tehno said:
In Maxwell's theory of EM waves these propagate in vacuum at "speed" determined by two constants,vacuum permeability and permitivity namely.
but these constants are manifestations only of our anthropometric units used to measure them. they are not
fundamental properties of the universe. but, even though the numerical value of the speed of E&M propagation is still an anthropocentric number (unless we were to use natural units like Planck units), the quantity of such a speed
is fundamental and believed to be universal (and if everyone, including us humans and the aliens on the planet Zog, agree to use Planck units, this speed is always 1 and is the speed reference to measure and describe all speeds against).
That speed is the speed of the disturbance of an E&M field that would happen to a test charge some distance away from a "transmitting" charge that would be accelerated. you disturb a charge at point A and the charge at point B reflects such a disturbance at a time |B-A|/
c later as viewed by a distant observer on a line that perpedicularly bisects B-A. now Coulombs law for electrostatic attraction is modeled as
instantaneous also, that a change in A would cause an instantaneous change in B, but that doesn't happen. the speed of this ostensibly instantaneous reaction is some universal property we call the "speed of light".
but why would it be reasonable if the speed of propagation of the ostensibly instantaneous electromagnetic action first described as Coulombs law be this finite
c and, on the other hand, the speed of propagation of the ostensibly instantaneous gravitational action first described as Newtons law be
infinite? i see no good reason to assume this and neither did Einstein.
now, it's just an approximation (for low gravitational fields or nearly flat space-time) but you can imagine a thought experiment where you have two identical infinite and parallel lines of charge moving together along in the direction of the lines at some speed,
v relative to some observer. it turns out that, for this observer that the lines are charge are whizzing by that they repel each other more slowly than they appear to repel each other for an observer traveling alongside the moving lines of charge (due to time-dilation). this reduction in repulsive force is identical in direction and quantity to the magnetic force that you would arrive at in classical physics. so the effect of the magnetic field can be thought of as the same as if only the electrostatic field existed, but we took into account the consequences of special relativity.
now apply that same thought experiment to two infinite lines of uncharged mass. they will attract each other, but for the "stationary" observer their rate of attraction will be reduced due to the same time dilation with the same
c in the time dilation formula. this reduction of attraction can be thought of as a
gravito-magnetic effect and, for the "classical" model formula very similar to Maxwell's equations (called the GEM equations) can be constructed with mass replacing charge, mass density replacing charge density, -G replacing 1/(4 \pi \epsilon_0)
but the same c ! if it were a different speed of propagation for gravity, then the time-dilation formula for this second thought experiement, would need a different
c to go into it. so different formulae for time-dilation depending on what it is that is moving past an observer? why?
Why the speed of propagating of a gravity wave,which at first glance has nothing to do with electrical charges,has to be linked with these two electrical constants, in the same manner?
those two electrical constants are anthropometric crap. it's the speed of propagation of these ostensibly "instantaneous" effects that is fundamental and is the same for all things instantaneous.
then, given your set of units you choose to use, you measure G or \epsilon_0 to come out to be whatever numbers they do.
tehno said:
Only becouse STR is taken as guide in linearization where c=1.
But this fact about EM was found both experimentally,and theoretically.
The claim that gravity wave propagate with c,isn't found experimentally or theoretically...
neither is true.
Sergei Kopeikin and Edward Fomalont have experimental data that the speed of gravity is within +/- 20% of the speed of light:
http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0302294 . also, there is good theoretical reason to expect the same speed for both, which, i think GR is supposed to nail. if the Gravity-Probe B ends up consistent with the predictions of GR, i think that's another nail in the coffin. these frame-dragging or gravito-magnetic effects would have a different magnitude if the speed of gravity was not the same
c.