Speed Of Gravity

[imported_Ziggy]

GRAVITY, NOT SPACE-TIME! I've got an idea for a new kind of interstellar drive and am planning to do a report/article/sci fi story on it. But in order to to give my drive some possibility to it, I need people's opinons on it. Please vote and replie!

[Fraser_Abel]

You have to realize that talking about the speed of gravity and the speed of gravitons are essentially two different things. Gravitons might have a constant spped, true, but gravity itself always varies. Earth has a semi-weak gravity, the moon has weak gravity,the sun strong gravity, and blacholes have a gravitational effect far surpassing C.

GRAVITY, NOT SPACE-TIME!

You have to recognize C for each of these.
For spacetime, v=c.
For gravity, v always varies in relation to C.

[zephyr46]

Speed of gravity, you would have seen this site?

I think gravity is instantanious, it moves as fast as the generating body. That is if gravity is only thought of as a feild.

There are a lot of sites on this subject.

[kashi]

Ziggy I have a major problem with people voting on science. It kind of misses the point. It's a fascinating question that you raised, but could you please stop the polls. Afterall, this isn't Who Wants to be a Millionaire.

[imported_Ziggy]

I think the speed of gravity varies too. Maybe in a perfect vacum gravity travels at infinite speed. If light can't escape a blackhole, then a blackholes gravity is faster then light. The "far out physicts" in a blackhole only occur in the singularity. As soon as you pass the event horizon theres no going back and in a event horizon the physicts are still the same. But Enstein was still right. Nothing going "through" space-time moves faster-then-light.

[John L]

The problem with equating gravity with light when discussing escape velocities is that we don't what gravity is made of. Is gravity a particle that would be affected by itself? Is gravity literally the curvature of spacetime caused by any mass, and therefore independent of the speed of light limit? Does it depend on the medium, or is the fabric of spacetime itself the medium, and therefore idependent of what is in spacetime? Of course, if you could answer those questions you'd be up there in the history books with Kepler, Newton, Maxwell, Einstein, and Hawking...

[spedmen]

I agreee with John, in a way. The only way to study gravity is to isolate a graviton, if that is even possible, and only then will we be able to study the true and complete nature of gravity.

[kodakball]

Here is another site that says, they finally measured the speed of gravity.
http://www.newscientist.com/news/news.jsp?...p?id=ns99993232

Well they just say the speed of light and gravity travel at the same speed.

[Cygnus X-1]

We must always question the unknown. If gravity can "move" faster than C, why couldn't it take matter with it? Poll, question; I see them as the same.

[John L]

Originally posted by Cygnus X-1@May 26 2004, 12:15 AM
We must always question the unknown. If gravity can "move" faster than C, why couldn't it take matter with it? Poll, question; I see them as the same.

YES! We must always question the unknown. One of the defining characteristics of the human species is our unquenchable curiosity. If we weren't this way we'd still be wandering the savannah scrounging for a little food, or sitting a caves picking fleas off our neighbors, or even still in the jungles of Africa hoping a big cat doesn't decide we'd make a tasty snack. All human advancement has come about because someone questioned not only the unknown but what we thought was the known.

[tarajee]

Originally posted by Ziggy@May 25 2004, 12:50 AM
GRAVITY, NOT SPACE-TIME! I've got an idea for a new kind of interstellar drive and am planning to do a report/article/sci fi story on it. But in order to to give my drive some possibility to it, I need people's opinons on it. Please vote and replie!

Hello all reders, Will you please contact me . There is no gravity. Some other system is working. You can call me :- tarajee20@hotmail.com[COLOR=blue]

[StarLab]

To say there is no presence or existence of gravity is to say there is no such thing as electrons and photons, spacetime, etc. Maybe if you mean there is no strong "pulling" force in the universe, I'd agree with you, because in almost all scenarios planets fall in stars and stars in blackholes of their own accord. When a photon travels along spacetime in a straight line, a blackhole may be in its path, stopping the photon and the photon ends up disappearing as soon as it reaches the blackhole.

Some other system is working.

In your other post, Tar, you said something that gave me an idea: what if gravitons and photons are the same thing, except gravitons carried zero energy? It's like an "energy" particle, but without the energy!

[Jan]

ok.....

first of all i would like to say hello to all the participants i am from Slovenia

I have a theory abaut how and why univers is expanding....

lets say that we can travel faster than light...
so lets say einstain was kind of wrong...(but he was write ,just watching from a pointless prospective) my theory is that space is expanding because there is a force beetwen two blackholes that is making the blackholes getting away from each other....but blackholes have a great mass that collects all the material and even light that pass her buy...so more that a blackhole eats more (let me call it antigravity (but this isnt the exact term)) more geeting-away-from-each-other-force) accumulates...........

so there is this force that is pozitive-(black-hole) and negative-(all things that are not black-holes) that obviously atract each other (obviously black-hole attracks the the lighter "things*) and black-hole and another blackhole that do just the opposite...because they are lets call them positve...



the most fascinating thing is that it hacs been measured that galaxies are getting away from each other and speeding ....but i would like to know if (because we can measure the mass of galaxies ) if maybe the largest galaxies are getting away with greater speed...(why u ask?......well many people has said that there is a high posibility that there is a black hole in every galaxy

there is another thing that i would like to comment.
a galaxy looks like a tornado in space so what happens if we take a tornado and we place another tornado near him (what will be the affect that one tornado will make at the other) ....

what do you all think abaut my theory


Jan

P.S. a apologize if i have made some grammar mistakes (i am not english)...

[StarLab]

so there is this force that is pozitive-(black-hole) and negative-(all things that are not black-holes) that obviously atract each other (obviously black-hole attracks the the lighter "things*) and black-hole and another blackhole that do just the opposite...because they are lets call them positve...

I like what you are saying here: that if blackholes are positive and everything else is negative, blackholes attract everything but other blackholes, which they repel. But since the repulsion force btwn. blackholes is so strong, the universe is being pushed apart! I llllike it!

[John L]

Black holes don't repel each other. Black holes, like everything else in the universe, is made of matter and is attracted by gravity. That is how black hole attract matter and , yes, black holes do attract each other.

[Jan]

if black holes do atract each other how come galaxies get awy from each other...

[StarLab]

So...black holes attract everything...
Well, that's one thing I hate about gravity. I'd prefer it if gravity acted just a weeny bit like electromagnetism.

[Jan]

my theory can be tested...

[Jan]

are u 100% sure that one black hole can eat another?

[John L]

Originally posted by Jan@Jun 1 2004, 04:07 PM
if black holes do atract each other how come galaxies get awy from each other...

Jan,

There are numerous beautiful images from the Hubble and other space and ground telescope that clearly show two or more galaxies in the process of colliding with each other. Most galaxies are in fact members of gravitationally bound clusters. From the perspective of our galaxy, most distant galaxies are moving away from us due to the expansion of space between us and them (that's the theory), but not all of them are. The Andromeda galaxy is moving directly towards us and should collide with us in 2 billion years. Our galaxy is currently absorbing the dwarf galaxy Sagitarius. There are several satelite galaxies to the Milky Way such as the Magelanic Clouds that will be one day absorbed into our galaxy, and the galaxies known as the Local Group are not moving away, but part of our local cluster of galaxies. Those that are moving away are not members of the Local Group, our cluster, but are members of much more distant clusters.

[Jan]

i can easaly solve that problem....

what if ther were sevarel bigbangs all over the space then surely more galaxies with a bigbang speed woiuld overcome the speed of blackholes antigravity

[StarLab]

bigbang speed

:blink: :huh:

the speed of blackholes antigravity

:huh: :blink:

[katz3200]

Jan,
I like your theory. I think you have some valid ideas.

I believe there is a magnetism positive and negative, and on earth we only see one type. And that this magnetism is the same as we call "gravity". Even the atom has it - both positive and negative. (+4, -4)

But since we only see one, call it positive, we cant picture the other force.

The more advanced physicists here will not accept new ideas. Even tho modern science is lately pointing out that physics could be entirely mistaken up till now...they dont want to learn everything again. Dont let that opinion make you think any less, keep working on it.

The man who says he knows all about black holes, is speaking purely of ideas, not fact. There is energy in black holes, heat we can see, but that is simply all we know. Taking pictures still tells you nothing of WHY things are happening, what is their basis, etc. We can only assume from pictures, and space is not earth.

When we say two magnets same pole repel each other, that is fine. I think there are two COMPLETELY different types of magnetisms. And that this example is using Positive Magnetism only.....negative magnetism would be dark matter, black holes, and possibly stars that we have no real understanding of.

There is a page about the galaxy here, with a new theory that is interesting.

http://www.geocities.com/canasha2001/universe.html

It sounds like it would interest you. Happy theorizing!

[imported_Nexus]

Greetings all,

I have been reading with great enjoyment all the posts in this forum, and i must say, its very interesting.

Staying consistent with my other posts in other forums, i would like to remind those that are here of the difference between observation and theory. It has been observed by great scientific minds of the past and present that gravity is a result of curvature in space caused by a presence of mass. The greater the mass the greater the curvature.

Newton fomularised the laws of motion that are widely used today in deriving answers as to the movement of things through spacetime. Taking the question of the speed of gravity to light, you will notice that when you try and measure the speed at which an object falls to the ground, you will have to use a gravitational constant (g) which on earth is (9ms to the power of minus two), this value is denotes the acceleration of an object towards a gravitational center. So the greater the curvature of space time, the greater the acceleration, you can than use this as your starting point.

All bodies of mass in the universe attract each other, not because they are positive or negative, its because of gravity, how strong is the effect of each bodies gravity towards the other (taking to account its proximity). Even our bodies cause some curvature in space, but its too weak to be taken into serious account.

The above have been proven and are being used in today's world. What has been theorised is that it is possible that since all sorts of radiation and submolecular emotions are associated with a form of particle or another, is it possible that gravity has a particle associated with it (the graviton). Then scientists went on to investigating the possibilities caused by the existence in our universe set against past and current observations. So far, the graviton has not been found, but i think they are close. Until then, i think anyone who values their credibility would side with what has been proven - or correct theory.

As for blackholes contributing to the expansion of the universe, i would like to say that black holes are theorised to not be that many that they would so draqmatically affect the expansion of the universe. As for black holes being made of matter, unfortunatelly, this premise is based on a false understanding of the general nature of black holes. There are typed of blackholes made of super massive planets and stars, but the kind of blackholes that shame light as the univer's untouchable are initially made from ultra massive collapses that in turn create an anomaly in space time, which in turn comes through as so massive as to bend space time in such a way that light would take gazilions of years to escape it, unfortunaly ending un in the anomaly before the idea of escape is formulated (so to speak).

If black holes were made of matter, then they would callapse into themselves in a huge blaze of glory. Through Stephen Hawking Radiation, black holes have been observed to decrease in strength as they radiate their energy through this radiation, thus dying forever (slowly though, seriously slowly...).

I like the idea of a gravity drive, but i seem to remember Star Trek using the warp field as a form of gravity drive. As far they their theory says, they have core systems that use anti matter as a source of energy used in the bending and collapsing of space. Space expands at the rear of the ship and collapses at the front end of the ship, thus sending it hurtling forward. The key here is that one can never have enough energy to cause an object of significant mass to surpass the speed of light, but if you manipulate gravity to throw you in the direction you want (consistently) then all the energy you need to provide is the one that is used in th expanding and collapsing of space in the respective part of the ship, the moving of the ship will be taken care of by the universe (with it having access to vast oceans of zero-point energy fields to do this with). That is how the Star Trek warp drive works.

I heard some scientist saying that if you wanted to move as fast as one of the star trek ships, then you would have to carry a black hole on your back. The fact of thetheory is that you created something like a blackhole, the strength of which was determined by your warp drive (which curves spacetime by creating its own singularity). The scientist missed that point, mineature black holes is what the creators of star trek were arguing, not the natural variety. If you take a close look at warp 9 = 257x speed of light, you will come to understand just how powerful the effect of a mineature black hole is (if it existed at all). When the warp drive is up, you would notice that you would have created your own gravitational buggle that cancels out your the external enertial effects, thus protecting you from the sudden speed changes. The other nice effect that the warp drive would cause is that all objects of lesser gravity than yours would be pushed aside (deflected) as you move through space, but will be pushed back as you pass (that is why the deflector dish is needed in the star treck ships, its just an overgrown particle accelerator/emmiter.

I hope that is enough info for you who is theorising on using gravity as a form of engine core. I am looking 4ward to replys

[StarLab]

Katz, your website literally just highlighted every single "idea" that posters have come up with over the past few months...and I regret to say, not many people have been happy about it. I'm sorry, but whomever made that website has got his/her brain thinking backwards. I'm not aware of any credentials of the person who made that website. Mainly, and most sadly, that site is mostly about a Nova-ing sun...while that might be a possibility, the author of the site (who wrote it?) tries to expand this idea to say such things of heresy, such as the Nova was responsible for the death of the dinosaurs, and for the eventual climb of primates on earth, and actually rebukes Darwinian theory...so, I'm sorry, but that website has gone too far. Don't pay any attention to it!

[bob338]

Nexxus,
For you to be referring to Star Trek is questionable in the area of credibility.

[bob338]

Starlab,

"heresy" is a religious word not belonging in science.

"Darwinian Theory" is already rejected by many schools teaching our children.

"Relativity" is the only government project not having its funding pulled this budget, and will be put to the test now in outer space, which will determine its validity. 70 years is long enough to not have tested that theory.

Whether or not the results of that test pass or fail, remains to be seen. But should it fail, not many scientists will be very "happy" about it either. This matters not, it simply is. Oh well!

So whats your point?

[bob338]

And Starlab

While credentials are very nice, have you realized yet that Einstein was a dropout without credentials?

Cheers

[John L]

Originally posted by bob338@Jun 11 2004, 09:27 AM
"Relativity" is the only government project not having its funding pulled this budget, and will be put to the test now in outer space, which will determine its validity. 70 years is long enough to not have tested that theory.

The precision with which it is being tested is being increased with the GPB. This isn't the first test, and it won't be the last.

[Atomic Mojo]

what ever happened to gravity probe b