Yes, my hat is off to Fin-De-Siede. I think that they were looking for something more,, uh how can I say,,, substantive(?) than pure dark energy? If you can visualize matter at its smallest level as a constant vortex consuming this energy and understand that as this process occurs other vortex's tend to gravitate (pardon the pun) together. Sort of like if you had nuetral boyant balls in an aquarium and siphoned out the water from the middle, the balls would gravitate towards the point of the syphone due to the pressure of the water upon them.
> > also i would guess that the source of the ripple would determine its
> speed?....
no, in all sorts of waves, sound waves, water waves, gravy waves, light waves, gravity waves surprisingly the source almost never makes much difference to the speed. Some waves (eg water waves) vary their speed according to the size of the waves, and most waves vary their speed according to the medium. Light waves do vary their speed according to the medium, but it is their speed in empty space that we normally mean when we refer to 'the' speed of light.
> No, the speed of gravity waves (and light) is constant (relative to the
> density of dark energy in that region of space).
Not quite. In any inertial frame the speed of light will be measured to be the same in that frame. This will be true even if dark energy is moving through that inertial frame.
An inertial frame is one in which free particles (ie particles not affected by any external force) move at constant speed in a constant direction.
Photons (and gravity
> ripples) will be a constant speed in both a small and large supernova.
>
Almost true; where the densities of matter become significant actual photons move slower than the speed of light, for example in water they move at about 2/3 the speed of light, remembering again that I mean the speed of light in empty space. My maths is not good enough to say if the same is true of gravity, my guess is that that is not affected in the same way. But in the last few seconds before a supernova explodes the star is so dense that even gamma rays are significantly slowed down.
What is true is that away from the immediate rgion of the supernova photons and gravity waves will move at a constant speed, in fact at the same constant speed.
> Not quite. In any inertial frame the speed of light will be measured to be
> the same in that frame. This will be true even if dark energy is moving
> through that inertial frame.
True but this is because the barometric pressure of the dark energy within each frame is close to identical. It only varies over LARGE areas of space and very close to massivly LARGE or dense objects. ;-)
> Fin-De-Siecle idea of the
)
> Fin-De-Siecle idea of the "ether."
Yes, my hat is off to Fin-De-Siede. I think that they were looking for something more,, uh how can I say,,, substantive(?) than pure dark energy? If you can visualize matter at its smallest level as a constant vortex consuming this energy and understand that as this process occurs other vortex's tend to gravitate (pardon the pun) together. Sort of like if you had nuetral boyant balls in an aquarium and siphoned out the water from the middle, the balls would gravitate towards the point of the syphone due to the pressure of the water upon them.
> > also i would guess that
)
> > also i would guess that the source of the ripple would determine its
> speed?....
no, in all sorts of waves, sound waves, water waves, gravy waves, light waves, gravity waves surprisingly the source almost never makes much difference to the speed. Some waves (eg water waves) vary their speed according to the size of the waves, and most waves vary their speed according to the medium. Light waves do vary their speed according to the medium, but it is their speed in empty space that we normally mean when we refer to 'the' speed of light.
> No, the speed of gravity waves (and light) is constant (relative to the
> density of dark energy in that region of space).
Not quite. In any inertial frame the speed of light will be measured to be the same in that frame. This will be true even if dark energy is moving through that inertial frame.
An inertial frame is one in which free particles (ie particles not affected by any external force) move at constant speed in a constant direction.
Photons (and gravity
> ripples) will be a constant speed in both a small and large supernova.
>
Almost true; where the densities of matter become significant actual photons move slower than the speed of light, for example in water they move at about 2/3 the speed of light, remembering again that I mean the speed of light in empty space. My maths is not good enough to say if the same is true of gravity, my guess is that that is not affected in the same way. But in the last few seconds before a supernova explodes the star is so dense that even gamma rays are significantly slowed down.
What is true is that away from the immediate rgion of the supernova photons and gravity waves will move at a constant speed, in fact at the same constant speed.
~~gravywavy
> Not quite. In any inertial
)
> Not quite. In any inertial frame the speed of light will be measured to be
> the same in that frame. This will be true even if dark energy is moving
> through that inertial frame.
True but this is because the barometric pressure of the dark energy within each frame is close to identical. It only varies over LARGE areas of space and very close to massivly LARGE or dense objects. ;-)