Is Gravity Faster than Light?

Discussion in 'General Science & Technology' started by Bowser, Jan 18, 2018.

  1. Michael 345 New year. PRESENT is 72 years oldl Valued Senior Member

    The only comment I would make is about hull speed
    This in effect puts the boat (particle? correct?) on top, ie outside? the field?

    Might submarine be better?

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  3. Write4U Valued Senior Member

    Indeed. The particle would be surrounded by the Higgs field and move through it, rather than on top of it.
    I forgot to add a qualification offered in the original quote above.

    However, I'm not sure if that would make any difference .
    Example: Air is at its densest at the surface of the water, a different medium altogether. Thus any particle lighter than air will also rise as far as its miniscule mass will allow and then swim through the air and still be subject to "hull speed" and/or carried by the Pilot waves of the air (wind) or water (gulf stream) itself.

    OTOH photons are much smaller than most particles with rest mass, and easily escape the dense sea of air surrounding the earth. We could draw a relative comparison between a photon surrounded but unaffected by air and smaller massless particles such as fermions and bosons surrounded but not be affected by the Higgs field.

    But in any case both water and air are already moving (swimming) through the Higgs field, but in a previously acquired massive state, which determines the behavioral potentials of each medium.
    Last edited: Feb 13, 2018
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  5. Q-reeus Banned Valued Senior Member

    Write4U, practically every speculative claim in #60 & #62 is wrong or misleading at best. Above is highlighted just a few glaring examples. Far better to ask questions rather than assert falsehoods. Because this is SF it all falls on deaf ears anyway so no great harm is done, but it's always best to consult an authority who really understands the relevant subject matter. Re Higgs:
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  7. Write4U Valued Senior Member

    Thanks for the response. I shall read the link and hopefully get a better understanding.
    As I indicated it was pure speculation on my part, so I did qualify the posit.

    I find it easier to present it as a possibility than as a question. I wouldn't know what to ask......

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    Q-reeus likes this.
  8. Bowser Namaste Valued Senior Member

    I appreciate the response to this thread, though I received more than I gambled. I have a difficult time with concepts I can't visualize, so much of it flew over my head. Nonetheless, I thank you.
    Q-reeus likes this.
  9. RainbowSingularity Valued Senior Member

    many suggest Gravity has no actual speed because it is like we are sitting in the middle of a sea of ice... an area that is real, has physical stuff.../atributes... but cant be moved by other things(this cant be moved by other things is another theory speculated similar to revisionist Quantum mechanics refering to Einstiens unified field theory.

    hope i didnt loose you there.

    maybe gravity does have a speed, or maybe only everything else has a speed relative to gravity...
    my guess is gravity does have a speed, per-say, but is reflected in a field relationship like saying the word "cup" ... we kinda know what it does, but need an awful lot more information to comprehend its dimensions and values etc...

    Thirdly 1st, is Gravity Faster Than light ?
    well, if light is a particle, then gravity is a mass
    if light is a wave, then gravity is a harmonic
    if the speed measurement of light is as a wave then so is gravity as a field between points..
    but thats the kinda hinky thing.

    it appears that gravity can potentially exist in 2 different places, effecting the same thing which is also present in 2 different places...
    kinda like suddenly having twins snap into existance as soon as you put a hat on one of them.
    this is the new form of shrodengers that refers to particle duality.
  10. Bowser Namaste Valued Senior Member

    The original video I had watched was about string theory. It suggested gravity existed as a multi dimensional string that moved from one point to another. They were not too elaborate on how fast it moved but gave a subtle hint that, if true, it might serve as a form of interstellar communication. The idea was interesting and I was hungry to learn more. Hence, my original post.
  11. RainbowSingularity Valued Senior Member

    ok, so your referring to quantum duality via quantum entanglement for dual particle theory for communication.
    yes this is currently being worked on.

    String theory is variant harmonic science.(speaking very loosely)

    The part about using string theory for communication is actually a later developed theory that has very strong potential scientific fact.
    it is inside a theory.
    as mentioned it relates to schrodengers on a particle level, though the String theory is like a variation on the existing construct.
    strings being smaller than particles ... strings having harmonic resonance that creates sounds/matter/collective reality etc etc...

    personally i think string theory is quite interesting, i do not rule out bubble theory either and ponder that both may be co-existant.

    generically speaking, this observed particle duality...
    when attached to string theory...
    suggests the ability to build devices like radios which can use some laymans form of Radio-frequency, to spontaniousely transmit from one point to another without actualy taking any time to do so.
    thus duality....
    this would revolutionise things like drones, robots, planetary satalites... driving Rovers over other planets(moon included) etc etc...

    the theory is there, the science is trying to cach up to it.
  12. Michael 345 New year. PRESENT is 72 years oldl Valued Senior Member

    As far as I can understand gravity works like this

    It exist as a field. Think of a spherical shaped gravity field the size of the Universe

    Convert that image into a spherical shaped gravity field into spherical shaped drop of water the size of the Universe

    Add into the gravity field image all the objects of the Universe

    Add into the drop of water image fish which mimic the variety and moments of the Universe objects

    As the Universe objects move through the gravity field they set up disturbances

    Same deal with the fish in the drop of water

    The disturbances spread throughout the medium (gravity field - water) at the speed of light leaving the mass (gravity field - water) still

    Only the wave moves, or more precise, propagates

    Now all I need to do is work out the attraction part

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

  13. DaveC426913 Valued Senior Member

    Light is a massless particle. If it had mass, it could not move at c.
    Attempts to formulate gravity as a particle will almost certainly model it as a massless particle, Like light - if it moves at c, it must be massless.
    Write4U likes this.
  14. RainbowSingularity Valued Senior Member

    i did not articulate that very well.
    i was postulating the alternative correlation to Wave Vs Particle
    let me try again...
    Light when it is a photon
    applying schodenger.... thus, Gravity exists in relation to Light as a Photon as we observe it.
    When light is a Wave Gravity must be something else...(what?)
  15. DaveC426913 Valued Senior Member

    A field. Curvature in spacetime.
  16. Janus58 Valued Senior Member

    Light is electromagnetic radiation, for which the smallest unit (or quantum) for any given frequency is the photon.
    There is also the electromagnetic field, (which is responsible for the attraction/repulsion for magnetic pole and electric charges. )
    In QED, the electromagnetic field is mediated by by the exchange of virtual[/u] photons.

    Gravitational waves are gravitational radiation, For which, the hypothetical* quantum is the graviton.
    There is also the gravitational field (which is responsible for the attraction between masses)
    In a Quantum Gravity theory*, the gravitational field would be expected to be mediated by virtual gravitons.

    Gravitons/gravitational waves would bear the same relationship to the Gravitational field as Photons/electromagnetic waves do the electromagnetic field.

    * As of yet, no one has been able to develop a verified quantum theory for gravity which would unify Quantum Mechanics and General Relativity the way that QED does for Quantum mechanics and Special Relativity.
  17. Q-reeus Banned Valued Senior Member

    Being way too kind to yourself. In truth you have been spewing out crackpot nonsense. Kindly refrain from further polluting this or any subsequent threads in the Science sub-forums. You will be less out of place engaging in the political/social/fringe arenas. Where almost anything passes as fair comment.
  18. RainbowSingularity Valued Senior Member

    Glass half full in a vacuum...
    is the glass stilll only half full when there is nothing in the other half ?
    note there is always something else in the other half of the glass(air etc) Refering to our perceptual idea of percieving a "thing" Glass and then being able to quantify it as having a full measure(Galaxy Rotation & missing Matter/(dark matter question) ?

    Thus the field....(how we define the field currently) Planets, Stars, Giants, Qwasars, Dwarfs, Black holes, Gravitational lensing etc...
    (i think i have painted myself into a philisophical corner here)

    Electromagnetic Harmonics... etc ?

    should we be able to see/measure Light being effected by Gravity ?
    (theory?) if yes, why can we not determine a speed from that observation ?(postulating question)
  19. RainbowSingularity Valued Senior Member

    When What ?
    yet here you do not finish your sentence... suggesting your rambling and lost your point(Crack-Pot Rambling?).
    lack of proof reading ?(am i being way too kind?)
  20. Q-reeus Banned Valued Senior Member

    My comments in that quoted post were quite in order, and that you think otherwise reflects badly on yourself. But that quick resort to hunting for one of my postings suggests you are not just a deranged individual but somewhat of a 'professional' with lots of forum experience.
    I'm hoping someone else here can sooner rather than later finger you as a sockpuppet. And btw the first two lines in your #75 is straight out TROLL.
  21. RainbowSingularity Valued Senior Member

    your obviosely a narcissist attempting to inflate your own ego online by trolling a new poster attempting to cash in on early hater clicks.
    im going to ignore you from now on.
  22. Q-reeus Banned Valued Senior Member

    That poor sentence structure reminds me of an evidently banned (the inconsistent use of banned banner at SF makes it hard to know for sure) former member - krash661. Hmmm.....
  23. Forceman May the force be with you Registered Senior Member

    • Please post on-topic. Also try to post something that makes sense.
    Purposizing gravity as G = M1 _M2 or the vector M2 - M1 = M0 or M2 + M_Z would equal the amount of times t + traised to the vector's power to reduce pressure T^Mth. No speculation about vectors going back like friction or EMP. Earth without the void of transitor space like earth's sister mercury doesn't revisit the moon into the 3rd dimension then rest at traised to the vec power abs(9) or 8 then acceleration then the equation E= mc0(9) + T.

Share This Page