Sorry that my first response is a little frivolous. But you keep saying that GR does not predict that gravity > c, when in GR the ime delay for propagation of gravity at the speed of light is not used. The instananeous location of massive bodies is used. Otherwise according to Eddingon and others, the orbits of bodies in orbits becomes unstable. That has been known for a long time. So GR assumes an infinite velocity for the changes of spacetime curvature, so to speak. I'll get a link for Eddinmgton's work if one exists.

If GR is based on wave equations and if exponential solutions of he wave equations are physically possible, then as experimentally proven for EM waves, gravitational waves can propagate faster than c. However, I am not talking about gravitatational waves. I am talking about the analogy to an electric field. For example, as I understand it, the gravitational force in GR is found by taking the gradient of the grav potential, not a time delaued gradient. Please check your text and see if there is time delay in that gradient.

• 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