Hi All,
Thought I'd throw in some comments, but I want to look at some assumptions and their source before I actually get into the speed of gravity issue:
Paul wrote:
Now, this is the point that I keep finding debatable. At the risk of exposing my own lack of perception, I keep asking: what is it about this "EGC" technology that enables this "instantaneous communication with anyone anywhere in the universe at any time." I've asked this question a number of times but have never gotten a satisfactory -- i.e. clear, concise, and comprehensible -- answer.
I realize that makes me guilty of making an assertion that I not 100% certain of (which is why I have adopted the fall-back, weasel-word methodology of "this is what I've been told...").
The common perception is that even gravity waves travel at the speed of light - I run into that perception often. Thus this idea of "instantaneous communication" via gravity waves contravenes the conventional wisdom. And it may well be that gravity waves traverse the universe instantly. But so far, nobody I've ever talked to has been able to explain how that works to me in a way that sufficiently supersedes the conventional wisdom.
Nature of Theories:
Paul and I have discussed the speed of gravity to some extent, but not really in too much depth. I can make a few comments, though...
First of all, Paul, there is no shame in saying, "this is what I've been told." We always rely on those supposed "experts" to distill information to us. Unfortunately, including the self-professing "experts," everyone has a pet-theory. For example, how often do you really hear about the serious holes and issues with the GUT, Superstring Theory, Big Bang Theory, Black Hole Origin Theory, Expansion Rate of the Universe Theory, and so on?
Theories are like noses, everyone has one, and however the public sways, determines which people are teaching in our schools and on the cover of Time magazine. Remember 20 years ago when the world was going to be destroyed in a Nuclear Winter? Now it's going to be destroyed in a Greenhouse Effect. The theories that persist are those elegant theories, which appear to most completely describe observed effects - the Theory of Relativity for example, which may not work in all conditions.
Source of Common Perception:
That said, let's look at the speed of gravity issue. You stated that the "common perception" is that gravity travels at the speed of light, and that is an opinion that the majority of people have been told or read. This common perception also may be the perception that lifters adequately demonstrate the Biefeld-Brown Effect as implied in the Myth-Buster's video you have provided on the first page of
http://www.ttbrown.com.
My apologies to the people I am about to offend, but anyone who believes the current designs of the lifters adequately describes even a proof-of-concept for the Biefeld-Brown Effect seriously needs to go back and read a primer in basic electrostatics. However, that is the common perception.
Now, granted, there is some (very) minor residual gravitational effect due to the high voltages used, but the lifters are just not designed to maximize that characteristic.
Thus this idea of "instantaneous communication" via gravity waves contravenes the conventional wisdom.
Perhaps, but only based on what you have heard. I don't put all that much stock in conventional wisdom, especially when it comes to the structure of space. Horse sense, yes.
Remember our discussions regarding what I termed the "Linear Engine," which is a finalized Brown engine. By conventional wisdom, based on current electrical engineering understanding, it should not work. In fact, some aspects of the engine run in direct opposition to what would be anticipated in current electrical engineering teaching. That is why it has been (almost) impossible to reproduce.
Now, you know my leanings are obviously toward a more practical application of the speed of gravity rather than the theoretical explanation (which is also important, of course), so bear with me as I come in from an engineering point of view.
Theoretical Nature of Gravity:
Now onto gravity. There is no clear concensus as to what gravity is, where and how it originates, whether it is a push or pull, whether there are particles called gravitons, and so on.
From the document you and I briefly talked about a couple of weeks ago, Paul. The theory, as described by Townsend Brown, presented a structure of matter and space based on the electrical characteristics of the spatial structure. To be honest, it is one of the most elegant theories of the structure of space that I have ever read. It described the structure of matter and space from the subatomic level to macroscale galaxies, and the characteristics of electromagnetic radiation such as light.
Now, the kicker is, that the five fundamental forces of nature we observe (static electricity, magnetism, strong and weak nuclear force, and gravity) have only been partially explained with Maxwell's coupling of static electricity and magnetism. After that we get a bit lost.
Brown's theory described a situation in which the fundamental nature of the building blocks of matter took into account the electromagnetic-gravitational (there is more, but let's stick to gravity for now) as an inherent characteristic of matter.
Now, what that means in this theory is that the gravitational force is a fundamental characteristic of matter, and cannot be separated from it. Wherever there is matter, there is gravity. The two are inseparable.
Speed of Gravity:
So, what is the speed of gravity? I don't know, because I don't understand enough of the nature of spacetime. The human race is really like a babe in the woods when it comes to understanding the universe. We can see so very little of the miniscule amount of what we can observe, and have even less understanding of what we can actually see.
Remember that by gravity wave, we are talking about the propogation rate of a change in gravity at one location to the measurement of that gravitational change at another location at some distance. In order to answer your question, a Michelson-Morely-type experiment would be in order, but the units might have to be at as significant distance.
Is it layers of parallel universes stacked upon one another as Brown believed in the same location? Well then, yes, I suppose it would be felt instantaneously in all universes.
If gravity is an inherent building block of the structure of spacetime we observe, then it is possible to theorize that gravity, which is a part of the structure would behave differently that light, which by what Brown is implying, reacts to the nature of spacetime, rather than being an integral part of it. His theories imply that every particle of matter in the universe(s) is instantaneously "aware" of any change in the (collective) ambient gravitational field since that affects the very nature of its existence, or state of being.
From where I'm standing, it appears that Brown's theory has significant merit, but then again, I'm coming from a practical viewpoint - maximizing some effects, minimizing others, but always with the goal of producing practical applications from these theories rather than necessarily figuring out just how they work.
Andrew
Qualight, L.L.C.