Replies

"This idea of "gravity propagating faster than gravitational waves" is a null concept, with no basis other than a trivial misunderstanding of what a field is. It's like saying that while you may walk at a finite speed, the ground beneath your feet is infinitely fast."

No, it is not a null concept, and no, it is not like saying that the ground moves infinitely fast, as the latter analogy crucifies the distinction being made between a field covering an area that it did not cover from that of the ground already covering an area.

When you turn an electromagnet to the ON position, a magnetic field suddenly covers a new area that in the past it did not cover (as in, when the switch was OFF).

It is *valid* to inquire as to how fast that field covered the new area.

But it has not been proven to be valid to claim that the field will cover a new area at the same speed as *disturbances* to an already *existing* field propagate (which we are all in agreement that it happens at Light speed).

What we currently know is that an existing field will propagate changes at Light speed. Fine.

But not all electromagnets have been turned ON yet, so not all fields exist yet.

When turned ON, the magnetic field goes from covering ZERO area to covering some sizeable finite area.

Does that happen at the speed of Light? Well, it hasn't been conclusively shown to be that slow, yet.

When you turn an electromagnet to the ON position, a magnetic field suddenly covers a new area that in the past it did not cover (as in, when the switch was OFF).

It is *valid* to inquire as to how fast that field covered the new area.

But there's no physical way to do that with a gravitational field. Furthermore, the sun's field has been "on" for billions of years. Furthermore, there's no region of space that is not permeated by gravitational fields. Anything else you can talk about is propagated in the form of waves, as you have admitted, and regardless of what nonsense you believe about switching things on (as if any point in space has more than one vector potential). And also as you have admitted, those waves propagate at c. Nothing more has to be said.

The Einstein field equations give accurate and verified results for any physical situation we've had the opportunity to measure, and without postulating any velocities of the kind Van Flandern imagines. They are utterly superfluous to the theory. As Laplace told Napoleon, "I have no need of that hypothesis."

Does that happen at the speed of Light? Well, it hasn't been conclusively shown to be that slow, yet.

OK, try this. When an electron and a positron annihilate, their fields annihilate, too. We go from some field--with a vanishing monopole moment in the far field, but with a substantial dipole moment, right up to the end--to no field at all. (I hope you will agree that once the particles are annihilated, their field suddenly disappears.) The collapse of the field demonstrably travels outwards at the speed of light, because the collapse of the field physically manifests itself in the form of photons, as is demanded by quantum mechanics (no relativity involved, here).

But how do we know that those photons travel at the speed of light? You haven't actually measured their velocity, have you? Actually, we have. One useful technique in astronomy is to look at the annihilation photons coming from distant galaxies and nebulae. It tells us where the really hot regions are: antimatter is not easy to come by! If the information of the field destruction came to us at any velocity other than c, the annihilation photons wouldn't line up with the source in visible light. This is not the case.