space-time as a force opposing both gravity and energy.

[bumab]

Originally Posted by Tormod

BTW, the Jupiter experiment was not supposed to prove gravitational waves but that gravity does not act instantly. This indirectly implies waves but that is secondary.

Yeah, I wasn't worried about the waves part, looking for evidence on the speed. thanks for the link. don't have as much time to go looking for those things as i would like, lately

[bumab]

Originally Posted by humility

How slow can you go? what is the slowest velocity a physical phenomena has been recorded to have?. The same way your not suppose to be able to accelerate to the velocity of light. There may be a velocity that you can't deaccelerate too which isn't necessarily V=0. If we can develop experiments to discover the slowest velocity a physical phenomena can deaccelerate too we could set this as a the standard of rest. A kind of slow barrier.

But in a frame of reference, things can have a velocity of less then that. I'm holding a mouse right now, it's not moving at all in my reference frame. But it's moving 14,000 some odd miles per hour through orbit. I'm confused.

[humility]

I thought of something along the lines of quatum state change.I am just a layman and not an expert on quantum physics, so my next example might not be technical correct but a rough idea of the soughts of experiments someone with more knowledge might be able to design. Quantum theory tells us that the transition between quantum states is not an all-or-nothing affair. Quantum theory predicts that if it was possible to observe a quantum system( such as the NIST berylliun ion experiment) all the time then none of the "ions"(NIST experiment)would change quantum state. But if there is a limit to how quickly you can observe the quantum system.At this limit the quantum states would still be changing but very slowly compared to the characteristic time taken to change between states when unobserved based on quantum probabilities. Perhaps these two different rates of transition could be translated into quantities of velocity. Like I say this is a very rough example and may give someone with more technical skills , experimental ideas.
I have no idea if this next bit is technically correct but I will give it as an inspirational example. How I was relating quantum change with velocity was this way.If the particles that are in a quantum energy state we are going to call level 1.If we consider the particles in this energy state at rest. If the particles in the next quantum energy state have got a velocity relative to level 1 particles.If we take this relative velocity and use the differences between rates of transition of an unobserved system and a maximumilly observed system to give the level 1 particles a velocity which is positive to the initial velocity 0 but which is the slowest the particles can move in the system. This slowest velocity could be seen as a value of rest. If this is at all possible we could try and find the lowest velocity observable on a quantum scale and if all macroscopic objects are made from quantum systems. We would not be able to slow down to the the velocity of the slowest quantum system. Only the slowest quantum system could move this slow. Everything thing else would be moving a multiple of the slowest quantum system.

[maddog]

Originally Posted by Tormod

Gravitons are still theory. But if they exist they move at the speed of light. Gravity has been proven to move at the speed of light, and if the graviton is the carrier of gravitational force then it too must move at the speed of light.
No, gravitons AND photons move at the speed of light. No other particles can reach the speed of light because they have mass.

Yes, Gravitons have NOT been yet discovered so this reduces their existence to theory.
Though more weighted then other theoritical particles. Though it is incorrect that there
is evidence (independent) that both Gravity and Light move at the same speed. It is
presumed so in Standard Model. There is some contraversy here. Not all physicists
agree. There may be a different speed. Einstein was the one to show that Newtons
speed as infinite (action at a distance) for Gravity was wrong. This does not make the
constant c as the immediate candidate for Gravity as well.

Originally Posted by Tormod

Tachyons are purely theoretical constructs which, if they exist, can never have moved *slower* than the speed of light. I do not think they exist, and they have yet to be proven.

I am glad to hear you thoughts on Tachyons. If these particles interact or even exist, I
think they will be discovered at low energy and not high energies.

Maddog

[maddog]

Originally Posted by humility

How slow can you go? what is the slowest velocity a physical phenomena has been recorded to have?. The same way your not suppose to be able to accelerate to the velocity of light. There may be a velocity that you can't deaccelerate too which isn't necessarily V=0. If we can develop experiments to discover the slowest velocity a physical phenomena can deaccelerate too we could set this as a the standard of rest. A kind of slow barrier.

This rest were it performed would still only be relative to the observer doing this
experiment.

Maddog

[humility]

Yes I agree it wouldn't be rest after all. This line of thought has given me a new idea though which isn't directly related so I'll start a new thread.

[maddog]

Originally Posted by humility

I meant why can't we just invert the velocity of light and use that as the frame of rest. the speed of light is 299,792,458 metres per second. If we invert this to a velocity of 1 metre per 299,792,458 seconds and say its the slowest you can go and set it as the value of rest. So something travelling at 1 metre every 9.5 years is considered at rest. whereas everything above this would be considered in motion.To find out if this is true we should try to see if it is physically possible to go slower than this.

Your statement would only be an approximation. As Buffy said Geology measures ground
movement in something like Meters per millenium or slower. Using Gallelain Relativity
would make a hypothetical observer moving the same speed in the opposite direction
see an object moving at your speed to be at rest wrt him yet no one else would. There
is no Absolute Rest.

Maddog

[KickAssClown]

How about the speed of light? What if the absolute rest frame was motion? The famous energy equation would seem to agree...

[maddog]

With Newton you had Absolute "motion", as you had an "Absolute sense of time". To
him time "was" asbolute. To Einstein this was not the case. Time is relative to the
observer. Thus no "absolute", even for Rest (no motion). Sorry.

Maddog