[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/sci/ - Science & Math


View post   

File: 3 KB, 126x93, Science!.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
1780360 No.1780360 [Reply] [Original]

Dear /Sci/.

If an extremely massive object was instantly introduced/removed from space, would its effects on our gravity be instant? (faster than light).

Say a star is a light year away and is destroyed instantly. Is it's gravitational effect on all objects instant, or would we on Earth only detect its effects after a year? Already talked to the physics/astronomy director and they didn't have any definitive answers.

>> No.1780363

Your astronomy/physics director's dumbfuck retarded. NOTHING TRAVELS FASTER THAN LIGHT. We'd only feel it after a year.

>> No.1780367

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speed_of_gravity

>> No.1780369

I would say, the effect would be instantly because the space is altered by gravitation.

Also, no I have no real clue but it seems logical for me.

>> No.1780375

>>1780363
Mass can't travel faster than light, gravity is unrelated.

>> No.1780377

>>1780369

>I have no real clue but here's my off-the-top-of-my-head dogshit theory.

Come on, we don't need that. Reference shit before posting; helps to class up the place.

>> No.1780380

Newton's Laws imply that gravitational forces are instant(faster than light).

>> No.1780388

OP here. Apparently changes in gravity are instant, faster than light speed. Physics broken?

>> No.1780398

>>1780388

Everyone in this thread is wrong.

It would propagate at the speed of light. Gravitons are luxons.

>> No.1780404

If gravity is "made of" particles that exist for such a short period of time they don't violate conservation of energy laws (current accepted theory) then it shouldn't be hard to imagine that they can travel faster than the speed of light in a vacuum. The r^2 in the denominator of Newton's equation for the force of gravity is the only limiting factor in your hypothetical situation about a faraway star.

>> No.1780409

>>1780380
Newton's laws are a little outdated....

Speed of light, OP. Experiments suggest that this is true within about a percent.

>> No.1780413
File: 15 KB, 188x229, 1282824490953.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
1780413

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Graviton
derp

>> No.1780414

>>1780388
>>1780360
no, you introducing a new mass violates conservation of energy.

>> No.1780416

you cant go nowhere.
NOWHERE isnt a place

>> No.1780431

Apparently the general consensus in the modern scientific community is that Newtons laws are a solid rough estimate because the gravity isn't account for velocity, which Einstein's principles do account for.

Tl:dr Gravitational affects occur at light speed. >>1780416
>>1780414
Derp; I mentioned if. It's theoretical.

>> No.1780461
File: 55 KB, 500x657, 1283106121867.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
1780461

>>1780431
derp derp
all quantum physics are theorical

>> No.1780465

>>1780416
you can't not be on a boat

>> No.1780482
File: 28 KB, 450x450, 1265247116205.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
1780482

>>1780461
>mfw double slit experiment

>> No.1780489

>>1780431

Gravititational models are based closely around conservation of momentum, mass, and energy. If those assumptions weren't true than our models for gravity would not be self-consistent.

>> No.1780490

>>1780360

Well help yourself to a fuckin' science book, cause you're talking like a fuckin' retard.

>> No.1780495
File: 28 KB, 679x595, 1282823923371.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
1780495

>>1780482
>mfw the only thing it proves is that lights is a wave

>> No.1780524

IF?.... why formulate a theory based on something that absolutely CAN'T happen? Energy is a constant in this universe of ours.

>> No.1780537

>>1780524
are you retarded?
then where comes the heat when i turn on my stove??

>> No.1780544

>>1780537
Mate, you are bloody fucking retarded, it's not even funny.

>> No.1780554

>>1780544
hurp durp
you cant even back what you say

>> No.1780562

>>1780537
Trolling has a negative effect on said troll's sperm mobility.

>> No.1780568

>>1780554
Get up, I obviously I can, I'd just rather not react to your bait as I'm pretty sure you know just how wrong you are and why.

>> No.1780580

>>1780544
nice sage bro.

>> No.1781330

Bump for interesting troll debate.

>> No.1781425

actually einstein would have calculate or something and would have come to the conclusion that it would be the same speed as the speed of light, of course if you use some classic newton it doesnt work as for anything that goes near the speed of light you should forget that f=ma