Quest to settle riddle over Einstein's theory may soon be over

False premise: "The researchers' calculations show that if gravitational waves are found to travel at the speed of light, this would rule out alternative gravity theories, with no dark energy, in support of Einstein's Cosmological Constant. If however, their speed differs from that of light, then Einstein's theory must be revised."

Authors evidently unaware of Planck's original quantum theory, which was based on an electrronic model of the atom. There is proof that an electronic model accounts for the forces of gravity ("The Secret of Gravity" --- with proofs), in which gravity waves travel at the speed of light. False assumption, and probable vast disagreements between theory and measurements.

Read more at: https://phys.org/...html#jCp

"Scientists from the University of Edinburgh have discovered that the puzzle could be resolved by determining the speed of gravity in the cosmos from a study of gravitational waves -space-time ripples propagating through the universe."

Important difference between the speed of gravity and the speed of gravitational waves. Newtonian gravity is instantaneous because the gravitational fields of the gravitating bodies follow right along with the bodies.

@Seek 'Newtonian gravity is instantaneous' Yeah- so is Newtonian EM! We've all got a little further than that!
Do try to keep up and stop staring out the window.

Gravity does not distort space/time linearly, except at the very first instant, the very center instant and the very last, because the "gravity well" is in motion at a different momentum relative to that space/time. Kind of a de-connect, to reconnect. Could well show a "bow-wave" effect.

@Seek 'Newtonian gravity is instantaneous' Yeah- so is Newtonian EM! We've all got a little further than that!
Do try to keep up and stop staring out the window.

Static fields are there waiting on you when you get there. It's not like turning on the switch and waiting for the light to come on.

Gravity does not distort space/time linearly, except at the very first instant, the very center instant and the very last, because the "gravity well" is in motion at a different momentum relative to that space/time. Kind of a de-connect, to reconnect. Could well show a "bow-wave" effect.

Gravity has momentum? Just checking.

Gravity does not distort space/time linearly, except at the very first instant, the very center instant and the very last, because the "gravity well" is in motion at a different momentum relative to that space/time. Kind of a de-connect, to reconnect. Could well show a "bow-wave" effect.

Gravity has momentum? Just checking.

It's a field generated by matter (which, in almost all cases, has differing momentum within space/time).

@Seek 'Newtonian gravity is instantaneous' Yeah- so is Newtonian EM! We've all got a little further than that!
Do try to keep up and stop staring out the window.

Static fields are there waiting on you when you get there. It's not like turning on the switch and waiting for the light to come on.

Seeker2

Static gravitational fields don't logically imply gravity is instantaneous and doesn't travel at the speed of light.
The solar constant is also like a static field in the very narrow sense it is fairly constant. Does that imply light from the Sun is instantaneous and doesn't travel at the speed of light?

also see
https://en.wikipe...Graviton
-point; don't gravitons travel at the speed of light?
Why would they be the exception to the rule?

Static gravitational fields don't logically imply gravity is instantaneous and doesn't travel at the speed of light.

Static gravitational fields are there waiting on you as soon as you get there.

The solar constant is also like a static field in the very narrow sense it is fairly constant. Does that imply light from the Sun is instantaneous and doesn't travel at the speed of light?

How can light not travel at the speed of light?

-point; don't gravitons travel at the speed of light?

Gravitons propagate gravitational radiation, not gravitational fields.Actually per Erik Verlinde gravitons are really phonons.

Maybe the expansion of space isnt speeding up, but instead it's time that is slowing down. Ever think of that? :-0)

Could be but so would your clocks so you would never know.

Maybe light just loses energy over time, which would lengthen its wavelength. Numerous processes in space could accomplish this, such as refraction, absorption, gravitational lensing, dispersion, etc. No expansion required.

Although gravity waves do move at the speed of light in a vacuum, much of the universe is not a vacuum. Therefore, this problem is not as simple as has been assumed. Some 80 percent of the universe is made of hydrogen, so the first approach would be to determine the effect of hydrogen. Since gravity is an electromagnetic effect, the gravitational electromagnetic wave will be slowed accordingly. Therefore, this thesis indicates a somewhat slower average speed for gravitational waves, with variation in the measurements in accordance. Perhaps a somewhat "noisy" set of measurements.

universe does not expand.
CMBR has orgin in space where is always NOW
http://article.sc....11.html

Maybe light just loses energy over time, which would lengthen its wavelength.

Tired light hypothesis. Look it up. Doesn't work (even its inventor came to the conclusion).

Maybe light just loses energy over time, which would lengthen its wavelength. Numerous processes in space could accomplish this, such as refraction, absorption, gravitational lensing, dispersion, etc. No expansion required.

Maybe light just loses energy over time, which would lengthen its wavelength.

Tired light hypothesis. Look it up. Doesn't work (even its inventor came to the conclusion).

It's inventor never saw the CMB did he?

Although gravity waves do move at the speed of light in a vacuum, much of the universe is not a vacuum. Therefore, this problem is not as simple as has been assumed. Some 80 percent of the universe is made of hydrogen, so the first approach would be to determine the effect of hydrogen.

Which is about 6 atoms per cubic meter.

It's inventor never saw the CMB did he?

He knew about spectroscopy. If tired light were true spectroscopic lines wouldn't be shifted, They are shifted. Hence: tired light doesn't work.

Whatever happened to the tired light theory?

It didn't agree with observation. There's a name for theories that don't agree with observation: Failed theories.

universe does not expand.

at least the DE. It seems to be everywhere. Like a gas station everywhere you go.

Maybe light just loses energy over time, which would lengthen its wavelength.

Light in a vacuum pretty much travels at the speed of light, regardless of wavelength (frequency)...

Numerous processes in space could accomplish this, such as refraction, absorption, gravitational lensing, dispersion, etc.

Therefore, these will not change the true speed of light in a vacuum. Photons travelling between 2 electrons is at the true speed of light in a vacuum.

No expansion required.

I actually believe many scientists would think that same thing if the evidence supporting anything else could be shown with any sufficient verity.
However, it doesn't, so...
Doesn't mean that they aren't actively pursuing other potentials. That's what science is.

Which is about 6 atoms per cubic meter.

Pretty close to a vacuum, in my book...
Anybody else?

He knew about spectroscopy. If tired light were true spectroscopic lines wouldn't be shifted, They are shifted. Hence: tired light doesn't work.

Please explain how this makes sense. Redshift of all spectral lines supports a theory for tired light, over enough distance the microwave spectrum would dominate as it is the low end and uniformity is a given because eventually all photons would travel for enough time to be shifted into the microwave frequencies....exactly what we see....

It didn't agree with observation.

Actually, it just doesn't fit with the current "accepted" theory.

There's a name for theories that don't agree with observation: Failed theories.

The standard model doesn't agree with observation....until dark matter is found.

He knew about spectroscopy. If tired light were true spectroscopic lines wouldn't be shifted, They are shifted. Hence: tired light doesn't work.

Please explain how this makes sense. Redshift of all spectral lines supports a theory for tired light, over enough distance the microwave spectrum would dominate as it is the low end and uniformity is a given because eventually all photons would travel for enough time to be shifted into the microwave frequencies....exactly what we see....

Bschott,
I believe the disconnect is in how one views the mechanism of speed of light.
At it's very core (kinda like electricity), it is photon (energy packet) xchange between mass bodies. This exchange is what actually occurs at C. Only the frequency at witch it "rotates" is is diminished as a result of a new larger number of photons now travelling together.
(I hope I am explaining this clearly enough, as i am not that experienced in relaying actual "details"...)

I believe the disconnect is in how one views the mechanism of speed of light.
At it's very core (kinda like electricity), it is photon (energy packet) xchange between mass bodies. This exchange is what actually occurs at C.

So no mass no exchange no photons no light. Interesting.

I believe the disconnect is in how one views the mechanism of speed of light.
At it's very core (kinda like electricity), it is photon (energy packet) xchange between mass bodies. This exchange is what actually occurs at C.

So no mass no exchange no photons no light. Interesting.

Mass being a measure of velocity of motion, yes... And also, it happens on a scale we are not yet technologically sufficient to see... And that velocity a derivative of kinetic "charge" (spin).
Just cuz we can't see it, doesn't mean it isn't there. All a matter of scale...
It's so simple and fractal, I can hardly believe it, m'self...

I believe the disconnect is in how one views the mechanism of speed of light.
At it's very core (kinda like electricity), it is photon (energy packet) xchange between mass bodies. This exchange is what actually occurs at C.

So no mass no exchange no photons no light. Interesting.

Actually, no photons, no exchange, no mass...
Bear with me, still trying to figure out what might cause the initial photon to start the reaction... The fact that they all work in concert is what's puzzling... SOMEthing had to go first.

universe does not expand.

at least the DE. It seems to be everywhere. Like a gas station everywhere you go.

There being a distinction between growth and expansion. Spacetime feeds off the dark energy so the growth is exponential and the growth rate is the cosmological constant. So it appears today but in the early universe spacetime was compressed so it did expand as it cooled. The distinction being as it grows it maintains a constant temperature as long as the dark energy density remains constant.

An interesting and intractable problem when you only have two gravitational wave observatories; trivial when you have three. If you think about it you'll see why.

Solution to the "dark energy" problem:

Replace all references of "gravitational waves" to "shock waves". Now picture gravity as analogous to the silk strands of a spider web. Pull one node on the perimeter of that web and the entire web accommodates the stress placed on it immediately. Now consider the web as universal in scope, and the light from that node (star) taking millions of years to get to that node's opposite perimeter.

Calculations of dark matter are done by plotting celestial bodies' motion over time. Now, those stars are definitely not where they appear to be at the present time, but their gravitational influence interacts with the other celestial bodies in real time.

Astronomers are basing their DM conclusions on calculations that are actually based on this instantaneous behavior of gravity via this snapshot process, but continue to describe "gravity waves" and DM in the context of "gravity at the speed of light". Big conundrum.