Welcome to
Science a GoGo's
Discussion Forums
Please keep your postings on-topic or they will be moved to a galaxy far, far away.
Your use of this forum indicates your agreement to our terms of use.
So that we remain spam-free, please note that all posts by new users are moderated.


The Forums
General Science Talk        Not-Quite-Science        Climate Change Discussion        Physics Forum        Science Fiction

Who's Online
0 registered (), 38 Guests and 1 Spider online.
Key: Admin, Global Mod, Mod
Latest Posts
Is there anybody out there?
by True
01/07/20 09:26 AM
Top Posters (30 Days)
True 1
Page 2 of 6 < 1 2 3 4 5 6 >
Topic Options
#55410 - 02/11/16 05:51 PM Re: Gravity Waves [Re: Orac]
Bill Offline
Megastar

Registered: 12/31/10
Posts: 1858
Loc: Oklahoma, USA
I hadn't been checking in on a regular basis today. I knew about the rumors but wasn't wanting to get my hopes up too high. The news that they definitely did find the gravity waves is great! It has been a long time coming but is very welcome.

Bill Gill
_________________________
C is not the speed of light in a vacuum.
C is the universal speed limit.

Top
.
#55411 - 02/11/16 06:19 PM Re: Gravity Waves [Re: Bill]
Orac Offline
Megastar

Registered: 05/20/11
Posts: 2819
Loc: Currently Illinois, USA
Finally got my question answered by the team, the source is in the direction of the Magellanic Clouds but far further out at 1.3 Billion light years compared to the clouds at 200,000 light years.

Weiss has also dropped a some hints when talking about the run analysis:

"We’re very happy that there are other, smaller ones, this is not unique"

The first event is given a designation GW150914, which almost certainly means they have multiple events as the analysts will need a reference to events so they know which they are talking about.


Edited by Orac (02/11/16 06:46 PM)
_________________________
I believe in "Evil, Bad, Ungodly fantasy science and maths", so I am undoubtedly wrong to you.

Top
#55415 - 02/12/16 01:43 AM Re: Gravity Waves [Re: Orac]
paul Offline
Megastar

Registered: 03/21/06
Posts: 4136
I love to burst your bubble there orac.

so I must.

1) the images that I looked at on the bottom link do not
appear to be due to two black holes merging.

1a) the images show an increase and then a decrease.

1b) if there would have been a merger the images would not
have shown an decrease only a steady increase.

1c) as the two black holes merged the two gravity fields
would merge and there would never have been a lower gravity
as shown on the images.

2) I don't know what the devices picked up and neither do
they if they are saying it was two black holes merging.

2a) the article states that it was predicted by einsteins
e=mc^2 , if mass cannot travel faster than the speed of
light in a vacuum then the mass used in the equation
cannot be multiplied by c^2.

Quote:
three times the mass of the Sun or a million times the mass of the Earth — were converted into pure energy via Einstein’s E = mc^2.


lies lies and lies heaped upon lies.

plus: the article states that the merger spewed out a gravity wave spiral.

gravity does not spiral or move it only increases
or decreases in intensity with increased or decreased mass.

I was curious how the crackpots would describe the findings
to make it seem as if Einstein had predicted something correctly and lawd was I right.

are we really supposed to believe that these two massive
black holes merged in only the 15 seconds depicted on the
images?

and that the only detectable differences in gravity occurred
in a mere 20 milliseconds?

I find these last two claims to be unbelievable.

_________________________
3/4 inch of dust build up on the moon in 4.527 billion years,LOL and QM is fantasy science.

Top
#55416 - 02/12/16 03:38 AM Re: Gravity Waves [Re: paul]
Orac Offline
Megastar

Registered: 05/20/11
Posts: 2819
Loc: Currently Illinois, USA
You are entitled to a view Paul, but I really don't think anyone cares what you believe. That is like worrying what Marosz thinks, I am sure he will be full of equal stories and drama of how his theory is right. Sorry to burst your bubble smile

Why don't you hit the forums and convince people that you a want a vote on the result, that is democratic. I am sure you can round up a few in the religious groups to vote with you laugh

The fact is LIGO and further advancements of it will be come the new telescopes and every country involved in Astronomy will have one or collaborate with one. Good luck trying to stop that. I am pretty sure you will have lots to complain about in coming years as politicians spend more of your taxes on this, just to irritate you more. If your god exists he has a wicked sense of humour.

Now I think we are done, Marosz is your man I am sure he will love to discuss it. I will leave you to your ranting.


Edited by Orac (02/12/16 04:23 AM)
_________________________
I believe in "Evil, Bad, Ungodly fantasy science and maths", so I am undoubtedly wrong to you.

Top
#55417 - 02/12/16 04:42 AM Re: Gravity Waves [Re: Orac]
Orac Offline
Megastar

Registered: 05/20/11
Posts: 2819
Loc: Currently Illinois, USA
Back to release details. There was a push put on people about the "other events". Unofficially there are 7 other events in the first run but much lower signals. Some of those may be ruled out as verifiable in the publication phase.

If that rate of event holds there is going to be a lot of data to analyze every year from the universe and they are going to need to develop technology and processes to deal with it. This is most definitely just the start of a whole new way of seeing the universe.


Edited by Orac (02/12/16 04:43 AM)
_________________________
I believe in "Evil, Bad, Ungodly fantasy science and maths", so I am undoubtedly wrong to you.

Top
#55418 - 02/12/16 09:10 AM Re: Gravity Waves [Re: pokey]
newton Offline
Megastar

Registered: 09/30/12
Posts: 1209
................................^
................^V1............^V2
X2------R-----source----R----sensor


X2 Earth is making rotation respect to own axis

if R=R

V2 = 2*V1

WE HAVE RED SHIFT



Please study very slowly below Example 3 Hz and 1 Hz

R= 300 000 km

V1 = 52 000 km/s (EM source)

V2 = 104 000 km/s ( EM sensor )





PLEASE MARK YOUR SELF POINT ON BELOW ILUSTRATION

Earth is making rotation respect to own axis ? (Yes)
if (yes) please imagine more long distance (more long table )

You will be able or not to see Doppler?






WE HAVE DOPPLER RED or WE HAVE ZERO ???
WHAT IS REAL IN THIS WHAT THEY PUBLIC ABOUT EINSTEIN ?




Edited by newton (02/12/16 09:18 AM)

Top
#55419 - 02/12/16 09:25 AM Re: Gravity Waves [Re: pokey]
newton Offline
Megastar

Registered: 09/30/12
Posts: 1209
LIGO = GREAT PLACE TO SHOW DOPPLER THEY HAVE TWO IDEAL THE SAME
STATION A and B

WE CAN MEASURE ALL VERY PRECISSION !!!

B--------3000 km------------A


FUNDAMENTAL EXPERIMENT FOR EINSTEIN = ZERO or RED SHIFT !!!

Top
#55420 - 02/12/16 04:11 PM Re: Gravity Waves [Re: pokey]
Bill S. Offline
Megastar

Registered: 08/20/10
Posts: 3570
Loc: Essex, UK
Originally Posted By: Orac
If that rate of event holds there is going to be a lot of data to analyze every year from the universe...


Something I need to understand is this: It has taken a lot of time and effort to gain the first glimpse (presumably) of gravity waves. What will make the next “sighting” easier than the first?
_________________________
There never was nothing.

Top
#55421 - 02/12/16 04:47 PM Re: Gravity Waves [Re: Bill S.]
paul Offline
Megastar

Registered: 03/21/06
Posts: 4136
Quote:
It has taken a lot of time and effort to gain the first glimpse (presumably) of gravity waves. What will make the next “sighting” easier than the first?


let me get these images and post them here to discuss them.



the image below the label (Livingston louisiana)

shows two images H1 and L1 one on top of the other.
I can understand why the image H1 was shifted
possibly to try to get the lines to line up
but why would there be a need to invert the H1 image?

inverting the images to make them fit seems a little
shifty to me and reminds me a little of the manipulated
climate data images we get to see all the time.

Bill S , I don't really see what the big deal is about this
it most likely was some gravity differences measured from
our earth due to some disturbance in the earths gravity field
because the starting point on all the graphs is the exact
same ending point on all the graphs and there is no increase
of gravity shown at the ending point of any of the graphs.

Im not against technical advances to better mankind but
I don't think they are thinking this through it seems like
they may be pushing it through in hopes of getting funding
to build more of the same.

I certainly would wait several decades before I would just
dump any funding into it myself if I were in charge of the
funding programs that they might apply for.

they have waited 5 months to release their findings
on this which tells me that there must have been a lot of
political drama going on in their social community to
decide what would look best to release and how to spin it.

anyway to answer your question in my opinion the thing
that would make it more easier for them to get the next
result would be for them to need the next result before they
could get more funding.

oh and orac , I don't have bubbles.

_________________________
3/4 inch of dust build up on the moon in 4.527 billion years,LOL and QM is fantasy science.

Top
#55422 - 02/12/16 05:30 PM Re: Gravity Waves [Re: Bill S.]
pokey Offline
Member

Registered: 08/22/07
Posts: 84
"Something I need to understand is this: It has taken a lot of time and effort to gain the first glimpse (presumably) of gravity waves. What will make the next “sighting” easier than the first?"

Bill S, I think the Ligo set up was being upgraded for about the previous 4 years and finally went back online in early Sep15.

This "sighting" took place on September 14, 2015 at 5:51 a.m. Eastern Daylight Time, according to Orac.

So it seems to have gotten a "hit" very soon after this version started.

Top
#55423 - 02/12/16 05:50 PM Re: Gravity Waves [Re: pokey]
Bill S. Offline
Megastar

Registered: 08/20/10
Posts: 3570
Loc: Essex, UK
Quote:
So it seems to have gotten a "hit" very soon after this version started.


That would make sense.
_________________________
There never was nothing.

Top
#55424 - 02/12/16 05:53 PM Re: Gravity Waves [Re: Bill S.]
Bill Offline
Megastar

Registered: 12/31/10
Posts: 1858
Loc: Oklahoma, USA
Originally Posted By: Bill S.
Something I need to understand is this: It has taken a lot of time and effort to gain the first glimpse (presumably) of gravity waves. What will make the next “sighting” easier than the first?

That is always the case. The first time something is done it takes a lot of effort and time. After that you know a lot more about what works and what doesn't. Then it gets easier as time goes by.

And of course once you know something can be done, then you start thinking of all the ways it could be done more easily.

Bill Gill
_________________________
C is not the speed of light in a vacuum.
C is the universal speed limit.

Top
#55425 - 02/12/16 10:02 PM Re: Gravity Waves [Re: paul]
Bill S. Offline
Megastar

Registered: 08/20/10
Posts: 3570
Loc: Essex, UK
Quote:
they have waited 5 months to release their findings
on this which tells me that there must have been a lot of
political drama going on in their social community to
decide what would look best to release and how to spin it.


That's one way of looking at it. Another might be that they were taking care not to fall into the trap of early, unfounded exaltation. Think of OPERA's faster-than-light neutrinos fiasco and BICEP2's gravitational waves from inflation that turned to dust.

Whatever the final verdict, caution seems appropriate.
_________________________
There never was nothing.

Top
#55426 - 02/12/16 10:16 PM Re: Gravity Waves [Re: paul]
Bill S. Offline
Megastar

Registered: 08/20/10
Posts: 3570
Loc: Essex, UK
Quote:
1b) if there would have been a merger the images would not have shown an decrease only a steady increase.


Have you taken into account the distinct possibility that what was observed was not a "head on" collision, but that the objects orbited each other; in that case the last seconds would have given rise to fluctuating waves, rather than a steady increase.

Quote:
are we really supposed to believe that these two massive
black holes merged in only the 15 seconds depicted on the
images?


It has been estimated that in the final seconds, objects such as two massive black holes could be orbiting at about 100 times per Sec. and travelling close to the speed of light. In that sort of scenario, a lot can happen in fifteen Secs.
_________________________
There never was nothing.

Top
#55428 - 02/13/16 11:46 AM Re: Gravity Waves [Re: Bill S.]
paul Offline
Megastar

Registered: 03/21/06
Posts: 4136
Quote:
Have you taken into account the distinct possibility that what was observed was not a "head on" collision, but that the objects orbited each other; in that case the last seconds would have given rise to fluctuating waves, rather than a steady increase.


like I said in an earlier post , if the two black holes
lined up with the earth as in an orbit around each other
like the planetary alignments seen in our solar system then
the planetary alignment should cause a gravity fluctuation that should be seen from outside of our solar system.

likewise if two black holes lined up there should also be
a fluctuation seen from outside the two black hole system
as the black holes orbit each other.

you would see and measure both a increase and decrease in
gravity intensity.

Quote:
It has been estimated that in the final seconds, objects such as two massive black holes could be orbiting at about 100 times per Sec. and travelling close to the speed of light. In that sort of scenario, a lot can happen in fifteen Secs.


if the two were orbiting at 100 times per second then
the increase detected would have been at 100 iterations
per second and steadily increasing with each iteration
until the two merged , after which there would be a final
and observable increase.

the graphs describe more of a passing of the two masses
than a merger.

slow approach with steady increase in intensity
followed by a faster departure with a steady decrease in
intensity then the graph shows a return to normal intensity.

they did a slingshot , judging from the faster departure
shown on the graph.

I could understand two grains of sand orbiting at 100 times
per second , but not at a angular velocity close to the speed
of light in a vacuum.

personally and logically I don't know that two massive masses
could be held in an orbit by any force if they are traveling
at such an enormous rate of angular velocity.

logic tells me without even breaking out my calculator
that the centrifugal forces would greatly overcome any
gravity field that the two masses could produce combined
and the orbit would be broken.

they would then go their separate ways.

now if the two black holes simply collide head on then
sure this would stick them together but there would have been
a distinct increase seen after the two merged not a increase
followed by a decrease to the previous gravity intensity as
depicted on the graphs.

_________________________
3/4 inch of dust build up on the moon in 4.527 billion years,LOL and QM is fantasy science.

Top
#55429 - 02/13/16 03:35 PM Re: Gravity Waves [Re: paul]
Bill S. Offline
Megastar

Registered: 08/20/10
Posts: 3570
Loc: Essex, UK
Originally Posted By: Paul
personally and logically I don't know that two massive masses
could be held in an orbit by any force if they are traveling at such an enormous rate of angular velocity.


You will probably recall from previous discussions that I have serious misgivings about singularities, or any scenario in which anything can become infinite. However, my scientific knowledge is limited, so I try to keep an open mind.

I take your point, but if at the heart of each BH is a singularity in which gravity is infinite, then even breaking out your calculator will not prevent collision.

The psychologist, Rob Brotherton says: “We [also] suffer from the “illusion of understanding”, a tendency to overestimate our knowledge of how things work”. What he doesn’t mention is that experts almost certainly suffer from a slightly different version of the same “illusion”.

I look forward to an “expert” response to your reasoning. smile
_________________________
There never was nothing.

Top
#55431 - 02/13/16 03:54 PM Re: Gravity Waves [Re: pokey]
Bill S. Offline
Megastar

Registered: 08/20/10
Posts: 3570
Loc: Essex, UK
Paul, I just found this; I've not read it yet, but I thought the video might amuse you.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-35524440
_________________________
There never was nothing.

Top
#55432 - 02/13/16 04:35 PM Re: Gravity Waves [Re: pokey]
Bill S. Offline
Megastar

Registered: 08/20/10
Posts: 3570
Loc: Essex, UK
Paul, I don’t know if anything here will address any of your thoughts.

http://www.astro.cardiff.ac.uk/research/gravity/tutorial/?page=4blackholecollisions

For example:

“Chirps and ringdowns
Gravitational waves from a binary are predominantly emitted at twice the orbital frequency and carry away the binary's energy and angular momentum. Since the system loses its rotational energy, the two black holes gradually inspiral towards each other. Black holes that are closer together emit more radiation, thereby accelerating the inspiral. This produces a characteristic chirp waveform whose amplitude and frequency both increase with time until eventually the two bodies merge together. Prior to merger, the two black holes approach each other at speeds very close to that of light; their collision will be astounding.
The merger will result in a highly deformed single black hole which rids itself of its deformity by emitting gravitational radiation that is characteristic of the mass and spin of the final black hole. This is called the quasi-normal mode or the ring down signal. Laser interferometric detectors, such as LIGO, GEO600 and Virgo, should be able to detect the waves from the last few minutes of the binary's evolution. The ring-down signal is not unlike the radiation from a bell that is stuck with a hammer except that black holes are far more simple objects than a bell and the frequency and damping time of the radiation depends only on the final black hole's mass and spin.”
_________________________
There never was nothing.

Top
#55434 - 02/14/16 03:23 AM Re: Gravity Waves [Re: Bill S.]
paul Offline
Megastar

Registered: 03/21/06
Posts: 4136
I had my time mixed up.

ok , here is a mag 4.5 seismic event that occurred
at 10:10 am utc/gmt on sep-14-2015

M 4.5 - 29km ESE of Linxi, China
Time2015-09-14 10:10:11 UTC
Location39.606°N 118.753°E
Depth10.0 km


http://earthquake.usgs.gov/earthquakes/m...ime%22%7D%7D%7D

not certain if a mag 4.5 seismic event could cause gravity fluctuations that could register on the machines used to
detect these astrological events but if they could then
this could explain the time differences recorded and maybe
the need to invert the images to line the lines on the
graph up.

what do you think Bill S.

_________________________
3/4 inch of dust build up on the moon in 4.527 billion years,LOL and QM is fantasy science.

Top
#55435 - 02/14/16 04:01 AM Re: Gravity Waves [Re: paul]
pokey Offline
Member

Registered: 08/22/07
Posts: 84
Just to help, I understood the time to be: 14 SEP 2015 @ 9:51 UTC.

https://www.ligo.caltech.edu/news/ligo20160211

“The gravitational waves were detected on September 14, 2015 at 5:51 a.m. Eastern Daylight Time (09:51 UTC) by both of the twin Laser Interferometer Gravitational-wave Observatory (LIGO) detectors, located in Livingston, Louisiana, and Hanford, Washington, USA.”

Top
Page 2 of 6 < 1 2 3 4 5 6 >



Newest Members
debbieevans, bkhj, jackk, Johnmattison, RacerGT
865 Registered Users
Sponsor
Facebook

We're on Facebook
Join Our Group

Science a GoGo's Home Page | Terms of Use | Privacy Policy | Contact Us
Features | News | Books | Physics | Space | Climate Change | Health | Technology | Natural World

Copyright © 1998 - 2016 Science a GoGo and its licensors. All rights reserved.