, the scientific community will sort out the truth in this case.

"Will is one of the giants in this field," Fomalont said. He added that Kopeikin and Will have gone politely back and forth on their differing interpretations of subtleties in what might be observed in the experiment, and are simply at loggerheads over which approach is correct.

Kopeikin said he has found a mistake hidden deep in Will's calculations, and that other mathematicians concur. "He does not agree," Kopeikin said of Will today. "But mathematics is against him."

Kopeikin, too, said the review process would ultimately reveal the truth.

Long-running debate

Kopeikin began circulating his theoretical idea for the experiment more than two years ago, and criticisms began well before the observational work was carried out last September.

Japanese physicist Hideki Asada published a paper, also in the Astrophysical Journal Letters, about a year ago arguing that Fomalont and Kopeikin would actually be measuring the speed of light, not gravity. That paper has been a thorn in Kopeikin's side ever since. During the AAS press conference last week, when questioned about Asada's work, Kopeikin was visibly frustrated and said Asada had made a mathematical mistake.

Fomalont said this morning that Asada's paper was "not valid." But because it was published, however, it had been given "a standing which it does not deserve."

Today, also in the Nature Science Update article, Peter van Nieuwenhuizen, a physicist at Stony Brook University in New York, called the interpretation of the results by Fomalont and Kopeikin "compete nonsense," but the comment was not expanded upon.

Fomalont chose not to respond to van Nieuwenhuizen's choice of words. He also said he had no regrets over announcing the results prior to peer-reviewed acceptance in a journal.

The whole issue seems to have caught many physicists by surprise.

Fomalont notes that during the two or three years that scientists had to review the idea, most did not think the measurements could even be made (regardless of what was being measured) so few spoke up about the potential interpretation of the results (that the speed of gravity could be determined).

"Then they see that we can measure it, and that fostered a lot of bubbling up of criticism," Fomalont said.

There remains little doubt that something was measured last September when the largest planet in our solar system fortuitously passed in front of a bright galaxy some 9 billion light-years away. What remains is for physicists to agree on what was seen.

Original story on the speed of gravity announcement:
http://www.space.com...eed_030107.html

[DukeNukem]

Alright, isn't it obvious that if black holes swallow light, something must be faster than light?

I don't see the error in logic that you're trying to point out.

Black holes do not suck in light. Black holes represent a closed in area of space itself -- it's a mistake to think of them as having a strong sucking force once you're within the event horizon. Space is closed in on itself, and it's a one-way trap (except for Hawking's Radiation, but that's a different topic). For example, imagine a rope of the strongest material in the universe, absolutely unbreakable. Imagine lowering this rope within the event horizon. You would not be able to pull the rope back out, as it has entered a region of space that is for all purposes disconnected from our "normal" space (or space-time, to be more precise). The rope that crosses the event horizon crosses into a new space zone and time zone. For all we know it is frozen in time forever. We just do not know what lies beyond the horizon. It might be an all-new universe.

Those of us who live at least 100 years longer will likely live long enough to know the answer.

[bgwowk]

As to light being the fastest, has the quantum entanglement been refuted or something? last I understood it transmitted information faster than light, if not instantaneously.

No. Apparent instantaneous information transmission by quantum mechanics is an artifact of the collapse postulate, which according to the majority view of quantum experts these days is a mathematical convenience that does not correspond to underlying reality. If calculations are carried through without wavefunction or state vector collapse, then nothing travels faster than the speed of light, even in quantum mechanics.

[MichaelAnissimov]

A marquee image can theoretically be made to move faster than light, by having a series of nodes programmed to activate fractions of a second after each other. Of course, no information is being transmitted, and no real object is actually moving faster than light.

Shortly after the Big Bang, spacetime itself was expanding faster than light - 7 times faster, by some estimates. This is interesting to think about.

Of course, in virtual worlds, objects can move much faster than light.

[DukeNukem]

Shortly after the Big Bang, spacetime itself was expanding faster than light - 7 times faster, by some estimates. This is interesting to think about.

Inflationists believe that the universe grew million's of times faster than light for the briefest of moments after the big bang. BTW, no single object or energy packet was actually moving faster than the speed of light during this growth spurt. It's only the apparent growth that appears FTL.

[Live Forever]

Inflationists believe that the universe grew million's of times faster than light for the briefest of moments after the big bang.  BTW, no single object or energy packet was actually moving faster than the speed of light during this growth spurt.  It's only the apparent growth that appears FTL.

Sorry, duke, I am a little dense I guess. I can plainly see how there is information transmitted at an apparent faster than light speed due to quantum entaglement, but when it comes to this new concept I require further explanation. If a piece of matter (or whatever it was before it became matter) goes from point A to point B, and it does so at a time interval that is faster than light would make such a journey, how can that be considered "apparent growth that appears FTL"? I am sure there is a reasonable explanation, I just need it spelled out to me, I think.

[DukeNukem]

LF, imagine a loaf of raisin bread expanding at the speed of light. It would appear that individual raisins embedded within the bread are moving away from each other FTL. Yet, individually, none of them move FTL.

Although not quite the same, during the ultra brief period of FTL inflation, no actual energy or information moved FTL. As space itself expanded, it expanded relative only to the space around it, with nothing violating the universal speed limit, C.

[Athanasios]

I am not sure if you are repeating the examples you have heard or not, duke, but you can explain this stuff rather clearly. I am impressed.

[Live Forever]

I can see in the raisin bread example that the raisins could be expanding up to twice as fast as the speed of light (if they were on exact opposite sides of the bread). I do not see how it could be any faster than that though. The 7 times, or thousands of times the speed of light would require a different example I think.

If you say that space itself was expanding, I suppose I can't fully visualize what that means so that is where I am tripping. I can understand that space itself (and the matter in it) is expanding, faster than light, but how that translates to "not really faster than light" is the jump in logic that I am missing, I suppose.

[bgwowk]

Live Forever wrote:

I can plainly see how there is information transmitted at an apparent faster than light speed due to quantum entaglement...

You shouldn't plainly see it, because there is no information transmitted faster than light in quantum entanglement! Information transmission is an illusion created by the calculational convenience of the Copenhagen Interpretation.

With inflation, the point is that Relativity is not being violated because spacetime itself is expanding. So inflation is not "faster than light travel" in the sense of violating Relativity. However inflation is faster than light travel in the sense that if you launched a light beam during the early moments of the universe from point A, it would NEVER reach point B unless point B was very close by. Actually this experiment has been done for us in the form of the Cosmic Microwave Background radiation. CMB photons are a wall of "light" 15 billion light years away, but according to inflation the whole universe is orders of magnitude bigger than this (perhaps as much as 10^1000 times bigger). Except for our own tiny neighborhood (made of parts infinitesimally close to us when inflation began) most of the universe is causally disconnected from us, and forever inaccessible.

[jaydfox]

The example I've usually heard used is a balloon. Get a balloon, and put little ants on it. The ants can walk around, albeit very slowly. Let's say the fastest an ant can walk is c, the speed of light. c in this case will be very small, perhaps a few centimeters per second.

If you now took this balloon, partially inflated, with a bunch of ants on it, and used an air compressor to expand the balloon really fast, while the ants continued to walk around on the balloon, then the ants could spread apart from each other at faster than c. The ants would not exceed c relative to the balloon material under their six little scurrying legs. And ants that are very close to each other will not move apart very quickly due to balloon expansion. But ants that are far apart will move away from each other at speeds well in excess of c.

Over very small distances, nothing is moving faster than light. Each ant is walking at a speed less than c, relative to the balloon material under its feet. If you measure the distance between two particular ants that are, say, 2 cm apart when you start inflating the balloon, they might be 4 cm apart a second later (if the balloon doubles in size), even disregarding the ants' walking. This is a little under c.

But a couple ants that were 10 cm apart before will now be 20 cm apart, or 10 cm in one second, well in excess of c.

I can't explain it as well as Duke, so I've tried to make up for it by writing a lot more, in the hopes that I'll have filled in details that I can't convey naturally. Duke said it much more succinctly.

[Live Forever]

Live Forever wrote:

I can plainly see how there is information transmitted at an apparent faster than light speed due to quantum entaglement...

You shouldn't plainly see it, because there is no information transmitted faster than light in quantum entanglement! Information transmission is an illusion created by the calculational convenience of the Copenhagen Interpretation.

With inflation, the point is that Relativity is not being violated because spacetime itself is expanding. So inflation is not "faster than light travel" in the sense of violating Relativity. However inflation is faster than light travel in the sense that if you launched a light beam during the early moments of the universe from point A, it would NEVER reach point B unless point B was very close by. Actually this experiment has been done for us in the form of the Cosmic Microwave Background radiation. CMB photons are a wall of "light" 15 billion light years away, but according to inflation the whole universe is orders of magnitude bigger than this (perhaps as much as 10^1000 times bigger). Except for our own tiny neighborhood (made of parts infinitesimally close to us when inflation began) most of the universe is causally disconnected from us, and forever inaccessible.

Thus the word "apparent".

Apparent, in the context of how I used it meaning: Appearing as such but not necessarily so. Perhaps I should have used a different word, but yes, I can see how it appears that information is transmitted at FTL when it really isn't.

The example I've usually heard used is a balloon. Get a balloon, and put little ants on it. The ants can walk around, albeit very slowly. Let's say the fastest an ant can walk is c, the speed of light. c in this case will be very small, perhaps a few centimeters per second.

If you now took this balloon, partially inflated, with a bunch of ants on it, and used an air compressor to expand the balloon really fast, while the ants continued to walk around on the balloon, then the ants could spread apart from each other at faster than c. The ants would not exceed c relative to the balloon material under their six little scurrying legs. And ants that are very close to each other will not move apart very quickly due to balloon expansion. But ants that are far apart will move away from each other at speeds well in excess of c.

Over very small distances, nothing is moving faster than light. Each ant is walking at a speed less than c, relative to the balloon material under its feet. If you measure the distance between two particular ants that are, say, 2 cm apart when you start inflating the balloon, they might be 4 cm apart a second later (if the balloon doubles in size), even disregarding the ants' walking. This is a little under c.

But a couple ants that were 10 cm apart before will now be 20 cm apart, or 10 cm in one second, well in excess of c.

I can't explain it as well as Duke, so I've tried to make up for it by writing a lot more, in the hopes that I'll have filled in details that I can't convey naturally. Duke said it much more succinctly.

Aaah, ok. I think I am beginning to understand. In essence, the expanding of the universe was changing the rules of how it was measured. I guess the hangup I was having was how the universe itself is expanding faster than light. I guess it doesn't have the same rules as the matter contained in the actual universe? In any event, I know that it is true, just have a hard time conceptualizing it.

[DukeNukem]

Thanks Norwood. I've been a passionate reader of the nature of our universe since I was a young teenager, back when I was certain I'd eventually be a scientist. The example I most often read is that of an expanding balloon, but I think the raisin bread is easier to visualize.

LF, with inflation, each local area of space expands at C, yet the universe expands almost infinitely fast.

Keep in mind, inflation theory is a vastly difficult concept to understand, let alone explain. I don't pretend to understand it beyond a layman's understanding. I have read several good summary articles in Scientific American and Discover magazine on the topic, so maybe those can be searched for. Also, I'm pretty sure Brian Green's latest book covers the topic.

[jaydfox]

The example I most often read is that of an expanding balloon, but I think the raisin bread is easier to visualize.

The raisin bread is good because it makes the 3D nature of basic space more apparent, compared with the 2D surface of a balloon.

[Live Forever]

LF, with inflation, each local area of space expands at C, yet the universe expands almost infinitely fast.

Keep in mind, inflation theory is a vastly difficult concept to understand, let alone explain.  I don't pretend to understand it beyond a layman's understanding.  I have read several good summary articles in Scientific American and Discover magazine on the topic, so maybe those can be searched for.  Also, I'm pretty sure Brian Green's latest book covers the topic.

Yeah, I think my hangup was not understanding how the universe could expand faster than light when the matter in it can not. I am beginning to conceptualize it much better though now, thanks guys. [thumb]

[jaydfox]

Aaah, ok. I think I am beginning to understand. In essence, the expanding of the universe was changing the rules of how it was measured. I guess the hangup I was having was how the universe itself is expanding faster than light. I guess it doesn't have the same rules as the matter contained in the actual universe? In any event, I know that it is true, just have a hard time conceptualizing it.

Well, just remember that all speeds are measured relative to space and time. In the balloon example, all speeds are measured relative to the surface of the balloon.

The speed of a ray of light (one mad-fast scurrying ant!) is measured as the "instantaneous" speed of the ant on the balloon's surface, approximated, e.g., by how far the ant moves in 100 milliseconds (e.g., the ant moved 3 mm in 100 milliseconds, for an approximate speed of 3 cm/sec).

However, the balloon itself is not constrained by any such parameters. What is the speed of the balloon with respect to the surface of the balloon? At every instant, at every location, it's ZERO. No point moves relative to itself: every atom on the surface of the balloon is at the same point relative to itself, because the atoms don't split or occupy two points at once. If you pick a particular carbon atom on the balloon's surface, where is that carbon atom relative to itself? It's right there, at the same location. Okay, now, one second later, where is that carbon atom relative to itself? Even if the balloon has been moved a meter to the left, the carbon atom, relative to itself, is still right there, at the same location. Now the carbon atom may have even moved relative to other atoms on the balloon's surface, but that's not the question. Fundamentally, speed is measured "instantaneously", at least to the best that this can in theory be approximated (possibly limited by the Planck time and distance scales in our universe). Each atom on the balloon's surface never moves relative to itself.

So, the balloon can do whatever it wants. We can whoosh the balloon across the room at a few meter per second, and the ants would never know. Well, in the real world, the ants would know, because they'd feel the acceleration and the air rushing past them. But consider that the balloon is on the earth's surface, rotating around the earth's center at several hundred meters per second! If the balloon were in orbit, it would be in free-fall, with no felt acceleration, yet it would be wizzing around the planet at nearly 8 kilometers per second, and undergoing nearly 10 m/s^2 of acceleration, figures quite extreme relative to the meager 3 cm/s of c.

All that matters is motion relative to the balloon's surface, so changes in the balloon's surface (even rapid expansion!) don't affect local speeds, not even the speed of light.

However, the apparent distance between two points in space can increase, without any actual motion having occured for objects embedded in the space. Two points in space can even move away from each other at faster than light-speed. The balloon can operate on a distinct set of physics to the ants on its surface.

One final note: there is no "aether", no fixed point in space that's at rest. So it's slightly more complicated, but not much.

[DukeNukem]

LF, maybe this will help you:

Both of us joined Imminst during the same month (i.e. the moment of the Big Bang). My post count represents expansion at the rate of C. And your post count represent inflation theory.

;-)

[Lazarus Long]

Returning to the center of the dilemma (and universal expansion by metaphor) it is incorrect under General Relativity to consider gravity as a force *emanating* from the center of its focus. This is where it also gets complicated as Duke and others have alluded to and explained quite well.

Gravity is not *sucking* you toward the center of mass, nor is it force that is *emanating outward from the center of mass* thus applying to Adi's original question, it is a distortion in space-time caused by the amount of mass present.

When a sufficient quantity of mass is concentrated in a *singular space-time event* the standards for what we identify as reality break down. One element of that is a function of how we measure or experience time itself, hence the dilation effect, but also the way *light* (all EM spectra actually) function.

BTW, a BH doesn't just breakdown many of the rules governing our *reality* (the rules of space-time within it), it also breaks down the rules governing quantum mechanics at the molecular level and that is why they represent the crucible of all attempts to unify QM & GR. It is still not clear how strong and weak nuclear forces are operating within a BH either because all subatomic motion has ceased according to most models.

Gravity is one of the Four Fundamental forces, In fact the first 3 Strong & Weak Nuclear force along with Electromagnetism are more and more being seen as different functions of the same force, so we are approaching the idea of there being only two fundamental forces in the Universe, EM and Gravity.

The mistake many people make is thinking of gravity like it is EM, it isn't. It apparently is its own force and the *totality of its rules and properties* still elude detection. Hence the article and debate I posted before.

Back to Adi's original observation: Gravity is not going out of the BH faster than the escape velocity of light, gravity is distorting space-time such that everything outside *falls* toward it and within a specific distance first described by Schwarzschild and now understood as the *event horizon* nothing, (Hawking Radiation aside for the moment) not even light can escape. Chandrasekhar went on later to define the physics of mass such that neutron stars could continue to collapse into being a black hole and at what point there is sufficient mass to do so.

The other problem with the gravitational issue is how does it propagate at all because the graviton (its particle) to date has not only eluded detection, but its wave form is also an issue. Does gravity have waves?

In one sense we detect what appears like a wave form when studying the tidal force interaction of the Sun, Moon, and Earth. The problem is that while it exhibits some of the properties of a wave its frequency and length also elude detection and mathematical description. Another way gravity and EM appear similar is that they both exhibit a diminution of force according to the inverse square law, but with EM it is modified by quantum conditions that help create the strong and weak nuclear forces and with gravity it might be better to imagine that the presence of matter causes the entire universe to exert pressure on the center of mass, IOW a force coming from the outside-in, rather than the inside out as EM functions. Think of the entire universe as pushing in upon an object and the strength of said force is governed by the inverse square law in reverse.

http://en.wikipedia....wiki/Black_hole

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravity

http://en.wikipedia....tal_interaction

[Live Forever]

LF, maybe this will help you:

Both of us joined Imminst during the same month (i.e. the moment of the Big Bang).  My post count represents expansion at the rate of C.  And your post count represent inflation theory.

;-)

I don't know about my posts being inflationary, but many might be seen as inflammatory. [tung]

[maestro949]

I believe that the speed of light is not constant but relative to the structural makeup of the dark matter fabric that it waves upon. Time is immaterial and irrelevant to the structure of the universe and is nothing more than us making relativistic measurements between two observable events occuring within the universe. As Lazarus points out we don't have the foggiest idea what gravity is and it's still not clear whether it's a force that is instantaneous or also waves upon some medium but if it's the prior then it may be one of the key underlying structures of the universe rather than simply a "force" as we rationalize it. To conceptualize this idea, draw lines between between each piece of matter in the universe in an n...n manner (Every piece of matter affects every other piece of matter) where the larger clusters of matter have larger lines. From galaxy clusters down to atoms you are presented with a mathematical network of stuff floating in a medium that we cannot as of yet detect. My totally unsupported hypothesis is that a series of cones would emerge where each spiral is the end of conical shaped superstructure based on a prime number spiral. What we perceive is the exception, i.e. prime numbers. The rest is the real universe. A big cone, floating amongst many other cones. Cones cones, they haunt my dreams! lol, i'm losing it.

[bgwowk]

I think Lazarus, and especially you, maestro949, may underestimate how well Gravity is understood. The bible of gravity in physics is this HUGE book

http://www.amazon.co...glance&n=283155

which is an exposition of Einstein's theory of General Relativity and its various applications. Study it, understand it, and then tell me your new theories.

Gravity is actually understood very well, as well as, say, electromagnetism is understood through Maxwell's Equations, which is very well indeed. Surprisingly, subtle details of General Relativity are actually used in the calculations made by Global Positioning System devices that people use everyday. General Relativity works!

All that's missing is the gravitational analog of quantum electrodynamics, which would take one beyond General Relativity into the quantum realm just as quantum electrodynamics takes one beyond Maxwell's Equations. For gravity, this will be mostly relevant to the earliest moments of the universe. In everyday applications, such as astrodynamics and ordinary cosmology (cosmology after earliest moments of the universe) gravity is understood pretty well.

Yes, there are such things as gravitational waves. The associated wave equations can be derived from General Relativity. They move at the speed of light. Gravity is NOT instantaneous.