Is gravity faster than light?

It's actually the same speed

File: hopkinsworld.jpg (339KB, 2048x1365px) Image search: [Google]

339KB, 2048x1365px

>yfw he would have made a much more menacing architect

File: interstellar.jpg (2MB, 3840x2160px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 3840x2160px

>>8500586
>Is gravity faster than light?

No, Alex, Interstellar lied about that detail.

>>8500586
is gravity wave or particle?

>>8500725
Yes

File: why not both.jpg (32KB, 636x396px) Image search: [Google]

32KB, 636x396px

>>8500725
>is gravity wave or particle?
Why not both?

>>8500725
neither
gravity is, strictly speaking, not a force, just like inertia
they are properties of spacetime, gravity is just you sliding "down" (i.e. towards the low-energy portion of) the curve of spacetime
the only force is the electro-weak force.
now to ask the 1000 point question: why are places where there is a lot of mass also places where the energy of spacetime is lowest?

>>8500586
If light goes anywhere near a black hole and doesn't escape then it obviously isn't faster than gravity.

>>8500780
Gravity is the displacement of of space/time by objects with mass.

As an object occupies space it curves it through its presence creating the phenomenon we call gravity.

>>8500725
That is a question which the definitive answer remains unknown, physicist that work on quantum field theory, interpret gravity as a fundamental interaction mediated by a particle (I.e. graviton), the particle hasn't been found experimentally yet. On the other side, there's general relativity, which is a macroscopic theory and understands gravity as >>8500802
said so. There is even a recent paper that interprets gravity as an emergent phenomena rather than a fundamental interaction...

>>8500586
Gravity is a field. I don't think they are mobile. So no.

>>8500802
If topology isn't real how can topology derived explanations be real?

>"""""spacetime""""" has a """""curve"""""

>>8500813
Gravity waves have been proven as fact.

>>8500817
it's not topology, it's simple thermodynamics
the energy of vacuum is higher where there is nothing than where there is something
so stuff gets pushed ever so slightly from where stuff isn't to where stuff actually is
this neatly explains both spacetime dilation and gravity and ties them with a neat little bow of we don't actually know wtf this vacuum thing is

>>8500811
>There is even a recent paper that interprets gravity as an emergent phenomena rather than a fundamental interaction

Just link that shit up senpai.

>>8500890
http://phys.org/news/2016-11-theory-gravity-dark.html

>>8500586
Gravitational waves propegate through vacuum at the speed of sound

>>8500897
>sound
you meant light, and dragging a vacuum into it isn't necessary, but yes that's correct.

The shit posters here claiming gravitational effects propagate instantly exceeding the speed of light are totally full of shit.

>>8500586
Gravity has the speed of the mass that causes it.

File: CWv5m.gif (1017KB, 218x180px) Image search: [Google]

1017KB, 218x180px

>>8500809
>tfw QM dismisses locality
>tfw QFT predicts gravity waves/"particles."
>tfw physical vectors in Hilbert space don't actually extend in a classically relativistic geometric fashion
>tfw confusing phenomenological and physical mechanics

>>8500829
Waves are fields...

>>8500813
So is light...

>>8500586
No all fields permeate at the speed of light.
So if you have two magnets in an isolated reference frame, and you move one of them. The other magnet will not be effected by the movement until the same amount of time light would need to travel between the two.
Now if Im doing psuedo science, we don't have a full understanding of space time. GR isnt a complete theory. You add in some theoretical dimensions and travel through that then yeah you could traverse a distance in seemingly faster. Imagine a square where you could only travel along the perimeter. But then in 2d you could cross the diagonal of the square. Gravity is tied heavily to space time so some nonsense like that isnt impossible.

>>8502186
>Waves emerge from fields.

FTFY

>>8500586
no it travels at the maximum speed of causality, which happens to be the speed of light

>>8502225
>happens
no its based on the permeability of space

>>8500809
but do all particles have mass? or only some?

what makes mass?

>>8502474
>what makes mass?
nobody knows, some people say the higgs boson.

>>8502229
brainlet detected

talk after you finish your STR course, kuk.

>>8502229
>>8502484

to add: the invariance of the speed of light is a higher principle than the fact that electromagnetic waves are travelling in vacuum with the speed of [math] c_{0}^{2} = \epsilon_{0} \mu_{0} [/math]

>>8502474
>what makes mass?
if we knew that, we would know everything.

>>8500586
Is gravity stronger than the strong nuclear force?

>>8502484
Try taking a GR course. they dont offer them in undergrad but Im sure you can ask to sit in on one.

>>8500586
No but darkness is

>>8502500
>he didn't have a mandatory GR course in his 4th semester.

Get out of my sight, pleb.

>>8502533
Oh yeah, another meme sci/entist.

You dont know what it is so just call it 'dark' something.

>>8502186
Waves are made of water therefore gravity waves are made of matter.

>>8500586
To add, why do gravitational waves move at the speed of light?