so you think because information is not light that it could have its speed increased? All forces, particles or effects that do not involve rest mass that I know of travel at the same speed. That speed is called the speed of light but its more fundamental then that.

And relativity has been shown to work in about any big scale and high energy scale there is except one. Quantum mechanics. mix tiny length and time scales with huge masses and energy and there is no good theory for predicting what happens.

Maybe I'm wrong in this, but you seem to like how the universe is shown to work. If so perhaps you should come to terms with how things are instead of alluding to people being stupid or shortsighted or whatever you were trying for:

I stopped keeping count of my colleagues who didn't consider them physicists, since they deal with unfalsifiable ideas, or at best (because quite a few things are testable in some flavors of string theories) completely speculative and a terrible waste of time at this point, the consequence of the standard model being too successful for the last 30 years.

What is the speed of the propagation of gravity?
(Or to use a particle that has never been observed: how fast do Gravitons travel?)

If you can come up with an answer, how would you test it? It's really really hard to make a large mass (eg, the moon) vanish instantaneously in order to observe the effects.

the force of gravity's effects are the same speed as the force of electricity's. Correct calculations of orbits require the speed be involved because of the distances. The best tests though for gravity involve massive bodies orbiting each other. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravitational_wave is an ok intro.

It is easy to look back at silly theories and believes and dismiss them with a laugh. But that is what people are going to be doing to you in a few hundred or thousand years. You dont know everything and everything you think you do know could be disproven or shown to be poorly constructed tomorrow. People laughed at how silly star treks warp drive was years ago but now there are working theories that follow a similar idea. Arrogance at ones own superiority is always a bad thing. Stop assuming the worst in fiction and instead embrace the possibilities that lie within. Youll be a much happier person... and you'll be amazed at how much more fun games will be as a result when your not sitting there fuming at how 'wrong' the science is.

That page has nothing that I understand as indicating the speed of gravitational propagation.

Looking up electricity though (which I already knew):



So...

um did you read the "Introduction"? Do you realize saying the speed of the wave is the same as saying the speed of propagation of the field? And do you know the electric field in a conductor is slower than the speed of light in a vacuum because of the material?

a gravitational wave or electromagnetic wave are just the propagation of changes made to a field. The speed such waves (any wave really) is a function of the material properties it is passing through (yes this includes vacuum where there is no real material).

and it seems I missed a much more obvious link http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speed_of_gravity careful when reading it though to look for citations. I noticed a few bits of speculation.

While that's all well and good, my point was:

Measure it. Actually measure the speed of propagation.

um measuring the speed of the wave IS the same as measuring the speed of propagation. square waves are not the only type of wave one can measure to determine speed. Any sort of wave works just fine. And remember F= G M1 M2 / R^2
so the masses are only part of the equation. changing R, or observing an object whose distance is changing, works just as well as anything.

As there is no time component to that equality, I fail to see how you can measure the speed of the wave.

And just so you know, I'm not doing this because I think its wrong.

why would there be time in a force equation? If you do not understand how the force equation can be formed into a wave equation, but want to learn how then you need to get some texts on physics and get good at math. I'm not going to do a derivation on that for you it takes way too long for coulombs law and Lorentz law, I have not had to do a gory derivation yet with general relativity and don't plan to. I have much better ways to spend a day or more.

Whoops, not thinking.

Again all that is great. All I am doing is taking a very simple stance. There may be things we don't know a new energy a new particle a new environment, a new something we don't even know how to currently label that allows things we currently think are impossible. I am not alluding to people being dumb or anything else insulting. I am saying we should never assume that we have it all figured out and that what we know can't be shown to be wrong in the future. While I don't think it will be something to show it is totally wrong, I do think it is possible we may find something that works in ways that seem to ignore the laws of physics as we currently know them. Like I said it baffles me that we think we have it completely figured out right this time, no one knows what the future can bring.

well I'll not argue against the optimism of ignorance, but I will say quantum entanglement is not the magic you are hoping for. useful? potentially yes, but not for FTL anything it doesn't work like that.

I guess the question would be, Daylen, is this...

Do you acknowledge that there may be some scientific breakthrough, sometime in the future, that may possibly invalidate what has come before, if only in some small way?

To not at least give a nod to that premise shows a great deal of arrogance within the scientific community... I do not think that we have discovered everything out there that is possible to discover, and at some point we may indeed find something that will revolutionize some aspect of our lives that we previously though impossible... It is only a matter of time in my opinion, even if I do not live to see it happen. We have had more scientific advancement within the last hundred years than the previous 200 years before... to assume we have finally mastered all there is to master is sheer hubris. And is a somewhat ignorant stance to take as well.

Without putting words into Shinobi Killfist's mouth, I think that this is what he is driving at...

Keep the Faith

I am certain that relativity will not be invalidated. I am fairly confidant quantum mechanics will not be invalidated. I do not have any illusions that we know everything. There are many subjects in physics I am still waiting for a solution to be found for. However, I have no misconceptions that if we just learn enough we can make the universe seem like a space opera.

Through my studies I have learned the universe works how it works and the best mortals can do is change their intuition on how it should work to match and not try and impose anything on it. Imposing ones will on physics is an act of futility.

So you do admit, though, that the Universe as we know it now, is likely not the totality of said Universe? I care nothing for the Space Opera, as you put it...

That was All I was asking...

And, When it comes to the Universe, your studies will never be complete...

Keep the Faith

Well I would not want to refer to it as an ignorant stance, but that is what I am basically driving at. I see it more as a philosophical difference and not one out of ignorance on either parties part. It is sort of like how some religious beliefs totally baffle me, but I don't consider people ignorant for believing them. Relativity is an area where I do not think there will be much of a change outside of something completely bizarre as we currently understand things, like a manufactured element that does not gain mass for some unfathomable reason. Or to go back to mass effect some kind of mystical super transporter hubs that remove all mass from objects between two points. Stupendously unlikely, but who really knows what someone will invent in the future. But for things like quantum entanglement communications I can see us having something there we discover ways to watch the particles without changing them and being able to translate the changes we see into language. Then unless they invent something else totally bizarre like spacial folding the information wont travel faster than light and even with spacial folding it really isn't its just traveling a shorter distance. though again if they invent unobtanium or whatever fake science thing that defies relativity cool, its possible though highly unlikely. I just don't understand the no it wont happen stance, most likely wont sure I agree with that. The idea of an absolute no it will never happen baffles me, but I don't consider some one ignorant for thinking that way.

hi hi

When we figure out time travel, then we'll figure out FTL and not a moment before. (pun intended)

In the strictest sense, yes, anything is possible including but not limited to: being chopped into a million pieces by space ninja, reassembled and sent back in time to win the presidency as abraham lincoln and the battle of 1812. The real question is probability, and the probability of some things happening is very small.

It is generally safe to discount what may or may not be "discovered" in the future when figuring out science in the present.

We have absolutely no idea what the future might bring. There's too many possibilities. Therefore it serves little purpose to try to account for future discoveries. If it happens, great. But you cannot depend on it.



-karma

Which was exactly my point... My premise did not imply that I was actually depending on it... It was put forth to demonstrate that the belief that we will never find something new scientifically, something that may challenge our current scientific beliefs, is the height of arrogance. We do NOT know everything there is to know about Science today, and anyone who claims that we do has blinders on...

Keep the Faith

Uh, if you try to describe an advanced theory of gravity (like, using general relativity), you don't use this equation. And a theory with propagation would use a retarded potential (so a retarded force), while yours is really static, and thus assumes either short distance or a static regime.

Because Force is a function of your potential and your potential, as soon as you leave a static/short distance approximation, involves time through what we call "retarded potential".

Are you trying to have a geek fight over what equations should be used when talking to laymen or are you trying to argue that the only way to measure the speed of propagation of gravity is to make a planet's mass go to 0 very quickly?

Neither. I'm am no cosmologist and I don't know shit about general relativity - so there's no way I could give the right equations. I just pointed out that using this equation to talk about propagation of gravitational forces* is inappropriate, because it is an approximation that doesn't involve time and thus cannot describe propagation.

*Not results from CLIO/LIGO/etc. yet, so no proof of their existence.

its not inappropriate for this level of discussion, unless you think coulombs law would be inappropriate for talking about E&M waves. If you do think that; then there isn't any way I know of to talk to those not intimately familiar with relativity about such topics other than: Its that way because a wizard made it so.

Now it all makes sense!