Talk:Speed of gravity

message: I read this, and found that Josh Gross had totally removed the content that had been there.
I have put back, so information wouldn't be lost. (I hope I haven't stepped on Ben Baker's toes...)
Having read the article in the external links section, it was clear Josh was confusing speed of gravity with the speed of gravity waves.  (A distinction pointed out in the external link page).
----
What the heck is the speed of gravity supposed to be, so that we can quantify it at all?  Asking because I don't know. --LMS
----
The speed of gravity is the speed at which changes in the location of an object propagate to all other objects that are affected by the gravity of that object. (essentially the rest of the universe)
A gravity wave is a fluctuation in the gravity field around an object, as I understand it.
-------
Why didn't you just put that in the article, if it's correct?  :LMS
---- 
Okay, I will. but I don't want to get in between a battle between Josh and Ben...
----
Is the [citation needed] necessary on "Formally, c is a conversion factor for changing the unit of time to the unit of space.[citation needed]"  That's a really fundamental way that c is used, and 'formally' already implies 'can be thought of as.'  It has units of m/s and we're talking about 'formally.'  No citation is needed for basic dimensional analysis.  The discussion on this sentence should be about whether it should be in the opening paragraph or not, rather than if a citation can be found. 2/4/2011 Anonymous  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.255.65.164 (talk) 18:42, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Definition

message: :It is well known that the speed of gravity can't be appreciably less than the speed of light, since that could be detected by changes in the angular momentum of the planets.
It's far from well known, and it's not obvious to me that it is even
correct.  If it's well known, then it should be easy to find a cite.
-----
Moved the statement about gravity moving less than the speed of light to Van Flandern believes.  I've thought about it, and that statement seems
to be the very issue that Van Flandern seems to disagree with the 
scientific consensus.  If the "speed of gravity" were small, it would
*not* necessarily violate angular momentum.  If it *did* violate 
angular momentum there would be a problem with gravity moving at 
the speed of light since even a small difference is in one direction and the angular momentum would build up and cause the planets to fly off.
This is precisely Van Flandern's argument that gravity moves instantaneously, and most scientists think that he is wrong precisely
because they don't believe that finite speed of gravity implies
non-conservation of angular momentum.
:...Van Flandern does NOT argue that gravity moves instantaneously.  He argues that it moves at >= 2x10^10 c.
:Erikmartin (talk) 20:52, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Removed this statement

message: Just want to posit a thought or two here.  Gravitons are one of the most elusive objectives in physics.  Anyone ever find one?  It seems apparent to me that there's something wrong in the way that we're looking for them, and I personally suspect that it's related to the four-dimension space-time continuum, which I think is probably a wrong -- well, actually insufficient -- construct.  I'm not talking about the extra dimensions of, say, string theory, but rather, specifically, extra dimensions of time, and that perhaps time is a dimensional continuum other than, but interacting with, the spacial continuum.  What this is all leading up to is that the "speed" of gravity could be simply not what we have assumed that it is; it may be involved with more dimensions of time (possibly less of space?).  That would not make it necessarily "instantaneous" but could enable an apparent speed faster than that of light/emr. Food for thought, at least. --user:jaknouse
-------
Where do I go to find the name of the author? And why should anyone have to run the maze with their mouse to find it? Sign the article. Although, in the case of "Speed of Gravity," I can see why the reluctance. Terrible writing, unsupported claims, etc., etc. Compare this to Van Flandern's clear, concise, experimentally supported claims. The fact that there is a universe of competent physicists who can reproduce his results does not exonerate the incompetent who cannot. Frederick George Wilson - "Samizdat"
:: Mecklen once said that there is always a
answer that is simple, clear, and wrong.  Most every physicist I know of thinks that Von Flandern is just wrong.  The problem is that it takes some effort to come up with a picture that explains exactly why he is wrong without a huge amount of mathematics.  I've tried, but if the explanation doesn't make any sense, let me know.  It's much easier if you have a blackboard.
:: Basically the answer is that its not the force that is delayed, its the potential.  
Imagine a ball on a rubber sheet.  Now imagine the ball moving.  If the rubber sheet doesn't transmit the depression immediately, the indentation in the sheet will become distorted, and non-circular.  Now look at the line of steepest descent of that indentation.  It will point to where the ball is *now* not where the ball was earlier. -- User:Roadrunner
:There is a link in each article called "history". Click on that and each edit ever made to the article, when they made and who made it is all there. This is how we "sign" our work. Welcome BTW. Somebody else will have to answer the other part of your statement. --mav
:Most definitely the rubber sheet cannot transmit the depression immediately.  In order to transmit the depression, the rubber sheet need distort its physical structure.  It's known that massive objects cannot move instantly, nor even at the speed of light.  Thus, there is no way that this depression could be transmitted immediately.  For effect, place a ball on a surface of water.  Now move the ball.  You will immediately notice that the disruption of the water's surface is most definitely non-circular.  The same follows for the ball on a rubber sheet, except the speed of sound is faster in a solid object than in a liquid object, so you're less likely to see the distortion, but that doesn't mean that it's there.  (Why is it the speed of sound?  Because you're exerting momentum to the rubber sheet, that momentum is then carried through the surface, the same as a sound wave.  Only at a very very low Hertz) --Puellanivis 12:51, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Gravitons

message: Whoa, geez, what's going on here guys? This is an ENCYLOPEDIA, not a science debating forum. I don't see the majority of the AIDS article taken up by discussions of the various people who claim its a bioweapon or that HIV doesn't cause it. By the same token, this HUGE section on Van Flandern certainly does NOT belong here, and I am moving it to a different article.
As to his theory specifically, I can't answer because I can't get to the article. *&%&^ surf-blocker software. However one way or the other the description of it here is either weong, or his "theory" is sophmoric. No one believes gravity propagates instantly, in fact, the belief that it does not is one of the best pieces of evidence FOR traditional GR! If Van Flandern's problem actually IS based on the claim that he thinks everyone else believes this, it can be dismissed out of hand.
jaknouse, I will write an article on gravitons for you.
User:Maury Markowitz
----
I think it doesnt really matter whos right and wrong; More important that most views should at least have a mention, as to have a complete reference (on the term 'speed of gravity')
On reading some of the discussions above, it seems some the people who are dismissing Tom Van Flandern views have not read what he had to say properly.
User:Seb-Gibbs
::: It is the effect of a meme propagation that says: "Tom Van Flandern is a crank, so don't bother to read anything that he wrote and to try to actually understands his points, because I already did it for you and his papers are all wrong according to me and all relativists experts". It may take a hundread of years for people to recognize that gravity travels much faster than light (200.161.55.3 (talk) 03:27, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  While I don't mean to be at odds with anyone over this, surely you don't literally mean that it doesn't matter whether or not something is actually scientifically correct for it to be published here at Wikipedia?  When you say "I think it doesnt really matter whos right and wrong" it's hard for me to take it another way, though. Moritheil (talk) 22:38, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Van Flandern

message: Hi Alfonso, 
I don't believe that the talk pages of WP are an appropriate place to publish original research.  Surely you can find some other website in which to publish these thoughts? linas 02:16, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with Linas (see next comment) and have moved this essay here.  Alfonso, please don't do this again!  TIA---CH 23:25, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Note. User essay article was deleted in March 2007. - DVdm (talk) 19:34, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Essay pasted here in apparent violation of [[WP:NOR]]

message: This article is terrible! The whole thing about electromagnetism has no place here. The article also doesn't really say that the idea "speed of gravity=speed of light" is extremely well accepted. It makes it sound like it's up in the air in the same way that, say "is the universe infinite?" is up in the air. And what's all that about Newton's philosophical problems and conservation of angular momentum? ugh.
(unsigned comment by 128.135.152.163)
:I agree! I've done a bit of clean up, slightly improved the organization, added a todo list. ---CH 00:30, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: 02/28/05 version is awful

message: In the new version, I have used the infobox from Wikipedia:WikiProject Pseudoscience.  This is specifically for pseudoscience, so I deliberately did not add a similar infobox regarding the Kopeikin controversy, which should at present perhaps be regarded as a legitimate controversy in mainstream physics, although I would agree with those who feel this characterization is becoming strained.  As long as we link to Van Flandern's website, I think we can keep discussion to a minimum.  In my view, this is the preferred option with all pseudoscience at WP: in case of controversies, describe the issue briefly and WP:NPOV and link to a few pro and con websites.---CH 00:41, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Pseudoscience infobox

message: I have formatted the citations using standard Wikipedia citation templates.
User:Kopeikins changed Kopeikin continues to vigorously argue his case to Kopeikin continues to vigorously argue this case through publications in peer review physics journals.  I reverted this because that change was awkward, and the apparent point (that Kopeikin has continued to publish rebuttals to his critics in respectable research journals) is now clear without further comment from the formatted citations.
However, as I feared would happen, the list of citations regarding the Kopeikin controversy is growing too long.  This is an encyclopedia article, not a review article!  User:Kopeikins, I assume you are Sergei Kopeikin.  Can you propose below a pruned list which would be acceptable to you?  Note that Clifford Will's web page seems to have a comprehensive list of papers on this issue.  If you put up your own website, I can add that to the external links.  I feel there should only be one or two pro and con papers listed as references on this issue.---CH 13:46, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Improved citations

message: An anon using IP 204.56.7.1 (talk · contribs), aka the Linda Hall Library anon in Kansas City, MO made an odd minor edit, which may have been well intentioned but which I reverted because it didn't seem to improve the article but in fact seemed to make it slightly uglier.
I request other editors to help me monitor this article closely, since this user (and more generally an individual who edits from other libraries in Kansas City, e.g. the kc.umkc.edu anon) has been causing problems (disruptive POV-pushing) in a number of other articles dealing with relativistic physics. ---CH 22:37, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: The Kansas City Library anon

message: As a courtesy, I have removed the todo list. I am leaving WP and doubt anyone else will care to implement the
suggested improvements.  
I am now abandoning this article to its fate.  Just wanted to provide notice that I am only responsible (in part) for the last version I edited; see User:Hillman/Archive.  I emphatically do not vouch for anything you might see in more recent versions.  Given the personal involvement of Tomvf (talk · contribs) and Kopeikins (talk · contribs) in two distinct controversial claims discussed in this article and their past edits to this article, I have reason to expect that at least some future versions of this article are likely to contain to slanted information, misinformation, or disinformation.  I'd also warn students to be cautious in using any material they find in websites linked from this article, since these may be cranky and may well describe fringe or pseudoscience notions  as belonging to the canon of well-established mainstream science, which would be very misleading.
Good luck in your search for information, regardless!---CH 17:36, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Todo list and students beware

message: I thought it's necessary to include some hisorical information in the artice. So I added 2 sections on Laplace and field theories. --D.H 20:12, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Historical sections 

message: Somewhere in the earliest part of this article belongs a statement on what the speed actually IS (or is thought to be). One shouldn't have to carefully read all the way to the relativity and experimentation sections before discovering that THIS is where it's written that the speed of gravity is thought to be the same as the speed of light. 198.49.180.40 00:44, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Quantification, even if only hypothetical - it's important information. 

message: I have removed from the external links a link to a response by Flandern to Kopeikin. The Clifford Will citation gives a more authoritative response, and the problem with the Flandern citation is that is mixes up issues. Flandern is most noted for his own ideas -- also conventionally considered to involve basic theoretical errors in handling general relativity. There's already a citation to Flandern which will suffice. -- Duae Quartunciae (t|c) 04:29, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Flandern's response to Kopeikin is perfectly adequate and should be cited, in my opnion. Also, there are no "basic theoretical errors" in TVF's papers dealing with any aspect of General Relativity. This is simply a myth.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Epleite (talk • contribs) 02:34, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

text: Also, in relation to Flandern, switched around the order of comments in the aberration section, and added a citation. It is appropriate to give the conventional explanation of relativity experts first, with a brief mention of dissenters coming later if at all. Frankly, I think the small mention of Flandern here could be removed altogether. But hey. I've left it for the time being, with a reference to give the rather blunt reaction of more conventional physicists. -- Duae Quartunciae (t|c) 05:15, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removed Flandern response to Kopeikin 

message: The speed of light (in air or partial vacuum) can and has been measured by simple experiments involving creating pulses of light and using electronics to measure the time between sending and receiving the pulse. I'll call this a "direct" experiment, as all astronomical effects used for deducing the speed of light require additional assumptions.
In looking at the article, I notice that no similar simple experiment has been suggested or conducted for measuring the speed of gravity. Now, I realize that gravity is much more difficult to detect than a light pulse. Nevertheless, can someone please explain why the following experiment would not work?: there is a "source" mass and a "target" mass, separated by a fixed distance. The source mass is moved quickly by a spring-loaded release mechanism (such as a slingshot). Photoelectric sensors monitor the position of the source and target. The time lag of the correlation of their positions (corrected, if necessary, for the inertia of the masses) gives the propagation time of gravity, from which the speed of gravity is a simple calculation. Setups using different masses and separations between the masses would then be used to confirm that the speed is a constant. Mounting the experiment on a moving platform could then be used to confirm that the speed of gravity is independent of reference frame. David spector (talk) 03:00, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why no direct experimental measurement? 

message: Please, someone write a more coherent section on Laplace's efforts to assess gravity's minimum speed.  Besides, in the very same sentence where he (Laplace) mentions the 7 million * c speed, he mentions other data (RE the moon) which shows that it must be at least 100 million times c.  I get lost in trying to follow his pages upon pages of derivations, but I'm pretty sure he looks at both drag on celestial bodies (such as the moon) induced by their moving through a sea of sunlight particles (or Fatio/LeSage-type gravitational particles), and also, as discussed here, orbital stability (gravitational aberration). I'd have to study it much more thoroughly to know what calculations he uses in each of the two minimal speeds he mentions.  Hopefully, some reviewer here will know. hkyriazi (talk) 00:53, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Laplace section is incomprehensible and possibly wrong 

message: I don't know if its by omission or whatever but this article does seem to avoid anything that criticizes the view that the speed of gravity is restricted to c making it appear a little bit as a puff piece for General Relativity. 
I am talking about gravitation involving black holes. Put bluntly the escape velocity within the event horizon of a black hole is greater than the speed of light, it seems as far as I can tell that its quite widely acknowledged that general relativity breaks down at this point. If gravitational forces really moved at the speed of light then the field (and the space time) should collapse in on itself and from the outside the black hole should appear completely massless. (this contradicts observation) 
Now I know about the solution called gravitational red-shifting but it does seem to me to be a little thin. Effectively its allowing the field (and space time) to travel faster than light while pretending that its not by allowing the wavefront to move slower. Worse though is that its invoking the wave properties of light for gravity, the waves implying that gravity is mediated by a particle - pretty much the end for space time curvature as the cause of gravity - and pretty bad news for general relativity itself. 
Sorry if this is not very well written, been working half the night, hope it helps. Lucien86 (talk) 06:07, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: You are spot-on.  This article was originally written highlighting theories of scientific "dissidents" such as Tom Van Flandern and you should take a look at the archived discussion pages.  There was a consensus, eons ago, to present these ideas but it has, over time, been white-washed by protectors of GR and those ideas have been edited out.  You're right, without those ideas, this isn't much of an article, is it? Akuvar (talk) 16:02, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Speed of gravity 

message: I think thet the followig sentences are questionable, under General Relativity - Background, and I ask for a proper references:
# "Since the gravitoelectric field is, by definition, static and continuous, it does not propagate."
# "Every Planckian moment of time, the static configuration of the universe's gravitoelectric field instantaneously changes."
# "The gravitoelectric field of the universe does not exist in time. It is time itself."
# "so that no meaningful information about the new position would be transmitted faster than the speed of light."
#about 1: here :  [| WP:Parallels_between_electrostatics_and_gravity] :4 . Both propagate with finite speed c, the speed of light."
#about 2: there are none "instantaneously change". A no null interaction time must be observed.
#about 3: A field..."It is time itself"? why not include an entry  here []?
#about 4: No meaningful information can...? Information (and energy) can not be transmited at speeds superior to 'c',  meaningful or not.
Heldervelez (talk) 22:25, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: In accordance with the uncertainty principle, a field, whose intensity is below the Planck constant, is nonlocal (omnipresent) and has no room for propagation. 89.110.15.136 (talk) 05:44, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Static field do propagate 

message: Having noticed two related (or even identical) edits by Antichristos in two diferent articles (–see  and –), I had removed per wp:COPYWITHIN, a part of this article that is a word-for-word copy of Action at a distance (physics)#Quantum mechanics. Upon this Antichristos reverted my edit because "This paragraph substantiates the next paragraph". I don't really agree with that, but surely it should be possible to replace the duplicated text with a short one-sentence synopsis with a wikilink to the section in question as an introduction to the next paragraph. This has two benefits: there is no wp:COPYWITHIN-attribution problem, and (2) when something changes in one article, there's no need to go and change it in the other. Thoughts? DVdm (talk) 10:30, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: You had no right to remove the paragraph per wp:COPYWITHIN. The paragraph was originally written in Speed of gravity and later copied by its author to Action at a distance (physics)#Quantum mechanics. Antichristos (talk) 12:45, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: It looks like the opening line was indeed created by anon  on 1-Dec-2010, with this edit. After some work on it, it was copied to the other article with this edit by anon . I had assumed that it was the other way around, since the content seems a bit off topic here.Please note that this is not a question of rights to remove, just one of common sense, trying to avoid having duplicate content accross different articles. I notice that you have done a lot of work on both articles, so do you know of some neat way to solve this little redundancy problem? Cheers - DVdm (talk) 17:07, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: This paragraph is crucial to understanding why ultraweak fields, such as the gravitoelectric field, are nonlocal. Wikipedia should provide understanding, not just blind knowledge. I will try to shorten the paragraph without detriment to its purport, but I do not know how much time it will take. Cheers — Antichristos (talk) 17:44, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: No rush—after all, this is not a wp:BLP issue :-) Thanks - DVdm (talk) 18:11, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Word-for-word copy of another article 

message: I suggest that the article be restored to this revision. It may not be perfect, but at least it contained a well sourced discussion of various attempts to measure/estimate the speed of gravity. More importantly, the sources actually discuss that subject. (Unlike the sources, used for the current synthesis in the article.TimothyRias (talk) 20:19, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Agree. Maybe the Kopeikin refs should be removed again. User  has been removing some stuff, but I have no idea what this was about. DVdm (talk) 20:36, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree that TimothyRias's suggested revision is much better than the version as revised by Antichristos. Same reasons as everyone else mentioned: The sources discuss the subject, no significant synthesis or original research, basically consistent with the literature, no bizarre misunderstandings of wave-particle duality, etc. --Steve (talk) 22:30, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Agree with above. Xxanthippe (talk) 23:08, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

text: As I wrote at WP:NORN#Speed of gravity I believe all the stuff by Antichristos should be reverted. They have been doing this to some other articles too I believe. Dmcq (talk) 15:33, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Suggestion 

message: There should be some easy way to estimate the speed of gravity knowing the rate of inflation of space and the dimension of a large galaxy. The gravity near the outer edge of a galaxy should appear to be much stronger in the direction of the center of the galaxy because the space was "smaller" between the edge and the center when the gravity from the center started toward the edge. So does Newton's inverse square law of gravitation need a rate of inflation term? Have any of these effects be calculated? Are they consistent with observations? Does anyone really know? Is it worth commenting in this article or at least cross referencing explanations in other pages? I am raising these questions because I am curious what the answers might be.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.65.82.66 (talk) 21:59, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: What do you mean "when the gravity from the center started toward the edge?" Unless you're talking about a change in gravity (a change in quadrupole moment, as happens when stars rotate about each other, see Hulse-Taylor binary, ther is no "change in gravity" to move anywhere. Gravitationally, a system looks the same when when it merely contracts symmetrically, or expands. There's no "change" in the field to "travel." SBHarris 01:54, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Speed gravity + Inflation of Space 

message: If changes propagate at finite speeds but when it is static the information is instantaneous, wouldn't that make the gravity for an object that is suddenly stopped appear to come from two different points in space simultaneously? Why would gravity somtimes propagate instantaneously and somtimes propagate at speed of light? Doesn't make sense... --TiagoTiago (talk) 05:54, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: "Suddenly stopping" is a change. If that happens, people far away do not see the stop (that inforamtion propagates at the speed of light). Instead the people far away, for the intervening time, see the object continue as though it hadn't stopped. They see it from one place, but now it's the wrong place. As soon as the change catches up to them, they see it at the correct place. That also applies to changing speeds. So long as it has moved at constant velocity since the change in speed, people at all distances see it at the true direction, AFTER the change gets to them, but see it at the wrong place before that. SBHarris 07:47, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  This article left me confused 

message: I added following statement in the section "Lorentz covariant models" (which was removed):
The Whitehead's theory of gravitation (1922) explains gravitational red shift, light bending, perihelion shift and Shapiro delay.Will, Clifford & Gibbons, Gary. "On the Multiple Deaths of Whitehead's Theory of Gravity", to be submitted to Studies In History And Philosophy Of Modern Physics (2006).
It is historically true, but DVdm and Neo. want to dicsuss it. The Whitehead's theory uses retardation (by the speed of gravity equal to the speed of light) and it can explain several effects like GTR. 195.113.87.138 (talk) 12:07, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Note - I don't really want to discuss this. I reverted two edits of yours that were not properly sourced ( and ). Then Neo suggested () that you bring another kind of edit (with a source this time) to this talk page for discussion. I don't know whether the source indeed backs the added content or whether the statement is worth adding to the article. Perhaps others? Cheers, 195. - DVdm (talk) 13:05, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: In On the Multiple Deaths of Whitehead's Theory of Gravity is In 1922, the distinguished mathematician and philosopher Alfred North Whitehead (1861-1947) , then in his 60th year, published a relativistic theory of gravity with the property, which it shares with Einstein’s theory, of containing no arbitrary parameters. Furthermore, when suitably interpreted, it yields the same predictions as General Relativity (GR), not only for the three classic tests of light bending, gravitational redshift and the precession of the perihelion of Mercury, but also for the Shapiro time delay effect (Shapiro 1964), recently confirmed to one part in 105 (Bertotti et al. 2003). and the version proposed here is sufficient. I think. 195.113.87.138 (talk) 07:44, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Your own reference says it's been experimentally disproven.  If it was never a mainstream theory and isn't currently accepted, does it really add anything to this particular article?  Laura Scudder | talk 14:32, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: This theory was not "disproven" until 70s (nevertheless in 70s somebody still prefer Whitehead: value of the gravitational constant is not a function of the prior geometry as Will and Ariel claim ... Since Whitehead’s formulae as they stand have not been disconfirmed ... Currently there is considerable interest in correlating relativity theory with quantum mechanics. The efforts made in this direction tend to support Whitehead rather than Einstein.  ). It was a good educational example and shows, that the four main experiments (used for a confirmation of the general relativity) can be explained as retarded gravitation (with the speed of gravity exactly equal to the speed of light).195.113.87.138 (talk) 06:06, 12 June 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lorentz covariant models 

message: The result of a research team in China is faked and wrong
In Ref.[1], it is pointed out that Tang and coworkers’ result cannot be obtained from normal process and their result is faked.
In Ref.[2] it is concluded that their result seems to be drawn based on the misinterpreting
of the known formula and the less careful data analysis.
Reference
[1] Y. Zhu, Measurement of the speed of gravity, arXiv:1108.3761
[2] C. G. Huang, The observation of the Earth tide is irrelevant to the speed of gravity, Chin Sci Bull, 2013, 58: 3291–3294  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zhuyin (talk • contribs) 06:41, 10 October 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removed the statement about a research team in China 

message: Why is there a section on something from a Yan Zhou ? It seems he is from Agriculture Department of Hubei Province in China, not a physicist. I can't find anything else about him on google, nor his article on arXiv.org. And the pdf in the arXiv.org has a lot of references, but none that proves those variations on satellite orbits.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.119.131.141 (talk) 08:52, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Note: https://independent.academia.edu/YinZhu talk2siNkarma86—Expert Sectioneer of  Wikipedia 15:05, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Yan Zhou ? 

message: In the Gravitation article, a subsection entitled Speed of gravity has something to say about a 2012 Chinese measurement, whereas the main article here says nothing about it.  Seems like Speed of gravity should say something about it, if it is reputable. Conversely, the Gravitation article seems to give the Chinese measurement a great deal of undue weight, given that it has nothing whatever to say about the topic except for the Chinese measurement.  Could someone more familiar with this topic either take this on, or advise what ought to be done here (and there)?
In December 2012, a research team in China announced that it had produced measurements of the phase lag of Earth tides during full and new moons which seem to prove that the speed of gravity is equal to the speed of light.Chinese scientists find evidence for speed of gravity, astrowatch.com, 12/28/12. The team's findings were released in the Chinese Science Bulletin in February 2013.
=== Reflist for snippet above===
Mathglot (talk) 06:08, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: I am not an expert on the subject but, as far as I can see, the above paper claims to show a phase shift (lag) between the action of the Moon's gravity on the Earth compared with that predicted by the Moon's position in space relative to the Earth.  Although it might appear that this result confirms the generally accepted theory of gravitation (GR), quite the reverse is true as GR predicts no such phase shift and such a phase shift would make the Earth's orbit unstable. Martin Hogbin (talk) 08:58, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Chinese measurement 

message: </div>
Mathglot (talk) 06:08, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: I am not an expert on the subject but, as far as I can see, the above paper claims to show a phase shift (lag) between the action of the Moon's gravity on the Earth compared with that predicted by the Moon's position in space relative to the Earth.  Although it might appear that this result confirms the generally accepted theory of gravitation (GR), quite the reverse is true as GR predicts no such phase shift and such a phase shift would make the Earth's orbit unstable. Martin Hogbin (talk) 08:58, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reflist for snippet above

message: From Maxwell's Equations we can get the speed of electromagnetic radiation by multiplying μ0 with ε0, is there a way to get the speed of gravity from similar equations.
For example, replacing the differential form fo Newton's law  \nabla\cdot \mathbf{g} = -4\pi G\rho,  with Gauss's law (the differential form of Coulomb's Law) \nabla \cdot \mathbf{E} = \frac {\rho} {\varepsilon_0}  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.194.89.201 (talk) 15:04, 8 September 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  How does one get the speed of gravity? 

message: 1.The Static fields
It is clear and certain, both the electromagnetic and gravitational field can transfer energy. For example, for two interacting charges A and B, as soon as A is moved, the B is moved by the motion of A. And, it is well known, the gravitational field can cause the tides which is a very big energy.
Therefore, it is nonesense to state that a static field cannot transfer energy.
2.Steve Carlip’s "Aberration and the Speed of Gravity" may be wrong
In "Aberration and the Speed of Gravity", Carlip obtained the equation (2.4). But, now we know that equation (2.4) is a fundamental equation for both the electrodynamics and the general relativity. Please see: Jackson, J. D.(1998) Classic Electrodynamics, 3rdEd., chapter 14, John Wiley 7 Sons, Inc. & Ryder L. (2009) Introduction to General Relativity, Cambridge University Press, chapter 9. In Jackson’s “Classic Electrodynamics”, it is explained that the interactive term in the equation (2.4) is the same as a static field, the speed of it is infinite. 
3.Thus, Flandern’s result in his paper “The speed of gravity: what the experiments say?” has not been negated by Steve Carlip.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zhuyin (talk • contribs) 08:37, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: Some problems in the “Speed of Gravity”

message: I check pages listed in :Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of :Speed of gravity's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.
Reference named "PRL-20160211":
From First observation of gravitational waves: 
From LIGO: 
From Binary pulsar: 
Reference named "Nature_11Feb16":
From First observation of gravitational waves: 
From LIGO: 
I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT⚡ 07:30, 20 February 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Orphaned references in [[:Speed of gravity]] 

message: Create also a page titled: Speed of quantum information.
Then merge the pages:
# Speed of quantum information (or quantum transmission)
# Speed of light in the classical void
# Speed of gravity
under the general name: Speed of color (the chromodynamic chroma) and maintain the subarticles as parts of that new page.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by talk) 18:22, 26 April 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: The title of the article is wrong! It should be "The Speed of Gravitational Waves" or "The Speed of Gravitational Radiation". The current title is like saying "The Speed of Electromagnetism". Betaneptune (talk) 20:05, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Speed of electromagentism would be fine, in my opinion. Eveery effect of electromagnetism is mediated by light. I think Speed of gravity is the least confusing. --MGChecker (talk) 21:04, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Please change title 

message: Substituted at 06:40, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Assessment comment

message: 79.74.13.236 (talk) 14:33, 12 September 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed. "These changes in direction of a static field are, because of relativistic considerations, the same for an observer when a distant charge is moving, as when an observer (instead) decides to move with respect to a distant charge. Thus, constant motion of an observer with regard to a static charge and its extended static field (either a gravitational or electric field) does not change the field."  We should be able to calculate the fields in any inertial frame without reference to any other.  The article seems to imply that the field in the moving frame should just be copied from that in the frame in which the field is static.  That stands relativity on its head.  NB: I am not a physicist. Unhandyandy (talk) 02:20, 26 June 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  'Static Fields' section without any reference 

message: Under "Laplace":
The first attempt to combine a finite gravitational speed with Newton's theory was made by Laplace in 1805.
Ender the animated GIF in that section:
In 1776, Laplace considered a different mechanism ...
Which year was it?
Mazz0 (talk) 10:28, 13 May 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Date of Laplace's theory - two years mentioned