Fact: Everything in the universe can travel no faster than the speed of light.
This also includes the propagation of fields like gravity.
If I were to suddenly remove our sun from space it would take 8 minutes before the Earth would hurl into the depths of space.
So since gravity is not instantaneous, it needs time to propagate. Imagine we had a very massive object moving at relativistic speeds through an infinite vacuum.
The object is producing gravity, but because the object is moving at some fraction of the speed of light and gravity travels at the speed of light, when gravitational fields are produced they 'Clump up' in-front of the object and disperse behind the object. So what happens is that the center of gravity produced by the object actually moves in-front of the center of mass of that object. This means the gravity well of the object leads the object. So the result is that we have a force acting on the object in the same direction as it is traveling accelerating it forward even more, in turn making it go faster, making the leading gravity well even stronger and so forth.
Eventually you would get to the point where the object is going faster and faster, and as it approaches the speed of light, it would get more massive, increasing gravity, making it go faster, making it more massive. We would be in a situation where this object has infinite energy. Therefore it would be in a position to break the speed of light.
tl;dr Perpetual motion solved, infinite energy source found, speed of light broken, laws of thermodynamics invalidated.
This is called doppler effect, it's essentially the loud sound you hear when you break the sound barrier. The source of the wave is travelling at the speed of the wave itself, causing an extremely high amplitude.
>The object is producing gravity
This is where your shitpost falls apart.
You are imagining your massive object and its gravity to be like a boat making waves as it moves through water. But its gravitation is not related to its motion; more crucially, motion is relative.
No matter what direction it might be moving in one frame of reference, it is moving another direction in another frame of reference. There is no "right" or "real" frame of reference, and so there is no way to say what its motion is except relative to something else.
>"Doubt me, will you? Ha, take *that!*
>links to article devestating to own case
According to *the very article you linked to*, the given scenario wouldn't even produce gravity waves. Having a static gravitational field is not the same thing as producing gravity waves.
>I don't know how to read; just how to link to wikipedia.
If this were true, then every mass in a vacuum would accelerate to the speed of light over time. They wouldn't have to start off with any more velocity than anything non-zero - it would just take longer to reach c with a lower mass and velocity.
1. Gravitational waves still have not been observed.
2. What is special relativity? From the 'objects' frame of reference the speed of all propagating forces and effects are exactly the way we interpret them on earth.
3. Fastest observed large objects have velocities of less than 0,5% of C and even those speeds can most likely be reached only when a binary star system has a close encounter with a black hole and one of them gets flung away. There is nothing in the universe that could accelerate a large object to a meaningful fraction of C without disintegrating it.
4. Poor quality shitpost, please go to /b/.
Let me stop implying and state it directly, then: OP is talking about a static gravitational field. He just doesn't know that's what he's talking about, because he doesn't understand relativity well enough to know that saying, "but it's moving really fast," doesn't mean anything. Everything is moving really fast relative to something else. There is no "stopped" reference frame that you can measure the "true" speed of things against.