Gravity faster than light?

As a point of curiosity and more to the point the fact that i cant be bothered to trawl the net for an answer i ask you guys a question:

As we know the speed of light is fixed and supposedly nothing shouldnt be able to go faster.

however i was thinking would the effects of a new or a change of a gravity source propogate out at the same speed as light, or would the effects be felt at a different time?

Any ideas/or answers?

bum_phantom

Well... that depends on how you define gravity.. gravity doesn't move, so I don't think you could give it any certain speed.


But, for matters of interest, if it DID have a speed, well...

Light can escape the earth, so light is certainly faster than the earth's gravity. Light can be bent by gravity. Light cannot escape a black hole, so the black hole's gravity must be faster than light.

my 2c

Hi--

Good question--and Gravity faster than Light actually is possible. I think one of the major blockages in Physics regards it's division into 2 distinct Schools of Thought and Theory. At this juncture, there seems to be no middle ground in that, but, there are a few Physicists beginning to embrace both sides. Those "sides" are Particle Physics and Quantum Physics. The later is responsible for the recent and widely accepter UTF.

Personally, I believe that both the 2nd Theory of Relativity and the Plank Constant are correct. What is going to eventually come of it all, I believe, is a 3rd School, and I like to call that Zero Point Physics.

Plank's Constant, E=hF states that Energy equals the frequency of a Wave, while The 2ndToR states the Energy = Mass * the speed of light squared. That The speed of Light is a constant in the ToR is a factor only when you are dealing with particulate matter--things with mass. "C" however, is NOT a constant when dealing with Waves. For instance, it has been long theorized that a Photon--a Light Particle-- can also be a Wave form--e.g.--a massless piece, or "Quantum", of Energy. It has been demonstrated in repeatable experiments that a Photon has exceeded the speed of light and by a factor of 1.7 when fired at a quartz target.

Now, my own Theory for Zero Point postulates that: as Resonance(Frequency in Hz) increases, Mass decreases. IOW-- Resonance and Mass are inversely proportional. When the Resonance of a Particle is increased (becomes more "energetic") such that it looses all mass, in other words, becomes a Wave, eg, changes states, the Zero Point is reached and the Physical Behavior of the object changes to that of an Energy Pulse--the Quantum of Quantum Physics.

In your case with this post, increasing the Resonance of a Particle beyond the Zero Point can give it the property to exceed Light Speed, as it is uninhibited by Mass. It is only Mass that cannot exceed the speed of light. For a particle to achieve that would require infinite energy as the Mass itself would become infinite. Yet, for a mass-less wave or "energy pulse" almost no extra energy would be required to achieve several times light speed. We have the technology to work with Particulate Matter--split it--fuse it, etc. But, we have yet to develop technology regards Resonance--at least as regards Zero Point. It is an area yet to be explored.

This is enough for this post, I believe. I may come back and go deeper with this if there is an interest. Meanwhile, I hope this helps you to understand the concept of your question.

Gravity does propagate at the speed light, therefore if the sun were to instantly just disappear, the Earth would continue in its orbit until we could see that the light from the sun has disappeared (approximately 8 minutes). At that point Earth would just fly off in a straight line into space.

Originally posted by Ed Littlefox


In your case with this post, increasing the Resonance of a Particle beyond the Zero Point can give it the property to exceed Light Speed, as it is uninhibited by Mass. It is only Mass that cannot exceed the speed of light. For a particle to achieve that would require infinite energy as the Mass itself would become infinite.

How much energy would it take to increase the resonance of the particle to achieve zero point? E=mc2?

Interesting... thanks guys.

Does provide some food for thought.

The wave resonance idea provides alot to think about...

phantom

Originally posted by Ed Littlefox

It is only Mass that cannot exceed the speed of light. For a particle to achieve that would require infinite energy as the Mass itself would become infinite.

It isn't only mass that's limited to the speed of light, according to generally accepted theory, no information can travel faster than the speed of light. If gravity were to propagate faster than the speed of light, than the information on the locations of mass would be transferred, breaking that rule. Quantum entangled particles I think theoretically do react to changes in their pair faster than the speed of light, but there is also a random element to it, making it impossible to really transmit information via entangled particles.

Originally posted by ultralo1
How much energy would it take to increase the resonance of the particle to achieve zero point? E=mc2?

Darned good question. I don't know---yet. Like any other Theoretical Physics--there is a lot of math to be done between an Idea and a solution leading to a device that can generate Frequencies into the GoogleHz range. But, I tend to believe that the Zero Point comes well before one reaches that frequency of Resonance.

We already know, via the UFT, that Gravity becomes Weak Force becomes Strong Force becomes Electro-magnetism due to a change in Resonance. Looking at those 4 Forces manifested as Particles, we have Gravitons for Gravity, Gluons for Strong Force, Photons for Electromagnetism, and there are 4 varieties of Boson--W+, W-, Z-zero, and Higgs, which account for the Weak Force. Understand that of all of the Four Forces, Gravity is the weakest, having a strength figure of only 10 to the -38 as compared to the Weak Force (radiation released via Electron Neutrino activity) which has a strength figure of 10 to the -13. The Strong Force is that of the Gluon at a strength factor of 1.

Now, Resonance and Frequency are Decibel functions. You are dealing with Harmonic jumps rather than stepped shifts of, say, 1 Hz at the time. So, the energy required to raise the Frequency of, say, a 5 pound steel ball such that it lost enough mass to levitate may not be that much if it were accomplished by inductive absorption.

To see this principle in action, you need look no further than your Microwave. This device cooks food by inducing resonance to the point that heat is produced by the friction of it's own vibrating mass. It actually does this by LOWERING the natural resonance of the food being cooked. I'll tell you how and why later.

Straight answer--though almost totally unknown at the moment--is that probably not as much as it might seem when you consider how it may be achieved.

Hope this helps.

Gravity isnt faster thain the speed of light its just a force. it has no speed because it just is there around anything that has any mass. Gravity does efect light because it can cause light to bend but other thain that it is just a force around things and does not have a speed.

Originally posted by whatukno
Gravity isnt faster thain the speed of light its just a force. it has no speed because it just is there around anything that has any mass. Gravity does efect light because it can cause light to bend but other thain that it is just a force around things and does not have a speed.

You are correct, Whatukno; Gravity is a property of Mass. In fact, though we have named a Particle "Graviton" as the vessel that carries gravitational Force, it's actual existence has yet to be proved. IOW, Gravitons have never been detected directly. I do think that "Gravity faster than Light" is somewhat of a confusing piece of terminology. I believe that David Sereda coined it in explaining the Galaxy Clock Theory. The only reason Gravity is even included in the Physics of the World of the Very Small is because it IS a Force--just a negligible one on an atomic level. Gravity is not a factor in Zero Point, either, since matter at Zero Point has 0 Mass, and therefore, no Gravity, but can become faster than Light.

Originally posted by Ed Littlefox

Now, Resonance and Frequency are Decibel functions. You are dealing with Harmonic jumps rather than stepped shifts of, say, 1 Hz at the time. So, the energy required to raise the Frequency of, say, a 5 pound steel ball such that it lost enough mass to levitate may not be that much if it were accomplished by inductive absorption.

To see this principle in action, you need look no further than your Microwave. This device cooks food by inducing resonance to the point that heat is produced by the friction of it's own vibrating mass. It actually does this by LOWERING the natural resonance of the food being cooked. I'll tell you how and why later.

Firstly I am neither a theroitical or a physicist.

I do understand frequencies and resonances and a little harmonic resonances. Surely there is some thing out there that can resonante at frequencies we currently have. What exactly are you try to get to resonate, a particle, an atom, a molicule? I cant wrap my mind around what you are trying to do. The best I can come up with is:

Trying to make something vibrate at a specific frequency.

How are you going to put energy into the particle and exite it to the resonance freq?

Can you calculate the res Freq of a particle?

What is your definition of a particle? Sub atomic? Quantum?

Also in your previous post you stated your theory as

"as Resonance(Frequency in Hz) increases, Mass decreases. IOW-- Resonance and Mass are inversely proportional. When the Resonance of a Particle is increased (becomes more "energetic") such that it looses all mass, in other words, becomes a Wave, eg, changes states, the Zero Point is reached and the Physical Behavior of the object changes to that of an Energy Pulse--the Quantum of Quantum Physics. "

Then when you "change state", going from matter (has mass) to Wave (no mass), then arent you proving E=mc2. If you have to excite (add energy) to a particle to increase its frequency until it turns to a wave then didnt you just convert matter into energy?

And if I understand you correctly, then couldnt I take a photon and remove energy( slow its freq) and turn it to a pure particle?

Could you clarify please. I find your hypothesis interesting.

[edit on 24-1-2007 by ultralo1]

Nothing can travel faster than the speed of light in a vacuum (aka c). That includes gravitational fields. As was mentioned before, if the Sun disappeared suddenly, we would stay in orbit until we actually saw that it disappeared.

Ed Littlefox, you must have misinterpreted that thing you read about photons exceeding the speed of light in quartz. Although the speed of light in a vacuum is a constant, light actually slows down when it encounters a medium (air, glass, water, etc). However, charged particles such as electrons can be shot at a medium and enter it above its local speed of light. This results in Cherenkov radiation:
en.wikipedia.org...
I'm 99% sure that this is what you were referring to. If you weren't, then show me the link, as I suspect it must have been some quack site.

So yeah, your theory is mostly wrong. Sorry. Photons, by the way, don't have mass, but they have energy that is directly proportional to their frequency. (Yes, it's called frequency, not "resonance").

As for the guy who mentioned black holes, black holes don't keep light from escaping by having gravitational fields somehow faster than the speed of light. Instead, it's because the fields are so powerful near black holes that escape velocity exceeds the speed of light.

Originally posted by ultralo1
Firstly I am neither a theroitical or a physicist.

The best I can come up with is:

Trying to make something vibrate at a specific frequency.

How are you going to put energy into the particle and exite it to the resonance freq?

Can you calculate the res Freq of a particle?

What is your definition of a particle? Sub atomic? Quantum?

Also in your previous post you stated your theory as

"as Resonance(Frequency in Hz) increases, Mass decreases. IOW-- Resonance and Mass are inversely proportional. When the Resonance of a Particle is increased (becomes more "energetic") such that it looses all mass, in other words, becomes a Wave, eg, changes states, the Zero Point is reached and the Physical Behavior of the object changes to that of an Energy Pulse--the Quantum of Quantum Physics. "

Then when you "change state", going from matter (has mass) to Wave (no mass), then arent you proving E=mc2. If you have to excite (add energy) to a particle to increase its frequency until it turns to a wave then didnt you just convert matter into energy?

And if I understand you correctly, then couldnt I take a photon and remove energy( slow its freq) and turn it to a pure particle?

Could you clarify please. I find your hypothesis interesting.

Hi,

I am going to try to answer at least some of your questions:

How are you going to put energy into the particle and excite it to the resonance freq?

I think it can be done by induction in a similar way as a tuning fork resonates an instrument string without contacting it. Tesla caused a 75 pound cannon ball to levitate by inducing a high frequency electromagnetic wave into it. The ball absorbed the energy and lost mass to the point that it levitated off the table.

Can you calculate the res Freq of a particle?

Yes, it can be calculated, and it is done every day by nuclear physicists working with particle accelerators.

What is your definition of a particle? Sub atomic? Quantum?

A "particle" is a 3+1(Time) dimensional body of matter. a "Quantum" is a bundle, string, or toroid of energy defined as equal in strength to a Photon;
10 to the -2. a Quantum has no detectable Mass. while a Particle does.

And if I understand you correctly, then couldn't I take a photon and remove energy( slow its freq) and turn it to a pure particle?

Yes, you could. In fact, this is essentially how a LASER works, and why Cold Light can burn holes in steel--or diamonds. A LASER is a particle beam device and the particles that do the damage are "hard" photons.

Then when you "change state", going from matter (has mass) to Wave (no mass), then aren't you proving E=mc2. If you have to excite (add energy) to a particle to increase its frequency until it turns to a wave then didn't you just convert matter into energy?

Yes, again. We are not saying the Einstein was wrong. Matter and Energy are the same thing by E=mc2. TOR2 states also that Mass cannot achieve the speed of Light. That is true, but only for Mass Particles. Max Plank's Constant is E=hF, which essentially states that Energy increases with Frequency. My "Zero Point" Theory attempts to marry these two Formulas
into a single and unified concept which recognizes that Infinite Mass/Infinite Energy at near light speed is not necessarily a brick wall.

What I postulate is that, if you increase the Resonance of a Mass it becomes LESS massive. If you relate that to weight as a function of Gravity, the Mass becomes progressively lighter in weight as it's Frequency (Resonance) increases. For a Mass under Gravity, eventually a point would be reached where the object would levitate. As the process continued, it would likely leave the planet at some point under high acceleration, using Gravity itself as propulsion. Further, if the Mass object contained a propulsion unit, as the Frequency continues to increase, the less energy would b required to drive the Mass forward. Further still, by Plank's Constant, the Less Massive the Mass becomes, the more Energy it inherently has. Eventually, that Energy becomes infinite, but the Mass does NOT--and that is the important thing. Essentially the limits of E=mc2 breaks down at the Zero Point and E=hF takes over.

Hope this helps you, Ultralo

So much arrogance ( not the mention the resulting ignorance - cdrn-whatukno-djohnsto77 ) and so little time! If only i did not have to work for a living maybe i could personalize my responses as much as i normally do and as much as the few deserving parties on this thread so deserves. I just don't understand why people feel the urge to respond with what is commonly accepted as 'true' without researching the alternatives.

metaresearch.org...

I would like someone to show how the universe can be made to 'work' with gravity being restricted to propagation at below light speed.

Stellar

[edit on 24-1-2007 by StellarX]

I am going to start with the laser statement first.

To my understanding the laser does its damage by giving up the energy of the beam( coherent photons) in the form of heat, when the beam strikes the surface. The photons do not change state and turn into particles. They follow the law of thermodynamics and convert energy to heat.

What are you calling "cold light"? UV? nonIR?

I think it can be done by induction in a similar way as a tuning fork resonates an instrument string without contacting it.

The tuning fork is coupled to the string by the air? yes

The canonball was coupled to the freq generator by the electromagnetic wave? Yes

Further still, by Plank's Constant, the Less Massive the Mass becomes, the more Energy it inherently has. Eventually, that Energy becomes infinite, but the Mass does NOT--and that is the important thing. Essentially the limits of E=mc2 breaks down at the Zero Point and E=hF takes over.

This is the part where you start loosing me. Maybe if you explain where the mass comes into the E=hF equation it would help me understand. Also
E= Energy
h=?
F=frequency

I could follow most everything else from your post. The abouve are just questions. I am not attempting to bust your theory. Thanks.

Originally posted by ultralo1
I am going to start with the laser statement first.

What are you calling "cold light"? UV? nonIR?

I think it can be done by induction in a similar way as a tuning fork resonates an instrument string without contacting it.

The tuning fork is coupled to the string by the air? yes

The canonball was coupled to the freq generator by the electromagnetic wave? Yes

Further still, by Plank's Constant, the Less Massive the Mass becomes, the more Energy it inherently has. Eventually, that Energy becomes infinite, but the Mass does NOT--and that is the important thing. Essentially the limits of E=mc2 breaks down at the Zero Point and E=hF takes over.

This is the part where you start loosing me. Maybe if you explain where the mass comes into the E=hF equation it would help me understand. Also
E= Energy
h=?
F=frequency

I could follow most everything else from your post. The abouve are just questions. I am not attempting to bust your theory. Thanks.

Hiya!
No problem, Ultralo

Maybe I should start myself by learning to spell Planck since I have mis-spelled it "constantly" in this whole, darned, thread

Ok. E= hF is a very simple way of stating the Energy (in Joules) of a quantized particle. "h" represents the Value -- (6.626 x 10 to the -34)J.s
(best I can do with that in text--maybe at some point I can paste the statement in proper notation). where "J" = Joules and "s"= Time in seconds. The "standard" used by Max Planck was that of Quantized Photons--e.g.--photons-as-waves at the speed of light. The "Joule" is the basic unit of Energy used both in Physics and Engineering. You can google that and see the formula for Joules. If you take my crappy notation above and add " x Frequency in Hertz" to it, you have Planck's Constant written in longhand.

On LASER, what I meant by "cold light" is that a LASER produces no appreciable heat until in interacts with a Target. You can't really "prove" that in Atmosphere because the beam is passing through substance. In the vacuum of Space, however, LASER beams are "cold" until they strike a target--when the energy carried by the Photons converts to heat.

Now, Back to E=hF and E=mc2 for a sec. Understand both the differences and likenesses of these two statements. Einstein's Universe is, and was, made of Mass; hence the field of Particle Physics. Particle Physicists view the Universe from the standpoint of Mass and the behavior of Mass Particles, e.g., "solid" Matter. Max Planck is the Father of Quantum Physics
and his Formula, E=hF, is the standard--or Constant--for that field of Physics. Quantum Physics deals with Waves, Resonance, and the behavior of Zero Mass, and views the Universe from the standpoint of "Quantization". It is that "particles" Vibrate--or Resonate at different Frequencies. Quantum Physicists see "particles" as "spinning"--more correctly, "Oscillating"-- at a given Frequency. Now, this is a bit of a stretch, but, it explains the difference between the two--and, actually, how they may blend via Zero Point.

It is well documented that the TOR breaks down at the Event Horizon of a Black Hole. The reason is because it is Theorized that Mass breaks down, and since the TOR deals with Mass, it has no tools to deal with Non-Mass. Quantum Physics, however, does not break down, and I feel that the physics of Black Holes can be explained and explored via Zero Point. Though the TOR defines Black Holes as Super-massive Objects, this may be a flawed idea. Zero Point would define Black Holes as Hyper Energy Objects. TOR says that Black Holes are Black because the Gravitation is so dense that the Escape Velocity from it exceeds the speed of light. My own postulate is that, if we had the instrumentation to detect and render Hyper Energetic Objects, then a Black Hole would be highly Luminous. Of Course, this is theoretical conjecture on both sides. But, it is freaking interesting, what?

Lastly, keep the questions coming, they make me and other's think, and that is what this is all about THINKING and looking for explanations of observed phenomena. That makes it worth exploring on a deep level.

Thanks for the "lessons". I will need a little time to digest the last post.

It is well documented that the TOR breaks down at the Event Horizon of a Black Hole. The reason is because it is Theorized that Mass breaks down, and since the TOR deals with Mass, it has no tools to deal with Non-Mass. Quantum Physics, however, does not break down, and I feel that the physics of Black Holes can be explained and explored via Zero Point. Though the TOR defines Black Holes as Super-massive Objects, this may be a flawed idea. Zero Point would define Black Holes as Hyper Energy Objects. TOR says that Black Holes are Black because the Gravitation is so dense that the Escape Velocity from it exceeds the speed of light. My own postulate is that, if we had the instrumentation to detect and render Hyper Energetic Objects, then a Black Hole would be highly Luminous. Of Course, this is theoretical conjecture on both sides. But, it is freaking interesting, what?

E=mc2
E=hF

The only thing in common with both of these is E. So if E increses in the particle (E=mc2) then at some point the particle resonates and when there is enough E in the particle it will resonate fast enough to change states into a wave (E=hF). Yes?

Could this be when enough energy is pumped into the particle the reasonace is so strong it litterally tear itself apart? That there is enough energy to over come the bonds inside of teh particles?

If my understanding is correct, then at the event horizion energy is added to the particles until they reach the change of state. So where would the energy come from that is needed to change state? Gravity? Radiation?

Also, where does the inverse square come into play in the wave. I know that with X-Rays if you double the distance from the source then the the energy of the ray is reduced by the square. Is that the energy of the "quantum" or the "speed" at which it is traveling?

www.pbs.org...

Watch the segment "A New Picture of Gravity".

Well, I have to admit you guys might aswell be speaking Klingon, but I have recently watched these 2 videos and he seems to have a total theory and explains it using the same dialect you guys are using....

Evidence: The Case For NASA UFO's - Part 1

Evidence: The Case For NASA UFO's - Part 2

They run for about an hour and a half each so haven't posted them using the new Google video, as am unsure as to whether they effect ATS traffic.

I found them very interesting, but I also like bright shiney objects.

[edit on 26-1-2007 by Cocker]