Talk:Speed of gravity

Orphaned references in Speed of gravity

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)

Please change title

Create also a page titled: Speed of quantum information.
Then merge the pages:

1. Speed of quantum information (or quantum transmission)
2. Speed of light in the classical void
3. 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)

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)

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)

Assessment comment

Template:Substituted comment Substituted at 06:40, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

'Static Fields' section without any reference

79.74.13.236 (talk) 14:33, 12 September 2020 (UTC)The 'Static Fields' section ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speed_of_gravity#Static_fields ) lacks any reference. It effectively claims that the potential/field seen at a certain instantaneous distance d from the field-producing object is independent of the velocity of the observer if this velocity is constant. This flatly contradicts well known features of electrodynamics like the Liénard–Wiechert potential (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Li%C3%A9nard%E2%80%93Wiechert_potential ) and also Special Relativity ( https://www.feynmanlectures.caltech.edu/II_26.html , Fig. 26-4) which show that the static fields are velocity dependent as well.

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)

Date of Laplace's theory - two years mentioned

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)