To the open minds,
Hello, I think this piece I'm about to present fits here since I'm dealing with the 'gravelocity' as I like to call it. In order to define an exact propagation value for gravity we'd have to do it theoretically, then confirm it experimentally. Basically the speed of gravity experiment isn't going to empirically return an exact speed of gravity if we don't know the rationally precise gravitational velocity yet. I realize it doesn't always work that way but please bear with me. I like what Tom says about gravelocity being greater than (2x10^10)c though because it's still using light speed as a constant which is kind of like saying the 'gravilight speed'. So all we'd do is divide out the speed of light in order to define the gravelocity if we had the precise speed of gravilight to work with of course. Although I do think he's a bit overzealous with the gravitational velocity in the experiment, I also believe the gravelocity is much greater than light speed.
Enough pretense, first I'll show what I believe to be the theoretical gravelocity limit then I'll show a simple proof to detail how I think gravelocity exists. I'm going to do this in simple terms so hopefully everyone that reads this can understand.
gravelocity=(m1m2((G)/(h)))/(c)
This means the speed of gravity is 3.359x10^14m/s. It looks like m1m2Nm^2/m^2/Nms yielding m/s. I have to use the parentheticals because if I don't then the speed is basically a quantum entity it's so small. The large speed is external and the small speed is internal. We need a quantum internal speed in case we're in a vessel traveling at gravelocity so we're not all squooshed against the hull inside. I could go on about this internal speed but I'd rather get onto the proof of gravelocity. I can actually do this in 3 moves but I'll use 4 so as not to confuse what happens in step 3. I'm going to deal with the arbitary F and p in terms of Energy so Force=E/d and momentum=E/c. Now I'll take the uncertainty E>\/=h/4pit times uncertainty E/c>\/=h/4piq to get what I call a 'wave cone'
1. E^2/c>\/=h^2/16pi^2tq
For the second move I'll divide out one of the photons so that we'll have E^2/hc>\/=h/16pi^2tq whose units cancel N^2m^2/Nm^2s/s which's E/d>\/=h/16pi^2tq that would be
2. Force>\/=h/16pi^2tq
Which is what I call quantum uncertainty Force. For the third step Force can be classically generalized as the inverse square law Gm1m2/d^2>\/=h/16pi^2tq and all that's left to do is to flip the photon and the inverse square distance to determine the outright propagation rate of gravi/light velocity(m1m2((G)/(h)))>\/=d^2/16pi^2tq where one of the inverse square distances cancels with the standard deviation of charge because E/F=d and E/F=q (they don't really cancel and actually become an imaginary 'invisible' component that appears to cancel) so gravi/light speed is relatively close to Tom's estimate
3. 1.007x10^23v>\/=d/t16pi^2
The beauty about this is it's just a quantum uncertainty inequality so if we run up the light speed gauge on the right in order to equally divide it from both sides 1.007x10^23v/c>\/=2.998x10^8d/t16pi^2/c
4. 3.359x10^14v>\/=d/t16pi^2
That says gravelocity>\/=d/t16pi^2 which means gravelocity is greater than a million times the speed of light. An ancillary benefit of the parity of quantum uncertainty found in 2. is Kq1q2/d^2>\/=h/16pi^2tq which's only true as long as q1 and q2 are like charges. However this allows for the charge/light speed (q1q2((K)/(h)))>\/=d^2/16pi^2tq that's actually 1.492x10^42v/c>\/=2.998x10^8d/t16pi^2/c so the charge speed is 4.976x10^35v>\/=d/t16pi^2.
Am I sidestepping relativity here or is this simply Lorentzian relativity in a quantum classical bow tie? I believe Tom's experimental >>(2x10^10)c is correct, however I believe it's correct for a gravi/light velo and the speed of light must be divided out in order to find the precise gravelocity.
So, to sum up, in my highly controversial view, the constant speeds can be viewed from least to greatest as
light speed
gravelocity
gravi/light speed
charge speed
charge/light speed
I suppose that my simple equations here will come under as much or more scrutiny from those who read this as Tom's gravelocity explanations have in the mainstream scientific community. If you believe me to be totally off base and some 'hack whack job' please disregard this whole post, don't reply, and cordially forget I exist. If, on the other hand, you believe there is a modicum of truth behind what I've detailed here please reply with your honest thoughts.
