"And that means that the speed of gravity exceeds
the speed of light for it to escape the event horizon and for the black hole to retain its attractive force."

In GR gravity is not a force (you don't have to work through 'Gravitation' (Misner,Thorne, and Wheeler) to figure that out. If it is shown that the speed of gravity is > c relativity is falsified.

"So it seems that we can use EM experiments as a conceptual model for gravitational waves. Right? If we can show instances where light exceeds the speed of light, then we can reasonably expect that
gravity can work the same way."

You can reasonably suspect that gravity can work the same way. General relativity is explicit about what it predicts and it doesn't predict that the speed of gravity can propagate > c.

"Since such propagation has been demonstrated for light, and also electrons in the EPR case, wouldn't we expect it to apply to gravity as well."

Not according to general relativity.

If you work through the project you will find out that gravitational waves are not like EM waves. Both are described by a wave equation (for grav waves it is a metric) and a conceptual similarity exists where accelerating charged particles radiate electromagnetic energy while accelerating masses radiate gravitational energy (in the form of grav waves).

• Black holes do not accelerate - yaniru - November 8, 2002 - 01:27 UTC
  • What are you talking about? - bruce - November 8, 2002 - 03:40 UTC
    • It's not GR, it's you - yaniru - November 8, 2002 - 12:25 UTC
      • I'm not an expert on GR either, but... - cosmotiger - November 8, 2002 - 17:40 UTC
        • Raed Carlip's paper - yaniru - November 8, 2002 - 18:48 UTC
      • You approach an argument completely.. - bruce - November 8, 2002 - 20:34 UTC
      • Whats wrong with you... - bruce - November 8, 2002 - 20:38 UTC
• Spacetime curvature in GR is not delayed - yaniru - November 8, 2002 - 01:44 UTC
  • GR doesn't predict that gravitational waves... - bruce - November 8, 2002 - 04:05 UTC
    • Kopeikin's experiment is for gravitational waves only - yaniru - November 8, 2002 - 12:18 UTC
      • Do you mean Sir Arthur Eddington? *NT* - cosmotiger - November 8, 2002 - 17:43 UTC
        • Yes-but we now know he was wrong(nt) - yaniru - November 8, 2002 - 18:35 UTC
      • Read the experiment... - bruce - November 8, 2002 - 20:29 UTC
  • The experiment... - bruce - November 8, 2002 - 04:29 UTC
    • OK-Bruce is right - no gravity abberation - yaniru - November 8, 2002 - 14:03 UTC
      • The future is predictable if Lorentz invariant - yaniru - November 8, 2002 - 14:35 UTC
        • Very much agreed on the last point, but... - cosmotiger - November 8, 2002 - 19:34 UTC
          • Chaos is lorentz invariant - yaniru - November 9, 2002 - 14:27 UTC
            • It doesn't matter - cosmotiger - November 9, 2002 - 20:22 UTC
              • Right(nt) - yaniru - November 10, 2002 - 15:16 UTC