Gravity's quantum leaps detected

New Scientist ^ | 19:00 16 January 02 | Hazel Muir

[G32]

[Southack]

"Each falling object is not only attracted to the earth in proportion to its mass, but it [the falling object] also has inertia that resists the motion, so the falling object's mass cancels itself out."

You're using the "Gravity equals Inertia" argument?!

[Southack]

"For the speed of gravity determination they are using massive but highly sensitive devices. If something heavy moves, like a supernova, they might be able to get a measurement. I think they are waiting for a suitable event so they can get some numbers. Until then they are detecting neutrinos and doing Aetvos experiments with artificial satellites. Maybe we will be the generation that gets a clue."

The Speed of Gravity may not be found by pursuing General Relativity experiments with satellites in Space.

http://www.nasa.gov/centers/marshall/news/news/releases/2005/05-066.html

After a year in orbit, Stanford University and NASA's Gravity Probe B has detected no distortion of Space/Time. Results will be released in late 2006.

If you're a big fan of Einstein, better hold your breath.

[Mind-numbed Robot]

Thanks. (For a person so smart you must be a very slow reader. You are responding to something I posted two and a half years ago. :-)) My answer was intended as jest but I do appreciate your technical explanation. I was not the one saying things which are heavier should fall faster or harder, I was reponding to that.

Regardless, my jest was intended to point out that we are discussing definitions and you provided one of those definitions. We define weight as gravity acting on mass but we have no definition of gravity other than an observation of its effect. Just as "I think, therefore I am." gravity exists only through the observation and measurement of other actions.