still, "experimental measurement" is portrayed as questionable
I would disagree with that. The consensus today among professional physicists is that the current experimental evidence is not in conflict with the prediction of gravitational waves. There is also evidence, for instance the orbital decay of the Hulse-Taylor system
, that would be very difficult to explain without gravitational waves. Plus, the prediction comes straight from general relativity (GR), which is an extremely well-tested theory of gravity over 90 years old. GR has done so well in the past that no one really expects it to be wrong about this subject.
That being said, it is true that we have not yet directly detected a gravitational wave; however, this does not falsify of the idea because of the limitations of current experiments - specifically, that they can only detect high-frequency gravitational waves, which if they exist would be relatively rare. There is an experiment, LISA
, in the planning stages now, which would be able to detect low-frequency gravitational waves as well.
pretty much everything else, like 80% of the article, points to greater speed and inconsistency with experiments if it is limited to speed of light.
I think you may be confusing the historical development of gravity theories with the current consensus. The various theories discussed in the article are not to be taken as being equally valid. GR is the premier theory of gravitation today and it predicts that gravity acts at light-speed. The fact that gravity acts instantaneously in Newtonian gravity (for instance) should not be taken as conflicting with GR - rather, Newtonian theory is an approximation that is only valid when discussing weak gravitational fields and slow-moving objects, in which case instantaneous gravity is a very good approximation.
anyway, let me ask you why planets do not radiate gravity waves and collapse into the sun, just as electrons are predicted to radiate and fall in nucleus?
According to GR, they actually do radiate gravitational waves. However, they would lose energy very, very, slowly, so that it would take an extremely long time (trillions of years, at least) for there to be any noticeable effect on the orbit. However if you look at orbital systems like binary stars, such as the aforementioned Hulse-Taylor system, the fact that the stars are much more massive and closer together than the Earth and Sun makes them radiate much more strongly. And we can actually measure the decay of their orbit due to emission of gravitational waves.
how about e/m fields are "instantaneous" like metal bar and e/m waves are like sound waves inside that metal?
This is inconsistent, because if an object is truly rigid you can't have sound waves in it. After all, sound waves are just mechanical movement of atoms relative to each other, and in a truly rigid object the atoms can't move relative to each other.
Of course, real objects are never truly rigid, but in metal the sound waves travel very quickly, thousands of miles an hour.
i guess what im saying is that there is a rope, an aether, which is made of e/m fields, they are everywhere and there is no such thing as vacuum in that respect. e/m waves are just that, some deformation/vibration pulsating in the "sea" of e/m fields.
Yes, this is accurate.
as for spinning magnets,
im still struggling with torque equations, i have no idea how to compare results to the real-world? how to make the test case?
Heh, unfortunately I can't help you with that one. I'm a theoretician.