"But the point is that the incoming radio waves would bend around Jupiter in slightly different ways if Jupiter's gravitational field "instantly" followed Jupiter around as Jupiter moved in its orbit, versus whether Jupiter's gravitational field lagged a bit behind it."
Their admitted margin for error in the experiment was .25 times the speed of light, a figure far too large to measure speeds drasticly greater than C.
My money is on Isaac Newton. The Speed of Gravity is far more likely to be substantially faster than the Speed of Light because gravity easily bends Light while Light does not appreciably bend Gravity.
If E=MC^2, and if Gravity (G) is equal to the Energy of a Mass (i.e. G=E/M), then G=C^2. Thus, I'll go with Newton and speculate on a much faster speed of Gravity, along the lines of the Speed of Light squared.
All that this experiment measured was the speed of radio waves as they bent around Jupiter. Gee (pun intended), that's the speed of light!
"But the point is that the incoming radio waves would bend around Jupiter in slightly different ways if Jupiter's gravitational field "instantly" followed Jupiter around as Jupiter moved in its orbit, versus whether Jupiter's gravitational field lagged a bit behind it." Their admitted margin for error in the experiment was .25 times the speed of light, a figure far too large to measure speeds drasticly greater than C.
You're *way* off base here. First, try rereading the portion of my post which you quoted above until you begin to understand it.
They examined the manner in which the incoming radio waves were bent by Jupiter's gravity. The manner of the bending would vary in characteristic ways if Jupiter's gravity field moved with Jupiter instantaneously, versus propagating at the speed of light (or any other velocity).
The manner of the bending was consistent with a gravity propagation speed of between 0.70-1.20 times the speed of light. QED.
And contrary to your amusing claim that a .25c margin of error is "far too large to measure speeds drasticly greater than C", you demonstrate a wildly simplistic view of how margins of error are calculated. When they say that the "actual figure was 0.95 times light speed, but with a large error margin of plus or minus 0.25", it specifically means that while there were uncertainties in the measurements (as is always the case), they were such that even taking into account the necessary amount of fuzziness in the measurements, they were still good enough to conclusively *exclude* any results less than 0.70c or greater than 1.20c. That's what margin of error *means*, son -- it means that the measurements were good enough to exclude the possibility of results outside the given range. So by definition, the possible error *was* good enough to "measure" (and subsequently rule out) "speeds drasticly greater than C".
If you have any objection to the *actual* methodology used, feel free to present it. But so far you haven't even demonstrated that you understand the nature of the actual measurements and calculations made.
My money is on Isaac Newton. The Speed of Gravity is far more likely to be substantially faster than the Speed of Light because gravity easily bends Light while Light does not appreciably bend Gravity.
What box of Cracker Jacks did you get your understanding of physics from?
Please explain how, exactly, you believe that the speed of propagation of light and/or gravity in any way relates to whether one would "bend" the other. This ought to be amusing.
If E=MC^2, and if Gravity (G) is equal to the Energy of a Mass (i.e. G=E/M), then G=C^2.
Except that it isn't, unless you can explain in good detail how you managed to pull that novel assertion out of your hind end, *and* provide sufficient evidence for it.
Thus, I'll go with Newton and speculate on a much faster speed of Gravity, along the lines of the Speed of Light squared.
We await your experimental evidence.
All that this experiment measured was the speed of radio waves as they bent around Jupiter.
No, as a matter of fact, it did not. It measured the deformation of incoming radio waves as a gravitation source (Jupiter) moved across it, and showed that the manner of the deformation is consistent only with the scenario where the gravitational field propagates outward from the source at near the speed of light. QED.
Deal with it.
You act as if you think they somehow timed the incoming radio waves with a stopwatch and mistook that speed for the "speed of gravity". That quite simply is not the case, and it only reveals your own poor understanding of what was actually done. The actual methodology in no way could mistake the speed of radio waves for the speed of the gravitational field whose effects were being examined.
If E=MC^2, and if Gravity (G) is equal to the Energy of a Mass (i.e. G=E/M), then G=C^2. Thus, I'll go with Newton and speculate on a much faster speed of Gravity, along the lines of the Speed of Light squared. I hate to be the one to break the news to you, but C^2 doesn't represent a velocity. It can't. The units don't work. Nor does it represent a velocity in "E=MC^2" -- it's a conversion factor which manages to mate up the units of mass (g) with those of energy (cm^2*g/sec^2).
So is it *really* your contention that gravity propagates at a "velocity" of C^2 = 3.47x10^10 square miles per second squared, despite the fact that "square miles per second squared" isn't a velocity, it's a numeric hash? Or, if you prefer, how about 2,220x10^10 acres per second squared? Fascinating...
And no, you can't just fudge the units. It doesn't work that way.