Is gravity faster than light?

That is a question which the definitive answer remains unknown, physicist that work on quantum field theory, interpret gravity as a fundamental interaction mediated by a particle (I.e. graviton), the particle hasn't been found experimentally yet. On the other side, there's general relativity, which is a macroscopic theory and understands gravity as said so. There is even a recent paper that interprets gravity as an emergent phenomena rather than a fundamental interaction...

Gravity is a field. I don't think they are mobile. So no.

If topology isn't real how can topology derived explanations be real?

>"""""spacetime""""" has a """""curve"""""

Gravity waves have been proven as fact.

it's not topology, it's simple thermodynamics
the energy of vacuum is higher where there is nothing than where there is something
so stuff gets pushed ever so slightly from where stuff isn't to where stuff actually is
this neatly explains both spacetime dilation and gravity and ties them with a neat little bow of we don't actually know wtf this vacuum thing is

>There is even a recent paper that interprets gravity as an emergent phenomena rather than a fundamental interaction

Just link that shit up senpai.

phys.org/news/2016-11-theory-gravity-dark.html

Gravitational waves propegate through vacuum at the speed of sound

>sound
you meant light, and dragging a vacuum into it isn't necessary, but yes that's correct.

The shit posters here claiming gravitational effects propagate instantly exceeding the speed of light are totally full of shit.

Gravity has the speed of the mass that causes it.

>tfw QM dismisses locality
>tfw QFT predicts gravity waves/"particles."
>tfw physical vectors in Hilbert space don't actually extend in a classically relativistic geometric fashion
>tfw confusing phenomenological and physical mechanics

Waves are fields...

So is light...

No all fields permeate at the speed of light.
So if you have two magnets in an isolated reference frame, and you move one of them. The other magnet will not be effected by the movement until the same amount of time light would need to travel between the two.
Now if Im doing psuedo science, we don't have a full understanding of space time. GR isnt a complete theory. You add in some theoretical dimensions and travel through that then yeah you could traverse a distance in seemingly faster. Imagine a square where you could only travel along the perimeter. But then in 2d you could cross the diagonal of the square. Gravity is tied heavily to space time so some nonsense like that isnt impossible.

>Waves emerge from fields.

FTFY

no it travels at the maximum speed of causality, which happens to be the speed of light

>happens
no its based on the permeability of space

but do all particles have mass? or only some?

what makes mass?

>what makes mass?
nobody knows, some people say the higgs boson.

brainlet detected

talk after you finish your STR course, kuk.

to add: the invariance of the speed of light is a higher principle than the fact that electromagnetic waves are travelling in vacuum with the speed of [math] c_{0}^{2} = \epsilon_{0} \mu_{0} [/math]

>what makes mass?
if we knew that, we would know everything.

Is gravity stronger than the strong nuclear force?

Try taking a GR course. they dont offer them in undergrad but Im sure you can ask to sit in on one.

No but darkness is

>he didn't have a mandatory GR course in his 4th semester.

Get out of my sight, pleb.

Oh yeah, another meme sci/entist.

You dont know what it is so just call it 'dark' something.

Waves are made of water therefore gravity waves are made of matter.

To add, why do gravitational waves move at the speed of light?