Your argument made sense in 1905, when Eddington--lacking GR--"proved" that gravity travels at infinite speed. A few nutcases--principally the infamous Tom VanFlandern--have continued to make this (false) argument.
I looked into these claims in detail, and corresponded with Dr. Carlip at U.C. Davis, who has convincingly demonstrated that General Relativity renders "gravity travels at infinite speed" null and void.
--Boris
And that's fine, he may even be correct...making my point moot.
However, GR had to be modified, first by Einstein himself with SR. So it isn't out of the question that GR fails the test of time. It could be wrong. It's already required modification.
Also, neither GR nor SR explain the flat plane of the orbits of all of our planets around our Sun.
Two things can explain those flat, in-line orbits: our solar system sits perfectly still in space relative to its position 5 minutes ago - OR - Gravity is substantially faster than Light.
If the latter, then Newton wins. If the former, then Einstein wins (presuming that the rest of GR and SR hold up).
5 Legislative Days Left Until The AWB Expires
Southack, you gave a good, simple, logical explanation as to why gravity is faster than light.
I have made a similar simple explanation of why time travel is impossible - where would you stand? As we are always moving, and moving in relation to everything else, being in a different time demands being in a different place.
So, if we wanted to go back in time we would have to back up the earth on its rotation, back it up on it's orbit around the sun, back up the solar system in its rotation, and back up the milky way in its rotation, and back up the galaxy in its movement through the universe.
Somehow I don't think this is possible.