[Omni]

Originally Posted by davidgow77

What is your reasoning for thinking that super-luminal speeds are possible?

I thought about answering this question, but that would probably give something away about my TOE, something I will not do (for now). Super-luminal speeds aren't only a possibility but are reality. btw I didn't think that and from there thought out a TOE, but the other way around. I will withold my thoughts when i'm not planning on answering questions about them in the future. Sorry.(my hands itch too much sometimes)

[davidgow77]

Hahaha.... fair enough Omni. If you have proof that things travel at super-luminal speeds (aside from gravity) then you could be onto something. I don't 100% rule it out, but I can find absolutely no evidence either physical or theoretical that suggest super-luminal speeds are possible.


DG

[Omni]

Originally Posted by davidgow77

travel at super-luminal speeds (aside from gravity)
DG

Could you perhaps explain to me, without formulas, what is measured when people try to measure the speed of gravity?

[davidgow77]

The problem is that no one knows what gravity is and how it works. If gravity is seen as a force which acts at great distances between two masses then according to Newton, the speed with which gravity is communicated over a large distance is nearly instantaneous. As an example, light from the sun takes 8 minutes to reach earth, but gravity is communicated (i.e we feel the force of it) immediatly. Einstein's special theory of relativity stated that light speed is the fastest speed that any piece of information (i.e. a photon, or a gravition) can be communicated from one place to another. When he was asked to reconcile this statement with the observations of gravity... which is seemingly instantaneous, he had to modify his theory of special reltivity to explain gravity... and this was presented as the General Theory of Relativity, which in essence says that matter curves space so much that the the speed of the effect of gravity seems instantaneous. The speed at which gravity acts could be at a superluminal speed, but that would mean that gravity is an interaction between two masses and space, rather than between two masses alone. This is the theory that I'm working on.

DG

[Omni]

Ok. I asked, because I thought, by what you wrote, that it was a given that gravity is faster then light. When I wrote that it's a reality that something goes faster then the speed of light I didn't mean gravity.

[davidgow77]

The problem is that no one has detected the graviton yet. If it is detected, and is shown to travel faster than light, it would be a huge blow to relativity and most of modern physics. If you are going to try and show that something can travel at superluminal speeds, you must be extremely confident and be able to show that your idea can be backed up with evidence from existing experiment because you are fundamentally challenging Einstein and the entire conceptual framework of modern physics. Current understanding is absolutely adamant.... nothing can travel faster than the speed of light. I would suggest that any discovery to the contrary would give rise to discussions about what constitutes a motion.

DG

[Omni]

Extremely confident...that I am not. My TOE is simple...too simple? The thingy I know to travel faster then the speed of light is wellknown but apparently not it's speed ...how can that be? ...am I wrong?? The real TOE should be simple, that's a fact, but when it's so simple that it's hard to believe that i'm the only one thinking it then extremely confident isn't really a good description of how I stand in this matter. I will look into it again and when i'm wrong on that superluminal-thing i'll say what it was and why I thought it.

[davidgow77]

You're right in thinking that the idea that explains a TOE should be easily understood by all, but your reasoning needn't be so simple. If you have what is on the face of things an elegant solution, then the trick would be to make predictions from it. For example, can your theory be used to estimate the speed of light, or the proportion of the force of gravity (the gravitational constant) or can it be used to make another prediction, like the critical density of the universe. If you have a framework, don't try and prove that its the right framework, but rather try and use it to make predictions that the current framework cannot acheive. In this way, you make incremental progress and at the same time build up the arguement in favour of your own theory (your own conceptual framework).

At least, this is my way of approaching the problem, and from studying the gravitational constant alone I can predict the critical density of the universe, and the volume of the universe.

DG

[Omni]

Originally Posted by davidgow77

then the trick would be to make predictions from it.
DG

When light was stopped some years ago did science know then what the light would do when it was set free again in respect to the speed (without delay moving again at lightspeed)?

[Omni]

Originally Posted by davidgow77

For example, can your theory be used to estimate the speed of light (1), or the proportion of the force of gravity (the gravitational constant)(2) or can it be used to make another prediction, like the critical density of the universe(3).
DG

1: No. 2:When i'm well informed this is the G in F=Gm1m2/rsquare (don't know how to do the 2. my TOE doesn't teach me that ). So when you know the values of m1,m2 an r and the constant G you know, by using this equation, the value of F (force of gravity). This is wrong. 3. I'll get back to you on that one.