Einstein is Right, again.

Crown · Post by **Crown** » 2003-01-08 12:44pm

Well what a suprise, the greatest genius of our time (and perhaps of all time) has once again been proven right;

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/2639043.stm

It turns out that gravity does travel at light speed.

Now for us Sci-Fi guys this sorta makes it even harder to imagine FTL travel as anything more than fantasy. Oh well, back to the drawing board.

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2003-01-08 12:46pm

Einstein is a god. The man is still kicking ass long after his death. Way to go, Albert.

Durandal · Post by **Durandal** » 2003-01-08 02:47pm

His model for the universe's expansion was wrong ...

It's about time someone actually put this matter to rest, but it's long been assumed that gravity propagates at c due to the theoretical predictions of a massless carrier particle.

Zoink · Post by **Zoink** » 2003-01-08 03:37pm

Durandal wrote:His model for the universe's expansion was wrong ...

Einstein added a repulsive force to keep his universe from imploding... he said it was the biggest mistake of his life.

The funny thing is, a number of current main-stream theories now say that the universe is permiated with negative energy. This negative energy is required to explain observations that suggest the universe's expansion is speeding up.

Warspite · Post by **Warspite** » 2003-01-08 04:02pm

Zoink wrote:
Durandal wrote:His model for the universe's expansion was wrong ...
Einstein added a repulsive force to keep his universe from imploding... he said it was the biggest mistake of his life.

The funny thing is, a number of current main-stream theories now say that the universe is permiated with negative energy. This negative energy is required to explain observations that suggest the universe's expansion is speeding up.

Bah, Universe expansion is dictated by the Hubble Constant, and that's achieved through red-shift measurements of galaxies.
When the Big Bang Theory was created, there was also several other theories running for the prize, the Steady State Universe and the Fluctuating State Universe.
Einstein was in favour of the Steady State Theory, hence the mistake, after all, he's a human... Or isn't it?

Frankly, this can open new possibilities, know that we know more about gravity... The gravity drive is getting nearer and nearer everyday.

Post by **Colonel Olrik** » 2003-01-08 04:07pm

Zoink wrote:
Durandal wrote:His model for the universe's expansion was wrong ...
Einstein added a repulsive force to keep his universe from imploding... he said it was the biggest mistake of his life.

In his later years, he really messed up by not accepting quantum mechanics and trying to produce an impossible, due to limited knowledge and his own refusal of the quantic theory, Theory of Everything.

Zoink · Post by **Zoink** » 2003-01-08 04:35pm

Warspite wrote: Bah, Universe expansion is dictated by the Hubble Constant, and that's achieved through red-shift measurements of galaxies.

How is the universe's expansion governed by the hubble constant? Isn't it the other way around..?

You need to know how far away those galaxies are, that's what the astronomers did, calculate distance to supernova of known brightness, and compared it to red-shift. What they found is what they expected, distance/red-shift is not linear but depends on distance. What they didn't expect was that it is increasing.

I didn't take the measurements, so if you want you can argue with:

http://imagine.gsfc.nasa.gov/docs/ask_a ... 0210c.html

Durandal · Post by **Durandal** » 2003-01-08 05:17pm

Zoink wrote:
Warspite wrote:Bah, Universe expansion is dictated by the Hubble Constant, and that's achieved through red-shift measurements of galaxies.
How is the universe's expansion governed by the hubble constant? Isn't it the other way around..?

It's complementary. Since the universe's expansion is accelerating, the Hubble Constant isn't really constant ... that's just the amount that space is expanding at this particular epoc in the universe. As of now, it's about 72km/s/mpc.

kojikun · Post by **kojikun** » 2003-01-08 07:27pm

Einsteins math was good, but the whole modern view of the universe based on theoretical physics (completely unobserved things derived from asumptions about equations) is completely wonky. For instance, the idea that gravity can propogate fourth dimensionally is pure speculation. They say that that was one of the things that was a problem to the light-speed-propogation theory, but theres no evidence of there even BEING four spacial dimensions let alone the ability for space to actually fold, or for gravity to propogate ana or kata in the 4th dimension and make any gravitational disturbances on the other side.

Another thing is, how does the warping change c-prop at all? it shouldnt, because folding space doesnt change speed, just direction.

Warspite · Post by **Warspite** » 2003-01-08 07:58pm

Durandal wrote:
Zoink wrote:
Warspite wrote:Bah, Universe expansion is dictated by the Hubble Constant, and that's achieved through red-shift measurements of galaxies.
How is the universe's expansion governed by the hubble constant? Isn't it the other way around..?
It's complementary. Since the universe's expansion is accelerating, the Hubble Constant isn't really constant ... that's just the amount that space is expanding at this particular epoc in the universe. As of now, it's about 72km/s/mpc.

My early wording wasn't exactly spot on, but you answered for me, thanks Durandal!

Keevan_Colton · Post by **Keevan_Colton** » 2003-01-08 08:12pm

*mutters something about hubble*
42...nearly

ArmorPierce · Post by **ArmorPierce** » 2003-01-08 08:25pm

To bad you didn't find this about a year ago when I could of used it.

His Divine Shadow · Post by **His Divine Shadow** » 2003-01-08 08:45pm

Durandal wrote:It's about time someone actually put this matter to rest, but it's long been assumed that gravity propagates at c due to the theoretical predictions of a massless carrier particle.

What are those predictions?

Cthulhu-chan · Post by **Cthulhu-chan** » 2003-01-08 11:06pm

Why, the Higgs boson, of course. The ever-elusive carrier for gravity would theoretically be responsible for the observed mass of every particle, and terefore responsible for much of the observed properties of said particles. If the Higgs boson does exist, the potential gain from learning to exploit it could be staggering.

Exonerate · Post by **Exonerate** » 2003-01-08 11:38pm

Damn. So much for using gravity for instant communication.

Durandal · Post by **Durandal** » 2003-01-08 11:49pm

Cthulhu-chan wrote:Why, the Higgs boson, of course. The ever-elusive carrier for gravity would theoretically be responsible for the observed mass of every particle, and terefore responsible for much of the observed properties of said particles. If the Higgs boson does exist, the potential gain from learning to exploit it could be staggering.

Um ... no. The carrier particle for gravity is the graviton. The Higgs boson -- which if found, will be a great aid in the hunt for the graviton -- is the theoretical carrier for mass.

His Divine Shadow wrote:What are those predictions?

Mainly the predictions involving the characteristics of the graviton. It is predicted to be massless, thus necessitating that it propagates at c, like any massless particle should. I think it's also theorized to have a spin of 2, which is interesting. Since the speed of gravity has been measured to be c, and experiments show that gravitational energy levels are discrete, it's only a matter of time before we close in on that elusive little bugger.

Cthulhu-chan · Post by **Cthulhu-chan** » 2003-01-09 12:40am

Ahem, excuse me while I wipe the egg from my face...

So, when did they observe a quantified effect for gravity?

His Divine Shadow · Post by **His Divine Shadow** » 2003-01-09 01:33am

Cthulhu-chan wrote:Why, the Higgs boson, of course. The ever-elusive carrier for gravity would theoretically be responsible for the observed mass of every particle, and terefore responsible for much of the observed properties of said particles. If the Higgs boson does exist, the potential gain from learning to exploit it could be staggering.

Higgs Boson, thats particle had a spot on Lexx BTW

Shinova · Post by **Shinova** » 2003-01-09 01:35am

About this universe expansion thing in case you didn't know:

Due to astronomical research during Einstein's time period, his numbers were proven wrong and he apologized for the "biggest mistake of his life".

But recently, new research showed that Einstein was actually right and that he didn't make a mistake. The mistake was all on those astronomers.

Damn astronomers...

Anyway, just for your information.

His Divine Shadow · Post by **His Divine Shadow** » 2003-01-09 01:40am

Durandal wrote:Mainly the predictions involving the characteristics of the graviton. It is predicted to be massless, thus necessitating that it propagates at c, like any massless particle should. I think it's also theorized to have a spin of 2, which is interesting. Since the speed of gravity has been measured to be c, and experiments show that gravitational energy levels are discrete, it's only a matter of time before we close in on that elusive little bugger.

Oh, I thought you mean predictions of what it would be like if gravity was instantanenous, like we'd have flying sperm whales with FTL abilities so we could mount carriages on them and go to the stars.

Oh well.

Durandal · Post by **Durandal** » 2003-01-09 04:16pm

Cthulhu-chan wrote:Ahem, excuse me while I wipe the egg from my face...

So, when did they observe a quantified effect for gravity?

A while back. Basically, a group of scientists "dropped" a neutron and found that it basically disappeared and reappeared at different energy levels. Gravity acts just like the EM force in that regard. Just as electrons can only exist at certain energy levels and not between them, the Moon/Earth system has discrete energy levels as well, and the moon cannot exist at any energy states between those levels. It just happens that those energy levels are so close together relative to the size of the Moon and Earth (and even us) that they appear to be continuous.

Durandal · Post by **Durandal** » 2003-01-09 04:17pm

His Divine Shadow wrote:
Durandal wrote:Mainly the predictions involving the characteristics of the graviton. It is predicted to be massless, thus necessitating that it propagates at c, like any massless particle should. I think it's also theorized to have a spin of 2, which is interesting. Since the speed of gravity has been measured to be c, and experiments show that gravitational energy levels are discrete, it's only a matter of time before we close in on that elusive little bugger.
Oh, I thought you mean predictions of what it would be like if gravity was instantanenous, like we'd have flying sperm whales with FTL abilities so we could mount carriages on them and go to the stars.

Oh well.

Netwon's predictions about gravity assumed that it was instantaneous. Nothing spectacular would have been observed on our scale, only the quantum scale.

SirNitram · Post by **SirNitram** » 2003-01-09 04:34pm

Shinova wrote:About this universe expansion thing in case you didn't know:

Due to astronomical research during Einstein's time period, his numbers were proven wrong and he apologized for the "biggest mistake of his life".

But recently, new research showed that Einstein was actually right and that he didn't make a mistake. The mistake was all on those astronomers.

Damn astronomers...

Anyway, just for your information.

Not quite. Einstein assumed the Universe was infinite and constant, so his work on it was trying to make reality fit his assumption. He later abandoned it and cursed it out on the street like a two dollar whore. The irony is it's now turning out to be the repulsive force at work in the universe.

RedImperator · Post by **RedImperator** » 2003-01-09 07:38pm

This is all fascinating. If I could do math, I'd have been a theoretical physicist.

The Dark · Post by **The Dark** » 2003-01-10 05:16pm

I thought they considered gravity to be a pseduo-force propagated by the warping effects of mass upon space-time.

I'm loving this too; my HS physics teacher still tells me I should go into physics, but I dislike most math too much. Maybe after I've tried my current major, if I don't like it I'll go back to school under the Monty and get another degree.