Appearently shadows can move faster than light, breaking with the rest of physic knowledge, but when you look into the details, they adhere the laws of physics no problem.
Maybe, gravity is like that, not really a physical force, but the shadow of physical forces.
I wanted to say they are both emergent phenomenons... or something in that direction.
Newtonian mechanics is a useful approximation at certain scales. At other scales, they are problematic.
https://youtu.be/Bq9xR5PUs6s?t=388
"Is Infinity Real?" Sabine Hossenfelder, about 6:25 in.
Perhaps this is what OP was referring to?
So if any physicist here could shoot this down, I’d be most happy:
Let’s say I ran between opposite ends of a basketball court. Back and forth, back and forth... what would happen if I started increasing my speed, slowly all the way to the speed of light?
So my thinking is as you become significantly faster, you become heavier, but to yourself, you don’t see any change - so it’s not me who’s getting heavier as I start to run faster and faster to the speed of light, but the enclosed box of me between opposite ends of the court - i.e gravity is the flux of a moving object bound between a distance measured over some time period? i.e some sort of integral of moving matters between a distance, with respect to time.
Sorry for my incorrect science... I was just curious how relevant my thinking is
This hints to me that you might be thinking of the concept of invariant vs relativistic mass[0]
> i.e some sort of integral of moving matters between a distance, with respect to time.
It might be easier if you intuit it as total energy (encapsulates the relativisic aspects) - but that description you wrote seems to be another way to rephrase the curvature of space-time analogy; you could say that what you are describing is retreading how "steep" the bend is, yes?
There are several (roughly equivalent) ways to describe what happens as you approach the speed of light.
One is that instead of gaining mass, you gain extra inertia, making changing the velocity require more force. This makes it appears to outside observers like your acceleration slows down. I don't particularly like this explanation as it doesn't explain why your rate of energy usage appears to go down (as that is more a function of your clock). I prefer the other explanations:
Another is that your clock slows down relative to the outside world so you have less time to apply your force so you need more force to apply the same externally visible acceleration.
Another is that the outside world looks shrunk in the direction of travel, so again you have less distance to a apply your force to drive the externally visible acceleration. This is effectively the same as previous since distance=time*speed.
Maybe, gravity is like that in some more complex (or abstract?) way.
I am curious though, as to where you got such a strong notion that shadows can move faster than light...
You just linked me to a Stackoverflow post about a theory, which turns out to just be completely wrong, while managing to include a few valid facts.
Was a fun exercise, but please don't get your science this way.
What would really be interesting of the things mentioned in the video linked from the stackoverflow question, would be how a perceiver would see the closing scissors occur.
If you were 12 light years from the handle end of the scissors, and only 2 light years from the tips, if the closing motion took a year to occur, you would see the point move backwards from the tip to the handles, since the light would take longer to reach you to see the handles close than the tips.
This is more of how it should be done in business/politics – not very helpful to say "this is the wrong way to do it" but not propose a better solution. In science, however, falsify things is always useful.
Hypotheses make predictions. Experimentation can test those predictions without providing an alternative explanation for the phenomena you are testing.
For example, if I came up with a theory of gravity that implied everything should fall towards the earth at the same speed, all you need to do to falsify my theory is show that this is not the case. You do not need to know that wind resistance is the confounding variable to know that the theory which suggests everything should fall at the same speed is wrong.
I understand some concepts are so ingrained, that they are perceived as theories but as reality itself (Newtonian physics before the end of XIX century) but physics is not constrained by our intuition (what we are familiar with).
For example, imagine we live in a simulation, how does it affect your example?
You now seem to be arguing that all science must be done by proving things from first principles, which is of course absurd.
Just look at various explanations for "dark matter" phenomena
With regard to dark matter: yes there are many competing / mutually exclusive theories surrounding it, but that does not then mean in order to invalidate one of those theories you need to have picked a different one that you like better.
If I would try to find and explain alternative hypotheses for your "human intuition/everyday experience " examples they would sound contrived this invalidating themselves. Imagine trying to explain quantum theory/general relativity to a Victorian and their counter-examples all use objects from their life.